City of Vancouver
Search
Help

Development Permit Board Information

Planning Information

Development Permit Board and Advisory Panel
Minutes
For: Monday, January 23, 2012

Index

1616 WEST 7TH AVENUE – DE415285– ZONE C-3A (click here to read the report)

Minutes
Motion

100 JACKSON AVENUE – DE414592 – ZONE DEOD (click here to read the report)

Minutes
Motion

Present

Board

Advisory Panel

Regrets

ALSO PRESENT:

City Staff:

1616 WEST 7TH AVENUE – DE415285– ZONE C-3A

100 JACKSON AVENUE – DE414592 – ZONE DEOD

Recording Secretary: L. Harvey

[top]

1. MINUTES

It was moved by Mr. Toderian seconded by Mr. Judd and was the decision of the Board to approve the minutes of the meeting on December 12, 2011 with the correction of some minor typographical errors.

2. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES

None.

3. 1616 WEST 7TH AVENUE – DE415127 – ZONE C-3A
(COMPLETE APPLICATION)

Applicant: Solterra Development Corp.

Request:  To construct an 11-storey Multiple Dwelling building containing forty-six (46) dwelling units, two levels of underground parking, and covered parking spaces at grade with all parking accessed from the lane south of West 7th Avenue, using a Heritage Density Transfer of 1,323.0 square feet from donor site at 135 Keefer Street and 1,500.0 square feet from donor site at 163 West Hastings Street.

Development Planner’s Opening Comments
Dale Morgan, Development Planner, introduced the application located in the C-3A District, Burrard Slopes.  It proposes an 11-storey residential tower containing 46 units and two levels of underground parking.  A height of 108 feet to the roof parapet and a density of 3.29 FSR including a 10% heritage density transfer are also proposed. Mr. Morgan noted that the application was reviewed twice by the Urban Design Panel. 

Mr. Morgan explained that the C-3A zoning district is one of the largest high density zones in the city, stretching along most of the length of the Broadway Corridor and much of the surrounding neighbourhoods.  The application is located in Burrard Slopes which is located below West Broadway and between Burrard and Granville Streets.  The over arching urban design objective for Burrard Slopes is to reinforce the sloping landforms with higher building heights starting at the flats, accentuating the sloping ground while deferring to the higher heights along the ridge line of the Broadway Corridor.  Mr. Morgan further explained that in terms of use, the residential uses predominate while coexisting with the older low rise commercial uses.

Mr. Morgan noted that the proposed height and density is supported by staff for achieving the desired urban form subject to earning of these increases.  The height is comparable to the surrounding context.  He further explained that the building massing and siting are highly prescriptive in the Burrard Slopes sub area with limits on building widths for the low/medium and higher massing, maximum lengths and sizes of floor plates, separation distances between neighbouring tower forms in addition to yard setbacks.

Mr. Morgan explained that the consensus of the Urban Design Panel’s review was that the massing was overly complicated given the building’s relatively small size and needed further design development to simplify the massing into a more coherent form.

Mr. Morgan reviewed the recommendations contained in the Staff Committee Report dated January 11, 2012.  The recommendation was for support of the proposal, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Committee Report.

Questions/Discussion
In response to questions raised by the Board and Panel, the following clarifications were provided by Mr. Morgan:

