Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CITY OF BURNABY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
NOTICE OF OPEN MEETING
DATE: TUESDAY, 2014 SEPTEMBER 30
TIME: 5:00 P.M. (dinner to be provided)
PLACE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ROOM, MAIN FLOOR, CITY HALL
1.
AGENDA
MINUTES
(a) Minutes of the Community Development Committee Open Meeting held on 2014 June 24
2. CORRESPONDENCE
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
Correspondence from Deb Bryant, Chair Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness Re: Development of New Regional Homelessness Plan
Correspondence from Isabel Evans, President, Co-operative Housing Federation of British Columbia Re: You Hold the Key - Fix the Co-Op Housing Crunch
Correspondence from Laura Bailon Re: Homeless and Transient Population
Correspondence from Sandy Burpee, Chair Council of Community Homeless Tables Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness Re: Metro Vancouver's 9th Annual Homelessness Action Week
Correspondence from Isabel Kolic, Executive Director The Heights Merchants Association Re: Zoning for 4500 and 4858 Hastings Street
Correspondence from William Loeffler Re: Request for Zoning Change: Westridge Area
2410-20
PAGE
1- 4
5-6
7-8
9 - 10
11-13
14 - 19
20 - 22
Community Development Committee Agenda - 2014 September 30
3. TABLED MATTER
(a) Memorandum from Deputy City Clerk Re: Rezoning Applications, 2450 Alpha Avenue
Rezoning Reference #14-11 (Tabled 2014 June 24)
4. NEW BUSINESS
5. INQUIRIES
6. ADJOURNMENT
Page 2
23 - 36
CITY OF BURNABY 2410-20
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
MINUTES
An Open meeting of the Community Development Committee was held in the Council Committee Room, City Hall, 4949 Canada Way, Burnaby, BC on Tuesday, 2014 June 24 at 5:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Councillor C. Jordan, In the Chair Councillor D. Johnston, Vice Chair Councillor P. Calendino, Member
STAFF: Mr. L. Pelletier, Director Planning and Building Mr. E. Kozak, Assistant Director, Current Planning Ms. S. Folkes, Housing Planner Mr. J. Schumann, Current Planner Ms. H. Clark, Property Negotiator Ms. E. Prior, Administrative Officer
The Chair called the 'Open' meeting to order at 5:07 p.m.
1. MINUTES
(a) Minutes of the Community Development Committee Open Meeting held on 2014 May 27
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR CALENDINO: SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JOHNSTON:
"THAT the minutes of the Community Development Committee Open meeting held on 2014 May 27 be now adopted. "
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
2. CORRESPONDENCE & REPORTS
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR JOHNSTON: SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR CALENDINO:
"THAT the correspondence and reports be now received."
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
01
....
Community Development Committee Minutes - 2014 June 24
PageZ
02
(a) Memorandum from Deputy City Clerk Re: Rezoning Applications, 2450 Alpha Avenue
Rezoning Reference #14-11
A memorandum was received from the Deputy City Clerk regarding Item 03, Manager's Reports. This report was received by Council at the Open Council meeting held on 2014 June 09 and was sent to the Community Development Committee.
The following recommendations were contained in the report:
1. THAT a copy of this report be sent to the own,ei .. d.[, 2460 Alpha A venue for their information. ,,//
~// "', ",,-2. THAT the Brentwood Town Centre Deve\d):Hl1ertt,J:'Ian, Land Use Concept Sketch be
amended to reflect the RM4(s) designation .. [,orfue Stibcare~ 4 Succession Area bounded by Dawson Street, BNR Rail Line, Alpha A venue arid. B.eta A venue, as outlined in Section 3.2 of this report. /.' ",
"'" 3. THAT the Planning and Building Dipartment be authorized tow.~rk with the applicant
towards the preparation of suitable planofdeielo,phlent for preserttation to a Public Hearing on the a moreqetailed' report will be sllbfuitted at a later date. .
Council suc1secluelltly recrq!tLImmaat~~~b,sJ and 3.andREFERRED recommendation 2 to the COlmmu! .~~~elPlpment CJ(')nlInittt~e:
rOl.101NlIlg motion:
oill/fnrth,er time to review the recommendation 2."
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The corres])I:>U\:Ie.flCe 1\.ljLbU to a future meeting of the Community Development Committee, fUltiJ.(:r'revi.ew
(b) Report fr:ril.~i{~ctor Planning and Building Re: R12 District Area Rezoning
Public Consultation Results
A report was received from the Director Planning and Building to review the results of the consultation process regarding a request for an area rezoning form the C4 Commercial District to the R12 Residential District and to recommend that staff be authorized to work with the applicant on the next phase of rezoning.
Community Development Committee Minutes - 2014 June 24
The Director Planning and Building recommended:
Page 3
1. THAT Council authorize the Planning and Building Department to work with the applicant towards the preparation of a suitable plan of development for presentation to a Public Hearing on the understanding that a more detailed report will be submitted at a later date.
2. THAT a copy of this report be sent to the property owners and residents in the petition and consultation.
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR CALENDINO: SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR JOHNSTON:
CARRIE!) UNANIMOUSLY (
(c) Report from Director Plannin~'l\~~~uilding/, Re: Commnnity Benefit to be A:c!ti~~ed!1:'/1r9ugh
Rezoning Reference #13-14 ''''('i' ,-,' ': ,"" '<;;':'':':':.:. /
Metrotown Town Centre Development Plan , . "'" on> < "'\ "-, , ----" 'y:, .. "\,
A report was received from the bire~t~tRiaimil1g and'B~il~ing to review the results of the consultation proSeSScre&!l,rding a r«q'u,est for;anar~a rez~nin.g form the C4 Commercial District to the .Rl2 Residential Distiict\and,to recommend that staff be authorized to work with the applicant'()n the ri.~)(i,phase ohizoning, . '.
"-. -\" " i \,'/
'« '\\, ; :' '\ \, The Director Plaimi1).g'!\lld,BuHding recommended:
'c"~':~:""':'~" '\' ~~ /,_ ' : "'" \'
";<::>:::>L':i;::;~;~;;/n0 --', >-' '-. "'", '_,,' 1'THA'Fl:Gl~WJ.cil approve a cash"incli~u' contribution as the community benefit to be
C: ... i, !\, derivediIfriVg!l the. density bonus ·available to Rezoning Reference #13-14, as '! ',outlined in tIlis \ ort.
":'<Y"'\,~
MOVED BY C(i;)ItNCILLOR'ENDINO: SECONDED By'@ONNCILLORl,J'oHNSTON:
;:;J;&;:i'~;;):
"THAT the recommendaf~~p~ 'e Director Planning and Building be adopted." ·!/t?
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
3. NEW BUSINESS
No items of new business were brought before the Committee at this time.
03
Community Development Committee Minutes - 2014 June 24
4. INQUIRIES
No inquiries were brought before the Cormnittee at this time.
5. ADJOURNMENT
MOVED BY COUNCILLOR JOHNSTON: SECONDED BY COUNCILLOR CALENDINO:
"THAT this meeting do now adjourn."
Page 4
. ·CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Ms. Eva Prior ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
.. ~ ~,
.......... CouncillorColleen Jordan GRAm / .
_________________________ -ISECTION 2 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE _
City Manager From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Attachments:
RSCH <[email protected]> July-02-14 10:44 AM Clerks Folkes, Sharon
Dir. Planning & BUilding Community Development Committee
Attention Mayor and Council - RSCH Regional Homelessness Plan - Priorities and Strategies Report Priorities and Strategies Report Covering LeUer June 12 2014.docx; RSCH Regional Homelessness Plan Priorities & Strategies -May 2014.pdf
Dear Mayor and Members of Council
Re: Development of New Regional Homelessness Plan
On behalf of the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness (RSCH), I am pleased to enclose the * Priorities and Strategies report prepared for the RSCH. This report identifies priorities and strategies for addressing
homelessness in the Metro Vancouver region and the RSCH will use this report to inform our work to develop a new Regional Homelessness Plan.
