POLICY REPORT
URBAN STRUCTURE
Date: February 13, 1996
Dept. File No. MK
TO: Vancouver City Council
FROM: Director of Central Area Planning, in consultation with the
General Managers of Engineering Services and Parks &
Recreation, the Directors of Social Planning and Legal
Services, and the Manager of the Housing Centre
SUBJECT: Rezoning: 500 Pacific Street (Beach Neighbourhood East)
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. THAT the application by Concord Pacific Developments Limited
to rezone the easterly site 1B portion of Sub-area 1 for
residential and commercial use, including the George Wainborn
Park area recommended by staff, be referred to Public Hearing,
together with:
(i) plans received from Concord Pacific Developments
Limited Planning and Design Team, dated December 21,
1995;
(ii) draft CD-1 By-law provisions, generally as contained
in Appendix A;
(iii) the recommendation of the Director of Central Area
Planning to approve the application, subject to
conditions of approval contained in Appendix B;
(iv) draft design guidelines included as Appendix C; and
(v) development statistics included in Appendix H of this
report;
(vi) consequential amendments to the False Creek North
Official Development Plan, including changes to the
Sub-area 1 boundary, residential floor areas for
market and non-market housing, public facilities
phasing provisions, and maximum tower heights.
FURTHER THAT the Director of Legal Services be instructed to
prepare the necessary by-laws for consideration at Public
Hearing, including amendments to the Sign By-law to establish
regulations for the CD-1 in accordance with Schedule B(DD).B .
THAT Council adopt Recommendation A on the following
conditions:
(i) THAT the passage of the above resolution creates no
legal rights for the applicant or any other person, or
obligation on the part of the City; any expenditure of
funds or incurring of costs is at the risk of the
person making the expenditure or incurring the cost;
(ii) THAT any approval that may be granted following the
Public Hearing shall not obligate the City to enact a
by-law rezoning the property, and any costs incurred
in fulfilling requirements imposed as a condition of
rezoning are at the risk of the property owner; and
(iii) THAT the City and all its officials, including the
Approving Officer, shall not in any way be limited or
directed in the exercise of their authority or
discretion, regardless of when they are called upon to
exercise such authority or discretion.
GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS
The General Manager of Community Services RECOMMENDS approval of A
and B.
COUNCIL POLICY
Relevant Council policy includes:
- False Creek Policy Statement, approved in August 1988
- False Creek North Official Development Plan (FCN ODP), including
the street pattern, approved in April 1990
- Interim policy on Soil Contamination, approved in January 1990 and
amended in March 1991
- Public Art Program, approved in October 1990
- False Creek North shoreline and pedestrian/bicycle concept plans,
approved in October 1991
- Central Area Plan, approved in December 1991
- Childcare Operating Strategy, approved in February 1993
- Revised 20% Social Housing Policy, approved in April 1993
PURPOSE AND SUMMARY
This report evaluates an application by Concord Pacific Developments
Limited to rezone the easterly portion of Sub-area 1 (site 1B) in False
Creek North and to amend the False Creek North Official Development Plan
(FCN ODP). On December 21, 1995, Concord Pacific submitted a final
rezoning application for site 1B. The application proposes to develop
1,243 units with a total residential floorspace of 133 937 m› (1,441,733
sq.ft.) and commercial space totalling 1 580 m› (17,000 sq.ft.)
Staff, and Concord, had anticipated an application for the whole of Sub-
area 1. Concord decided to limit their application to exclude the
westerly portion of their property, and City, Provincial and private
sites near the Granville Bridge. Concord believe that the time
necessary to resolve ownership, development and access issues associated
with these sites not owned by Concord would jeopardize enactment before
the civic election, should the rezoning be approved at public hearing.
The application does not meet three principal public objectives.
Therefore, staff recommend the following:
Park: park be provided and phased to meet the ODP's standard of 2.75
acres/1000 people. In addition to Concord's proposed completion of
David Lam Park, staff recommend the inclusion within the rezoning area
and completion of George Wainborn Park, required prior to occupancy of
the building containing the proposed 625th dwelling unit. This
recommendation will require a change to the ODP phasing.
Non-market housing: non-market housing be provided in accordance with
the ODP 's standard of 19% of all Sub-area 1 dwelling units, which
equates to 236 units. Concord are proposing 4.3%, which equates to 53
dwelling units. To provide 236 dwelling units will require additional
non-market sites. The non-market housing agreement will provide for the
236 units of non-market housing but allow for a portion of site 1B's
requirement to be transferred to site 1A, upon a successful future
rezoning of 1A.
Daycare: a daycare facility be provided with this rezoning to meet the
requirement for Sub-area 1. Concord propose 1,243 dwelling units, of
which 28% or 348 are family. These units require the support of a
daycare. Staff recommend the daycare be required prior to occupancy of
the building containing the proposed 175th family dwelling unit. Should
the site 1A rezoning be approved in future, before the daycare is
provided on site 1B, the daycare agreement could potentially be modified
to locate the facility on site 1A.
A new sewage pump station is to be provided, in keeping with agreements
that are presently in place. The cost of the sewage pump station will
be shared between Concord and the City as provided for in the
infrastructure agreements.
There has been general public support for the land use, circulation and
form of development. The exception is the Pacific Point residents at
Homer and Pacific, some of whom question the planning principles
established in the ODP and have particular concerns with density, the
scale of the landmark tower, usability of George Wainborn Park, and
impact on their southerly water views. They are also concerned with the
uncertainties of proceeding with site 1B only. Concord and staff have
held a number of additional meetings with Pacific Point residents.
Changes in response have included streetwall height reductions of two to
three storeys, smaller tower floorplates, additional view corridors
through the mews, increased setbacks and shaping and reduction in
floorplate size of the landmark tower to minimize view impacts. Further
discussions will take place and be reported at the public hearing.
Changes can be implemented prior to approval of the form of development.
Concord responded to suggestions from meetings with neighbours to reduce
the view impact of the landmark tower by reducing floor plate size and
increasing height. Consequently, the application proposes an increase
to the ODP height limit for the landmark tower. If approved, this would
allow up to 110 m (361 ft.), an increase of 19 m (61 ft.) over the
current ODP limit of 91 m (300 ft.). Staff feel this increase has
marginal shadowing impacts, and would enhance the overall City skyline
but note some opposition among some neighbours who consider the building
will be overbearing. Should Council choose not to support this proposed
increase, staff recommend a height of 91 m (300 feet), with lost floor
area relocated to other buildings.
The application also includes a density transfer which increases the
density for site 1B by approximately 3% above the base density for this
site. This additional density is transferred from other ODP sub-areas
and is within the 10% density transfer allowed in the ODP. This results
in an addition of approximately 19 storeys to the various towers.
Subject to meeting requirements for parks, non-market housing, daycare,
and refinement of the layout to respond to neighbourhood concerns, staff
generally support the rezoning proposal for site 1B.
BACKGROUND
A preliminary rezoning application for all of Sub-area 1 was submitted
in August 1995. In late December a final rezoning proposal was
submitted for the easterly (site 1B) portion of this neighbourhood.
The initial public review of the preliminary proposal was undertaken in
the fall of 1995. Public review of the final proposal was completed in
early 1996.
DISCUSSION
Site and Context
The site (see map below) is bounded by Richards Street, the future
George Wainborn Park, the harbour headline, the Sub-area 2 (Roundhouse)
boundary, and Pacific Street. The land area comprises the easternmost
5.8 ha (14.4 ac) of Sub-area 1. It is vacant and descends approximately
10.5 m (34 ft.) from the high point at Pacific and Richards Streets to
the water's edge. To the north is the Downtown South, to the east the
Roundhouse area, and to the west is the Granville Bridge and the
Granville Slopes neighbourhood.
Proposed Development
The proposal is mainly for housing, with up to 1,243 residential units
comprising 133 937 m› (1,441,733 sq.ft.), in towers and low rise
buildings. The eight towers range in height from 10 to 38 storeys (33 m
to 110 m). See Appendix D for the concept plan, and Appendix H for
development statistics.
Furthermore, 1 580 m› (17,000 sq.ft.) of optional retail or service
commercial space is proposed at grade on Pacific Street.
In terms of public amenities, the applicant proposes one non-market
housing site on Pacific Street east of Richards Street to accommodate 53
family units, in a 4-6 storey building. Also proposed is a 1.25 ha (3.1
ac) extension of David Lam Park. In addition, public open space at the
corner of Homer and Pacific Streets would be provided, and the
seawalk/bikeway completed to the east side of George Wainborn Park. The
applicant has advised that the daycare and George Wainborn Park will be
provided with site 1A to the west.
Development Issues
1. Scope of Rezoning Area
When discussions with Concord began on the Beach Neighbourhood
rezoning in early 1995, it was understood that the entire Sub-area
1, as defined by the ODP, would be included. In addition to the
Concord lands, the ODP boundary includes lands owned by the
Province, City and Canada Metals adjacent to Granville Bridge.
Following initial workshops with staff on development issues, a
preliminary rezoning proposal was submitted in August 1995 for
Concord's portion of the sub-area. Accordingly, staff and Concord
were working toward, and anticipated a final rezoning application
for the entire site before the end of 1995. However, during the
review of the preliminary submission, several important issues were
identified to be resolved, including:
- location of the non-market housing sites;
- pedestrian and vehicular access from Beach Crescent to Beach
Avenue through the provincially-owned site;
- future use and potential integration with residential uses of
the existing City pump station site on Granville Street;
- location of a new pump station facility;
- location of a daycare facility;
- coordination of development patterns between Concord and non-
Concord sites and consistency with the ODP;
- density provisions for non-Concord sites (Canada Metals,
Province, and City); and
- soils remediation concerns on non-Concord sites.
These unresolved issues are concentrated on the westerly site 1A
portion of the Beach Neighbourhood. While these are difficult
issues, staff consider that there are workable solutions providing
that all concerned parties cooperate. These solutions, however,
include potential land transfers or transactions, may take time to
resolve, and involve third party decisions not under the control of
the developer or the City. Because of these uncertainties and
their potential impacts on timing, the developer, with the
objective to reach a public hearing early in 1996, has submitted a
reduced scope of the rezoning. They wish to address these
unresolved issues with adequate time and attention to reach the
appropriate solutions in the site 1A rezoning.
Planning staff would have preferred to deal with the entire sub-
area for several reasons. The overall urban design concept
features a strong, formal arrangement of towers and mid-rise
buildings around George Wainborn Park, best dealt with by a single
set of design guidelines for all of Beach Neighbourhood. Upland
neighbours' concerns are best dealt with on an overall basis.
Better efficiency and cost savings to the City would result from a
single set of agreements for the entire sub-area. Most
importantly, as proposed, the majority of the required public
amenities (parks, social housing, and daycare) will not be provided
until the future site 1A rezoning. Staff feel that the clustering
of such amenities in site 1A provides little incentive to complete
the site 1A rezoning, as well as creating service shortfalls in the
meantime. This issue will be dealt with by the rezoning
conditions.
To support the separate rezoning of site 1B, staff recommend more
certainty in the provision and phasing of the overall public
requirements for Sub-area 1 be provided at various steps in the
rezoning process, based upon the City's long held principle to
maintain amenity provisions with each rezoning. As part of this
approach, staff recommend that the rezoning area be increased to
include George Wainborn Park [condition (d)].
2. Public Requirements
A. Park
The ODP requires that for Sub-area 1:
- two park areas be provided totalling 3.74 ha (9.23 ac),
including David Lam Park extension at 1.25 ha (3.09 ac) and
George Wainborn Park at 2.49 ha (6.14 ac)
- assuming rezoning of the entire Sub-area 1, phasing of parks
allows for completion of David Lam Park with easterly parcel
1B, and provision of George Wainborn Park with westerly
parcel 1A
Concord proposes to only provide the David Lam Park extension
with this rezoning, consistent with current ODP phasing
provisions.
Staff recommend that park be provided, in accordance with the
ODP standard of 2.75 acres per 1,000 residents. The park
phasing plan has been compromised by the following changes made
to the ODP in 1993. Originally, the Quayside rezoning stage
was intended to provide 10.5 acres of park, including 9.06
acres in Sub-area 9. This was changed to delay the provision
of Sub-area 9 park to facilitate the provision of a staging
area for soil remediation work, thus reducing the overall park
provisions from a net surplus to a net deficit situation to
date. While the ODP permits minor shortfalls to park
requirements during development of the west end of the Concord
site, it was anticipated that these would be compensated by
park developed in International Village (and other) areas.
Staff feel that a significant deficit in park at the western
end of the site will be created, should Concord's rezoning
application be approved. This park deficit would amount to
1.21 ha (2.95 ac) (see Appendix F).
However, the additional park is only needed when the site 1B
population grows so that park demand exceeds supply. This
occurs at about 625 occupied units. As George Wainborn Park
should be developed as a whole, staff recommend a condition
that would require its development,
including the completion of the shoreline protection and
waterfront walkway to the west edge of the park, prior to
occupancy of the building containing the 625th unit [condition
(d)].
Building all of George Wainborn Park with the 625th unit of
site 1B will create a short term credit position of parkspace,
until the completion of Sub-area 1. Then there will again be
an overall park deficiency until Sub-area 9 is built. Staff
therefore consider this short term park credit to be a quid pro
quo for the ensuing park deficit.
B. Non-Market Housing
The ODP requires that Sub-area 1 include:
- 19% non-market housing (11.3% family, 7.7% non-family) which
equates to 412 units, of which at least 245 must be suitable
for families (in recognition that this waterfront location
is very suitable for family housing).
Three non-market housing locations are shown in the ODP
Illustrative Plan, one on site 1B next to Pacific Street
between Richards and Homer Streets. These indicate the general
location of the non-market projects.
Concord in their final application proposed four non-market
sites, one in site 1B and three in site 1A. Final resolution
of the potential non-market sites in site 1A requires
consolidation with property that Concord does not own (Appendix
H). The site 1A rezoning has been delayed pending resolution
of these issues and staff are concerned that the non-market
requirement may prove difficult to accommodate if these issues
are not resolved satisfactorily.
