Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Central Area Planning, on behalf of Land Use & Development
SUBJECT: Form of Development - 3200 East 54th Avenue
 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

A. THAT Council advise it is prepared to consider a significant change to the approved form of development of this CD-1 site and that staff continue to process it as a major preliminary development application, DE403146, 3200 East 54th Avenue (Champlain Mall), to the Development Permit Board, with the revised form of development to be referred to Council for approval in the normal manner.

B. THAT Council direct that, if a preliminary application is approved by the Development Permit Board subject to approval of the form of development, Council's consideration of the form of development take place at an advertised public meeting where delegations are invited.

PURPOSE

In accordance with Charter requirements, this report seeks Council's approval for the revised form of development for the above-noted CD-1 zoned site. As per Council's instructions this report will be considered at an advertized public meeting where delegations are invited.

SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND

At a Public Hearing on April 20, 1970, City Council approved a rezoning of this site from RS-1 One-Family Dwelling to CD-1 Comprehensive Development District. CD-1 By-law Number 4550 governing the subject site was enacted on April 20, 1971. Council also approved in principle the form of development for these lands at that time.

On March 7, 1972 and September 23, 1975, minor text amendments were incorporated by By-Laws Numbered 4608 and 4901, respectively.

Project History: The Champlain Mall is located at the southeast corner of East 54th Avenue and Kerr Street in the northwesterly part of Champlain Heights. The site and surrounding zoning are shown on the attached Appendix A.

At present, the Champlain Mall consists of 17,643 m¾ (189,915 sq. ft.) of building with commercial uses and a public library. The mall contains an Extra Foods grocery store, a Zellers department store, a pharmacy, a liquor store, numerous fashion stores, restaurants, as well as a public library and medical/dental offices, located in the basement level.

In January 1997, the developer, PCI, enquired about redeveloping the site, through a development application, noting that in addition to commercial uses, residential is also a permitted use in the zoning. The proposal was to demolish the easterly half of the existing mall to construct a low- to medium-density low-rise residential development in its place. commercial uses and the library in the westerly half of the mall would be retained and augmented with three new commercial buildings along the edges of East 54th Avenue and Kerr Street. This initiative was instigated by the impending closure of the Zellers store and the fact that the mall had, since the opening of Metrotown and expansion of Oakridge Shopping Centres, under-performed financially.

The developer was advised that before a substantive review and public notification of the development application was commenced, staff would report to Council to determine whether Council was prepared to consider a substantive change to the approved form of development through a development application process. The developer was also advised that prior consultation with mall tenants and the affected neighbourhood should be documented in any subsequent development application submission.

The proposed development would be a significant change to the existing form of development approved for this CD-1 site by Council in 1971 and 1975, in addition to a change in focus for this site. Staff and Council practice since the early 1970s has been to consider significant changes to an approved form of development on sites with old CD-1 zoning through new CD-1 By-laws and/or text amendment and rezoning process to provide updated uses and regulations in these old by-laws. This has been done to clearly specify the "contract" that is made between the neighbourhood and the City, and to ensure that any future significant redevelopment would require a formal public hearing process. The applicant for this current development application questioned this practice and as a result, staff referred this matter to Council for advice.

On June 18, 1998, Council advised that it is prepared to consider a significant change to the approved form of development of this CD-1 site, and that staff continue to process it as a Major (Preliminary) Development Application to the Development Permit Board (DPB), with the revised form of development to be referred to Council for approval in the normal manner.

DISCUSSION

The proposed development is to demolish the easterly half of the existing mall (the Zellers wing) and replace it with low- to medium-density low-rise residential development. The Grocery Store in the west half of the mall would be retained, and augmented with new commercial buildings along the edges of East 54th Avenue and Kerr Street.

The proposal involves:

… demolition of the easterly portion (11,670 m¾/125,618.9 sq.ft.) of the existing mall, thereby altering the remaining mall to retain commercial uses and a library (5,972.7m¾/64,292 sq.ft.);

… construction of a multiple dwelling development consisting of apartments (166 units) and townhouses (154 units) with a total of 320 units on the easterly portion of the site, having a total residential floor area of 37, 183.6 m¾ (400,255 sq.ft.);

… construction of two one-storey buildings containing retail and a three-storey building with one level of underground parking containing retail on the first-storey and offices and medical offices on the second- and third-storeys on the westerly portion of the site, having a total commercial floor area of 4,402.5 m¾ (47,390.0 sq.ft.);

… provision of 398 commercial parking spaces and 525 residential parking spaces;

… provision of a total floor area of 48,768.3 m¾ (524,955 sq.ft.) of which 5,972.7 m¾ (64,292 sq.ft.) is existing floor area.

Simplified plans of the proposal have been included in Appendix B.

At its meeting of February 22, 1999, the Development Permit Board adopted the following decisions, in part:

"THAT the Board APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE Development Application No. 403146, in accordance with the Development Permit Staff Committee Report dated February 19, 1999, with the following amendments:

THAT, subject to Council approving the proposed form of development, and accepting a Community Amenity Contributions package, the Board APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE . ..etc.. ."

This approval is subject to various conditions prior to the submission of a Complete Application. One of these conditions is Council's approval of the revised form of development. The proposed development is being forwarded for Council's review at the "Preliminary" approval stage as the conditions for submission of the Complete application are not expected to affect the form of development.

Another condition of the Board's approval is that Council accepts a public amenity contribution package. Although the amenity package was not specifically before the Development Permit Board, the majority of speakers addressed this as critical to support the proposal. The issue of the amenity package is contained in a separate report. It is prudent for Council to consider an amenity package as offered by the developer prior to approving the form of development, because that form of development will be directly affected by the content of the amenity package ultimately decided upon. The form would probably change if certain aspects of the amenity package were accepted or not accepted.

The DPB minutes are attached as Appendix C.

CONCLUSION

The Development Permit Board has approved "in principle" Development Application Number DE403146, subject to various conditions to be met prior to the submission of a Complete Development Application. Should Council approve the revised form of development now, it will not be necessary to return for Council's review at the Complete application stage.

APPENDIX A-C

- - - - -

APPENDIX C

MINUTES

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT BOARD AND ADVISORY PANEL
CITY OF VANCOUVER
FEBRUARY 22, 1999

Meeting: No. 461

Date: Monday, February 22, 1999

Time: 3.15 p.m.
Place: Council Chamber

PRESENT:

Board
F.A. Scobie Director of Development Services (Chair)
L.B. Beasley Co-Director of Planning
B. MacGregor Deputy City Manager
D. Rudberg City Engineer

Advisory Panel
J. Drohan Representative of the Design Professions (Urban Design Panel)
J. Hancock Representative of the Design Professions
A. Gjernes Representative of Development Industry
D. Chung Representative of General Public
B. Parton Representative of General Public
R. Roodenburg Representative of General Public

Absent
P. Kavanagh Representative of Development Industry
R. Mingay Representative of General Public

ALSO PRESENT:
R. Segal Development Planner
E. Fiss Development Planner
M. Thomson Survey Branch

Item 3 - 3200 East 54th Avenue - DE403146
C. Brook Brook Development Planning
A. Grant CPI
W.T. Leung W.T. Leung Architects Inc.
P. Kwasnicky Architect
M. Montavo Civitas
J. Durante Durante Kreuk Ltd.

CLERK TO THE BOARD:

Carol Hubbard

2099 West 42nd Avenue (Kerrisdale Station) - DE402627

The Board approved this application on November 30, 1998. In its approval, the Board deleted a condition relating to the treatment of display windows but the corresponding Condition of the Development Permit was inadvertently included.

THAT Condition BB.2.5 be deleted as a condition of approval.

1. MINUTES

THAT the Minutes of the Development Permit Board and Advisory Panel Meeting of January 25, 1999 be approved.

2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

None.

3. 3200 EAST 54TH AVENUE - DE404146 - ZONE - CD-1

The Chair drew attention to the fact that the issue of community amenity benefits being advanced by this project is to be dealt with by City Council and will be the subject of a separate future report. Comments on this issue are therefore more appropriately addressed to Council rather than the Development Permit Board.

