October 28th Regular Council Meeting
Hey everyone, sorry about the late post this week for Eyes on Council. This week’s council session had a lot going on again, so it’s another long post today. Let’s get started with it.
First up were the revised recommendations from the October 14th regarding R1 zoning for small scale multi-unit housing. There were some significant changes to the original zoning proposal while still maintaining the concept of having multiple units of housing on a single lot. First off, in response to overwhelming public sentiment there were changes in the heights of buildings allowed on these lots. The overall height for the main building on the lot has been reduced to 10 meters total on a sloped roof, or 9.5 meters for a flat roof structure. For the rear building on the lot, the height is reduced to 7.5 meters on a sloped roof and 7 meters on a flat roof. These measurements are from the lower of the front or rear elevation of the property.
R1 zoning is meant to allow as many as six different housing units to be built on a single lot, but doesn’t require it as part of the rezoning. Changes were also made to the amount of allowable sizes of properties if the owner and developer choose to only build one or two units on the lot. For lots that are greater than 567 square meters, if only one or two units are built then they can only cover 25% of the lot space, have a max height of 2.5 storeys and a maximum 60% coverage for the impervious surface area, which would include things like the garage, driveway and any other compacted soil. For lot sizes under 567 square meters, an amendment was passed to reduce the lot coverage to 30%, again with 2.5 storey max and this time with only 40% maximum impervious surface area. For those smaller lot sizes where three or four units are being built, lot coverage increases to 40%, a height restriction of 3 storeys and a significant increase to 60% coverage for the maximum impervious surface area.
The zoning bylaw also impacts smaller lots. For those lots that are larger than 281 square meters and have the five or six units contemplated in the provincial legislation and municipal bylaw, up to 45% of the lot may be used for housing, with a maximum height of 3 storeys and up to 70% of the lot being impervious surfaces. Finally, row houses on lots smaller than 280 square meters may have up to three units on them may cover up to 55% of the lot in housing, again at 3 storeys and a 70% maximum impervious surface area. The last change from the original bylaw was to have a minimum yard size of four meters for small scale multi-unit housing, and three meters for row houses.
Council had a significant discussion about this bylaw, and as noted it was amended from allowing 40% usable lot size to 30% for lots under 567 square meters that only had one or two housing units on the lot. The main area of discussion was whether the switch from forty percent to thirty percent would allow for the increase in housing density envisioned by provincial and municipal legislators, and also what would ensure that large buildings that dominate the neighbourhood were not built. It was noted that the reduction in buildable land would only impact those lots that chose to build only one or two units and were not actively increasing density on their lots. Some of the councillors were clear that reducing the amount of buildable land was specifically done to ensure that units would be smaller and increase overall attainability for families. This led to a discussion about whether the smaller units would be appropriate for families, and whether the variety of missing middle housing could be created that would still be large enough to support multiple residents in each dwelling. Staff also indicated that the new system being proposed would be more transparent for developers and the local community about what would be allowed on the property.
The mayor’s bylaw amendment to the R1 small scale multi-unit housing zoning district from the previous October 14 meeting was referred to staff for more consideration and to report on some of the legal implications the city might be responsible for if it passed. The amendment would have increased the amount of parking on each R1 lot to 1.0 parking spots per unit, and no more than four units of housing per parcel of land that is smaller than 623 square meters. Councillors noted that the proposed amendment had not been extensively tested by staff to determine whether triplexes and quadplexes could still be viable under the bylaw, and staff indicated that there could be some potential conflicts about whether required yard sizes and distances between buildings on the lots could be respected under the proposed change.
Several councillors suggested that these changes would be inconsistent with the provincial enabling legislation and that could leave the city open to legal challenges in the future. With that in mind, the council voted to refer the amendment to staff to report on what legal ramifications could unfold if the bylaw amendment passes.
A proposed zoning bylaw amendment regarding community benefit rates and capital cost rates for R6 through R8 zones was considered. R6-R8 zoning is medium to high density housing. R6 zoning refers to midrise residential up to 20 storeys in height, with additional bonus density subject to discretionary approval of council. R7 refers to high rise residential towers of up to 30 storeys, with a legislated bonus of up to 10 more storeys in height. R8 is high rise residential up to 40 storeys, again with a potential bonus lift of 10 more storeys embedded in the bylaw. The proposed bylaw sets out rates for community benefit and capital cost payments the developer must pay to the city to obtain the bonus, in line with provincial legislation moving towards amenity cost charges and development cost charges as means of funding housing in the province, instead of ad hoc density bonuses negotiated at the time of each rezoning application. Community Benefit Rates are higher for market properties versus non-market housing, and Capital Cost Rates are dependent upon what kind of community amenity is being constructed with the funds. The rates were also dependent upon which of the four development quadrants of the city the development was constructed in. Council approved the motion to have the city solicitor develop bylaw amendments for presentation to council based on the proposed rates.
Council also approved a process for determining the appropriate development fees a development would pay to the city if it were to abandon its current process and re-apply under the new R1-R9 zoning system. Currently, there are several projects under consideration that applied under the old zoning structure the city developed. This former process included processes for determining the density bonus developers would receive, and the developer payments that would be accrued to obtain those density bonuses. Those were typically negotiated individually with each development proposal. Council envisions that many developments may wish to withdraw from that previous structure and reapply for development under the new zoning bylaws, and council prepared a process to ensure fairness for developers. The recommended process notes that when R rezoning is given final approval and adoption, the city will release applicants from all prior obligations under the previous zoning structure. City staff would also discharge existing obligations on title, and instead register new covenants on the title based on the new rezoning system.
The process would also determine what to do with payments already made by the developers. Interest payments would not be returned if the developer was doing a deferred payment structure, but if the developer had already fully paid their previous density bonus charges, the principal amount would be returned to the developer. The city would then issue development cost charge and amenity cost charges upon issuing the new building permits. Any previously paid development cost charges and amenity cost charges would be held as a credit against the new fees and reduce the final amount due from the developers.
Up next in the council meeting were a series of rezoning applications brought forward by the Planning and Development Committee for consideration by council. The first up for consideration was the development at Newcome and 10th avenue for multiple family residential purpose-built rental properties. This was approved to be forwarded to the next council meeting for first and second reading and is the first project put forward by the Burnaby Housing Authority. This project would be cost-neutral to taxpayers, as the Housing Authority would be paid through the city’s previous community benefit bonus account. The project includes 204 units, with a mix of studio through to 3-bedroom units. The project is meant to reduce overall housing costs due to the Burnaby Housing Authority’s mandate to have a significant non-market housing component, where non-market housing could be as low as 50% of neighbourhood market rates.
The second rezoning application to be forwarded to the next council meeting was phase 1A of the Burnaby Lake Village project in the Bainbridge Urban Village at 6800 Lougheed Highway. This is the first phase of a multi-phase planned development project in a transit oriented development district. The buildings forwarded under this rezoning application would be zoned under the new R6 designation allowing for buildings up to 20 storeys in height. The three buildings envisioned will have 729 units, with a minimum of 20% of those units constructed as adaptable under the adaptable housing policy and BC building code.
A mixed-use development at 4269 Hastings was also forwarded for first and second reading by council. The six storey mixed use building is one of the smaller ones being considered, with only 37 residential units being considered. As with the Lougheed Highway location, a minimum of 20% of the units will be adaptable as per the adaptable housing policy and the BC building code. Interesting to note that the building will have a lack of parking, only five parking spots are available for residents at the current time, with six available for the commercial component of the building.
A mid-rise rental apartment building in the Metrotown area was the last proposal that was forwarded to the next council meeting. The development, at 5889 Barker Avenue, was brought in under the previous floor area ratio building density system that the city is moving away from. The project includes 396 units. 290 of those units will be market sale units, 48 are replacement-non-market rental units to replace rental units that will be lost during the construction process, and a further 48 market rental units. Just like the previous few developments, at least 20% of the units will have to be adaptable under the adaptable housing policy and BC building code.
There was a rezoning application that was defeated and not sent to the next council meeting for consideration. There was a proposal put forward to build a purpose-built multiple family rental development on Rathburn drive near Simon Fraser University, and its proposed purpose would be for student accommodation. The council noted that there’s no formal application put forward as part of the application and that this was simply a request to determine whether there would be city staff support in principle for development in the chosen neighbourhood.
Council noted that there are environmental concerns in the area and that city staff have not completed survey work of fire hazards in the location, and that making any decisions about developments in that area should be halted until the staff work is complete. Staff also were concerned that the developer was not working with the university when the goal was to produce student housing. There were also additional concerns that even with the proposal being for student housing, there were no guarantees that the developer would charge rates similar to what the university itself would offer, and that instead the developer would charge market rates above what students would be able to afford. Council’s concerns about the environmental issues of the site and the fact that the development would significantly increase the population of the area led them to not move forward with the application at this time.
Finally, council approved housing agreements for properties at 5938 Olive Avenue and 6073 Wilson Avenue. These agreements stipulates how many non-market units and the kinds of units that must be designated as non-market, and further defines who would be eligible for discounted rental rates at the properties.
The council schedule this month is a bit different than October, so blog posts may be sporadic and not on my usual schedule. We have a special council meeting November 4th and a planning and development committee meeting November 5th, and then a public hearing November 24th and council meeting November 25th. I’ll be writing about each of those as I can, as the next couple weeks will be busy for me as well.
Looking forward to the next ones, keeping you all up to date on what’s happening as your Eyes on Council.
