Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT

DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

 

Date: June 1, 1999

 

Author/Local: DThomsett/7796

 

RTS No. 00580

 

CC File No. 5308

 

Council: June 15, 1999

TO: Vancouver City Council

FROM: Director of Central Area Planning on behalf of Land Use and Development

SUBJECT: CD-1 Rezoning - 2001 Wall Street [Cannery Row] and

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

On May 8, 1989 Council approved the following community development objectives as the basis of the City's social housing policy:

· Maintain and expand housing opportunities in Vancouver for low and moderate income households, with priority being given to Downtown lodging house residents, elderly people on fixed and limited incomes, the physically and mentally disabled, and single-parent families with children.

· Encourage the distribution of acceptable housing forms and affordable shelter costs equally among all residential neighbourhoods of Vancouver.

On March 14, 1995, Council adopted the Industrial Lands Strategy with the overall objective to retain most of the city's existing industrial land base for industrial and service uses.

On, March 18, 1995, Council adopted policies to encourage the provision of functionable and affordable artist "live/work" studios in commercial, industrial and mixed-use districts. They were permitted in industrial districts due to the recognition that some "high impact" art production requires industrial locations.

On September 10, 1996, Council enacted various amendments including the restriction of artist "live/work" studios in industrial districts to renovation of existing buildings, with a limit of additions to a maximum of 10 percent of existing floor space and an increase in parking requirements for larger units. Studios are further limited by policy to rental tenure due to the concern that strata-titling will raise land values, resulting in the displacement of industrial and service uses. Another amendment was to the IC-3 District Schedule to permit increases in permitted floor space in cases where either secured low cost rental studios or a secured non-profit cultural facility are provided.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report assesses an application to rezone a site which is comprised of two parcels:

(a) 2001 Wall Street: Proposed, is to permit development of spaces above dropped ceilings in all 68 units of an existing purpose-built artist "live/work" building to be used as habitable lofts.

owners convert ceilings to lofts without City permission. A solution is to provide for the extra FSR while capturing the extra value in the form of housing and pedestrian/street improvement benefits to the community.

(b) 1955/1965 Powell Street: Proposed, is to permit all uses listed as outright and conditional approval uses under I-2 zoning, plus financial institution and some office uses currently not permitted. Maximum floor area would include the existing buildings (0.16 FSR) plus 2.84 FSR to allow for future development (total 3.0 FSR). Also proposed, is that any use would be permitted to the full FSR.

Staff recommend that the application be referred to a Public Hearing. The increase in land value and the in lieu value of the shortfall in parking spaces for 2001 Wall Street should be paid to the City as a Community Amenity Contribution prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law. For 1955/1965 Powell Street, non-industrial uses should be limited to the current floor area, and no use should be permitted that is not currently permitted and certain conditional approval uses listed under I-2 should also not be permitted.

map

DISCUSSION

History: On May 16, 1995, a development permit (DE217245) was issued on the formerly M-1 and M-2 zoned Lumberland site to permit a four storey artist "live/work" studio building at the northerly end of the site and a one-storey all-commercial development in two buildings at the southerly end. A total of 1.0 FSR was approved, being the maximum permitted for non-industrial uses (commercial uses and artist "live/work") under M-1 and M-2.

In March, 1996, the site was subdivided, and a single-site covenant now controls development on both parcels as though it were a single parcel. As a result of the subdivision, the artist "live/work" building has an FSR of 1.89 within the northerly parcel, and the commercial development has an FSR of 0.16 within the southerly parcel.

In November, 1996, the M-1 portion of the site (all of the northerly parcel and the north tip of the southerly parcel) was rezoned to I-2 as part of an area-wide rezoning.

In May, 1997, prior to the completion of construction of the "live/work" building, a rezoning application was submitted for the northerly parcel to permit construction of lofts in double-height spaces, along with an offer to the City of an unspecified number of units for "low cost housing". The application was withdrawn in August, 1997, after staff indicated non support in light of conflict with Council's industrial and artist "live/work" policies.

On August 7, 1998 the current rezoning application was submitted for the northerly parcel contrary to staff's advice. It was essentially the same as the previous application, except the applicant offered a Community Amenity Contribution equivalent to a Development Cost Levy charge instead of dwelling units. On April 9 , 1999, the application was amended to include the southerly parcel upon legal advice from staff that the single-site covenant precludes the ability to rezone just one of the two parcels.

Dropped Ceilings: All 68 artist "live/work" units contain double-height spaces that are counted only once in the calculation of floor space ratio (FSR), unlike some residential zoning districts where they are counted twice to reduce building bulk. The reason for single-counted double-height ceilings for artist studios in industrial areas is to allow for affordable space for the creation of larger-scale artworks.

All 68 units contain single-height dropped ceilings above the kitchens, dining areas and bathrooms, constructed with steel joists sufficient to carry a floor. The only approved flooring above these ceilings is a plywood pad sufficient to carry a furnace and hot water tank.

As a condition of development permit approval, covenants were registered against the titles of all strata units to advise that the spaces above the dropped ceilings cannot be used as living area. The units have been marketed with purchasers being advised that the City has not given permission to access the "lofts", but that approval is expected.

Density: The proposed increase in density calculated across both parcels from 1.0 to 1.25 resulting from loft development is contrary to current regulations under both I-2 and M-2 that limits non-industrial uses to 1.0 FSR and building additions to a maximum of 10 percent of existing floor area.

Industrial Rezoning Policy: The proposed loft development does not satisfy any of the conditions listed in the Industrial Lands Strategy that would support rezoning:

· the application is not based upon CityPlan or other City-initiated planning process;
· the site is not located in a "let go" industrial area;
· the site is not located in an area designated as highway-oriented Retail/Industrial; and
· the site is not located within the False Creek Flats.

Artist "Live/Work" Policies: The loft development proposal is contrary to Council policy that does not support artist "live/work" studio developments exceeding 1.0 FSR. Other policies pertaining to limiting the use to a maximum of 10 percent additions to existing industrial buildings and requiring rental tenure don't apply to this existing all "live/work" building, but reflect a general tightening of conditions applying to the use within industrial areas.

Ongoing Enforcement: It is not known if some "live/work" owners are already accessing spaces above dropped ceilings with stairs or ladders in expectation of the City's approval. The way the ceilings were designed, they virtually invite the occupant to use them as living space. While Building Code issues are not as significant in relation to illegal lofts as in some other buildings, given the ceilings were designed in anticipation of becoming floors, there remains the potential for safety problems with substandard means of egress, handrailings and flooring.

If the rezoning is approved and enacted, the only further approvals required to create lofts would be for all necessary permits and City inspections are obtained. If the rezoning is not approved, staff expect many years of follow-up enforcement.

Parking Shortfall: The Parking By-law previously required a minimum of one parking space per "live/work" unit. The building was constructed with 68 parking spaces, or one per unit.

In 1996, following a study by Engineering staff, the Parking By-law was amended to require that larger artist "live/work" units above 75 m² (807.3 sq. ft.) provide 1.3 space per unit, reflecting car ownership in several developments. The addition of loft spaces, as proposed, would bring 56 of the units above the 75 m² threshold, resulting in a shortfall of 17 parking spaces. Another change in the parking standards introduced a separate requirement of one space per 12 "live/work" units to serve visitor parking demand, though sites with less than 12 units are exempted.

There is no supportable way to provide more parking spaces to serve the existing building, and no reason to support a parking relaxation with the exception of the visitor parking requirement (see Community Amenity Contribution, below, and Comments of Engineering Services in Appendix C).

Community Amenity Contribution [CAC]:

(a) Land Uplift: With respect to the increase in land value that would result from the increase in permitted floor area, Housing Centre staff recommend, as an alternative to the provision of dwelling units to the City, the full value of the increase be provided as a cash contribution allocated for housing benefits elsewhere as determined by the Director of the Housing Centre.

(b) Parking Shortfall: With respect to the parking shortfall, Engineering staff recommend that the disbenefit to the neighbourhood resulting from the greater competition for street parking should be offset by providing a public benefit via a cash contribution used to improve conditions for pedestrians, cyclists or transit users in the surrounding area as determined by the General Manager of Engineering Services.

Planning staff concur with these recommendations. A separate report will deal with the dollar amounts, and the allocations.