• Greenways are streets designated to encourage alternate modes of transportation for both commuting and recreational uses and include upgrades to the public realm such as special paving, street furniture, and bikes racks.
• One of the key aspects of greenways is to limit the amount of vehicular traffic through the application of appropriate traffic calming measures such as traffic circles and diverters.
• The applicant has provided a diagram that shows the basic elements of the proposal including the vertical shafts at different heights. 
• The overall height of the building is 108 feet in consideration of view impacts.
• The intent of Condition 1.1 is that the massing could be a little stronger and there could also be a reduction in the amount of material finishes. 
• Staff felt that the articulation could be better handled with a recommendation to the applicant to have more variation in the height.
• The visitor parking stalls were added as a result of the additional ground level space due to the parking ramp design on this sloping site.
• The Urban Design Panel reviewed the proposal twice and the massing was changed after the first review.
• Residential storage is excluded in the FSR.
• The Bicycle Advisory Committee or its designate Committee reviews all development applications situated on a Bikeway to provide commentary on impacts to bike infrastructure or building improvements for cyclists.
• The applicant volunteered to pursue LEED™ Silver.
• All roof forms are highly visible from surrounding buildings and the green roof will make the overlook as pleasant as possible.
• Extensive green roofs cover the whole roof while intensive green roofs means the plantings are in containers.

Applicant’s Comments
Craig Marcyniuk, with Solterra Development Corporation, had a number of questions for staff.  Their intent is to simplify the colour of the materials including a hint of green in the spandrel.  He remarked that they will provide the knock out panel but wanted some assurance from staff that there weren’t any legal agreements they would need to sign.  Mr. Greer replied that was not required.  Regarding Condition 1.3.3, Mr. Marcyniuk said he thought they were already at the 8% maximum for balcony space but would be willing to take another look at increasing their size.  He explained that with an extensive green roof they wouldn’t be able to apply a warranty to the purchasers and that is the reason for the intensive green roof instead.  Mr. Marcyniuk said they were supportive of having urban agriculture along the street edge.  As well he said their intent is to meet the requirements for bike parking. 

Gwyn Bose, Architect said they accepted the condition in the Staff Committee Report.

Senga Lindsay, Landscape Architect, explained that Condition A.1.25 was going to be difficult to achieve as the amenity space is narrow and already programmed for a barbeque, eating and a fireplace.
Questions/Discussion
In response to questions raised by the Board and Panel, the following clarification was provided by the applicant team:

• The colours on the building may leave a negative impression with the amount of beige proposed, however there is a grass green spandrel planned that will brighten the palette.
• The balconies are reasonable in size but the intent of the condition in the Staff Committee Report is to provide enough open space for every unit.
• It is possible to put the bike parking and bike repair in the storage space adjacent to the amenity space.
• The floor plan had no significant change when the massing was redesigned.
• Vines will be planted on the base of the building in front of the larger planter beds.
• The planters will contain edible plants.
• There will be a roof garden on top of the parkade.

Comments from other Speakers
Steve Cronk, real estate agent and area resident, was concerned with the amount of density developing in the area.  He said there were already parking issues and thought the heritage density transfer should not be allowed for this development as it could have a negative impact on the neighbourhood.

Marilyn McKey, resident in the area, was concerned with the increase in density.  She said she thought the quality of life was not increasing and neither were the public amenities.  She did not support the development.

Ann Dwyer, lives on the opposite block.  She said there were lots of buildings but not enough greenery.  She said that another building would cause a traffic nightmare in the area.

Cathy Hochachka, lives in the area.  She was concerned with the number of towers coming to the area was concerned with liveability.  She urged the Board to reconsider approving the project.

Panel Opinion
Mr. Romses noted that the application had been reviewed by the Urban Design Panel twice and were pleased with the evolution of the project.  The first presentation was not supported because the Panel thought there was a lack of clarity in the architecture. He added that the Panel liked the general approach to the building noting that it was a difficult project.  Mr. Romses said he agreed with the intent in the condition to make the concept and the vertical shafts stronger.  Given the fact that there is a limit on height, he suggested that the density could be put on some of the lower vertical shafts.  He added that he was concerned with the wording in Condition 1.1 as he thought the massing could be strengthened rather than simplified.  He also said he was concerned with the introduction of the grass green spandrels which could date the building. 

Mr. Rafii thought it was a nicely massed project especially compared to some of the surrounding buildings.  He noted that it was a tough site with the slope but thought the applicant had done a commendable job to minimize the building so that the building to the south keep most of the their views.  He said he couldn’t support the grass green spandrels since he didn’t get to see a sample.  He said he supported a massing change as long as it didn’t impact the floor plate. 