The current proposal includes 53 non-market units, or 4.3% of
the housing proposed in site 1B. This represents only 13% of
the non-market housing units required for the whole of Sub-area
1. To ensure that the ODP's standard of viable non-market
sites will be available, regardless of what happens in future
rezonings, staff recommend that Concord provide sufficient
sites in site 1B to accommodate 236 units (19% of the total 1B
units) as non-market housing. See condition of enactment [(e)].
Based on the analysis of the preliminary application, staff
believe that the non-Concord, non-market sites can be
successfully incorporated into a comprehensive plan for Sub-
area 1. It is proposed that the non-market housing legal
agreement required for enactment of site 1B, allow for a
portion of its non-market housing requirement to be transferred
to site 1A, upon a successful future rezoning, thus allowing
conversion of a non-market site(s) in site 1B to market
development. It is expected that only one or two non-market
sites will be needed in site 1B, if the rezoning of site 1A
proceeds generally as in the preliminary submission.
C. Daycare
The ODP requires one daycare facility for Sub-area 1, with no
specific location identified.
Concord proposes that the daycare be located in site 1A,
incorporated with a non-market family housing project.
Staff recommend that the daycare facility be required with the
site 1B rezoning. This facility could be integrated with the
market housing development, or alternatively, it could be
provided with a non-market project, provided it can be
independently phased. Staff prefer not having all the daycare
facilities tied to non-market housing because of funding
uncertainty, and also prefer a more central location east of
Richards Street. Part of the outdoor play area could be
located on a separate site in the David Lam Park extension, for
the use of older children, provided that public access is
maintained (ie. no locked fence), and nearby washroom
facilities are available in the saltwater pump station.
Provision for adequate parking and drop-off must be made on-
site to minimize impacts on adjacent residents. Staff
recommend a condition that would require the daycare to be
provided prior to occupancy of the building containing the
175th family dwelling unit [(i)(viii)].
When site 1A is rezoned, and non-market housing sites can
successfully accommodate a daycare facility, the daycare
agreement could potentially be amended to provide the facility
on site 1A.
A one-time payment to daycare start-up costs of $2,000 per
space is required by Council policy. For Sub-area 1, this
payment will be $138,000, required as a condition of enactment
for the site 1B rezoning (see condition [(i)(ix)]).
D. Public Art
Funding for public art will be required consistent with Council
policy. This will be secured by a legal agreement proposed as
a condition of enactment [(i)(x)].
3. Built Form/Urban Design
A. Density Parameters
The ODP allows a total of 214 026 m› (2,303,832 sq. ft.) of
residential floor space comprising up to 2,169 units in Sub-
area 1. The ODP also allows for an increase in the maximum
number of units and floor area within each area of up to 10
percent. This is subject to no increase in the overall ODP
total of units and floor area, and provided that livability and
compatibility with adjacent development are achieved. The ODP
base density for Sub-area 1 is about 4.0 FSR net.
Concord proposes a total of 133 937 m› (1,441,733 sq. ft.) of
residential floor space comprising 1,243 units on site 1B.
This represents an increase of about 3% over the ODP base floor
area for this portion of the site. If approved for site 1B now,
and if previously proposed density remains unchanged for site
1A, the additional density would be transferred from Concord's
remaining allowances on sub-areas to the east of Cambie Bridge.
The resulting density proposal for 1B is about 4.11 FSR net.
The proposed site 1B density is comparable with adjacent
development, including the Downtown South and the adjacent
Pacific Point development at 4.7 FSR net. The net parcel
densities for those sites along Pacific Street range between
about 2.0 - 5.0 FSR.
Given the high degree of livability of this waterfront
neighbourhood, and its park and open space amenities, staff
generally support the proposed density, subject to resolution
of massing concerns noted below for neighbourliness and
resolution of the non-market residential requirements.
B. Tower Locations, Floorplates, and Heights
The ODP Illustrative Plan (see Appendix E) shows 10 towers in
Sub-area 1 with 7 of these on site 1B. These range in height
from 13 storeys near the water, up to 34 storeys for the
landmark tower at Pacific and Homer.
General urban design principles are:
- to step tower heights down in significant increments from
upland locations to the shoreline, parks and Granville
Bridge;
- to provide generous space between the towers to maximize
public and private views;
- to maximize sunlight on public and private open space; and
- to ensure a pedestrian scale at the water's edge, close to
the primary walkway and bicycle system.
Concord proposes to increase the heights of all towers on site
1B, between 1 and 4 floors over the ODP Illustrative Plan. An
additional 10-storey market building is proposed on the north
side of Beach Crescent. In total, these increases add
approximately 19 floors to the ODP scheme.
Staff feel that the limited increase in tower heights does not
compromise the design principles incorporated in the original
ODP Plan. Tower floorplates, except for the landmark tower and
the ten-storey building, have been restricted to 600 m› to
minimize views impacts.
Given the large amount of public and private open space on the
site and generous spacing between towers, staff support the
proposed general tower locations and increases to tower
heights. Detailed siting to minimize impacts on neighbours
will be followed up prior to submitting the final form of
development for Council approval.
C. Landmark Tower Height Increase
Concord proposes to increase the landmark tower height to 110 m
(361 ft.). This would require an amendment to the maximum
height permitted in the ODP of 91 m (300 ft.). The preliminary
rezoning submission proposed a lower height of 98.4 m (323 ft.)
for this tower, combined with a larger 790 m› floor plate. At
that time, adjacent neighbours were concerned with the bulk and
massing and suggested a taller, but slimmer massing.
Consequently, the tower floorplate has been further reduced to
625 m› and a further increase of 4 storeys in the height is
proposed. This would have only marginal shadowing effects on
adjacent properties to the north due to the tower location and
the wide separation created by Pacific Boulevard. Furthermore,
the extra height will give the westerly landmark tower more
prominence and enhance the overall city skyline. However, some
neighbours feel the
resulting tower will be too overbearing. Two options are
presented for Council consideration (see condition [(f)]: the
height increase as proposed or a lower height of 300 ft.
consistent with the current ODP limit. If the lower height
option is chosen, rather than increasing tower floorplate,
staff recommend a floorspace relocation from this tower within
the other buildings of the scheme of about 2 500 m› (27,000
sq.ft.).
D. Viability of Non-market Housing Forms
If additional non-market sites are required to meet the 19%
non-market target, significant design and built form changes
will probably be required on other, as yet undetermined, sites.
The built form of the non-market family housing on Pacific
Street may not accommodate the number of units proposed.
Significant design changes may be required to provide the
required units in an acceptable relationship with adjacent
development and the mews, if the staff recommendation is
approved.
E. Public Access to Mews
Concord proposes two 10 m wide mews in Sub-area 1, connecting
Pacific to Beach Crescent, lined with 2 storey townhouses.
This will break down the block sizes to a more typical city
pattern, provide view corridors from upland locations, and
improve pedestrian access to parks. As narrow public rights-
of-way the mews would also increase variety of public realm
experiences, and opportunities for public views into landscaped
courtyards. Vehicular and emergency vehicle access is proposed
at each end. The mews will be designed to meet CPTED
principles, in an overall street design which provides
appropriate street addresses for adjacent buildings for
emergency response. Concord originally proposed that for the
easterly mews on site 1B, the middle section be gated and
private. Staff and the public strongly support the concept and
width of the mews, with appropriate setbacks of buildings above
the two-storey base, and recommend full public access be
maintained for the entire length of the easterly mews.
Concord, having heard the views of the public primarily being
in favour of public rights-of-way, is prepared to concur
provided matters of street addresses, policing and liability
are satisfactorily addressed. See condition of enactment (g).
F. Concerns of Neighbours
Residents of the neighbouring Pacific Point development at
Pacific and Homer Street have expressed concerns about the
proposed form of development. These include building massing,
access to parks, and impacts on private views. See commentary
from the applicant included in Appendix G. In response,
changes to the scheme have involved:
- streetwall height reductions along Pacific Street of 2 to 3
storeys;
- smaller tower floorplates and width restrictions to minimize
view impacts;
- slimming and shaping of the landmark tower, with lost floor
area compensated by a proposed height increase;
- movement of some density away from Pacific Boulevard toward
the water; and
- additional access and view corridors provided by the mews
proposal.
Further refinements are being investigated by staff through
continued discussion. These include the reconfiguration of the
non-market housing low-rise building on Pacific Street,
landmark and adjacent towers repositioning, removing optional
retail on all or some Pacific Street frontage to lower
streetwalls and adjusting several tower heights to lower the
landmark tower. Results of these continuing discussions will
be reported at the Public Hearing.
4. Other Parks and Engineering Issues
David Lam Park (Phase 3) Completion:
There are additional requirements related to the provision of David
Lam Park. During the Sub-area 2 Roundhouse rezoning enactment, it
was determined that public washroom facilities for David Lam Park
should be provided in the saltwater pump station to combine the
uses and prevent further building of structures within the park.
As the construction of the saltwater pump was proceeding, the City
agreed to retrofit the facility to contain the structural shell for
the washroom facilities. It was agreed that Concord would
reimburse the City for these retrofitting costs and further would
finish the interior of the washroom facilities as a condition of
the Sub-area 1 rezoning.
Therefore, Concord will be required to provide a $50,000
contribution toward the cost incurred by the City to construct and
complete the structural shell of the washroom facilities. This
contribution will be required upon the enactment of the site 1B
rezoning. As well, Concord will be required to construct and
install all finishing components of the washroom facilities prior
to the required timing for completion and acceptance of Phase 3 of
David Lam Park. These requirements are outlined in condition
[(i)(xiii)].
Traffic Impact Study:
An overall study was done prior to ODP approval. A study of
traffic impacts is required for the combined Sub-area 1 rezoning.
Staff recommend that this be done and reported to Council prior to
the referral of the site 1A rezoning.
Parking and Loading:
Staff recommend that residential parking and loading requirements
for Beach Neighbourhood be the same as those applied in the
Quayside and Roundhouse neighbourhoods. Commercial parking
requirements should conform to the Parking By-law.
All required parking will be underground or, occasionally, in one-
storey podiums tucked in behind commercial or residential
frontages. Access to residential parking will be from either
Pacific Street or the new streets. Staff recommend that
residential parking access be limited to one driveway per block on
Pacific Street. Additional residential parking access can be
provided on the new Richards Street. Staff and drop-off parking
for the daycare will be provided off-street. No additional parking
for the park has been required.
As this development does not include lanes, off-street loading
areas are provided for each building to accommodate moving vans and
garbage/recycling collection.
Street Pattern:
The approved street pattern consists of the extensions of Richards
and Homer Streets, to form a 2-way loop system with Beach Crescent.
In future, Beach Crescent would be extended to the west. Staff
consider this road system adequate to service the initial site 1B
development.
Engineering/Servicing Requirements:
All on-site and off-site works for servicing the site 1B portion of
the Beach Neighbourhood, including dedications and rights-of-way,
will be secured through a services agreement proposed as a
condition of zoning enactment [(i)(xi)].
An agreement is also proposed to secure design and construction of
the shoreline and waterfront walkway [(i)(xii)]. The shoreline
protection and waterfront walkway will be required to be completed
and accepted by the City Engineer prior to the occupancy of the
first residential building in site 1B. Regardless of the
development scheduling, the shoreline protection and waterfront
walkway will be required to be completed and accepted by the City
Engineer prior to the 10th anniversary of the site 1B rezoning
enactment.
Subdivision will be a condition of enactment and all works,
services, dedications and rights-of-way will be provided at no cost
to the City, except for cost-sharing with the sewage pump station
[condition (i)(xvi)].
Staff recommend that a new sewage pump station be provided with
this rezoning to service the Beach Neighbourhood and adjacent
areas. The existing sewage pump station is not adequate to serve
the proposed 1B site. A new facility is to be located in the
vicinity of Granville Street on or adjacent to the 1A site. When
completed, this new pump station facility will enable the existing
facility next to the Granville Bridge to be closed. The cost of
this facility would be shared by Concord and the City as set out in
the Pacific Place Infrastructure Agreement.
Soils:
A preliminary remediation plan has been drafted by the Pacific
Place Soils Remediation Group (SRG) and favourable comment has been
received from the Ministry of Environment. Refer to conditions of
enactment addressing remediation and indemnification [(i)(i, ii and
iii)].
Social Implications
Beach Neighbourhood East will assist in the implementation of a socially
diverse neighbourhood in False Creek North. Particular emphasis is
placed on family housing opportunities.
Environmental Implications
Beach Neighbourhood East will assist in intensifying residential
activities and densities within present urban boundaries. This will
reduce the need, distance and number of vehicular trips in the city, and
encourage alternate access modes, including walking, biking and transit.
Consequent benefits to air quality, energy costs and urban livability
will result. Over 50 percent of the site will be developed as green
space.
APPLICANT'S COMMENTS
"Concord decided to proceed with a phased rezoning of Sub-area 1 to
permit time for the consolidation option for the westerly half, desired
by all parties, to be properly concluded. City staff have made
recommendations to provide greater certainty and security with respect
to three public requirements in the ODP that will not be fully satisfied
until the site 1A rezoning is enacted. Concord understands the
rationale for these recommendations, but they cause negative impacts on
Concord and we suggest that in the circumstances they may be overly
conservative and safely moderated.
With respect to the three recommendations for rezoning conditions
related to phased rezoning, we request that Council consider the
modifications proposed below, and the explanations we put forward in
support:
Park Phasing: The ODP provides that the extension of David Lam
Park will be provided with the development of site 1B, and that
George Wainborn Park will be provided with the site 1A, exactly as
is proposed by Concord. The ODP anticipates a temporary deficit of
almost exactly the same size as that which the staff recommendation
seeks to address, as can be seen from Appendix F. This is not
caused in any way by rezoning Sub-area 1 in phases, but is a result
of a previous amendment to the ODP. The ODP specifically does not
require an exact concurrence of park and zoning of residential
units but allows the balance to move between deficit and surplus
during development, ending with the policy of 2.75 acres per
thousand population being met. Further, there cannot be an actual
shortfall in park provided for resident population unless all
currently zoned areas are fully developed and occupied prior to any
rezoning of site 1A and Sub-area 6.
If one thinks it through, this outcome is not credible. It is
likely that the existing real and substantial surplus of park to
resident population will continue.
For these reasons, we request that recommended condition (d) be
modified to read:
'That Council require completion of the David Lam Park
extension with Phase 1B and the completion of George Wainborn
Park with Phase 1A, in accordance with the ODP.'