Development Planner's Opening Comments

The Development Planner, Ralph Segal, presented this preliminary application, referring to models and posted drawings. The CD-1 zoning for the site permits commercial and residential uses, although any change to the original form of development must be approved by Council. In July 1998, Council indicated it was willing to consider a significant adjustment to the form of development of the Champlain Mall. In its review of the application, staff considered the zoning in place on the site, the surrounding zoning and forms of development, as well as city-wide policies. With respect to the use, given the decline of the Champlain Mall since the emergence of the Oakridge and Metrotown shopping centres, staff believe a more neighbourhood-servingcommercial component is now quite appropriate. Downsizing the existing commercial floor area in favour of something more neighbourhood-focused is not precluded in the zoning. Staff also consider the proposed residential use to be appropriate, given the neighbourhood context. Residential is also a permitted use under the existing zoning. As well, City policy documents, CityPlan and Clouds of Change, encourage increased residential capacity and diversity. Proposed density is 0.77 FSR. While this is a significant increase from the existing density of 0.28 FSR, staff believe it is not out of context with other densities in existence around the site. With respect to the form of development, staff consider the proposal to be a good way of achieving increased density while offering a high degree of livability. Mr. Segal briefly reviewed the notification process conducted both by the City and the applicant. Densification was the primary concern of most of those respondents opposing the application. Other issues related to traffic generation, the loss of the mall, particularly for the seniors who use it regularly, loss of livability in the area, and increased crime activity.

Staff recommend approval in principle, subject to the conditions outlined in the Staff Committee Report dated February 10, 1999. Mr. Segal noted that most of the conditions are fairly minor in nature, which is a reflection of staff's opinion that the proposal is very appropriate for this site. Mr. Segal also tabled three additional conditions recommended Planning since the Staff Committee meeting.

Mr. Segal noted the issue of community amenities will be reported separately to Council and will be dealt with by Council when it considers the revised form of development.

The Chair reiterated that this proposal is in a CD-1 zone in which City Council approval of the form of development is required. This would normally follow closely after the rezoning of a site. In this instance, however, Council will be asked to consider a form of development which is different from that which was approved after the original rezoning of the site. In addition to indicating its willingness to consider a new form of development, Council has decided to do so at an advertised public meeting at which members of the public will have an opportunity to provide their comments. At this meeting, Council will also decide on the community amenity contribution it will seek as a condition of approval of a different form of development. The Development Permit Board's function is to consider the proposal under the existing zoning and its deliberations will focus on the principal conditions recommended by the Staff Committee, as noted by the Development Planner.

Applicant's Comments

Mr. Chuck Brook, Brook Development Planning Inc., explained their client purchased the Champlain Mall property in 1997, prior to which the mall's major tenant, Zellers, had already decided to close its store because it was not performing adequately, and its original purpose as a regional-serving mall was becoming increasingly unsuccessful. Retaining the mall as it now exists is therefore not an option. While large-format retail has been considered and remains a viable alternative, the owner believes a mixed-use solution is better for the neighbourhood and more appropriate for its urban context. Thus, the commercial aspects of the redevelopment feature neighbourhood-oriented shops and services which they think will be viable. Extensive consultation with the neighbourhood began in December 1997, and the proposal has evolved since that time with input from both the neighbourhood and the City. In addition to a broad notification, as described in the Staff Committee Report, Mr. Brook explained that a display of the proposal in the mall between February 11 to 15 received about 500 visitors. A traffic study demonstrates there will be no increase in traffic as a result of this development, whereas an equivalent redevelopment in commercial use would generate approximately one-third more traffic.

While noting that the Development Permit Board will not be addressing the issue of community amenity contributions, Mr. Brook noted the proposal does include a comprehensive, voluntary community amenitypackage that has evolved through many discussions with neighbours and interest groups. It includes a larger library which has been relocated to the main floor of the mall, including rental subsidies and fixturing allowances, and classrooms at Captain Cook Elementary School. Notwithstanding a recent announcement that additional classrooms at Captain Cook Elementary will be funded by the Ministry of Education, Mr. Brook said the additional classrooms offered by his client will accommodate the increased school population resulting from this development. There will be an expansion of the Champlain Heights Community Centre to include childcare facilities, a teen room and multi purpose rooms, and the community centre has agreed it will construct seniors' facilities there. In addition, the construction and dedication to the City of a half-acre public park has been agreed to by the Park Board. An earlier proposal included the preschool and seniors centre within the mall but the library did not want to run the seniors centre and the community association did not wish to program satellite facilities. It was therefore agreed to locate the seniors and preschool facilities in the community centre, at the request of the Killarney/Champlain Community Association. The Park Board will provide the capital funds to build the seniors facility.

