SUPPORTS ITEM NO.
P&E COMMITTEE AGENDA
Proposed Text Amendments to the Downtown O.C.P. and
Amendme...NOVEMBER 7, 1996
POLICY REPORT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT
Date: October 25, 1996
Dept. File No. CP
TO: Standing Committee on Planning & Environment
FROM: Director of Land Use & Development
Director of Central Area Planning
SUBJECT: Proposed Text Amendments to the Downtown O.C.P.
and Amendments to the Downtown South Design Guidelines
RECOMMENDATION
A. THAT the Director of Land Use & Development be instructed to
make application to amend the Downtown Official Development
Plan generally in accordance with Appendix A*;
FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare the necessary by-law;
AND FURTHER THAT the application and by-law be referred to
Public Hearing.
B. THAT the existing "Downtown South Guidelines (excluding
Granville Street)" be amended by Council to incorporate the
changes noted in Appendix B*.
CONSIDERATION
C1. THAT the Downtown South Guidelines (excluding Granville
Street) be further amended to incorporate the changes noted in
Appendix C*, calling for an average floor-to-floor height in
residential developments not exceeding 10 ft.
OR
C2. THAT the Downtown South Guidelines (excluding Granville
Street) be further amended to incorporate the changes noted in
Appendix C*, calling for an average floor-to-floor height in
residential developments not exceeding 12 ft.
OR
C3. THAT the Downtown South Guidelines NOT be further amended to
address a floor-to-floor height in residential developments.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A
and B, and puts forward C1, C2, and C3 for CONSIDERATION. Technical
- 2 -
work on the original Downtown South Guidelines assumed standard 9'
Ò floor-to-floor heights, typical at that time. There was little
discussion of alternative floor-to-floor heights, but it was
acknowledged as acceptable that buildings approached 300' overall
height, provided they were outside view corridors and did not
shadow key public open spaces. The initial public and Council
acceptance of the guidelines may have been contingent on the
implicitly assumed floor-to-floor heights, from which C-1 departs
least. Current expectations may support more choice in unit types
for which C-2 and C-3 provides increasing flexibility.
COUNCIL POLICY
- On May 16, 1991, Council adopted the Downtown South Community Plan
and on July 30, 1991, Council amended the Downtown Official
Development Plan (DODP) and adopted the Downtown South Guidelines
(excluding Granville Street) which provide design guidance on all
aspects of development.
- On August 30, 1994, Council amended the Downtown South Guidelines
(excluding Granville Street) to incorporate the Downtown South
streetscape design.
- On January 17, 1994, Council instructed the Planning Department to
report back on a suitable by-law or guidelines to restrict the bulk
of buildings in Downtown South.
SUMMARY
This report proposes amendments to the Downtown Official Development
Plan (DODP) and to the Downtown South Guidelines. The amendments are
the result of a review of development applications processed and
developments built since the community plan was approved.
The changes to the DODP would:
1) permit live/work uses in the low-rise portion of developments;
2) give the Development Permit Board discretion to relax the height
limit of 70 ft. on small sites to accommodate increased density for
low-cost and social housing; and
3) add a section to emphasize the importance of the public realm in
the downtown.
The proposed changes to the Downtown South Guidelines include:
1) language to emphasize the importance of minimizing shadow impacts
on public open space and shopping streets (Granville and Davie
Streets);
2) guidelines to strengthen safety and security aspects of projects;
3) provision for self-contained live/work units in the low-rise
portion of a development;
4) a guide to tower floor plate size to encourage slim towers;
5) reduction of the rear yard setback in low-rise portions of
development to 10 ft. from 30 ft.; and
6) guidelines to upgrade the lane environment by providing more
landscaping.
- 3 -
An additional amendment to the guidelines, brought forward for
consideration, would provide a 10 ft. average floor-to-floor height or a
12 ft. average floor-to-floor height in determining the maximum height
of developments.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The Downtown South Guidelines are used in conjunction with the Downtown
Official Development Plan to assist applicants and staff in designing
and evaluating new projects in the emerging residential community of
Downtown South. Granville Street is excluded because it has a separate
set of guidelines.
In the five years since Council adopted the Downtown South Community
Plan, zoning and guidelines, more than 35 development applications for
major projects have been received and 10 developments have been built
or are under construction. This provides a good basis to assess the
design guidelines.
The review was conducted in consultation with the Downtown South
Redevelopment Impacts Committee, members of the architectural and
development communities, and the residents of Downtown South.