Non-market Housing: Concord will fully meet its obligation to
provide 19% of the total units in Sub-area 1. There is no intent
in the ODP to require the same percentage of non-market housing in
each precinct of the sub-area. Rather, the ODP identified three
non-market housing sites in Sub-area 1, one in site 1B and two in
site 1A, implying an allocation of approximately one-third of non-
market units to site 1B and two-thirds to site 1A.
The location of the non-market housing site in site 1B is as
indicated in the ODP. The number of non-market housing units
accommodated on this site, however, has been significantly reduced
from what is assumed in the ODP in response to concerns expressed
by Pacific Point residents about their views. (Further reductions
in the height and massing of this building to enhance views are
still being sought.) If the staff recommendation on non-market
housing is adopted, the reduction in the height of this building
from that shown in the ODP could not be accommodated. The reasons
that they have been acceptable to date are that Concord has
proposed an additional non-market housing site in site 1A and the
development plans for a consolidated site 1A will accommodate the
transfer of units from site 1B while providing additional
livability benefits. We suggest that our willingness to pursue
these benefits through the consolidation option and to respond to
neighbours concerns about views should not, in fairness, result in
a demand for more non-market housing sites in site 1B. We note
that staff seek to address this by providing the possibility in
their recommendation of transferring some units to site 1A, if an
appropriate rezoning application is enacted in time.
The recommendation does not recognize, however, that the ODP does
not require a uniform distribution of non-market housing to all
precincts in a sub-area. Therefore, we request that condition (e)
be modified to read:
'That one-third of the non-market units required to be provided
by the ODP in Sub-area 1 be provided with Area 1B and that a
portion of these units may be transferred to Area 1A upon that
rezoning, subject to resolution of satisfactory urban design.'
We ask Council to recognize that there is almost one million square
feet of residential area planned for site 1A held hostage until
rezoning of that site is enacted, giving Concord plenty of
incentive to proceed promptly, and providing the City with plenty
of security that the public requirements planned for Sub-area 1
will be fulfilled.
- Landmark Tower:
We feel that the Landmark Tower massing as currently proposed is a
true reflection of the mass in its sister tower located in Quayside
Neighbourhood. The mass of the tower has been reorganized in
response to Pacific Point concerns and comments, with staff support
for a thinner, taller building requiring an adjustment to the
current ODP height maximum. This has been further supported by the
public and by the Urban Design Panel. As best as we can determine,
the additional height has little impact on Pacific Point.
We request that Council approve the option to increase the height
maximum as proposed in the application."
CONCLUSION
Subject to conditions addressing the inclusion of George Wainborn Park
within the rezoning area, meeting City standards for parks, daycare and
non-market housing, and further refinement of the layout to respond to
neighbourhood impacts, staff generally support the rezoning proposal for
the easterly portion of the Beach Neighbourhood. There remain several
key issues to be resolved with the future site 1A rezoning. With regard
to the recommended change to the ODP for maximum building height options
are presented for Council consideration at the public hearing.
* * *
Beach Neighbourhood East (Site 1B)
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF REZONING
NOTE: These are draft conditions which are subject to change
and refinement by staff prior to the finalization of the
agenda for Public Hearing.
SCHEMATIC (a) THAT the proposed schematic development be approved
DEVELOPMENT by Council in principle, generally as prepared by
Concord Pacific Developments Corp. Planning and
Design Team and stamped "Received, City of Vancouver
Planning Department, December 21, 1995",
specifically in relation to the siting of buildings,
development of groundplane, general building heights
and massing, providing that the Development Permit
Board may allow alterations to this form of
development when approving the detailed scheme of
development with guidance from (b) and (c) below;
DESIGN (b) THAT the proposed design guidelines entitled "Beach
GUIDELINES Neighbourhood East CD-1 Guidelines" dated February
1996, be adopted by resolution of Council at the
time of enactment of the CD-1 By-law.
DEVELOPMENT (c) THAT prior to the final approval by Council of the
APPLICATIONS detailed form of development for each portion of the
project, the applicant shall obtain approval of a
development application by the Development Permit
Board who shall have regard to design guidelines
approved under (b) and particular regard to the
following:
- design development to building 4 (non-market
residential) to ensure it meets development
and livability standards;
- design development to provide additional non-
market sites to accommodate the non-market
housing requirement;
- design development to building 7 to ensure its
built form is compatible with its context and
meets development and livability standards;
- design development to the mews to ensure its
configuration, treatment, function, and
adjacent built form provide an appropriate
public R.O.W.; and
- design development to accommodate a daycare
facility.
PARK PHASING (d) THAT Council require, in addition to the extension
of David Lam Park, the completion of George Wainborn
Park including the upgrading of the shoreline
protection works, required as a condition of
occupancy approval for the building containing the
625th residential unit, and requiring an amendment
to the FCN ODP.
NON-MARKET (e) THAT Council require 19% of the total units on site
HOUSING 1B for non-market housing, located on two or more
AMOUNT sites. A portion of the non-market housing
requirement for site 1B may be transferred to site
1A upon the future rezoning of that site;
TOWER HEIGHT (f) THAT Council choose the following maximum height for
OPTIONS the landmark tower located in site 1B at the
southwest corner of Pacific and Homer Streets:
(i) 110 m (361 ft.) as proposed by the applicant,
and requiring an amendment to the FCN ODP;
OR
(ii) 91 m (300 ft.) as in the current FCN ODP, thus
requiring a reduction of 2 500 m› from the
tower floorspace and relocation within other
buildings in this site.
MEWS PUBLIC
ACCESS (g) THAT Council require a statutory right-of-way for
full public access to the site 1B mews linking
Pacific to Beach Crescent.