Referring to the Staff Committee Report, Mr. Brook requested an amendment to condition 3.0 to allow the complete application to be dealt with by the Director of Planning. He explained that this large project will be built in phases over some period of time, as determined by the marketplace. They do not propose to submit a complete application for the entire site, rather they will bring forward complete applications on a parcel by parcel basis. The design and configuration of each application will vary as market conditions dictate. Referring to Note A.5.2 which requires submission of a complete application by June 14, 1999, Mr. Brook requested an amendment to allow submission of a series of complete applications. He stressed that the community amenity contribution to be determined by Council would capture all the owner's financial responsibility to the City. Regarding the three additional conditions introduced by Mr. Segal, Mr. Brook said they have no problem with 1.9, noting they have provided for a seniors' facility either at the community centre or the mall, but not both. With respect to 1.10, Mr. Brook noted they are proposing a preschool facility rather than a daycare, and they have already reached agreement to provide it within the community centre. He said the condition is acceptable provided they are not expected to provide the facility in two locations. Condition 1.11 is acceptable.

Ms. Jane Durante, Landscape Architect, addressed the conditions in the Staff Committee Report. With respect to condition 1.1 which seeks rearrangement of the guest parking, Ms. Durante said they would prefer to extend the green space into the guest parking area and provide a permeable surface rather than reconfiguring the parking.

Mr. Wing Ting Leung, Architect, requested deletion of the Note in condition A.1.14, stating the proposed parking spaces comply with the Parking By-law. He also requested amendment of condition A.2.20, dealing with the right-of-way. He said they believe there are alternate solutions for servicing the properties to the south and they are working with BC Hydro and Engineering staff in this regard. He explained that full compliance with condition A.2.20 would result in loss of the existing trees which lie within the requested 20 ft. right-of-way. Mr. Leung confirmed they can meet the rest of the conditions.

With respect to the right-of-way, Mr Rudberg noted it also contains BCTel facilities. He advised Engineering would seek a right-of-way to accommodate all utilities, or alternate arrangements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In response to a question from Mr. Beasley with respect to the existing row of trees, Mr. Mike Thomson, Assistant City Surveyor, explained the intent is to deal with new landscaping that may impact on existing services. It does not require the removal of existing trees.

In response to a question from Mr. Beasley regarding the applicant's request to amend A.5.2, Mr. Segal explained it is anticipated that the first complete application to be submitted will have the same DE number as this preliminary application. Subsequent complete applications will be assigned new DE numbers, but will refer tothis preliminary submission as the master plan by which they are assessed. In discussion, it was felt an amendment may be necessary to accommodate phasing in a timely way, without affecting the date for submission of the first phase.

(Board and Panel members then took a few minutes to review the models and posted drawings)

Comments from Other Speakers

The Chair noted that Mr. Chris Friesen (Chair, South Vancouver Neighbourhood House) and Mr. Phil Lyons (South Vancouver Adult Day Centre) have indicated that their comments regarding community amenity contributions will be more appropriately addressed to City Council.

Mr. Mario Cipriano, 7746 Sparbrook Crescent, spoke in favour of the application, noting the mall will not survive without changes, given the decline it has suffered in recent years.

Ms. Helen Wanamaker, 6980 Tyne Street, expressed concern about the increased peak hour traffic that will be generated by the development.

Mr. George Hare, East Kent Avenue, supported the proposal and said it will be a big improvement over what exists now. It will be an ideal place to live, it will accommodate a full range of residents, and the commercial component will be well used.

Ms. Donna Tilley, 6808 Rupert Street, (Director, Champlain Heights Community Association), was concerned that the community amenity package is not included in this preliminary application, noting that many of the amenities promised in the original Champlain Heights development have not materialized. She was concerned about safe pedestrian access to the site, particularly for seniors who may use scooters, wheelchairs or walkers. With respect to the offer of classrooms for Captain Cook Elementary School, now that the Ministry of Education has agreed to fund extra classrooms for this school, Ms. Tilley suggested the developer should consider donating classrooms to Killarney Secondary School instead because it is very overcrowded, with the largest student population in B.C. She stressed that the seniors in the community are not yet serviced adequately.

Mr. Greg King, East Kent Avenue, supported the application because it offers a good alternative to what exists now.