Several major issues as well as numerous minor items were identified in
the design review. The following is a summary of the key issues and the
proposed changes which address them.
AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (DODP)
The proposed amendments to the DODP are described below (refer to
Appendix A* for detailed wording):
1) Live/Work Uses
Permitted uses in Section 1 - Land Use have been expanded to
include live/work uses in Downtown South.
2) Relaxation of Height Limits for Low-Cost Housing
The maximum height limit of 70 feet serves well for 3.0 FSR
developments. However, for the increased density of 5.0 FSR
allowed for low-cost and social housing, 70 ft. does not provide
enough height on smaller sites to achieve adequate livability. A
relaxation of the 70 ft. height limit to a maximum discretionary
height of 120 ft. for these projects is proposed.
3) Public Realm
The design of the public realm is crucial to the development of
Downtown South as an identifiable neighbourhood. A reference
outlining special streetscape areas in the Downtown District is
proposed to be added to the Application and Intent Section of the
DODP to emphasize the importance of the public realm for those
precincts, and to highlight those areas which have specially
designed streetscape treatments.
AMENDMENTS TO THE DOWNTOWN SOUTH GUIDELINES
- 4 -
The proposed amendments to the Downtown South Guidelines are described
below (refer to Appendix B* for detailed wording):
Section 2.6: Shadow Impacts
Public open space will not be abundant in Downtown South. It is,
therefore, important that all such open space be as usable and
sunny as possible. The proposed guideline amendments contain
additional language to further emphasize the importance of
minimizing the amount of shadow a development casts on public open
space as well as shopping streets.
Section 2.10: Safety and Security
In consultation with the Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Design (CPTED) staff team, the safety and security aspects of
development have been audited. Detailed guidelines are proposed
that will strengthen security aspects of projects.
Section 3.0: Ground Floor Units
Recognizing the need for a high degree of flexibility at street
level, self-contained ground-level units with direct access to the
street could, under the amendments, contain live/work units which
could also be converted to exclusively commercial (office) or
residential use, while preserving the design objectives of the
streetscape.
Section 4.1.1: Low Rise Portion at Street Edge
Low-rise elements have been a component of the Downtown South built
form from its inception with the present guidelines specifying a
height of several storeys . To clarify the intent for eyes on
the street (safety) and adequate definition of the street
edge/public realm, the low rise portion of a development is
proposed to be specified as a minimum 30 ft. in height.
Section 4.1.3: Tower Width and Floor Plate Size
To provide more clarity on tower massing and the need for slim
towers that minimize shadow and view impacts, staff have specified
a maximum tower width of 90 ft. and expanded on the present maximum
floor plate guideline (6,500 sq. ft.) by including a table that
specifies tower floor plate size in relation to tower height (i.e.,
the taller the tower proposed on a given site, the slimmer it
should be). The proposed guide to maximum floor plate size is
intended to define an acceptable building envelope relative to
tower height without limiting the flexibility needed by the
developer in regard to market objectives. As a guideline, staff
would see flexibility applied to the maximum tower width and floor
plate size where heritage or view corridors are involved.
Some members of the development community have commented that
additional building bulk generated by double height or loft units
is not a problem and that no further controls are needed in this
regard. Staff are concerned that the extent of additional bulk
that could be added under present controls, in the order of 30-35%,
would compromise overall livability by imposing greater shadows,
- 5 -
limiting outlook past neighbouring buildings and diminishing space
between buildings, and are consequently recommending this
additional bulk control. (The issue of double-height or loft units
is addressed below.)
Section 4.2.3: Rear Yard Setback
Amendments to the rear yard setback guidelines would simplify and
reduce the required setback from 30 ft. to 10 ft. for portions of
developments lower than 70 ft. in height. This would allow for
more flexible and creative site planning. Trees and landscaping
will be encouraged in the rear yard setback and in vehicle entry
courts to promote a "greening" of the lane.
Section 5.5.3: Lanes
Amendments to the guidelines will ensure that the quality of the
lane environment will be upgraded to include better finishes and
more landscaping.
OTHER AMENDMENTS
Several additional minor amendments are included to provide more
clarity and precision. A summary of the revisions is attached as
Appendix E*.