Ms. Bozorgzadeh agreed with Mr. Romses who said he was concerned with the introduction of the grass green spandrels which can be dated through time. She emphasized that in general she does not agree with using strong colors on buildings, specifically towers in densified areas because the expression will be very busy and cluttered with a dissonance of color.  However she supported the subtle colors chosen by the project architect.  She had some concerns regarding the entrance to the parking from the lane which supports the intention of the Engineering Department trying not to disturb the Greenway.  She felt this creates a problem, which is the 10 foot vertical/angular commute of cars going up and down the ramp which will create lots of emissions instead of going through an entrance from the lower level at the Greenway which would have a less negative impact.

Ms. Miletic-Prelovac said she was a big supporter for urban agriculture as it increased liveability and better air.  She added that plants are also useful as a traffic noise buffer.  Ms. Miletic-Prelovac said she would like to have seen an extensive green roof and not just planters.  She was also not in support of stronger colours as they might not blend in with the surrounding buildings.  She added that she thinks Vancouverites are afraid of colour.  Ms. Miletic-Prelovac said she was in support of the application.

Mr. Sanderson said he was in support of the project and thought it was reasonably well designed.  It responds to the site and respects the adjacent properties in its massing.  He said he liked the use of the different colours of the concrete and the direction of lighting up the building.  He added that he was confident that staff, the architect and the developer would work to resolve the design issues.

Mr. Biazi thought the architect had done a good job with the overall massing of the site which kept most of the units away from the bridge.  He wasn’t sure about the overall expression of the building regarding colour as he thought it was a subjective matter.  He did however think that the city could benefit from developers taking more risks.  He added that he would like to see bolder colours on the building as well as a condition to have the surface colours revised.

Board Discussion
Mr. Toderian stated that it is the nature of the Board to look at the architecture and not the density in this part of the city as that was already decided by Council.  The Board makes its decision after the zoning is already in place and asks if the schemes and strategies have been properly addressed.  He added that he appreciated the broader commentary and the need for certainty in the area but this is the area where more density is planned.  This will help move the city towards more sustainable modes of transportation.  Regarding public benefits, Mr. Toderian noted that the City is trying to make sure that the greenways and public parks are improved.  He added that the residents have the opportunity to let the City know if they are keeping up with amenity expectations through the capital budgeting process.

Mr. Toderian said he was generally complimentary of the project.  Regarding the architecture, he thought the parti of the building needed to be clarified to strengthen the project. He added that he thought the architect was looking to have something visually appealing but was concerned with the colour palette.  He remarked that he sees a lot of beige in the area and didn’t want to see another beige building.  He said he didn’t think Vancouverites were afraid of colour but that the developers and their marketers were afraid of colour on buildings.  Mr. Toderian moved the motion and made amendments to the conditions in the Staff Committee Report.

Mr. Judd seconded Mr. Toderian’s motion and made a friendly amendment to Condition A.1.1 regarding bike parking and storage which was accepted by Mr. Toderian.

Mr. Johnston was not present for the motion.

Motion

It was moved by Mr. Toderian and seconded by Mr. Judd and was the decision of the Board:

THAT the Board APPROVE Development Application No. DE415127, in accordance with the Staff Committee Report dated January 11, 2012, with the following amendments:           

Amend Condition 1.1 to read as follows:
design development to the massing to improve and clarify the architectural form;

Note to Applicant: The basic massing, seen as a series of vertical stacks of varying heights, has the potential to be strengthened and clarified. Options might involve introducing more variety and height at the mid-rise and roof top to further emphasize the massing concept and contribute to a more visually interesting skyline.  This might be achieved through reallocation of massing without additional height notwithstanding height exclusion provisions for roof top appurtenances. The eventual design should still express an articulated and highly visually interesting massing.

Amend Condition 1.2 to read as follows:
design development to enhance the expression through a lighter, more contemporary and visually interesting colour palette with contrasting accents and with further simplification of material treatment to better compliment the massing;

Note to Applicant: The building should have one dominant lighter, visually interesting and contemporary colour with greater contrasting accents. Similarly, there should be one dominant material finish that unifies and reinforces the massing concept.

Amend Condition 1.3.3 to read as follows:
enlarging the balconies to conform as close as possible to the minimum floor area guideline requirements, within the 8% exception;

Note to Applicant: Balconies should be a minimum of 50 square feet and a minimum 6.5 feet where ever possible, subject to the 8% exception in the by-law.

Amend Condition 1.4 to read as follows:
design development to provide intensive green roof and planter/landscaping treatment to all accessible roof levels;             

Note to Applicant:  All accessible roofs should have intensive green roofs and landscaping aspects at the roof perimeter and be well integrated with the architectural treatment.

Delete Conditions 1.3.5 and 1.3.6.

Text correction on page 10 of the Staff Committee Report, paragraph 5: “view impacts from points north” should read “view impacts from points south”.

Text correction on page 11 of the Staff Committee Report, paragraph 2: “building directly to the northwest of the site” should read “building directly to the southwest of the site”.

Delete Condition A.1.5.

Renumber Conditions A.1.6 to A.1.10 to A.1.5 to A.1.9.
           
Delete Condition A.1.11.          

Amend Condition A.1.10 (new Condition A.1.9) to read as follows:
provision of bicycle parking in accordance with Section 6 of the Parking By-law as follows:

i. at least 20 percent of the Class A bicycle spaces must be bicycle lockers;

Note to Applicant: Bicycle lockers, in accordance with Section 6.3.18 – Bicycle Locker Design and Security, of the Parking By-law, should be graphically represented with doors for easier identification on the floor plans.

ii. a maximum of 30 percent of the required Class A bicycle spaces may be vertical; and

iii. a minimum of six (6) Class B bicycle spaces are required to be provided on site.

Note to applicant:  All portions of the Class B bike spaces are to be contained wholly on private property. Currently all 4 Class B bicycle spaces on the plans are over City Property.

iv. provision of door openers on the bicycle room doors to hold the door open and facilitate greater ease of entry/exit for cyclists; and

v. consideration to repurpose the space currently identified as storage room adjacent to the amenity space to additional bike parking and bike repair space. 

Renumber Conditions A.1.11 to A.1.25 to A.1.09 to A.1.23.

3. 100 JACKSON AVENUE – DE414592 – ZONE DEOD
(COMPLETE APPLICATION)

Applicant: ATIRA Woman’s Resource Society

Request:  Construct two, 3-storey multiple dwelling (Social Housing) buildings containing a total 12 self-contained units of approximately 324 square feet each utilizing pre-existing shipping containers.

Development Planner’s Opening Comments
Scot Hein, Development Planner, introduced the application and he noted that there is a relaxation for parking.  With respect to urban design and architectural design, Mr. Hein explained that given the small scale of the application staff felt it wasn’t necessary to take the application to the Urban Design Panel.  He said they believe it is a good project and will be well constructed.  It is an innovative proposal and hopes that the City will consider this kind of format for other projects. Container housing is an interesting possibility for housing opportunities and lower construction costs. 

James Boldt, Heritage Planer, described the heritage aspects of the project.  The site contains two heritage buildings which are associated with the earliest European settlement of the area and the first industrial development of the waterfront.  The J.B. Henderson House at 502 Alexander Street is now known to be originally associated with the Hastings Mill which existed nearby and the Hastings Mill Store, the oldest surviving building in the city.  The house is currently listed in the “C” evaluation category on the Vancouver heritage Register (VHC), but the “C” status reflects several errors made in establishing its age when it was added to the Register in the mid 1980’s.  As part of this application, analysis was conducted by staff, the applicant and local historians, and it is now known that it was built sometime between 1887 and 1889 and that it is a candidate for the oldest or second oldest surviving house in the city.