Mr. Rick Evans (President, Killarney Community Centre Society, Chairman, Joint Committee-Champlain Heights Community Association/Killarney Community Centre Society), stressed they are not opposed to development, noting this southeast sector of the city has absorbed and it continuing to absorb a great deal of growth. Their concerns relate to how the increased population affects schools, community centres, and recreational facilities. They have discussed at great length the present mall's value to their community, and note that similar views were expressed recently by residents of Arbutus with respect to their shopping centre. In that case, a rezoning proposal included a $5.5 million+ amenity package, but the neighbours were strongly opposed and Council subsequently refused the application. Mr. Evans said they have major concerns about excluding the amenity package from this development application and having it dealt with later, after it is approved, noting that much of their frustration stems from not having received the amenities promised in the original Champlain Heights development plan. Given that Champlain Heights is a planned community, he said they are very disappointed the Planning Department has not been actively involved in consulting with the neighbourhood on this proposal. Given this lack of consultation, they are very concerned that the Planning Department is strongly supporting the application. Although the developer's survey indicates they contacted 5,600 residents and businesses, Mr. Evans said their own survey of 283 homes showed 84 percent were aware of the development proposal but 91 percent had notbeen solicited for an opinion. He urged the Board to deny the development application and to require the applicant to return with a concrete amenity package. Responding to a question from Mr. Beasley regarding the form of development, Mr. Evans said they have no specific concerns except about traffic and parking, but he stressed that much of their concern could have been alleviated with a meeting with City Planning.

The Chair explained that the Development Planner's commentary is not only a Planning Department position but that of the Development Permit Staff Committee which is an inter-departmental committee of staff from a number of City departments. Mr. Scobie added that while he acknowledged the community's frustration with not having the amenity package included at this stage, the Development Permit Board has no authority to address the amenities as part of the application, that being the purview of City Council. Regardless of any approval the Board may give to the development application, it is in Council's jurisdiction to consider the form of development.

Mr. Bruce MacLeod, commercial tenant, Unit 213, 3200 East 54th Avenue, noted the Champlain Mall is in decline and unable to compete with Oakridge and Metrotown.

Ms. Bette Aitchison, 6410 Brooks Street, spoke on behalf of seniors in the neighbourhood. She noted that three quarters of area residents are seniors for whom the mall is a popular meeting place. She presented a petition containing the names of 513 people opposed to the application.

Ms. Irene ----?, owner of a restaurant and beauty salon in Champlain Mall, said her business is good and she did not want to see the mall changed. It was renovated only 4‡ years ago and is bright and attractive.

Mr. Jim Neil, President and Acting Director of Fraserview Residents Association, said he could not understand how the project could proceed when 18 out of 19 people object to it. The southeast sector is one of the fastest growing areas of the city and to add 320 new homes will only exacerbate the already overtaxed infrastructure. Killarney Community Centre is not being considered in the application and the Fraserlands bus service is inadequate. Mr. Neil said they are strongly opposed to the development, noting that problems which already exist in the area have not been addressed by the City. In response to a question from Mr. Beasley regarding the form of development, Mr. Neil said their major objection is that the development will bring in 525 more cars, and if it were to be a seniors housing development, with fewer cars, the bus service would need to be significantly improved.

Ms. Jeanette Moore, retailer in Champlain Mall, agreed the mall is not viable as it stands and her business is struggling. The residents who are opposed to the redevelopment do not contribute to the viability of the mall.

Ms. Susan Wilson said her biggest concern is with many more people coming into the area. She sympathized with the retailers regarding the decline of the mall but did not support it being replaced with housing. The seniors in the area need something in place of the existing mall. She noted one of the proposed buildings is next to the gas station, which may be contaminated. She also questioned the validity of the traffic study.

Mr. Chris Coro, President of a Champlain Heights housing co-op, said no-one supports the proposal as currently shown. He added, they were disappointed that this meeting could not be held later in the day, and in the community, so that residents could attend after work. With respect to density, he said the average number of people per unit in this area is 2.9, which means at least 928 people in this development, which would put an enormous strain on neighbourhood amenities. With respect to the process, Mr. Coro commented that this is a missed opportunity not to involve the community, which would have resulted in a much better development. Healso expressed concern that the phasing of the project may result in major changes being made as the site is developed over time.

The Chair said he believes the intent is to construct the project in phases, based on the demand for the various types of residential unit. It does not preclude the potential that, over time, the market may change and the developer may conclude that what is considered potentially marketable today, may not be some years hence, in which case they may seek a change in some of the later phases.

Mr. Sean Tilley was opposed to the development because adding this many more residential units will severely overtax the area schools. The livability and quality of life in Champlain Heights will suffer.

