Agenda Index City of Vancouver

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

TO:

The Standing Committee on Planning and the Environment

FROM:

General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT:

Proposed Column and Pilaster Encroachments from the Eatons, Pacific Centre Store, onto Granville Street and the Pedestrian Right of Way on Robson and Howe Streets

 

RECOMMENDATION AND CONSIDERATION

The General Manager of Engineering Services recommends:

A. THAT Council advise the owners of the Eatons store at Pacific Centre that they do not support an encroachment of 18 inches into Granville Street and the pedestrian right of way on Robson and Howe Streets by the columns, pilasters and related architectural features but that they would agree to a maximum encroachment of 6 inches into the street and the right of way;

If Council does not support recommendation A, then the Director of Current Planning recommends:

B. THAT Council advise the General Manager of Engineering Services that they support encroachments of up to 14 inches into Granville Street and the pedestrian right of way on Robson and Howe Streets, subject to an agreement under the provisions of the Encroachment By-law and an amendment to the existing pedestrian right of way.

If Council does not support either recommendation A or B, then the following alternative action is submitted for CONSIDERATION:

C. THAT Council advise the General Manager of Engineering Services that they support the applicants request for encroachments of up to 18 inches into Granville Street and the pedestrian right of way on Robson and Howe Streets, subject to an agreement under the provisions of the Encroachment By-law and an amendment to the existing pedestrian right of way.

COUNCIL POLICY

There is no policy directly related to this request. However, the Encroachment By-law is used to regulate encroachments onto streets and lanes and this By-law is administered by the General Manager of Engineering Services.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

The purpose of this report is to seek Council’s advice as to the extent of encroachment onto the sidewalks around the old Eatons store at Pacific Centre that should be allowed in order to assist the architects in improving the appearance of this building by renovating it prior to its re-opening as an Eatons Store.

BACKGROUND

Sears Canada is in the process of refurbishing the Eatons store at Pacific Centre and plan to reopen the store in October of this year. As part of this project, significant changes to the appearance of the building are planned. On the outside of the building, new elements will include weather protection by means of glass canopies, some additional storefront windows, architectural elements to animate the pedestrian experience and a changing program of colourful signs and banners on all the building facades.

The architects for Sears Canada wish to create a number of arches (pilasters and beams added to the existing facades) framing display windows and word-mark banners, and they feel these arches must be pronounced enough to be significant. They have requested that the City permit them to encroach up to 18 inches onto the street. The existing building is generally built right to the property line, or to the edge of the pedestrian right-of-way.

DISCUSSION

Staff in the Engineering Department reviewed this request and noted that these are very busy pedestrian areas, particularly on Robson Street and on the Granville Mall. Sidewalk space is taken up by various pieces of street furniture, street trees and signs. At the northerly end of the proposed arch encroachment on Granville Street, the clearance from the existing building to a bus shelter is only approximately eight feet. An 18 inch encroachment into this space is felt to be unreasonably restrictive, bearing in mind the pedestrian volume that can be anticipated on the mall. Staff feel this is unacceptable and therefore could not support the requested encroachment.

It is important to note that the City receives many requests for encroachments onto streets and lanes for a number of different reasons. The majority of these requests come from commercial areas where existing buildings are built to, or nearly to, the property lines. Staff evaluate these requests based on the needs of the City and the public for the street space and the potential impact of the proposed encroachment. Some encroachments, like canopies that provide pedestrian weather protection, are encouraged while other projections that may present a risk to the public or an unreasonable restriction on the street space, are rejected. The re-cladding of older buildings to improve their appearance will often require small encroachments onto the streets. If this re-cladding can be done in two or three inches and if the attaching mechanism is acceptable, these encroachments will usually be allowed provided the owners enter into an encroachment agreement with the City, including payments as set out in the fee schedule of the By-law.

Engineering staff met with the applicant and Planning Department staff to review the merits of the subject proposal and to assess the impacts the encroachments presented. After considerable discussion and further review by Engineering, a maximum encroachment of 6 inches was agreed to by Engineering. This concession was reached after weighing the needs of the City to use the street space for trees, street furniture and pedestrian circulation, while recognizing that there is merit in improving the appearance of the old Eatons building.

The applicant is not satisfied with this compromise and is appealing to Council for an 18 inch encroachment.

Engineering Staff Position: Engineering staff believe that the 18 inch encroachment desired by the applicant is an excessive encroachment into the available sidewalk area and should not be approved. Even with the 6 inch encroachment pedestrian movement will be slightly impaired. Future flexibility for street design, including the placement of trees and street furniture, will be constrained by these encroachments. However, it is felt that a 6 inch encroachment is a reasonable concession to allow for the desired architectural improvements to the building.

Engineering Staff are also concerned about the precedent that approving this application would set for other encroachment applications. The basic test that staff have applied in reviewing encroachment applications in the past is as follows:

· Determine first whether there are any reasonable options that do not involve any encroachment over the property line.

· If not, evaluate whether or not the encroachment would have an impact on the public use of the street/sidewalk.

· If so, are there offsetting public benefits such as weather protection.

On this basis encroachments are approved where there is no reasonable option on private property and either there is no significant impact on the public use of the street or there is an offsetting public benefit to offset any impact.

To allow a significant encroachment into the sidewalk, in this case for purely architectural reasons, would set a precedent that other applicants are certain to point to and expect to follow.

If Council feels that the standard by which staff have been making these decisions should be changed, it should provide that direction. If not, then approval of this application without a change in policy is likely to establish Council as the normal course of appeal for rejected encroachment applications.

Planning Staff Position: Planning agrees with Engineering that any encroachments into City rights-of-way must be considered only in the most exceptional circumstances and where no serious compromise to pedestrian movement results. Planning believes the Eatons building is such an exceptional case. This massive, unarticulated structure has been something of an eyesore on Robson and Granville Streets since its construction and would benefit substantially from the addition of the architectural elements proposed in that they would break up its mass at pedestrian level. Planning does not believe this can be successfully achieved visually or architecturally in 6 inches and is concerned that such additions, if so restricted, will appear flimsy and pasted on. However, there is a concern that at 18 inches these additions will be of such depth as to provide space for lurkers, particularly late at night. Planning has reviewed with the applicant mock-ups of 18 inches and 6 inches erected on site and have concluded that the architectural strength of the proposed pilasters and beams and their urban design objective to break up the mass of the building can be maintained with a 14 inch encroachment. This extent of encroachment would address the safety concern and be less of an encroachment into sidewalk space. The Director of Current Planning therefore submits RECOMMENDATION ‘B’.

CONCLUSION

Engineering Staff do not feel that an 18 inch encroachment into the already restricted sidewalk area of these busy pedestrian routes should be supported because it will conflict with the public use of the space. If this application was approved, the precedent would make it difficult to refuse similar requests in any other area of the city. Future refusals, by Engineering Department staff, would likely also lead to appeals to Council.

Planning Staff believe that the Eatons building is an exceptional case where the urban design objective of breaking up the imposing mass of this blank structure should be taken into account. An encroachment of up to 14 inches would achieve this desire while reducing the encroachment of 18 inches requested by the applicant and, further, addressing the safety concerns of creating areas of partial concealment that an 18 inch pilaster depth could generate.

* * * * *

pe000727.htm

Comments or questions? You can send us email.
[City Homepage] [Get In Touch]

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver