Agenda Index City of Vancouver

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

 

Date: January 5, 2001

 

Author/Local: RWhitlock/873-7814

 

RTS No. 01659

 

CC File No. 5303

 

P&E: January 25, 2001

   

TO: Standing Committee of Council on Planning and Environment

FROM: Director of Current Planning

SUBJECT: CD-1 Text Amendment - 1673 Bayshore Drive [Trader's Restaurant]

RECOMMENDATION

CONSIDERATION

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council policies for this site include:

· CD-1(321) By-law No. 7232 for 701 West Georgia Street and 1601-1650 Bayshore Drive; and

· CD-1 Guidelines for Bayshore Gardens (1601 West Georgia Street), adopted by City Council November 9, 1993.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report assesses an application to amend the CD-1 for the Bayshore site, to permit an increase in the floor space and height for a proposed restaurant and marine pub. The applicant indicates the following reasons for the application:

- the existing floor plate and height are insufficient to support the proposed restaurant and marine pub; and
- residents and operators of the hotel have asked that no outdoor patio occur in conjunction with this development, and equivalent space would require floor area and height increases.

The Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be refused on the basis that the existing zoning for the site anticipated a modest commercial operation, there are impacts for neighbours and the public with a larger building, and the applicant has failed to provide clearly identifiable public benefits as justification for the increase in floor space and height.

DISCUSSION

Background: Views to the water and beyond have always been significant elements in the planning of this area. Original plans for the Bayshore redevelopment in 1991 included a residential tower in the water at the mid-way point along the easterly edge of the marina precinct. This tower was removed at Council's direction prior to consideration of the rezoning at Public Hearing. The reasons are outlined in Appendix C.
Figure 1- Site Location

Figure 2 - Existing Commercial Platform

Floor Space: The proposed restaurant and pub are to be built on an existing concrete platform that was constructed with the seawall (see photo on previous page). It is not clear why the developer chose to build the platform at 365.5 m² (3,837.5 sq. ft.), but this footprint would accommodate the floor area permitted in the CD-1 By-law in a building with a full main level and a partial second level (i.e., a mezzanine). Alternatively, the platform could be expanded to a size originally contemplated in the zoning.

The CD-1 provides for 465 m² (5,005.4 sq. ft.) of retail, office and service uses, at a height of 5.0 m (16.4 ft.). The applicant is seeking a 30% increase of permitted floor area to 604 m² (6,501.6 sq.ft.) to accommodate the restaurant and a marine pub. The pub has received pre-site clearance from Council in April 1999

The applicant believes that many restaurants/public houses in prime locations such as this would feature outdoor patios or roof decks, which do not count as floor space as such areas are not enclosed. At the request of residents and owners in the area and management of the adjoining Bayshore Hotel, the applicant has reduced the amount of outdoor seating to two small areas on the north side of the building, while adding the equivalent amount of enclosed space to the proposed development.

Staff note that the CD-1 By-law and regulations contemplate a small scale, modest commercial component, and permit retail, service and office uses. The proposal to accommodate a sizable restaurant with a marine pub extends the development volumetrically beyond that envisioned by the original planning process for the area. Unfortunately, both the proposed volume of the building and the proposed height have a noticeable impact on views from the waterfront walkway, particularly from the south and the east. The changes also impact the views of some residents to the south.

The Director of Current Planning believes that the proposed density increase to provide for both the restaurant and marine pub represents an over-development of the site. The positive benefits which accrue to the restaurant/pub site are offset by an overall reduction of benefits to the public.

Internal Density Transfer Option: In early 2000, a representative of the adjacent Bayshore Gardens site indicated a willingness to transfer unbuilt density to this site as a means of assisting the applicant. The applicant gave staff no indication of having followed up on this offer. Should the applicant raise the density transfer idea with Council, staff would recommend against it. The issue remains the over-development of this highly-sensitive site and not how the density might be gained.

Height: The applicant wishes to develop 2 storeys plus screened roof-top mechanical elements within a curved roof form, to a height of 9 m (25 ft.). The present height of 5.0 m (16.4 ft.) is generous for one storey, minimal for one storey plus a mezzanine floor level, and inadequate to allow for 2 storeys. Generally, an absolute minimum of 6.0 m (19.7ft.) would be needed to provide for 2 storeys.

Staff note that the CD-1 for the adjacent Coal Harbour Marina Neighbourhood to the east permits 6.0 m (19.7 ft.) plus a 1.0 m (3.3 ft.) relaxation in height (total of 7.0 m/23 ft.) for a fixed restaurant structure (Cardero's). However, the restaurant locations differ in that the subject Bayshore restaurant site is situated in a promontory location with significant views of Stanley Park, Coal Harbour and the North Shore along the seawall walkway, and it is situated along the edge of Bidwell street-end view cone. Cardero's is situated in an in-board location on a bay created by the Bayshore Hotel and a marina, views are limited by surrounding development and the restaurant site is not aligned on a street-end.

In response to residents' concerns about the impacts of the proposed additional height on views to the water, Stanley Park and beyond, the applicant has offered to reconsider the proposed form of development to:

- re-design the roof to be more pleasing;
- endeavor to hide the mechanical equipment as much as possible; and
- reduce the height to 7.0 m (23 ft.) plus mechanical roof screening.

However, the application has not been amended to reflect this offer, and the proposed form of development remains at 9.0 m.

Staff have assessed view analysis provided by the applicant, noting two important factors:

- general views in the area, particularly for the many people who frequent the walkway, from the neighbourhood and to Stanley Park, would be adversely affected by a full 2-storey building either at 9.0 m (29.7) or 7 m (23 ft.); and

- while residences are situated over 107.7 m (350 ft.) away from the restaurant site, some residents, particularly those below the 7th floor, would lose parts of important views to the North Shore and of Stanley Park.

Staff therefore do not support a full 2 storey building in this sensitive location.

Form of Development: [Note Plans: Appendix D] The application has been reviewed by the Urban Design Panel on three occasions. Conditional support was received upon the final review on July 12, 2000.

Much attention has focused on the design of the restaurant/pub, on the supposition that some increase in height may be justified by an `exemplary' architectural design response. The Urban Design Panel and some local residents find the current scheme acceptable, but the design, in its attempt to accommodate the full two-storey volume generated by the added density, does not, in the opinion of staff, warrant the requested height increase. After reviewing several designs, staff do not see any satisfactory architectural solution that would mitigate the added building volume that the extra density generates.

Public Input: City staff have received 15 letters and e-mail messages and numerous telephone calls. Approximately 80% of these responses have been opposed to various aspects of the proposal, but mainly directed at the height increase and the pub. The applicant has met with owners and the strata councils of buildings immediately south of the restaurant site (1710 and 1790 Bayshore Drive; 1717 and 1777 Bayshore Drive) and with the management of the Bayshore Hotel. City staff sponsored an Open House on August 30, 2000, which attracted 40 people. About half the people supported the proposal as presented, with the remainder expressing concerns about the potential late night noise associated with the pub, the implications on views related to the increased height and impacts on the walkway.

Noise: Many individuals are not opposed to the restaurant/pub but have expressed reservations about late night activities and noise, particularly if there are outdoor patios, and the general kind of problems associated with pub patrons exiting the establishment at closing time.

The following limitations were established by Council when considering a Marine Pub:

1. restrict operational hours to 11 a.m. to 12 Midnight;
2. close patios at 11 p.m.;
3. no off-sales;
4. no live entertainment;
5. a time-limited development permit; and
6. a Good Neighbour Agreement.

The applicant would restrict the patios to the north side of the building if the rezoning can be achieved to permit additional enclosed floor space that would otherwise be included as open patios on the south side of the building. The 11:00 p.m. closure of the patio does not satisfy the Bayshore Hotel management, who wish a 9:30 p.m. closure out of concern for their hotel guests.

Following discussion with various strata councils, the applicant offered the following additional restrictions for one year, with re-introduction subject to strata council approval:

1. eliminate the word "Pub" from exterior advertising, logo or signage;
2. eliminate pool tables; and
3. eliminate KENO lottery games.

With these additional restrictions, overall noise emanating from the pub may be reduced. However, the applicant's discussion with the neighbours about noise is based on the enclosure of space that is not supported by staff due to concerns about building bulk as noted above.

The staff report of March 4, 1999, concerning the marine pub, pointed out that the use "Neighbourhood Public House" would require a development permit application and that such a proposal would "include an assessment of the expected impact on nearby development, including any outdoor seating areas that may be proposed in conjunction with a neighbourhood public house". While the applicant has indicated the intent to proceed with a restaurant/pub with open decks if the rezoning is unsuccessful, it is uncertain whether such a proposal would be accepted by either the Director of Planning or the Development Permit Board. Moreover, Council support for a pub does not oblige Council to support a rezoning.

View Protection: Implications for views of the larger building form are discussed under the earlier section of this report on height. Residents who attended the open house in August reiterated concerns about the interruption of views for those living on the 7th floor or below. Staff note that the nearest residential units are over 107.7 m (350 ft.) away from the restaurant site and the view implications are relatively minor (reduction of some views in a wide panorama). A more significant effect on views occurs for individuals walking along the waterfront seawall, from the south to the east, and for hotel guests, since the larger building has the effect of separating pedestrians more completely from the water in the vicinity.

CONCLUSION

This waterfront site is perhaps one of the most sensitive in the city. The original planning for the Bayshore Neighbourhood resulted in a CD-1 By-law that calls for a low-scale, low
height commercial building on the site to provide for some visual interest and water-side activity without overpowering the promenade or blocking views. This was all widely known public knowledge at the time of the initial business transaction. The purchaser decided to pursue both a restaurant and a marine pub. After submitting a development permit application, being advised of the CD-1 regulations and hearing of concerns from the hotel and other owners in the area, the developer pursued changes to the CD-1 to increase FSR and height to include what would otherwise have been outdoor space. Conversion of outdoor area into indoor space results in a larger building with more impacts on the public than are desirable.

Staff conclude there is no public purpose to be gained by permitting an increase in floor area and height, and the issues raised by the application result from a proposed more intensive use of the site than intended in the CD-1. The site would easily accommodate a typical restaurant or another currently allowed commercial use at the permitted FSR and height. If the pub component is not workable at the permitted FSR and height, then staff suggest the owner has made a business decision inconsistent with the expressed development rights on the site. The site is simply too sensitive and important to permit a business-case interest to take priority over protection of the public interest.

The Director of Current Planning recommends that the application be refused. Should Council wish to consider the application at a Public Hearing, staff put forward that the height be reduced from 9.0 m (29.5 ft.) to 6.0 (19.7 ft.), with a relaxation to 7.0 m (23 ft.) for a fixed restaurant structure.

* * * * *

pe010125.htm

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO CD-1(321) BY-LAW No. 7232

Subsection 6.5 Table 2 (Maximum Floor Area Totals):

· Increase the permitted floor area in Sub-Area 5 (water area) from 465 m² (5,005.4 sq. ft.) to 604 m² (6,501.6 sq. ft.)

Subsection 7.1 Table 4 (Maximum Height):

· Increase the permitted height in Sub-Area 5 - from 5.0 m (16.4 ft.) to 9.0 m (29.5 ft.)

PROPOSED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

(a) THAT the draft CD-1 amending by-law be changed to reduce the proposed height from 9.0 m (29.5 ft.) to "6.0 m (19.7 ft.), noting that the Development Permit Board may permit an increase in this maximum height by 1.0 m (3.3 ft.), for a fixed restaurant structure, providing the following are taken into consideration:

(b) THAT the proposed form of development be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by Urban Design Group and dated June 27, 2000, 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 (c) below.

(c) 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, taking into consideration the following:

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Site, Surrounding Zoning and Development: The site of the proposed development is a concrete platform located immediately west of the main shoreline and seawall promenade in the Marina precinct of the newly developed Bayshore Gardens project beyond the north foot of Bidwell Street. The platform is approximately 15.24 m by 23.2 m (50 ft. by 76 ft.) and 356.5 m² (3,837.5 sq. ft.) in area, supported by concrete piles above the water and accessed by two bridge ramps.

Immediately to the east of the site is the Bayshore Hotel.

Background: Views to the water and beyond have always been significant elements in the planning of this area. Original plans for the Bayshore redevelopment in 1991 included a residential tower in the water at the mid-way point along the easterly edge of the marina precinct. This tower was removed at Council's direction prior to consideration of the rezoning at Public Hearing, for the following reasons:

- structures in the water contravened Council's existing policy;
- the proposed tower falls within the required view cone along the Bidwell street-end; and
- the general policy is to see building mass scale down along the public waterfront.

The following is an extract from the 1991 City Manager's report, dated August 6, 1991, on the "Proposed Rezoning of the Bayshore Site [1601 West Georgia]", under the heading "Structures in the Water and the Marina":

"In accordance with Council's direction, the proposed tower in the water has been relocated to the southwest corner of the hotel site. Staff support this relocation, as:

· it improves views through the site and does not intrude on the Bidwell street-end view corridor;
· it further defines the park and creates a positive interface; and
· it minimizes shadow impacts on public space . . .

. . . The developer has proposed that the structure containing the marina office be two levels and also contain a restaurant and/or lounge. Staff support this proposal as it would create interest and diversity on the water's edge at a small scale in a location which is unlikely to impact residential use. This support is subject to . . . (access and parking considerations) plus a limitation on the size of the restaurant to 5,000 sq. ft."
The application was referred to Public Hearing on August 19, 1991. The Public Hearing was held on November 21, 1991 and the rezoning was approved as amended.

CD-1(321) for the broader Bayshore redevelopment was enacted in November 1993, after extensive site planning in conjunction with the Planning Department. The CD-1 regulations for the Marina Precinct (Sub-area 5) provide for a small scale, modest commercial component as part of the precinct which consists mostly of water and marina use. Retail, service and office uses are permitted at the location in the corner where the seawall walk turns to the east. The guidelines for the Bayshore development state that ". . . diversity should be created along the edge of the marina by incorporating a public restaurant facility".

Discussions with staff regarding the restaurant and construction of the concrete pad began before the end of 1998 as the AOKI Corporation (developers of the Bayshore complex) prepared to construct the shoreline and seawall walkways. These early discussions focused on the proposition that construction of a 2-storey restaurant facility would be preferred by the restaurant proponents. On January 7, 1999, the current application to amend the CD-1
zoning was submitted. On January 27, 1999, a proposal for a 2-storey restaurant, with rooftop garden deck and exterior deck seating on the main floor, was submitted as a DBR pilot project (*P400326). Subsequently, a request came forward for a marine pub. Council approved the endorsement by the Vancouver Liquor Commission on April 13, 1999 (see later description of this approval). On December 20, 1999, Development Application No. DE404739 was submitted for a 2-storey restaurant/pub.

It would appear that construction of the walkway and the commercial/restaurant pad in the summer of 1999 were based on the premise that the necessary CD-1 amendment would gain approval from City Council despite no assurances from City staff. Planning Department files indicate ongoing difficulties with the design and the extent to which the proposal would meet the intent of guidelines for the site, and responses from the neighbouring hotel operation and residences has been mix4ed throughout the process. It is unclear as to why the pad was built at the size of 356.5 m² (3,837.5 sq. ft.), almost 25% less than required for a full build-out at a single storey.

Initial plans for the restaurant/pub featured prominent open roof decks at the second level. This proposal received opposition from many, including the hotel, who preferred that open decks not be allowed, because of likely noise impacts on guests and residents in the area. Subsequently revisions to the proposal reduced open decks and patios considerably. The plans have been revised several times in an effort by the applicant to gain favourable support from the Urban Design Panel and staff.

Proposed Development: The proposal is to construct a two-storey restaurant and marine pub on this small waterfront site on the water side of the Coal Harbour seawall promenade.

The latest plans for the site seek an increase in floor area from 465 m² (5,005.4 sq. ft.) to 604 m² (6,501.6 sq. ft.) and an increase in height from 5.0 m (16.4 ft.) to 9.0 m (29.5 ft.). Plans are shown in Appendix E.

The Vancouver Liquor Licensing Commission considered an application for a 65-seat plus 20-seat patio Class `F' Marine Pub with off-premise sales for the site (then part of the Bayshore Hotel site at 1601 West Georgia Street) on March 25, 1999. At the meeting the applicants withdrew a request for off-premises sales, accepted hours of operation as recommended by staff and agreed to limit entertainment in the pub to recorded background music only.

The Commission recommended as follows, and Vancouver City Council passed the following Motion on April 13, 1999:

"THAT Council advise the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch it endorses the application by Walt Stipic for a 65-seat plus 20-seat patio Class `F' Marine Pub at 1601 West Georgia Street having considered the majority of the area residents are in favour of granting the license, as determined through the neighbourhood notification process, recognizing that there are few residents at this time. The application was considered with regard to the proximity of existing and proposed residential developments, traffic patterns, road access and the availability of parking, possible noise impacts and the overall design and appearance of the building. It was noted that there are no public buildings or social facilities within close proximity and that this proposal is in compliance with the plan for the Coal Harbour area, subject to:

[i] the hours of operation being restricted to 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, seven days a week;
[ii] the patio closing at 11:00 p.m.;
[iii] a Time-Limited Development Permit;
[iv] a signed Good Neighbour Agreement prior to Business License issuance; and
[v] written agreement which will permanently fix the seating capacity at 65 seats plus 20 patio seats and also fix the hours of operation as per the application with any changes subject to municipal approval."

Public Input: A notification letter was sent to 612 nearby property owners on February 1, 2000 and a rezoning information sign was erected following a request on January 20, 2000.

Neighbourhood concerns are generally outlined in the body of the report.

The Manager of the Westin Bayshore Resort & Marina addressed the following hotel concerns:

"...the major issue from the Hotel's perspective was potential noise problems. At the hearing on March 25, 1999, I advised that the Hotel supported a 65-seat pub on the ground level with seating for 20 on the outdoor deck on the condition that the outdoor deck be closed at 9:30 p.m. I note that the Council approval letter does not reflect the patio closing at 9:30 p.m. and, accordingly, I wish to reiterate the Hotel's position that the patio must be closed at 9:30 p.m. otherwise both the Hotel and the City run a significant risk of ongoing noise complaints from Hotel patrons.

Concerning the present rezoning application, the plan now moves the pub upstairs with a 125-seat restaurant downstairs providing additional outdoor seating as part of the holding bar. The Hotel cannot support the additional bar space or the extra outdoor seating."

Comments of the General Manager of Engineering Services: The General Manager of Engineering Services has no objection to the proposed rezoning.

Urban Design Panel Comment: The Urban Design Panel reviewed this proposal on July 12, 2000 and offered the following comments:

"EVALUATION: [6 - 1] Support

Introduction: The Development Planner, Ralph Segal, introduced this revised project for "Trader's" restaurant /pub by presenting a brief summary of the zoning application: noting there was a concrete pad in place with a 3,500 sq. ft. footprint; the zoning permitted a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant with a height of 5 m and that after several attempts, the Applicant had down-sized this project to just over 6,600 sq. ft. with a height of 9.1 m. Mr. Segal stressed that the applicant would be asking Council for an increase in floor area of over 1,600 sq. ft. and a height increase of over 4 m, and that staff would be seeking Panel's advice as to whether the revised project merited such approval from Council.

Mr. Segal referred to Panels' previous commentary [which rendered non-support] seeking a more marine-like feel at this location, a more articulated roof in, a less box-like structure, and more open balconies. He also noted this very high profile site would interface not only with the Bayshore Hotel, but all of the walkways, park system, and surrounding residents as well.

Mr. Segal referred to the revised model, noting the attempt to introduce more nautical forms, change in colour palette and materials, including the introduction of teak wood, and that major consideration of this project would fall on the design. He emphasized that Council would have to deal with the Applicant's deviations from the existing zoning regarding floor area and height restrictions. However, bearing in mind the location, a compelling design would be part of the formula as to whether this scheme merited staff going forward positively to Council with a recommendation that this scheme was deserving of more floor area and height to accommodate the sought after restaurant and pub.

A Panel Member noted the discrepancy of the square footage shown on the posted drawings from the figure of just over 6,000 sq. ft. referred to in the opening remarks. Mr. Segal stated this would require clarification from the Applicant, whose letter he had received late that day advising staff of a reduction to 6,054 sq. ft. from the previous 6,600 sq. ft.

Applicant's Opening Comments: By way of clarification concerning the reduced floor area, Mr. Way, Downs/Archambault, advised that although the same configuration of the two floors were kept, their previous submission had not included a deduction for service areas, service rooms, elevators, stair wells, etc. and those dimensions had been excluded from this revised presentation.

Mr. Segal advised the Applicant that there were no exclusions for service areas, elevators and the like in the calculation of floor area and, therefore, the calculation of 6,600 sq. ft. would stand.

The Applicant referred to Panel's previous recommendation to remove one staircase and he confirmed that this was not an option.

Mr. Way advised when they were asked to look over this project with a fresh view, he was intrigued by the octagon concrete pier structure and had used this as a source for this design. They had viewed the distant context, landmarks, and felt in comparison their project was relatively insignificant mass-wise and thought the added concrete piers or "masts" would be distant focal points. By way of breaking down the mass and box-like structure, a curved metal [copper] roof form was introduced which alluded to the boat hulls and metal sheds across the harbour. He also referred to the service block previously on the west side of the building which had been brought inside to present a clear entry. Mr. Way explained that the sheer mass of the metal panelling on the west wall, curving into a roof element was to add intrigue - a counterpoint to the glass, and felt the curved roof tied into the concrete piers, as well as create a partial ceiling on the north side. He also pointed out this curved roof top would screen the mechanical from surrounding residences.

Mr. Gould referred to the "history" of the sale of this property to his client, who had been advised there was roughly 7,000 sq. ft. buildable, with a 5,000 sq. ft. pad and that height had not been discussed. His client had therefore anticipated building a 5,000 sq. ft. restaurant with the balance of2,000 sq. ft. on the second floor. However, when they had referred to the zoning they had realized there was only 5,000 sq. ft. buildable and the pad was only 3,291 sq. ft. The obvious solution had been to add another storey. He described the first design was for a restaurant higher than 5 m with a lot of outside patio space on the west side; however, they had been instructed by the vendor and hotel management that they did not wish to see any outside or roof top patios. Mr. Gould concluded by noting that with these restrictions, the viability of doing this project, with the cost of the pad and the cost of the building, they would need a bare minimum of 200 seats to make this venture economically feasible. This had resulted in the present day submission of a 2-storey structure, with reduced and enclosed patios.

Mr. Segal advised Mr. Gould the issue at hand did not revolve around whatever financial considerations had been implied at the time of purchase, but rather the project's urban design, not economic performance.

The panel viewed the model and posted materials.

The Chair summarized the specific issues requiring the Panels input, namely: the height and architectural design, and whether this revised design merited/justified the requested increases in floor area and height.

Panel's Comments: The Panel stated unanimously they had no issue with the height [some felt it could go even higher]; the commentary regarding the revised project ranged from having come a long way, to it being a clever revision, to liking the abstracted, non-literal kind of reference to the marina around it; and although some felt the architecture fitted all the required areas on the site and provided an intriguing form, the Panel was unanimous in their recommendation for refinement in the architecture, and crisper lines between the shroud and the glass. It was also noted that the service area of almost 45% on each floor was excessive, seeing that restaurants survived by the number of customers. Although some felt the building appeared to be a "plain glass box" from the north facade, others felt it presented a calming effect.

However, one Member stated this revised proposal was not sufficiently stellar to warrant a fairly substantial revision to the zoning, nor did it warrant recommending an almost 30% increase in floor area and height to Council for approval.

Some Members felt the simpler palette, materials, glass, concrete and metals as well as some teak wood was well integrated and that the roofing material was innovative. The Panel was receptive to the curved roof; however, a few felt the most prominent south facade needed to be emphasized, although it was an improvement from the previous frenetic facade. Most Members felt the concrete piers could be eliminated, or brought down to the roof line, or reduced to only one, to announce the waterfront character.

In referring to Mr. Gould's dissertation about the original "deal" struck between his client and the vendor, the Panel was unanimous in advising the Applicant that this was a matter between his client and the vendor and should not be used as a tool for appealing to the Urban Design Panel for recommendation of increased floor area and height in order to attain the previously-calculated economic gain.

The Chair summarized the Panel's comments, noting the unanimous support for the proposed height increase and support for the project in general. The architectural form had improved considerably -some Members thought it was clever, with a certain whit to it. He thought the main issue was the contrast of the curved foil to the "glass box" and that this contrast between the two elements should be accentuated in the continuation of this development. The Chair noted there was some difference of opinion on whether the concrete piers should extend beyond the roof, or be lowered. There were comments about extending the roof curve on the north side. With regard to the increase in floor area, it didn't appear that the Panel objected specifically to the increase; however, the issue was that the area created a certain mass and seemed to be problematic in the expression of the mass of this building. The Chair stressed the Panel felt considerable progress had been made with this architectural parti to create a lightness in the building and maritime character, and that the Panel felt a roof top patio would be most appropriate for this project.

Applicant's Response: Mr. Way expressed their appreciation for the Panel's commentary. He also advised they had attempted to design a more prominent, extended roof line, increase the refinement of the corners, etc.; however, the property owners to the west and south sides of the site were adamant about there being no encroachments on their properties.

The Chair stressed that the Panel had been asked to vote on the support of this project for a design that would justify an increase in floor area and height, but only with further refinement of the architectural character and qualifications voiced in their comments.

The Chair called for the vote and advised the Applicant they had the support of the Panel; however, subject to the Panel's commentary regarding proposed conditions."

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 comments which accompany this report as Appendix D.

APPENDIX D
Page 1 of 3

APPLICANT'S RESPONSE

The following letter has been received on behalf of the applicant.

Five Schedules [A to G] accompany this letter (limited distribution). These schedules will be on file with the City Clerk for reviewing by any members of the public. Copies of schedules will be made available for the Planning and Environment Standing Committee meeting.

"Applicant's response to policy report RTS No. 01659

To Standing Committee of Council - Planning & Environment

From 562270 BC Ltd.

Regarding CDL Text Amendment - 1673 Bayshore Drive

For consideration at council

History

Nov 1993 Policy and guidelines passed for CD-1, 1601 West Georgia St. Bayshore Gardens

Sept 1995 July 1997 and June 2000 AOKI brochure released to the public showing approved development including a 2-storey building on Lot T (1673 Bayshore Dr). Each copy enclosed (Schedule A).

Sept 1997 AOKI letter to us stating size of approx 5000 sq ft on main level and 2000 on second floor. Letter, site map and computer size of lot and concrete pad built to property lines (Schedule B).

Nov 1998 to July 12, 2000 the applicant has attended fifteen workshops with the planning department heads and various community service individuals as well a zoning, encroachment officials and other city representatives.

APPENDIX D
Page 2 of 3

The Facts-Height

By-laws and policy guidelines 7232 and 321 conflict on heights. One states 2-25 storeys and the other states 5m. The plans and brochures by the owners show 2 storey building.

The new marina stand between the residents to the south approximately 350 ft away and large boats sail and power will obscure our building at an average and high tide.

The concrete pad as shown is only 75 ft wide looking from the south to north. The proposed building is 52 ft wide and the balance of 23 ft is ramp, non-buildable, see Schedule B.

The Facts - Density or Floor Area

It has been suggested the platform could be expanded to meet the zoning. All four sides of this site are owned by different property owners and they have all stated no to encroachment.

We require a second level and as soon as you propose this floor, other requirements to code are necessary including two means of exit enclosed, an elevator for handicapped patrons and washrooms for convenience. The planning department requested all garbage, loading and receiving be located inside our main floor space. The roof must overhang our exterior walls require a setback.

All of these facts reduce our square footage and with no patios on the outside south, east or west it makes it difficult to design a high profile building to please everyone.

We retained a high profile architect along with our previous architectural firm to help us analyze all public and planning requirements they all have done a wonderful job and on July 12, 2000 the urban design group lauded our efforts and gave us their support with refinements.

APPENDIX D
Page 3 of 3

Facts - Internal Density Transfer

It is stated on page 4 of the report from planning that the applicant gave staff no indication of a density transfer but in fact provided to Laurie Schmidt a letter dated July 20, 2000 on August 28, 2000 (Schedule F).

Facts - Public Input

On August 30, 2000 at an open house 40 people attended, only 11 filled out a comment form provided by the city. 8 were in favor, some with constructive comments and 3 were against. Out of 612 mail outs (page 4 of 7) to property owners (Schedule G).

For over a year we have worked with neighbors, property owners, hotel management and owners, city planning department and have made all concessions to suite everyone. We have worked very hard and honestly to create a good neighbor development.

We ask for your support to get to the public hearing stage.

(Signed) "S. Gould"

Simon Gould

Owners Representative on behalf of 562270 BC Ltd."

APPENDIX F

APPLICANT, PROPERTY, AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

APPLICANT AND PROPERTY INFORMATION

Street Address

450 Denman Street (also 1673 Bayshore Drive)

Legal Description

Lot T, Sub 5, LMP 12980

Applicant

562270 B.C. Ltd.

Architect

Urban Design Group

Property Owner

562270 B.C. Ltd.

SITE STATISTICS

 

GROSS

DEDICATIONS

NET

SITE AREA

Concrete Platform
356.5 m²
(3,837.5 sq. ft.)

n/a

Concrete Platform
356.5 m²
(3,837.5 sq. ft.)

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS: Parcel 5

 

DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EXISTING ZONING

PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

ZONING

CD-1[321]
By-law No. 7232

CD-1 Text Amendment

REFUSE

USES

Retail, service and office

No change

No change

MAX. FLOOR SPACE

465 m² (5,005.4 sq. ft.)

604 m² (6,501.6 sq. ft.)

REFUSE

MAXIMUM HEIGHT

5.0 m
(16.4 ft.)

9.0 m
(29.5 ft.)

REFUSE, but if Council
wishes to consider
amendment, max. height
recommended is 6.0 m (19.7 ft.), with a 1.0 m (3.3 ft.)
relaxation for a fixed restaurant
structure, for a total height of
7.0 m (23 ft.)

ATTACHMENTS THAT DO NOT HAVE ELECTRONIC COPY ARE AVAILABLE ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE

* * * * *

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

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver