POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE

Date: May 16, 2000
Author/Local: J. Barrett/7449
RTS No. 01498
CC File No. 5306

Council: May 30, 2000

TO:	Vancouver City Council
FROM:	Director of Current Planning
SUBJECT:	CD-1 Text Amendment for 1300 Marinaside Crescent (Roundhouse Neighbourhood).

RECOMMENDATION

THAT the application by Pacific Place Developments Corp. to amend CD-1 By-law No. 7156 for 1300 Marinaside Crescent to permit an increase in height be referred to a Public Hearing, together with:

(i) draft amendments to CD-1 By-law Guidelines and the False Creek North Official Development Plan (FCN ODP) generally as contained in Appendix A; and

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

AND FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to prepare the necessary by-laws for consideration at Public Hearing.

GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS

The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of the foregoing.

COUNCIL POLICY

Relevant Council policy includes:

· False Creek North Official Development Plan (FCN ODP), including the streetpattern, approved by Council April 1990.
· Rezoning of False Creek North's Roundhouse Neighbourhood approved by Council July 29, 1993.

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

This report evaluates an application by Pacific Place Developments Corporation for a CD-1 text amendment to By-law # 297 in the Roundhouse Neighbourhood to increase the height of sub-area 4 from 51.0 m (168 ft.) to 68.4 m (225 ft.). This would permit the only undeveloped building in this sub-area site to increase in height from 17 storeys to 22 storeys.

Staff recommend a text amendment which would allow development on this site to increase in height from 51.0 m (168 ft.) to 63.75 m (209 ft.); a reduction of 4.65 m (15 ft.) in height from the 68.4 m (225 ft.) requested by the applicant. This would allow the building to increase in height from 17 storeys to 21 storeys (at reduced floor to floor heights). The recommended height would include the mechanical penthouse.

Staff recommend that the application be referred to a Public Hearing, with a recommendation that it be approved with the slightly lower height.

Figure 1: Site Plan

DISCUSSION

The criteria that need to be analysed to determine whether the proposal meets public objectives and is compatible with the surrounding residential development includes the following: CD-1 Guidelines conformance; public and private view impacts; shadow impact; built form, scale and character, and neighbourliness; and commentary from surrounding neighbours.

CD-1 Guidelines Conformance

The CD-1 guidelines describe four main objectives for this site:

- grade level residential units with identifiable individual entrances from thestreet approximately 1 m above grade: the proposal has not fully achieved this objective; the recommended design conditions will produce an appropriate design;

- 4-storey maximum building form along the waterfront walkway: the proposal achieves this;

- the continuity of the low-rise elements should be occasionally interrupted to provide views to the open spaces behind: this has been achieved; and

- tower height of 51.0 m (168 ft.): tower heights are guided by the principle of generally stepping down the building heights to the water and park areas. The current height of 51.0 m (168 ft.) is the lowest tower height in the neighbourhood. The other built towers in a similar relationship to the water in the Roundhouse neighbourhood are at a height of 58 m (190 ft.), 61 m (200 ft.) and 86 m (282 ft.).

Public and Private View Impact

Public view impact at grade level and long distance:

- the proposal has increased the building setback along Marinaside Crescent which increases the pedestrian level views on that axis down to the water; and

- when the proposal is viewed from the south side of False Creek (Leg in Boot Square to Charleson Park) the additional height is apparent within the backdrop of the City skyline because it is in the foreground. No view cones are impacted.

Private view impact at high level: There are three residential towers in the neighbourhood which have residential units that are above the current tower height guideline of 51 m (168 ft.): Columbus at 58 m (190 ft.) in height; Crestmark II at 61 m (200 ft.) in height; and Peninsula at 86 m (282 ft.)in height (see Figure 1: site plan above). Any proposed additional height will impact some high level residential units in these three towers to some degree.

The applicant has prepared an extensive private view analysis which in summary concludes:

- 6 units in the Columbus on floors 18-22 that lose 19-24% of their views;
- 7 units in the Crestmark II on floors 18-22 that lose 9-11% of their views; and,
- 10 units in the Peninsula on floors 18-22 that lose 7-9% of their views.

Therefore the proposed additional height impacts a number of high level residential units tosome degree.

Private view impact at low level: a major change between the proposal and previously approved applications is that the lower level built form along Marinaside Crescent and Drake Street frontages has been substantially reduced in height. The proposal is a maximum of 3-storeys whereas the previously approved scheme was 4-8 storeys. This reduction in height has been strongly supported by the adjacent lower level residential owners because their views to the water have been improved.

The applicant's private view analysis in summary concludes:

- 19 units in the Columbus on floors 3-6 have a minimum view gain of 10%; and
- 19 units in the Crestmark II on floors 3-6 have a minimum view gain of 10%.

Shadow Impact on Public and Private Open Space

The proposed additional 17.4 m (57 ft.) in tower height potentially increases shadow onto adjacent public and private open space. The applicant's shadow analysis (see Appendix C, Building Concept Drawings) illustrates the following:

- that for public open space there is some minor increase in shadow in some areas but this is balanced by less shadow in other areas; and

- that for private development any additional shadow falls onto areas already shadowed by their own, or adjacent, development.

Overall there is no increase in shadowing on public and private open space.

Recommended Height

There are two reasons for considering extra height on this site. First, previous schemes have impacted the views of some immediate neighbours. Second, previous schemes have included some units that are not highly livable with respect to privacy and views. Third, previous schemes have not achieved full permitted density and there is a desire both for the developer and the City to optimize the number of achievable units in False Creek North.

Taking into account the concerns regarding private view impacts at high level and scale of the built form, staff recommend a reduction in the proposed height. The recommended total building height should be no higher than the nearest tower, Columbus, which has the same relationship with the waterfront walkway. The total building height of Columbus, including the mechanical penthouse, is 63.75 m (209 ft.). The recommended height is a reduction of8.85 m (29 ft.)from that requested by the applicant. The recommended height would include the mechanical penthouse (see Appendix D3, Design). To optimize the achievable density, the density lost from the reduced height could be located on the water front 3-storey built form and at grade along Marinaside Crescent and Drake Street.

Applicant Comments

The overall objective of Pacific Place Development Corp. is to achieve full permitted density in a new built form that is marketable, viable, livable. On the Concord Pacific Place site there has been a strong public preference for slimmer taller buildings that allow for greater views between the buildings. What we have proposed for Building 2G (subject site) is in keeping with this preference and was further strengthened by strong support indicated at the public meetings. We feel that our proposal is sensitive and responsive to its neighbours. It will be a great addition to the City in general as well as being the building that will complete the Roundhouse neighbourhood.

Urban Design Panel Review

The Urban Design Panel reviewed the application (see Appendix D4, Urban Design Panel) and supported the additional height.

Public Comment

The applicant held three public meetings (see Appendix D1, Public Process and Notification) adjacent to the subject site and approximately 200 people attended. In addition, 640 notification letters were sent by the City. In summary, the results are as follows:

- at the meetings, the large majority of the adjacent residents supported additional height in recognition of the improved water views for the existing lower residential units. Only one person at the meetings objected. Twenty residents wrote favorable comments;

- seven letters have been received from residents noting concerns regarding view blockage of high level residential units. Four are from the Peninsula which is approximately 150 m ( 492 ft.) and two are from lower level units for which any additional height will not impact views; and

- some concerns regarding the location of the parking ramp, which is opposite that of their adjacent building, and the difficulties that may cause in vehicle access to their building ( staff note that the location was determined for the previous development permit and that because it is on a cul-de-sac, there is no achievable alternative, but signage and traffic management should address theissue).

CONCLUSION

In summary, conclusions from the analysis are as follows:

- the proposal conforms with the general intent of the guidelines except for the height;
- the overwhelming majority of the adjacent neighbours support an increase in height because many of them who have units at the lower level will have substantially enhanced views to the water;
- some of the neighbours who have units at the upper levels of more distant towers will lose small portions of their views;
- there is no net increase in shadowing on public or private open space;
- there should be an increase in the townhouse built form along the Marinaside Crescent and Drake Street frontages that provide individual entrances;
- the Urban Design Panel supported the application.

On balance , staff support some extra height on this site because, even though some distant units are view impacted, the views of the large majority of immediately adjacent residents are substantially increased. Therefore, staff recommend a text amendment which would allow development on this site to increase in height from 51 m (168 ft.) to 63.75 m (209 ft.); a reduction of 4.65 m (15 ft.) in height from that requested by the applicant. The recommended height would include the mechanical penthouse.

Staff recommend that the application be referred to a Public Hearing, with a recommendation that it be approved at the slightly lower height.