ENERGY (h) THAT Council require the provision of low flow
EFFICIENT toilets, shower heads and faucets as standard
FEATURES features in Beach Neighbourhood East, as and when
required by the Plumbing By-law;
AGREEMENTS (i) THAT, prior to the enactment of the CD-1 By-law, the
property owner shall, at no cost to the City:
SOILS (i) Obtain and submit to the City copies of all
REMEDIATION soils studies and the consequential
Remediation Plan, approved by the Ministry of
Environment. Enter into or cause to be
entered into by the Province of British
Columbia, agreements satisfactory to the
Director of Legal Services, which may include
long-term leases of park from the Province,
providing for the remediation of any
contaminated soils on the Beach Neighbourhood
East site in accordance with a Remediation
Plan approved by the Ministry of Environment
and acceptable to the City, providing security
satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services
for the completion of remediation and
indemnifying the City, the Approving Officer
and the Park Board against any liability or
costs which may be incurred as a result of the
presence of contaminated soils on the site;
SOILS (ii) Submit to the City a remediation plan for all
REMEDIATION newly dedicated streets and utility rights-of-
way required to serve the subject site,
including utility construction plans
compatible with the accepted remediation plan;
together with any agreements deemed necessary
by the City Engineer providing for the
construction and installation of remedial
works, including monitoring systems for, among
other things, water discharges and groundwater
flows; and any other remedial works or systems
required by the City Engineer, all to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
Director of Legal Services;
SOILS (iii) Execute an Indemnity Agreement,
INDEMNITY satisfactory to the Director of Legal
Services, providing for security to the
satisfaction of the Director of Legal
Services, protecting the City, the
Approving Officer and the Park Board from
all liability or damages arising out of or
related to the presence of contaminated
soils on the lands comprising the subject
site, howsoever occurring, arising during
the period commencing immediately
following the Public Hearing until such
time as the Ministry of Environment issues
Confirmations of Compliance, in the form
appended to the Certificate of Remedial
Process issued by the Ministry of
Environment on September 7, 1990,
certifying that the subject site,
including all roads, utility corridors,
open spaces and parks contained therein,
have been remediated to Provincial
Standards as defined in the Confirmation
of Compliance;
OCCUPANCY (iv) Execute a Section 215 Agreement, satisfactory
to the Director of Legal Services, that there
will be no occupancy of any buildings or
improvements on the subject site constructed
pursuant to this rezoning until Confirmations
of Compliance have been provided to the City
by the Ministry of Environment;
NON-MARKET (v) Execute one or more agreements satisfactory to
HOUSING the City Manager and Director of Legal
Services, by which sufficient parcels shall be
conveyed to the City for the non-market
housing to be constructed within the site, at
a price acceptable to City Council. Such
agreement may allow for the transfer of a
portion of the non-market housing requirement
to the site 1A portion of the Beach
Neighbourhood upon a future rezoning of that
site. Such parcels are for such non-market
housing programs or initiatives as City
Council may generally define or specifically
approve from time to time;
OCCUPANCY BY (vi) Execute an agreement, satisfactory to the
FAMILIES Director of Legal Services and the Manager of
the Housing Centre providing that occupancy or
possession of dwelling units shall not be
denied to families with children with the
exception of units which may be designated as
senior citizens' housing;
PARKS (vii) Execute agreements, satisfactory to the
Director of Legal Services and the City
Manager in consultation with the General
Manager of Parks and Recreation, to
ensure:
1. that the portion of park identified as the
Phase III Lands in the Roundhouse
Neighbourhood Park Works Agreement is
provided to the City at no cost, either by
conveyance, dedication or long term lease
from the Province. This park shall be:
(A) designed and constructed by the
property owner to the satisfaction
of the General Manager of Parks
and Recreation; and
(B) provided to the City, to the
satisfaction of the Director of
Legal Services,
either prior to any occupancy of the first
building constructed pursuant to this
rezoning enactment or three years from the
date of enactment of this rezoning,
whichever shall first occur;
2. that the extension of David Lam Park
identified in the FCN ODP as being
required to service the subject site is
provided to the City at no cost, either by
conveyance, dedication or long term lease
from the Province. This park shall be:
(A) designed and constructed by the
property owner to the satisfaction
of the General Manager of Parks
and Recreation; and
(B) provided to the City, to the
satisfaction of the Director of
Legal Services,
either prior to any occupancy of the first
building constructed pursuant to this
rezoning enactment or ten years from the
date of enactment of this rezoning,
whichever shall first occur;
3. that the approximately 2.49 hectare park
at the southern end of Richards Street
identified in the FCN ODP as part of the
Sub-area 1 development is provided to the
City at no cost, either by conveyance,
dedication or long term lease from the
Province. This park shall be:
(A) designed and constructed by the
property owner to the satisfaction
of the General Manager of Parks
and Recreation; and
(B) provided to the City, to the
satisfaction of the Director of
Legal Services,
prior to any occupancy of that building
constructed pursuant to this rezoning that
the City Manager determines contains the
625th residential unit constructed
pursuant to this rezoning; and
4. that Confirmations of Compliance in
respect of these three park areas have
been provided by the Ministry of
Environment;
DAYCARE (viii) Execute an agreement, satisfactory to the
FACILITIES Directors of Legal Services and Social
Planning, and Managers of Real Estate
Services and Facilities Development, to
ensure that one fully finished, furnished
and equipped (i.e. ready for immediate
occupancy) daycare facility including
outdoor play space and required
underground parking, are provided and
conveyed to the City at no cost. The
facility and outdoor space shall be
developed at a location acceptable to the
Directors of Social Planning and Planning,
the General Manager of Parks and
Recreation, and the Managers of Real
Estate Services and Facilities
Development, and shall comprise a minimum
of 764 gross m› of fully finished,
furnished and equipped indoor space and up
to 615 m› of immediately adjacent fenced
and equipped outdoor play space for the
daycare, and must meet all requirements
for community care and daycare facilities
and the licensing thereof, comply with the
Childcare Design Guidelines, and be
satisfactory to the Director of Social
Planning and the Managers of Real Estate
Services and Facilities Development. The
completion of the daycare facility will be
required as a condition to occupancy
approval for the building containing the
175th family residential unit. Such
agreement may allow for: (a) a portion of
the outdoor space to be provided in David
Lam Park provided that the play area is
open to the public and washrooms are
available nearby in the saltwater pump
station; and (b) the provision for
transfer of the daycare site to 1A upon a
future rezoning of that site;
DAYCARE (ix) Execute an agreement, satisfactory to the
PAYMENT Directors of Social Planning and Legal
Services, to:
1. pay to the City $138,000 for childcare
start up costs prior to occupancy of the
first family residential building,
pursuant to and adjusted in accordance
with Council's policy of February 4, 1993;
and
2. pay to the City an amount representing a
monthly inflation factor to reflect
increases in the cost of living from the
date of enactment to occupancy of the
first family residential building;
PUBLIC ART (x) Execute an agreement, satisfactory to the
Directors of Legal Services and Social
Planning, for the provision of public art in
accordance with the City's Public Art Policy;
SERVICE (xi) Execute a service agreement, satisfactory to
AGREEMENT the City Engineer and the Director of Legal
Services, to ensure that all on-site and off-
site works and services necessary or
incidental to the servicing of the subject
site (collectively called the "Services") are
designed, constructed, and installed at no
cost to the City, and to provide for the grant
of all necessary street dedications and
rights-of-way for the Services, all to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
Director of Legal Services. Without limiting
the discretion of the said City officials,
this agreement shall include provisions that:
1. no Development Permit in respect of any
improvements to be constructed on the
subject site pursuant to this rezoning
shall be issued until the design of all of
the Services is completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer;
2. the design of all the Services will be
completed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to: (i) tendering for the
construction of any of the Services; or
(ii) any construction of the services if
the Property Owner decides not to tender
the construction;
3. no occupancy of any buildings or
improvements constructed pursuant to the
rezoning shall be permitted until all