Sincerely,
Deb Bryant,. Chair, Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Thank you, Kathryn Campbell Program Assistant Homelessness Partnering Strategy Community Entity Email: kathrvn,[email protected]
Tel: 604/436-6848 Fax:604/436-6960
_ ... metrovancouver ... SERVICES AND SOLUTIONS FOR A LIVAIILE REGION
*AVAILABLE IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1
05
OG
~3WAYSTO •• HOME
June 12, 2014
Dear Mayor and Members of Council
Greater Vancouver Regional Steering
Committee on Homelessness
Re: Development of New Regional Homelessness Plan
On behalf of the Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness (RSCH), I am pleased to enclose the Priorities and Strategies report prepared for the RSCH. This report identifies priorities and strategies for addressing homelessness in the Metro Vancouver region and the RSCH will use this report to inform our work to develop a new Regional Homelessness Plan.
In the fall of 2013, the RSCH began a process to prepare a new Regional Homelessness Plan to replace the current plan, known as 3 Ways to Harne. We engaged CitySpaces Consulting to organize consultation sessions with community stakeholders, explore key issues and identify priorities and strategies to end and prevent homelessness.
Between October and November, the RSCH and CitySpaces invited nearly 600 individuals to attend consultation sessions that included three sub-regional workshops, focus groups, and personal interviews with people with lived experience. More than 170 people participated, representing 75 housing and homelessness organizations in the region. We are continuing to work with municipal planners through the Housing and Social.lssues Sub-Committees of Metro Vancouver's Regional Planning Advisory Committee (RPAC) as well as with Community Homelessness Tables throughout the region.
A draft Regional Homelessness Plan should be available in September 2014. After that, we will organize a further round of consultations with municipalities and community stakeholders to obtain feedback on the draft plan. We look forward to working with your staff as we prepare the new plan and to presenting this plan to your municipality for endorsement early in 2015.
If you have any questions regarding the Regional Homelessness Plan, please contact Deborah Kraus at [email protected]:
Sincerely
Deb Bryant, Chair, Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness
cc. Sandy Burpee, Chair, Council of the Community Homelessness Tables
0---' YOU HOLD THE KEY FIX THE co-op HOUSING CRUNCH
August 2014
His Worship Mayor Derek Corrigan and Council City of Burnaby
SECTION 2 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE City Manager Dir. Planning & Building
4949 Canada Way Community Development Committee
Burnaby, BC V5G 1 M2
Dear Mayor Corrigan:
I'm writing today to thank you and your council for your leadership and vocal support on the issue of affordable housing. We greatly appreciate Burnaby's commitment to protecting the most vulnerable households in housing co-op communities in British Columbia.
Your support for CHF BC's "You Hold the Key: Fix the co-op housing crunch" campaign was expressed by your council in February when it passed the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' model resolution to fix the housing crunch and by your eloquent remarks on the benefits of co-op housing at council's meeting on April 28 (when it was CHF BC's pleasure to present Burnaby with the "key to the co-op").
As you're aware, the 26 housing co-ops in the City of BurnabY are among the hundreds in BC facing a crunch as their agreements with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation come to an end. When those federal agreements end, so will the rent assistance that makes the homes of their low-income members affordable. Across the province, about one in three co-op households will be affected and you hold the key to helping them stay in their homes.
The co-op members who now receive rent assistance are seniors, single parents, people with disabilities, new Canadians and others on fixed or limited incomes. In other words, they are the people who can least afford to lose their homes in Canada's most challenging rental housing market.
During the time since most of the housing co-ops in BC were built, housing has become a provincial responsibility. But there is currently no provincial program to take the place of federal housing agreements as they expire in the coming years. CHF BC is urging the BC government to implement a provincial rent supplement program for low-income co-op members when those agreements end. It's a fair, cost-effective solution to a problem that affects nearly 4,000 low-income households.
* I am enclosing a booklet that tells the story of the co-op housing crunch and how it will affect the lives of your residents and many others in British Columbia. Also included is a list of housing co-ops in the City of Burnaby which also shows the number of co-op homes in your community.
Please join us in urging the Honourable Rich Coleman, Minister Responsible for Housing, to consider our proposal and implement a provincial rent supplement program for low-income co-op members as federal housing agreements end. We would also welcome your support in calling on the federal government to assist in funding this program by reinvesting the savings it will realize as its federal funding obligations cease.
'AVAILABLE IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 07
Address' Co-op~ratlve Housmg Federation of Be Web wlNW.chf bc.ca 220 - 1651 CommerCial Dnve Email' keycampargn@chfbeca Vancouver, Be V5L 3Y3 Phone: 604·879-511'
YOU HOLD THE KEY FIXTtIE co-op HOUSING CRUNCH
You hold the key to helping us protect the most vulnerable members of our co-op communities. We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours truly,
Isabel Evans President
P.S. For more information or to arrange a meeting please contact Don Hauka 604-879-5111 or [email protected]
cc: Municipal councillors
CITY OF BURNABY
eo .... pNam&, Unitsi Ad<ir&s$ '. ',.' ' . ; . i('~ tl"c . ~. ~ -; .. ' ::"s~Jiil* , '. / , " .... ~ ! Nornwn Bethune Co-op 24 8752 Centaurus Circie, Burnaby, V3J 7E7 2015
: 115 Place Co-op 244 9380 Cardston Court, Burnaby, V3N 4R5 2017
: Hillside PI"". CO .... p 172 8400 Forest Grove Dr, Burnaby, V5A 4B7 2017
: Pine Ridge Co-op 88 8763 Ash Grove Crescent, Burnaby, V5A 4B8 2018
, Post 83 Co-op 181 4221 Mayberry St, Burnaby, V5H 4E8 2018
: Whattlekalnum Co-op 103 8740 Forest Grove Drive, Burnaby, V5A 4C9 2018
Andra. Place Co-op 84 4371 Mayberry St, Burnaby, V5H 4H8 2020
: Nova Vita Co-op 56 7166 Barnet Rd, Burnaby, V5A 1C8 2020
: Halston Hills Co-op 90 8888 Horne St, Burnaby, V3N 4T1 2020
: Spectrum Co-op 44 3850 Dominion St, Burnaby, V5G 1C2 2021
; Mosaico Co-op 29 3869 Dominion St, Burnaby, V5G 1C1 2021
: Cantennial Park Co-op 30 4160 Bond St, Burnaby, V5H 1G2 2022
; Misty Ridge Co-op 70 9201 Forest Grove Dr, Burnaby, V5A 4R3 2022
· Sunset Height. Co-op 46 3798 Laurel St, Burnaby, V5G 1M7 2022
: Antrim Place Co-op 38 5300 Rumble St, Burnaby, V5J 2B6 2023
Edmonds Place Co-op 51 7220 Edmonds St, Burnaby, V3N 1A6 2023
· Medina Co-op 44 7095 Stride Ave, Burnaby, V3N 1T3 2023·
Bounty Co-op 70 7495 Sand borne Ave, Burnaby, V3N 4V4 2024
Brambles Co-op 42 6750 Station Hill Court, Burnaby, V3N 4V2 2025
Byrna Creek Co-op 74 7028 17th Ave, Burnaby, V3N 4V6 2025
· Chance. Co-op 44 7235 18th Ave, Burnaby, V3N 1H4 2025
Garden Square Co-op 58 5116 Smith Ave, Burnaby, V5G 2W9 2025
Cariboo Heights Co-op 56 7251 Cariboo Dr, Burnaby, V3N 4Y3 2028
1748
08
Address Co-operatIve HOUSing Federation of Be Web' www.chfbeca 220 - 1651 CommerCial Drive Email keycampalgn@chfbe ca Vancouver. Be V5L 3Y3 Phone 604·879·5111
,
SECTION 2 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE _________________________ .,CityManager _
Dir. Planning & Building From: Sent:
Admin, Web August-11-14 2:52 PM Clerks
Community Development Committee
To: Subject: City Inquiries (response #1590)
City Inquiries (response #1590) Survey Information
,-- .-.