- - - - -

APPENDIX A

AMENDMENTS TO CD-1 BY-LAWS, FCN ODP AND GUIDELINES
(recommended deletions in strikeout and additions in italic)

A1 Proposed Text Amendment to Roundhouse CD-1 By-law

Revision to existing CD-1 (297) 1200-1300 Pacific Boulevard South, By-law No. 7156would include the following:
7 Height

The maximum building height measured above the base surface, but excluding the mechanical penthouse and roof, shall be as set out in Table 4, except that for sub-area 4 the mechanical penthouse and roof shall be included within the height.

Table 4 - Maximum Height (in metres)

	Sub-Area (from Diagram 1)
	1	2	3	4	5
Maximum Height	49	86	61	51 * 68.4	58

*staff are recommending a height of 63.75 m

A2 Consequential Amendments to CD-1 Guidelines

As a consequential amendment, Section 3.4 Massing Controls, Figure 4 maximum Building heights will be amended to reflect the approved building height.

A3 Consequential Amendments to FCN ODP

As a consequential amendment, Figure 12c, Maximum Tower Heights, will be amended to reflect the approved building height.

APPENDIX B

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

NOTE: These are draft conditions which are subject to change and refinement by staff

prior to the finalization of the agenda for Public Hearing.

FORM OF
DEVELOPMENT (a) THAT the proposed form of development be approved by Council in principle, generally as prepared by Henriquez Partners and stamped Received, City of Vancouver Planning Department, March 29 2000, providing that the Director of Planning or Development Permit Board may allow alterations to this form of development when approving the detailed scheme of development as outlined in (b)below;

DESIGN (b) THAT, prior to the final approval by Council of the form of

development, the applicant shall obtain approval of a development application by the Director of Planning or Development Permit Board who shall have particular regard to the following:

(i) design development to increase the built form and number of townhouses along Marinaside Crescent and Drake Street right-of-way and provide pedestrian access to patios and units from surrounding walkways to enhance the residential character and increase the "eyes on the street" to meet the existing Guidelines.

HEIGHT (ii) design development to reduce the height to a maximum

of 63.75 m.

(iii) design development to minimize the size and height of the mechanical penthouse to minimize view impact on surrounding development.

APPENDIX C

BUILDING CONCEPT DRAWINGS

(Original drawings - contact rezoning centre)

APPENDIX D

COMMENTS OF THE PUBLIC, REVIEWING AGENCIES AND THE APPLICANT

D1 Public Process and Notification

As part of the Application review process, a sign was placed on the site and three public information meetings were held. The Notice of Rezoning Application was sent to 640 neighbouring property owners.

At the public information meetings a number of concerns were voiced. Twenty (20)participants registered favorable comments regarding the proposed design presented in the Rezoning Application. Three (3) participants responded to the proposal with concerns about the configuration of the driveways and traffic. Seven (7) written responses were also received, all opposed. The major concern of these respondents was that the proposed height relaxation would negatively affect their views.

Staff's analysis of the concerns expressed by the neighbourhood, are that a large majority of the surrounding property owners are in favour of the Rezoning Application with a smaller group having concerns over impacts on views from their residences and the effect this may have on property values.

D2 Development History

The Roundhouse Neighbourhood has been fully developed except for the subject site, known as 2G. There have been three approved development permits for 2G. However, development has not proceeded because none of the approved development permits have met the marketing and financial goals of Pacific Place Development Corp.. The last development permit for example was approximately 8% below the allowable density; i.e., 1 557 m² (16,760 sq.ft.) below the 18 691 m² (201,195 sq.ft.) permitted on this site.

D3 Design

The proposed built form ( see Appendix C, Building Concept Drawings) includes a single oval shaped, primarily glazed, residential tower with separated three storey wings along the waterfront walkway. This overall building form and character is different from, but compatible with, adjacent buildings and gives the neighbourhood an additional beneficial degree of variety.

Because the proposed height is approximately 10 m higher than it's closest building neighbour, the waterfront 3-storey built form is smaller scale than the neighbouring 4-8 storey; and regarding the larger tower floor plate, there is a concern that the scale of the proposal is considerably stronger in relationship to it's context.

Staff recommendations that would bring the application in closer compliance to the Guidelines and urban design intent for the neighbourhood, include among others, the following:

- to increase the length and number of residential units along Marinaside Crescent and Drake Street ROW;
- to provide pedestrian access to the townhouse patios and residential entrances, from surrounding streets and walkways; and
- to minimize the size and height of the mechanical penthouse to minimize viewimpact on surrounding development.

Height: The CD-1 measures the height by the following definition: "The maximum building height measured above the base surface, but excluding the mechanical penthouse and roof, shall be as set out in Table 4". The applicant's proposal is to include the mechanical penthouse and roof within the permitted height (see Appendix A, Amendments to CD-1 By-law and Guidelines). Therefore the permitted height is the true height of the building in determining view and shadow impact on adjacent buildings as it includes all building elements. This also allows for residential area to be integrated with the mechanical area.

Comparative Heights for Building 2G (subject site)

	Height	Mechanical height above	Total building height including mechanical
Columbus CD-1	58 m	5.75 m (19 ft.)	63.75 m (209 ft.)
2G CD-1	51 m (168 ft.)	not specified	51 m (168 ft.) + mechanical
2G proposed by applicant	68.4 m (225 ft.)	4.2 m (14 ft.)	72.6 m (238 ft.)
2G recommended by staff	63.75 m~ (209 ft.)	mechanical integrated into top floor of residential	63.75 m ~~ (209 ft.)

~ A reduction of 4.65 m (15 ft.) from that requested by applicant.
~~ A total building height reduction of 8.85 m (29 ft.) from that requested by applicant.

D4 Urban Design Panel

The Urban Design Panel reviewed the application on April 19, 2000 . The minutes are as follows:

"EVALUATION: Rezoning

Introduction:

Mr. Barrett advised this was the last site to be developed, as well as the most prominent one, in this neighbourhood. He stated that the existing zoning's permitted height was 51 m [17 storeys] and the applicant was requesting a height increase to 68.4 m [22 storeys]. Mr.Barrett described the proposed addition of two townhouses at the inner edge facing the tower, and requested Panel's advice on this aspect. He also noted the surrounding towers, in a similar relationship to the water in the Roundhouse Neighbourhood, were at the following heights: The Columbus - 54 m, The Crestmark - 61 m, and the Peninsula at 86 m.
In summarizing this rezoning request, Mr. Barrett stated the principle urban design objectives for this site were the grade level residential units with individual entrances off the street, a 4-storey maximum built form along the waterfront walkway, and the proposed tower height increase from 51 m to 68.4 m, and requested the Panel's advice on the following issues:

· the 17.4 m increase in tower height, public and private view impacts - at grade and higher levels, as well as shadow impacts on open space;

· the grade level residential units at present do not provide a residential presence and entrances on the street; the proposed changes would incorporate the "eyes on the street" aspect, and improve view objectives from adjacent developments into the inner courtyard; and

· the appropriateness of this built form in the neighbourhood - the increased height would exceed the closest tower by 17 m, the smaller waterfront 3-storey built form, and the larger floor plate.

Mr. Barrett also stressed that a very clear statement needed to be made regarding the height issues.

Applicant's Comments

Mr. Henriquez's comments were brief. He referred to the various view corridors from the neighbouring towers, at grade as well as higher levels and noted that the view impacts would be negligible. He described the proposed views through the lobby of the tower from the north, through to the water works element in the front into the private lagoon, with a raised connecting walkway [over water at high tide] from west to east overlooking the marina.

The Panel reviewed the models and posted plans.

Panel's Comments

The majority of the Panel were most supportive of the tower height increase and noted it was an improvement over the previous scheme. It was noted that although this was a difficult site, the architect had done a good job in splitting this project into a group of 3 buildings; also approved of the architectural space inside the courtyard and its relationship to the townhouses and tower. Some Members liked the glass wall separation in that it offered asense of closeness yet provided security. There were comments about the elegance of the tower and it being a superior design for the density on the proposed site.

However, the Panel had concerns about the proposed walkway along the lagoon, stating it should be public and should be removed; that the public benefit should be rethought to discover new vistas and needed serious consideration; some Members were not in favour of the added townhouses and that this project needed more open space; it was also indicated that the patios along the waterfront are undefined - they should be more private in order to retain a residential character on both sides of the street; that there should be a linear walkway on the seawall connecting the townhouses."

APPENDIX E

APPLICANT, PROPERTY AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INFORMATION

Applicant and Property Information

Street Address	1300 Marinaside Crescent
Legal Description	Lot 212 False Creek Plan LMP 10733
Applicant Architect	Pacific Place Developments Corp. Henriquez and Partners
Property Owner	Pacific Place Developments Corp.

Development Statistics

	Development Permitted Under Existing Zoning	Proposed Development	Recommended
Zoning	CD-1 (297)	CD-1 (297) (amended)	CD-1 (297) (amended)
Maximum Height	51 m (168 ft.)	68.4 m (225 ft.)	63.75 m (209 ft.)

* * * * *

(c) 1998 City of Vancouver