Community Police Office: The applicant has advised that the "live/work" building provides a community benefit in the form of a Community Police Office. This small space is leased by the City at nominal rent, and is expected to open in the near future. However, no permits have been issued, and the approved building permit drawings show this space as "future office for security personnel". The Police Department confirms the desirability of a Community Police Office in this location.

While there may be a public benefit to this use, there is an issue with respect to off-street parking. The Parking By-law requires one space, and there is no possibility of providing it. Furthermore, the applicant does not wish to pay an "in-lieu" amount for it.

Given the benefit of the proposed facility, and the visibility of Police vehicles parked on the street being a positive element, the General Manager of Engineering Services supports waiving the normal parking requirement. Staff therefore recommend adding the use term "Public Authority Use, limited to Community Police Office" to the proposed CD-1 By-law. A development permit for the change of use would be required to permit the office to open.
Future Development Potential for 1955/1965 Powell Street: Staff advised the applicant that the rezoning application for 2001 Wall Street needed to include the Powell Street parcel because it and the Wall Street site are tied together by a single-site covenant for all development approvals. However, the applicant decided to request development opportunities for that site that would not be permitted or supported under it's current M-2 and I-2 zoning.

On the one hand, the applicant is requesting less density than would theoretically be permitted in industrial use on this parcel which is zoned about 75 percent M-2 and 25 percent I-2. M-2 permits a maximum of 5.0 FSR, and I-2 permits a maximum of 3.0 FSR. The developer's request is for 3.0 FSR. He also is not requesting the heavy industrial uses that may be permitted conditionally under M-2.

On the other hand, the applicant wants no limit to non-industrial uses within the proposed 3.0 FSR, plus all uses listed as outright and conditional approval uses under I-2, plus financial institution and various office uses (accountants, real estate, insurance, etc.) that are not permitted under M-2 or I-2 to be permitted.

Staff do not support non-industrial uses beyond the current 0.16 FSR on this parcel because this reflects the maximum 1.0 non-commercial use, along with artist "live/work" studios, when the two parcels are considered as one site (as required under the single-site covenant), and there is no rationale to further erode the industrial character of the site with more non-industrial use than would normally be permitted. The offer not to seek the maximum FSR for this parcel under the current zoning is not sufficient rationale, given the market for multi-level industrial buildings is limited in any case.

Staff further do not support permitting financial institution and various office uses (accountants, real estate, insurance, etc.) that are not permitted under I-2 or M-2. There is no rationale for permitting these non-industrial uses that are not permitted on other industrial sites in the area.

Staff support all of the uses listed as outright approval uses and most of the conditional approval uses listed under I-2. There are a few of the conditional approval uses (i.e., Aircraft Landing Place, Booming Ground, Waste Disposal Facility) that are not suitable for the site. Council makes the decision that the use is acceptable for the site by including it in a CD-1 By-law, and there is no discretion for the Director of Planning to not permit a listed use.

Staff recommend that all outright uses under I-2 be included, plus most of the uses listed as conditional approval uses under I-2 with the exception of those uses which are not considered appropriate.

The applicant further requested that grocery store and drug store be permitted outright. Both are included under the use term Retail Store which is acceptable to staff, noting there is a higher parking standard for these uses when they reach a certain size. Normal Parking By-law requirements will apply to the site.

The current development includes a 111.5 m² (1,200 sq. ft.) restaurant which is larger than would likely be approved today as a conditional approval use under M-2 or I-2 zoning. Staff therefore propose to limit restaurant use to the floor area already existing, as reflected in Appendix A.

All of the staff recommended changes to the applicant's proposal are outlined as proposed conditions of approval in Appendix B.

The existing commercial buildings will comprise the Council-approved form of development for this parcel, requiring future significant additions or redevelopment to be approved by Council. The underground parking to serve 2001 Wall Street will be secured by a legal agreement as a condition of rezoning enactment.

CONCLUSION

While the proposed rezoning of the 2001 Wall Street component of the application is contrary to Council policies regarding industrial lands and artist "live/work" studios, not to approve it would result in long-term enforcement problems. Furthermore, the building is somewhat unique in that no further purpose-built "live/work" buildings will be approved in I-2 districts. Staff therefore support this component of the rezoning subject to a housing and pedestrian/street improvement benefits equal to the value of the benefits of the rezoning to the owners. Staff believe this approach is similar to that offered in IC-3 districts, except the public benefit is captured through a community amenity contribution.

