POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

TO:

Vancouver City Council

FROM:

Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT:

CD-1 Rezoning - 1475 Howe Street

 

RECOMMENDATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council Policies for this site include:

· Granville Slopes Policies, adopted on November 30, 1989, June 20, 1991 and July 29, 1993;
· Granville Slopes Neighbourhood Concept Plan, endorsed by Council on November 30, 1989;
· Transfer of Density Policy and Procedure, adopted January 25, 1973 and last amended August 1, 2002;
· Live/Work and Work/Live: Vancouver Overview including Strategic Directions adopted June 13, 1996; and
· Public Art Policies and Guidelines, adopted June 23, 1994 and November 22, 1994.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report assesses an application to rezone nine parcels from False Creek Comprehensive Development District (FCCDD) to Comprehensive Development District (CD-1) to permit development of a 30-storey residential tower and residential and live-work units in a townhouse form at an overall density of 4.95 floor space ratio (FSR). The site is located in the FCCDD where rezoning to this use is supported by the Granville Slopes Policies and the Granville Slopes Neighbourhood Concept Plan. The proposed FSR represents an additional 10% imported heritage density above the 4.5 FSR suggested by the rezoning policies.

Staff recommend that the application be referred to a Public Hearing and be approved with conditions.


DISCUSSION

Use: The proposed rezoning would permit a mix of uses, including dwelling units and general office live-work. Although the FCCDD allows limited new commercial (retail/service/office) along the Pacific Street frontage, general office live-work is proposed. A total of 16 076 m² (173,052 sq. ft.) of primarily residential in a 30-storey tower, including 3084.3 m² (33,200 sq. ft.) residential in townhouse form and 408.8 m² (4,400 sq. ft.) in live-work units.

Density: The Granville Slopes Policies and the Granville Slopes Neighbourhood Concept Plan suggest a density on the subject site of 4.5 FSR. Transfer of an additional 10%, or 0.45 FSR, to be purchased by the developer from a site that has heritage density vested within the heritage density "bank" is also proposed. This raises the density to 4.95 FSR. The receiving site is just outside the Transfer of Density boundary, the area within which heritage density transfers may be considered. However, given that the urban design analysis demonstrates the proposed development can support the additional density, staff support importation of heritage density to this site (refer to Appendix D for more information).

Form of Development: (Note plans in Appendix E.) The proposed form of development, which is generally supported by the Granville Slopes Policies and the Granville Slopes Neighbourhood Concept Plan, includes a 30-storey residential tower, two-storey loft-style live-work townhouse units along Pacific Street, three-storey grade-entry townhouses alongHowe Street, and a four-storey block of stacked two-storey units facing May and Lorne Brown Park and the north-south lane. In addition to site and podium level green spaces, two "sky gardens" are proposed. These three-storey landscape features (set into the tower) are intended to add unique amenity spaces for residents' use as well as provide visual delight, especially since they will be highly visible from both the Burrard and Granville Street bridges.

The Granville Slopes Neighbourhood Concept Plan (GSNCP) indicates a tower location closer to Pacific Street than the proposed tower location, which is approximately 9 m (30 ft.) further south (refer to Appendix F). This shift in tower siting was proposed by the applicant to increase the separation distance from the tower to the west, 888 Pacific Street. The GSNCP limits height to 64 m (210 ft.) plus an additional 4.6 m (15 ft.) to encourage an interesting roof form for sites not affected by view cones. The proposed tower is located just outside a view cone and would rise to an overall height of almost 91.4 m (300 ft.), the maximum height permitted in the Downtown District north of Pacific Street. The applicant's rationale for the extra height was to have a taller, slimmer tower form that would reduce view and shadow impacts on neighbouring buildings, in particular 888 Pacific which is considerably shorter (approximately 46 m [150 ft.]) since it falls under a view cone. The proposed split-slab form, which rises from a narrow footprint on a north-south axis and steps back at the 18th floor and again at the 29th and 30th floors, is intended to lighten the tower's massing. Approximately three floors would be attributed to the imported heritage density.

