Vancouver City Council

POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING

Date: March 9, 2004
Author/Local: A. Duncan/6269
RTS No. 03925
CC File No. 5305
Meeting Date: March 23, 2004

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of Current Planning
SUBJECT:	CD-1 Rezoning - 1475 Howe Street

RECOMMENDATION

A. THAT the application by Rafii Architects Inc., to rezone 1475 Howe Street (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) from FCCDD to CD-1, to permit a residential and live-work development in a 30-storey tower and townhouses at a floor space ratio of 4.95, be referred to a Public Hearing, together with:

(i) plans received October 10, 2003;

(ii) draft CD-1 By-law provisions, generally as presented in Appendix A; and

(iii) the recommendation of the Director of Current Planning to approve, subject to conditions contained in Appendix B.

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary CD-1 By-law generally in accordance with Appendix A for consideration at the Public Hearing.

B. THAT, subject to approval of the rezoning at a Public Hearing, the Noise Control By-law be amended to include this Comprehensive Development District in Schedule B as set out in Appendix C; and

FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to bring forward the amendment to the Noise Control By-law at the time of enactment of the rezoning by-law.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A and B.

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

· A maximum of 151 dwelling units.

· A maximum of 4 General Office Live-Work premises each having an individual entrance facing Pacific Street where General Office Live-Work is defined as the use of premises for a dwelling unit, general office, or both uses in conjunction with one another, provided that:

a) any such use must not include a health enhancement centre or any dating service, entertainment service, exotic dancer business, social escort service or other similar business, as determined by the Director of Planning in consultation with the Chief License Inspector; and

b) any development permit for such premises shall be for dwelling unit, general office, and dwelling unit combined with general office.

· Accessory Uses customarily ancillary to the above uses.

Density

· Maximum floor space ratio of 4.95, based on calculation provisions of the Downtown District Schedule.

· Covered, exterior entry walkways and corridors at the ground level that provide weather protection shall be excluded from computation of floor area.

Height

· A maximum of 91.4 m (300 ft.) or 30 storeys.

· The section 10.11 Relaxation of Limitations on Building Height provisions of the Zoning and Development By-law shall not apply beyond 91.4 m (300 ft.).

Setback

· A minimum setback of 3 m (10 ft.) from the south property line.

· A minimum setback of 3.7 m (12 ft.) from the Howe Street property line.

· A minimum setback of 3 m (10 ft.) from the Pacific Street property line.

· A minimum setback of 10.2 cm (4 in.) from the west property line.

Parking

· Per Parking By-law, including relaxation and exemption provisions, except that a minimum of 0.8 off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 1 space per 200 m² of gross floor area shall also be required and a maximum of 0.2 spaces per dwelling above the minimum shall be permitted.

· The minimum parking requirement may be reduced by 3 spaces for each co-operative vehicle and parking space provided to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services, to a limit of 1 co-operative vehicle per 60 dwelling units.

Acoustics

· Per RM-4N District Schedule.

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:

Design Development:

(1) Design development to the tower and Howe Street townhouses;

Note to Applicant: Aspects to review include, among other things, the principle pedestrian entrance to the tower on Howe Street should have more prominence and identity; the tower form/character should be refined overall and visually come to the ground; the sky gardens need to be detailed with respect to landscape and character treatment; and the townhouse character along Howe Street needs to have a stronger rhythm and individual unit identity.

(2) Design development to the Pacific Street live-work units that increases their height to three storeys and sets them back 3 m (10 ft.) from the property line;

Note to Applicant: Aspects to review include, among other things, the live-work units need to have a stronger scale and character compatible with the scale and character of Pacific Street.

(3) Design development to the south façade of the townhouses facing May and Lorne Brown Park to balance with the architectural massing and character of the park-facing façade of the existing adjacent building to the west;

(4) Design development to the streetscape details along Howe and Pacific Streets;

Note to Applicant: Aspects to review include, among other things, the three-storey development along Howe and Pacific Streets should reflect the Downtown South streetscape details that include among other things, a 3.7 m (12 ft.) setback (3 m/10 ft. along Pacific Street) and patios that are approximately 1 m (3 ft.) above grade. The proposed streetscape design needs to accommodate both a short-term resolution for the existing conditions and a long-term plan that accommodates the future beautification treatment. The proposed street furniture can be considered but should not be the Downtown South colour or design. All existing street trees, furnishings and utilities (e.g., hydrants, poles, etc.) should be shown on the site plan.

(5) Design development to the small plaza at the corner of Pacific and Howe Streets;

Note to Applicant: Aspects to review include, among other things, allowance for public seating and provision of windows in the adjacent townhouse and live-work units that overlook this area for safety and security purposes.

(6) Design development to delete portions of the building and parkade shown within dedicated areas;

Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED):

(7) Design development to take into consideration the principles of CPTED having particular regard to reduce opportunities for:

- theft in the underground parking area including full separation of residential and live-work parking,
- break and enter to ground level and podium level residential units,
- mischief in alcoves on the lane and at the corner open space,
- graffiti on blank walls and skateboarding on low walls and landscape furnishings, and
- providing direct internal access to townhouse units where appropriate;

Note to Applicant: Theft in the underground parking has become a significantconcern in new towers downtown, therefore, special attention should be paid to parking security.

Landscape:

(8) Design development to the central common open space to provide permanent seating and a stronger "centre" to the space and provision of secure and equipped outdoor play area suitable for children;

Note to Applicant: As part of development permit approval, a secure and equipped outdoor play area suitable for children (refer to section 3.3 of the City's High Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines) must be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Social Planning. Particular care should be given to provide adequate fencing and fall zones (contact Community Care Facilities Licensing staff if you may require more information), and to avoid toxic plants and landscaping materials in and around the play area (a list of toxic plants is available as an appendix to the City's Childcare Design Guidelines and is available on line or by calling the City's Early Childhood Co-ordinator at 604-871-6042).

(9) Design development to ensure adequate soil depth for proposed trees as part of the streetscape within the property line; and

Note to Applicant: At the development permit stage, sections should be provided to confirm adequate soil depth for tree growth.

Sustainability:

(10) 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.

AGREEMENTS

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

Heritage Density Transfer:

(1) submit typical Letters A and B, (available from the Project Co-ordinator) to be completed by both the owner of the "donor" site and the owner of the "receiver" site.

Note: Letter B should be modified to reflect rezoning enactment rather than development permit application. The owner of the donor site should also supplement Letter B with an accounting of the following: amount of density awarded by City Council, all transactions that have occurred to date (including any tentative agreements for purchasing density and the final balance anticipated).

Public Art:

(2) execute an agreement, satisfactory to the Directors of Legal Services and the Office of Cultural Affairs for the provision of public art in accordance with the City's Public Art Policy, such agreement to provide for security in a form and amount satisfactory to the aforesaid officials; and provide a preliminary public art plan to the satisfaction of the Director of Cultural Affairs setting out the proposed public art program aims, artist terms of reference, site and artists selection methods, project budget, implementation plan and a schedule.

Engineering Services:

(3) ensure the following are addressed to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services:

(i) consolidate 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;
(ii) dedication of a 3.05 m by 3.05 m (10 ft. by 10 ft.) corner cut off from the south-west corner of Lot 23;
(iii) dedication of a portion of Lot C for road purposes (approximately 7.6 m/24.8 ft. at the lane and 4.4 m/14.3 ft. at Howe Street);
(iv) undergrounding of new BC Hydro and Telus services from the closest existing suitable service point;

(v) connection of the site to BC Hydro's dual radial electrical servicing system; and
(vi) execute a legal agreement satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services.

Soils:

(4) ensure 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.

Note to Applicant: 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.

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.

Second, by increasing the tower height, the consequential floor plates decrease in size from approximately 604 m² (6,500 sq. ft.) to approx. 520 m² (5,600 sq. ft.) resulting in the immediate neighbours being facing with approximately 8% less building width. The view analysis submitted by the applicant also indicates the other surrounding towers to the north, south and west, generally also have less horizontal view impact from the proposal. However, it should be noticed that the portions of these neighbouring towers above the height of approximately 70 m (230 ft.) would not be impacted even if they adhered to policy height of 64 m (210 ft.). These towers are between 85 m (280 ft.) and 104 m (340 ft.) away and the view impact will be minimal.

Overall, private views and privacy is improved by the proposal, particularly for the immediate westerly tower at 888 Pacific Street.

· 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.

Worthy of note are three important residential characteristics of the proposal. First, there is a substantial area of on-site semi-private open space available to the future residents of the proposal. Second, both Howe and Pacific Streets and the east-west lane are lined with residential and live-work units. These units provide a strong residential character and scale to the neighbourhood and provide good security of `eyes on the street and park'. Third, residential amenity areas are provided at grade and second floor level as well as sky gardens at the 16th and 19th levels of the tower.

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..)

* * * * *

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