Services are completed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer;
4. in addition to standard utilities,
necessary Services will include a sewage
pump station (cost shared under the
Infrastructure Agreement), and bus
shelters necessary for a transit system to
serve the Concord Pacific development; and
5. the servicing of any development of the
waterlot portion of the subject site shall
be provided for on the uplands area if
necessary;
SHORELINE (xii) Execute agreements, satisfactory to the
WORKS City Engineer and the Director of Legal
Services, obligating the property owner,
at no cost to the City to design and
construct the shoreline works relevant to
the subject site, including George
Wainborn Park, and which shall include a
waterfront pedestrian/bicycle system
(collectively called "Shoreline Works"),
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
(and the General Manager of Parks and
Recreation where such improvements
encroach on park areas). This agreement
will include provisions that:
1. no Development Permit in respect of any
improvements to be constructed on the
subject site pursuant to this rezoning
shall be issued until the design of the
Shoreline Works is completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer;
2. the design of the Shoreline Works will be
completed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to tendering for the
construction of these works, or the
commencement of construction of the
Shoreline Works if the property owner
decides not to tender the construction;
3. the property owner shall grant all
requisite ownership rights to the City,
whether by dedication or perpetual right-
of-way (as the City shall determine), over
lands containing the Shoreline Works and
shall grant access thereto, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and the
Director of Legal Services;
4. the property owner shall assure access to,
and support of, the Shoreline Works from
both the uplands and the water lots, and
shall grant rights-of-way therefor as
required by the City Engineer, including a
blanket right-of-way over the water lots
for access to the Shoreline Works for
maintenance and repair purposes;
5. the property owner shall amend the
temporary walkway letter agreement dated
October 16, 1987, to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer and Director of Legal
Services, to include provisions for
improved maintenance of any re-routings of
the temporary walkway and for bypassing of
construction areas;
6. the water lots shall be maintained, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer, in such
a manner as to preserve the amenity value
inherent in the Shoreline Works; further,
the water lots are to remain unfilled and
undeveloped generally in accordance with
the report on Conceptual Shoreline Designs
- Coal Harbour and False Creek adopted by
Council on October 24, 1991;
7. a ferry dock will be provided on the
waterlot, with public access secured over
the uplands, waterlot, and the ferry dock
facility, and utilities that cross or run
through the Shoreline Works will be
subject to approval by the City Engineer;
and
8. the property owner shall obtain all
necessary approvals and permits under the
Navigable Waters Protection Act (Canada)
and any ocean dumping permits which may be
required by Federal authorities;
9. the construction of the Shoreline Works
shall be completed in accordance with the
following schedules:
(A) no occupancy of any buildings or
improvements constructed pursuant
to this rezoning shall be
permitted until the phase of the
Shoreline Works, with the
exception of Shoreline Works
adjacent to George Wainborn Park,
is completed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer (and the
General Manager of Parks and
Recreation where relevant);
(B) the Shoreline Works adjacent to
George Wainborn Park shall be
completed prior to any occupancy
of that building containing the
625th residential unit constructed
pursuant to this rezoning; and
(C) in any event the Shoreline Works
shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to 10 years from the date of
enactment of this rezoning.
WASHROOM (xiii) Execute an agreement, satisfactory to the
FACILITIES City Engineer and the Director of Legal
Services to include the following
provisions:
1. a contribution of Fifty Thousand ($50,000)
Dollars from Concord to the City towards
the costs incurred by the City to
construct and complete the structural
shell of the washroom facilities in David
Lam Park, such payment to be made upon
enactment of the rezoning; and
2. construct and install all finishing
components of the washroom facilities in
David Lam Park, including floor slabs and
fixtures, either prior to any occupancy of
the first building constructed pursuant to
this rezoning enactment or three years
from the date of enactment of this
rezoning, whichever shall first occur;
FLOODPLAIN (xiv) Execute a flood plain covenant,
satisfactory to the Director of Legal
Services and the Ministry of Environment;
AMEND (xv) Re-evaluate, amend and/or release all existing
COVENANTS covenants and rights-of-way to address the
proposed development to the satisfaction of
the Director of Legal Services;
SUBDIVISION (xvi) Obtain approval and registration of a
compatible subdivision plan.
Where the Director of Legal Services deems appropriate, the
preceding agreements are to be drawn, not only as personal
covenants of the property owner, but also as Covenants pursuant
to Section 215 of the Land Title Act.
The facilities to be provided including the Services, Shoreline
Works, daycare and park, as well as site remediation, may, in the
discretion of the City Engineer, General Manager of Parks (where
the park is concerned) and Director of Legal Services, be
constructed in phases, in accordance with phasing plans
satisfactory to the aforesaid officials, and the respective
Agreements will provide for security and occupancy restrictions
appropriate to such phasing.
The preceding agreements are to be registered in the appropriate
Land Title Office, with priority over such other liens, charges
and encumbrances affecting the subject site as is considered
advisable by the Director of Legal Services, and otherwise to the
satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services prior to enactment
of the by-law; provided however the Director of Legal Services
may, in her sole discretion and on terms she considers advisable,
accept tendering of the preceding agreements for registration in
the appropriate Land Title Office, to the satisfaction of the
Director of Legal Services, prior to enactment of the by-law.
The preceding agreements shall provide security to the City
including indemnities, warranties, equitable charges, letters of
credit and withholding of permits, as deemed necessary by and in
a form satisfactory to the Director of Legal Services.
The timing of all required payments shall be determined by the
appropriate City official having responsibility for each
particular agreement, who may consult other City officials and
City Council.
APPENDIX F
Page 1 of 4
FCN PARK PROVISIONS - Phasing of original 1989 ODP and
as amended in 1993 with Quayside rezoning
Population Original ODP 1989 Amended ODP 1993
Park Req.* Park Surplus or Park Surplus or
Sub-area
Provision Deficit (-) Provision Deficit (-)
International
Village (8) 3.77 10.49 6.72 10.49 6.72
Yaletown Edge (3) 3.31 - 3.41 - 3.41
Roundhouse (2) 5.34 9.05 7.12 9.05 7.12
Quayside (4, 5A) 11.44 10.50** 4.26
Sub-total 23.86 30.04 6.18 23.80 (-0.06)
Beach 1B 6.01 3.12 3.12
Sub-total 29.87 33.16 3.29 26.92 (-2.95)
Beach 1A 4.66 6.14 6.14
Sub-total 34.53 39.30 4.77 33.06 (-1.47)
Cambie East (6A) 2.73 2.82 9.06 4.86
Abbott South (6C) 3.46 - -
TOTAL 40.72 42.12 1.40 42.12 1.40
* All park figures in acres.
** Assumes provision of entire 9.06 ac. Creekside Park extension (Sub-area 9) and the
1.44 ac. portion of Cooper's Park west of the Cambie Bridge. APPENDIX F
Page 2 of 4
FCN PARK PROVISIONS - Phasing as amended in 1993 and with changes
as proposed by staff for site 1B rezoning
Park
Required Provided Surplus
Sub-Area Units Population Park (ac) Park (ac) Deficit (-)
Approved rezonings
(to Jan, 1996):
Int. Village (8) 800 1,392 3.77 10.49
Yaletown Edge (3) 720 1,205 3.31 -
Roundhouse (2) 1,030 1,943 5.34 9.05
Quayside (4, 5A) 2,588 4,160 11.44 4.26
Sub-total 5,138 8,700 23.86 23.80 (-0.06)
*Current Rezonings:
Beach 1B
(up to 625 units) 625 1,113 3.06 3.12
Sub-total 5,783 9,813 26.92 26.92 0.0
Beach 1B
(remainder) 618 1,096 3.01 6.14
Sub-total 6,381 10,909 29.93 33.06 +3.13
Future Rezonings:
Beach 1A 926 1,670 4.60 -
Sub-total 7,307 12,579 34.53 33.06 (-1.47)
Cambie East (6A) 511 933 2.73 9.06
Abbott South (6C) 682 1,258 3.46 -
TOTAL 8,500 14,770 40.72 42.12 1.4
* NOTE: This assumes approval of a unit mix containing 19% non-market housing in
each of site 1A and site 1B of Sub-area 1.Comments of the Public,
Reviewing Agencies, and the Applicant
Public:
The public process included 15 meetings and model displays. Three Council advisory
Committees have been consulted on the scheme. The pattern of land use, circulation
and form of development are generally supported. The principal exception to this
support are some of the residents of Pacific Point who have questioned the basic site
planning principles laid out in the ODP. Concerns include:
- reduced scope of rezoning proposal;
- delivery and phasing of public facilities (park, daycare, non-market
'housing');
- massing, height and location of the landmark tower;
- massing of non-market housing on Pacific;
- private southerly views of the water from adjacent development (e.g. Pacific
Point);
- formality and usability of George Wainborn Park.
Staff will continue meeting with Pacific Point residents between the referral report
and public hearing. The objective of the meetings will be to review building
locations, massing and heights and the design of the public open spaces in response
to the residents' concerns. Conclusions from these meetings will be reported to
Council at Public Hearing.
Urban Design Panel:
The Panel unanimously supported this rezoning application. The Panel liked the
overall concept and thought it was much improved since the previous workshop
submission.
The Panel supported having the landmark tower but did not believe the proposed tower
to be sufficiently distinct to be considered as such. A taller, and possibly slimmer
tower was recommended to make it a true focal point. Increasing the height by up to
6 storeys will make no difference one way or the other to the residents on the other
side of Pacific.
With respect to the Pacific Street frontage, a concern was expressed whether retail
will work, although one Panel member felt that, if Pacific is intended to be the
neighbourhood centre or focus, then as much retail as possible should be encouraged
on Pacific. Another Panel member stressed the need for continuity for the massing on
Pacific. It was felt that a strong neighbourhood centre should be located in the
area to provide retail and social amenities.
The Panel agreed with the proposed streetwall height.
With respect to the mews, the Panel felt strongly that there should be no gated or
private mews. It is important that non-residents feel they have access to the
development and the park, without restrictions. One Panel member had a concern that
the mews on the other half of this site (Site 1A) is not a view corridor. Another
Panel member also stressed that the mews should not be dead-ended.
The Panel had no problem with tower siting. One comment was that the middle towers
could be a little lower, and more density added along the waterfront. Another
concern was that the three middle buildings may be too "boxy" and inelegant. With
respect to the 10-storey building, it will be important to have sufficient space to
provide everyone with a view through in between the towers. The roofscape is very
important generally and on this particularly, given the towers that will overlook it.
It was noted that this scheme is only an illustration of what can be done: it is the
guidelines that are important. Given the Panel's experience with other design
guidelines which it has found to be overly prescriptive and inflexible, the Panel
requested the opportunity to review the guidelines when they are developed.
Special Advisory Committee on Seniors
The Committee reviewed the preliminary rezoning submission for the Beach
Neighbourhood site on September 29, 1995. The minutes and approved resolution are as
follows:
"In discussion this day, members agreed that the suggestion of reducing the
number of non-market sites as a trade off to the developer for building non-
market housing on one of the sites, instead of leaving it vacant, had merit.
It was therefore
RESOLVED
THAT this proposal be submitted for Council's consideration.
Following discussion on the aforementioned report of the sub-committee, it was
RESOLVED
THAT the report of the Housing Sub-committee be approved and the comments and
recommendations be forwarded to staff and Council."
Applicant:
With respect to Pacific Point residents concerns we comment as follows:
Many of the matters raised question the planning principles of the ODP which
were debated and passed by Council prior to the occupancy of the Pacific Point
buildings. We are advised that before sales were concluded, the purchasers of
units in Pacific Point were made aware of the development on Concords land
which should be anticipated as a result of the ODP. Notwithstanding this,
Concord does not fault anyone for seeking to have the best views that can be
obtained and for having a strong interest in what happens next door.
Concord and staff have involved residents of Pacific Point in the planning
process to respond to their concerns, meeting with them and their consultant
many times. We have made numerous and substantial changes to preliminary
development plans in response to their concerns, improving on what is set out
in the ODP significantly. Only some details of these changes are set out in
the report.
The development as proposed, therefore, has been substantially molded as a
result of the meetings and in response to concerns, as Concord reached out to
these neighbours in an honest and serious effort to make things better for the
Pacific Point residents. Concord will continue to work with them and City
staff to seek improvements by refinement of development plans and by providing
analyses to clarify the limited impact of the current proposal. Adjustments
made to satisfy some, however, are now being found objectionable by others, so
it may not be possible to satisfy all.
APPENDIX H
Page 1 of 2
BEACH NEIGHBOURHOOD EAST REZONING
Applicant, Property and Development Proposal Information
Applicant Concord Pacific Developments Ltd.
Design Consultants The Hulbert Group International Inc.
Philips Wuori Long Inc.
PBK Group
Property Information:
Current zoning - BCPED
Site area = 58 300 m› (627,557 sq.ft.)
Property ownership pattern - see map below. APPENDIX H
Page 2 of 2
BEACH NEIGHBOURHOOD EAST REZONING (SITE 1B)
Summary of Development Statistics
Existing ODP Proposed Zoning Future Zoning*
Sub-area 1 Site 1B Site 1A
Total Amount of 216 349 m› 135 517 m› 80 832 m›
Development (inc. (2,328,837 (1,458,740 sq.ft.) (870,097 sq.ft.)
comm.) sq.ft.)
Residential Maximum 214 026 m› 133 937 m› 80 089 m›
(2,303, 832 (1,441,733 sq.ft.) (862,099 sq.ft.)
sq.ft.)
No. of Residential 1,243 926
Units 2,169
349 (28%) 265 (28%)
No. of Family Units 614 (28%)
53 (4.3%) 359 (38%)
No. of Non-market 412 (19%)
Units 53 (4.3%) 192 (20%)
245 (11.3%)
Family - 167 (18%)
167 (7.7%)
Non-family - 1
1
Daycare Provision 1.25 ha (3.09 ac) 2.49 ha (6.14 ac)
3.74 ha (9.23 ac)
Park Space Provision
Retail/Service 2 323 m› 1 580 m› 743 m›
Commercial (25,000 sq.ft.) (17,000 sq.ft.) (8,000 sq.ft.)
(optional, not
specified)
Maximum Building 91 m (300 ft.) 110 m (361 ft.) 91 m (300 ft.)
Height
10 8 5
No. of Towers (7 in 1B)
(10 storeys or higher)
*NOTE: These potential floorspace and unit amounts are based on total Sub-area 1
residual maximums, and may be increased by up to 10% consistent with ODP
criteria.Rezoning: 500 Pacific Street (Beach Neighbourhood East)
Council report: List of Appendices
Appendix A - Draft CD-1 By-law Provisions
Appendix B - Proposed Conditions of Approval
Appendix C - Draft Design Guidelines
Appendix D - Design Concept Plan
Appendix E - ODP Illustrative Plan (Beach Neighbourhood)
Appendix F - ODP Park Provisions, Phasing, and Sub-areas
Appendix G - Comments from the Public, Reviewing Agencies and the Applicant
Appendix H - Applicant, Property and Development Proposal Information
KEM/020-2285