Site: Burnaby
Page Title: City Inquiries
URL: httQ:llwww.burnab~.ca/Cit~-lnguiries.html
Submission Time/Date: 8/11/20142:51:40 PM
Survey Response
-
.In Regards To Mayor and Council
Name Laura Bailon
Email laura [email protected]
Phone 6044376779
Address & Postal Code
Required for Mayor and Council inquiries
6794 Dow Ave., Burnaby, BC V5H 3C9
Comment
RE: homeless and transient population in Burnaby To the Honorable Mayor and Council, I concerned that many low to medium priced rental buildings are being torn down and replaced with high priced residential towers - buildings. How are these new expense residential towers -buildings helping combat the homeless and transient population in Burnaby? I believe it is unlikely that there will be
1
! . 09
....... + ...... .
Respond to me by:
10
low to medium priced rental units available in these new residential towers. My neighbours are now scared that they will be homeless soon! What do I tell them? Sincerely, A worried resident-home owner in Burnaby, Laura Bailon
Email I .............. J
2
City of Burnaby 4949 Canada Way Burnaby, British Columbia V5G 1M2
August 1, 2014
Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on
Homelessness
SECTION 2 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE City Manager Dir. Planning & Building Mayor's Office (For Proclamation) Community Development Committee
Dear Mayor Derek Corrigan and Council members:
The Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness (RSCH), together with our community partners across the region, is pleased to announce Metro Vancouver's 9th Annual Homelessness Action Week (HAW), October 12 to 18, 2014.
As declared in Australia in 2010, October 10th will continue to be World Homelessness Action Day, with over 50 countries participating in awareness events. Many other municipalities in British Columbia continue to support Homelessness Action Week, and for the past five years the Government of British Columbia has declared Homelessness Action Week throughout the province.
"Opening Doors Opening Hearts" has been chosen as the theme of the ninth annual HAW. In choosing this theme, the RSCH brings into focus the increasing needs of BC citizens living in extreme poverty and homelessness, and the subsequent improvements that can be made when broad based support is committed to working collaboratively towards solutions to homeless ness in the region.
We are requesting that your municipality support HAW in 2013 by proclaiming the week of October 12 to 18, 2014 as Homelessness Action Week. Metro Vancouver's Homelessness Action Week provides an opportunity to:
• Build community support for solutions to homelessness by raising public awareness and understanding of homelessness in the region with a strong emphasis on showcasing successes;
• Organize Connect Events to engage and assist people who are homeless with programs and services, personal products such as hygiene kits and clothing, as well as make important social connections; and
• Actively involve communities, the private sector, and service providers throughout Metro Vancouver in jointly planning and hosting events.
c/o fI/lmde'~'''IIl'.H· Sl'l'rdariat. "Ielro / '1/11('II/lI'er
4330 f..:/JIg.\\r0Y. !JIII'II""Y He 15/1 ·/(;8 Tefl'I'/lIme (io./ ./51-6065 FiI.\' (i(j~ .f3(j·(jY(,o I'Sel/ (/·11/<'(/"01'/111('01/1'"" j)"~ 11
•
," 12
Request/or Municipal HAW 2013 proclamation Page 2 August -I, 20 J 4
We have attached a sample Homelessness Action Week proclamation that Council can use if you find it appropriate. However, please feel free to modify the sample to suit your municipality's needs or prepare your own.
For more information about Homelessness Action Week, please visit our website www.stophomelessness.ca. If you have any questions or comments about this request, please contact Sandy Burpee at the Council of Community Homeless Tables by telephone at 604.436.6740 or by email at [email protected].
Yours truly,
Sandy Burpee Chair Council of Community Homeless Tables Greater Vancouver Regional Steering Committee on Homelessness
• •
SAMPLE RESOLUTION OF PROCLAMATION FOR HOMELESSNESS ACTION WEEK 2013
A resolution proclaiming October 12 to 18, 2014 Homelessness Action Week in the Municipality of ____________ ~
Whereas: Every day in our municipality there are men, women, seniors, youth, and children who do not have a place to call home; and
Whereas: Community action and participation are essential in addressing and eliminating issues and circumstances that contribute to homeless ness; and
Whereas: During this week, activities and events will be offered and the community will be encouraged to learn about the many issues related to homeless ness, about the community and government agencies that offer services and support 'that work' for persons who are homeless, and about what each of us as citizens can do to creatively and collectively address homeless ness in our communities.
Therefore, I, Mayor of proclaim October 12 to 18, 2014 as Homelessness Action Week and encourage all citizens to recognize and support efforts to put an end to homelessness in our society.
13
July 23, 2014
Mayor Derek Corrigan, and Burnaby City Council City of Burnaby 4949 Canada Way Burnaby, BC V5G 1M2
RE: Zoning for 4500 to 4858 Hastings Street
Dear Mayor and Council,
i Manager Dir. Planning & Building Community Development Committee
In April 2008, the HMA was pleased and encouraged that we were finally able to make some headway on the blocks of Hastings Street located east of Willingdon, wherein the zoning was changed that year to allow property owners to apply for zoning changes to C4a rather than C4, and retail commercial was henceforth permitted.
At the time, we were relieved to be turning a corner on what was, at best, a stagnant situation on those blocks. For years previously, those three blocks did not see much foot traffic, and very little Investment or Improvement as property owners did not perceive so much value in their properties. The resulting lacklustre buildings and low pedestrian foot traffic resulted In the Inability to hold tenants, and vacancies plaguing that section of the Heights.
C4a was certainly a move in the right direction. But as the HMA has since learned from local property owners and developers, there continues to be an Impediment that Is causing Inequity among property owners of the Heights and equal contributors to our BIA Levy.
The challenge is that to the west of Willingdon, commercial properties are pre-zoned with C8A zoning. This provides a built-in additional value for those properties as there are fewer Impediments to the development process.
To the east of Wiliingdon, however, properties are conditionally zoned as C4a (pending approval for rezoning applications when a property owner wants to redevelop). C4a and CSA appear physically similar, once built, but are In fact very different In commercial viability and actually achievable density; that Is to say, the density that Is claimed to be possible on paper, is not actually possible to achieve In reality as any of our developers will tell you, and planners can attest.
C4a zoning technically allows a Floor Square Ratio (FSR) of 2.4, combined (1.1 Residential and 1.3 CommerCial) . .In comparison, C8A zoning technically allows an FSR of 3.0. More detail and a clear example on this disparity Is outlined in the Appendix, enclosed.
C4a zoning's 2.4 FSR means that developers are forced to either make the building smaller than the 4 storeys could potentially allow, or they must build a second storey of office space (one less storey of reSidential), which then becomes all but impossible to lease or sell at the same price it cost to build It. This makes our would-be developments on 4500 to 4800 blocks less desirable to finance, and often unfeasible In the eyes of financial institutions.
To illustrate: Boffo Development Group's "Firma" building still remains partly empty on the commercial second floor for more than two years (Boffo's head office occupies about half of the available office space in their own building, which is one of the reasons the project was viable at all).
Heights Merchants Association
; 4019 Hastings Street, Burnaby, Be V5C 211 • T 604.294.8899 F 604.294.9063 • www,bumabyheights.ccm
)4
You may be aware that Heights Entertainment Group at the Dolphin Theatre site needed to request an exclusion to exchange a floor of office space for a floor of residential non-market housing, to make their project financially possible. Epta Properties has had their "Montage" development at Gamma Avenue stall significantly (and even at this time, Is not fully confirmed to continue), because they could not recoup their costs for what they had originally hoped to build on that property (a unique architectural structure featuring mixed use with second-floor office and top two stories of residential).
A further Inequity Is that west of Wiliingdon, some properties are eligible to apply for a 5-storey (within the height restriction at 52.5 feet) structure, utilizing a mezzanine. This option Is not uniformly available even west of Wlilingdon - and is completely out of reach for properties east of Wlilingdon. This creates further false Inequities in property value assessments (and hence property tax levels), as well.
An Appendix is provided to this letter that provides more detail and clarity with respect to this inequity and the challenges it will continue to create, If this situation remains unaddressed.
Although the problem is more complex than what Is written In this letter, the simplest Immediate help would be to modify 4500 to 4800-blocks of Hastings Street zoning from Its current C4a zoning to the same C8A zoning as It Is west of Wlilingdon. Not only would the zoning become equal, but so would the opportunities available to the property owners and future tenants - both residential and commercial.
