From her north-facing fourth-level condo, Dawn McLaren enjoys an enviable view of the city’s downtown skyline and mountains beyond. But her downtown skyline view may disappear if a development application is approved.
And, after delving into the complicated world of zoning to figure out what’s allowed and what isn’t, McLaren’s not happy. Neither are her neighbours.
McLaren bought the unit in the Greenwich East building, located mid-block on West Fifth between Cypress and Burrard, 14 months ago.
Before the purchase, she called the city to find out what development was possible in the neighbourhood. She said she was told the property at the northwest corner of Fifth and Burrard could be redeveloped, but it was zoned for approximately three storeys, although more storeys might be allowed based on certain conditions. If a taller building was approved, McLaren said she was told it likely wouldn’t go any higher than four storeys due to the small size of the property and other considerations.
Orr Development has since filed an application to construct a five-storey mixed-use building with an elevator overrun on the roof. McLaren noted the initial application envisioned a six-storey building. (She also noted the Urban Design Panel suggested the applicant consider adding an indoor amenity space and common outdoor space on the roof.)
Since the development application is conditional according to existing zoning, it may be permitted, but must go before the Development Permit Board Feb. 23 for approval.
If the building height is allowed, McLaren’s downtown skyline view and that of many other condo owners in Greenwich East and West will be obstructed.
That possibility frustrates them. They’re troubled by the complicated rules on zoning, the limitations and conditions for relaxations, and the lack of clear upper limits for building heights. They’re also not happy with the overall architecture and design of the proposed building and McLaren questions why an application that goes beyond height restrictions is permitted to go through the approval process if it doesn’t appear to offer anything to the neighbourhood in return.
“The biggest frustration has really been trying to figure out what are the rules. Are there rules? Because it seems that if you want to develop something and if you want to go higher, bigger, deeper, whatever, that there are exceptions made on the basis that you’re providing some sort of amenity or some sort of tradeoff,” she said. “In this case it’s like, well, I just want to go higher.”
To unravel the rules, the Courier spoke to Anita Molaro, the city’s assistant director of urban design.
Molaro said there are two “layers” to zoning, the first being outright provisions, which in this case is 1.0 FSR (floor space ratio) and a height of 9.2 metres (about three storeys), the second is the conditional or discretionary layer.
“[It means] if you meet all these objectives, we can consider more density — so up to 3.0 FSR and we can further increase the height,” she said. “The zoning in C-3A doesn’t put a limit on what that height is. We have to go to the accompanying guideline.”
Guidelines advise staff on how to exercise the discretionary aspects of the zoning and how the building should perform or respond in a particular area.
Guidelines for the Burrard site state that to preserve views buildings should generally be a maximum height of 13.7 metres, measured at the south property line, or five storeys, whichever is less.
But guidelines, Molaro noted, are simply guidelines — they’re not zoning bylaws.
“Because it’s a guideline, we have to look at the site conditions and the other influencing factors that can inform how the building is shaped on that site. I get that it’s not black and white. For most people that can be very challenging, but most of our zones in the City of Vancouver have a level of discretion. The only zone that is a pure outright zone is RS-1 — single-family. But even Dunbar, which is RS-5 has a conditional aspect to it.”
Molaro added there are six-storey buildings on Burrard built under the same zoning provisions. She called C-3A zoning a “very flexible zoning.”
But staff do consider the impact of a proposed building’s bulk and height on neighbours, according to Molaro, which is why a developer is required to submit a view analysis.
The analysis is part of the information that helps inform staff’s recommendation to the DVP. That report is being drafted and is expected to be on the city’s website around Feb. 19.
“[The process] may be complicated, but at the end of the day, we’d like to think we’re ultimately getting better building design as a result.
That’s the ultimate goal — better building design and better overall design,” Molaro said.
McLaren is not satisfied by answers she’s received from the city. And she thinks her and her neighbours’ concerns illustrate a larger issue in Vancouver.
“If you don’t have clearly defined limits and regulations and conditions, things get out of hand. Why wouldn’t they?” she said, given the “mania” for density. “There seems to be so much attention for what we’re building and almost no concern for the people that are already there.”