Urban Design Analysis: There are three primary aspects to the proposal that differ from the existing Granville Slopes Policy and accompanying illustrative plan (refer to Appendix F):

· the proposed tower at 30 storeys is approximately 9 storeys higher;
· the density of 4.95 FSR is 0.45 FSR higher; and
· the tower is located approximately 9 m (30 ft.) in a southerly direction on the block than the existing policy.

The challenge is to determine whether a taller, but slimmer, tower that is located further south on the block with an increase in density can be developed and still achieve neighbourly relationships with adjacent buildings. The primary criteria in making this assessment are private views, shadowing and built form relationships. Analysis of these criteria shows that the form of development is compatible with neighbouring development. There are further design refinements required to many aspects of the proposal which are presented as design development conditions to the rezoning. These can be readily addressed at the development permit stage.

Park Board staff are concerned about the potential impacts of shadowing on May and Lorne Brown Park by a potential tower to be located on the east side of the 1400 block of Howe Street. Therefore, they suggested that not moving the 1475 Howe Street tower further souththan as illustrated on the GSNCP may leave more flexibility for siting the tower on the east side of Howe Street, i.e., moving it further north, to achieve the typical Downtown South tower separation of 24.4 m (80 ft.). However, the ability to shift a tower much further north on the east side of Howe Street (than illustrated in the GSNCP) is extremely limited due to constraints of proximity to the Howe Street on-ramp to the Granville Bridge and the 24.4 m (80 ft.) separation would be achievable regardless of the location of the 1475 Howe Street tower.

Overall, staff support the form of development generally as proposed (refer to Appendix D for further urban design discussion).

Parking: Parking and loading will be provided in accordance with the Parking By-law, including relaxation and exemption provisions. A reduction in the minimum parking requirement will be offered to encourage co-operative vehicles. Three levels of underground parking for 254 vehicles, 193 bicycles and one Class B residential loading space as well as a designated drop-off area are proposed to be accessed from the lane to the west and are supported by Engineering Services.

Sustainability: There are many good sustainable aspects inherent in the proposal which, among others, include development of a high-density residential site that supports the downtown efficiently, discourages car usage, encourages people to walk to work, and allows easy access to amenities and recreation. There is also an initiative by the applicant to pursue sustainability further with the objective of designing and constructing this market residential building as a "green building" (refer to Appendix D for more information).

Public Benefit: By City policy, developments in the Granville Slopes area at the time of this rezoning application were charged a total of $67.82/m² ($6.30 per sq. ft.) for the Development Cost Levy (DCL) and Community Amenity Contributions (CAC). At the time of application, the DCL rate was $26.91/m² ($2.50 per sq. ft), leaving a CAC rate of $40.90/m² ($3.80 per sq. ft.). Since then, the DCL rate has increased to be $64.59/m² ($6.00 per sq. ft.) after July 1, 2004. This project will be subject to this new rate by virtue of receiving its building permit after this date (DCLs are paid at the rate current on the date a building permit is issued). Therefore, the CAC will be the remaining $3.23/m² ($0.30 per sq. ft.). A suitable public benefit for the CAC portion will be determined in accordance with CAC guidelines and will be reported back to Council. Importation of heritage density vested within the heritage density "bank"is considered to be a public benefit and is not subject to CACs.

Public Art: Like most private-sector developments greater than 14 864 m² (160,000 sq. ft.) which require rezoning, this project is required to contribute $.95 per buildable square foot to public art. The proposal is to integrate public art into the design of the site. A public art consultant has been retained and prepared a first draft of a public art plan. The UrbanDesign Panel provided additional suggestions for consideration for public art sites within the development. Since the proposal is to integrate the public art into the design of the site, it is not expected that an allocation of the project budget to the Public Art Maintenance Reserve for maintenance of the artwork will be required.

CONCLUSION

Planning staff conclude that, although the proposed siting and height deviate from the policies, they are generally compatible with the intent of the FCCDD, the Granville Slopes Policies and the Granville Slopes Neighbourhood Concept Plan in terms of form and density. In addition, the proposed importation of heritage density is supportable. Therefore the Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be referred to Public Hearing and approved with conditions.