Panel Opinion

Ms. Drohan reported that the Urban Design Panel unanimously supported this application in its second review, following a significant reorganization of the site which incorporated generous outdoor spaces and created separate identities for each component of the scheme. Most the Panel's recommendations focused on reinforcing opportunities for relieving the repetitive nature of the building treatment. Generally, the Panel's concerns are well addressed by the prior-to conditions. The Panel was also concerned about the amount of paved roadway in the development. The suggestion to relocate some of the visitors' parking and look for a more permeable surface wherever possible is very positive, and the landscape architect's suggestion for dealing with the visitor parking is reasonable. With respect to the commercial component, the Panel was encouraged that the library was given much more of a role as a community catalyst with respect to its relationship to the adjacent residential. The Panel recommended less of a residential character for the commercial buildings. Ms. Drohan commented that she believes this proposal provides an encouraging precedent as the demand for regional malls continues to adjust itself. However, resolution of the amenities package will be essential to the long term vitality of this neighbourhood. Commenting on concerns expressed by the neighbours regarding public transportation, Ms. Drohan added, she strongly supports the call for an improved bus service which must be provided along with increased density. On behalf of the Urban Design Panel, Ms. Drohan supported the project and the recommended conditions.

Mr. Hancock said the proposal to change the mall from a regional to a neighbourhood focus is very positive. The additional residential density adjacent to retail is also positive, as is the sense of community that will be created by the diverse uses and unit types. The site plan and the character of the project is well developed and well conceived. The retailers whose businesses are viable will have the opportunity to stay in the new development and will be supported by the additional residents nearby. Referring to the amenity contributions that will be dealt with by Council, Mr. Hancock noted there are very strong arguments for it being spent in the community. With respect to traffic, Mr. Hancock questioned whether the development will generate as many as 525 more cars. As well, additional vehicles from the residential development may be offset by the mall's change in focus from regional to neighbourhood-serving which will result in fewer cars. Mr. Hancock said he did not consider the 0.77 FSR to be unreasonable given other precedents in the city. He recommended support of the application. He supported the landscape architect's suggestion for the visitors' parking. He recommended an amendment to condition A.2.14, to allow the applicant to explore parking provisions in accordance with the Parking By-law, and to work with BC Hydro and Engineering to seek a solution with respect to the right-of-way in condition A.2.20.

Mr. Gjernes said this proposal provides a good opportunity for a new variety of housing type in the city, and converting the Champlain Mall to a community-based, service-oriented shopping centre is a positive step. Herecommended approval of the application, with each complete phase to be returned to the Board. He added, he hoped the existing access to the site from the south can be maintained.

Mr. Chung commended the applicant on the excellent design. Responding to some of the neighbours' comments, Mr. Chung agreed the bus service will need to be improved. He also hoped the neighbourhood consultation process would be improved. Given the large number of senior citizens living in the area, Mr. Chung said full accessibility should be addressed. With respect to condition A.2.20, he encouraged the applicant to work with Engineering to deal with the right-of-way without removing any trees. He recommended approval of the application and said he thinks it is an excellent project.

Mr. Roodenburg said he preferred the visitors' parking as proposed and concurred with the suggestion of providing a permeable parking surface. He concurred with the staff recommendation that the complete application be dealt with by the Board, and any major changes to future construction phases should be returned for re-appraisal. With respect to condition A.2.14, he said one full-size and one small-size parking space per family is appropriate. Regarding the right-of-way (A.2.20), alternatives should be discussed with BC Hydro. Mr. Roodenburg said he liked the project and he supported the application.

Ms. Parton commented that the Champlain Mall certainly needs some redevelopment. She commended the applicant on the design and said the development will enhance the neighbourhood. Noting this is a preliminary application, Ms. Parton said she hoped the neighbours can be fully involved in the ensuing stages. She felt the complete application should be returned to the Board, and was concerned about some of the phases remaining undeveloped, to the detriment of the area. Her major concern related to traffic, and she questioned the results of the traffic study because she felt sure that the additional residents would generate more traffic. She supported the improved library, and the addition of a community police office, although she was concerned about the limit on operating costs. She also hoped there could be better bus service in the area. She said it is an excellent project that should be a real asset to the community. She hoped everyone will work together to see it come to fruition.

Closing Comments from Staff

With respect to the submission of a complete application, Mr. Segal said since the form of development must first to approved by Council, the date of that approval will become the date for determining the submission of the complete application. He suggested an amendment to A.5.2 to address phasing.