This change would make commercial property holders (8IA Levy contributors) equal participants In our BIA, and give them equal opportunities to viable proJects. We believe it would also release some of the financial Impediments that prevent developers from using more creative architectural forms. As a result, the visual streetscape on the Heights may benefit In the long run.
Physically, this zoning modification east of Willingdon will make little difference to what the public experiences, as the actual size and general structure of the buildings will not be different than any of the buildings being constructed today, both east and west of Wlilingdon.
Materially and pragmatically, however, It will make projects financially possible, create greater Incentives for those who wish to Invest, and remove a major Impediment In this portion of the Heights. The slightly enhanced density will bring more foot traffic to the area, which Is what all the merchants want, need, and are asking for, in order to survive and thrive. Adequate foot traffic is critical, given that we will be competing directly with Brentwood Town Centre for quality businesses that are attracted to districts able to provide higher foot traffic. Even with some development progress made east of Wlilingdon, those tenants still complain to us about poor foot traffic in their immediate area.
The Heights Merchants Association greatly our strong relationship with Council and City staff, and we depend on this relationship to continue to help the Heights district evolve in a positive direction. As Council does, we would like the Heights to thrive and be a sustainable community that will adds to our City's vibrancy and attraction for decades to come.
Thank you for your consideration of the contents of this letter, and our Board welcomes your questions or thoughts concerning this Issue ..
Sincerely,
Isabel Kollc Executive Director
* End: Appendix: FSR Discrepancy on the Heights
*AVAILABLE IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
15
Appendix: Zoning (FSR) Discrepancy on the Heights
This Appendix is a supporting document to the letter from the Heights Merchants Association addressed to Mayor and Councillors of the City of Burnaby on July 23, 2014. It is intended to provide additional context and examples regarding a zoning discrepancy that the HMA Board of Directors wishes to bring to the City of Burnaby's attention. .
For clarification purposes, those blocks and properties described as being "west of Willingdon" are located between 3700 and 4400 blocks of Hastings (between Boundary and Willingdon). Those blocks and properties described as being "east of Willingdon" are located between 4500 and 4858 Hastings (between Willingdon and just past Gamma Avenue within our BIA boundaries).
The Issue addressed by this document Is as follows:
What does the zoning on Hastings Street east of Willingdon (4500 to 4858 blocks of Hastings Street) currently allow and disallow in comparison to those blocks west of Willingdon (3700 to 4400 blocks of Hastings Street), in its wording and technical parameters?
West of Willlngdon (3700 to 4400 Hastings) - Challenging with misleading FSR potential
• Currently, the Hastings blocks of the Heights that are located west of Willingdon have a potentially permitted Floor Square Ratio (FSR) of 3.0.
• Floor space ratio (FSR) or floor area ratio (FAR), are site ratio and plot ratio terms for the ratio of a building's total (gross) built floor area to the size of the piece of land upon which it is built. Thus, an FSR of 3.0 indicates that the total floor area of a building is three times the gross area of the plot on which it is constructed, as would be found in a multiple-story building.
• Despite the 3.0 FSR potential In theory, none of the redevelopments west of Willingdon can actually achieve a 3.0 FSR. In practice, they typically achieve around FSR 2.35 because of the hard limitations for number of storeys currently in place in the Heights at 4 storeys (within 52.5 feet of building height).
• This 3.0 FSR potential density can never, and will never, be achieved under the current parameters. The reason Is because the number of storeys of the buildings Is restricted to a maximum of 4 storeys.
• This 3.0 FSR potential density Is not even possible when a mezzanine Is created. Even when an additional "mezzanine" of less than half a floor Is built on the second floor at the rear of the building, as what was permitted for the new Vancity "Union" development and the coming new Royal Canadian Legion building. Those projects achieved/will achieve 2.40 FSR.
East of Willingdon (4500 to 4858 Hastings) - Even harder to work with
• Currently East of Willingdon (EOW) has, in theory, a permitted Floor Square Ratio (FSR) of 1.1 Residential and 1.3 FSR Commercial or a total of 2.4 FSR provided that second storey Is commercial/office space (not residential).
Heigllts Merchants ASSOCiation (Appendix) l
IC
• This difference in the east of Wlilingdon zoning from that of west of Wlllingdon,lsthat It was· intended to achieve and encourage two things:
• Office space on the second storey; and • Constricting the physical mass of the building on Storeys 2 through 4 if there was no
office on the second storey.
• However, it has been proven that it is cost prohibitive to produce second storey office space for buildings with an FSR of 1.1 Residential and 1.3 FSR Commercial and a building height of only four storeys. That is why many developers are asking for amendments and concessions such as the coming building "Teatro" at the former Dolphin site, by opting to create non-market housing on the second floor.
A Tale of Two Burnaby Heights - the same building in two zoning contexts
As an example, here is a comparison of the new Madison development as if the site was developed with the exact same building, east of Willingdon versus west of Wlilingdon.
West of Wililngdon Zoning East of Willingdon Zoning Lot/Site size 14,762 14,]62 (hYPothetical) Total residential buildable 25444 SQ ft 16 238 SQ ft Total commercial buildable 8671 8671 Total buildable ·34,115 24909 Total FSR permitted 3.00 2.40 (1.10 Res/1.3 Comml Total FSR actually achievable 2.31 1.69 (27% less than west of in practice Willingdon)
Therefore two properties· of Identical Size, one west of Willingdon and one to the east, produce products that are notably different in size and marketable potential, as well as have different Implications in financing.
The resulting impact on the cost effectiveness on carrying out a project then on the eastern portion of the Heights is significantly Impacted.
On a project being financed in the millions of dollars, the risk is markedly greater with the current limitations.
Be Assessment Discrepencies
Another matter that becomes affected by the discrepancy in development potential is property assessments and resulting property taxes for those properties east of Wiliingdon versus those west of Willingdon. This matter warrants mentioning because it plays into the dynamics of purchasing properties, investing in development, and ultimately, the lease rates for tenants.
• BC Assessment (BCA) does not necessarily take into consideration the difference from what Is potentially buildable on a property located on the east versus the west side of Willingdon. BCA sees both as uniform zoning which they certainly appear to be Similar, but in practice are not.
Heighls Merdlants ASSOCiation (Appendix) 2
17
• BCA values the properties within the BIA on similar factors. Whereas those properties east of Willingdon have 27% less buildable area, they ought to certainly have a corresponding lower value; but they do not.
• If two properties have seemingly similar characteristics and functionality, but have different marketable and buildable potential, then one can only conclude they should be valued differently.
• BCA values properties on ~ density, not on achievable density. In the same vein, BCA values properties on what could potentially be built (e.g. 3.0 FSR) and does not concern itself with what can legitimately be achieved and built (e.g. +-/ 2.35 FSR).
• If property taxes were calculated based on property value assessments that were based on actually achievable density and development potential, then taxes (and the BIA levy) would decrease for those properties whose development potential is less than other properties. Those properties' tenants, then, would possibly also have somewhat lower rents. But this is not what is happening.
• Due to Imbalanced property values of properties located east of Willingdon versus west of Willingdon, the resulting tax amounts can create unfair tax (and BIA levy) advantages for those property owners and merchants west of Willingdon versus those east of Willingdon.
• It also warrants mentioning that the buildings east of Willingdon are not pre-zoned to ailow four storeys. Developers must apply for re-zoning first. This required step contrasts with those buildings west of Willingdon, which have zoning for four storeys already applied to those properties, and no application for re-zoning is needed.
Possible solutions
• Remove the limiting residential FSR requirements for propertills east of Wiliingdon to match those that are currently permitted west of Wlillrigdon by allowing the density for Office to be used for Residential.
• Permit a 5th floor to be built east of Willingdon ~ the current 52.5 foot building height requirement (equal to the Vanclty and upcoming Royal Canadian Legion buildings). Further to this, if a developer Is permitted to build 5 storeys within the 52.5 foot limitations, then the second storey office space could technic'lily be allowed and be feasible to build, within acceptable parameters for a project.
Whether there is a legitimate market for this more expensively constructed office space, Is another matter. While office space and office workers are definitely a desired element on the Heights to diversify the local employment base and attract 9-5 pedestrians, it becomes problematic when a builder finds these spaces too costly to build compared to what the market is prepared to spend on them.
