district of mission · district of mission. bylaw 5959-2020-5050(387) a bylaw to amend...

DISTRICT OF MISSION

BYLAW 5959-2020-5050(387)

A Bylaw to amend "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009"

WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Local Government Act, a Council may, by bylaw, divide the municipality into zones and regulate the use of land, buildings and structures within such zones;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission has adopted "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" and amended same from time to time;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the District of Mission deems it advisable and in the public interest to amend the Zoning Bylaw;

NOW THEREFORE the Council of the District of Mission, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw5959-2020-5050(387).”

2. "District of Mission Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009" as amended, is hereby further amended by:

a) Adding a new Section 1248 – Comprehensive Development 48 (CD48) Zone, as setout in Schedule “A” attached to and forming part of this Bylaw;

b) rezoning the properties located at:Address: 33128 - 3rd Avenue Parcel Identifier: 011-826-606 Lot 3, Block 79, District Lot 411, Group 1, New Westminster District, Plan 664 Address: 33136 - 3rd Avenue Parcel Identifier: 011-900-971 Lot 4, Block 79, District Lot 411, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan 664 Address: 33144 - 3rd Avenue Parcel Identifier: 011-900-997 Lot 5, Block 79, District Lot 411, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan 664

from Multiple Family 52 Apartment (MA52) Zone to Comprehensive Development 48 (CD48) Zone; and

c) amending the zoning maps accordingly.

READ A FIRST TIME this 4 h day of August, 2020

READ A SECOND TIME this 4th day of August, 2020

PUBLIC HEARING held this __ day of ____, 2020

READ A THIRD TIME this __ day of ____, 2020

APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this __ day of ___, 2020 Information Package - Page 1

District of Mission Zoning Amending Bylaw 5959-2020-5050(387)

Page 2 of 7 ADOPTED this __ day of ___, 2020

PAMELA ALEXIS, JENNIFER RUSSELL, MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER

Information Package - Page 2

Development Services - Planning Division

Staff Report

STAFF REPORT Page 1 of 44

Project: P2019-142 Application Numbers: R19-046, DP19-174 File: 08-3310-21-42

DATE: August 4, 2020

BYLAW / PERMIT #: 5959-2020-5050(387)

PROPERTY ADDRESSES:

33128, 33136, 33144 3rd Avenue

LOCATION: Mission Core

CURRENT ZONING: Multiple Family 52 Apartment Zone (MA52)

PROPOSED ZONING: Comprehensive Development Zone 48 (CD48)

CURRENT OCP: Mission City Downtown

PROPOSED OCP: No change

PROPOSAL:

To build a six storey rental apartment building with 77 residential units.



OVERVIEW AND STAFF COMMENTS:

This report details the introduction of a new comprehensive development 48 zone (CD48) and the accompanying development application to rezone the properties located at 33128, 33136 and 33144 3rd Avenue from Multiple Family 52 Apartment (MA52) Zone to the new CD48 Zone. The CD48 Zone would allow the construction of a 6 storey rental apartment building. The application includes a development permit to address the form and character of the structure which includes a variance to the Development and Subdivision Control Bylaw 5650-2017 to allow the existing watermain service at 3rd Avenue to be maintained and not upgraded provided certain desirable local improvements are achieved.

Staff support the Bylaw and permits moving forward and as such have listed the Zoning Amending Bylaw under the “Bylaws for Consideration” section of the Council agenda and the development permit and development variance permits will be listed under the “Permits for Consideration” section of the agenda at the time of bylaw adoption.

RECOMMENDATION: Council consider and resolve:

That the developer be required to register the following encumbrances against the title of the properties located at 33128, 33136, and 33144 3rd Avenue:

1. a Housing Agreement and Section 219 covenant with the District of Mission;

2. Section 219 covenant - Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) which states the CAC contribution they have made will be returned to the contributor(s) if the development has been issued a building final occupancy permit by December 31, 2024 and, if not, the District will retain the full value of the contribution based on a $2,815 per unit rate; and

3. a letter of volunteering for servicing (a condition of the variance approval) must be registered on title with a Section 219 covenant.

PURPOSE:

To rezone the site (3 properties) from Multiple Family 52 Apartment Zone (MA52) to Comprehensive Development 48 Zone (CD48) (Attachment A) to accommodate the construction of a six (6) storey apartment building consisting of 77 rental units with underground parking.

RATIONALE OF RECOMMENDATIONS:

The proposal is consistent with the Official Community Plan.

The proposal aligns with Council's strategic plan.

OCP Compliance & Policies

• The development site is designated as Mission City Downtown in the Official Community Plan (OCP). This designation allows for high rise (greater than 4 stories) multi-unit residential buildings. The OCP allows projects in this designation to have a floor space ratio (FSR) ranging from 1.0 to 4.5. This development proposes a 6 storey, 77-unit rental apartment building with underground parking accessed from the rear. The building and the FSR of 2.91 proposed is within the range permitted by Bylaw. The site plan for the development is shown on Attachment B.

• The proposal includes 5 community garden boxes which is supported in OCP policy 8.1.9 which “encourage community gardens in any residential development within the Urban Growth Boundary….”



• This proposal for affordable rental housing is supported by the OCP under policy 8.1.10 which “Encourage at least 10% of the total number of any new residential development units or subdivision lots to be affordable as defined by the District of Mission”. The development proposal meets this objective and will be identified in the Housing Agreement and the Section 219 covenant which will restrict the total amount of rent being charged to defined affordable rates.

• Council’s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan encourages the development of Complete Livable Communities, and to achieve this goal, Council has identified the need to attract and incentivize affordable housing, various housing options including treatment facilities.

• The MissionCity Downtown Action Plan (The Plan) identifies 5 fundamental characteristics for a

successful downtown, one of which, is the development a mix of high-density land uses that offer a downtown living experience. This proposal meets the goals and objectives of The Plan, as it provides high density, stand-alone residential development in the downtown area with access to underground parking made possible through reduced parking requirements.

Downtown Development Incentive Program Boundary Expansion

• Although the properties are designated as Mission City Downtown in the OCP, they are not currently captured within the Downtown Development Incentive Program Boundary (DDIP) nor within the downtown area boundary as defined in The Plan. As part of this proposal, the applicant has made a corresponding request to Council to expand the DDIP boundary to include their development site. With the boundary amendment, the project would be eligible for various financial incentives offered in the DDIP including a property tax exemption, reduction in municipal development application fees as well as conditional relief from the Council’s typical request for community amenity contributions associated with rezonings where any contributions made would be returned if the project is completed by December 31, 2024.

• The bylaw that would amend the DDIP Boundary is currently sitting at 3rd Reading and the amendment must precede the adoption of the Zoning Amending Bylaw for the CD48 Zone.

Housing Requirements

• The developer has stated that the project will be completed under the BC Housing - Housing Hub Rental Supply Program. The goal of this Program is to increase the supply and range of affordable and appropriate rental housing supply options for middle-income households in British Columbia.

• According to the Program and BC Housing’s precedent covenant for such projects, “Middle Income” has been defined as follows:

(a) for residential units with less than two bedrooms, income that does not exceed the 75th income percentile for families, without children, as determined by the Commission from time to time based on data provided by Statistics Canada. For 2019, this annual Income is $112,410.00; and

(b) for residential units with two or more bedrooms, income that does not exceed the 75th income percentile for families, with children, as determined by the Commission from time to time based on data provided by Statistic Canada. For 2019, this annual Income is $155,510.00.

Based on Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) data available for annual median income for Mission ($78,159) and CMHC’s definition of affordability, the rent that would be set for an apartment for a “Middle Income” family would be approximately $1,950 per month. The covenant requires residents to be income tested for eligibility.



Height of Building

• The proposed building height on the drawings is close to meeting the maximum height required by the DT2 Zone. With the CD Zone, it was possible for staff to allow for a slightly increased height than the building elevations currently indicate. This allows for increased flexibility.

• Staff have no concerns with allowing for a height of 23.0 m (75.0 feet).

Amenity Space

Indoor

• The change here clarifies the different types of amenity area requirements for attached multi-unit projects, as specified in the draft Zoning Bylaw 5949-2020.

• The requirement for indoor amenity space in the DT2 Zone is 2.8 sq m (30.1 sq ft) per unit. With 77 units being proposed, this equates to 215.6 sq m (2,230.7 sq ft) of indoor amenity space required.

• The developer has indicated that indoor amenity spaces limited to specific function, such as gyms and meeting rooms, are not utilized enough to justify this amount of space they displace from actual living areas. The developer has advised that when targeting middle income earners and where rent restrictions are in place, it is not economically viable to displace units to provide indoor amenity space at the current provision of 2.8 sq m (30.1 sq ft) per unit.

• Consequently, the developer will provide indoor amenity space at a ratio of 0.38 sq m (4.0 sq ft) per unit for a building total of 29.26 sq m (314.9 sq ft).

Outdoor

• The provision of outdoor amenity space is not a requirement of the DT2 Zone, and thus not a requirement of the CD48 Zone. However, the proponent believes that outdoor amenity space is more beneficial than the provision of indoor amenity space and for this reason is proposing 105.0 sq m (1,130.2 sq ft) of common outdoor amenity space which includes a dog run and garden planter area. The proponent’s rationale for providing less indoor amenity space than would be required is described on Attachment C.

Motor Vehicle Access Across a Front Lot Line

• As the table above indicates, the DT2 Zone does not permit motor vehicles to cross a lot line where there is access available from a lane. The objective of this is to promote a pedestrian-friendly interface to flanking roads, as well as increasing pedestrian safety. With this project however, all surface parking will be accessed across the front lot line and not the rear lane. Staff have reviewed with the developer the benefits of moving the building closer to the fronting street and relocating the surface parking to the rear of the building at the lane. However, the developer has indicated that surface parking at the rear of the building was not feasible and he did not want to reduce the number of parking stalls in order to achieve this requirement.

• Staff have no concerns with allowing motor vehicle access across the front lot line, as the developer has addressed some of staff concerns with landscaped boulevards.

Landscaping

• Section 111 of the current Zoning Bylaw 5050-2009 and Section 112 of draft Zoning Bylaw 5949-2020 require that landscaping is included in parking areas. The purpose of which is to break up the visual appearance of surface parking. The applicant has said they cannot provide the landscaping, as they do not want to reduce the number of parking stalls.



DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE PERMIT:

• DV19-019 – To vary Development and Subdivision Control Bylaw 5650-2017. The Development Variance Permit is shown on Attachment E.

• The Engineering Department has provided specific details on all aspects of servicing that are required, they have also agreed to support a variance to the allow the existing 150mm municipal watermain to remain, in exchange for certain desirable local improvements. Specifically, the Engineering Department has stated that should the developer provide a design that includes the looping of the watermain, they would support a variance to the Development and Subdivision Control Bylaw, Schedule C, Section 3. 3.9.1 that would allow the existing watermain under 3rd Avenue adjacent to the subject properties to remain as a 150 mm and thus offset additional costs to the improvements.

• The improvements the developer will be installing, in exchange for having to upgrade the watermain are described in the applicant’s rationale letter attached to Development Variance Permit DV19-019.

REFERRALS:

Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has no objection to this proposal, subject to the completion of Engineering Servicing requirements, as outlined in Attachment F.

MOTI: No concerns.

DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS:

Community Amenity Contribution

With the inclusion of the subject property in the DDIP boundary, the applicant has agreed to offer the policy-suggested community amenity contribution and enter into a covenant agreement which states that contributions would be returned if the project is completed by December 31, 2024. If the project is not completed by December 31, 2024, the District would then keep the full contribution for the future provision of amenities as per Council policy.

Rationale of Development Variance Permit

The applicant’s rationale and offer of services to be achieved are described in Development Variance permit Attachment E.

Housing Needs Projections

• The 2020 / 2024 Housing Needs Assessment identifies the need for 150 units of new affordable rental stock in the year 2020.

• As of August 4, 2020, no affordable rental units have been constructed.

• If this development is approved, it will add 77 affordable dwelling units to the District’s housing stock and bring the District slightly more than halfway of meeting their goal for 2020.

• Information related to the cumulative totals for 2020 to 2024 is provided in a semiannual update to Council.

Transit

• The proposed development is within walking distance of a transit stop. Walking distance is generally considered to be 400 m from a site or less.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

• While there are many benefits to the proposed development, it is also important to consider the immediate financial impacts this development will have on the District. The inclusion of the subject property in the DDIP Boundary will result in a marginal reduction in municipal revenue from this proposed development. The reduced revenue is attributed to the property tax exemption, municipal fee reduction and a community amenity contribution relief period (during which CAC would be refunded if the project is completed by December 31, 2024). As indicated in a previous report to Council on July 6, 2020, the total financial impact to the District to include the subject property in the DDIP Boundary is estimated to be $352,388 over the course of 10 years.

• The applicant has already paid application fees these will be refunded when the DDIB is expanded.

COMMUNICATION:

In accordance with Policy LAN.03 Development Notification Signs, Land Use Application Procedures and Fees Bylaw 3612-2003, and the Local Government Act;

• The applicant has posted one development notification sign.

• Public Hearing Notification will be sent to all occupiers and owners of properties within 152 m from the development site notifying them of the public hearing details.

REQUIREMENTS PRIOR TO FINAL READING:

The Final Reading of Zone Amending Bylaw 5959-2020-5050(387) and approval of Development Permit DP19-174 and Development Variance Permit DV19-019 will be held until the following have been satisfied:

1. a Housing Agreement and Section 219 covenant against the subject properties have been registered;

2. Section 219 covenant - Community Amenity Contribution which states the CAC contribution they have made will be returned to the contributor(s) if the development has been issued a building final occupancy permit by December 31, 2024 and, if not, the District will retain the full value of the contribution based on a $2,815 per unit rate;

3. a letter of volunteering for servicing (a condition of the variance approval) must be registered on title with a Section 219 covenant; and

4. any other requirements resulting from Council’s consideration of the Bylaw including Public Hearing.



ATTACHMENTS:

A – Comprehensive Development 48 Zone (CD48)

B – Site Plan

C – Developer’s Rationale for Reduced Indoor Amenity Space

D - Development Permit DP19-174 – Mission City Downtown

E – Development Variance Permit DV19-019 – Development and Subdivision Control Bylaw

F – Engineering Department Comments

SIGN-OFFS:

Dan Sommer, Director of Development Services

MB / sj

Comment from Chief Administrative Officer: Reviewed.



ATTACHMENT A – Comprehensive Development 48 Zone



ATTACHMENT A (Continued)



ATTACHMENT B – Site Plan



ATTACHMENT C – Developer’s Rationale for Reduced Indoor Amenity Space



ATTACHMENT C (Continued)



ATTACHMENT D – Development Permit DP19-174



ATTACHMENT D (Continued)



ATTACHMENT E – Development Variance Permit DV19-019



ATTACHMENT E (Continued)



ATTACHMENT F - Engineering Comments



ATTACHMENT F (Continued)


From: Bernadette Barnes Sent: August 13, 2020 1:59 PM Subject: [EXT] Public Hearing on August 24,2020 at 6:00 p.m. My name is Bernadette Barnes and I live at 313 - 33150 4th Ave, Mission, just above this proposed apartment. I just want to ensure this new building will not interfere with the view from any of the suites on the south side of my apartment, Kathleen Court. I have lived at this address now for 23 years, and do not want to see anyone’s view changed, so would hope you have taken this into consideration and this would not be going to happen? It is not cheap to live at Kathleen Court and everyone paid good money to have an apartment with a view and no one wants to see this change. Bernadette Barnes


From: Emily Murdoch Sent: August 14, 2020 11:52 AM Subject: [EXT] Attn: Jennifer Russel

Re: Rezoning Proposal R19-046 Hi there, I'm Emily Murdoch of 33111 3rd Avenue, and as I am not able to attend the hearing for the rezoning hearing for 3rd Avenue I would like to submit a letter for the record. Thanks in advance Dear Jennifer Russel and those reviewing rezoning proposal R19-046, As a long time resident and beneficiary to the property at 33111 3rd Avenue, I feel it is my duty to protect my future investment as well as the integrity of the neighbourhood. I thereby submit for the record, my concerns regarding the proposed development for the 3rd Avenue area. In the proposal, the only negative stated was a $352,388 loss to the District of Mission over the course of 10 years. This clearly omits the negative impact the project has on those living in the affected area. As with most building projects, the “human factor” is blatantly ignored. The proposal believes that $1958/month qualifies as “affordable housing” for a “middle income family”. This pricing does not take into account factors associated with living in a rental situation. Strata, utilities (hydro, wifi, phone), and the inclusion of parking space rental, would push $1958/month well past affordable for a middle income family. Taking into consideration that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporations calculations are based off gross income versus net, the objective of “affordable housing” for “middle income families” (which implies the inclusion of children, an additional cost upon any household), would make the units of this project unattainable for those residing in Mission looking to start families and move into homes of their own. The projected $352,388 loss to the District, logically, will be considerably higher. If it is not affordable, it will not lease, and if it does not lease, it will not generate income. If it were to lease to out-of-towners as the pricing of these units implies, the project developers have clearly not taken into account the actual neighbourhood. A quick internet search would show the average apartment rental rates in Mission for 2 bedrooms is between $913-$1000. Even for a new building, once the additional pricing is factored in, a prospective renter could see how the risk versus reward is not in their favour. A walk around the neighbourhood would highlight that most poignantly. Most notably, the homeless population (that the District has made minimal attempts to remedy), would make most families nervous at best to allow their children to walk around during the day. Metres away from the development your proposing is a set of stairs that lead from the Downtown Core to the Elementary School. On those stairs is a needle depository unit, which does wonders for keeping the area clean and safe. However, the optics for the new constituents you seem eager to import is not entirely favourable.


Proximity to transit is also stated within the proposal as a selling point for this development. While the bus system in Mission isn’t the worst, as the aim seems to be to bring in out-of-towners, the transit system is worthless to them. For those that work out of town (which a majority of the population would, as there really is no industry, let alone jobs, in the Mission area. Mission has been kept stagnant as a bedroom community), the West Coast Express is also useless to them. One glance at a pre-COVID timetable would prove that.

The particular selling points put forward in the plan are easily researched by prospective buyers. Were this not already my home, knowing what is easily seen in this particular neighbourhood, I would not look to invest my future in this particular project.

And should your projected loss of $352,388 over ten years be too low, who would make up the difference? How will this project affect current homeowners housing taxes? How will this project affect our property values? Should we choose or require to sell within the 3-4 years this project will be unders construction, are we supposed to accept proverbial peanuts for our long-term investments? These are the additional human factors rarely looked at by those proposing a development.

This is my home and this is my investment, which is why it’s important to also point out the human factors of this proposal.

Such as the whole paragraph that insists that this project fits in with the “neighbourhood character”.

A 6-story housing complex (that also has a clause for additional height, which would already be a blight on our sight-line), in the middle of a residential street surrounded by single family dwellings is not congruous to the “neighbourhood character”. The aesthetics of the proposed development do not in any way, shape, or form, fit in with the other domiciles on this block. The proposed development would be more suited in the North of Mission, like the Egglestone area, where the District has done a fine job developing and cultivating a more modern feel. The 3rd Avenue area carries a very distinct “Old Mission” vibe. If anything, a development like that of 7431 James Street would be more fitting with our “neighbourhood character”.

While I confess, I do not speak with the developing eye of a professional, I do however believe my 30 years of residency makes me more qualified to speak on our “neighbourhood character” than a development agency from Chiliwhack.

Ultimately, the time has passed to develop in the way you are proposing on 3rd Avenue as was attempted in the 90’s. The proposed development can work in a number of places elsewhere in Mission, such as 2nd Avenue which already has a long line of multi-family dwellings or even 4th Avenue where the precedent has been set with Kathleen Courts or as previously mentioned, somewhere to the North of Mission, which has ultimately been deemed more desirable anyway.

At this time, the proposal for this particular development on 3rd Avenue does not make sense. It is awkward, misguided and incongruous to our “neighbourhood character”.

Sincerely,

Emily Murdoch of 33111 3rd Avenue


district of mission · district of mission. bylaw 5959-2020-5050(387) a bylaw to amend...

Documents