The “Old Sailors Home” at 120 Jackson Street (originally 500 Alexander Street) is a 2-storey brick building constructed in 1912.  It served as a convalescent home for sailors for over 30 years and is known by this name.  It was designed by William Tuff Whiteway, a notable Vancouver Architect who also designed the Sun Tower in the same year.  The building is listed in the “B” category on the Vancouver Heritage Register.  It was recently voluntarily renovated in a manner which is consistent with good rehabilitation practice. Both resources are valued for their connection to the early development of the waterfront.

For the proposal, staff have concluded, based on reports provided by the applicant, that retention of the house is not viable to allow for the development as proposed because of the shortfall in the number of dwelling units and the potential loss of revenue (rent) which would be provided by these units and which is necessary to make the project economical viable. Mr. Boldt explained that in the interest of heritage conservation, as well as the reduction in building waste from demolition, Condition 1.1 in the Staff Committee Report requires the applicant to submit a report which documents efforts to retain, relocate, re-use, and if this is not viable, to salvage or deconstruct the house.  He added that in consideration of the loss of the J.B. Henderson House, Condition 1.2 in the Staff Committee Report also requires that the owner agree to protect the “Old Sailors Home”.

Abigail Bond, Assistant Director of Housing Policy, spoke on why the City’s Housing Department is supporting the recommendations as outlined in the Staff Committee Report.  One of Council’s priorities is to end homelessness by 2015 and also creating new affordable housing choices.  Ms. Bond noted that the application for twelve additional social housing units is therefore considered an important contribution for the city.  Specifically the Housing and Homelessness Strategy 2012-2021 calls for an additional 5,032 housing units including 1,000 single room occupancy replacement units.  This proposal meets current policy objectives and also contributes to the goals of the Downtown Eastside Housing Plan. 

Ms. Bond explained that the Downtown Oppenheimer ODP specifically requires a minimum of 20% new social housing for the site. The ODP defines the 20% social housing requirement as residential units purchased by a government or non-profit housing group using available government funding for housing senior citizens, handicapped persons or individuals and families of low income.  ATIRA as a non-profit housing provider has met and exceeded the 20% ODP requirement by providing 100% self-contained social housing at this site through the provision of the twelve container housing units. 

Ms. Bond added that Downtown Eastside Housing Plan also calls for revitalization of social mix without the loss of low income housing stock and the improvements to existing SRO buildings as well as a one for one replacement of SROs as self contained social housing. 

In March 2011, Council approved single room accommodation for ATIRA at the Imouto House located on the site to allow the alteration to the interior and exterior of eighteen units and allow demolition of four units.  ATIRA agreed to enter into a Housing Agreement with the City to rent these eighteen units at a monthly rent no greater than the shelter component of welfare which is currently $375.  The renovation of the eighteen units at Imouto House delivers on the Downtown Eastside Housing Plan by approving SRO units.  It added improved capacity to the vital low income housing stock as the rents will be kept at $375.  The loss of the four SRO units is offset by these additional twelve self-contained social housing units.

Regarding youth homelessness, Ms. Bond noted the 2011 Regional Homeless Council went over the reduction of homelessness in Vancouver an noted a 66% reduction in street homelessness from 2010 and an 82% reduction from 2008.  However there was an increasing trend towards youth homelessness in Vancouver for youth under 24 years of age of 32% since 2008 and 19% since 2010. 

The provision of social housing by non-profit partners like ATIRA is currently challenging due to the lack of Provincial or Federal funded programs at this time.  It is especially challenging to provide 100% social housing on the site and to maintain the rents at $375.00.  It is notable that ATIRA’s program at Imouto House is leveraging funding from multiple sources to provide this much needed housing for homeless or at risk young women. 