A mezzanine solution, while a creative and interesting concept, also has some limitations: a mezzanine is best implemented when a developer knows for certain that they have a user (a guaranteed tenant or purchaser) for that unique type of space and functionality; otherwise it is an expensive experiment. These cases of certainty are rare and difficult to achieve.
Heights t-lcl'chimb Association (Appendix) 3
18
Conclusion
The buildings presently being created along Hastings Street will be here for potentially 70 or more years. They need to serve the needs of the City of Burnaby well into the future; not for 2014 or . 2020, but for 2060 and beyond.
We must ask ourselves pointed questions:
o How many people will be living in North Burnaby 50 or 80 years from now?
o How many aging boomers and other future seniors will need alternate living spaces to downsize into? How many young families will need housing that is not in the form of traditional single family residences?
o How much density does the Heights shopping district require to have a built-in strong local market to attract and sustain quality businesses that must then compete with significantly higher density nearby shopping areas, such as the upcoming ultra-density Brentwood development?
o What do we need to do to ensure that current and future developers have a fair and reasonable business reason to risk millions of dollars Into a building project?
o Lastly and importantly, how do we address these matters while being sensitive to local residents' needs and apprehensions?
One good place to start is by amending the allowable storeys within the current 52 . .5 foot height restriction, so that five storeys are henceforth permitted, but the building Itself is no bigger than It would have been with four storeys. This amendment would need to be uniformly applied across the entire BrA district, from Boundary to Gamma.
A fairly applied amendment would be most equitable and fair for all property owners from Boundary to Gamma in our BrA, and would create equally marketable opportunities for all property owners of the Heights.
Optimally, if there was a way to encourage the development of local office and professional space in a way that was more affordable to build, then it would achieve an even better built-In market for the Heights district, while Increasing residential density only modestly.
Lastly, it would be one more step in helping create a sustainable, livable, walkable neighbourhood for the long term, where a broader variety of job opportunities exist at different salary points to attract daily workers, and more local reSidents have a better chance of living close to the shops and services they use daily, and transit lines that take them wherever they need to go.
Heights r-1erchants Association (Appendix) t1
(' 1 ~3
William Loet11er 7033 Belcarra Drive Burnaby BC V5A I A6 6042999722
Mayor and Council C/O Office of the City Clerk 4949 Canada Way Burnaby BC V5G 1M2
luly 23, 2014
SECTION 2 COUNCIL CORRESPONDENCE City Manager Dir. Planning & Building Community Development Committee
Re: Westridge area R 11 Zoning rezoned back to the original R2 Zoning.
Honorable Mayor and Council;
My name is Bill Loeffler and I have owned my Westridge property for 30 years. I have been monitoring the recent R2 zoned real-estate sales ar~und the Westridge area and compared them with the R II zoned real-estate sales in the Westridge area. I am convinced that the Ril zoning bylaw is reducing the property values in the Westridge area. I have discussed this issue with real-estate agents who say that many of their clients want to build large new homes and will not buy in the Westridge area because of the building restrictions of the R 11 zoning bylaw.
The original small houses in the Westridge area are 65 years old and most of our recent real-estate sales are to construct new homes. In the current real estate market the people who are now purchasing the original Westridge houses (unless the house has had extensive renovations) seldom occupy the premises. When a Westridge property is sold it is usually rebuilt or rented. Most people who purchase a 60ft wide lot are expecting to build a large home and the many building restrictions of R II zoning come as a surprise to some property owners.
The people who want to build their large new homes need 60ft wide properties. The people who want to build their smaller homes will generally purchase cheaper, say 50ft wide properties. By forcing potential buyers to build smaller homes R 11 zoning has our 60ft wide properties competing with cheaper 50ft wide properties. It must be appreciated that when selling our R II zoned property, we are placed at a disadvantage to compete with the surrounding R 2 zoned 60ft wide properties.
20
.'
21
My wife and I plan to retire soon, and most of our retirement wealth is in our propel1y's value. We are interested in obtaining the maximum value for our property and we originally purchased our property with the R 2 zoning. When we sell our property we do not believe we should be forfeiting a large amount of potential property value to maintain the Ril zoning, especially if the majority of the Westridge area property owners are no longer in favor for remaining in the Rll zoning.
Over the last 20 years since the R 11 zoning bylaw came into effect many of the original supporters of the R 11 zoning are no longer living in the Westridge area. With this in mind I have recently conducted a survey to see if the property owners with the RII zoning would be in favor of going back to the original R2 zoning. There are currently III Westridge area properties with R 11 zoning. My wife and I hand delivered 109 surveys on June 19th
2014, the missing two being a vacant lot and a house on Inlet Drive that had its gates locked and both had nowhere practical to leave a envelope. I have allowed one month for the surveys to be returned and as ofJuly 19th 2014 I have received a total of twenty-four returned surveys (including one for my property).
The survey produced the following results. The owners of 17 properties are in favor for being rezoned back to the original R2 zoning and the owners of 7 properties are in favor of remaining in the RII zoning. As a percentage 70% of the properties that responded to the survey are in favor ofrevefting back to the original R2 zoning.
I remember when Burnaby City Council was discussing the R 1 I zoning Bylaw a council member spoke on concerns that the property owners had
, voted in favor of the R 11 zoning by only a slim margin. A council member also spoke on a prediction that the Westridge area property owners would be returning to ask Burnaby Council to build bigger homes.
I respectively would like to request that the Burnaby City Council allow the Westridge area property owners to vote and decide the issue of retaining the Rli zoning or being rezoned back to the original R 2 zoning.
* Please find enclosed copies of the twenty-three returned surveys.
Yours truly ~ ~~ 'AVAILABLE IN CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
(ONE COPY IS ATTACHED)
Rll Zoning Survey
I or we (please print) tJ."I//q !ELf.~_c:.tl:-!!-r:. r- C:d6, c __ C <> oK are the registered owner(s) of the property addressed as 70 :? ;3 g E ( C /I,f R /'l. £/.--.
Burnaby Be lilA //I '" Phone# 60'i 2 7'9 1 7 c r:?..
This property currently has R t 1 zoning and I (we):
I V] ARE IN FAVOUR OF HAVING THE PROPERTY CHANGED TO THE ORIGINAL R2 ZONING
Property Owner's signature(s) 14,. d'~ dated~/'1 I? dOl,,! 7
. jJ~ date ~ I \{ l;y:{ t.(!!j<..( I
D ARE IN FAVOUR OF HAVING THE PROPERTY REMAINING IN THE Rll ZONING
Property Owner's signature(s), ___________ date __ _
___________ date, __ _
Depending on the outcome of this survey would yo~ interested in being contacted to participate in the rezoning process, ~ .
Please leave a comment:
22
-~ ... ~-------.-. ----------
, \ ,
~ City of ~Burnaby
Office of the City Clerk S. Cleave, Deputy City Clerk
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: CHAIR AND MEMBERS DATE:2014 JUNE 16 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
FROM: DEPUTY CITY CLERK FILE: 024\0-20
SUBJECT: REZONING APPLICATIONS 2450 ALPHA AVENUE REZONING REFERENCE #14-11 (ITEM NO. 03 OF NO. 06, MANAGER'S REPORTS, COUNCIL MEETING 2014 JUNE 09)
Burnaby City Council, at the Open Council meeting held on 2014 June 09, received the above noted report containing the following recommendations:
1. "THAT a copy of this report be sent to the owner of2460 Alpha Avenue for their information.
2. THAT the Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan Land Use Concept Sketch be amended to reflect the RM4(s) designation for the Sub-area 4 Succession Area bounded by Dawson Street, BNR Rail Line, Alpha Avenue and Beta Avenue, as outlined in Section 3.2 ofthis report.
3. THAT the Planning and Building Department be authorized to work with the applicant towards the preparation of a suitable plan of development for presentation to a Public Hearing on the understanding that a more detailed report will be submitted at a later date."
Council referred recommendation 2 to the City's Community Development Committee for review.
Council subsequently adopted recommendations 1 and 3.
f- C/!o~~sZ~ SId Cleave Deputy City Clerk .
SC:rj
23
4949 Canada Way, Burnaby, BC V5G 1M2 .:. Telephone 604-294-7290 Pax 604-294·7537 .:. www.burnaby.ca
CITY OF BURNABY
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFERENCE #14-11 2014 JUNE 09
ITEM #03
1.0. GENERAL INFORMATION
1.1 Applicant: Solterra Acquisition Corp. 460 Fraser View Place Delta, BC V3M 6H4 (Attention: Mike Bosa)
1.2 Subject: Application for the rezoning of:
From:
To:
Lot 22, D.L. 124, Group 1, NWD Plan 3343
M2 General Industrial District
CD Comprehensive Development District (based on RM4s Multiple Family Residential District and Brentwood Town Centre Plan guidelines)
1.3 Address: 2450 Alpha Avenue
1.4 Location: The subject site is located on the east side of Alpha Avenue between Dawson Street and Alaska Street (Sketch #1 attaclted);
1.5 Size: The site is square in shape with a width of approximately 61.57 m (202 ft.), a depth of approximately 62.73 m (206 ft.), and an area of approximately 3,862.29 m2 (41,573 sq:ft.).
1.6 Services: The Director Engineering will be requested to provide all relevant servicing information. .
1.7 Rezoning The purpose of the proposed rezoning bylaw amendment is to permit Purpose: the construction of a high-rise .residential building with a low-rise
residential podium.
2.0 NEIGHBOURHOOD CHARACTERISTICS
The subject site is .comprised of one lot, which is currently occupied by an older industrial building. Directly to the north and east are older industrial buildings with Dawson Street and Beta Avenue beyond. To the west across Alpha Avenue are older industrial buildings with Willingdon AVenue beyond. Directly to the south is the Carter Motors auto body facility with the BNSF Rail Line beyond. Vehicular access to the site is from Alpha Avenue.
21
'"
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFERENCE #14-11 2014 June 09 ...................... PAGE 2
3.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
3.1 The subject site is within the Council adopted Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan area and is designated Succession. The Brentwood ToWn. Centre Development Plan defines "Succession Areas" as those sites' having existing industrial development, but which are proposed for eventual transition to multiple-family residential. At the time of the Plan's adoption in 1996, the prevailing industrial sites within the Succession Areas were anticipated to remain for the medium to long term. With implementation of the plan over the past eighteen years, the noted medium-long term planning horizon for these areas expected to transition from industrial to residential use under the adopted Plan is becoming increasingly relevant.
(
The first designated Succession Area to redevelop for residential use was located south of Dawson Street between Gilmore Avenue and Madison Avenue (see Figure #1). As anticipated under the adopted Plan, the specific land use designation, form and density of development was determined through the site specific rezoning process. . The initial rezoning applications within this area (Rezoning References #02-24 and #02-38) detennined that a designation under the RM3 District, as a guideline, would enable these sites to develop appropriately with residential high-rise apartments, consistent with the vision of the adopted Town Centre Plan. The high-rise residential form arose from the density available under the RM3 District, and the site's consolidation with redundant Be Hydro lands to the south. This supported the conversion of the BC Hydro lands to public parkway/transmission cOlTidor use, through a statutolY right-of-way, and enabled ( development density to be transferred into the high -rise tower form. In addition, this fOlm reflects the provision of 'above grade' parking, located within the lower-rise commercial/residential building fOlms. The accommodation of 'above grade' rather than underground parking was in response to groundwater and geotechnical conditions.
Figure #1
t.
25
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFERENCE #14-11 2014 June 09 ... .............. , .... PAGE 3
The second Succe~sion Area to advance was bound by Gilmore Avenue, Douglas Road and Halifax Street (see Figure #1). Through Rezoning Reference #07-59 it was determined that, commensurate with the land use designation across Halifax Street to the south, the use of the RM51RM5s District would be appropriate, allowing for the development of high-rise residential and low-rise apartments and townhousing, with underground parking. The matters related to groundwater and geotechnical conditions for the first Succession Area, were not a concern for this higher elevation second S1,lccession Area. .
The remaining Succession Areas within the Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan are located south of Dawson Street between Madison Avenue and Beta Avenue; and west of Beta Avenue between Lougheed Highway and Dawson Street, and are identified within Sub-areas I to 5 on Figure #1.
In' accordance with the City's established approach, the specific zoning designation, density and form for Successions Areas is considered as part of the rezoning process. Each Sub-area (shown as Sub-area 1 to 5 on Figure #1) is expected to be considered as a whole, on receipt of the first application within the area. As such, this application will address Sub-area 4. Considerations. for this Sub-area are expected to be equally ap!!>licable to the remaining Sub-areas, as they come forward for consideration of rezoning in future.
In determining the appropriate zoning designation, density and form to be applied to the subject Sub-area, staff have reviewed factors related to:
• massing and urban form; • geotechnical, groundwater and other sub-surface conditions; and, • potential off-site and servicing impacts.
The following is a sununary of the Planning Department's review of Sub-area 4.
3.1.1 Building MaSSing and Urban Form
Independent for the subject rezoning application, staff completed a detailed massing analysis of each of the remaining Succession Sub-areas. The analysis was completed to assist in determining the. appropriate development density in relation to desired lot consolidations, site access requirements, building layout, off-site shadow impacts, and overall sightlines from the Brentwood Town Centre.
Specific considerations for Sub-area 4 included an assessment of the overall height and bulk of buildings that would arise from potential development densities available under the RM3, RM4, RM5 and related's' sub-category districts. The review also considered the impact of building massing and height on sightlines to the south toward Metrotown from the core area of the Town Centre, and on shadows cast on public spaces including Dawson Street and the proposed SchoollPark Site south-east of Beta Avenue and Dawson
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFERENCE #14-11
'2014June 09 ...................... PAGE 4
Street. The analysis within Sub-area 4 demonstrated that buildings in the range of 15 to 30 storey storeys in height, with building floor plates of between 6,500 sq.ft. and 8,500 sq.ft., could be acconunodated, while respecting sightlines from the core areas of the Town Centre and minimizing off-site shadowing impacts. '
An important consideration in the analysis of building massing and form is the acconunodation of on-site parking suitable to meet the needs of an overall development. As noted earlier in this report, the groundwater and geotechnical conditions in the area, generally south of Dawson Street, are an important consideration that affects building form and massing. Specifically, the limitations to achieving 'underground' parking, results in a need to acconunodate parking 'above-grade' within structure. This resulting 'above grade' parking results ill greater building massing that needs to be considered in the overall built form and site treatment. Further discussion of groundwater and geotechnical conditions is provided in the following section of this report.
(
For Sub-area 4, groundwater and geotechnical inforination also results in an expected requirement for 'above grade' parking. This parking form would typically be screened and incorporated into the building treatment by fronting the structure with residential units. This is the approach that was used in the first Succession Area on Dawson Street between Gilmore and Madison Avenues. From, an urban design viewpoint, podiums accommodating above-grade parking structures, and the residential uses that screen them, should not exceed 4-storeys in height. The 4-storey limit is considered appropriate particularly as these sites are expected to have relatively high building site coverage ( arising from the need to acconunodate the cumulative footprint of both the parking stl1lcture, as well as the residential use on site.
While podium building fOlms of more than 4-storeys in i),eight are technically possible, the resulting built form would create a heavily shadowed streetscape, dominated by building forms that would be, out of character for Brentwood, and Burnaby generally. The resulting forms would have a significant impact the quality of the pedestrian related environment, the overall streets,cape, and would not be conunensurate with what has been achieved through other recent developments in the Brentwood Town Centre area.
3.1.2 Geotechnical and Other Sub-surface Conditions
As indicated above, staff also took into consideration geotechnical, groundwater and other conditions for the subject site and remaining Succession Areas. Staff conducted an analysis of information available on sub-surface site conditions related to soil conditions, groundwater, and environmental contamination arising from past developments and inquiries.' All available geotechnical and Phase I Site Investigation reports for the Succession Areas, and nearby sites, south of Dawson were reviewed. The purpose ofthis consideration was to determine the appropriate response to any limitations related to the area's redevelopment for multiple-family housing.
While specific details related to site conditions vary across the Succession Areas, the review identified that there is a consistent characteristic to soil profiles and groundwater
27
· \
28
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFERENCE #14-11 2014 June 09 " .......... " ... " ... PAGE 5
levels in the area south of Dawson Street. Generally, the sub-surface conditions consist of fill, substantial peat and glacial till deposits. South of Dawson Street, the proportion of peat soils in relation to glacial till soils increases substantially, which contributes to soft soil conditions.
Further, within the peat layer there are high levels of groundwater, with groundwater prevalent within 1.0 m of the surface. In. some circumstances, groundwater has been found to be contaminated due to historical fill and industrial uses within the area. These conditions do not preclude high-rise residential development from a foundational and structural standpoint, but do significantly restrict the ability to construct multiple-levels of underground parking needed to support higher densities.
To address this issue, the typical approach to the construction of underground parking, in areas of high groundwater, is to require the groundwater to be captured along the edges of the parking structure, and where it cannot be infiltrated back into the soil, it must be pumped into the City's stormwater system. Furthermore, where groundwater requires some level of treatment, the wat.er is typically pumped into the Citx's sanitary sewer system. In this area, the City's storm mains, sanitary mains and sanitary pump stations have not been designed to accommodate groundwater flows resulting from such development, and would likely result in the surcharging of City infrastructure. Furthermore, the installation of underground parking structures within areas of high groundwater, or the ,!;Ie-watering' of the land base, can result in groundwater displacement or level changes, leading to differential settlement and/or flooding of adjacent properties and infrastructure.
These issues, however, are substantially addressed, through the provision of above grade parking structures and other foundation configurations tllat allow for the continued maintenance of existing groundwater levels and groundwater flows through development sites. Subject to specific conditions for individual sites, to be reviewed as part of each development, there may be the potential for one to two levels of underground parking in some locations, where soil and groundwater conditions permit.
For Sub-area 4, these site conditions are expected to result in a development pattem with a mix of partial underground parking and above ground parking to support multiplefamily development within this area. As noted above, in order to maintain high quality urban design standards, an engaging street front presence, and minimal shadowing of public spaces, such parking structures would be faced with residential units, to a maximum of 4-storeys. This will appropriately screen the parking and contribute to an acceptable development form. .
In telms of supportable development density, this form of parldllg is about 50% less efficient as compared to full underground parking, as the full site area is not available to accommodate the parking structure above-grade. This is due to the fact that area available for above grade parking is affected by the residential uses, and necessary setbacks, that will front or screen the required parking. This impacts the development
PLANNING AND BUILDING . REZONING REFERENCE #14-11 2014 June 09 ...................... PAGE 6
potential of sites as this form becomes an effective limit to the number of parking stalls that can suitably be accommodated above-grade.
This analysis of site conditions undertaken for Sub-area 4, and for the Succession Areas south of Dawson generally, has concluded that the highest residential densities (RM5s) are not considered suitable or feasible. This is due to the outcome that this density designation would very likely exceed what can be feasibly constructed on a site, without generating undue or unmitigated off-site impacts. Such a designation would also, in turn, result in the overvaluing of sites relative to what can be constnlCted, with a longer term impact on transactions of property and future redevelopment activity in the area.
3.2 Sub-area 4 Development Guidelines
Based on the foregoing analysis, consideration was given to the RM3s, RM4s and RM5s Districts, as potential density options for Sub-area 4. Consideration was also given to the extension of the various development density options across the remaining Succession Areas~ Consistent with the prevailing development fonn within the Town Centre, mid to high-rise residential apartments with street oriented low-rise podium residential, and/or mixed-use development, is considered desirable.
Given the.variation of site sizes and unconsolidated ownership of individual lots within the Subarea, the use of the RM3 s District as a guideline, similar to that west of Madison Avenue, is not considered feasible or desirable, as it would likely result in a long term pattern of sporadic lowscaled multiple-family development adjacent to remaining industrial uses. Furthermore, it has been noted that land values for a majority of the sites within the Brentwood Town Centre have exceeded RM3s values, which would result in few transactions or redevelopment should the lands be designated to this district. Nor would this district support the desired Town Centre development fonn of mid to high-rise residential apartments with street oriented low-rise podium residential components.
As noted, consideration was also given to the use of the highest density RM5s District, similar to the second Succession Area at Gilmore Avenue, Halifax Street and Douglas Road. This option is not supported, as noted above, due to the resulting impact on the development form arising from the need for above-grade parking. This density would generate a substantial number of larger buildings (45 storeys +) south of Dawson Street, which is not in keeping with areas outside of the core and transit nodes of the Town Centre. This approach was also found to impact site lines towards Metrotown and would result in a monolithic skyline for the Brentwood Town Centre. Concerns regarding such tower heights and their resultant shadows, especially relating to the planned SchoollPark Site east of Beta Avenue and the Dawson High Street were also a consideration.
Perhaps, the most significant outcome of the analysis was the review of geotechnical conditions south of Dawson Street and the required underground and above-grade parking needed to serve RM5s District developments. On a.single or individual site basis, these concerns may be able to be addressed by consuming the available capacities within City infrastructure, or through the (. transfer of impacts off-site. On a collective basis, however, this would have a medium term
(
( "
(
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFEReNCE #14-11 20J4June 09 ...................... PAGE 7
impact on the viability of future development of other properties in the area, with anticipated impacts on groundwater, area flooding, and differential settlement of adjacent sites.
Based on a reduced density of development, the available density of the· RM4s District was fOUlld to suitably address the issues reviewed. The densities within the RM4s District could be feasibly s,ccommodated within this Sub-area, given the specific geotechnical conditions, and are generally considered the most appropriate development densities for the Succession Areas south of Dawson Street. On this basis, the designation supported for Sub-area 4 is the RM4s District for the subject Succession AJ:ea bOUllded by Alpha A venue, Alaska Street and Beta Avenue, with the Dawson Street frontage retaining the C9 Urban Village Commercial District designation, as designated in the adopted plan.
The following provides specific development guidelines for Sub-area 4 that best meets the specific site conditions and area's intent in the COUllcii adopted Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan. In accordance with standard procedure for the definition of succession sites, the Brentwood Town Centre Plan Landuse Concept Sketch would be formally amended to reflect the RM4s District designation for Sub-area 4 upon COUllcil's adoption of this report. Public input on the rezoning application and specific design will be obtained at the time of Public Hearing.
Sub-area 4 - Dawson, Alaska, Alpha and Beta
Under these guidelines it is envisioned that the prescribed zoning would be the RM4s District, to a maximum density of. 3.6 FAR. The proposed development form for Sub-area 4 would result in a mix of 6-·8 mid to high-rise apartment buildings, depending upon the area of consolidation. The buildings could range between 15-30 storeys in· height, with low. rise podium level apartments/townhouses to a maximum of four storeys along fronting streets and ground level retail uses along Dawson Street under the C9 District
4.0 GENERAL INFORMATION
4.1 The applicant is requesting rezoning of the subject site to CD Comprehensive Development (based on the RM4s Multiple Family Residential District and Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan as guidelines) in order to permit the construction of a high-rise residential building with podium level residential apartment/townhouse units.
~3 0
Parking is expected to be provided both above grade, faced with residential Ullits, with a portion Ullderground. The maximum permitted density would be 3.6 FAR, inclusive of a 1.1 FAR amenity density bonus, based on the net site. As outlined in the Section 3.0 of this report, and the analysis undertaken, the RM4s District is considered the most appropriate district for the sites within this Sub-area, including the subject site. Upon
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFERENCE #14-11 2014 June 09 ............ .......... PAGE 8
Council approval of this report, the Brentwood Town Centre Plan would be adjusted to reflect the RM4s designation for the Succession component with the C9 designation remaining along the Dawson Street frontage of Sub-area 4.
4.2 Although the Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan does not specify assembly areas, the applicant was encouraged to acquire the property to the south at 2460 Alpha Avenue for consolidation with the subject site. It is noted that a substantial portion of 2460 Alpha Avenue is intended to be dedicated for the extension of the Alaska Street road right-of-way (see attached Sketch #2). 2460 Alpha Ave]lue is owned and operated in connection with the Carter automotive dealerships at Lougheed Highway and Willingdon Avenue, and is cUlTently used as an auto body shop. The applicant has made an effort to acquire 2460 Alpha Avenue, and has submitted correspondence to this effect. However, the owner of2460 Alpha Avenue is not a willing vendor and has noted that any future sale of the property would be connected to the sale qf the balance of the Carter automotive dealership lands. As such, given the subject site exceeds the minimum lot area and width outlined in the RM4s Multiple Family Residential District, the advancement of the rezoning application without consolidation with 2460 Alpha Avenue is considered supportable. A copy of this report will be sent to the owner of 2460 Alpha Avenue to inform them of the subject rezoning application.
Staff will continue to encourage this property's consolidation as part of the subject rezorring application. lithe owner of2460 Alpha Avenue wishes to reconsider the sale of the property for consolidation with the subject site, staff would advance a further report to Council regarding the expansion of the site prior to Public Hearing. If, however, the owner Of 2460 Alpha A venue remains unwilling to sell the property at this time, given that the resultant area of the site after dedications for road right-of-way is not sufficient for future multiple-family residential redevelopment, alternative approaches would need to be pursued in future to secure the. necessary road dedication . and construction .. This may entail the future transfer of density between other Carter automotive dealership lands' advanced for development, as appropriate. The remaining alternative would be acquisition of tile necessary road right-of-way at the time it is required to support further development in the area. . .
4.3 The Director Engineering will be requested to provide an estimate for all services necessary to serve this site. The servicing requirements for this development will include, but not necessarily be limited to:
. • the construction of Alpha Avenue to its final standard with concrete curb and gutter, separated urban trail, street trees set within rainwater management amenity areas, street ligliting and pedestrian lighting on the east side across the development's frontage; and,
• installation of a new all movements traffic signal at Alpha Avenue and Dawson Street.
(
31
'.
32
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFERENCE #14-11 2014 June 09 ...................... PAGE9
It is not anticipated that there will be any necessary dedications across the Alpha Avenue frontage. However, any necessary dedications will be determined by a detailed geometric and noted in a future report to Council.
4.4 There are no trees suitable for retention on the site. Any trees over 20cm (8 inches) in diameter will require a tree cutting permit subject to the requirements of the Burnaby Tree Bylaw.
4.5 Vehicular access to the site will be from Alpha Avenue.
4.6 Due to the subject site's proximity to the rail line, a noise study is required to ensure compliance with the Council adopted sound criteria.
4.7 Required covenants will include, but are not limited to, a restriction on the enclosure of balconies, that handicap accessible stalls remain as common property, to ensure that the development does not draw down or displace groundwater, and to ensure compliance with the approved acoustical study.
4.8 An on-site stormwater management plan is required.
4.9 In line with the City's adopted guidelines for adaptable housing, 20% of the units within the proposed development need to meet BC Building Code adaptable housing standards.
4.10 Approval by the Engineering Environmental Services Division of a detailed plan of an engineered sediment control system will be necessary at the Preliminary Plan Approval stage.
4.11 Approval by the Engineering Environmental Services Division of a suitable solid waste and resource storage facility plan will be required.
4.12 The provision of a covered car wash stall will be required. A detailed plan of the subject facility will need to be submitted to the Engineering Environmental Services Division for approval.
4.13 A Site Profile and the resolution of any arising issues will be required.
4.14 Applicable Development Cost Charges include those for Parkland Acquisition, GVS & DD Sewerage and School Site Acquisition.
4.15 The proposed prerequisite conditions to the rezoning will be included in a future report.
PLANNING AND BUILDING REZONING REFERENCE #14·11 2014 June 09 ...................... PAGE 10
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. THAT a copy of this report be sent to the owner of 2460 Alpha Avenue for their information.
2. THAT the Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan Land Use Concept Sketch be amended to reflect the RM4(s) designation for the Sub-area 4 Succession Area bounded by Dawson Street, BNR Rail Line, Alpha Avenue and Beta Avenue, as outlined in Section 3.2 of this report.
3. THAT the Planning and Building Department be authorized to work with the applicant towards the preparation of a suitable plan of development for presentation to a Public Hearing on the understanding that a more detailed i'eport will be submitted at a later date.
~I?JBS:SPf Attachments
cc: Director Engineering City Solicitor City Clerk
P:\REZONlNGlApplicationsI2014114.11 Unitial Report 14·11.doc
(
(
:33
- /
~9·AW-&e,N-s-r. J N liD : SUBJECT SITE
i (4680) ~
M~ 4554
~ 4812 ~
~ PLANJ341 [ ii( 46S0 ~
!11,la J~ ~ ~ PLAN 1645
~ ~ ~
~ ii( ~ " M w., ~
~ ~ . 117.r~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ "-
l!J " ;;! ~ ..,
'LAN35225 .. \ "N
M1 M2
< ' " , ~ ill ~ ~
~
::: ,~
" " -.-... ~ " ~ -------------~ l<l
~ ~
-~ ----------------. .......... <V-- 4U6 ,. ~ " ~ PLAN480S1
ALASKA ST -----\ ~ , lfo.Q~
, f3US
'.' !ii.,~~~===\==-"'= .::.:.::~==.:;;:.:;;:~-===--"" ------- ... _---
".~ :'" ~.J>~ .. " "f' , CD
STILL CREEK IDR , ~
, ---~~ , ...... Jail} " I ... '\ 21.1$
'''' ~, f~4l , I ....... '\ fOro
~ ,
I .......', , I ........ '\ I , ,
•
~ * City of PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT • .Burnaby
DATe:
JUNE 02 2014 . REZONING REFERENCE #14-11
SCALE: 2450 ALPHA AVENUE 1:2,000 r--
DRAWN ev: L I Subject Site o Sub-area 4 AY
_.0
Sketch #1
.------.-.-.~---.. ~~~~-
--------------~ -----
III iHH;r:::rc Wr l~Rr=1 GR"'''' n J ~ c=J c::::J Ii c::! t=J
r TIT TI I I Ilnl '111111 I I r TT
3
14
r-..:~ r 7 ~ 12
I- '-" 5 7
-4
IS,~_4-1I.i ~
-
L 7
14
4 7
f 5 BUCHANAN
'6 7 I'
J_-l,..~
11-1 11111 II h
111I 11111 Vi V
3
5
7
6 6
1---1_6 _1.J...j1~1-6~ 8
8
(
~
SUBJECT SITE -//--1 I ~fo. (
IIIMedJum Density Multiple Family Residential
WHigh Density Multiple Family Residential
[]]Commercial
/j]Medium Density Mixed Use
[1J High Density Mixed Use
~ Cit,vll/b oq.T-BuTnay . and Building Dept
Printed June 03, 2014
[!] Medium or High Density Multi Family Res[dential
[1Q] Institutional
!ill Business Centre
[!gJ Park and Public Use/Public School
1M] Cemetery
Brentwood Plan 1:5,798
Sketch #2
(
(
l,
~3 5
I', .. Mike Bosa, Vice President Development and Acquisitions SoltelTa Acquisition Corp. 460 Fraserview Place Delta, BC, V3M 6H4 604-528-6010
Lou Pelletier, Director City of Burnaby Planning Department 4949 Canada Way BW'naby, BC V5G 1M2
Re: Rezoning Letter of Intent 2450 Alpha Avenue' Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan
460 Fraser View Place DeUa, .British Columbia Canada V3M 6H4
T,604,528,6010 F, 604,522,1604
www.solterradev.com
April 15 2014
I, Mike Bosa, on behalf of SoltelTa Acquisition Corp., have submitted this application to rezone 2450 Alpha Avenue from the current M2 General Industrial District to the CD Comprehensive Development District utilizing RM4s Multiple Family District and Brentwood Town Centre Development Plan as guidelines. The intent of this rezoning application is to permit the development of a 31 storey apartment building with residential podium and underground parking.
Thank you for your consideration of this rezoning request, we look forward to working with the City towards the approval of this rezoning application.
Sincerely
- ------ "_._ .....
ike Bosa, Vice President Development and Acquisitions Solterra Acquisition Corp.
