regularcouncilmeeting11/9/2015 item9

For Council
CoQuitlam
November 2, 2015
Our file: 12 015506 RZ
Doc#:
2106581.V1
To:
From:
City Manager
General Manager Planning and Development
Subject:
Zoning Amendment Bylaw Application at 945 and 951 Charland Avenue
(12 015506 RZ)
For:
Council
Name of Owner:
Name of Applicant:
Address of Owner and Applicant:
Legal Description of Property:
Address of Property:
Present Zoning:
Requested Zoning:
Present OCP Designation:
Proposed OCP Designation:
Proposed Development:
1035417 BC LTD.
Redbrick Properties Inc.
210-522 7^^ Street New Westminster, BC V3M 5T5
Lot 12, Block 1, DL108, CP 1, NWD, Plan 14679
945 and 951 Charland Avenue
RS-l One-Family Residential
RM-3 Multi-Storey Medium Density Apartment Residential
Medium Density Apartment Residential
No change
Four-storey, 41-unit (approx.) market rental apartment building
Recommendation:
That Council refer application 12 015506 RZ back to staff to continue working
with the applicant to revise the proposal to ensure that it is more consistent
with the Zoning Bylaw and the requested RM-3 zone.
Report Purpose:
To advise Council that the applicant has requested their application be
presented to Council in its current form, though it is non-compliant with a
number of OCP policies and Zoning Bylaw regulations and seek direction from
Council for staff to continue to work with the applicant to ensure that the
application is more consistent with the Zoning Bylaw.
5trategic Goal:
The application pertains to supporting neighbourhoods.
Executive Summary:
Staff have received a development proposal that does not comply with a number
City policies and regulations. The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject
properties to RM-3 Multi-Storey Medium Density Apartment Residential in order
to facilitate a 41 unit, four-storey market rental apartment building. Though the
proposed zoning is consistent with the Official Community Plan (GCP) land use
designation, the applicant, in order to increase the number of permitted
apartment units, is seeking Zoning Bylaw variances in terms of reducing the
minimum number of parking stalls and the amount of common amenity area
Page 2
November 2, 2015
Executive Summary: cont'd/
required plus requesting a Zoning Bylaw text amendment to increase the
maximum permitted density of the RM-3 zone. Staff have on several occasions
communicated to the applicant that the proposed development was inconsistent
with existing City policies and regulations, however the applicant has requested
that the application proceed as is. Accordingly, staff are bringing forward this
report to seek Council's direction.
Staff note several options available for Council's consideration at this time:
1. Direct staff to prepare a first reading report and associated amendment
Bylaws for the application as-is;
2. Direct staff to prepare a first reading report and associated amendment
Bylaws for the application with the recommendation to decline first reading.
It should be noted that should Council decline first reading, the applicant
would need to wait six months before reapplying;
3. Direct staff to hold the application in abeyance until the completion of the
HAS to see if any policies or incentives brought forward by that initiative are
applicable to this project; or
4. Direct staff to continue working with the applicant to revise the proposal to
ensure that it is more consistent with the Zoning Bylaw and the requested
RM-3 zone.
Staff recommends option 4.
Background:
Site and Context:
The subject site comprises two (2) properties situated at the northeast corner of
Charland Avenue and Blue Mountain Street (Attachment l). The properties are
currently zoned RS-l One-Family Residential and designated Medium Density
Apartment Residential in the Austin Heights Neighbourhood Plan (AHNP) of the
Southwest Coquitlam Area Plan (SWCAP) (Attachments 1and 2). The site is just
west of five properties (953-969 Charland Avenue) for which Council, in 2013,
authorized a Development Permit and granted rezoning to RM-3 Medium Density
Apartment Residential to accommodate a four-storey, 88 unit apartment building
that has been constructed without any parking reductions. (That adjoining,
recently developed RM-3 site is nearly three times the size of the subject
property). To the north is a gas station. Soil contaminants have been discovered
on the subject properties. The site has received a certificate of compliance from
the Ministry of Environment, which means that the site is safe for residential use,
however the contamination creates a constraint on how deep the underground
parkade can be sited on the property.
File#: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 210658l.vl
Page 3
November 2, 2015
Background: cont'd/
Existing Land Uses
Zone(s)
Site
One-Family Residential
RS-l One-Family Residential
North
Gas Station
South
Single-Family Dwellings,
Duplexes, and Local
Commercial
(Four-Storey Apartment
Building under Building
Permit application)
Church
SS-2 Service Station
Commercial
RS-l One-Family Residential,
RT-1 Two-Family Residential
and C-l Local Commercial
RM-S Medium Density
Apartment Residential
East
West
P-2 Special Institutional
OCP Land Use
Designation(s)
Medium Density
Apartment Residential
Neighbourhood Centre
Neighbourhood
Attached Residential
Medium Density
Apartment Residential
Medium Density
Apartment Residential
Site History:
These properties were subject to a previous Zoning Bylaw application that was
considered by Council. On July 22, 2013 Council granted second and third
readings to rezone the properties RM-3 Medium Density Apartment Residential to
facilitate a 3l-unit, four-storey apartment building. As per the City's Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 4068, 2009, a Zoning Bylaw amendment at third reading is
valid for one year, unless a time extension to achieve fourth reading is granted by
Council. In July 2014 the previous property owner/applicant applied for and
received a one-year extension to the third reading period. This extension period
lapsed in July 2015, and the new owner has chosen to submit an entirely new
development proposal, which must to be considered under a new Bylaw.
Proposed Development:
The new owners of the site. Redbrick Properties, own and operate rental
apartment properties around the Lower Mainland. Similar to the previous
application, the applicant is requesting to rezone the site from RS-l One-Family
Residential to RM-3 Multi-Storey Medium Density Apartment Residential. Since
purchasing the properties, the new applicants have revised the proposal to
increase the number of units from 31 to 41(Attachments 3 and 4). The applicant
has indicated that they intend to secure these units as rental units through a
housing agreement registered on-title for a duration to be determined should the
application proceed. Table 2 summarizes the differences between the current
and previous application.
File#: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 210658l.vl
Page 4
November 2, 2015
Background: cont'd/
Proposed Development: cont'd/
Table 2: Summary of Current and Previous Development Proposals
Gross Floor Area
Number of Units
Unit Breakdown
Number of
Accessible/Adaptable
Units
Parking Provided
Common Amenity Area
Lot Coverage
Building Height
Previous Applicati®
1.85 times the lot area
31
18 one-bedroom
9 two-bedroom
4 three-bedroom
5 Accessible Units
10 Adaptable Units
Current Proposal
1.96 times the lot area
41
1Studio
34 one-bedroom
6 two-bedroom
0
42 spaces (no variance
requested)
No variance requested
59%
Four-Storeys
44 (l5% parking variance
requested)
70% reduction requested
59%
Four-Storeys
In the previous application a number of the proposed units had been designed to
be adaptable or accessible. In the current application no adaptable units are
proposed; however, should Council support the application, the applicant's
architect will explore whether any can be incorporated into the project.
In order for the development to proceed as proposed, the applicant has requested
from the City a number of Zoning Bylaw variances and a text amendment,
specifically:
1. A Zoning Bylaw text amendment to increase the maximum allowable density
in the RM-3 zone from a floor area of 1.85 times the lot area to 1.96. This
would increase the permitted gross floor area for this site by approximately
150m2 {1616 sq. ft.);
2. Ai5% reduction to the minimum required resident parking from 52 spaces to
44 spaces. The Bylaw requires 8 visitor spaces and the applicant has not
requested a reduction to visitor parking;
3. An approximate 70% reduction in the minimum required common amenity
area space from 205m2 (2200 sq. ft.) to 62m2 (660 sq. ft.); and
4. An increase to the maximum permitted lot coverage from 55% to 59%.
Discussion/Analysis:
Official Community Plan
The subject properties are designated Medium Density Apartment Residential in
the AHNP. A corresponding zone to this land use designation is RM-3, which is
the requested zone for this development. The intent of this land use designation
File #: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 210658l.vl
Page 5
November 2, 2015
Discussion/Analysis: cont'd/
Official Community Plan cont'd/
is to provide an effective transition between the higher densities of the
Neighbourhood Centre designated properties along Austin Avenue, and the lower
density Neighbourhood Attached Residential (NAR) properties on the south side
of Charland Avenue. Staff believe that the development of a four-storey
apartment building could meet this intent and achieve an effective transition to
the properties designated NAR to the south.
Though the proposed zone is consistent with the OCR land use designation, as
noted, the applicant is seeking a number of variances or amendments in order to
meet their desired development form. These requested variances and text
amendment have been reviewed against the following policies in the OCR, Zoning
Bylaw and the September 2014 Draft Housing Affordability Strategy (HAS): ^
1. Zoning Bylaw RM-3 Density Increase:
Applicable policies to this request are:
•
Draft HAS Action Policy 1.2.4 - "Consider exempting rental floor spacefrom
maximum density allowances, subject to servicing, traffic, urban design,
building height/massing review and the amount of rental units proposed."
The intent of this draft policy in the HAS is that this provision be applied
around Evergreen Line transit-station areas and in the high-density
apartment residential zones (RM-A, RM-5, RM-6, C-4, and C-7).
Accordingly, this draft policy is not directly applicable at this juncture.
•
OCP Part 2 Section 4 Objective 3(g) - "Consider additional density on
certain sites to support the development of affordable or special needs
housing on a case-by case basis and on thefollowing general conditions:
•
•
•
•
The site be located within the 'Core' or 'Shoulder' area as identified in
the Transit-Oriented Development Strategy;
In close proximity to transit service, commercial services, and public
amenities;
Meets an affordable or special needs housing need; and
Addresses design/massing, servicing, parking and transportation
requirements."
Again, the subject sites are not located in close proximity to an Evergreen
Line transit-station nor are they located along a Frequent Transit
Network, and they are not within the TDS Core or Shoulder areas. Asa
result, the proposal is not consistent with this policy.
•
Zoning Bylaw Part 5 General Regulations Section 510 - "Areas that are
designated as affordable housing or special needs housing and zoned RM-4,
RM-5, RM-6, C-4 or C-7 may exceed the maximum density permitted within
a zone under the conditions identified under Section 5l0(l) and the
corresponding condition provisions listed under Section 510(2):
File#: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 210658l.vl
Page 6
November 2, 2015
Discussion/Analysis: cont'd/
1. Zoning Bylaw RM-3 Density Increase: cont'd/
(a) Density may exceed the maximum density permitted under the zonefor
the portion of gross floor area that provides for affordable housing or
special needs housing, if
(i)
(ii)
the lot maximizes the base density permitted under sub-section
5(a) of the zone; and
the lot maximizes the bonus density permitted under sub-section
5(b) of the zone."
The proposal is inconsistent with the provisions of Zoning Bylaw Section
510. The RM-3 zone has not been envisioned to allow for additional
density for affordable housing or special needs housing and there are no
density bonus provisions in the zone.
These policies were recently utilized in the Bosa BlueSky application on
Foster Avenue near the Burquitlam Skytrain Station area. In that
particular instance, the project involved the replacement of existing
rental units with new strata-condo development including new purposebuilt market rental units. As part of that application, the City adopted the
above noted policies to guide when, where, and how the City could
consider additional density beyond what is permitted in a zone for
affordable or special needs housing. The applicant has indicated that they
believe that these policies a re justification to support this application.
Given the differences in the proposal, the Bosa BlueSky application is not
considered by staff as a precedent for this application.
2. Zoning Bylaw Parking Variance Reduction:
Applicable policies to this request are:
•
Draft HAS Action Policy 1.2.3 - "Consider reduction of off-street resident
parking requirements for purpose-built rental units, on a case-by-case basis,
and based on local market and ownership data."
At staff's direction, the applicant retained the services of a Transportation
Engineerto review parking supply and demand within the local
neighbourhood context. They compared vehicle ownership statistics and
rental rates for other rental buildings in the Austin Heights area and
concluded that the appropriate number of resident parking spaces per unit
based on vehicle ownership data in nearby buildings was 0.87 resident
spaces/unit and 0.1 visitor spaces/unit (Attachment 5 ). Based on their
conclusions, they recommend that 36 resident stalls and 4 visitor stalls be
provided. The applicant has opted not to pursue a reduction to their visitor
parking and has proposed 36 resident and 8 visitor spaces.
File #: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 210658l.vl
Page?
November 2, 2015
Discussion/Analysis: cont'd/
2. Zoning Bylaw Parking Variance Reduction: cont'd/
Transportation Planning has reviewed the study and confirms that the
methodology and approach used to compile the study are valid.
•
OCP Part 2 Section 4 Objective 3(g)
As noted above, this objective states that parking and transportation
requirements must be addressed. Staff believes that the requested
parking variance is inconsistent with this OCP objective.
•
Zoning Bylaw Part 7 Off-Street Parking and Loading
The Zoning Bylaw does not regulate parking requirements based on
housing tenure (rental vs. owner occupied).
3. Zoning Bylaw Common Amenity Area Reduction:
There are no applicable policies that address reducing the common amenity
area requirements for rental units.
4. Zoning Bylaw Lot Coverage Increase:
The previous property owner retained a qualified professional to assess the
soil contamination impacts on the site. The conclusion of that review is that
the site could safely accommodate the proposal; however with a limitation on
the maximum depth that the underground parking structure could be sited.
This limitation, combined with the site grade, results in more of the
underground parking structure being located above ground. If a structure
protrudes more than l.3m above finished grade it is considered lot coverage.
The extent that the underground parkade protrudes as a result of the grade
change and contamination will increase the lot coverage beyond the
maximum 55% permitted.
Staff Comments
Given the noted OCP, Draft HAS policies, and Zoning Bylaw requirements that are
not applicable or are requested to be relaxed, staff are unable to support the
application as proposed for the following reasons:
•
•
The degree of variances being requested relative to the likely project impacts
are concerning. In this case, the applicant is requesting to substantially vary
parking and common amenity area requirements in order to increase the
number of units. Staff believe that the requested variances are not
reasonable;
The RM-B zone does not have a maximum unit density, however each site has a
"carrying capacity" based on a number of parameters in the Zoning Bylaw
including: parking, common amenity area, maximum lot coverage, minimum
building setbacks, maximum building heights, and maximum floor area . Given
that the proposal does not accommodate the required parking, common
amenity area, or floor area within the permitted Zoning Bylaw parameters, staff
believes the proposal exceeds the "carrying capacity" of the site;
File#: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 210658l.vl
Page 8
November 2, 2015
Discussion/Analysis: cont'd/
Staff Comments cont'd/
• Municipal Councils are granted the authority to approve certain variances to
the Zoning Bylaw by the Local Government Act (IGA), however the IGA
prohibits variances to density. When viewed from a project impact
perspective, approving the requested variances to reduce parking and
common amenity areas to increase the number of units is arguably a
variance to the maximum permissible density on-site;
• Staff do not believe that there is any Justification to reduce common amenity
area requirements based on housing tenure. Common amenity areas are
important to the livability of rental or condo strata projects alike. The
reduction of the amenity space decreases the livability of the project and may
set the precedent that rental housing require less amenities;
• The site is not near an Evergreen Line Skytrain Station nor is it near a
Frequent Transit Network to support lower vehicle ownership;
• Although a corner lot, the site has very limited street frontage available for
on-street parking. Blue Mountain Street to the west is an arterial road, which
does not allow street parking and the driveway location on Charland Avenue
reduces the frontage available for parking on Charland Avenue. The
applicant's parking study includes an examination of on-street parking
opportunities; however, this analysis relies primarily on street frontage in
front of neighbouring properties to meet the street parking demand.
Furthermore, at recent Public Hearings for rezoning applications on this
street, the neighbouring residents have voiced their concerns'over a lack of
on-street parking. Reducing parking for this project may push the burden of
providing the overflow parking (if needed) elsewhere on the block and impact
neighbouring properties; and
• The maximum floor area, minimum parking, and common amenity area
Zoning Bylaw requirements were all in existence prior to the current
applicant purchasing the property, and the owner purchased the site aware
of the previous application and Bylaw requirements.
Applicant's Rationale
The applicant has submitted a letter with rationale to support the proposal
(Attachment 6). The letter includes, from their perspective, a number of reasons
to support their application. A few of these are summarized below. '
• There is a very limited rental market in Coquitlam and this stock is aging. The
provision of the proposed new units will provide some relief with regards to
the need of rental housing.
• New market rental units are hard to justify economically and needs flexibility
from municipalities in orderto make it financially viable.
• The parking variance is justified based on their anticipated lower vehicle
ownership rates derived by their parking assessment study.
• The reduced parking rate makes the project more financially viable.
File #: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 2106581.V1
Page 9
November 2, 2015
Discussion/Analysis: cont'd/
Applicant's Rationale cont'd/
• The increase in density reduces the land costs on a "per buildable square
foot" basis to make the project more financially viable.
• The introduction of the new rental apartment units are needed as evidenced
by the number of illegal secondary suites in Southwest Coquitlam.
• The low interest rates makes rental housing more viable, however they may
not last for much longer.
Options
In reviewing and evaluating this development proposal, staff have identified the
following options for Council's consideration:
1. Direct staff to prepare a first reading report and associated amendment
Bylaws for the application as-is;
2. Direct staff to prepare a first reading report and associated amendment
Bylaws for the application with the recommendation to decline first reading.
It should be noted that should Council decline first reading, the applicant
would need to wait six months before reapplying as per Provincial legislation
and the City's Development Procedures Bylaw;
3. Direct staff to hold the application in abeyance until the completion of the
HAS to see if any policies or incentives brought forward by that initiative are
applicable to this project; or
4. Direct staff to continue working with the applicant to revise the proposal to
ensure that it is more consistent with the Zoning Bylaw and the requested
RM-3 zone.
Staff recommends option four.
Financial Implications:
There are no immediate financial impacts with this report.
Conclusion:
Staff does not support the development as-proposed for the following reasons:
• The proposal is inconsistent with the applicable policies in the OCP and
Zoning Bylaw;
•
The extent of the variances are too great; and
•
The proposed scale of development, and its likely impacts, is inappropriate for
this site.
File#: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 210658l.vl
Page 10
November 2, 2015
Conclusion: cont'd/
Staff recommends that Council refer the application back to staff with
direction on how to proceed with the proposal.
(\
J.L Mclnty e, MClP, RPP
CJ/ms
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ortho photo and Adjacent Zoning
Existing OCP Land Use Designations
Site Plan
Building Elevation
Parking Study
Applicant's Rationale Letter
This report was prepared by Chris Jarvie, Development Planner and reviewed by
Erica Tiffany, Supervisor Development Planning and Rick Elligott, Acting Manager,
Development Services.
File#: 08-3360-20/12 015506 RZ/l Doc#: 210658l.vl
ATTACHMENT 1
LOCATION AND ADJACENT ZONING
945 & 951 Charland Avenue
N
W
Application No.: 12 015506 RZ
Map Date: 10/27/2015
Zoning Boundary
E
S
0
12.5
25
50
Meters
CoQuitlam
12 015506 RZ ORTHO JT
ATTACHMENT 2
EXISTING OCP LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
N
W
One Family Residential
^
12.5
25
Map Date; 10/27/2015
Neighbourhood Attached Residential
•mil Medium Density Apartment Residential
0
Neighbourhood Centre
50
•Meters
CoQuitlarh
12 015506 RZ OCP JT
ATTACHMENT 3
ATTACHMENT 4
SOUTH ELEVATION fCHARLAND AVE.^
SCALE: 1/8"=r-0-
SEP. 17,2015
NO.
JAN 19,2015
RE-ISSUED FOR DEV PERMIT APP.
GENERAL REVSIONS-NEW OWNER
ISSUED FOR DEV. PERMO APP.
APR 29, 2013
RE-ISSUED FOR DEV PERMIT
MAR 11,2013
RE-ISSUED FOR DEV PERMIT
NCV 29, 2012
ISSUED FOR DEV PERMIT APP
DATE
REVISIONS
2x8 WOOO TRByl OVER 2x12 WOOO FASCIA - PAJNTEO
AM6 WOOD BRACKET • PAIKTEO
nay nol b*UMd in «n]r artyirtheut tM w
2x6 WOOO TRIM (TVP) PAJNTEO
PROJECT
APARTMENT BUILDING
DEVELOPMENT
945,951 CHARLAND AVE
crrv OF coomTLAM.B.C.
CULTURED STONE
Yamamoto
Architecture Inc.
FINISHES LEGEND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
BASE WALLS (1ST FLOOR)
EXPOSED OARAGE STRUCTURE (UPPER)
db EXPOSED GARAGE STRUCTURE (LOWER)
(VINYL)
A WINCXJW
10 GUTTERS. RAILINGS
aa
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0"
ROOF (OVER ENTRY. 4TH FLOOR)
RAKE BOARD. FASCIA BOARD. BRACKETS
WOOD POSTS & POORAVINDOW/CORNER TRIM
PROJECTED BAY WALLS
UPPER WALLS (2N0. 3RD. 4TH FLOOR)
UPPER WALLS ACCENT f2ND. 3RD, 4TH FLOOR)
DRAWMGTnU
MATERIAL
COLOUR
ASPHALT SHINGLES
W009 - PAINTED
WOOO - PAINTED
HAROiPANEL - PAINTED
H0R17 HARDI-PLANK SIDING
HAROIPANEL - PAIN i to
CHARCOAL
GPa3067N -SHAFT
GPCL 3174D-ABALONGP CL 3D67N "SHAFT
GP CL 3013M "ARTESAN"
GP CLW1037W "STONEY aAlN"
DRYSTACK LEDGESTONE - SUEDE
GP CLW 1037W "STONEY PLAIN"
DRYSTACK LEDGESTONE - SUEDE
GRAY
GRAY
CULTURED STONE
CONCRETE - PAINTED
CIIITURED STONE
VINVI.
METAI - PAINTED
ELEVATIONS
(SOUTH, EAST)
A3.1
ATTACHMENT 4a
NORTH ELEVATION (LANE)
SEP. 17,2015
SCALE: 1/8"=1'-0-
JAN 19, 2015
RE ISSUED FOR DEV PERMIT APP.
G£1€RAL R£V£IO»tS/NEW OWNER
ISSUED FOR DEV. PERMRAPP.
APR. 29, 2013
RE-ISSUEO FOR DEV PERMIT
MAR 11,2013
RE-iSSUEDFORDEV PERMIT
NOV 29,2012
ISSUED FOR DEV. PERMIT APP
NO.
DATE
REVISKMS
tepr-9*
This drsanng m »n >n«VWMnlof Hmt* li«w
my nel be uMd«n iny «iy wVwut Ow w
of ttw arMlKt W
PROJECT
APARTMENT BUILDING
DEVELOPMENT
94S. 951 CHARLAND AVENUE
CITY OF COQUITLAM. B.C.
Yamamoto
Architecture Inc.
DRAWING TITLE
ELEVATIONS
(NORTH, WEST)
A3.2
WEST ELEVATION (BLUE MOUNTAIN ST.)
SCALE: 1/8" = I'-O"
ATTACHMENT 5
TRANSPORTATsON PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS
£1
&^associates
August 26. 201 5
6063.01
Abdul Jiwan
Redbrick properties Inc
210 - 522 Seventh Street
New Westminster, BC
V3M 5T5
VIA E-MAIL: abdulj(®redbrickinc.biz
Dear Abdul:
Re:
945 / 951 Charland Avenue, Coquitlam
Parking Variance Review - UPDATED
As requested, Bunt & Associates has reviewed your proposed parking supply strategy for a new multi­
storey, medium density market rental apartment to be located at 945 and 951 Charland Avenue in the City
of Coquitlam, BC. We issued a first report on June 10 201 5 that outlined our findings and
recommendations regarding the anticipated parking demand of residents and visitors, as well as
recommended supply for the site. Since that time. City of Coquitlam staff have provided comments and
requested further information; this updated report addresses these items.
1.
SITE PLAN PROPOSALS
We understand that the total number of rental units proposed is 41, with the following mix of sizes:
1-BedStudio
1 unit
1-Bedroom Apartment:
34 units
2-Bedroom Apartment:
6 units
Table 1 below provides a calculation of the resulting bylaw parking supply requirement, based on
the City of Coquitlam's zoning bylaw. As you can see in table, if the City's current bylaw rates are
applied to this development, the resulting parking supply would be 1.07 for residents and 0.20 for
visitors, for a total of 52 stalls. Therefore, this site will require a parking variance.
3unt sSt Associates Engineering (BC) Ltd.
Suiw 1550 - 1050 West Pender Street, Vancouver. BC V6E 3S7
Vincouver
Victoria
Calgary
Edmonton
Tel 604 635 6427 Fax 604 685 6579
www.bunteng.com
bunt (St associates
r?.ANSPORTAriON PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS
Table 1: Bylaw Parking Supply for Charland Avenue Development Proposal
RateA/alue
1 BD
2 BD
Total
Resident Rate/Unit
1.0
1.5
-
No. Units
35
6
41
Stalls
35
9
44
0.2
0.2
-
No. Units
35
6
42
Stalls
7
1.2
8.2
Visitor Rate/Unit
1.07
0.2
1.27
52
Total Stalls
unit
2.
ANTICIPATED RESIDENT PARKING DEMAND
2.1
Factors Affecting Auto Ownership
Vehicle ownership per household, and therefore the need for vehicle storage (parking) depends on a
number of factors. Those listed below are the key influences;
• Income level;
• Number of working adults in the household;
• Size of the household unit (number of bedrooms)
• Tenure of unit (rental or strata); and
• Proximity to high quality transit.
The City of Coquitlam's bylaw rates reflect just one of the factors above, the size of the unit, by
tying parking supply rates to the number of bedrooms. The Charland site has other attributes that,
in our view, would support a lower auto ownership:
• 1 00% of units are planned to be market rental units;
• The unit mix includes more one bedrooms than two bedrooms compared to nearby
comparables;
945/951 Charland Avenue Parking Variance Review I August 26 2015
-.t""! u.;!-,' 01 ' r-,)T:,ir I Pj!'.
At-;
ij iVhvf-r iui.-'.'I.
"I'V-i' I' l
i ft .VS l-.x
bunt iStassociates
TRANSPORTATION PLAVNERSAND ENGINEERS
• The unit sizes are proposed are smaller compared to nearby comparables, which in our view
would likely result in lower average numbers of working adults in the household; and,
It is located within very close walking distance to Austin Avenue where there is a supermarket
and other shops and services.
• It is located a 6 minute bus ride from Lougheed SkyTrain Station and Bus Exchange.
These factors are discussed further below, specific to the Charland site.
2.2
Site Accessibility by Alternative Modes
2.2.1
Walkscore
The "Walkscore" for the site location including for transit and cycle are as follows:
• Walk Score
- 76 (very walkable);
• Transit Score
- 40 (some transit); and
• Cycle Score
- 35 (somewhat bikeable).
Source: https://www.walkscore.com/score/94S-charland-ave-coquitlam-bc-canada
2.2.2
Transit
Figure 2 shows the existing bus services within the vicinity of the site and the location of
neighbouring bus stops and Table 2 below summarizes the available services within 100m walking
distance of the site.
Figure 2: Transit services and bus stop location near to Charland Avenue
Ridgewiiy Awenut-
Dari<*~ / Avenue
Macltjre Avenue
945/951 Charland Avenue Parking Variance Review I August 26, 2015
Ki'OJ'r ! S S(Vv
•'V Cnailucl.iU:' '.AR S u iVIiv'K iBlnj I sG,'.'.n.-,i li i ChaiUnd
.lEt vS.lftf
Madore Avenue
bunt (St associates
TRANSPC^RTATiON PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS
Sources: http://www.transitdb.ca/route/l 52/
http://infomaps.translink.ca/System_Maps/l 07/PC-Sep%20201 5.p(df
Table 2: Transit Services Adjacent to Site
Day
AM Peak
PM Peak
Off-peak
Mon-Friday
Every 14-18
minutes
Every 11-16
minutes
Every 28-32
minutes
Saturday
Every 30
minutes
Every 30
minutes
' Every 30
minutes
Every 30
minutes
Every 30
minutes
Sunday
Every
30minutes
after 9am
While the site is not adjacent to the Frequent Transit Network (FTN), weekday peak hour frequencies
are reasonable at 10-1 5 minutes for the single bus route available - No. 1 52 - which connects
Coquitlam City Centre to Lougheed Centre. However, with the advent of the Evergreen Line and
upcoming Highway 1 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service terminus changes, the site will be Just a 6
minute bus ride away from accessing high quality, high frequency rail and BRT transit services that
connect to most downtowns and town centres in Metro Vancouver.
Council members and City staff have indicated that within five years, there are plans to upgrade the
transit network, adjacent to the site, so that it becomes part of the FTN. However, this has not yet
been confirmed as happening.
2.3
Auto Ownership in Comparable Developments
To determine an appropriate parking supply strategy for the Charland site. Bunt investigated
parking demand associated with nearby comparable sites for market rental apartment buildings. A
list of potential sites was obtained from the multiple family housing inventory (to December 31,
201 4) as published by the City of Coquitlam'. Bunt chose ten comparable sites from this list based
on the size of the development and location.
Multiple Family Housing Inventory, City of Coquitlam (to December 31, 2014)
945/951 Charland Avenue Parking Variance Review j August 26 201 5
5
I'N.'j'LC.Ts ^L•'V
'•! .^Iv.r-u-'I'Liik. VAR St,- [V Hv.N
01
h.-Hac IJ-Ai-'k VatMn':-? LET.V3 Tor
TRA.MSPORTAHON PLAN.'>£RS AND ENGINEERS
'
buHt&aSSOCiateS
Bunt contacted ICBC to obtain auto registration information for the 10 selected comparables; the
selected sites and registered vehicle data are summarized in Table 3. Note, prior to the calculation
of parking demand ratio per unit, Bunt inflated the ICBC registered vehicle data by 10% to account
for several factors:
• New residents who may not have transferred their vehicle registrations to their new address;
• Occupancy of the comparable buildings being less than 100%; and
• Residents whose vehicles are leased to a business rather than personal address.
At the comparable sites, it can be seen that the average auto ownership was 0.68 vehicles per unit,
which is lower than the 0.83 vehicles per unit average for the Metro Vancouver region for market
rental apartment units^ However, the 85"' percentile parking ratio of 0.89 vehicles per unit is the
generally the preferred ratio for planning transportation infrastructure, including parking supply.
Comparing this 85'" percentile auto ownership level of 0.89 stalls/unit, it is clear that applying the
City's resident parking supply rate of 1.07 stalls/unit would result in an over-supply of about 1 7%.
With underground stalls generally costing in the order of $30,000 to $50,000, such an over-supply
can have a profound impact on housing affordability.
2.4
Suite Mix and Rental Costs in Comparable Developments
Redbrick Properties Inc. contacted resident managers within each of the selected low-rise residential
apartments in order to confirm the number of and size of suites. This information was provided to
Bunt for eight of the 1 0 sites as shown Table 4.
^ Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study, Revised Technical Report, September 201 2, Page 44, Table 21.