Board Discussion

The Chair noted the Board may need to review condition A.1.11, dealing with securing public access to the east-west greenway, in connection with the proposed phasing of the project. He said A.2.14 may also require adjustment. He suggested allowing for alternative arrangements for the right-of-way in A.2.20, and thought Mr. Segal's suggestion for A.5.2 was appropriate. With respect to visitors' parking, Mr. Scobie said his concern would be with its management rather than its location and treatment. He noted the decline of the Champlain Mall over the years, resulting from the emergence of Oakridge and Metrotown/Eaton Centre, and said it clearly needs to change in order to survive. He felt the new library would be a big improvement. He agreed with Mr. Chung that attention should be given to adequate disabled access to the site.

Mr. MacGregor questioned the inclusion of A.5.4, given the matter of community amenity contributions will be dealt with by Council at the time it considers the form of development. In discussion, it was agreed to add a reference to CACs in the approval preamble statement. Mr. MacGregor said he had serious concerns about the phasing of this development. He suggested the developer should provide full information on the proposedphasing, at the time of submission of the first (residential) phase. It was noted that A.5.5 deals only with the interim treatment of the site during phasing. The Board agreed it wished to consider the complete application rather than delegate it to the Director of Planning, given the number of issues to be resolved and the level of public interest. Some discussion ensued with respect to how to deal with the issue of phasing and it was agreed to add some clarification to A.5.5.

Mr. Rudberg moved approval in principle, noting the advice of the Advisory Panel and Council policies with which this proposal is consistent in many respects. It is also recognized that as a regional shopping centre the Champlain Mall is no longer viable and a change in the form of development is necessary.

Mr. Beasley stated it is important that the complete application be returned to the Board. He stressed that the Board is dealing only with the form of development within existing zoning regulations. He said he was confident that many of the issues raised by the public will be addressed when the form of development and CAC package are considered by Council. Mr. Beasley felt the conditions of approval would address the concerns of people who were worried about provision for seniors in this development. He also said he was satisfied with the results of the traffic assessment, and pointed out that a "big box" retail outlet would have a far greater negative impact. The mall's conversion to a small and more locally oriented commercial centre with residential is a good alternative for the community. In closing, Mr. Beasley said he hoped the applicant could accommodate Irene's locally oriented retail businesses in the new development. He commended both the staff and the applicant for coming forward with a development with a "sense of place" which is often lacking in projects of this scale.

Motion

It was moved by Mr. Rudberg and seconded by Mr. Beasley, and was the decision of the Board:

THAT the Board APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE Development Application No. 403146, in accordance with the Development Permit Staff Committee Report dated February 19, 1999, with the following amendments:

Amend the approval preamble statement:
THAT, subject to Council approving the proposed form of development, and accepting a Community Amenity Contributions package, the Board APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE ... etc.

design development to the retained "mall" area to maximize seating and tables to encourage informal gathering, particularly for seniors;

Note to Applicant: If the discussion on amenity contributions concludes on the need for a seniors' on-site programming office and/or activities room, it should be accommodated as an adjunct to this mall area. In any event, consideration should be given to provision of a door from the "mall" area to the library meeting room, subject to concurrence by the library.

design development to provide for a location on-site for a child care facility if the proposed child care cannot be accommodated off-site;

design development to provide a children's play area in association with the apartment buildings and with each townhouse cluster.

signs and paint markings are required to effect a one-way counter clockwise flow ...

a right-of-way is required over the south 20 ft. of the site (Lot 204), all portions of any proposed buildings/structures must be relocated from this 20 ft. wide area; or alternative arrangements be made to accommodate the utilities, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services;

If a complete application, in whole or in part, is not submitted on or before June 14, 1999, etc.

The complete development application shall indicate the phasing proposal and the timing of the provision of site amenities.

CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

4. OTHER BUSINESS

65 Water Street - DE403393

It was moved by Mr. Beasley and seconded by Mr. MacGregor, and was the decision of the Board:

THAT the Board RECEIVE FOR INFORMATION a letter dated February 3, 1999 from the Gastown Historic Area Planning Committee regarding the Board's November 2, 1998 decision on this application.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7.00 pm.

Carol Hubbard F.A. Scobie
Clerk to the Board Chair

/ch

* * * * *

sc990720.htm

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

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver