TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN THE COUNCIL
CHAMBER, CITY HALL, 141 WEST 14th STREET, NORTH
VANCOUVER, B.C., ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2011
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
STAFF MEMBERS
Mayor D.R. Mussatto
Councillor P.J. Bookham
Councillor R.C. Clark
Councillor R.J. Fearnley
Councillor R.G. Heywood
Councillor C.R. Keating
Councillor M.L. Trentadue
A.K. Tollstam, City Manager
R.G. Anderson, City Clerk
K. Kenney, Deputy City Clerk
D. Pope, Deputy City Engineer
D. Watson, Transportation Planner
G. Penway, Deputy Director of Community
Development
S. Smith, Planner, Community
Development
F. Caouette, Director of Corporate Services
I. Gordon, Director of Finance
L. Orr, Manager, Lands and Business Services
P. Penner, Community Planner, Community
Development
R. H. White, Director of Community Development
S. Ono, City Engineer
S. Wilks, Timekeeper
I.
II.
III.
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197 – File: 3360-20 REZ2010-00025-252 E. 10th St.
The Public Hearing was called to order at 7:07 p.m.
Mayor D.R. Mussatto
Ms. Anderson!
Ms. R.G. Anderson, City Clerk
Yes, Your Worship. This is the Public Hearing regarding Zoning Bylaw No. 8196 for the
properties located at 250/252 East 10th Street and it is to reclassify the said properties
from RT-1 to CD-613, Your Worship and there is also an accompanying Heritage
Designation Bylaw. I have received two submissions that were circulated to Council
with their agenda package regarding this application, one from the resident at 256 East
10th Street raising some concerns with the application and also a letter from the Strata
Council for the 251 East 11th Street in opposition to this application, Your Worship.
Mayor Mussatto
Thank you. Ms. Westmacott are you doing the staff presentation this evening?
Welcome this evening!
Barbara Westmacott, Planning Technician II, Community Development
Good evening, Mayor and Council. The project before you this evening consists of two
legal parcels, each 33 feet in width and they are located on the north side of East 10 th
Street. The current zoning of the properties is RT-1 and the Official Community Plan
designation Residential Level 3 which is a low density designation maximum floor space
ratio of 0.75.
The properties to the north of this site, so across the lane, they are Residential Level 4
in the Official Community Plan and it permits a floor space ratio of 1. These sites are all
redeveloped and they were redeveloped between 1985 and 2002 and achieved a floor
space ratio of .8 to 1.0.
The subject properties are in the East 10th Street Heritage Character Area and it is an
objective of the City to retain the historic character of this area. The guidelines speak to
infill development and encourage infill as a means to secure the protection of heritage
buildings. In this area infill development may be considered for sites without heritage
inventory buildings with the resulting development maintaining the appearance of
single-family residence along the street. The guidelines state that infill should have a
minimum lot width of 35 feet on non-heritage inventory sites.
The streetscape on either side of our development site, we have heritage buildings.
The proposed project was reviewed by the Heritage Advisory Commission and the
Advisory Design Panel.
The first property which is 252 East 10th Street is the easterly site. This site has a 1912
heritage home which if the rezoning is successful will be restored and designated
through a Heritage Designation Bylaw. Included in this restoration is a new foundation
for the home to provide adequate head room in the basement, a five foot wide addition
at the rear, and a small dormer on the east side of the building to provide head room for
the existing staircase to the top floor. A basement secondary suite is proposed for this
building.
The proposed infill building is located at the rear of this site. It is two-storeys with a
cellar and contains parking for two vehicles with access from the lane. The lower floor
of the infill is four feet from the property line and the second floor level steps back from
the laneway an additional seven feet for a total of eleven feet from the property line.
This setback will avoid creating a wall of buildings at the lane edge and provide some
privacy for the neighbours across the lane.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 2 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
The second property is the westerly property. It is 250 East 10 th Street. This site is
currently containing a single-family home which was built in 1976 and it does not reflect
the heritage character of the neighbourhood. The proposal is for a new single-family
dwelling that is designed to complement the heritage character of the adjacent building,
such as details as a covered porch and gabled ends to echo the rhythm of the
streetscape.
The setback of the principal building at 250 East 10th Street is 64 feet from the rear
property line so that is in keeping with the other adjacent buildings next to it so they all
have that same rear yard setback and it creates some consistent rear yard open space.
The infill unit at the rear of this site is a mirror image of the one proposed for 250 East
10th and it creates an entry courtyard by having the two buildings mirrored. Access to
the infill units will be from a shared sidewalk from the front street. The applicants’ public
consultation is included in the staff report.
That concludes my presentation, Your Worship, and the applicant is here this evening
and available to speak or answer questions regarding the project.
