Development Permit Staff Committee Report for the Development Permit Board
1239 West Cordova Street - DE404441 - Zone CD-1 (Preliminary Application)
1281 West Cordova Street - DE404757 - Zone CD-1 (Preliminary Application)
(For: Monday, May 15, 2000)

---

Index

Development Permit Staff Committee Members
Applicant
Executive Summary
1281 West Cordova - Development Permit Staff Committee Recommendation: Approve in Principle
1239 West Cordova - Development Permit Staff Committee Recommendation: Approve in Principle
Technical Analysis
Technical Analysis (Harbour Green Neighbourhood CD-1 Guidelines) for Sub-Area 2
Discussion
Conclusion
Urban Design Panel
Engineering Services
Permits and Licenses Department
Vancouver/Richmond Health Board
Fire & Rescue Services
Notification
Development Permit Staff Committee Comments
Appendix A - Standard Conditions


Back to Agenda

---

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAFF COMMITTEE MEMBERS:

Present:	Also Present:
B. Boons (Chair), Planning Department N. Peters, Engineering Services K. Yuh, Real Estate Services T. Driessen, Parks & Recreation	R. Segal, Planning Department B. Mah, Planning Department P. Pinsker, Engineering Services R. Waite, Engineering Services

APPLICANT:	OWNER OF DEVELOPMENT:
Hancock Bruckner Eng + Wright Architects 1650 Alberni Street Vancouver, B.C. V6J 1H6	Delta Land Development Inc. Suite 780 - 999 Canada Place Vancouver, B.C. V6C 3E1

Executive Summary

Proposal:  To construct a multiple dwelling development consisting of a 35-storey tower on Site 2A, a 27-storey tower on Site 2B, and grade oriented townhouses containing a total of 277 dwelling units, with three levels of underground parking.

See Appendix A - Standard conditions
Appendix B - Plans and elevations
Appendix C - Applicant's design rationale
Appendix D - Summary of applicant's View Analysis
Appendix E - Extracts from the Harbour Green Guidelines
Appendix F - Extracts from CD-1 rezoning submission (January 1995)

(APPENDICES B - F ARE NOT INCLUDED - COPIES OF THE FULL REPORT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)

Issues:

1. Height relaxation for easterly Tower 2B
2. Tower floorplates and massing (private view impacts and shadowing)
3. Urban design concept for Harbour Green Park edge

Urban Design Panel: Support

1281 WEST CORDOVA STREET - DE404757 (SITE 2A):

Development Permit Staff Committee Recommendation: Approve In Principle

THAT the Board APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE, subject to Council's approval of the final form of development, the concept of developing this site with a multiple dwelling development consisting of a 35-storey tower and grade oriented townhouses containing a total of 166 dwelling units with three levels of underground parking having shared vehicular access from West Cordova Street, as submitted under Development Application No. DE404757, subject to the following conditions:

1.0 Prior to submission of a complete application and a final decision, the applicant is to carry out the following:

1.1 verification on plans and elevations that the uppermost two floor levels and mechanical penthouse diminishes in width consistent with section on dwg. PDP A6.2, thereby minimizing the bulkiness of the mechanical penthouses, in response to the guidelines;

1.2 design development to the westerly right-of-way to achieve a unified Public Realm treatment in co-ordination with the development at 301 Jervis Street; and

1.3 design development to the detailed townhouse interface with the Public Realm along West Cordova Street, westerly right-of-way and Harbour Green Park frontages to achieve a surveilled, high quality, pedestrian friendly edge.

2.0 That the standard conditions set out in Appendix A be met prior to submission of a complete application.

3.0 That the complete application be dealt with by the Development Permit Board.

1239 WEST CORDOVA STREET - DE404441 (SITE 2B):

Development Permit Staff Committee Recommendation: Approve In Principle

THAT the Board APPROVE IN PRINCIPLE, subject to Council's approval of the final form of development, the concept of developing this site with a multiple dwelling development consisting of a 27-storey tower and grade oriented townhouses containing a total of 111 dwelling units with three levels of underground parking having shared vehicular access from West Cordova Street, as submitted under Development Application No. DE404441, subject to the following conditions:

1.0 Prior to submission of a complete application and a final decision, the applicant is to carry out the following:

1.1 design development to the semi-private courtyard, to provide adequate children's play space to be shared by both Site 2A and 2B residents;

1.2 design development to the shared vehicular access from West Cordova Street, to minimize the intrusion of hard surface and traffic into this predominantly landscaped courtyard;

1.3 design development to the detailed townhouse interface with the Public Realm along West Cordova Street, Bute Street-end and Harbour Green Park frontages to achieve a surveilled, high quality, pedestrian friendly edge; and

1.4 submission of details of mechanical penthouse to ensure minimization of volume, as depicted in the preliminary drawings.

2.0 That the standard conditions set out in Appendix A be met prior to submission of a complete application.

3.0 That the complete application be dealt with by the Development Permit Board.

Technical Analysis:

	PERMITTED (MAXIMUM)	REQUIRED (MINIMUM)	EXISTING (SUB-AREA 1) (1299 W. HASTINGS)	CURRENT APPLICATION (SUB-AREA 2)
Site Size	-	-	Irregular	Lot 15 (1281 W. Cordova) - Irregular Lot 16 (1239 W. Cordova) - Irregular
Site Area	-	-	5 443 m²	Lot 15 (Tower 2A)     4 270 m² Lot 16 (Tower 2B)     3 450 m²                                    7 720 m²
Floor Area1	Retail/service         250 m² Residential      124 800 m² (maximum residential for Sub-Area 2 - 40 319 m²)	-	Tower 1A        21 782 m²	Tower 2A: Residential     22 678 m² Tower 2B: Residential     17 641 m²                                         40 319 m²
No. of Dwelling Units2	1,199 (maximum number of units for Sub-Area 2 - 352)	Market                       907 Non-Market               292	Non-                     Market   Market Tower 1A       Nil          281	Non-                     Market    Market Tower 2A       166         0 Tower 2B       111         0                        277        Nil
Unit Type	-	Non-                    Family    Family Market          177          Nil Non-Market   110        182 (Sub-Areas 2 and 3)	Non-                    Family    Family Market            Nil          Nil Non-Market   113        171                      113        171	Non-                     Family    Family Tower 2A      166          0 Tower 2B      111          0                        277        Nil
Height3	99 m (Sub-Area 2)	-	N/A	Tower 2A        99.0 m Tower 2B        76.6 m
Parking4	Tower 2A        382 Tower 2B        255                         637 (no more than 2.2 spaces/ dwelling unit need be provided)	Tower 2A        274 Tower 2B        183                         457	N/A	Tower 2A        339 Tower 2B        241                         580
Bicycle Parking4	-	Class A   Class B Tower 2A     201           6 Tower 2B     140           6                      341         12	N/A	Class A     Class B Tower 2A      207             0 Tower 2B      158             0                        365           Nil
Loading	-	Residential           2	N/A	Residential           2
Amenity	Residential     5 000 m² (Sub-Areas 2 and 3 combined)	-	N/A	Tower 2A        1 006 m² Tower 2B           783 m²                         1 789 m²
Balconies	Residential Open           1 612.5 m² Enclosed     1 612.5 m²                     3 225.0 m² (maximum 8% of FSR)	-	N/A	Tower 2A   Open            1 012 m²                    Enclosed         798 m²                                         1 810 m² Tower 2B   Open                828 m²                    Enclosed          583 m²                                         1 411 m² Total                                3 221 m²
Unit Breakdown	-	-	N/A	Tower 2A:   53  - two-bedroom     4  - two-bedroom + den   82  - three-bedroom   27  - three-bedroom + den 166 Tower 2B:   23  - two-bedroom + den   22  - three-bedroom   66  - three-bedroom + den 111 Total - 277 units

Note: The applicant should note that Staff do not carry out detailed technical checks on preliminary applications. Figures shown are as supplied by the applicant.

¹ Note on Floor Area: The Development Permit Board may permit a maximum of 5 000 m² to be transferred between Sub-Areas 2 and 3, provided that the total for these two Sub-Areas does not exceed 103 488 m².

² Note on Number of Dwelling Units: The Development Permit Board may permit an increase in the maximum number of dwelling units in Sub-Areas 2 and 3 by five percent, provided that the total number of units for these two Sub-Areas does not exceed 907.

³ Note on Height: The building heights are measured from the building grades on Cordova Street in accordance with Section 6 of the CD-1 By-law. Calculations are required to verify that the height of the towers does not exceed the maximum allowed. See condition A.1.3.

⁴ Note on Parking: Visitor parking spaces are not clearly designated and identified on parking level 1. The visitor requirement of up to 54 spaces should be separated from the other parking spaces. No fewer than 25 to 30 visitor spaces will be acceptable. Access to the underground parking is shared between the two sites. See Conditions A.1.9 and A.1.15.

⁵ Note on Bicycle Parking: The required number of Class B bicycle parking spaces have not been provided. All Class A bicycle parking spaces should be located on the first level of the underground parking. See Condition A.1.1.

Map illustrating the 4 sub-areas within the CD-1 District

Technical Analysis (Harbour Green Neighbourhood CD-1 Guidelines) for Sub-Area 2:

	PERMITTED (MAXIMUM)	REQUIRED	PROPOSED
Building Height1 [Section 3.4.1]	Tower 2A        99 m Tower 2B        72 m	-	Tower 2A        99.0 m Tower 2B        76.6 m
Street Base Zone2 [Section 3.4.2(a)]	Generally 3 storeys	2 storeys	Tower 2A         3 storeys Tower 2B         3 storeys
Terrace Zone3 [Section 3.4.2(b)]	Tower 2A     21 storeys Tower 2B     generally                    9 storeys (above street base zone)	-	Tower 2A         Nil Tower 2B         Nil
Tower Zone Floorplate4 [Section 3.4.2(c)(i)&(ii)]	Tower 2A     625 m² Tower 2B     595 m²	-	Tower 2A        647 m² Tower 2B        616 m²
Average Tower Width5 [Section 3.4.2(c)(iv)]	25 m	-	Tower 2A        19.9 m Tower 2B        21.8 m
Tower Width6 (east-west direction) [Section 3.4.2(c)(v)]	29.6 m	-	Tower 2A        26.6 m Tower 2B        26.1 m
Tower and Tower Zone Envelope [Precinct 2 Figure B]	42.8 m	-	Tower 2A        39.8 m Tower 2B        38.0 m
Building Envelope Setbacks [Section 4.2.1]	-	Tower 2A North                       5.5 m South                      3.5 m West              11.5/17.6 m East                 9.0/19.0 m                         (courtyard) Tower 2B North                       5.5 m South                      3.5 m West                3.0/22.0 m                         (courtyard) East                        3.5 m	Tower 2A North                       5.5 m South                      3.5 m West              11.5/17.6 m East                 9.0/26.0 m Tower 2B North                       5.5 m South                      3.5 m West                3.0/29.6 m East                        3.5 m
Residential Livability (Family Unit Locations) [Section 3.6.1]	-	first 8 storeys	Tower 2A        35 storeys Tower 2B        27 storeys
Private Outdoor Space7 [Section 3.6.2(a)]	-	min. depth        2.0 m min. area          4.0 m²	Tower 2A   min. depth   ? m                  min. area    ? m² Tower 2B   min. depth   ? m                  min. area    ? m²
Unobstructed View from Habitable Rooms8 [Section 3.6.2(d)]	-	min. 20.0 m	Tower 2A   southwest   24 m Tower 2B   southeast   50 m

Note: The applicant should note that Staff do not carry out detailed technical checks on preliminary applications. Figures shown are as supplied by the applicant.

