Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

Standing Committee on City Services and Budgets

FROM:

Director of Central Area Planning, on behalf of Land Use & Development

SUBJECT:

Development Permit Application - 2019 Trafalgar Street

 

CONSIDERATION

GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

At its meeting on June 2, 1998, Council instructed the Director of Planning to:

A. refer all proposed height relaxations under Sections 4.3(a) and (b) of the C-2 Residential Guidelines to Council for advice;

B. amend the C-2 Residential Guidelines to add a general clause indicating that projects should have a very good architectural design and should use quality exterior materials and that projects should be referred to the Urban Design Panel (UDP) for advice; and

C. instruct staff that the Guidelines take precedence where there is a conflict between the District Schedule and the Guidelines.

SUMMARY

On June 2, 1998, Council instructed staff to refer all Development Applications located within the C-2 Zoning District, and requiring height relaxations, to them for advice. Development Permit Number DE401984 (Owner of Development: Pacificorp Development and Metroland Group) was issued on April 29, 1997. The permit holder did not proceed with the development at that time, and as a result, the permit has now lapsed. On February 18, 1999, the applicant submitted a request for a “renewal” of the permit.

This Development Permit is being referred to Council as the proposal requires relaxations for building height and also proposes floor space ratio (FSR) in excess of that recommended by the C-2 Residential Guidelines. This proposal will require a height relaxation from 12.2 m (40.0 ft.) to 12.95 m (42.5 ft.), at the northeast portion of the building (worst case condition). The applicant has “stepped” the building down along West 4th Avenue to minimize the overall height of the building. Given the slope of the site, the relatively minor height relaxation requested is justified.

The proposed building is located on a corner site and has a total FSR of 2.98, of which 2.48 is for residential uses. A strict reading of the Guidelines would suggest a maximum residential FSR of 2.29. The proposal is relatively dense for the site, having particular regard to the residential buildings to the south which are located in the RT-8 zoned area.

The Director of Planning recognizes that a redesign of the proposal at this stage will involve some hardship for the developer. However, based on the foregoing and Council’s revised C-2 policies, the Director of Planning is not prepared to support a renewal of DE401984. A new Development Application with some reduction in the FSR and building mass could be supported. However, before making a decision, this renewal request is being referred to Council for advice.

PURPOSE

This report is seeking Council's advice regarding a request for “renewal” of Development Permit Number DE401984. The Director of Planning is seeking Council’s advice on the matter specifically with regard to height and FSR issues for the building as originally approved under this Development Permit.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

The site is located at the northeast corner of West 4th Avenue and Trafalgar Street. The site and surrounding zoning are shown on the attached Appendix A.

Development Permit Number DE401984 was issued on April 29, 1997, for the construction of a four-storey building containing 25 dwelling units, with Retail/Residential on the first floor, Residential on the second to fourth-floors, and two levels of underground parking having vehicular access from the rear lane. The permit holder did not proceed with the development at that time and as a result, the permit has now lapsed. The applicant has submitted a request for a “renewal” of the permit. However, on June 2, 1998, Council instructed staff to refer all “conditional” applications, located within the C-2 Zoning District and requiring a height relaxation, to them for advice. In this case, the permit included a relaxation of height from 12.2 m (40.0 ft.) to 12.95 m (42.5 ft.).

DISCUSSION

Simplified plans, including a site plan and elevation of the proposal, have been included in Appendix B.

The proposal has been assessed against the C-2 District Schedule and C-2 Residential Guidelines and generally meets the intent, with some exceptions. The most significant issues are discussed below.
Height

The site has a total crossfall of 2.1 m (7.0 ft.), with its highest point at the northeast corner (at Trafalgar Street and West 4th Avenue). The applicant has stepped the building down along West 4th Avenue in order to minimize the overall height of the building. At its highest point, the building is 12.95 m (42.5 ft.) high, but because of the slope of the site, some portions of the building are actually below the maximum outright height of 12.2 m (40.0 ft.). Staff believe that the applicant has minimized the height of the building in a responsible manner. The requested height relaxation meets the criteria for sloping sites in accordance with Section 4.3(a) of the C-2 Residential Guidelines.

Height was raised as an issue in response to both the notification on this renewal request and the notification on the original Development Application (see “Notification”section below). However, no view issues were mentioned and objections were largely related to the concept of height relaxation rather than to specific impacts on neighbouring properties. The development is on the north side of the lane, so there are no shadowing impacts on surrounding lower density residential properties. Staff therefore support the height relaxation requested.

Massing and Density

The development proposes a total FSR of 2.98, of which 2.48 is residential. Section 4.7 of the C-2 Residential Guidelines suggests that the maximum allowable residential FSR of 2.5 will usually be available only for “all-residential” buildings or where a fifth-storey is permitted. For mixed-use buildings, the Guidelines suggest that 1.8 to 2.2 FSR of residential floor space will generally be available on the three-storeys above the main floor, with the 2.2 FSR figure generally achievable only on corner sites.

The proposed building is located on a corner site and has approximately 69.86 m²/752 sq. ft. (0.09 FSR) of residential floor area on the main floor. Staff therefore believe that a careful reading of the Guidelines would suggest that a developer could expect a maximum of 2.29 FSR residential (2.2 +0.09) for this proposal. This would mean a reduction of approximately 0.19 FSR, or 157.9 m² (1700 sq.ft.), from that previously approved under DE401984.

Staff believe that the proposed development is relatively dense for the site and when looked at in conjunction with the existing residential building to the south, which faces Trafalgar Street, results in a rather massive streetscape overall. It should be noted the existing building across the lane contributes to this sense of higher density since it is sitting in what would normally be the south half of the lane. Nevertheless, the building to the south is likely to remain for many years, and the proposed development is requesting a “conditional” approval.

On balance, staff believe that if the proposed development were to be the subject of a new Development Application, a reasonable interpretation of Council’s revised policy on C-2 development would suggest a reduction in massing at the rear of the proposed development, particularly at the fourth floor level.

Design

Staff feel that this proposal is above average in terms of architectural design and detailing. The applicant has agreed to increase the amount of brick on the exterior facade to further improve its appearance. Given the overall quality of the proposal, staff feel that referral to the Urban Design Panel at this stage would be unnecessary.

NOTIFICATION

During the processing of the original Development Permit in 1997, 194 neighbouring property owners were notified and 11 responses were received . These responses included nine individual letters and two petitions.

As part of the review of this renewal request, 209 neighbouring property owners were notified of the proposal. The area notified is consistent with the area notified under the original development permit. In response, Planning staff received a total of five individual letters expressing concerns with the proposal. The location of the respondents has been included in Appendix A.

The objections include concerns with height relaxation and building mass which have been acknowledged by staff and discussed as noted above under sections “Height” and “Massing and Density”. Other concerns include traffic and lane conditions which have already been addressed by the Engineering Department under the original Development Permit review.

CONCLUSION

Staff believe that the height relaxation requested is reasonable, given the slope of the site and the efforts made by the architect to minimize the height overage by stepping the building. The proposed building is generally well designed and staff welcome the further improvement in exterior materials proposed by the applicant.

On the issue of massing and density, staff believe that the proposed development is somewhat more massive than would be approved under current C-2 policy, and objections were received related to this issue. At the same time, staff have some sympathy for the applicant in this situation, who had applied for a building permit but was apparently unaware that his development permit has expired. The applicant, therefore, feels that any change to the form of development, at this point, will be a hardship. Staff also note, however, that other permit holders have been required to redesign in similar circumstances.

Staff believe that Development Permit Number DE401984 does not meet Council’s revised C-2 policies; therefore, staff is not prepared to support its renewal. A new Development Application with some reduction in the FSR and building mass could be supported. However, before making a decision, the Director of Planning is seeking any advice which Council may wish to provide.

ATTACHMENTS TO THIS DOCUMENT THAT DO NOT HAVE ELECTRONIC COPY ARE AVAILABLE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

* * * * *

cs990708.htm

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

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver