POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT:

CD-1 Rezoning - 1380 Hornby Street

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council Policies for this site include:

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report assesses an application to rezone the site shown on the map below from Downtown District (DD Area N) to Comprehensive Development District (CD-1). This application proposes a 39-unit boutique-style hotel in a 16-storey, 56.7 m (186 ft.) tall tower (including mechanical) at an overall floor space ratio (FSR) of 6.67 (hotel use is not permitted in Area N of the Downtown District). Restoration and designation of the historic Leslie House, built c. 1888, is also proposed and it will provide a lounge for the adjacent hotel lobby and ancillary office space on the second floor. The additional FSR above the maximum 5.0 permitted in DD Area N represents the heritage bonus floor area for the restoration and designation of the Leslie House.

Staff support the application and the Director of Current Planning recommends that it be referred to a Public Hearing and approved subject to conditions.

DISCUSSION

Background: The 836.1 m² (9,000 sq. ft.) site, located in the Hornby Slopes sub-area of Downtown South, comprises three 7.62 m (25 ft.) wide, 36.6 m (120 ft.) deep lots fronting onto Hornby Street. The site contains the historic Leslie House (including a 1947 addition to the rear of the house) and a flanking one-storey building, both of which are part of the Umberto restaurant complex. Another heritage house, known as the Lane House, was recently moved off site to Mole Hill. The adjacent building to the north, Pacific Terrace Apartments, is a high-rise rental apartment building stepping up from seven to eleven storeys with a rooftop garden at the first level above grade. Directly south is a one-storey restaurant, Il Giardino, on the corner of Hornby and Pacific Streets. It is also part of the Umberto restaurant complex and has been directly connected to Leslie House since 1992 when a walkway was approved by a minor amendment. It is, however, under separate ownership and is not part of the development site or rezoning.

Across the lane to the east is a 19-storey hotel/residential tower, the Executive Hotel/Portofino Tower, with two low-rise restaurants facing Pacific Street. The Anchor Point complex, with 7- and 8-storey mixed-use buildings, is located to the west across Hornby Street.

This and all surrounding sites are zoned Downtown District (DD Area N).


Heritage Status: The Leslie House, currently Umberto's Yellow House Restaurant, was built around 1888. It is one of the oldest surviving buildings in Vancouver and may be the oldest house in Vancouver. It is listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register (VHR) in the "A" Category and is not designated. According to the VHR evaluation form, it rates very highly for architectural history particularly being the earliest very good example of the Queen Anne style of residential architecture in Vancouver. It also rates well for cultural history, being the earliest surviving example of a house in the downtown.

In 2002, Council approved the relocation of the small Lane House built behind the Leslie House, as this was the only means to preserve and provide for its long term protection. In so doing, it freed up a portion of the Hornby Street lot for future redevelopment, but always with the understanding that the Leslie House would be retained in situ and designation applied to the site. This rezoning application proposes the retention of the Leslie House in situ, while providing for development incentives that offset the preservation costs of the house.

Use: The applicant proposes a boutique hotel with customary ancillary uses such as banquet rooms, meeting rooms, a lounge, and a lap pool. Hotel use has not been permitted in this area, Hornby Slopes - Downtown District (Area N), since 1991 when Council adopted new zoning provisions to ensure that development would be primarily residential. However, staff support the proposed hotel use on the subject site to ensure the restoration and designation of the Leslie House. There are four legally non-conforming hotels operating in Hornby Slopes and a fifth directly adjacent to Area N on the south-east corner of Howe and Drake Streets (Area C).

Density and Density Bonus: The permitted density in DD (Area N) is a maximum of 5.0. The proposed density is 6.67 FSR. The difference of 1.67 FSR represents heritage bonus floor area for the restoration and designation of the Leslie House. A heritage bonus of 1396.3 m² (15,030 sq. ft.) was negotiated between the applicant and staff on the basis of a pro forma analysis submitted by the applicant, to represent fair compensation for the costs of restoration of the heritage resource. A Heritage Revitalization Agreement and designation will be conditions of enactment of the CD-1 by-law to ensure the long-term protection of the Leslie House in situ. Refer to Appendix E for more information on the heritage bonus calculation.

Form of Development: (Refer to plans in Appendix D.) The proposed form of development is a 56.7 m (186 ft.) tall building comprised of 16-storeys and a small "campanile" (viewing space) adjacent to the mechanical penthouse. The first three floors, which contain lobby, meeting and banquet rooms, lounge and back-of-house facilities, is set back from the street to highlight the street presence of the Leslie House. It has a rooftop landscaped terrace with a lap pool with change rooms on the fourth floor level adjacent to the lower rooftop landscaped terrace of the Pacific Terrace Apartments to the north.
The Leslie House, proposed to be connected to the hotel lobby by a glazed covered walkway, will be restored off-site and returned to its present location and elevation. The 1947 addition to the rear of the house will be demolished. The house's north facade will be exposed to view of passing pedestrians. A small courtyard garden is proposed at the rear to further distinguish the house from new construction. The south facade will maintain the existing contiguous relationship with the adjacent site facade and the existing connection between them will be maintained.

The hotel tower, proposed to contain 39 hotel rooms, is single-loaded and situated towards the south and west above the third floor to maximize sun penetration to the landscaped rooftop terrace of the Pacific Terrace Apartments immediately to the north. The fourth to seventh floors (four hotel rooms on each) are built up to the adjacent party wall of the building to the north, but set back from its rooftop terrace. All floors above are set back from the common property line. The eighth to fourteenth floors have three hotel rooms on each while the fifteenth will have two and the penthouse floor will have only one (refer to Appendix E for more details of the proposed development).

Public Consultation: There were two stages in public consultation due to the redesign of the project subsequent to submission of the rezoning application on October 1, 2002. Following standard notification procedures, a number of significant issues were identified. Due to the serious nature of concerns of neighbours and the need to respond to clarification of the heritage bonus for the site, the proposal was redesigned and new plans were submitted on July 16, 2003. Due to the extent of the changes, the applicant held a public information meeting at the Leslie House on August 14, 2003; the same nearby property owners who were sent the original notification letter were invited. Again, there were strong negative responses.

Neighbouring property owners immediately to the north and across the lane to the east expressed deep concern with the form of development that has resulted from the heritage bonus and accommodation of the Leslie House on site. They are concerned that the value of their properties will be affected due to loss of views, shadowing and reduction of livability due to proximity of the proposed tower.

The Director of Current Planning facilitated two meetings with the most directly impacted neighbours (October 17, 2003 and November 25, 2003) to explore design development that would more substantially relieve their concerns to the extent possible while accommodating the Leslie House on site. Although the proposal has changed dramatically since the original submission in October 2002, it appears that the majority of the neighbours who participated in these meetings will not be satisfied by the modifications as proposed. However, a third meeting will be held on March 12, 2004 to review the most recent modifications which the applicant feels are the most defensible possible in developing this project while maintaining the heritage house on site. The applicant was asked to submit the new plans (refer toAppendix D) rather than to rely on design development conditions to provide some comfort to the neighours that the changes negotiated through the consultation process are realized.

A detailed summary of the public consultation process and the neighbours' concerns is included in Appendix F, under Public Input.

Form of Development Impacts of Heritage Retention: While the overall height allowed in the Downtown District Official Development Plan for this sub-area is 91.4 m (300 ft.), the Downtown South Guidelines for Hornby Slopes would preclude having a tower on this relatively small frontage (22.9 m/75 ft.) internal site due to the requirement for side yard setbacks of 12.2 m (40 ft.) above 21.34 m (70 ft.). The additional height proposed in the narrow tower, however, constitutes the floor space "displaced" to accommodate the Leslie House siting plus the floor space heritage bonus for its rehabilitation and designation.
The applicant has attempted to minimize the view and privacy impacts of this additional height on the property to the north, in particular sunlight access onto its rooftop terrace (located above its first level adjacent to the common property line), and the tower to the east, the Executive Hotel/Portofino Tower.

As noted above, the architects have made substantial design changes to achieve greater resolution to neighbours' concerns regarding view, shadowing and proximity impacts of the proposed development since submitting the July 16, 2003 proposal. In the subsequent redesign process, the architects increasingly pulled the massing of the tower south-west towards Hornby Street and the Leslie House, away from the neighbouring building to the north to maximize sunlight to its landscaped terrace and from the tower to the east to achieve the required separation between them.

The narrowest point between the proposed tower and the Executive Hotel/Portofino Tower in the plans submitted on July 16, 2003 was approximately 18 m (60 ft.). The proposal will now achieve the Downtown South guideline of maintaining a distance of at least 24.4 m (80 ft.) between towers, a separation distance considered important for livability including privacy. This separation is intended to preserve privacy when active residential spaces in different buildings face each other. The increased separation space between towers also consolidates the lower bulk of the proposed tower up against the south wall, along the mutual property line, of the Pacific Terrace Apartments to the north, thus maximizing sun access and views to the extent possible. The redesign exercise has also demonstrated that the 24.4 m (80 ft.) separation between towers can be achieved without crowding the Leslie House or diminishing its streetfront presence, which were concerns of the Vancouver Heritage Commission.

Beyond improved building form and massing, as illustrated in the March 5, 2004 plans inAppendix D, recommended design development conditions will ensure improvements to the design of facades and other features to increase visual interest, reduce visual scale and improve scale relationships to the Leslie House and surrounding developments.

Parking and Loading: A total of 37 below-grade parking spaces are required for the proposed development: 20 for hotel use (0.5 x 39 units); 15 for ancillary uses (1 per 100 m²); and 2 spaces for meeting rooms (1.1 per 40 m²). Forty-one parking spaces, including 2 disabled spaces, are proposed on three levels with lane access. One at-grade loading space is to be provided.

Congestion in the lane was cited by neighbours as being a serious problem generated by the three restaurants. The two restaurants east of the lane facing onto Pacific Street do not have lane access for loading and no on-site parking. A study by ND Lea Consultants Ltd. (Engineering) commissioned by the applicant found that the project will result in an increase in car and taxi traffic in the lane with that traffic having two arrival or departure routes (northbound or southbound) as does other traffic generated by parkades accessing the lane. They concluded this traffic activity would be low and should not have any adverse affect on lane operations.

Regarding loading, they concluded that the number of trucks parked in the lane would be reduced because of the new loading bay, even with the addition of trucks serving the proposed hotel. The mouth of the new loading bay will be designed to ensure that it is accessible from this standard-width lane.

Il Giardino was approved in 1976 with one loading bay, parallel to the lane, and no parking requirement. Il Giardino and the proposed development, despite separate ownerships, are to be both physically and functionally connected (the kitchen and washrooms for the restaurant are to be located in the proposed development). Therefore, both sites would be considered as a single development site at the development permit stage and parking for Il Giardino would have to be provided in accordance with the Parking By-law. The forty-one parking stalls proposed are sufficient to meet this additional parking requirement.

CONCLUSION

Staff support the use, density and general form of development proposed in this application. Staff also support the following measures taken to respond to neighbours' concerns:

· shifting the tower mass towards Hornby Street and reducing floor plate size to reduce sun and view impacts;
· ensuring a minimum distance of at least 24.4 m (80 ft.) between towers for privacy and livability;
· improving visual qualities of north and east building tower facades;
· improving the lane elevation to reduce visual impact and improve crime and safety;
· designing garbage storage to minimize nuisances; and
· modifying of the mouth of the loading bay to facilitate access.

Accordingly, the Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be approved subject to the proposed conditions, including restoration and designation of Leslie House, as presented in Appendix B.

LINK TO APPENDIX D

- - - - -

 

 APPENDIX A

DRAFT CD-1 BY-LAW PROVISIONS

Note: A By-law will be prepared generally in accordance with the provisions listed below, subject to change and refinement prior to posting.

Use

Density

Height

Setbacks

Parking and Loading

Acoustics



APPENDIX B

PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

Note: Recommended approved conditions will be prepared generally in accordance with the draft conditions listed below, subject to change and refinement prior to finalization of the agenda for the Public Hearing.

FORM OF DEVELOPMENT

(a) That the proposed form of development be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by Christopher Bozyk Architects Ltd., and stamped "Received City Planning Department March 5, 2004", provided that the Director of Planning may allow minor alterations to this form of development when approving the detailed scheme of development as outlined in (b) below.

(b) That, prior to approval by Council of the form of development, the applicant shall obtain approval of a development application by the Director of Planning, who shall have particular regard to the following:

AGREEMENTS

(c) That, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the following are addressed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services:

(d) That, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the following are addressed to the satisfaction of the Directors of Current Planning and Legal Services:


APPENDIX C

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO SIGN BY-LAW NO. 6510

Amend Schedule E (Comprehensive Development Areas) by adding the following:

"1380 Hornby Street [CD-1(# )][By-law # ]B (DD)"

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO NOISE BY-LAW NO. 6555

Amend Schedule A by adding the following:

"[CD-1 #] [By-law #]1380 Hornby Street"


APPENDIX D - 12 pages of architectural drawings



APPENDIX E

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: This 836.1 m² (9,000 sq. ft.) site is comprised of three lots on the east side of Hornby Street. The site has a frontage of 22.86 m (75 ft.) and a depth of 36.58 m (120 ft.). The site contains the historic Leslie House, including a 1947 addition to the rear of the house, and a flanking one-storey building both of which are part of the Umberto restaurant complex. Another heritage house, the Lane House, was recently moved off site to Mole Hill and the area it occupied on site is vacant.
To the north is a high-rise L-shaped rental apartment building, Pacific Terrace Apartments (1360 Hornby Street), which steps up from seven to eleven storeys. It has a rooftop landscaped terrace, open to the common property line towards the lane, at the first level (3.1 m/10.1 ft. above grade at the south-east corner). The building has no setback along the common property line towards the street frontage adjacent to the proposed development. Those units closest to the proposed development and fronting onto Hornby Street are single loaded, oriented towards Hornby Street with access from but no views to the east. The units along their north property line are oriented south, towards the proposed development site. Along the first floor of the Hornby Street frontage are planters and patios built to the property line. The Hornby Street building facade of the Pacific Terrace Apartments is set back 2.6 m (8.5 ft.) although balconies and bay windows protrude slightly (0.5 m/1.75 ft.) into that setback.

Directly south of the proposed development site is a one-storey restaurant, Il Giardino, on the corner of Hornby and Pacific Streets (1382 Hornby Street). Il Giardino was approved in 1976 with one loading bay, parallel to the lane, and no parking requirement. It is also part of the Umberto restaurant complex and will be physically and functionally connected to the proposed development. However, it is under separate ownership and is not part of the development site. It has the same setback (2.4 m/8 ft.) as the primary plane of the Leslie House (the major front bay and entry porch of the Leslie House extends halfway to the front property line beyond that) and is landscaped along Hornby Street.

Across the lane to the east is a 19-storey hotel/residential tower, the Executive Hotel/Portofino Tower (1383 Howe Street), with two low-rise (one- and two-storey) restaurants facing Pacific Street.

To the west across Hornby Street is the Anchor Point complex, with 7- and 8-storey mixed-use buildings.

All surrounding sites are zoned Downtown District (DD) Area N.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Original Proposal (October 1, 2002)

This rezoning application was originally received on October 1, 2002. The proposed development was for a 42-unit boutique hotel with lobby, lounge, chapel and kitchen on the main floor, banquet rooms on the second floor, lounge, wine room and back of house/laundry on the third floor, and a fitness facility with lap pool and office on the fourth floor. The proposed overall height was 53.34 m (175 ft.) with a relatively blank wall along the north common property line. The proposed FSR, approximately 7.6, appeared to be excessive and was based upon a misunderstanding about applicable floor space exclusions and a lack of information required to determine an appropriate heritage bonus. Consequently, the applicant was requested to submit a revised development proposal which would be more neighbourly to the property to the north, take into consideration allowable FSR exclusions, and be based on a heritage bonus of 1 396.3 m² (15,030 sq. ft.) which was negotiated between the applicant and staff to represent fair compensation for the costs of restoration of the heritage resource.

Revised Proposal (July 16, 2003)

A revised development proposal was submitted on July 16, 2003. This new proposed form of development was smaller, a 13-storey, 47.2 m (155 ft.) tall building with a proposed FSR of 6.67. The first three floors, which contain lobby, meeting and banquet rooms, lounge and back-of-house facilities, were set back from the street to highlight the street presence of the Leslie House. It had a rooftop landscaped terrace (accessed at the fourth floor level) adjacent to the lower rooftop landscaped terrace of the residential project to the north. The chapel and the fitness facility (except the lap pool) were not included in this proposal.

The hotel tower above the third floor, were proposed to contain 39 hotel rooms, single-loaded and set towards the south and west to maximize sun penetration to the landscaped rooftop terrace of the residential building immediately to the north. The fourth to seventh floors (five hotel rooms on each) were built to the adjacent party wall of the building to the north, but set back from its rooftop terrace. All floors above were set back from the common property line. The eighth to tenth floors had four hotel rooms while the eleventh floor had three hotel rooms and a lap pool with change rooms. The twelfth floor had only three hotel rooms and the penthouse (13th storey) was a single large hotel suite. Above this, the stairwell/elevator mechanical penthouse had been expanded to create a small (18 m²/ 195 sq. ft.) viewpoint for hotel guests in a simple "campanile" style bell tower at the fourteenth floor level.

To minimize the impact of the proposed tower on the property to the north, in particular sunlight access onto its rooftop terrace located above its first level adjacent to the common

property line, the tower above the third floor had been located towards the south property line. However, the tower extended to the rear property line all the way up to the penthouse level.

Proposal Recommended for Approval (March 5, 2004)

To respond to concerns of neighbours and to increase livability and privacy, the massing of the tower was increasingly shifted south towards Hornby Street and the Leslie House in more of a point tower than the former "slab" form. The taller but slimmer tower form closer to Hornby Street [16 storeys with a maximum overall height of 56.7 m (186 ft.)] will result in a more neighbourly built form which improves views and sunlight access onto the rooftop terrace to the north.

Moving the tower mass towards Hornby Street consolidates the lower bulk of the proposed tower up against the south wall, along the mutual property line, of the Pacific Terrace Apartments to the north, thus maximizing their sun access and views to the extent possible. It also increases the separation between the tower and the Executive Hotel/Portofino Tower to the east. The narrowest point between these two towers in the July 16, 2003 plans was approximately 18 m (60 ft.). The current proposal ensures a distance of at least 24.4 m (80 ft.) between towers, a separation distance considered important for livability including privacy. This separation is intended to preserve privacy when active residential spaces in different buildings face each other. The applicant had a surveyor confirm this distance.

The Leslie House, connected to the hotel lobby by a glazed covered walkway, be restored off-site and returned to its present location and elevation. The house will have "breathing space" on the north side and a small courtyard garden at the rear. The south face will have the same contiguous relationship with the restaurant immediately to the south as it has now and there will be a direct connection between them and through to the hotel lobby.

The front yard setback of the base of the proposed tower (the first three floors) is as prescribed by the Downtown South Guidelines (1.83 m/6 ft.) and is set back further than the Leslie House, which will be restored to its present location and elevation after off-site restoration, and the apartment building to the north, both of which are built closer to the property line at-grade than the current setback guideline. A four-storey bay will extend 0.9 m (3 ft.) into this setback. The proposed setbacks are supported as they increase the articulation of the facade and respond the context of the buildings on either side of the site.

The rear yard setback up to 12.7 m (41.5 ft.) is proposed to be 0.18 m (7 in.), less than the 3.05 m (10 ft.) setback required to a height of 10.7 m (35 ft.) and 9.1 m (30 ft.) above that. The applicant's rationale for the minimal setback from the lane is to pull the massing of the tower south, away from the neighbouring building to the north to maximize sunlight to itslandscaped terrace. Greater lower level rear yard setback may be required to respond to Engineering and Health conditions of approval related to garbage and recycling facilities siting and access.

A landscaped terrace is proposed on the fourth floor (12.2 m [40 ft.] plus 0.5 m [1.5 ft.] parapet) adjacent to the common property line, approximately 8.8 m (29 ft.) above the neighbouring terrace to the north.

Above the landscaped terrace, the tower is set back on an angle to ensure a 24.4 m (80 ft.) separation to the tower to the east. The setback of the southerly corner of the tower is 9.6 m (31.5 ft.) and 10.6 m (34.8 ft.) at the northerly corner.

Above the landscaped terrace, the tower is set back a minimum of 2.3 m (7.5 ft.) from the north property line (except where there is a zero lot line condition with the existing building to the north). No rooms will face the residential building to the north. The setback from the south property line above the landscaped terrace is 1.9 m (6.3 ft. ) from the south property line.

Parking and Loading

A total of 37 below-grade parking spaces are required for the proposed development: 15 for non-residential uses (1 per 100 m²); 20 for hotel use (0.5 x 39 units); and 2 spaces for meeting rooms (1.1 per 40 m²). Forty-one parking spaces, including 2 disabled spaces, on three levels are proposed with lane access. One loading bay is to be provided. The loading bay has been proposed with 8.8 m (29 ft.) length and 4 m (13 ft.) width, which exceeds the required 8.5 m (28 ft.) length and 3 m (10 ft.) width. Modification to the design is needed to provide the required loading bay throat so that trucks can back into the loading bay and exit in a forward direction. It is not uncommon for loading access to be taken off a standard 6.1 m (20 ft.) lane, and this site is no exception. From time to time, delivery trucks might exceed the length of the bay and will need to stop in the lane to unload. This is permitted in the City Street and Traffic By-law.

Il Giardino was approved in 1976 with one loading bay, parallel to the lane, and no parking requirement. Il Giardino and the proposed development, despite separate ownerships, are to be both physically and functionally connected (the kitchen and washrooms for the restaurant are to be located in the proposed development). Therefore, both sites would be considered as a single development site at the development permit stage and parking for Il Giardino would have to be provided in accordance with the Parking By-law. The forty-one parking stalls proposed are sufficient to meet this additional parking requirement.

This application will be carefully reviewed for compliance with the loading requirements of the Parking By-Law.

Public Benefit and Heritage Bonus Calculation: The Leslie House is one of the oldest surviving buildings in Vancouver and may be the oldest house in Vancouver. It is listed on the Vancouver Heritage Register in the "A" Category and is not designated. As one of the few remaining early residential houses in the downtown area and an important part of Vancouver's early history in the area, its restoration and designation are considered to be a significant public benefit. Allowing hotel use on this site and the heritage bonus are considered reasonable development incentives that offset the preservation costs of the house.

The amount of bonus density was determined by averaging the results of the Residual Land Value (looking at encumbered versus unencumbered land values) and Premium Heritage Conservation Costs. The 1 532.4 m² (16,500 sq. ft.) bonus density is broken down as follows (in imperial measures):

However, urban design analysis supported a slightly smaller bonus. Therefore, the recommended heritage bonus is 1396.3 m² (15,030 sq. ft.) on this site.

The method to calculate the bonus density is laid out in the Heritage Policies and Guidelines. The policy only describes using the Residual Land Value method of calculation, however over the last several years staff have also been using a Premium Heritage Cost method to determine bonusing when appropriate to the site. In this case it is fair to look at both methods as the Leslie house is a small building on a lot with considerable development potential. By averaging these two costs, the bonus is a reflection of both methods.

Using the Residual Land Value method, the unencumbered value of the site was calculated to be $2,925,000. The encumbered value was calculated to be $1,460,594. Therefore, the cost to compensate is $1,464,406. Market sales for land in this area for high-rise residential is about $65 per buildable square foot. Therefore, the residual land value method would result in a bonus of 2 092.9 m² (22,529 sq. ft.).

In the case of Premium Heritage Costs, the pro forma indicated legitimate costs to relocate, store off site and restore of $679,943. Dividing this amount by $65 (land value), the Premium Heritage Costs bonus is 971.8 m² (10,461 sq. ft.).

A comparable project in the area would be the Abbott House at 720 Jervis Street. The bonus was approximately 3 160 m² (34,000 sq. ft.) and calculated solely on conservation costs. When compared to the size of the heritage building, the bonus was about five times the floor area. For 1380 Hornby Street, the bonus has a similar relationship when looking at only the conservation costs. Typically bonus density is closer to the size of the building, however, when looking at small heritage houses on lots in the downtown core, or other districts with equal land value, a considerable amount of compensation is required relative to the size of the resource because of the significant development potential on these lots.


APPENDIX F

COMMENTS FROM THE PUBIC, REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE APPLICANT

Public Input: There were two stages in public consultation due to the redesign of the project subsequent to submission of the rezoning application on October 1, 2002. A notification letter was sent to nearby property owners on October 28, 2002 and rezoning information signs were posted on the site on November 1, 2002. Five phone calls were received from residents and one person came to City Hall to view plans. Three e-mails and one letter expressing opposition were received from nearby residents whose main concerns were:

· the form and scope of the project lack neighbourliness and don't meet City guidelines for Downtown South;
· height and density are unacceptable;
· lack of rear yard setback along lane;
· detrimental impacts on owner and residents of the apartment building to the north, in particular the impact of the north wall and the overall form of the tower adjacent to the common property line on views and the landscaped terrace; and
· increase in noise in lane due to new hotel use.

Due to the serious nature of concerns of residents and the need to respond to clarification of the heritage bonus for the site, the proposal was redesigned and new plans were submitted on July 16, 2003. Due to the extent of the changes, the applicant held a public information meeting at the Leslie House on August 14, 2003 between 3:30 and 6:30 p.m. A letter of invitation was sent to the same nearby property owners who were sent the original notification letter.

About 30 people came to the open house and were generally positive (e.g., glad to see something happen; high quality of materials; not a huge tower; happy to see the yellow house stay; etc.). A few attendees from surrounding buildings (not including Pacific Terrace Apartments or the Executive Hotel/Portofino Tower) were concerned with view impacts (uphill concerned about loss of view to False Creek and downhill concerned about loss of view to the mountains and downtown) but most were relieved to find that the view impacts on them, due to the scale and massing of the building, would be minimal. Concerns were expressed again about increasing traffic and congestion in the lane.

Stronger negative response to the proposal came from the property owners directly to the north and to the east. The owner and rental manager of the Pacific Terrace Apartments reviewed the project with the applicant at the open house and later attended City Hall to review the project further with staff. The owner also requested a further meeting with the applicant and his architect to review the proposal in greater depth. The owners of theExecutive Hotel and the chair of the Portofino Tower strata council also attended City Hall with their representatives to discuss the proposal with staff. The solicitor for owners of both the Pacific Terrace Apartments and the Executive Hotel then submitted a letter to register, as a preliminary notice, some of their objections to the proposed rezoning, which he requested be referred to in this report.

Since then, there has been considerable and on-going correspondence with the adjacent owners. Given the extent of their concerns, the Director of Current Planning facilitated two meetings with some of the most directly affected property owners and residents, the first in the Leslie House on October 17, 2003 and the second in the Executive Hotel on November 25, 2003. The purpose of these meetings was to provide a venue to explore design alternatives that may alleviate the concerns of neighbours while retaining the restored Leslie House in situ. At the end of the second meeting, progress had been made to alleviate the extent of some of the concerns, the neighbours were still not satisfied (refer to the summary of their concerns that follows). Consensus was not reached so the Director of Current Planning suggested that another meeting be held in the new year once this staff report was finalized to review the report recommendations so that the neighbours may better prepare their representations to Council at the Public Hearing. Since that meeting, letters of opposition were received from 86 residents of Pacific Terrace Apartments, the building immediately to the north and a number of letters and a petition in opposition to the proposal was also received from the owners and residents of the building to the north of that, 1330 Hornby Street.

The following is a summary of the outstanding concerns with the proposal:

· Tower Separation. Neighbours from Portofino Tower especially wanted to ensure that a minimum separation between the towers be maintained; one suggested that it should be at least 25.9 m (85 ft.) [Note: the Downtown South guideline separation distance of 24.4 m (80 ft.) and will be achieved].
· Bonus Density. Neighbours questioned the appropriateness of the magnitude of the heritage bonus and that "it seems a very steep price...to ask the neighbours to pay for the satisfaction of the developer". They noted that Council needs to approve the bonus. [Note: It would do in approving the proposed CD-1 by-law.]
· Leslie House. Neighbours questioned the heritage value of having a high-rise building that will "effectually dwarf the house" and diminish the context to the extent of reducing the value of its conservation in situ. Suggested the house and the bonus should be moved off site. [This is contrary to Vancouver Heritage Commission advice.]
· Daylight and Views. Access of sunlight and view loss were significant concerns of neighbours, that they viewed as diminishing their livability and land values; they felt the current proposal still impacts them too greatly.
· Height and Massing. Neighbours feel that the built form is contrary to residents'wishes, the goals of relevant by-laws and guidelines and of common sense.
· Boutique Hotel. Concerns were expressed regarding the scale of the hotel, questioning whether it is too big to be considered a boutique hotel and that the use is contrary to the Downtown District; the owner of the adjacent hotel cited an experience that seemed to make approval of hotel use here inequitable.
· Consultation. Some neighbours felt that neither the applicant team nor City staff were responding seriously to their concerns and that the Planning Department was not keeping an open mind nor acting in the best interests of citizens and taxpayers.
· Urban Design Panel. Concern was expressed with the seeming indifference of the Urban Design Panel (interpreted from the minutes) to the impact on the neighbours and felt that suggestions that detailing of walls for example trivialized those impacts on their livability.
· Traffic. Traffic and congestion in the lane was a consistent concern. The neighbours also expressed a concern that the size and the location of the loading bay to be provided would be inadequate and will in fact increase congestion rather than reduce it, as was suggested by the traffic engineers' report.

The architects have made further modifications to the proposal since the November meeting and feel that they have done as much as possible to alleviate the concerns of the neighbours to the extent possible while retaining the Leslie House on site. These modifications, illustrated in Appendix D, will be presented to a third meeting of neighbours on March 12, 2004 as the recommendation of staff for consideration for approval at a Public Hearing. This meeting will provide information the neighbours will need to express themselves to Council in writing or in person at the Public Hearing. Staff will present any outcomes from this meeting at the Public Hearing.

Comments of the General Manager of Engineering Services: The General Manager of Engineering Services has no objection to the proposed rezoning, provided that the applicant complies with conditions as shown in Appendix B.

Heritage Commission Comments: The Vancouver Heritage Commission reviewed the proposal as submitted on July 16, 2003 on July 21, 2003 and supported the project as presented with specific support to the following:

· the conservation approach;
· bonus density and rezoning, i.e., proposed use;
· leaving the Leslie House as "the Yellow House" but recommending that research be done to determine the original colour, for future reference; and
· the relationship of the new tower to the heritage building.

They also suggested that consideration be given to planting a significant tree in the courtyardto mediate between the Leslie House and the large tower behind it.

The revisions made since and included in Appendix D do not affect these comments.

Urban Design Panel Comments: The Urban Design Panel reviewed the proposal submitted on July 16, 2003 on July 23, 2003. The Panel supported the proposed use, density and form of development and offered the following comments:

"The Panel unanimously supported this application. The boutique hotel use was strongly supported and the Panel considered the proposed FSR to be very achievable on this site.

While the Panel was glad that the previous scheme (October 1, 2002) was not pursued, preferring the more modern expression of this proposal, some regret was expressed by one Panel member that it now lacks some of the delight and interest that the former rendition embodied.

With respect to the general assemblage of buildings on the site, the Panel was generally in support of the effort to break the building down to respond more gently to the building behind. There was also a suggestion that this could go further, possibly lowering one section and increasing the height of the tower.

The Panel strongly supported the proposed restoration of the Leslie House which it felt earned the requested heritage bonus. However, one Panel member found these efforts somewhat token at present, suggesting the building needs to defer to the heritage house in a different way.

The Panel acknowledged the applicant's dilemma of either crowding the Leslie House or the lane but felt that, in this case, the house should take precedence. A comment was made that this design solution will bring more attention to this `little gem' in the middle of the city. The Panel had no concerns with the proposed rear setback.

In general, the Panel thought the success of the courtyard and the heritage renovation will depend on how the building comes to the ground and how it relates to the courtyard and the Leslie House. Further design development was recommended on this aspect of the scheme.

A comment was made that this is not a very efficient building, with a considerable amount of circulation contributing to the extra bulk between the buildings. It was questioned whether this could be reduced to a glass corridor, introducing light through to the courtyard to the north. It was stressed that the bridge between the house and the new building will need to be detailed with great care.

While the view impact on the adjacent building was acknowledged, it was felt that the assets gained by the city in terms of a high quality piece of urban design outweigh those issues. A comment was made that, given the use of the adjacent open space and the distance between this project and the neighbour's south wall, privacy is not an issue. However, the wall facing the courtyard will need to be very attractively detailed. There were no concerns about the amount of glazing on the side wall elevation.

One Panel member thought the module of three units facing south could have a more modern expression.

There was a suggestion to consider more glazing in the two units facing Hornby Street.

Given the bonus density is squeezing somewhat the site coverage and the courtyard, a suggestion was made to explore freeing up the base in favour of additional square footage at the top. In general, the Panel had no concerns about the building being higher.

The Panel found this an exciting, modern project and looked forward to seeing it proceed."

The revisions made since and included in Appendix D reflect direction provided by the Urban Design Panel's comments.

Comments of the Addressing Co-ordinator: Currently there are two addresses for these lots (1376 Hornby Street: lots 15 & 16 and 1380 Hornby Street: lot 17). Each building on the site will require an address so at the Development/Building Permit application stage it should be determined if these will stay or additional addresses will be required.

Environmental Implications: The proposed rezoning neither contributes to nor detracts from the objective of reducing atmospheric pollution.

Social Implications: There are no major positive or negative social implications to this proposal. There are no implications with respect to the Vancouver Children's Policy or Statement of Children's Entitlements.

Comments of the Applicant: The applicant has been provided with a copy of this report and has provided the following comments:

" The process has been a very long and arduous one revising and developing an appropriate scheme by working with the neighbours and the Planning Department. It is our belief that the resulting proposal will benefit the city and be a significant improvement to one of the key properties at the foot of the Hornby Slopes. "

 

APPENDIX G

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Address

1380 Hornby Street

Legal Description

Lots 15, 16 & 17, Block 111, District Lot 541, Plan 210. PID: 015472213, 015472230 & 015472264

Applicant

Christopher Bozyk Architects Ltd.

Architect

Christopher Bozyk

Property Owner

Alessandro Holdings Ltd.

Developer

Alessandro Holdings Ltd.

SITE STATISTICS

 

GROSS

DEDICATIONS

NET

SITE AREA

836.1 m² (9,000 sq. ft.)

0

836.1 m² (9,000 sq. ft.)

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

 

DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDED
DEVELOPMENT
(if different than proposed)

ZONING

DD (Area N)

CD-1

  

USES

Mixed Use/Residential

Hotel

  

MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO

5

6.67

  

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

21.34 m (70 ft.)

56.7 m ( 186 ft.)

  

PARKING SPACES

37

41

  

FRONT YARD SETBACK (excluding Leslie House)

1.83 m (6 ft.)/6.1 m (20 ft.)*

Floors 1 - 3: 1.83 m (6 ft.)***

  

SOUTH SIDE YARD SETBACK (excluding Leslie House or courtyard behind it)

0/12.2 m (41.5 ft.)*

Floors 1 - 3: 0

Floors 4+: 1.9 m (6.3 ft.)

  

NORTH SIDE YARD SETBACK (next to north neighbouring courtyard above its first level)

0/12.2 m (41.5 ft.)*

Floors 1 - 3: 0

Floors 4+: 2.3 m (7.5 ft.) but 0 next to adjacent zero lot line building face

  

REAR YARD SETBACK

3.05 m (10 ft.)/9.1 m (30 ft.)**

Above Podium : 9.6 m (31.5 ft.)****

  

Comments or questions? Send us e-mail at info@city.vancouver.bc.ca
© 2002 City of Vancouver