¹ Note on Building Height: Maximum building heights are measured from the adjacent Cordova Street grades and excludes sloping, non-habitable roofs, mechanical services and architectural appurtenances. The height of Tower 2B exceeds the guideline maximum by 4.6 m.

² Note on Street Base Zone: "To provide variety in the lower level of towers, the street base may go higher. Generally there should be a noticeable step back in the building mass to create a strong horizontal expression at the top of the street base zone."

³ Note on Terrace Zone: "This zone may extend above 12 storeys through the tower zone providing the mass is located on the north side of the tower within a 45 degree cone from the northeast and northwest corners of the tower. On limited occasions where a strong sense of identity and entry is desired, the terrace zone may extend to the street level." The proposal eliminates any terrace zone to improve views.

⁴ Note on Tower Floorplate: The gross floorplate area does not include balconies or terraces but does include mechanical and electrical areas, storage, elevator cores and stairs. The proposed floorplate area exceeds the maximum allowed by 22 m² for Tower 2A and 21 m² for Tower 2B. Staff support these relatively minor increases (3.5 percent) in exchange for the elimination of the terrace zone and greater tower slimness.

⁵ Note on Average Tower Width: The average tower width includes enclosed balconies and projections. The average width of each floor is determined by taking the total floor area and dividing it by the length of the building on the central longitudinal axis. See Condition A.1.3.

⁶ Note on Tower Width: Tower width in the east-west direction includes enclosed balconies. Tower floorplates are encouraged to be reduced in width towards Harbour Green Park, thereby resulting in a floorplate that is generally longer in a northerly dimension.

⁷ Note on Private Outdoor Space: The floor plans are not dimensioned and therefore balcony depths and areas are not indicated. See Conditions A.1.2 and A.1.7.

⁸ Note on Unobstructed View from Habitable Rooms: The floor plans are not dimensioned and therefore unobstructed view from the habitable rooms are not indicated. The applicant has stated that the requirement will be met in accordance with the guidelines. See Condition A.1.2.

Legal Description Lots: 15 and 16 of the Public Harbour of Burrard Inlet Plan: LMP 29895

History of Application 99 08 23  Preliminary DA submitted (Site 2B) 99 11 03  Urban Design Panel - Non-support 99 12 28  Preliminary DA resubmitted (both sites) 00 01 26  Urban Design Panel - Support 00 04 07  Revised Preliminary DA submitted 00 05 03  Development Permit Staff Committee

Site: This full block site, comprised of two separate parcels, is located on the north side of West Cordova Street, between Jervis Street and Bute Street. Adjacent to the site on the north and east sides is Harbour Green Park. This site slopes down to the north, and westerly towards Jervis Street.

Context: Significant adjacent developments include:

(a) Harbour Green Park, a 10 acre park now under construction (Phase 1 is completed)
(b) 301 Jervis Street (DE403667) - "The Escala", a 28-storey residential tower, under construction
(c) 500 Broughton Street, Jervis Park and Coal Harbour Community Centre (DE402159)
(d) 1299 West Hastings Street (DE404821), a 30-storey non-market rental tower with 3-storey townhouses for non-market family rental, approved in principle
(e) 1201 West Hastings Street - a future commercial/residential development site (requires rezoning)
(f) 1199 West Hastings Street - a 14-storey office building
(g) 1177 West Hastings Street - a 27-storey office building

Background: Staff first met with the applicant for this proposal in May, 1999. At that time the applicant indicated that the approved guidelines for Harbour Green Neighbourhood were a concern in terms of the desired image and marketability of these sites, and that they would be seeking a height increase for some of the towers and other relaxations to the approved guidelines. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a preliminary development application for the easterly Site 2B in August, 1999, requesting feedback from staff on the merits of their proposal. Staff indicated that a comprehensive views study would be required, and that adjacent upland property owners would need to be consulted and supportive of these proposed guideline changes, before staff could support this scheme. A resubmission occurred in December 1999 for both site 2A and 2B, with Tower 2B lowered. Further meetings led to the present revised submission (April 7, 2000) with a further lowering of Tower 2B to 4.6 m beyond the guideline height of 72 m.

Applicable By-laws and Guidelines:

1. CD-1 (No. 364) Zoning and Development By-law No. 3575
2. Harbour Green Neighbourhood (501 Bute Street) CD-1 Guidelines

Response to Applicable By-laws and Guidelines:

1. CD-1 Zoning

Use and FSR: The residential use and density proposed is consistent with the zoning.

Family Housing Units: The zoning requires under Section 3(a)(i) that a minimum of 177 units be provided for market family housing within the Harbour Green Neighbourhood. As Sub-Area 1 is allocated for non-market family housing, these units must be provided within Sub-Areas 2 and 3, located on the north side of West Cordova Street. This proposal for Sites 2A and 2B has 40 ground-oriented townhouses and 54 two-bedroom or larger units located on the lower 6 storeys of the towers, for a total of 94 units considered to be suitable for market family housing. Assuming that these units are suitable for families, there is a need for related play areas for young children.

The guidelines, under Section 4.2 Precinct 2 - Cordova Street between Jervis and Bute Streets, contain in part the following:

"4.2.4 Outside play areas for children should be located to maximize access to direct sunlight."

Accordingly, staff recommend further design development to the central courtyard areas of this complex to provide a suitable play area for young children, shared by both sites, in response to the guidelines (see Site 2B, Condition 1.1).

Height: The zoning allows a maximum building height of 99 m (325 ft.) within Sub-Area 2 of the Harbour Green Neighbourhood, between Jervis and Bute Streets on the north side of West Cordova Street. Unlike other CD-1 zoning districts in the Coal Harbour Neighbourhood (e.g., 301 Jervis Street, 300 Cardero Street) the by-law for 501 Bute Street does not contain any provisions for height relaxations above the maximum stipulated. There is reference, however, in the Coal Harbour ODP, to a possible 10% increase in height in Sub-Area 2 of the Harbour Green Neighbourhood, as noted in part under Section 3.6 Height, as follows:

"In the Harbour Green residential precinct (area 2) the maximum building height may be relaxed by up to 10 percent and in the Burrard Landing commercial precinct (area 3) the maximum building height may be relaxed by up to 15 percent if, in both cases, improvements to the criteria noted below can be demonstrated.

Building heights for specific locations will be determined in each sub-area zoning, having regard to the Illustrative Plans described in Section 6 and:

(a) public and private views, including views created by the development form;
(b) shadowing of public and private open spaces and streets;
(c) privacy;
(d) effects on the scale and character of open spaces; and
(e) form relationships to nearby neighbours."

Staff feel this reference should have been deleted with respect to the Harbour Green neighbourhood when this CD-1 zoning was approved in 1996, as the maximum heights in the by-law and guidelines considered at the CD-1 Public Hearing had been very intensively negotiated with upland owners. Staff do, however, note that the Board does have the discretion to approve a height increase above the guideline maximum for Tower 2B.

2. CD-1 Guidelines

The proposal generally complies with the guidelines except for the following:

• Urban Design Concept for Harbour Green Neighbourhood: At the rezoning stage in 1996 the general urban design concept approved for the five towers on West Cordova Street along the edge of Harbour Green Park incorporated the following principles:

- providing a consistent backdrop to the park with a set of five similarly massed rectangular towers on a 3-storey townhouse base;
- accommodating the allowable tower density by stepped tower massing featuring a terraced zone extending up to the 12th storey and potentially higher, in which additional massing would be mainly located on the north sides of the towers; and
- limiting the two towers adjacent to Bute Street (2B and 3A) to the smallest floorplates of 595 m² (6,405 sq. ft.).

The guidelines contain several references to this urban design concept, listed under the Organizing Principles, Overall Guidelines, and Precinct Guidelines sections.

The applicant's preliminary proposal for Sites 2A and 2B, and overall urban design concept including potential Sites 3A, 3B and 3C between Bute and Thurlow Streets, incorporates the following variations from the approved guidelines concept approved for Harbour Green Neighbourhood:

- the rectangular, stepped towers have been replaced by a distinctive set of towers with curved, "nautical" shapes that sit above a three-storey townhouse base, that contrasts with the existing rectangular shaped towers forming a backdrop to the south of West Cordova Street;
- the heights of the two towers adjacent to Bute Street have been increased by approximately 6.4%;
- the floorplates of the towers have been slightly increased by approximately 3.5 percent above the guideline maximums, and the north-south tower dimensions have been somewhat elongated for the upper storeys above the 12th storey "terrace" zone;
- the towers have been slimmed in the east-west direction, with the width , particularly for the lower levels up to the 12th storey, reduced approximately 10%; and
- the tower treatments and material palette is conceived to be very light glass, both transparent and reflective that will contrast with the predominantly grey/black background of existing buildings.

Staff acknowledge that this proposed innovative urban design concept, if carried out to a high quality standard and consistency for the entire set of five towers, would create a distinctive and elegant urban design image for this important waterfront site. Support from the Urban Design Panel and general public has been very positive. Support from adjacent property owners has been mixed, with several upland property owners close to the site indicating opposition to the proposed guideline variances. Staff note that the existing guidelines do not preclude achieving an equally attractive design solution. Staff are concerned that the applicant's proposal only includes two of the five sites, and there is no guarantee that the remaining sites will be designed to the same design concept or indicated standard of quality.

• Tower Height Increases and Shadowing: The applicant's shadow analysis shows that the proposed approximate 15 ft. increase in height and massing for Tower 2B will have only a relatively slight impact at the equinox period on Harbour Green Park to the north, compared to the approved guidelines scheme. These impacts occur between approximately 10 a.m. and 1 p.m., and affect mostly the westerly park's "green" area. Staff are satisfied that this additional shadowing is acceptable.

• Public and Private Views: The guidelines contain under Section 2 Organizing Principles, in part the following:

"2.1 Key organizing principles guiding the pattern of development include:

(c) placing towers to create a gradation of building heights down towards the Bute Street park;
(d) placing towers to protect street-end views and to generally maximize views for adjacent upland owners;"

The guidelines also contain under Section 3.3 the following:

"Building envelopes have been generally located to respect various public, semi-public and private views. Street-end view corridors identified in the Coal Harbour ODP for Jervis Street, Bute Street, and Thurlow Street should be preserved."

The proposal complies with all public street-end view corridors.

To determine impacts on private views, the applicant has submitted an extensive analysis of view impacts from the proposed height increase for Tower 2B and the other proposed variations from the guidelines in massing for both towers. The applicant's summary of this analysis is contained in Appendix D.

The applicant's view analysis focussed on 19 upland buildings to the south of the development site, generally between Broughton and Thurlow Streets, from Hastings back to Alberni Street (see map on page 3 in Appendix D). These buildings can be generally grouped under 3 categories based on their location, as follows:

1. Front row - 5 buildings on the north side of West Hastings Street, Thurlow to Jervis Streets;
2. Second row - 5 buildings on the north side of West Pender Street, Thurlow to Broughton Streets; and
3. Back row - 9 buildings on the south side of Melville Street, and both sides of West Georgia Street, Thurlow to Broughton Streets.

In summary, the view analysis shows that:

- impacts on "front row" buildings range from a 34.7% improvement (Site 16; 1177 West Hastings Street) to a - 4.4% negative impact (Site 14; 1177 West Hastings Street), in comparison to a guideline height and massing with an average improvement of 8.02%;
- the front row property most negatively impacted, an office building at 1177 West Hastings Street (Site 14), does suffer view loss for some of its upper storeys (Levels 13 - 18) ranging between -10.2% and -22.2%;
- impacts on "second row" buildings range from a 13% improvement (Site 9; Harbourside Park) to a -1.67% negative impact (Site 13), with an average improvement of 4.65%;
- impacts on "back row" buildings range from a 4.7% improvement (Site 6; 1138 Melville Street) to a -0.13% negative impact (Site 1W - "Lions" west), with an average improvement of 1.64%; and
- of the 10 "back row" buildings studied, six buildings would benefit from this proposal (view improvements between 0.46% and 4.7%), three buildings are not affected at all, and one building is negatively impacted by -0.13%.

Staff note that view benefits over a guidelines scheme, for quite a number of buildings, range from relatively small to appreciable, and disbenefits for several properties located close to the development site are relatively small and the overall sense of slimness of the proposed towers benefits the general public. Staff conclude that, on balance, the slimness of the towers compensates for the slight height increase in Tower 2B and therefore support the proposed height.

• Tower Floorplates: The guidelines contain, under Section 3.4 Massing Controls, in part the following:

"(c) Tower Zone

(i) The tower portion for buildings 2B and 3A should have a maximum gross floorplate area of 595 m² (not including balconies or terraces, but including mechanical and electrical areas, storage, elevator cores and stairs);

(ii) The tower portion for buildings 1A, 2A, 3B and 3C towers should have a maximum gross floorplate area of 625 m² (not including balconies or terraces, but including mechanical and electrical areas, storage, elevator cores and stairs);"

The applicant's proposal seeks floorplate relaxations from the above guidelines as follows:

	Guideline (Maximum)	Proposed Floorplate	Relaxation Amount
Tower 2A	625 m² (6,725.0 sq. ft.)	647 m² (6,961.7 sq. ft.)	22 m² (236.7 sq. ft.) (+3.5%)
Tower 2B	595 m² (6,402.2 sq. ft.)	616 m² (6,628.2 sq. ft.)	21 m² (226.0 sq. ft.) (+3.5%)

Staff support the relaxations of the floorplate maximums on the basis that the reduced lower storeys of the towers open up both public and private views.

• Tower Widths and Massing: The guidelines contain, under Section 3.4 Massing Controls, in part the following:

"(c) Tower Zone

(iv) The average tower width including enclosed balconies should not exceed 25 m. For each floor, the width is determined by taking the total floor area, including enclosed balconies and projections, and dividing that area by the length of the building on the central longitudinal axis;

(v) The maximum tower width in the east-west direction (generally parallel to the Harbour Green Park edge), including enclosed balconies should not exceed 29.6 m; and

(vi) Tower floorplates are encouraged to reduce in width towards Harbour Green park, resulting in a floorplate which is generally longer in its northerly dimension."

The applicant's proposal complies with and improves on the above guidelines with respect to east-west tower width, as follows:

	Guideline Maximum	Applicant's Proposal	Difference/Improvement
(i) Average Tower Width: Tower 2A Tower 2B	25 m (82.02 ft.)	20 m (65.62 ft.) 22 m (72.18 ft.)	5 m (16.40 ft.) 3 m (9.84 ft.)
(ii) Maximum Tower Width: Tower 2A Tower 2B	29.6 m (97.11 ft.)	26.6 m (87.27 ft.) 26.1 m (85.63 ft.)	3.0 m (9.84 ft.) (3.5 m (11.48 ft.)

Staff acknowledge the considerable slimming made to the east-west tower widths by this proposal benefits upland property owner's private views as well as public views above the townhouse base. While nearby towers in the Marina Neighbourhood have generally not exceeded approximately 33 m (108 ft.) in the north-south direction, the applicant's proposal for tower dimensions in the north-south direction (120 ft. for Tower 2A and 112 ft. for Tower 2B) are not inordinate and are an improvement over the dimensions anticipated in the tower terrace zone of the guideline massing. Staff therefore support the tower width and massing improvements and consider the reduced widths to justify the proposed Tower 2B height increase and minor floorplate increases.

• Parking Access and Circulation: The proposal provides a centrally located, shared vehicular access from West Cordova Street to the drop-off courtyard area and underground parking. The parking entrance and exiting ramps are located at the north side of a circular landscape feature in the middle of the courtyard area, which is common to both developments.

Staff would like to see the entrance and exit ramps positioned in closer proximity to the street for easier access; however, there are grade and aesthetic challenges. Staff support the circular landscaped element which is a positive feature particularly when viewed from public sidewalks on West Cordova Street.

Conclusion: Staff recommend approval in principle, subject to several refinements and confirmation at the complete stage of the quality of the design promised in this submission.

URBAN DESIGN PANEL

The Urban Design Panel reviewed this application on January 26, 2000 and provided the following comments: (Note: This review was of an earlier tower massing. Massing of both towers was subsequently refined with a lowering of Tower 2B by about 10 ft. and tower dimensions reduced to improve views for neighbours.)

"EVALUATION:  5-1 [Support]

Panel's Comments: The Panel was supportive, although there was hesitancy as they questioned whether the guidelines needed to be changed for these superlative buildings, or if attractive projects could be accommodated as exceptions. As it was moving in a new direction, a member said this scheme deserves the chance to challenge the guidelines. Citing recent poor examples built in the neighbourhood, members agreed the towers should be slimmed to improve the views and the skyline when seen from the water. But one Panel member was very concerned - strict adherence to a guideline does not guarantee excellence in design. He thought there was room within the current guidelines to achieve the density and look, and allow architectural inspiration with freedom of expression. He explained that the background of the guidelines was for a bigger urban design objective. They allow a view scale all the way down Thurlow Street, which is the pedestrian link to the waterfront walkway and the park. He went on to say the towers are not slimmer than the guidelines, the density is pushed out by the amenity space being kept in and the project lacks pedestrian scale.

The height increase was supported because of the slenderness and elegance of the towers and this concept being respective of the views from other buildings, although a couple of members thought the increase may not be necessary. The sculptural design parti of the five towers, reflecting the sails of the convention centre, was seen as ambitious. There was a concern that five similarly designed towers could be monotonous so there had to be room for individuality of expression within the family of five towers. There was reservation that the concept may be too large when it embraces the entire precinct. Creating a lighter foil in front of other buildings considered significant by their form, shape and authenticity was a concern. The top penthouses need work and refining, especially for Tower 2A.

The courtyard/open space was perceived as dominated by the car, whereas landscaping can contribute to livability. The area needs to be more open to the street or a vertical, gated community will be created. One member thought the public should be able to walk through, especially in daylight hours, as long as CPTED principles were adhered to. Spreading the massive hard surface in the interior along the street edge, or providing more deciduous trees and texture and colour were considered necessary by a number of the panel.

One member thought the continuity of the townhouses was excellent but they needed to be strengthened in vertical scale as a backdrop to the park. Other members thought they should be stacked, to create additional rhythm, and there should be more greening at the entries to the townhouses. One member suggested a donation or contribution from the applicant could be made to a nearby park for the children's play area, rather than a token play area within the open space."

ENGINEERING SERVICES

The recommendation of the Engineering Services are contained in the prior-to conditions noted in Appendix A attached to this report.

PERMITS AND LICENSES DEPARTMENT

This development application submission has not been reviewed for compliance with the Vancouver Building By-law (VBBL). The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the design of the building meets the VBBL requirements. The options available to assure VBBL compliance at an early stage of development should be considered by the applicant in consultation with Permits & Licenses staff.

To ensure that the project does not conflict in any substantial manner with the VBBL, the designer should know and take into account, at the development application stage, the VBBL requirements which may affect the building design and internal layout. These would generally include: spatial separation, fire separation, exiting, access for physically disabled persons, type of construction materials used, fire fighting access and energy utilization requirements.

The applicant is required to certify code compliance and identify any proposed areas of non-compliance which are to be covered by legal agreement, such as firewalls, spatial separations, egress routes and exits, building services and building structure, etc.

VANCOUVER/RICHMOND HEALTH BOARD

The Health Board advised that the applicant should take note of the following:

(i) adequate, conveniently located garbage storage area should be provided;

(ii) underground parking should be adequately ventilated to prevent the build up of noxious gases and to minimize its impact on open public space;

(iii) mechanical equipment (ventilators, generators, compactors) shall be designed and located to minimize noise impacts on the neighbourhood and comply with Vancouver Noise By-law #6555; and

(iv) details of swimming pools/hot tubs are to be submitted to the Health Board and Provincial Health Engineer prior to construction.

FIRE & RESCUE SERVICES

Fire & Rescue Services advised that compliance for emergency access to the building's principal entrance and entrances to the individual townhouses needs to be shown in accordance with Article 3.2.5.2 of the VBBL. Access from the street to the principal response point of the building must be less than 15 m measured from the street curb to the principal entrance in accordance with the VBBL. If the townhouses have individual entrances proposed, each entrance must be no more than 45 m measured along the path of travel from where a fire truck can be parked to the entrances. Some of the townhouses appear to have their only entrance accessible off the walkway making them not facing a street or access lane.

The design should take into consideration future security measures in the parkade that may impede exiting requirements by the locking of exit doors. Ideally, exit doors should exit directly to the exterior without going back into the building, provided there is a means of accessing the parkade from the main lobby's response area to all floor areas of the parkade.

Fire & Rescue Services recommends an early review of the general concepts of the building's fire safety equipment prior to the submission of a building application for this development.

NOTIFICATION

Two signs were erected on each site on January 30, 2000. In addition, separate notification letters were sent to 362 neighbouring property owners. To date, two letters have been received from nearby property owners objecting to the proposed development.

The objections include height, floorplate size and dimensions, view obstruction, and any relaxation of the guidelines.

The applications were subsequently put on hold pending revisions to the proposals.

The applicant carried out an extensive public consultation process, including meetings with individual property owners, workshops, and model displays for the general public. In response to these meetings, staff have received a number of e-mail correspondences expressing general support for the proposal.

A revised scheme was submitted on April 7, 2000 and processing continued. The site signs were revised and notification letters were again sent out to the neighbouring property owners. To date, no objections have been received.

Staff's response to objections: The principal issue is view blockage resulting from the proposed Tower 2B height and floor plates of both towers. The scheme has been revised twice in response to objections. Staff's analysis of the in-depth view study for this latest revised scheme concludes that, on balance, the elimination of the terrace zone (levels 4-12) and reduced tower width justifies the very modest height increase to Tower 2B and the slight floor plate increase (3.5%).

DEVELOPMENT PERMIT STAFF COMMITTEE COMMENTS:

Staff Committee reviewed the revised scheme and supported the relaxation of the guideline height of Tower 2B and floorplate area of both towers. The height of Tower 2B was reduced from its original proposal and both towers are now slimmer. The north façades are highly chamfered to increase and improve the view angles for the nearby buildings.

The additional height above the guideline maximum on Tower 2B does not significantly affect views at higher levels. Mechanical penthouse on top has been reduced to less than what would normally be accepted. There are basically no terrace zones on the towers, thereby allowing wider view angles at the lower levels. Narrowing and chamfering of the towers results generally in expanded view angles for neighbours over the guideline massing.

The changes to the original proposal were positive and beneficial. The Committee was satisfied with the applicant's efforts and revisions, and supports this revised scheme.

APPENDIX A - STANDARD CONDITIONS

The following is a list of standard conditions that must also be met prior to submission of a complete application.

A.1 Standard Conditions:

A.1.1 provide off-street Class B bicycle parking requirements, in compliance with section 6 of the Parking By-law;

Note to Applicant: Show dimensions of the spaces and maneuvering aisles.

A.1.2 provide detailed, accurate and fully dimensioned floor plans;

Note to Applicant: Dimensions used to calculate the floor areas should be basically reflected on the floor plans. Tracing overlays are required showing details of all calculations which are to be tabulated, totaled and summarized. The calculations should include all balcony areas, both open and enclosed, storage areas, amenity spaces, etc. To qualify as exclusions, ensuite storage rooms must have a minimum clear dimension of four feet in any direction and meet the requirements set out in the Planning Department's By-law Administration Bulletin for "Bulk Storage - Residential Developments". The method used to calculate the floor areas should be the largest polygon around the floor plan with exclusions deducted from it. Indicate unobstructed view from all habitable rooms in accordance with the guidelines. Covered walkways are not excluded from FSR. All plans must be drawn to a minimum scale of 1/8" = 1' 0" except underground parking levels 2 and 3, context elevations, shadow diagrams, landscape plan and where the relationship to adjacent developments is required. Indicate City building grades, design elevations and site dimensions on the ground floor plan.

A.1.3 clarify calculations for average tower widths and height of towers;

A.1.4 indicate use of all rooms and areas, including unit layouts and its windows and doors, and clarify number of dwelling units on the 35th floor of Tower 2A;

A.1.5 indicate setback of the proposed development from the property lines on the ground floor and underground parking plans;

Note to Applicant: Setbacks should be shown for the townhouse bases and towers. Refer to Figure 8 in the guidelines for the required setbacks.

A.1.6 provide detailed labeling of all exterior finish materials and show elevation of all roof parapet walls, including the podium level and antenna, on the elevations;

A.1.7 clarify statistics for dwelling units (number, type and area), storage and balcony areas for each unit, amenity and mechanical areas;

Note to Applicant: Provide layout and dimensions of the lockers in the storage rooms, including the hallways.

A.1.8 provide details of all canopies, water features, walls and fences;

A.1.9 provide details of all parking spaces to comply with the applicable provisions of the Parking By-law, having particular regard to space sizes, maneuvering, height clearances, curbs, etc., including identification of all small car, handicap and visitor spaces;
Note to Applicant: Spaces located next to walls and structure require extra width, and the small car ratio shall not exceed those specified under section 4.1.7 of the Parking By-law. The number of handicap spaces shall comply with section 4.7.4. Column sizes, spacing and encroachment into parking spaces may be permitted, subject to compliance with the City Engineer's guidelines. Clarify and provide up to 54 designated visitor parking spaces but no fewer than 25 to 30 visitor spaces. Visitor parking spaces appear to be primarily small cars which is unacceptable. Clarify dimensions of parking spaces in the garage of the townhouses. Handicap parking spaces have inadequate length.

A.1.10 provide details of balcony enclosures;

Note to Applicant: To qualify for an exclusion from floor space calculations (FSR), an enclosed balcony must be a distinct space separated from the remainder of the dwelling unit by walls, glass, and glazed doors [hinged or sliding], have an impervious floor surface, a flush threshold at the bottom of the door [for disabled access], large, openable windows for ventilation, and distinct exterior architectural expression. In addition, each dwelling unit should have no more than one enclosed balcony, and all balconies, both open and enclosed should be clearly identified on the floor plans. Notation should also be made on the plans stating: "All enclosed balconies shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the Council-approved Balcony Enclosure Guidelines." Limitations on the amount of exclusions and enclosures permitted are described within the regulations of the respective District Schedule or Official Development Plan that apply to the specific site. For further details and specifications on enclosure requirements, refer to the City Council-approved Balcony Enclosure Guidelines.

A.1.11 design development to locate, integrate and fully screen any emergency generator, exhaust ventilation, electrical substation and gas meter in a manner that minimizes their impact on the building's open space and the public realm;

Note to Applicant: All fresh-air intake portals must be located away from driveways and parking or loading areas in order to prevent contaminated air from being drawn into the building.

A.1.12 annotate on plans stating: "The design of the parking structure regarding safety and security measures shall be in accordance with Section 4.12 of the Parking By-law.";

A.1.13 annotate on plans stating: "The design of the bicycle spaces (including bicycle rooms, compounds, lockers and/or racks) regarding safety and security measures shall be in accordance with the relevant provisions of Section 6 of the Parking By-law.";

A.1.14 clarify where the minimum 292 non-market units are intended to be located as required by the CD-1 By-law;

Note to Applicant: The required minimum number of non-market units is for the entire CD-1 zoned area. There is currently a proposal on Sub-Area 1 for 284 non-market units only.

A.1.15 arrangements shall be made, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, Director of Legal Services and City Engineer, for the shared vehicular access to the underground parking from West Cordova Street;

A.1.16 arrangements shall be made, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, for street trees;

Note to Applicant: Street trees must conform to standard spacing and clearance. Tree species must be approved by the Park Board. Before purchase of trees, final tree locations to be determined to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Also, a separate application to Engineering Services is required for street trees, tree grates and any other non-standard treatment of City sidewalks. Submit a copy of the landscape plan directly to Engineering Services for review.

A.1.17 all details and requirements for firefighting access, to the satisfaction of the Chief Fire Prevention Officer;

Safety and Security (CPTED) Conditions:

A.1.18 design development to reduce opportunities for theft in the underground;

Note to Applicant: Theft of and from auto is prevalent in the downtown core. A comprehensive security and safety plan showing separation of users, including gating, and a degree of separation for the two towers must be provided. Separate and secure parking for townhouses reduces opportunities for theft and is considered positive. Clarification is required regarding access to the underground parking for townhouses 6, 11 and 12. Residents must have direct access to the elevators or lobby. Residents should not be required to exit the building to access their townhouses. North and south exit stairs from the underground parking are not shown on the plans. Open exit stairs adjacent to the street will not be accepted. Exits should be incorporated into the design.

A.1.19 design development to increase the visibility and security in the underground parking levels in accordance with Section 4.12 of the Parking By-law;

Note to Applicant: The elevator lobbies provide no passive observation to and from the parking spaces. The wall of the east elevator lobby should be glazed. The walls in the storage room adjacent to the west elevator should be pulled back to increase the access route. The wall adjacent to the exit door should be glazed.

A.1.20 design development to reduce opportunities for mischief, and breaking and entering;

Note to Applicant: Patio walls should be visually permeable, allowing a combination of privacy and natural views. Passive surveillance should be encouraged by placing townhouse windows to overlook open spaces such as the outlook area, vehicle entry and lobby entrances. Landscape plans are insufficient for a complete review.

A.1.21 design development to reduce opportunities for mischief;

Note to Applicant: The exit stair from Tower 2A creates an open narrow corridor with a hidden alcove adjacent to the meeting room. This problem can be mitigated by providing a gate flush with the building face.

A.1.22 design development to reduce opportunities for graffiti along the wall adjacent to the west townhouse patios;

Note to Applicant: Graffiti is prevalent in Vancouver and its removal is an expense for owners. Opportunities for graffiti can be mitigated by reducing areas of exposed wall, by covering these walls with vines or hedges or by using a protective coating. For further information contact Helen Chomolok, Graffiti Co-ordinator, at 873-7927. Landscape plans are insufficient for a complete view.

A.1.23 clarify the adjacent landscape treatment directly east of this development for a complete CPTED review;

Landscaping Conditions:

A.1.24 provide a complete plant list with the landscape plan, including both common and botanical name, size and quantity of all proposed plant material;

Note to Applicant: Proposed plant material should be clearly illustrated on the landscape plan.

A.1.25 identify and illustrate all paving types and hard surfaces on the landscape plan;

A.1.26 design development to both West Cordova Street pedestrian entry and pedestrian drop-off vehicular entry in order to provide a higher quality entry experience (i.e., planters, layered planting, permanent seating, water features, etc.);

Note to Applicant: Drawings PDP-A2.1 and PDP-A4.0 show water features, but the landscape plan (PDP-L2.0) does not. Permanent seating should be provided in these areas.

A.1.27 design development to improve the quality of the main West Cordova Street entry area; and

Note to Applicant: Permanent seating should be provided in this entry area.

A.1.28 design development to provide small trees in all the ground oriented patio planting areas proposed around the periphery of the site.

A.2 Standard Engineering Conditions:

A.2.1 provide corner cuts at the bottom of the entry and exit ramps for adequate radii for continuous two-way traffic flow and minimize the possibility of inbound vehicles from crossing into the path of outbound vehicles;

Note to Applicant: Corner cuts are required at the top and bottom of ramps to provide adequate radii for continuous two-way traffic flow where 200 or more vehicles are being served. A standard 6 m ramp width would require a 2.7 m x 2.7 m (9 ft. x 9 ft.) corner cut.

A.2.2 provide parabolic mirrors where necessary for visibility of vehicles where parking spaces are set back and driver visibility is obstructed by adjacent walls;

A.2.3 provide additional grades at all entrances, on both sides of the crossing, and both sides of all ramps and breakpoints on ramps;

A.2.4 clarify security arrangements for the parking entry and exit, and the segregation of visitor parking from the residential parking;

Note to Applicant: If security gates are used, clearly indicate their location on the plans and clarify how visitors will access them to reach the visitor parking spaces. Plans do not scale to dimensions indicated. Some manoeuvring and parking space widths are inadequate or excessive.

A.2.5 clarify charges shown on title;

Note to Applicant: A charge summary should be provided.

A.2.6 arrangements shall be made, to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services and City Engineer, for:

• construction over the adjoining property line;
• obligations to build and maintain the portion of the driveway and other features above and below grade that are shown on Lot 15; and
• site servicing issues that cross property lines (sewer, water, etc., typically services are provided to individual lots and do not cross property lines).

Note to Applicant: Consolidation of the two lots would eliminate these issues.

A.2.7 arrangements shall be made, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, for a crossing application; and

A.2.8 arrangements shall be made, to the satisfaction of the Director of Legal Services and City Engineer, for the development of that portion of the Jervis Street extension (1281 West Cordova Street) that provides access to Harbour Green park.

Note to Applicant: The landscape plan should reflect the treatments approved for adjacent Lot 35.

Note to Applicant: Marathon Properties also has various obligations to complete services, roadways and walkways prior-to occupancy of the development for 1281 West Cordova Street. Building occupancy will be withheld until Marathon Properties' obligations have been made

A.3 Standard Permits & Licenses Department (Environmental Protection Branch) Conditions:

A.3.1 submission of a letter from the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, regarding the soil assessment and remediation measures, if any, to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Branch of the Permits and Licenses Department.

A.4 Standard Vancouver/Richmond Health Board Conditions:

A.4.1 submission of an acoustical consultant's report which assesses noise impacts on the site and recommends noise mitigation measures to achieve noise criteria;

A.4.2 confirmation is supplied by the applicant that the acoustical measures will be incorporated into the final design and construction, based on the consultant's recommendations as concurred with or amended by the Medical Health Officer; and

A.4.3 confirmation is supplied by the applicant that mechanical equipment (ventilators, generators, compactors and exhaust systems) will be designed and located to minimize the noise impact on the neighbourhood and to comply with Noise By-law No. 6555.

A.5 Standard Notes to Applicant:

A.5.1 The applicant is advised to note the comments of the Permits and Licenses Department, Health Board and Fire & Rescue Services contained in the Staff Committee Report dated May 3, 2000.

A.5.2 If a complete application is not submitted on or before October 15, 2000, this development application shall be deemed to be refused, unless the date for compliance is first extended by the Director of Planning.

A.5.3 Notwithstanding compliance with the foregoing conditions A.1 to A.4, the development permit for this application cannot be issued until Council has first approved the form of development.

A.5.4 This approval does not in any way constitute a representation or warranty that the necessary approval of the form of development will be granted by Council. All proceedings by the applicant prior to action by Council are therefore at his/her own risk.

A.5.5 This approval is subject to any change in the Official Development Plan and the Zoning and Development By-law or other regulations affecting the development that occurs before the permit is issuable. No permit that contravenes the by-law or regulations can be issued.

A.5.6 Any phasing of the development, other than that specifically approved, that results in an interruption of continuous construction to completion of the development, will require application to amend the development to determine the interim treatment of the incomplete portions of the site to ensure that the phased development functions are as set out in the approved plans, all to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning.

Note to Applicant: The above will form a condition of approval at the complete stage.

---

Comments or questions? You can send us e-mail.

Last modified: May 12, 2000
(c) 2000 City of Vancouver