Young women who are homeless or living in unsafe housing face many challenges and often have difficulty accessing the housing support that they need.  Notwithstanding the importance of renovating the SRO units and the creation of new social housing, the City has acknowledged some of the concerns raised by members of the community about the proposed ages of residents in Imouto House. 

Ms. Bond remarked that staff is recommending an Operational Management Plan that relates to all the housing on the site as a condition of the development permit.  Ms. Bond added that they have been working with ATIRA to draft the Operational Management Plan which is included as an appendix in the Staff Committee Report and will be finalized just prior to occupancy.  It will include an agreed upon referral process for any young woman under 19 years of age to make contact with the staff at Imouto House looking for housing and support so that they can be referred on to the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Mary Clare Zak, Director, Social Policy, spoke on the conditions of the Operations Management Plan (OMP) that staff have recommended be put in place for both 520 Alexandra Street and 120 Jackson Avenue to help address staff and community concerns.  Ms. Zak explained that given the adjacent nature of the buildings and the individuals who will be housed at the Jackson Avenue site (19-24 year olds) and their relative vulnerability, staff recommended that the OMP cover both sites.  There are community concerns regarding the young women who are vulnerable as they may be put more at risk at this location which will be in part addressed through the age restriction in the OMP. 

Ms. Zak provided some background to help the Board substantiate the OMP and provided information on a critical social issue in the city.  She noted that being homeless or under housed is a significant risk factor for youth, in particular girls and young women.  Young women and girls are at significant risk for sexual exploitation, mental health and health issues as well as addictions and physical abuse.  In 2008 the Youth Housing Options Study indicated that there is a lack of housing options for young women and girls and put an emphasis on low barrier housing and support.  Since then, the City has embarked on a partnership with the Province to build youth specific and supportive housing on two sites which are expected to be made available in 2013.

In 2011, Council approved a framework and made a number of recommendations to senior governments to help address complexities of issues regarding youth at risk of sexual exploitation or being exploited.  Based on consultation with service providers and advocates from across the City a significant gap exists for girls and for young women. Ms. Zak explained that there is a need for enhanced prevention as well appropriate housing models (some specialized for Aboriginal girls and women), safe housing with adequate outreach services.

Ms. Zak noted that the concept of Imouto House was the result of young girls and women in the neighbourhood who are addicted or sexually exploited having a lack of options for them.  The homeless count in 2011 showed an increase in Aboriginal youth on the street.  Reports from service providers show an increase in the numbers of women including very young women, under the age of majority, in the Downtown Eastside (DTES).  Some of these women are staying in DTES SROs as part of youth agreement. The concern among community partners, based on these trends and other anecdotal information, is significant.

Ms. Zak explained that Imouto House is helping to address a significant housing gap with the decision to only house youth over 19 years of age.  Currently Imouto House has nine women between ages of 19 and 24.  They have had some success where they were able to repatriate one young woman with her family.  In another case, they were able to successfully transition a woman to rehab.  Reports overall indicate that women are more stable. There have been no complaints from Vancouver Police Department as well there have been no fire or ambulance calls since opening in September 2011.

The operating model was developed through funding from the Vancouver Foundation and is under evaluation.  There have also been significant partnerships from BC Women’s Hospital, Boys and Girls Clubs and BC Housing (to support food program).

The OMP will ensure the ongoing safety of women with the social housing units coming on stream.  The housing will consist of a range of community stakeholders including the City, Vancouver Police Department and the Ministry of Children and Families.  As a result there will be more health and safety for the neighbourhood and the residents.  There will be an opportunity to monitor the affects of the programming and will bring the community together regarding any concerns.
Ms. Zak indicated that the gap for safe housing options for girls under the 19 years of age remains. 

Mr. Hein stated in conclusion that staff had struggled with the application given the complexity and with respect to the loss of the heritage resource as well as housing and other socially related considerations.  He added that after the Staff Committee Meeting, staff felt they could support the applications with the conditions provided in the Staff Committee Report. 

Mr. Hein reviewed the recommendations contained in the Staff Committee Report dated January 11, 2012.  The recommendation was for support of the proposal, subject to the conditions contained in the Staff Committee Report.

Questions/Discussion
In response to questions raised by the Board and Panel, the following clarifications were provided by Mr. Hein:

• Women would be accommodated in the development who are homeless or at risk of being homeless.
• Retention of the heritage house would have an impact on the project.  There would be a shortfall of four units on the site.
• It didn’t make sense to keep the heritage building and add to it or attach another structure to increase the units.
• ATIRA Women's Resource Society is offering the house free of charge but the cost of moving the house to another location and renovations would be the responsibility of the new owner.   The cost to move the house would be approximately $60,000.
• The City must offer financial compensation to the owner if they were to force the preservation of the house.  It is unusual for the City to force retention for something that is compliant with the zoning.
• It is not an option for the City to buy the property.
• The cost to restore the heritage building is approximately $166,000 which is the same cost to rebuild but there would be the loss of 4 units if the heritage was retained.
• It is possible under the zoning or under a HRA to move the house to another site.

Applicant’s Comments
Janice Abbott, Executive Director of ATIRA Women’s Resource Society, stated that they will be able to meet the conditions as proposed in the Staff Committee Report.  She noted that six units will rent to women on the Downtown Eastside and six units for women who work in the Downtown Eastside.  They are self-contained units.  They have had great success with their program of having elder women mentoring younger women. 

She added that they had been in discussion with some neighbours about relocating the house but the cost of the move and the renovations were to much for them to undertake and so they weren't able to finalize a deal.

Questions/Discussion
In response to questions raised by the Board and Panel, the following clarification was provided by the applicant team:

• There will be one unit per container.  The containers are recycled.
• The containers will be modified and welded or bolted together.  Plumbing and electrical will be done on site as well as adding insulation.
• The project will meet Ashrae standards.
• Each unit is fully contained and includes a bathroom and a built-in washer and dryer.
• The cost of building the units is between $85,000 and $95,000 per unit.
• Using the containers will add to the efficiency of constructing the building.
• ATIRA is willing to offer the heritage house for free and the costs of moving and restoration would be born by the new owner.
• The exterior walls will be clad in material that will respect the heritage.
• They are looking at exterior colours that will bring vitality to the project.
• If the site were a rezoning a new building height of 8-storeys could be built.

Comments from other Speakers
Genesa Greening represented the Union Gospel Mission and was speaking in support of the project.  She noted that Imouto House is being used by a group of vulnerable women.  She remarked that the project with elders moving in was very supportable and hoped that the young women would benefit from their wisdom.

Stan Williams manages the Marble Arch building and spoke in favour of the project.  He said there were a lot of young people who are in need of housing in the Downtown Eastside.  He added that bridging the elder and youth fills a huge gap in the city.

Mauria Gowans work in the Downtown Eastside and was in support of Imouto House as it will give young women a chance for a better life.

Maddy Carlington mentioned that she had a daughter who ran away from home and it would have made a difference in her life and her daughter’s if a place like Imouto House had existed at that time.  She added that she was in support of the project.

Klavin Bee spoke on behalf of Mona Woodward. He is a spiritual leader at the Aboriginal Front Door and was asked by the Director to speak for her.  He said they are proud and honoured to put their support behind this development.  He asked the Board to consider the importance of recognizing the Japanese who owned a lot of the property in the area before the 2nd World War.

Klavin Bee also spoke for Serenity Endo. Ms. Endo is the youth representative at the Aboriginal Front Door.  He noted that young people of this community needed support from everyone as well as Provincial and Federal governments.

Myrna Cramer works at ATIRA.  She noted that 173 rooms have been lost in the Downtown Eastside and was thankful that ATIRA was creating housing.  She stated that there is a whole population of women in the area who have been there since they were in their early twenties and this area is their home.  She added that it was important to create safe spaces for them.

Deb Jack is on the board at ATIRA.  She thought the project was a true form of sustainability and an extremely creative program.  She added that she was pleased that there is a place like Imouto House.

George Challies representing Heritage Vancouver said he was more optimistic about what will happen to the heritage house.  He was glad to hear that the house could be moved and that there could be an HRA to protect the house.  He added that this project was an example of a gradual erosion of heritage in North Strathcona.

David Dennis spoke in support of the project.  He is in the property management department for ATIRA.  He said he has worked with organizations that look after aboriginal people who have issues relating to being at residential schools or coming out of foster care.  He thought the project was a good example of how we can take care of our vulnerable people.  He thanked City staff for the work they have done with ATIRA.

Questions/Discussion
In response to questions raised by the Board and Panel, the following clarification was provided by the applicant team:

• Since most people walk to the site a lot of parking is not required.  There is adequate bike parking available.

Panel Opinion
Mr. Romses said he was in support of the application especially since he is the father of two daughters.  He added that he thought this was one of the most important projects the Board had seen.

Mr. Rafii was in support of the application.  He thanked the staff for all their efforts in working through the issues with the applicant as it was an important project.

Ms. Bozorgzadeh was in support of the application and asked that the heritage be respected.

Ms. Miletic-Prelovac said she was touched by the members of the public.  She is the mother of a daughter and it was hard to hear about some of the struggles.  She was in support of the application and was happy to see the heritage might still be saved.  She thought it was an innovative approach to repurpose the containers.

Mr. Sanderson said he was in support of application as it was a much needed facility.  He was glad to see accommodation and support for people in our community who need this type of housing.  He thought it was an exciting and innovative design solution and would set a precedent for other types of housing using containers.

Mr. Biazi was in support of the application.  He said he has seen similar project in Amsterdam and would make for comfortable living for the residents.  He added that he would like to see a representation of the history of the city on the sidewalk and the house.

Board Discussion
Mr. Toderian thanked the members of the public for their personal stores.  He also thanked ATIRA for all the work they do.  He said he was fascinated by the type of construction and thought it went beyond being affordable as it would be less disruption for the community during construction.  He added that there will be less of a carbon foot print over a project that was constructed using concrete and wood.  Mr. Toderian noted that this type of housing was needed and will help to improve social condition on the street by providing housing.  He remarked that the absence of housing tends to exacerbate social problems and thought it would improve the community from the perspective of woman who need housing. He commented that the Operational Management Plan would help bring the community together through having them involved in the planning.  Mr. Toderian acknowledged that it was unusual to have a heritage house but thought that the applicant could find a creative way to save the house.  He also wanted to see something beyond the normal plaque on the site to tell the storey of the First Nations community.  Mr. Toderian added that he would like to see the original colours of the containers but would leave staff and the applicant to find the best solution.

Mr. Judd thanked the speakers and said he was moved to hear their stories.  He thanked ATIRA for their good work and as well Housing and Social Policy staff for their work.  He said he was glad that ATIRA would designate the Old Sailor’s Home and was pleased that it looked like there could be a solution for the heritage house because it would be a shame if the heritage house couldn’t be saved.  He said he agreed with Mr. Toderian about having bolder colours on the project.

Motion

It was moved by Mr. Toderian and seconded by Mr. Judd, and was the decision of the Board:

THAT the Board APPROVE Development Application No. DE414592, in accordance with the Staff Committee Report dated January 11, 2012, with the following amendments:

Amend Condition 1.4 to add a note to applicant:

Note to Applicant: inclusion of contextual history, including or emphasizing First Nations History, specific ownership of the site and related events and stories should be included in the interruptive strategy.

5. OTHER BUSINESS

None.

6. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:10 PM

[top]

Questions or Comments? Send e-mail to: planning@vancouver.ca

© 2009 City of Vancouver