The foregoing guideline amendments constitute the package contained in
RECOMMENDATION B. The recommended guideline amendments dealing with
tower massing which augment existing guidelines go a long way towards
addressing concerns about excessive building bulk and ensuring that
Downtown South built form principles are maintained. Council may wish
to consider an additional component that is not fully dealt with in the
recommended guidelines. This concerns developments which propose
substantially higher ceilings or loft developments which could result in
towers that, albeit slim by virtue of the recommended floor plate size
guideline, would likely approach the maximum 300 ft. height. Without
any further control this would likely result in considerably more 300
ft. towers than may have been anticipated. Consequently, the following
new Section 4.1.4 is put forward for consideration.
Section 4.1.4: Tower Floor-to-Floor Height
This new Section would further address the tower bulk issue
generated by developments proposing loft or mezzanine units.
Synopsis of the Issue
The development industry s typical floor-to-floor height for
residential buildings is in the range of 8'6" to 9 ft. depending on
the type of construction. This yields a ceiling height of 8'0" to
8'6".
Double-height ceiling spaces (i.e., 16-17 ft. floor-to-floor)
increase the bulk and height of towers resulting in a net increase
of 30% to 35% in tower volume at the same FSR. Such taller,
bulkier towers may have negative impacts such as increased
shadowing on public or semi-private open space and reduction of
views and sunlight for neighbouring projects. Double-height
ceiling spaces also have the potential to be illegally infilled
- 6 -
with floor area that would exceed permitted density and may not
comply with Building Code requirements.
To deal with this tower bulk issue, proposed amendments to the
Downtown South Guidelines include more specific shadow criteria to
reduce shadow impacts on public open space and major shopping
streets (Section 2.6 above) as well as maximum tower floor plate
sizes to limit building bulk (Section 4.1.3 above). The
constraints imposed by Council adopted view corridors would, of
course, remain. In addition, staff have explored options for
further controlling tower bulk as follows:
a) Allow for lofts in double-height spaces by calculating floor
space ratio within the units at 1.4 times the floor area
(i.e., lofts at 40% of the floor area below), based on one of
several Building Code parameters by which mezzanines can be
permitted (suggested by the developer of a number of loft
projects):
This option addresses only the circumstances where
double-height units may be legally infilled with lofts after
occupancy of the unit. In cases where lofts have been
indicated in the development permit submission, the loft area
would, of course, be included in the FSR calculations. (Note:
The Building Code does allow lofts at greater than 40% of the
floor area below - see memo from Permits and Licences in
Appendix F*.). Staff conclude this option represents the
status quo and could introduce other technical FSR problems
where lofts greater in area than 40% of the floor below are
proposed.
b) Count floor-to-floor heights over 12'0" as two times floor
space ratio (as done in RS-1 zones):
This option is the simplest method of restricting additional
bulk generated by loft units and does overcome the problem of
future illegal infilling of the double- height space by
allocating FSR in advance for this possibility. However,
charging FSR to this double-height volume was also seen to be
quite onerous and would likely curtail much, it not all,
future loft development which a segment of the marketplace has
embraced.
c) Specify a maximum tower height based on an average
floor-to-floor height multiplied by the proposed number of
storeys, thereby allowing flexibility for some extra ceiling
height:
Two variations of this option are put forward as CONSIDERATION
C1 or C2.
CONSIDERATION C1 proposes a 10 ft. floor-to-floor averaging
throughout the development, thereby permitting floor-to-floor
height in excess of the 8'6" to 9'0" standard to be
distributed at the discretion of the developer. For example,
some double-height (16 ft.) floors would be permitted if these
are balanced by an appropriate number of standard height
floors (approximately 5 standard height floors to average out
- 7 -
one double-height floor). Or, the developer may opt to build
units with predominantly 10 ft. floor-to-floor heights (9' to
9'6" ceiling heights). Irrespective of a developer s choice
on how to achieve the 10 ft. average, the resultant tower
height would still be subject to view corridors and shadow
assessment on open space and shopping streets. This option
would ensure compact, generously spaced buildings that
minimize shadow impacts. However, while still accommodating
approximately 10% more tower volume for some additional
ceiling height, this option would constrain the percentage of
double height (loft) units that could be accommodated and
therefore housing choices in the communtiy.
CONSIDERATION C2 is based on the same principles as C1,
except that the height allowance is derived by averaging
floor-to-floor heights at 12 ft. instead of 10 ft. This
option allows for more generous ceiling heights, including a
greater percentage of double-height (loft) units, that provide
a wider variety of unit types. However, the additional
building volume of this option would generate additional
shadow and view impacts since proposals would likely be at
maximum tower height and width and would be straining against
other massing controls.
Alternatively, should Council not be concerned about an increase in
the number of 300 ft. high towers and in response to concerns about
too many regulations and guidelines being imposed, staff put
forward the option that would not pursue any floor-to-floor
control. This option is put forward under CONSIDERATION C3.
Public and Industry Comment
The advantages and disadvantages of regulating floor-to-floor
height have been debated at length. Due to the controversial
nature of this topic, staff have consulted the Urban Development
Institute, the Architectural Institute of B.C., a number of
architects and developers active in the Downtown South area at an
open house, the Urban Design Panel, and the Downtown South
Redevelopment Impacts Committee. Detailed comments are included in
Appendix D*.
The Downtown South Redevelopment Impacts Committee strongly
supports regulations to prevent the additional tower bulk generated
through loft unit development. They were concerned that it has
taken too long to bring forward regulations that will control what
they consider a serious problem.
The Urban Design Panel felt that additional tower bulk was a
potential problem that could compromise the advantages of slim
towers in Downtown South. The method of regulation should provide
a degree of flexibility so as not to hamper good design.
The development industry has mixed opinions on this issue. Some
were concerned that the absence of controls for floor-to-floor
heights may foster abuse of over-height ceiling spaces and result
in taller, bulkier buildings. Other members of the development
industry felt that enough regulations were already in place and
that more regulations would hinder variety and discourage market
- 8 -
options. However, if the City was intent on bringing in new
controls, the 10 ft. floor-to-floor averaging approach appears to
be preferable to a 12 ft. FSR double-counting regulation.
Participants did not comment on the 12 ft. floor-to-floor averaging
approach, as it was introduced by staff following community
discussions to add more flexibility. Some architects attending an
open house on the subject felt that the additional tower volume
generated by double-height units was not a problem.
After consideration of the issues and comments received from these
consultations, staff put forward CONSIDERATION C1, C2, or C3.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
Increased requirements for landscaping and greenery in the lanes will
improve the air quality and livability of the neighbourhood.
SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Amendments to the guidelines to address safety and security concerns,
lessen shadow impacts and minimize impact on private views all
contribute to a more livable neighbourhood.
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed amendments to the DODP and the Downtown South Guidelines
will address concerns about shadowing, safety and security, tower
massing and other issues, and will provide future developments in
Downtown South with more clarity and precision while still allowing
considerable design and site planning flexibility.
Staff recommend that the amendments to the DODP be referred to Public
Hearing.
* * * * *
Proposed Downtown Official Development Plan Amendments
(RECOMMENDATION A)
Amendments are in italics, bold type
APPLICATION AND INTENT
The intent, in the adoption of this Downtown Official Development Plan
and the accompanying guidelines is as follows:
7) to create a distinctive public realm and a unique and pleasing
streetscape in the downtown.
SECTION 1
Land Use
In the areas denoted by the letters 'L' and 'N' on Map 1, the following
uses may be permitted.
(h) Live/work uses *
- 2 -
In the area denoted by the letter 'M' on Map 1 the following uses may be
permitted.
(h) Live/work uses *
* to be further defined during preparation of the draft by-law for
Public Hearing.
SECTION 4
Height of Buildings
In areas 'L' and 'M' the height of a building on a corner site with a
frontage less than 175 ft. or an interior site with a frontage less than
200 ft. shall not exceed 70 ft., except for low cost housing and social
housing projects where the Development Permit Board may permit an
increase in height to a maximum of 120 ft. for the purpose of
accommodating extra density for low cost housing and social housing
developments, provided that it first considers:
(a) the size and location of the site;
(b) the intent of this Schedule, all applicable policies and
guidelines adopted by Council and the relationship of the
development with nearby residential areas;
(c) the bulk, location and overall design of the building and its
effect on the site, surrounding buildings and streets and
existing views;
(d) the amount of open space, and the effects of overall design on
the general amenity of the area;
(e) the provision for pedestrian amenities and public realm
requirements;
(f) the preservation of the character and general amenity desired
for the area; and
(g) the submission of any advisory group, property owner or
tenant.
SECTION 7
Public Realm Design
The purpose of this section is to help create distinctive areas and
neighbourhoods in the downtown through the enhancement of the public
realm with special treatment of the streetscape.
The City has developed plans and guidelines for the design of the public
realm for those areas highlighted on Map 6.
In addition to park designs and the normally required street designs,
special public realm designs shall be provided in the denoted areas.
Buildings, semi-public open spaces and setback areas should be designed
and detailed to complement the design of the public realm. Streetscape
- 3 -
designs as outlined in Council-adopted guidelines, manuals, and policies
will form an integral part of development permit applications.
Aspects to consider include, but are not limited to: setback
requirements, paving, lighting, planting, driveway crossings, pedestrian
entrances and walks, seating, display windows, weather protection,
garbage storage, and loading facilities.
APPENDIX C
PAGE 1 OF 4
CONSIDERATION C1 (10 Ft. Floor-to-Floor Averaging)
Further Amendments to the Downtown South Guidelines
Further Amendments are in Italics and Bold Type
4.1.4 Floor-to-Floor Height
Generally, the development industry s standard residential
floor-to-floor dimension is 8'6" to 9'0" yielding ceiling
heights of 8'0" to 8'6". This dimension provides a standard of
livability within dwelling units that has long been accepted by
urban and suburban dwellers. In some instances higher ceiling
heights are desired to accommodate different markets and, to a
degree, this can be accommodated subject to the limits imposed by
view corridors, shadow criteria, floor plate size, and other
guideline parameters. Therefore, within the maximum heights
permitted in the Downtown Official Development Plan and subject
to the limits imposed by view corridors, and other criteria in
these guidelines, floor-to-floor heights may be adjusted through
the following 10 ft. floor-to-floor averaging formula.
a) the overall height should be calculated by using a 10'0"
floor-to-floor height multiplied by the number of floors
proposed in the development. Note: For the purposes of this
calculation, lofts or mezzanines which generate more than
10% open to below area are not counted as floors.
b) On those sites where tower massing and height are
particularly sensitive (i.e., where shadowing of public open
space or Granville or Davie Streets may occur) a standard
floor-to-floor height should be used.
- 4 -
APPENDIX C Page 3 of 4
CONSIDERATION C2 (12 Ft. Floor-to-Floor Averaging)
Further Amendments to the Downtown South Guidelines
Further Amendments are in Italics and Bold Type
4.1.4 Floor-to-Floor Height
Generally, the development industry s standard residential
floor-to-floor dimensions is 8'6" to 9'0" yielding ceiling heights
of 8'0" to 8'6". This dimension provides a standard of livability
within dwelling units that has long been accepted by urban and
suburban dwellers. In some instances higher ceiling heights are
desired to accommodate different markets and, to a degree, this can
be accommodated subject to the limits imposed by view corridors,
shadow criteria, floor plate size, and other guideline parameters.
Therefore, within the maximum heights permitted in the Downtown Official Development Plan and subject to the limits imposed by view
corridors, and other criteria in these guidelines, floor-to-floor
heights may be adjusted through the following 12 ft. floor-to-floor
averaging formula.
a) the overall height should be calculated by using a 12'0"
floor-to-floor height multiplied by the number of floors
proposed in the development. Note: For the purposes of this
calculation, lofts or mezzanines which generate more than 10%
open to below area are not counted as floors.
b) On those sites where tower massing and height are particularly
sensitive (i.e., where shadowing of public open space or
Granville or Davie Streets may occur) a standard floor-to-floor
height should be used.
APPENDIX E
Page 1 of 3
DOWNTOWN SOUTH DESIGN REVIEW
Proposed Revisions
ISSUE PROPOSED REVISIONS
2.4 Private views - require slim towers protected - spacing of towers - i.e. offset
- siting of tower
- 5 -
ISSUE PROPOSED REVISIONS
2.6 Shadowing - impacts on a hierarchy of spaces in order of
- of parks importance
- of open space - parks
- of public realm - public open space
- Davie Street & Granville Street
- semi-private and private open space - buildings over 35 ft. high require a shadow impact
analysis
- new developments should not shadow beyond property
line of parks and public open spaces
- towers opposite or next to park or public open space
cannot cast shadow for more than 1 hour between 10:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
- new developments on Davie Street
- should not cast shadow beyond curb line on north
side of Davie
- no shadow from towers cast on sidewalk at noon - towers generate maximum 2 hours of shadow on
semi-private open spaces on neighbouring developments
between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
2.10 Safety and Security - separate parking for residents from visitors and
commercial parking
- secure with gate
- use strong materials in construction of separation - allow for visual surveillance between areas
- secure visitor parking at night from general public
access
- install phone or buzzer systems at parking entrance
- create separate internal corridor from visitor
parking to outside buzzer system; do not mix
circulation areas
- paint walls of parking garages and bicycle storage
areas
- provide special security for units opening onto
semi-private spaces - secure project open spaces that are at or near grade
- doors and windows of ground level units should face
the street for visual surveillance
- reduce opportunities for graffiti and skateboarding
2.11 Lanes
- not enough greenery - upgrade appearance and servicing of lanes; more in lanes landscaping
- too much hard surface - improve appearance of porte-cocheres with lobbies,
and blank, entrances and landscaped areas adjacent
unattractive walls
- 6 -
ISSUE PROPOSED REVISIONS
Street Access
- curb cuts from - all vehicular access from the lane
streets disrupt - allow street access only where there is no lane or
streetscape for extraordinary sites sharing lanes with Granville
Street; subject to conditions - require continuation of the streetscape, incorporate
landscaping into design
Porte-Cocheres - increase design and landscaping requirements in
general
- provide landscape buffer between lane and
porte-cocheres to offset hard surfaces
4.1.1 Height and Length of
Developments
- not enough massing in - minimum streetwall height of 30 feet
street wall
- restricted uses in - allow flexibility and combination of uses for units podium with direct access to street
- allow uses to change within self-contained units
- clear views from street into landscaped open spaces
- open space in street - high quality detailing and design considerations for
wall building(s), display gardens, facade treatment,
landscaping, etc.
4.1.2 Tower Height Shadow
- shadow impact of - overall tower height to be evaluated against
taller buildings on hierarchial criteria for public objectives
public open spaces - ie. shadow, private views, etc.
- maximum height limits - in DODP, relaxation of 70' height limit to 120 ft.
of 70' for 3.0 FSR for non-market housing projects
projects too low to
accommodate density for non-market
housing
4.1.3 Tower Floorplate Size
- floorplates too - maximum dimension of 90 feet
large, do not result - 6500 sq.ft. max. floorplate size
in slim towers - open balconies can project beyond limits, enclosed
balconies cannot - guide to maximum tower floor plate size to encourage
taller, slimmer towers; width of tower decreases as
height increases
- some minor projections allowed into front yard
setback above 80 feet in height
- 7 -
ISSUE PROPOSED REVISIONS
***
4.1.4 Floor to floor - a variety of floor-to-floor heights permitted within
heights limits set by an averaging formula
- double height units
result in taller
4.1.2 Front yard setback - no change in setback
- no change - emphasized in DODP
4.1.3 Side Yard setbacks - no change
4.1.4 Rear Yard Setbacks - rear yard setback reduced from 30 ft. to 10 ft. to
- setback rules too allow for more creative site planning
complicated - corner sites to extend building element to rear
property line at lane edge to continue streetscape to
lane
- landscaping of rear yard setback is required
4.3 Parking require parking entrances to be architecturally
- parking entrances treated and have landscaping incorporated wherever
are dark possible
holes with blank
walls
4.4 Horizontal Angle of
Daylight - relaxation of horizontal angle of daylight for
projects with max. 3.0 FSR provided 20 ft. of
- too restrictive and unobstructed view is maintained
may compromise
massing for smaller
projects
5.5 Lower Floors of
Buildings
- main floor of residential units should be located
- residential units at 3'0" above the street to promote privacy but still
grade experience allow for surveillance of the street from the unit
overlook from the
street
5.5.3 Lane Edges
- lanes are bleak and - no blank walls facing the lane
unwelcoming - more landscaping and architectural treatment of lane
facades
7.3 Private Open Space
- min. balcony size of - allow for "French" balconies
49 sq.ft. was - allow for surveillance of public realm from private
inconsistent with outdoor spaces
trend to smaller
units
- 8 -
ISSUE PROPOSED REVISIONS
8.1.4 Garden Setback Area
- display garden area - ramps must be provided but not by displacing
was being displaced landscaping
for ramps for
disabled access
8.3 Pacific Boulevard
- sites which front on - front yard setback, streetscape and massing on
Pacific fall between Pacific Boulevard should respond to False Creek North
Downtown South and Official Development Plan; remainder of project
False Creek North should respond to Downtown South Guidelines
Guidelines
- 9 -
R:\CC\REPORTS\P&E\NOV7\PE3.