Mayor Mussatto
Thank you very much, Ms. Westmacott. Does the applicant wish to make a
presentation at this time? Welcome, Mr. Accili.
Mr. Dennis Accili, 252 East 10th Street, Applicant
Good evening Mayor Mussatto and members of Council. My name is D. Accili. I live at
252 East 10th Street. With me tonight is Kevin Butler from Kd.B. Design Studio and he
is going to show a short PowerPoint describing our development. Thank you. We will
be available to answer any questions or speak to any comments. Thank you.
Mayor Mussatto
Mr. Butler!
Mr. Kevin Butler, Kd.B. Design Studio
Good evening and thank you. First I would just like to just show you a quick mass and
model of our proposed development. This is a view from the southwest and to your left
is 250 and that is the proposed new single-family house and just to the right of it is the
existing heritage house at 252 and then behind the two units is the two infill buildings.
We call them infill A and infill B and they essentially a mirrored image of each other.
There is a site context that Barb briefly touched on. It is bound by East 10 th Street and
Ridgeway to the east. The picture to the right is the existing heritage house, 252.
Immediately to the left is 250 that is the subject property and that is the house that will
be demolished to provide a new single-family house. The photo just below of it is the
rear yard of the existing heritage house.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 3 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
This is a site context showing all the buildings in brown represent existing heritage
houses that are on the inventory. Our site is 252 and immediately to the east is 256 and
to the west is the other site, 250 and then furthermore 246, 244, 240, they are
essentially all in the heritage registry as well. So, by creating a single-family house in
250 that has the heritage appeal will kind of fill the void and provide a nice streetscape
of existing and potentially heritage home features.
Again there are some more pictures of the existing heritage house; the rear elevation
and just the picture on the right shows 256 and 252. The picture down to the left shows
the laneway and just to the west of 250 is an existing legal studio suite and I’ll touch on
that a little bit later.
On the other side of this 200 block East 10th Street is a mix of townhomes and singlefamily homes as well as some heritage designated houses as well. This is the laneway
directly behind our subject properties. The picture to the left is 251 East 11 th Street and
we will touch on that later as well but that is essentially the multi-family units and the
picture on the right again is on the laneway looking west with the existing legal infill
studio as well.
This diagram shows a little site context with some east/west. There is some elevation
showing the difference in elevation. The diagram to the right is a site section taken from
the laneway down to East 10th Street. There is about a 7 foot to an 8 foot drop in
elevation which kind of benefits the residents to the north as the height of the infill or the
height of the existing building and the proposed single-family house is roughly 20” to 24”
higher than the peak of the infill so the grade of the slope definitely helps alleviate the
height issue of the existing and potentially new home.
That is the streetscape. Again, there is 252, the existing heritage house and to the left
is a proposed new development with a flanking on each side by the existing heritage
houses.
So at 250 East 10th Street, I will talk about that first briefly. That is our proposed new
single-family house and that gives you an idea of some of the colour scheme that we
are doing and to right is the infill unit A, which is behind it. The new house is essentially
three levels with a cellar, a main floor, and three bedrooms up.
The design and the massing of the new single-family house, we wanted to create
something that would definitely fit into the existing streetscape so we borrowed a lot of
architectural and historical elements from other homes in the area, including 10 and 12
steeped gabled roofs, exposed rafter tails, bay windows, horizontal siding, covered
porches, covered decks. As for the infill unit itself, that is infill A, is essentially as well, it
has a main floor and upstairs is a two-bedroom accommodation, having the cellar in the
basement with the two parking stalls at the rear of the building on the lane side.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 4 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
There are two things I would like to point out here. One is the actual massing. Again,
we wanted to keep with the same function of something that looks historical in nature
that will fit and adapt nicely in the neighbourhood as well, the massing of the building.
What we tried to is we wanted to really try to minimize the massing of the second floor
and we wanted to step it away from the lane as well so it doesn’t encroach the lane if
possible so it actually sets back 10 feet from the lane with the upper floor.
And then just to the right is the other subject property at 252 East 10th and that is the
existing heritage house and those are the colour schemes that we chose as well for
them and infill B which is essentially a mirror image of infill A. What we are doing to the
existing heritage house is, we are doing a few things. We are adding a five foot addition
onto the kitchen and creating a mud room off the main. We are providing a new
foundation and we are putting a two-bedroom rental suite in the cellar.
Also, we are also putting a new dormer which is shown here on the top right, the new
dormer on the east elevation. That is to provide head room up to the existing attic.
Right now the stairs are non-conforming and it requires additional head room. We are
also going to obviously putting in a new staircase or a new front entry as well. The
existing stairs are concrete so that will be removed and provided with new stairs. Again,
there is infill B, which is essentially the mirror image of infill A.
The landscape plan, there are actually three separate entries off of East 10th Street.
The new house at 250 will have its separate entry as well as 252 and then there will be
a common entry for the two infills going down the middle of the property so the two infill
units and the basement suite will be using that public/private walkway.
This section shows the relationship to the residences just directly to the north of 251
East 10th Street. Again I would like to point out one thing. As you can see the existing
townhouse multi-family structure on East 10th Street, you can see the way it steps back
from the lane up to a deck and then the upper floor and the main floor step back I
believe twelve feet and then the lane itself is twenty feet and then that shows the way
our infill house has stepped back as well so the garage is four feet off the lane and then
our upper floor is set back an addition seven feet so from building face to building face
there is a difference of forty-three feet.
This is the existing studio that is at 246 East 10th Street and I just wanted to show this
because this structure that is actually is two storeys high and is actually built four feet off
the laneway and what we did, last March, we did a shadow study at 9:00 a.m. You can
see the shadow there. There at noon and then at 3:00 p.m. to show the impact of the
shadow onto the northern structure.
These are other examples of some infill units in the area. The picture to the left kind of
shows the typical relationship of how it would be with the stepping back of the multi
family residence on the left and then onto the right kind of that laneway appearance and
the other examples are other infill units within the area. Some are abrupt on the lane,
the one on the bottom right steps back.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 5 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
And then I would just like to finish with a couple of just massing models. These are the
front elevation off of East 10th Street with the new proposed single-family house to the
left and the existing heritage house on the right. And that view is taken, kind of a bird’s
eye view from the northeast, looking down on the two infill houses and that is from the
opposite side from the west and that is again a bird’s eye view from the front and that is
a lane view looking at the two infill units, infill A and infill B, from the east. And again,
infill units, and then the front, and that is the end of the presentation.
Mayor Mussatto
Thank you very much Mr. Butler for your presentation. Much appreciated! So, now we
are going to go to members of the public who have questions to ask or comments to
make, we please would like to hear about them. We ask that you keep your comments
to five minutes and if you have more to ask or more comments to make we just ask that
we let everybody else a chance to speak before you go up a second time. We did have
a speakers’ list our earlier and we have a few people who signed up, and then I will go
to members of the gallery here who have any questions to ask or comments to make to
do so. The first person on my list is Mr. B. Gale. Is Mr. Gale here? Welcome this
evening Mr. Gale. Just for the record your name and address.
Mr. B. Gale, Unit 3 - 251 East 11th Street, North Vancouver, BC
My name is B. Gale. I live at Unit 3, 251 East 11th Street and my unit overlooks the
proposed development of both 250 and 252.
Mayor Mussatto
Thank you very much. So, do we have a PowerPoint presentation?
Mr. Gale
Yes we do, Your Worship.
Mayor Mussatto
There we go. Good! This is something new to me. We haven’t had that clicker there
before so it is all good.
Mr. Gale
It is kind of new to me too. This presentation is on behalf of the Strata Council at 251
East 11th Street. The original request by the owner was to construct a front to rear
duplex at 250 and an infill house at 252. Although the Heritage Advisory Commission
did not support the infill structure at 250 East 10 th Street ,City staff feel it is a better form
of development than a duplex building for this site. They state that a longer duplex
building would overshadow the outdoor space for the properties on either sides and
create some privacy concerns. We ask what about the privacy concerns of the
neighbours across the lane?
Including the existing structure at 246 East 10th Street we will be looking at a wall of
buildings ninety-nine feet long and from twenty-one to twenty-six feet high whether from
our balconies or our windows on the south side. The outdoor space of the owners on
the lane at 251 consists entirely of the back decks which will now face the windows of
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 6 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
the new development. The bedroom window sills are shown as fourteen feet off the
lane elevation in the development. The top of our railings are thirteen feet off the lane
elevation impacting on the privacy in both directions. This shows the north elevation of
the infill houses superimposed on drawings of the main buildings and again you can see
the second floor windows looking directly across the balconies. These drawings also
show the massiveness of the two buildings.
From 8th Street to 12th Street and from Lonsdale Avenue to Moody Avenue the only
block with thirty-three foot wide lots is the 200 block of East 10 th Street. There are
twelve on the north side including three belonging to St. Andrew’s Church and three on
the south side. In addition there are two thirty-five foot, one forty foot, and two forty-tow
foot wide lots. Eight of these lots have been redeveloped to allow two buildings to be
built. In all cases except one front to back duplexes have been constructed with single
storey garages on the lane. The lot area required for a front to back duplex is 5,900
sq.ft. without a rezoning application. The lot at 250 East 10th Street is only 4,617 sq.ft.
Of the seven existing front to back duplexes in the 200 block all are on lots less than
5,900 sq.ft. two being exactly the same size of the 250 East 10th Street and they all
have single storey garages on the lane. The redevelopment proposal will duplicate the
one exception with a twenty-five foot façade starting within four feet of the lane giving
the neighbours across the lane a view of nothing but house with the exception of a view
corridor of six to eight feet by twenty-five to twenty-six feet high if one stands directly
opposite the gap between the houses.
There is already a large two storey infill structure at 246 that is obvious in the way it
blocks the light. I got pictures by the architect as well. The other day I went out and
looked at the shadow and it is coming up to the top of our balcony. In another two
months when the cold weather comes and the snow and ice are in the lane it will
become a safety concern. If the front to back duplex were to be built on 250 it would
have a similar footprint there as the existing duplexes, these three here. Therefore it
would reduce the impact on light and privacy in the same way as the three duplexes on
the same side that have been built on East 10th Street.
My co-presenter will carry on with a PowerPoint presentation, Your Worship.
Mayor Mussatto
Certainly Mr. Gale. I imagine that is S. O’Brien. Welcome Ms. O’Brien!
Ms. S. O’Brien, Unit 1 – 251 East 11th Street, North Vancouver, BC
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present. My name is S. O’Brien and I live at
Unit 1 – 251 East 11th Street.
This is the slide of the current outlook from Unit 2 – 251 East 11th Street looking down
the lane westward. Of the duplexes that have the garages as you can see which do not
block the view, do not block the light. The two storey structure at 246 has been talked
about previously and that is a reference point there. As you can see it does fit right onto
the lane. And I would like to draw the attention to Council and Your Worship of the
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 7 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
Planning Technician’s report from September 17th, 2011 that said the consistent rear
yard setback with the adjacent properties in the proposal that is before Council would
provide a more neighbourly siting solution and I would ask you to look at the picture of
the present building at 246 and what would be neighbourly about looking at this existing
large blank wall?
This is another outlook from the balcony of 2 – 251 East 11th Street looking at the
properties under discussion in the more easterly view and I would like to draw your
attention to the pole, right there, is twenty feet high and the properties that are under
discussion would be twenty-five and twenty-six feet high. They will be set back eleven
feet from the lane as previously discussed but the properties as you can see from the
previous presentation by the developer are very big.
The is the view that I have from my balcony right now and this is the railing of my
balcony and that is what it looks like to look into a property directly across the lane. I
guess I am out of time.
Mayor Mussatto
You have got another four minutes. I gave you another five. I have a stop watch here.
I put you as the next speaker. It is all good.
Ms. O’Brian
Yes but it still says zero there.
Mayor Mussatto
That’s okay, I have a stop watch on my I Phone here too. It’s all good.
Ms. O’Brien
This is a view of the massive building to us of the 250 East 10 th, the main building, and I
think one thing that you’d need to draw your attention to is that the dormers on either
side are blocking out a huge amount of space. The roof line of the 25 x 25 foot
structure and the main house that faces onto East 10 th Street will block the sun and the
sky and it will be like sitting behind a truck in traffic in our opinion.
The dormers could be dropped down to allow some light and view to the owners in
behind and I would like again draw the attention to the Council of the minutes from the
Heritage Advisory Commission from September 14, 2011 they did not support the
secondary suite in 252 in the heritage home.
The Commission does support the proposed infill house at 252 but at 250 East 10th
Street the Heritage Advisory Commission recommends rejection of the project based on
the design and on the following concerns: the roofline is inconsistent with the street
rhythm of the heritage character area and ask that the applicant give consideration to a
redesigned more respectful to the guidelines and further insofar as 250 East 10 th Street
is not a heritage structure and the lot size is not thirty-five feet as stated in East 10th
Street guidelines, an infill structure is not supported.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 8 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
In conclusion we would like to suggest that a change in the proposal at 250 could be
back to the original developer’s presentation of a front to back duplex with a one-storey
garage on the lane. As you can see is on the other developments down the lane as
shown in one of the previous slides we would like to suggest lowering the roof line of the
infill at 252 and decreasing the size of the north window to lessen the impact, to reduce
the space between the heritage house and the infill so the second storey could be
further from the lane at 250 East. Thank you very much for your consideration.
Mayor Mussatto
Thank you very much Ms. O’Brien for that. I’ll go on again if there is anything else you
can add. You can go back another time. Thank you for that. The next speaker we
have is C. Wilson. Is Ms. Wilson here this evening? Welcome Ms. Wilson!
Ms. C. Wilson, 256 East 10th Street, North Vancouver, BC
Good evening. I live at 256 East 10th Street which is the heritage house that is right
adjacent to 252 and actually our houses are almost twins. I have attended the
information meetings with Mr. Accili and we discussed most of these issues in these
meetings. I have two minor issues and one rather larger issue which I would like to
bring up.
The first one is with regard to the infill house which is planned that the previous
speakers talked about. The deck will be slightly raised because of the incline of the
property and along with the deck extension planned on the original heritage house there
won’t be much space between the two houses for light to fall on my property which is
already in shadow most of the day. It the garage configuration could be shortened the
infill house would not be so intrusive and would allow more light to fall on my property.
Now I noticed that the previous people suggested making that shorter, the distance
between the houses, which would be even more of a disadvantage to me.
We also discussed the dormer gable which they want to build in the sloping roof to allow
more head room for the staircase that goes up into the attic and I pointed out that if
there was a dormer at that point it is only a few feet from my middle bedroom window, I
don’t have a PowerPoint presentation I am sorry, which comes out of the sloping side
gable and the view from the bedroom right now is a sloping roof which is preferably to
what would be a wall outside the window.
I did discuss with Mr. Accili an option of painting the dormer wall a lighter colour if it was
absolutely necessary to have that wall. Also as a member of the Heritage Society I
don’t think the view from the road would be aesthetically pleasing. It would be one flat
wall and then nothing on the other side.
The most important concern of mine is geotechnical. My house was built in 1910 and
the foundation is constructed of large boulders grouted together by a concrete mixture.
This produced an effective foundation for that day and age but I was greatly concerned
when I discovered that the plan is to dig down to expand the basement to install a
secondary suite. I had a great problem for years when duplexes were built on the other
side of my house and a digger was used which damaged one of the large rocks in my
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 9 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
foundation resulting in years of water in the basement. I’m concerned that excavation
adjacent to my property line may cause damage to my property and I would like to
suggest that a professional Engineer’s assurance that my property will not be harmed in
any way. A required slope of unsure excavation walls are flatter than the angle of
repose and failure of said walls will not occur on my property line and (b) ground water
permeation and/or hydrostatic pressure from the excavation does not cause damage to
my property such as flooding in my basement as has happened before.
I am very happy that Mr. Accili is going to protect the existing heritage building but I just
would like to bring those points out, the most important one being the concern about the
foundation. Thank you very much.
Mayor Mussatto
Thank you very much for your comments Ms. Wilson. They are very much appreciated.
The next speaker we have is Mr. Asli. No problem. Thank you very much sir. So now I
am going to go to members of the gallery who have any questions to ask or comments
to make with regards to this public hearing regarding 250-252 East 10th Street just
please raise your hand. Once, twice, three times and now I am going to go to questions
from members of Council. Council any questions with regards to this? Councillor
Bookham.
Councillor P.J. Bookham
Thank you, Your Worship. First of all I guess a question for staff. Could we know when
that 246 studio lane way infill house was built?
Mayor Mussatto
Ms. Westmacott!
Ms. Westmacott
In 1992 the heritage designation of that house was done and at that time a
Development Variance Permit which allowed a home occupation use in the rear
accessory building. It allowed it to a height of 21 feet and 2 storeys, so that was in
1992.
Councillor Bookham
Thank you. There was nothing in the column under the site area yet with other projects
we are told that in order to do an RT-1 development you have to have 5,900 sq.ft. Does
that apply in this case?
Ms. Westmacott
The 5,900 sq.ft. is for a duplex, a single building with 2 units.
Councillor Bookham
But aren’t we looking at a duplex that is pulled apart?
Mayor Mussatto
Mr. Penway.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 10 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
Mr. Penway, Deputy Director, Community Development
In effect we are Your Worship. It is just that it doesn’t require the same variance. The
reference to duplex, it is a duplex use that has that explicit 5,900 sq.ft. You could not
build this without these uses being contained through the way the uses are described.
It has the same effect but it is not necessary to vary that same clause because of the
infill building form. In effect they sort of are two detached one-unit dwellings, if you
would. It is a technical issue without the bylaws drafted but it is the same issue in that
in order to put two units on this property you do require a rezoning.
Councillor Bookham
At the bottom you indicate that 35% lot coverage plus the garage is the norm for this
sort of development. Both of these come in at 46% and 47%. Could you comment on
that?
Mayor Mussatto
Ms. Westmacott!
Mr. Westmacott
Accessory buildings, detached garages, are allowed a13% site coverage so we pretty
much get up to the 48%.
Councillor Bookham
Okay. I understand that laneway housing and coach houses were developed initially as
a way of preserving some of our heritage houses. Why are we not looking at two
single-family dwellings with coach houses according to the maximum guidelines?
Mayor Mussatto
Mr. Penway!
Mr. Penway
Well, Your Worship, these aren’t coach houses. This is an area that is zoned duplex
and it does have a higher designation for residential land use so it is not a one-unit
dwelling. If this were a one-unit dwelling area with a Level-1 designation we indeed
would be talking about that kind of a building form. Here the lands have multi-family
potential. They are zoned duplex and the Official Community Plan provides for attached
housing.
Councillor Bookham
The Heritage Commission had issues with the secondary suite. Could you explain what
their concern was?
Mayor Mussatto
Ms. Westmacott!
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 11 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
Ms. Westmacott
I believe they just felt it was too much density on the site. The Advisory Design Panel
didn’t have a problem with the secondary suite but the Heritage Advisory Commission
did.
Mr. Penway
I wasn’t at the meeting Your Worship. It is not an issue that we would normally expect
them to comment on in that as a Heritage Commission they are kind of mandated to
comment not on use and density so much as heritage character. I was a little surprised
to see the comment but it was their comment.
Councillor Bookham
I was wondering whether or not in order to have the heritage status it had to basically
function the way the original house would. That is, it could have below ground space
but not fitted out as a separate suite. That wouldn’t be consistent with a heritage
designation. Is there any issue there?
Mr. Penway
No, Your Worship. It is the building that is being talked about. We have had heritage
buildings converted to multiple units and attached to townhouse projects on Keith Road
so it really is about the building itself. The Mickey McDougall house up at 23 rd Street
just behind the Chevron site is attached to a larger multi-family apartment building
complex. There is probably five or six units in parts of that building so it is really about
the building itself and not the use in the building.
Councillor Bookham
And finally when the building across the lane was built that put units right on the lane,
was it anticipated at that time that there would be residential buildings across the lane in
such close proximity or was the assumption that there would be garages there?
Mr. Penway
Yes, Your Worship. The lands across the street have a higher Official Community Plan
designation of Level-4 at 1.0 floor space ratio. These lands have one level down from
that, Level-3 at 0.75 FSR. The 1.0 lands to the north across the lane were built in
accordance with the Garden Apartment guidelines.
They try and provide guidance for development that would result in livable conditions for
people of that density on both sides of the lane so on other areas where you see
several blocks of Garden Apartment development you’ll see the exact building form
repeated where you will have parking off the lane, and living space above with a 10 foot
setback and across the lane the exact same thing, the parking with a 10 foot setback
and apartments across.
So, one could imagine the north side having been replicated on the south side on this
block which is what we have got in many locations in the City, here because it is a level
down in designation it is a much lesser, even though it is only .25, it is a much more
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 12 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
reduced building form that those owners on the north side get the benefit compared to
some other Garden Apartment sites.
In this area it has been contemplated that there may be rear yard infill and spoken of in
the guidelines for the 0.75 and in particular for East 10 th Street because it is a heritage
character area. It was expected there would be some effort to try and retain buildings
and infill might be a solution and that is how the building immediately to the west of this
was designated with the infill building constructed.
Councillor Bookham
Thank you.
Mayor Mussatto
Councillor Heywood!
Councillor R.G. Heywood
Thank you, Your Worship. Could staff explain how the parking is going to work with the
infill building and the main residence on each property?
Mayor Mussatto
Ms. Westmacott!
Ms. Westmacott
The parking that they have provided is one per dwelling unit, one for the principal
building and one for the infill building. There is like a side door that you could get out of
your garage if you were in the front building and go around to the front building. There
is no parking provided for the secondary suite.
Councillor Heywood
Okay. So that one of the two parking spaces in the infill dwelling will actually belong to
the main house?
Ms. Westmacott
That is correct.
Councillor Heywood
Does staff know much about the parking conditions on that street now?
Ms. Westmacott
I am not aware of them.
Mayor Mussatto
I see Mr. Pope coming down. He might be able to deal with that. We used to carry
binders and books now they carry lap tops.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 13 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
Mr. Doug Pope, Deputy City Engineer
Your Worship, until recently that block had unrestricted parking. Staff had some
complaints about lack of parking availability on that street. We did some informal
surveys and saw there was significant utilization of parking along that block with
unrestricted parking.
It was our observation that likely that these are parkers from other places, employees of
businesses, etc. so we implemented resident exempt parking for half of that block most
recently and that has improved. We haven’t done a follow-up survey as of yet but there
is resident exempt parking now for half the block.
Councillor Heywood
Could I ask a question, if we extrapolate the densification that we are doing on this
particular property down that alleyway profile that was shown in the presentation by the
strata council is it possible that that could be built out to the same level down the rest, is
there a potential for infill housing to populate the rest of that block if we were to treat it
consistently?
Mayor Mussatto
Mr. Penway!
Councillor Heywood
I am particularly referring to the height of the rear structures along the alleyway.
Mr. Penway
Typically our single-family or duplex garage heights are up to 15 feet and so the pattern
on this street, and I will just get some context here if I can, so there is a townhouse
development here. These are three front and back duplexes that have been built and
they will have conventional sized garages with about 15 feet.
This is a heritage home with an older garage as is this one and then this is 246
immediately next door which has the 21 foot high building that we have seen pictures of.
These are the two sites where they are talking about a similar building form although it
is pulled back more. 246 doesn’t have a further setback to the second storey. The
proposed buildings here do provide that extra 10 foot setback. They get a larger
setback off the lane. It is not at 4 feet. So, the building form we are talking of then for
this pocket of heritage buildings here, this is the 1970’s building that would be
demolished. You can see there is sort of a pattern of a front and rear yard setback
established by those existing homes. This one already has the infill type unit. This is
the heritage home site that would have the infill unit and so in looking at it was our
thought that if they maintain this kind of open space as I think the neighbour to the east
has suggested that kind of helps provide some open space in that area between the
infills and the back and so one can expect and who knows if this would happen, but it is
conceivable then that these sites might be built out in the future with an infill along the
remaining what would be 3 lots.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 14 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
Councillor Heywood
Would the point you are making is that the lot immediately to the east and certainly the
lots to the west could also see densification, can’t see it from this view, but 21 feet up in
a similar way that the immediately adjacent property has now?
Mr. Penway
The immediately adjacent meaning this existing one?
Councillor Heywood
Yes.
Mr. Penway
Yes, I think it is worthwhile and I will just bring up the applicant’s presentation here. The
project immediately next door has a 4 foot setback and goes directly up to that height
and you can see how this building form has pulled back to get a setback more
complimentary to like they have across the lane to the north. The building that we
approved in the 1990s didn’t provide that kind of setback and I think we probably would
be heading more in this direction with trying to achieve that larger setback so I would
expect that this would kind of be the new standard that would be referred to as a better
example of how to respond to that context across the lane. It does achieve similar
height but it isn’t and the secondary storey it is not as broad. The other building is all
parking below with habitable space above. This has livable space at the ground plane
as well and it’s really two bedrooms are upstairs.
Councillor Heywood
In your view what causes the greater encroachment on the view of the neighbours on
the other side? Is it the height of the building which I guess is 26 feet or the massing of
the dormers off the side?
Mr. Penway
And now are you speaking of the principal dwelling?
Councillor Heywood
I was actually thinking of the infill dwelling. I guess this is a question much more for the
applicant. Is it the massing of the building and the dormers out the side that is a
problem or is it the height that is creating, I guess, we are taking away some
entitlements from people across the lane, and I am trying to see that the developer
minimize it as best he could and with this building form did he have any options?
Mr. Penway
I will let the applicant speak and offer their perspective. From a staff perspective how
we view it is that every building has some impact on somebody and a front to back
duplex would also have some impacts on some people so a front and back duplex
would come considerably back farther which is going to have completely different
shadowing and overlook issues for the neighbours immediately to the east and west
who are only five feet away.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 15 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
It is going to bring the principal building closer to here but it is still farther away than this
will be. So, it is kind of a tradeoff in terms of which, this has a fairly generous setback
which would have been expected even if this kind of development had happened here.
One could imagine a building like this in this location with that 10 foot setback and this is
considerably smaller than that. In our judgment, weighing it, we felt that this was not
without any impact but that the impacts were reasonable given the context.
Councillor Heywood
Okay. Thank you.
Mayor Mussatto
And I have Councillor Keating next.
Councillor C.R. Keating
Thank you, Your Worship and I have a question through you to Mr. Butler and it
concerns the proposed new dwelling which is a two unit dwelling whose total square
footage comes almost up to the total square footage of a three unit dwelling which is the
existing one. In that context, and I am taking a look at the dormers on the principal
structure of the proposed new house, and those dormers don’t really seem to fit with the
existing pattern of dormers that is there on the heritage house which is a shed dormer
on one side and a doghouse dormer on the other side with the peak reduced below the
height of the roof and I am curious about what the impact would be of altering the
proposed new dwelling to have a similar dormer pattern as the existing heritage house.
Mr. Butler
We elected to run the main dormer north/south as opposed to east/west, east/west as
opposed to the existing heritage house. It just enabled us to get room up top because
the existing heritage house was built in such a way that is has a lower bearing height. It
is around seven feet so you do have that slope fall and so the new house we designed
in such a way we still wanted to kind of incorporate the rhythm of the big gable front that
addresses East 10th Street. We did that by running the main gable the other way and
actually there are a couple of examples across the street that do have the gable
running, the main gable, running east/west as well so we kind of took some cues as well
from that.
Councillor Keating
Is the decision to move east/west with the main ridge, is that a function of the fact that
you couldn’t achieve the 12/12 pitch in the new structure because of ceiling heights on
the first floor having to fit within the broader height envelope of the building?
Mr. Butler
We still managed to get our eight foot height ceiling in there. I think we just did for a
more esthetically pleasing. I just believe that the front dormer, I mean, we wanted to do
something a little bit different and follow that same pattern but it still at the same time
kind of respect and still work off the other adjacent heritage buildings.
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 16 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
Councillor Keating
I Guess, Your Worship, a final question on this, the first response you gave was that
you wanted to achieve a bit more room and so what would be the impact in terms of the
room if you were to alter the ridge structure and go with the pattern of the existing
heritage house?
Mr. Butler
It would impact just because the building is a bit longer than the existing heritage
building. We are allowed to go a little bit deeper so I think that the reason why we ran it
that way is to definitely to get, we don’t want the roof to be too flat, so that is why we
decided to run that way and then to bring the two dormers out front and the back to
achieve that ceiling height.
Councillor Keating
So, just one more time, Your Worship, that is the way it looks because I think the
dormer structure has an impact upon people. What is the floor square footage impact of
potentially going to the other existing, the pattern of the existing?
Mr. Butler
It would reduce the floor area if that is what you are asking us.
Councillor Keating
Considerably?
Mr. Butler
There would definitely be some void areas that you couldn’t count as livable space.
Councillor Keating
Okay. Thank you very much Your Worship.
Mayor Mussatto
Councillor Trentadue!
Councillor M.L. Trentadue
Thank you, Your Worship. I have a question through you for staff with regards to Ms.
Wilson’s letter and her comments this evening about geotechnical concerns. I am
wondering what at this point the City would be able to do in order to put in some sort of
protective measures or I don’t know, a covenant, something that would reassure her
and protect her home from any kind of damage.
Mayor Mussatto
Mr. Penway!
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 17 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
Mr. Penway
Your Worship, it is a matter that is usually dealt with at the building permit stage. I
guess the stone foundation of the adjacent building makes this a little bit different
consideration than a typical one so it is an issue in that really is between the two owners
and staff become involved at the building permit stage and that you are not allowed to
damage your neighbour’s property due to construction.
We do look for some assurances at the building permit stage. Because of the unique
circumstances here if Council proceeded to third reading of this we would try and have
some firmer answers for final adoption in terms of some things that could specifically be
done where it was ways to secure commitments from the applicant.
She asked specifically about geotechnical and a professional engineer to signoff. The
applicants could be asked this evening if they are prepared to undertake any
extraordinary efforts beyond the simple building code requirements. That would be a
way to get an answer on the record for the public hearing from the applicants. Other
than that staff could investigate this further and report back.
Councillor Trentadue
Thank you for that answer and I guess then I will then turn to the applicants and ask if
they would be willing to undertake any kind of assurance to their neighbours.
Mayor Mussatto
Mr. Accili if you wouldn’t mind.
Mr. Accili
Yes, no problem. We would do that for Ms. Wilson.
Councillor Trentadue
Okay. I think that is a fairly important concern. We have got two homes that are very
old and probably the foundations beneath both of them are somewhat questionable and
I think it would be unfair for your development to negatively affect another heritage
home with that kind of development so I would be looking for that. Thank you, Your
Worship.
Mayor Mussatto
Mr. Penway or Ms. Westmacott, I am just looking at the overall size of the buildings in
terms of floor space is .58 and .61 with some exclusions and the buildings to the north
are what, again?
Ms. Westmacott
The properties to the north are anywhere from .8 to 1.0.
Mayor Mussatto
Okay, so they are significantly more but they do have exclusions as well do they?
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 18 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011
Ms. Westmacott
Yes, there are some exclusions for basement, storage, and parking.
Mayor Mussatto
Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any further questions from members of
Council? I see none. Ms. Anderson!
Ms. Anderson
Yes, we would need a motion to conclude the public hearing, Your Worship.
Mayor Mussatto
Thank you. Councillor Keating!
Councillor Keating
So moved!
Mayor Mussatto
Councillor Clark!
Councillor Clark
Second!
Mayor Mussatto
Any discussion! All those in favour! Opposed! Carried unanimously!
Moved by Councillor Keating, seconded by Councillor Clark
THAT the Public Hearing conclude.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
The Public Hearing concluded at 7:58 p.m.
Certified a true and accurate transcript of the Public Hearing
“Original Signed By”
Robyn G. Anderson
City Clerk
“Signed on November 30, 2011”
Date
City of North Vancouver
Re: Bylaw 8196 & 8197
Page 19 of 19
Public Hearing
November 7, 2011