LINK TO APPENDICES E AND F

- - - - -

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

Setback

Parking

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 Rafii Architects, Architect, and stamped "Received City Planning Department", October 10, 2003, 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 or the Development Permit Board, who shall have particular regard to, among other things, the following:

AGREEMENTS

(c) THAT, prior to enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the registered owner shall, at no cost to the City:

APPENDIX C

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO NOISE BY-LAW NO. 6555

Amend Schedule B by adding the following:

"[CD-1 #] [By-law #] 1475 Howe Street"

APPENDIX D

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: This 3 247.8 m² (34,960 sq. ft.) site is comprised of nine parcels on the west side of Howe Street Pacific Street. The site has a frontage of 86.8 m (284.6 ft.) and a depth of 36.6 m (120 ft.). The site length along the north south lane is 90.8 (297.8 ft.).

The properties to the east, across Howe Street, contain industrial uses backing onto the Howe Street access ramp to the Granville Bridge. These properties, as well as May and Lorne Brown Park to the south across the east-west lane, are also zoned FCCDD. The property to the west, across the north-south lane, is zoned CD-1 and was developed for residential use under the FCCDD (townhouses along the street, tower above). The sites to the north, across Pacific Street, are zoned Downtown District (Hornby Slopes in Downtown South) and are developed with a range of residential, commercial and hotel uses.

Proposed Development: Neighbourhood Concept: The False Creek Comprehensive Development District (FCCDD), the Granville Slopes Policies and the Granville Slopes Neighbourhood Concept Plan (GSNCP, refer to plan in Appendix F) clearly describes the urban design and planning intentions for this site. In summary, these include the following:

· Density: a maximum density of 4.5 FSR;

· Tower Height: a maximum tower height of 64 m (210 ft., approximately 21 storeys) with relaxations up to 68.6 m (225 ft.) for sculpting of interesting roof forms;

· Floor Plate Size: the recommended floor plate size for the area is 604 m² (6,500 sq. ft.) which is typically found in the neighbourhood;

· Built Form: one tower with low-rise development facing Pacific Street, Howe Street and May and Lorne Brown Park; and

· View Cone: one Council-approved view cone (Granville Bridge to Crown/Grouse view corridor) goes over the south-westerly corner of the site (the proposal complies with this view cone).

Applicants Proposal: The applicant's proposal differs from the applicable policies in several ways:

· Density: FSR of 4.95 ( 0.45 over policy with the additional 10% purchased fromthe heritage density bank): 47 951 m² (157,320 sq. ft.) + 4795.1 m² (15,732 sq. ft.) heritage = total of 52 746.3 m² (173,052 sq. ft.);

· Tower Height: 30-storey residential tower at 91.4 m (300 ft.), approximately 9 storeys and 27.4 m (90 ft.) above policy; staff note that six of these nine storeys are attributable to slimming the tower and three storeys are attributable to adding the 10% heritage density;

· Floor Plate Size: floor plates of 520 m² (5,600 sq. ft.) rather than 604 m² (6,500 sq. ft.) typically recommended, resulting in the slimmer tower form; and

· Built Form: the tower is located approximately 9 m (30 ft.) further south than illustrated in the GSNCP (refer to Appendix E).

Other aspects of the proposal include the following:

· 151 residential units and 4 live-work units for a total of 155 units;

· sky gardens set into the tower as residential amenity spaces;

· 4-storey townhouse base facing May and Lorne Brown Park;

· 3-storey townhouse base facing Howe Street;

· 2-storey live-work townhouse base facing Pacific Street; and

· vehicular access to residential parking and drop-off is from the north-south lane.

Applicant's Rationale: The applicant's rationale in proposing changes from the GSNCP are that:

· a taller and slimmer tower has less view impact on neighbouring developments;

· moving the tower to the south has less view and livability impact on immediate westerly neighbours; and

· there are no significant shadow impacts on public or semi-private open space.

Urban Design Analysis: The challenge is to determine whether a taller, but slimmer, tower that is located further south on the block with an increase in density can be developed and still achieve neighbourly relationships with adjacent buildings. The primary criteria in making this assessment are private views, shadowing and built form relationships, as follows:

· Private Views and Privacy Impacts: There are two factors that have reduced private view and privacy impacts on adjacent residential development. First, as noted above, the tower has moved approximately 9 m (30 ft.) south away from the immediately adjacent westerly residential tower, 888 Pacific Street. This increases the horizontal separation between the towers.

· Shadowing: The proposed tower height increase from approximately 64 m (210 ft.) to 91.4 m (300 ft.) has lengthened the resulting shadows cast in the neighbourhood although the shadows are slimmer. Review of the submitted shadow analysis illustrates that there will be additional shadowing on sidewalks but no additional impact any public open space. Overall the additional shadowing is reasonable in such a high density residential neighbourhood.

· Built Form Relationships: There are two important aspects of the proposed built form to review in relationship to the context: tower height and street wall height. First, the surrounding existing towers range in height between 18 and 33 storeys. The proposed height of 30 storeys is comfortably within this general height range. Second, the surrounding existing street wall development ranges from 3 to 6 storeys so the proposal, which will be 3 and 4 storeys, will form a comfortable relationship within the overall context.

Design Refinements: While the overall urban design concept is supportable, there are a range of design refinements and development principles that can be addressed at the development application stage. These include, among others, the following:

· Tower and Townhouse Character: The main pedestrian entrance to the tower on Howe Street should have more prominence and identity and the tower form/character should visually come to the ground. The townhouse character along Howe Street needs to have a stronger rhythm.

· Sky Gardens: The sky gardens provide in the upper levels of the tower are a good residential amenity although considerably more detail to such things as landscaping is required. The sky gardens would be considered to be roof decks (as long as the exterior isn't enclosed) and so would not be included in FSR.

· Pacific Street Live-Work Units: The live-work units along Pacific Street need to have a stronger scale and character compatible with the scale and character of Pacific Street.

· Streetscape Details: The 3-storey development proposed along Howe and Pacific Streets should reflect the Downtown South streetscape details that include among other things, an increased setback from 3 m (10 ft.) to 3.7 m (12 ft.) setback along Howe Street, an increased setback to 3 m (10 ft.) along Pacific Street, and patios that are approximately 0.9 m (3 ft.) above grade.

· Pacific Street: A new beautification treatment for this portion of Pacific Street will be implemented. The proposed streetscape design needs to accommodate both a short-term resolution for the existing conditions and a long-term plan that accommodates the beautification treatment.

· Plaza: The small plaza at the corner of Pacific and Howe Streets should allow for public seating and the adjacent townhouse and live-work units should provide windows that overlook this area for safety and security purposes.

· Public Art: There are two public art site opportunities. One is the plaza at the corner of Howe and Pacific Streets. The other is the possible change in lane treatment.

Sustainability: There are many good sustainable aspects inherent in the proposal which, among others, include development of a high density residential site that supports the downtown efficiently, discourages car usage, encourages people to walk to work, and allows easy access to amenities and recreation.

Perhaps more importantly, there is an initiative by the applicant, and staff, to pursue sustainability further. The objective is to design and construct this market residential building as a "green building". However, to be a green building, the developer will need the co-operation and support of the City. There will need to be some innovative approaches in achieving green design, which may include, for example, storm water management and the alteration of the physical design of the building to improve efficiencies.
The building itself is the best place a private residential developer can address sustainability and improving the environmental quality of the urban environment. The developer should look at the building as a living organism with no single component operating independently of another. For example, the mechanical system should be an integrated part of the envelope design, which should be an integrated part of the overall site design and orientation. When a building is developed as a system, with an integrated design process undertaken from the outset, synergies between building components can occur which will improve efficiencies, reduce energy consumption, and improve environmental health and longevity of the building. The following basic elements should be included in any green building and should be possible with negligible increases in development cost:

· Siting: reduce site disturbance; maximise heat island reduction; maximise solar orientation and through ventilation; reduce need for transportation infrastructure;

· Water: maximise water efficiency (landscaping, low flow fixtures, dual flush toilets); integrate storm water retention;

· Energy: meet new proposed energy by-law (CBIP); commission building for efficiencies; reduce mechanical systems through building design (ventilation, orientation, etc.); reduce CFC's through HVAC reduction/elimination;

· Waste: three streams of waste separation (recyclables, trash compactor system, organic/composting); maximise construction waste management; maximise recycled content; and

· Health: maximise indoor air quality through materials used; carbon dioxide monitoring in all units; maximise day lighted spaces (natural light to all rooms if possible); improve building ventilation and air exchange.

These sustainability initiatives will take some time and study to resolve. Planning and Engineering staff to work with the applicant to pursue sustainability measures for the buildings and landscape, so as to design and construct a "green building", as part of the approval of a development permit. This will allow staff and the proponent to move ahead with a shared data-base of knowledge concerning the development of green residential buildings.

Public Input: Previous to submitting an application, a neighbourhood open house was held on September 30, 2003 at 1500 Howe Street from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Fifty-nine people attended and 19 filled out comment sheets. All but two were supportive. Their concerns were about reduction of views to the north, the tower being too tall and the more southerly location blocking sun to the townhouses to the west along Hornby Street. Some attendees seemed to be more upset that any development was to be allowed at all than the impact of shifting the tower or built form issues.

A notification letter was sent to 1,619 nearby property owners on November 3, 2003 and rezoning information signs were posted on the site on October 30, 2003. A few phone calls were received from residents seeking clarification about process only and no one came to City Hall to view plans. One e-mail in opposition was received. Their concern was with increasing congestion by allowing further development in the area.

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.

Park Board Comments: Park Board commented that the proposed tower is not significant in terms of casting shadows on the park but were concerned the siting of the tower would define options for siting of a potential tower to be located on the east side of the 1400 block of Howe Street, and that this future tower would have more impact in terms of shadowing the park. Therefore, they suggested that moving the tower proposed at 1475 Howe Street tower further north by 3 m (10 ft.) to 9 m (30 ft.) may leave more flexibility for siting the tower on the east side of Howe Street.

Comments of the Manager of the Housing Centre: The Manager of the Housing Centre commented that they will require more details of unit sizes and types at the development permit stage in order to set requirements for outdoor play area(s).

Environmental Protection Comments: As adopted by Council in April 1997, incorporating the provisions of the Waste Management Act, it is the City's policy to not consider subdivision or rezoning of, or development on, sites which are suspected of possible soil contamination, until an approved remediation plan has been accepted or a Certificate of Compliance (COC) or Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CCOC) has been issued by the Provincial Ministry of Water Lands and Air Protection. The City may also require a soil agreement (covenant) be registered on title which in part Holds issuance of an Occupancy permit pending receipt of a COC or CCOC.

Fire Department Comments: The Fire Department provided comments to ensure that the distance from the principal address is no more than 45 m (148 ft.) to the furthest townhouse unit entrance unless internal access is provided from the tower and that the distance from the principal entrance to the Howe Street curb is no more than 15 m (49.25 ft.).

Public Benefit: By City policy, developments in the Granville Slopes area at the time of this rezoning application were charged a total of $67.82/m² ($6.30 per sq. ft.) for the Development Cost Levy (DCL) and Community Amenity Contributions (CAC). At the time of application, the DCL rate was $26.91/m² ($2.50 per sq. ft), leaving a CAC rate of $40.90/m² ($3.80 per sq. ft.). Since then, the DCL rate has increased to be $64.59/m² ($6.00 per sq. ft.) after July 1, 2004. This project will be subject to this new rate by virtue of receiving its building permit after this date (DCLs are paid at the rate current on the date a building permit is issued). Therefore, the CAC will be the remaining $3.23/m² ($0.30 per sq. ft.). A suitable public benefit for the CAC portion will be determined in accordance with CAC guidelines and will be reported back to Council. Importation of heritage density vested within the heritage density "bank"is considered to be a public benefit and is not subject to CACs.

Urban Design Panel Comment: The Urban Design Panel reviewed this proposal on January 7, 2004 and supported the proposed use, density and form of development and offered the following comments:

"The Panel unanimously supported this application.

The Panel considered the tower to be well located on the site and had no concerns about the proposed height. There were suggestions that the tower could be even higher and some Panel members indicated a preference for slimmer, higher towers. The setbacks were considered to be appropriate, and the additional heritage density well handled.

The Panel liked the modern expression of the building.

The Panel thought the townhouse base needed a lot more design development and looks forward to seeing greater resolution at the development permit stage. With respect to the townhouses facing the park, the Panel supported the townhouse form in this location rather than a higher apartment base. Provided the same setback is provided, the Panel saw no need to continue the height of the base of the neighbouring development.

With respect to the townhouses on Pacific, a suggestion was made that it might be appropriate to deviate from the plan somewhat and consider deleting them on this site, especially noting the site immediately to the east will be unlikely to achieve townhouses beneath the on-ramp. The Pacific townhouses were thought to be the least successful of this project.

Some Panel members stated a preference for the tower to be expressed down to the ground and eliminating the four townhouses at its base.

The provision of semi private open space was considered to be acceptable. The Panel very strongly supported the proposed "sky gardens" and urged that the applicant not be penalized by including them in the FSR calculation. They were considered to be a very good amenity, both for the residents of this development as well as for the neighbourhood in general given their visibility from the Granville Bridge on-ramp. There was a suggestion that it might be better to have one large sky garden, or several small ones, rather than the two proposed. Another comment was that they might be more usable if they are oriented a bit differently. It was recommended that the provision of the sky gardens be included in the rezoning conditions.

Careful attention should be given to the relationship between this development and the existing development to the west.

The applicant was commended for the proposal to incorporate public art on this site. However, several Panel members thought it would be more appropriate to locate it on the south side facing the public park. In this way, the northeast corner would be more solid, which is more typical of corner treatment in this neighbourhood. It was also recommended to explore other ways to incorporate public art into the scheme, possibly through significantenhancement of the lane. Given its location next to a public park, consideration should be given to upgrading this lane to street standards. One Panel member suggested that the sky gardens could also be part of the public art contribution.

As the project proceeds, attention should be given to livability issues with respect to the balconies of the middle north units and east units.

The applicant was commended for the goal to seek LEED certification on this project. However, it was noted that at present there is little in the architecture that acknowledges issues of sustainability, i.e., response to the orientation of each elevation and incorporation of elements such as brise soleil to address solar gain on the south and west facades. The Panel will look for greater commitment to sustainability at the development permit stage."

Environmental Implications: Nearby access to transit, the False Creek Ferries, the seawall and commercial services may reduce dependence on use of automobiles. The sustainability goals for the building should contribute to 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 comments as follow:

"We have reviewed the Policy Report and find it to be in compliance with our objectives for the proposed development and have no further comments to add. We look forward to working with Staff and Council on this exciting signature development."

APPENDIX E (9 pages of architectural drawings) and APPENDIX F (Granville Slopes Neighbourhood Concept Plan)

APPENDIX G

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Address

1475 Howe Street

Legal Description

Lots 23 - 30, Block 121, DL 541, PL 210, Lot C, Block 121, DL 541, PL 17157, Group 1 NWD; PID 007308621; 015505529; 015505634; 015505685; 015505707; 015505774; 015505472; 015505481; and 015505812

Applicant

Brook Development Planning

Architect

Rafii Architects Ltd.

Property Owner

Qualex-Landmark

Developer

Qualex-Landmark

SITE STATISTICS

 

GROSS

DEDICATIONS

NET

SITE AREA

3247.8 m² (34,960 sq. ft.)

121.7 m² (1,310 sq. ft.)

3126.1 m² (33,650 sq. ft.)

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS

 

DEVELOPMENT SUPPORTED BY GRANVILLE SLOPES POLICIES AND GSNCP

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

RECOMMENDED
DEVELOPMENT (if different than proposed)

ZONING

FCCDD

CD-1

 

USES

Residential & Commercial

Residential & Live-Work

 

DWELLING UNITS

 

151 plus 4 Live-Work units

 

MAX. FLOOR SPACE RATIO

4.5

4.95 (4.5 + 0.45 heritage density)

 

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

64 m (210 ft.,) relaxable to 68.6 m (225 ft.)

88.7 m (291 ft.)

 

MAX. NO. OF STOREYS

About 21

30

 

PARKING SPACES

 

254 vehicles, 193 bikes

 

PACIFIC ST. YARD SETBACK

 

Varies (east to west) from 0.5 m
(1.75 ft.) to 1.1 m (3.75 ft.)

3 m (10 ft.)

HOWE STREET YARD SETBACKS

 

3 m (10 ft) along Howe Street

3.7 m (12 ft.)

SOUTH YARD SETBACK

 

3 m (10 ft.)

 

REAR YARD SETBACK

 

10.2 cm (4 in..)

 

* * * * *


ag20040323.htm