The 1955/1965 Powell Street component of the application also represents a departure from industrial lands policies. While staff support an additional 2.84 FSR for a total of 3.0 FSR to allow for future industrial development, staff do not support non-industrial uses more than at the current 0.16 FSR, nor financial institution, nor various office uses (accountants, real estate, insurance, etc.), nor some of the uses listed as conditional approval uses under I-2 that would not normally be approved in this location.

Staff therefore recommend that the application be referred to a Public Hearing and approved in accordance with the proposed CD-1 By-law provisions in Appendix A, and the proposed conditions of approval presented in Appendix B.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A

Page 1 of 2

DRAFT CD-1 BY-LAW PROVISIONS

map

Use Sub-Area 1:

APPENDIX A

Page 2 of 2

Density Sub-Area 1: Maximum floor space ratio of 3.0, based on calculation provisions of the I-2 District Schedule.

Height Sub-Area 1: A maximum of 18.3 m (60 ft.).

Parking Sub-Area 1: Per Parking By-law.

APPENDIX B

Page 1 of 2

PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Draft By-law Amendment

(a) That the draft CD-1 By-law under Use, Sub-Area 1 be amended to:

Form of Development

(b) THAT for 2001 Wall Street:

(c) THAT for 1955/1965 Powell Street, the proposed form of development be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by Paul Merrick Architects Ltd., and stamped Received, Planning Department, April 13, 1999 as approved under DE217245 and entitled "1985 Powell Street", provided that the Director of Planning may allow minor alterations to this form of development when approving development applications accordance with the CD-1 By-law.

APPENDIX B

Page 2 of 2

Prior to Enactment

(d) That, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the applicant shall:

Page 1 of 4

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: The site is comprised of two legal parcels:

(a) 2001 Wall Street: contains 68 strata lots and has an area of 4 836 m² (52, 056 sq. ft.). The parcel has an irregular shape, with a frontage of 125.5 m (411.6 ft.) and a depth ranging from 18.5 m (60.5 ft.) to about 35 m (115 ft.), and is virtually flat. The site is presently developed with a four-storey building containing 68 artist "live/work" studios on the upper three storeys. The studios all have double-height ceilings, along with approved single-height dropped ceilings over the kitchens, bathrooms and eating areas. Restrictive covenants are registered on all titles to limit access to the space above the single-height ceilings to maintenance of the hot water tank and furnace. The main floor of the building contains off-street parking, loading, bicycle storage, mechanical rooms and a laundry room, as well as two spaces fronting Wall Street that were excluded from FSR calculations as amenity space intended to be used as gallery space for building occupants, and a third space identified as "future office for security personnel".

(b) 1955-1965 Powell Street: has an area of 2 440 m² (26,265 sq. ft.). The parcel has an irregular shape, with a frontage of 91.8 m (303.3 ft.) and a depth ranging from 19.5 m (64.1 ft.) to about 42 m (138 ft.), and is flat. The parcel is presently developed with two one-storey buildings - one being a 123 m² (1,320 sq. ft.) split-island gasoline station/retail food store with a bank machine, and the other being a 283 m² (3,050 sq. ft.) building containing a 111.5 m² (1,200 sq. ft.) restaurant - class 1 with drive-through service and two smaller limited service food establishments. The remainder of the site is developed with 22 surface parking spaces. Below the restaurant/limited service food building is a parking garage containing 19 spaces that serve 2001 Wall Street, under a 100-year lease term, and accessed from that building by way of an underground ramp.

Proposed Development: 2001 Wall Street Proposed for 2001 Wall Street is to increase the permitted FSR from 1.89 to 2.57 to permit the use of the spaces above the dropped ceilings in all 68 units as habitable lofts. The ceilings are built with structural steel designed to withstand a floorload in expectation of the City's approval of their use as lofts.

All of the 68 units have been sold, with the last closing date of the last unit being August 15, 1999. If the rezoning is approved and enacted, individual strata owners wishing to convert the spaces above the dropped ceilings to habitable lofts will be required to apply for all necessary permits to install stairs, railings and floor coverings.

APPENDIX C

Page 2 of 4

The applicant also wishes the Community Police Office use to be permitted in the space identified in the approved plans as "future office for security personnel".

Proposed Development: 1955/1965 Powell Street While the applicant proposes no changes at this time to the current form of development, he wishes the CD-1 By-law to include all uses listed as outright and conditional uses under the I-2 District Schedule, plus General Office with no office use exclusions (accountants, real estate, insurance, etc.) and financial institution, grocery store and drug store as outright uses. A maximum of 3.0 FSR is proposed, which is the same as under I-2, and is 2.83 FSR over the current development.

Public Input A notification letter was sent to nearby property owners on September 10, 1998, and a rezoning information sign was requested to be posted on the site by September 4, 1998. The letter and sign do not advise of the addition of the Powell Street component of the application. Given the redevelopment floor area potential for industrial uses that already exists under current M-2 and I-2 zoning is greater than is being proposed by the applicant, staff felt a renotification was not needed. Should Council refer the application to a public hearing, the notification letter will describe the changes.

Staff received one phone call and no letters from surrounding property owners. The call was from the Vancouver Port Authority requesting that a no disturbance easement be placed on the titles of all strata units as a condition of rezoning such as was done on two previous rezonings for artist `live/work' buildings adjacent to the Port. Such an easement would alert prospective purchasers to the fact of the existence of an industrial port. Staff do not support such a condition because of the near impossibility of gaining the agreement of all individual strata owners to have the easement registered on their titles, and because the building was approved without such a condition and is already occupied.

Staff received several letters and phone calls from strata owners in the building expressing support for the rezoning. Staff also received numerous phone calls from prospective purchasers asking about the status of the dropped ceilings and the rezoning.

Comments of the Housing Centre "The Director of the Housing Centre supports the rezoning to allow lofts in the 68 artist live/work studios at 2001 Wall Street for several reasons. If the rezoning is not approved, chances are likely that lofts will be constructed without building permits. This could lead to situations where lofts are installed in violation of building code requirements with the subsequent risk to the health and safety of building occupants. Further, since the addition of lofts to studios does not effect the mass or height of the building, there is little or no impact on surrounding neighbours. And, if the lift in land

APPENDIX C

Page 3 of 4

value resulting from the increased floor area is captured by the City in the form of a pay in
lieu or in-kind CAC public benefit, then no one - neither the developer nor individual strata owners - has benefited financially from the rezoning. This seems particularly important because this rezoning will be done retroactively."

Comments of Engineering Services The General Manager of Engineering Services advises:

For 2001 Wall Street the developer has supplied the minimum one parking space per unit (i.e., 68 spaces), in accordance with the original development permit when there was no distinction in size of Artist Studio units and no requirement for visitor parking. The parking standard for Artist Studio was amended in 1996, following study findings that larger units appeal to a more affluent market, with a higher propensity for car ownership and two-person occupancy. The requirement is now one space for Artist Studio units of 75 m² (807 sq. ft.) or less, and 1.3 space for units that are larger. Presently, all the units in 2001 Wall Street are under 75 m². If the rezoning is approved, 56 of the units could be developed to more than 75 m², resulting in a shortfall of 17 spaces.

The additional requirement of 17 spaces is an accurate calculation of projected demand. Should it not be possible to add parking supply, approval of the loft spaces would lead to negative consequences for the neighbourhood as manifest by greater competition for street parking and overspill in front of others' properties. In this case, the applicant/owners may be disposed to offset the public disbenefits by providing public benefits such as a cash contribution. This would be used to improve conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, or transit users in the surrounding area, including traffic calming devices.*

The Parking By-law further requires one visitor space for every 12 Artist Studio units in buildings with 12 or more units. Engineering staff support waiving the extra 6 spaces that would be required for this building because there are not likely to be more visitors generated as a result of the rezoning than for the original development, approved without a distinct visitor parking requirement. Engineering staff further support waiving the one required parking space to serve the proposed Community Police Office as noted in the body of the report.

*Note: The suggested dollar amount will be discussed in a separate report.

Public Benefits: Apart from the benefits resulting from the recommended CACs, permitting a Community Police Office may be seen as a further benefit although no parking would be provided for it.

APPENDIX C

Page 4 of 4

Environmental and Social Implications

The proposed rezoning neither contributes to nor detracts from the objective of reducing atmospheric pollution. There are no major positive or negative social implications to this proposal, and there are no implications with respect to the Vancouver Children's Policy or Statement of Children's Entitlements.

Comments of the Applicant

The applicant has been provided with a copy of this report and has provided the comments attached as Appendix D.

APPENDIX G

Page 1 of 3

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Address

2001 Wall Street and 1955/1965 Powell Street

Legal Description

Wall Street: Plan LMS3062, DL 184
Powell Street: Lot 1, DL 184, Plan LMP27466

Applicant

Doug Purdy and Associates Ltd.

Architect

Wall Street: Paul Merrick Architects Ltd.
Powell Street: Paul Merrick Architects Ltd.

Property Owner

Wall Street: Cannery Row Developments Inc. and 60+ strata owners
Powell Street: Intra Land Corporation

Developer

Wall Street: Cannery Row Developments Inc.
Powell Street: n/a

SITE STATISTICS

 

GROSS

DEDICATIONS

NET

SITE AREA

Wall Street:
2 389.9 m² (25,725 sq. ft.)

Powell Street:
2 440.0 m² (26,265 sq. ft.)

Total:
4 829.9 m² (51,990 sq. ft.)

none

none

none

Wall Street:
2 389.9 m² (25,725 sq. ft.)

Powell Street:
2 440.0 m² (26,265 sq. ft.)

Total:
4 829.9 m² (51,990 sq. ft.)

APPENDIX G

Page 2 of 3

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

 

DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDED
DEVELOPMENT
(if different than proposed)

ZONING

I-2 & M-2

CD-1

  

USES

I-2: light manufacturing, retail, service, transportation/ storage, utility/ communication, wholesale cultural/recreational (incl. Artist Studio), dwelling (Residential Unit associated with Artist Studio), institutional, office, parking and wholesale uses.

M-2: uses similar to I-2 plus heavy industrial uses.

Wall Street: Artist Studio, Residential Unit associated with Artist Studio, Community Police Office.

Powell Street: all uses listed under I-2, plus Financial Institution and offices of accountants, lawyers and notary publics, real estate, advertising, insurance, travel and ticket agencies.

Powell Street: all uses listed as outright approval uses under I-2, plus some uses listed as conditional approval uses under I-2 (uses considered appropriate to the area and the site); and

non-industrial uses limited to 0.16 FSR and Restaurant -Class 1 limited to 111.5 m² (1,200 sq. ft.).

Not Recommended: Financial Institution and offices of accountants, lawyers and notary publics, real estate, advertising, insurance, travel and ticket agencies.

APPENDIX G

Page 3 of 3

MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO

I-2: 3.0 FSR with a maximum of 1.0 FSR non-industrial [retail maximum 1 000 m²/10,764 sq. ft.]

M-2: 5.0 FSR with a maximum 1.0 FSR non-industrial
[retail maximum 1 000 m²]

Whole Site I-2/M-2:
approx. 3.76 FSR with a maximum 1.0 FSR non-industrial
[retail maximum 1 000 m²]

As developed:

Whole Site:
1.0 FSR non-industrial

Wall Street:
1.89 FSR artist "live/work"

Powell Street:
0.16 FSR retail/Restaurant

Whole Site:
2.37 FSR, allocated as follows:

Wall Street:
2.57 FSR

Powell Street:
3.0 FSR

Powell Street:
3.0 FSR with a maximum of 0.16 FSR
non-industrial
[390 m²/4,202 sq. ft.]

MAX. HEIGHT

18.3 m [60 ft.],
Relaxable to 30.5 m [100 ft.]

Wall Street:
20.5 m [67 ft.]
Powell Street: unstated

Powell Street:
18.3 m [60 ft.]

PARKING SPACES

Wall Street: Parking By-law

        [68 spaces])

Powell Street: Parking By-law

Wall Street:
68 spaces
Powell Street: unstated

Powell Street:
Parking By-law

* * * * *

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver