SUPPORTS ITEM NO. 2
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996
POLICY REPORT
DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING
Date: September 10, 1996
Dept. File No. RRS/MK
TO: Standing Committee on Planning & Environment
FROM: Director of Land Use & Development, as Chair of the
Development Permit Board
SUBJECT: 1001 Hornby Street (1000 Burrard Street) - DE401256
Wall Centre Phase II - Hotel Tower Proposal
CONSIDERATION
A1. THAT the Development Permit Board be advised that Council
has no objection to the proposed height of 450 ft. (exclusive
of mechanical penthouse) for the hotel tower at 1001 Hornby
Street, based on the quality of its architectural design and
energy innovation, as presented in the architectural model
and plans submitted to the Development Permit Board on August
12, 1996; and
FURTHER THAT Council approves a consequential adjustment to
the Queen Elizabeth Park view cone that allows for an
approximate 157 ft. intrusion of the hotel tower should the
Board decide to approve the preliminary development
application;
OR
A2. THAT Council does not support the proposed height of 450 ft.
for the hotel tower at 1001 Hornby Street, and consequent
intrusion into the Queen Elizabeth Park view cone.
CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The City Manager has no comment on this report.
COUNCIL POLICY
- View Protection Guidelines (adopted December 12, 1989, amended
December 11, 1990).
- Downtown Official Development Plan (DODP) (adopted November 4,
1975, most recently amended September 1992): Section 4 - Height of
Buildings.
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
This report reviews recent Development Permit Board discussion of a 556
room hotel development proposal at 1001 Hornby Street (DE401256), which
proposes a height of 450 ft. in a zone permitting 300 ft. within the
Downtown District. The Board, while inclined to approve the proposal,
has referred this preliminary development application to Council to
seek any advice it may choose to offer on the suitability of a 450 ft.
tower at this location and its intrusion into the Council-approved
Queen Elizabeth Park view cone.
The Board has indicated that any approval it may decide to grant would
be subject to certain conditions. Included amongst these is that the
development be of the highest quality architectural design as submitted
in the preliminary development application presented in the model and
plans to the Development Permit Board on August 12, 1996, and that the
design development of this proposal progress to the complete
development application stage with all of the architectural quality and
energy innovation indicated, and that no signage occur on the top 100
ft. of the tower.
BACKGROUND
Site, Existing Zoning and Adjacent Development:
This 1.1 ha (2.8 ac.) site is zoned Downtown District (DD) and consists
of the city block bounded by Burrard, Nelson, Hornby and Helmcken
Streets (Block 80). See Diagram 1 below for the general site context.
DIAGRAM 1
Approved Development
The original overall design concept (approved Preliminary Development
Permit DP209736) for this site by Aitken Wregglesworth (see Appendix B)
included a hotel, a residential and an office tower, and a major open
space. Phase I construction now completed, approved under DP213934 -
Hamilton Doyle, includes the southerly portion of the site on which the
first hotel tower and residential tower are located.
Proposed Development
On May 6, 1996, Busby and Associates Architects, Inc. submitted
preliminary DE401256 proposing numerous changes to the most recently
approved scheme (DP213934), including:
- reconfiguration and enlargement of the major open space
incorporating a 24.4 m (80 ft.) x 24.4 m (80 ft.) plaza at the
Burrard/Nelson Streets corner to be developed as "Volunteer
Square"; and
- deletion of the office tower at the corner of Hornby and Nelson
Streets and incorporation of the 450 ft. high hotel tower which is
the subject of this report; (refer to Site Plan and Elevation,
Appendix A).
Preliminary Council Review
On June 27, 1996, the proposal was presented for information to
Council's Standing Committee on Planning and Environment. Some
Committee members expressed concern that this application should not be
concluded until the Skyline Study reaches a state where it is possible
to review the application in the Study's context. Other members noted
that there is no moratorium on development in the Skyline Study area,
and the transfer of density would achieve a desirable end in
preservation of the Stanley Theatre. It was also pointed out the Board
still had the option to refer the matter for Council's advice if it
wished to do so. Following discussion, the following motion was
approved by the Committee:
"THAT the development application for 1000 Burrard Street proceed
to the next step of consideration at the August 12, 1996
Development Permit Board meeting."
DISCUSSION
Request for Height Increase
The applicant is requesting an increase in the maximum 300 ft. height
prescribed in the Downtown Official Development Plan (DODP) for this
area. The DODP, under Section 4 - Height of Buildings, states that:
"It is the purpose of this Section to ensure that new development is
compatible with that existing in each of the areas of the Downtown."
However, an increase up to 450 ft. is permissible under the
discretionary provision of the same Section 4 that allows the
Development Permit Board to:
"permit buildings which exceed the height limits so prescribed,
after taking particular account of the overshadowing, view
obstruction and other environmental criteria set out in the
applicable design guidelines. In no case however shall the
maximum permitted height exceed 450 ft."
The main reasons for the requested height increase as stated by the
applicant are:
1. the additional height is required to achieve the tower's
slenderness and small footprint, which offer a number of urban
design advantages over the approved lower, squatter office tower,
including opening up of the proposed plaza which is to be
"Volunteer Square" and providing more space for the former B.C.
Hydro building ("The Electra");
2. the increase in height allows for the incorporation of two
critical heritage inventory density transfers to the project;
3. the increase in height allows for a unique architectural design,
making the tower a "landmark" building;
4. the height being requested is an appeal for the architecture of
the city to allow a "landmark" building to add variety to the
city's skyline, and is compatible with potential skyline
prototypes now under consideration; and
5. the slenderness and height of the tower reduces negative urban
design factors for neighbours (e.g., shadowing, views).
Development Permit Board Review
The Development Permit Board, when reviewing the preliminary
development application on August 12, 1996, concluded that the issue of
building height should be referred to Council for its advice, with the
Board indicating its inclination to approve the proposed height (refer
to Board Minutes, Appendix C).
In summary, the Board's principal reasons for supporting the proposed
height of 450 ft. include:
- the high quality of architectural design, its innovative
environmental features, and its 'landmark' character;
- the relatively minor negative environmental impacts (shadowing,
Queen Elizabeth Park view cone intrusion) being outweighed by
positive benefits (open space, tower slenderness, public views of
the Electra and Provincial Courthouse buildings, responsiveness to
Electra residents); and
- relatively minor skyline impacts compared to other approved
projects in the downtown peninsula.
In addition to the analysis contained in the Development Permit Staff
Committee report to the D.P. Board (on file with the City Clerk), the
applicant presented at the Board meeting additional shadowing analysis.
This has now been further reviewed with staff and is attached as
Appendix E. Generally, the analysis shows that at the equinox period:
- shadow impacts of the 450 ft. tower on public open space are
greatest in the morning (10:00 a.m.) and noon hour periods, and
during the late afternoon from 3:00-4:00 p.m., will reach Robson
Square and Robson Street sidewalks; and
- an alternate, lower 330 ft. tower with comparable floorplate to
the hotel tower already built would have reduced shadowing in the
morning and noon hour periods, and would not affect Robson Street
areas in the afternoon, but would have increased shadowing on the
Courthouse block (interior public areas - 900 blk. Hornby Street)
in the late afternoon.
Downtown Vancouver Skyline Study
The Skyline Study is now underway. Options for the form of the skyline
are being developed for a public review that will begin in October.
Following further technical analysis through the fall and early winter
and a further public process in January/February, 1997, a draft report
is targeted for Council consideration in February/March, 1997. This
will include a recommendation for the future form of the skyline and
any changes to Downtown building height limits to implement the
study's conclusions.
Urban Design Panel
The Urban Design Panel reviewed this preliminary development
application on June 5, 1996 and did not support the proposal. The
principal concerns of the Panel had to do with the process and the
proposed auto court intrusion into the open space at Nelson Street.
The majority of Panel members felt that consideration of this
overheight proposal should await the outcome of the Downtown Vancouver
Skyline Study now underway. The majority of Urban Design Panel members
supported the proposed height, largely because of its slenderness and
overall design quality. Full Panel Minutes are attached as Appendix D.
Public Input
Two signs were erected on the site on June 14, 1996. In addition, 610
neighbourhood property owners were notified by letter. By August 12,
1996, 16 letters had been received, of which 12 object to the proposed
development and 4 express support. Since then, another 3 letters of
objection to the proposal have been received.
Development Permit Board Advisory Panel
The comments of Advisory Panel members are contained in the Board
Minutes (Appendix C). Five out of the six Advisory Panel members
recommended approval of the increased building height.
CONCLUSION
Should Council wish to advise the Development Permit Board that it
supports a height of 450 ft. it is recommended that this be based on
the project's architectural quality and energy innovation and that
there be a positive obligation by the developer to execute the project
substantially as indicated in the model and plans presented to the
Board on August 12, 1996, with all of the architectural quality and
energy features indicated thereon.
* * * * *