Average vehicles per household for Market Rental = 0.83 stalls
945/951 Charland Avenue Parking Variance Reviev; | August 26, 201 5
» KKOitC'S-sOV fiS#
' t<.ir rfiv) I'H', V :.R » I.
lUli.-' t'
'6
Cfi-ttl i>Kl
vai'niir.* Itl
bunt Stassociatas
TRANSPORTATION PLANN&RS AND B^JCINEERS
Table 3: ICBC Vehicle Registration Data at Nearby Low Rise Residential Apartments
. Registered as of
April 30.2QIK;
Adjusted^ ^
Parking •
Demand R;atlg
J^hicle/irnftf
1005
Ridgeway Ave
V3J 154
Coquitlam
33
28
0.93
1105
Ridgeway Ave
V3J 158
Coquitlam
32
18
0.62
1117
Ridgeway Ave
V3J 158
Coquitlam
41
30
0.80
1035
Howie Ave
V3J 115
Coquitlam
42
21
0.55
1040
Howie Ave
V3J 117
Coquitlam
54
48
0.98
1064
Howie Ave
V3J 118
Coquitlam
50
20
0.44
1110
Howie Ave
V3J IVl
Coquitlam
36
25
0.76
1056*
King Albert Ave
V3J 1X5
Coquitlam
32
18
0.62
1300
King Albert Ave
V3J 1X9
Coquitlam
49
24
0.54
517
Blue Mountain St
V3J 4P8
Coquitlam
35
17
0.53
Mean
0.68
Median
0.62
85 Percentile
0.89
Note: Prior to the calculation of the Parking Demand Ratio per unit, Bunt inflated the 1C8C registered vehicle
data by 10% to account for registered vehicles to businesses cars not registered to rental building addi esses
and likely occupancy levels of comparables.
According to ICBC, there is no such address, ICBC provided data for 1060 king Albert Avenue instead, which is
a low-rise apartment building
Google indicates 1056 and 1060 King Albert Avenue at the same location
945/951 Charland Avenue Parking Variance Review | August 26, 2015
-
uOt-.'.OI Char'aiKj.P.iil. V MT Su [Vln,s-r.ibl--s luiH/r. tv).;ol
vainr,'? IF'/'d.lCA
bunt & associates
TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS
Table 4: Suite Type and Rental Costs for Eight of the Ten Selected Nearby Low-Rise
Residential Apartments
1005
Ridgeway Ave
1105
Ridgeway Ave
1117
Ridgeway Ave
1035
Howie Ave
$850
1040
Howie Ave
1064
Howie Ave
1110
Howie Ave
1056*
King Albert Ave
N/A
N/A
$950
$1,275
0
22
10
69%
31%
$850
0
28
13
68%
32%
$990
6
24
12
14%
57%
29%
$920
0
46
0%
85%
15%
$750
2
36
12
4%
72%
24%
$750
0
25
11
0%
69%
31%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
29
18
4%
59%
37%
29
6
0%
83%
17%
29.9
11.3
3%
71%
27%
N/A
1300
N/A
N/A
$800
King Albert Ave
517
Blue Mountain St
Average
N/A
$850*
$925
$1,200
$867
$1,238*
1.3
• • Srnal! sample
945/95 I Chat land Avenue Parking Variance Review I August 26. 20 I 5
S" pfcujK T-. Si.»
:.V.h
iOK-"
7
bunt (Stassociates
TRANSPORTATiON PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS
Table 5 following shows a comparison between the average rents and unit mixes at the eight
comparable sites and the proposed site on Charland Avenue.
Table 5: Eight Comparable Sites vs Charland Avenue Proposals
Unit Mix
Bach
1 Bed
2 Bed
Bach
1 Bed
2 Bed
Bach
1 Bed
2 Bed
2.4%
82.9%
14.6%
3%
71%
27%
-0.6%
11.9%
-12.4%
n/a
$1,000
$1,280
n/a*
$867
$1,238
$133
$42
(Average)
Rental Costs
(Average)
•' Sinal! sample
It can be seen that the proposed rents for 1 bedroom units at the Charland site are the highest of
all sites, but only $1 33/month higher than the average and certainly close to four other site. Rents
for 2 bedroom units are proposed to be only modestly higher compared to the average rents for
eight comparable sites. No doubt these slightly higher rents are reflective of the fact that the
Charland site will offer brand new, up to date units. However, it is not anticipated that income
levels for Charland residents would be so materially different from income levels (and therefore
auto ownership levels) of residents at the eight comparable sites.
However, it is clear that the Charland proposed development will have a higher proportion of 1
bedroom units compared to the eight comparable sites, which indicates that the 85'" percentile
"design demand" rate at the Charland site would likely be lower than the 0.89 vehicles/unit
registered to residents at the comparables site.
The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study report previously referenced assessed strata units
resident auto ownership by number of bedrooms. (Note, auto ownership for rental units by number
of bedrooms was not reported, presumably due to the lower sample size of rental units). The study
indicated that for bachelor suites, 1 bedroom strata units and 2 bedroom strata units, the average
auto ownership was 0.88/unit, 1.09/unit, and 1.33/unit respectively,' with increases of 24% and
22% between these different unit types, likely reflecting the increased number of adults per
household living in the larger units. It is not unreasonable to conclude, therefore, that the Charland
' Ibid, Page 47, Table 26.
945/9S1 Charland Avenue Parking Variance Review I August 26, 2015
I fliUltcrs -.nv
'Hu'df.l CJ(I..VAR S'-l
I SOS
-.On Ilij
vanrtn." IFlAiJdOt
8
bunt <SL associates
TRANSPORTATION PLANTERS AND ENGINEERS
site will have a lower 85'" percentile "design demand" rate lower than the comparable sites, solely
due to its higher proportion of 1 bedroom units.
Scaling the Metro Vancouver study results to the Charland site would result in an anticipated
"design demand" rate of 0.87 stalls per unit.
2.5
Visitor Parking Demand
The recent Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking study recommended a provision of 0.10 stalls per
unit for apartment buildings. This value is entirely consistent with several comprehensive visitor
parking studies undertaken by Bunt as summarized in Table 6 below.
Note that during the Guildford Towers Visitor Parking surveys, which covered Friday and Saturday
afternoon and evening periods at two high-rise towers. Bunt interviewed the drivers using the
designated visitor parking stalls. Over 50% of these users were residents using the visitor parking
for short-term convenience parking. It is our view that this may be a common occurrence, leading
to higher than required visitor parking rates when such rates are based solely on direct observation.
Table 6: Visitor Parking Studies by Bunt
^jPeaK Visitor Parking
gemand rate (stalls/urtit^
One Lonsdale Corridor Rental Tower,
studied on one day
(City of North Vancouver)
0.05
Two Guildford Town Centre
Apartment Towers, studied on 4 days
0.08
(City of Surrey)
Six Metrotown Apartment Towers
studied on 2 days
0.08
(City of Burnaby)
3.
AVAILABILITY OF ON-STREET PARKING
3.1
Parking Inventory
Bunt undertook a site visit of Charland Avenue (see Photographs 1 a & lb) and completed an onstreet parking inventory of Charland Avenue in July 201 5.
945/951 Charland Avenue Parking Variance Review | August 26, 201 5
i-jrl.iit.: P.irt
bunt <SLassociates
TRANSPORDXTiON PLA^S^iERS AND ENGINEERS
Photographs la & lb: Chariand Avenue (view from Blue Mountain Street and along the front of
the new residential medium hi-rise blocks respectively).
The parking supply observed along the street is summarised in Figure 1 below. This shows a total
of 31 spaces available, however. 10 of these spaces were determined to be used illegally, by drivers
parking at 90 degrees to the street on the public boulevard. The 90-degree parking spaces cover a
frontage of approximately 40m along Chariand Avenue equating to about six legal parallel parking
spaces. Therefore, the total supply of legal parking spaces was estimated at approximately 27
stalls.
Figure 1: Chariand Avenue - Parking Supply
3.2
Parking Demand
A parking demand survey of on-street parking along Chariand Avenue (between Blue Mountain
Street and Lebleu Street) was undertaken on a typical weekday Quly 29 201 5) between 4-8pm to
capture the peak residential on-street parking demand. The survey results are shown in Table 7
below. The results indicate that there were approximately 7 surplus parking stalls available on
945/951 Chariand Avenue Parking Variance Review I August 26 2015
cpc'itns biiv i.oii i
>1 Char!.i.i'I.P.<rk.v.\R •> .i (Vliv-t
i'-OS iS cO'l iUl .Ch-LUnd fVi;. Viriom «•.If'.V3 lo
10
TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS
bunt ^.associates
Charland Avenue during our observation period, even assuming the reduced legal available supply
of 27 stalls.
Table 7: Observed Parking Demand on Charland Avenue
pbservect Forking Demanci:
Supply Location
A
4pm
1
4.30pm
1
5pm
0
5.30pm
0
6pm
0
6.30pm
0
7pm
2
7.30pm
2
Peak Demand
2
Total Peak
20
Demand
Note - Supply location refers to Fi'jtire 1
The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study indicated that 1 0-1 S% of all apartment households
studied had at least 1 vehicle parked on street. Applying this rate to the future residents of the
proposed site at 945 and 951 Charland Avenue, it is estimated that 4-5 vehicles may be parked onstreet during the peak period of on-street parking demand. The demand observations indicated
that this demand could be absorbed by the available supply on Charland - however, it is stressed
that with a 0.87 supply provision for residents based on an 85'" percentile "design demand", the
Charland Avenue proposed site is not expected to have to rely on any on-street parking stalls.
4.
RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
Given the information above, it is Bunt's recommendation that the following minimum parking
supply be provided at the Charland site;
• For residents, at least 0.87 stalls per unit should be provided
11
945,'95 I Charland Avenue Parking Variance Review j August 26, 201 5
•-T5 - I.,
Oe'u f ;
)1
!'„ut.i:n,l f\i;». vatMrVi
t H '. A
iC-K
bunt (SLassociates
TRANSPORTATiCN PLAMCRS AND ENGINEERS
• For visitors, at least 0.1 0 stalls per unit should be provided; and,
. In total, a parking supply of at least 0.97 stalls per unit should be provided, for a total of 40
stalls.
If the City of Coquitlam does not accept the recommended 0.10 minimum and requires 0.2 stalls
per unit rate for visitors, as per City bylaw, this would result in a minimum parking supply
requirement of 1.07 stalls per unit, or 44 stalls.
**********************
We trust the foregoing assists you in your ongoing discussions with City staff. Please feel free to contact
me at any time if you have questions or comments on our report.
Yours truly.
Bunt & Associates
s.y
Simon de Verteuil, lEng MICE
Transportation Engineer
945/951 Charland Avenue Parking Variance Review I August 25. 201 5
i tftOlfXK-SUv
Ctiif.....! "...I. V\R sr. DolivPMbUs IS08.
i «'Xi.a.Un.l. f.irk wiM.uu." U'.Vd.loc
12
ATTACHMENT 6
REDBRICK PROPERTIES INC.
.•J
ftv/n the desk Abdul F. Jiwan, President
Suite 210 - 522 Seventh Street, New Westminster, British Columbia, C.\NADA \ 3M 5T5
tcl; (604) 522-3210 fvix: (604) 522-5035
eniiul; .ibduli(</'redl)r!ck;!K.biy.
October 14, 2015
Chris Jarvie
Development Planner
City of Coquitlam
3000 Guildford Way
Coquitlam, B.C.
V3B 7N2
Dear Mr. Jarvie,
RE: 41 Unit Market Rental Proposal for 945 / 951 Chariand Avenue
As you know, we have submitted a proposal for a 41 unit market rental building for the
site located at 945 / 951 Chariand Avenue. We are writing to elaborate on reasons we
believe this proposal will benefit the City of Coquitlam.
Context of the Proposal
The City of Coquitlam is one of the tightest rental markets in Canada. With a vacancy
rate of 1.6%^ the city is in desperate need of new market rental housing. The current
inventory of purpose built rental housing is a legacy of favourable government policies
during previous eras. Developers stopped building market rental housing from 1979
onward due to a withdrawal of various taxation provisions and government programs
that encouraged this form of development from the 1950s through the 1970s . Without
these incentives it became economically infeasible to build market rental housing.
Of the 9,250^ rental housing units in the city only 3,207'^ are purpose built while 6,043
are secondary suites, of which, 4,588^ are not legal (i.e. they do not meet the bylaw
requirements nor the building code and are potentially unsafe). It is obvious that the
demand for rental housing since the 1970s has been filled by the secondary suite market
and, primarily, by the illegal secondary suite market.
56% of the 3.207 purpose built market rental units currently existing in Coquitlam were
built between 1970 and 1979 and 43% were built between 1960 and 1969. The rest
were built before 1949®. The aging rental stock is rapidly deteriorating, in poor condition,
and badly in need of renewal.
' C.M.H.C. Market Rental Report Vancouver and Abbotsford-Mis.sion CM As, Fall 2014.
- Citv of Vancouver Rental Housing Strategy. Research and Policy Development. Synthesis Report, August
2010.
^ Housing Affordability Discussion Paper (January 2013). City of Coquitlam.
^ Metro Vancouver Purpose-Built Rental Housing: Inventory and Risk .Analysis, May 8, 2012.
' Coijuitlani Ponders llle^til Suites,^v\-Q\Vs News. May 31. 2013.
" Metro Vancouver Purpose-Built Rental Hoiising: Inventory and Risk Analysis, May 8. 2012.
1
The lack of market rental supply has caused an affordable housing rental crisis in the
city. From 1991 to 2011 average rents have Increased 80% while median household
income has only increased by 23%^ In addition, 26% of renter households currently
spend more than 50% of their incomes on rent and utilities®.
The media has reported on the rental housing crisis in Metro Vancouver extensively
during the last year. With news stories such as "Vancouver 'rent increase tsunami'
predicted by local realtor''^ and "Vancouver facing growing rental crisis"^^ it Is obvious
that more rental supply is needed to address the rental housing supply crunch in
Coquitlam and across Metro Vancouver.
The Proposal
We are proposing to develop a four storey wood-framed 41 unit secured market
residential rental building with one and and one half levels of underground parking
including 44 parking spots. The building will contain 1 studio apartment, 34 one bedroom
apartments, and 6 two bedroom apartments.
This proposal will require three variances; (1) a resident spot parking variance of 8 spots
(of 52 spots in total or 15%) and no visitor spot parking variance, (2) a density variance
of roughly 1,600 square feet (about 6%) utilizing half the required amenity space for
residential space, and (3) a lot coverage variance of roughly 4% (59% rather than 55%).
In exchange for receiving all three variances, we are willing to sign a Housing
Agreement with the City of Coquitlam and place a covenant on title securing the housing
as market rental housing.
Reasons To Accept Our Proposal
There are many reasons the City of Coquitlam should adopt our proposal for market
rental housing. In particular,
•
•
•
The proposal adds 41 units of new market rental supply to a very tight rental
market that badly needs new rental housing.
New market rental housing development is difficult to justify economically^^ and,
for this reason, has not been built since the end of the 1970s. Some flexibility Is
required of the municipalities to make this form of development financially viable.
Our proposal has the minimum variances necessary to make the project work
and will not result in a financial cost to the City.
The parking variance is fully justified due to the lower auto ownership of rental
households compared to strata condominium owner households'^. The current
zoning bylaws are designed for owner households and do not take into account
the specific requirements and needs of rental households. As a result, parking
^ Housing Affordabillt)' Discussion Paper (January 2013), City of Coquitlam.
* Canadian Rental Housing Index (rentalhousingindex.ca), 2015.
' Vancouver 'rent increase tsunami'predictedhy heal realtor, CBC News, July 28, 2015.
Vancouverfaces growing rental crisis, Global News, July 28, 2015.
" Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, Greater Vancouver Regional District Housing Committee,
March 30, 2015.
'• The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study, September 2012, pages iv, 5, and 49; and, 945/951
Charland Avenue Parking Study, Bunt & Associates Engineering (B.C.) Ltd. August 26, 2015.
requirements in the bylaw are oversupplied for rental households. With the cost
of each parking stall at roughly $20,000 to $45,000^^ it is very important that
parking bylaws consider the tower parking requirements of rental households to
avoid creating unnecessary and prohibitive costs to rental housing development.
On this particular site, our environmental engineer estimates a cost of roughly
$1.0mn to build out the underground parking facility to a full two levels^^. The
added $1.0mn cost will make the project infeasible. A parking variance is needed
to adapt the bylaw to rental households.
The minor density variance we are requesting reduces our land costs on a "per
buildable square foot" basis and helps make a market rental development
economically viable.
Southwest Coquitlam has the highest concentration of illegal secondary suites^®
and, as a result, the greatest need for new market rental housing supply.
Additionally, Austin Heights has a large concentration of market rental buildings
all built before 1979 which are rapidly deteriorating. The area badly needs a
renewal of market rental housing stock.
Our proposal satisfies Strategy 2.1: Expand the supply of new rental housing,
including new purpose built market rental housing^^ of the Greater Vancouver
Regional District Housing Committee's Regional Affordable Housing Strategy.
The strategy report, dated March 30, 2015, specifically noted that:
"Purpose built market housing is an especially valuable component of the
rental supply, one that deserves special attention due to the security of
tenure it offers tenants.
This report also encourages municipalities to consider the following plans,
policies, and programs:
^Incentives that will help make development of new purpose built market
rental housing financially viable (i.e. parking reductions, fee waivers,
increased density, and fast-tracking).
Our project closely aligns with the City of Coquitlam's Draft Housing Affordabillty
Strategy Policy Direction 1.2: Provide incentives to develop market rental units.
The proposal follows strategies used by other municipalities to encourage new
market rental building development. The City of Vancouver, the City of New
Westminster, and the City of North Vancouver all offer density bonuses, parking
relaxations, reduced municipal fees, limited amenity space, and reduced unit
sizes as an incentive for developers to build new market rental housing. Recent
examples include:
o A 614 unit market rental development in Vancouver at Rogers Arena by
Aquilini Development and Construction Inc.; and,
o A 130 unit market rental development at 175 West 14^ Street in North
Vancouver by Hoilyburn Properties Ltd.
The Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study, September 2012, pages ii and 5.
Report - Mitigation Measures and Estimated Costs Required for Proposed Development at 945/951
Chariand Avenue, Coquitlam. B.C., Summit Environmental Consultants Inc., April 23, 2015.
Coquitlam Ponders Illegal .Sf/zVey.Tri-City News, May 31, 2013.
Draft Regional Affordable Housing Strategy, Greater Vancouver Regional District Housing Committee,
March 30, 2015.
The current economic environment favours market rental development due to
exceptionally low interest rates that may not last for much longer. The Mayor of
North Vancouver made this point in a recent interview with the North Shore
News^^ after Council approved a new rental development on Lonsdale Avenue.
This view has been supported by industry^®.
The proposal is technically feasible by utilizing s.904 of the Local Government
Act which permits additional density to what the zone permits for affordable or
special needs housing and by amending s.510 of the zoning bylaw to add the
RM-3 zone as well as the site located at 945 / 951 Charland Avenue. This zoning
bylaw amendment was used to establish the added density for market rental
housing at 515-525 Foster Avenue. In addition, the RM-3 zone can be amended
to permit sites to go above the maximum density allowed if providing affordable
or special needs housing that must meet the associated conditions outlined in
Part 5 of the zoning bylaw.
Summary
We believe that this proposal is an excellent one for the City of Coquitlam because it will
create much needed market rental housing supply. Our proposal offers justified
variances with no cost or downside to City of Coquitlam. Additionally, it will be the first
stand-alone market rental project in Coquitlam in over forty years.
We look forward to working with City staff to make this project a great success.
Sincerely,
REDBRICK PROPERTIES INC.
\
Jiwan
Another all-rental building planned for Lonsdale Avenue, North Shore News, January 30,2015, Mayor
Darrell Mussatto, City of North Vancouver.
Gonadals rental unit landscape witnessing resurgence, The Globe & Mail, March 15,2015, Ian
Gillespie. President of Westbank Projects Corporation.