|
Community Services | |||
| Development Permit Board |
| CITY OFVANCOUVER | |||
|
|
Development Permit Staff Committee Report
|
| Present: | Also Present: |
| R. Michaels (Chair), Development Services M. Thomson, Engineering Services L. Gayman, Real Estate Services R. Ash, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority T. Driessen, Vancouver Park Board |
R. Segal,
Urban Design & Development Planning M. So, Development Services G. Thorne, Development Services P. Pinsker, Engineering Services |
Applicant |
Owner of Development |
| Lawrence Doyle Architects 200 – 1450 Creekside Drive Vancouver, BC V6J 5B3 |
El and El Investments Ltd. 1066 Seymour Street Vancouver, BC V6B 3M6 |
[top]
Proposal: To construct a 19-storey multiple dwelling containing 181 units, including six street-oriented townhouses, with retail space at grade, all over three levels of underground parking for a total of 192 vehicles. This project involves a request for a transfer of heritage density to the site.
See Appendix A Standard Conditions
Appendix B Standard Notes and Conditions of Development Permit
Appendix C Processing Centre – Building and Fire & Rescue Services
comments
Appendix D Plans and Elevations
Appendix E Applicant’s Design Rationale
(Apendices D - E are not included - copies of the full report
may be obtained from the Planning Department)
Issues:
1. “Greening” of the lane edge
2. Detailed design of the street edge (public realm)
Urban Design Panel: Support
THAT the Board APPROVE Development Application No. DE408246, the plans and information forming a part thereof, thereby permitting the construction of a 19-storey multiple dwelling containing 181 units, including six street-oriented townhouses, with retail space at grade, all over three levels of underground parking for 192 vehicles, subject to the following conditions:
1.0 Prior to the issuance of the development permit, revised drawings and information shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning, clearly indicating:
1.1 design development to provide a secure landscaped patio adjacent to the ground floor amenity lounge area and to further landscape the lane edge in this area;
Note to Applicant: Undergrounding the emergency generator room and relocating the small bicycle storage room is envisaged.
1.2 design development to further “green” the lane edge by expanding ground level landscaped areas and providing a landscaped edge to the Level 2 deck;
Note to Applicant: Increasing the width of the driveway planter out to the lane property line is sought. Refer also to Standard Condition A.1.9 regarding loading.
1.3 design development to enhance the interface between the townhouses and the public realm along both Seymour and Helmcken Streets, as well as enhancing their security, including:
(i) better expressing the entries from the street with gates and substantive brick gate posts;
Note to Applicant: Recessing the front doors may be necessary to accommodate the gates.
(ii) reconsidering the front patio areas, given their narrowness and security concerns, in favour of additional display garden;
(iii) provision of generous soil depth (48 inches minimum) in a continuous trough to promote healthy growth of the second row of trees;
Note to Applicant: Submission of large scale (1/4” = 1’- 0”) sections and elevations is required, illustrating detailed treatment of the public realm interface, including planter walls, stairs, guardrails, gates, etc., and garage structure below.
1.4 design development to enhance the usability of the common open spaces, including:
(i) on Level 2, providing more seating at the sunnier, north end;
(ii) on Level 6, providing a portion of the space for year-round use and a children’s play area (refer to Standard Condition A.1.23) while accommodating the garden plots with all of their practical needs within an overall landscape plan.
1.5 design development to the open balconies in the tower to improve their usability by increasing their depth to a minimum of 5 ft.;
1.6 design development to create a more dynamic overall roof expression;
Note to Applicant: Adding height to the upper penthouse level, which is outside the view corridor, should be considered among other design approaches.
1.7 design development to the north façade of the tower to reduce the amount of blank wall, open up north views for units and better integrate it into the tower’s overall expression;
Note to Applicant: Relocating bathrooms away from the exterior wall should be considered.
1.8 design development to architecturally treat the podium’s blank north party wall which may be exposed for many years;
1.9 design development to better integrate the Helmcken Street podium with the tower; and
Note to Applicant: Bringing the curved tower expression of the Helmcken Street façade down to grade should be considered.
1.10 design development to the street facades of the two townhouses on Helmcken Street to create a more residential rather than commercial character.
2.0 That the conditions set out in Appendix A be met prior to the issuance of the Development Permit.
3.0 That the Notes to Applicant and Conditions of the Development Permit set out in Appendix B be approved by the Board.
[top]
[top]
| Legal Description | History of Application |
| Lot: A Block: 84 District Lot: 541 Plan: BCP10016 (pending) |
04 02 04 Complete DE submitted 04 03 17 Urban Design Panel 04 03 31 Development Permit Staff Committee |
Site: The site is located at the northeast corner of Seymour and Helmcken
Streets.
Significant adjacent development includes:
(a) 488 Helmcken Street, a 16-storey non-market residential tower with
social services (youth drop-in) on the ground floor;
(b) 540 Helmcken Street (Brookland Court); 7-storey non-market housing co-op
(Heritage ‘B’);
(c) 508 Helmcken Street (Jubilee House); 4-storey non-market housing;
(d) Emery Barnes Park; easterly portion (Richards St.) existing; westerly portion
(Seymour St.) future; and
(e) 1133 Seymour (“Brava”); 32-storey residential development including
Vancouver Film Society facility at grade (under construction).
[top]
Staff and the applicant team met on three occasions prior to submission of the development permit application to discuss various aspects of the development and the design response. Generally, Staff indicated support for the proposed concept.
1. Downtown Official Development Plan (DODP)
The DODP sets out the uses, density (up to 5.0 FSR) and height (up to 300 ft.) for this site. The ODP also allows for an additional 10 percent density increase for the transfer of heritage density, and indicates applicable view corridors to be respected.
2. Downtown South Design Guidelines
The Guidelines provide qualitative parameters for built form, public realm and open space, livability, architectural treatment, etc.
[top]
1. DODP
The uses and height conform to the zoning. The proposed tower height accommodates the Heather Bay to The Lions view corridor affecting this site. In terms of density, Staff support the proposed ten percent heritage transfer to the site. (The applicant has secured purchase of the requested heritage density and the Density Bank will be debited accordingly once all conditions of the sale have been met.) The ground floor retail area must be reduced to not exceed 2,500 sq.ft. (Standard Condition A.1.1).
2. Downtown South Design Guidelines
Built Form and Massing: The overall built form of this project has been shaped by the view corridor that passes over the majority of the site. The height of the tower is restricted to 18 floors to respect the view corridor, with a partial 19th floor (upper penthouse level) positioned outside the view corridor at the Helmcken/Seymour Streets corner. A strong five-storey podium, incorporating two-storey street-oriented townhouses extends beyond the tower along Seymour Street. Two, two-storey townhouses extending beyond the tower along Helmcken Street complete the parti. This overall massing, including a relatively minor increase in the guideline floor plate, is supported by Staff, noting that the development sites immediately north along Seymour Street and across the lane are also subject to the same view corridor and are likely to be developed with a similar compatible massing.
Public Realm/Open Space: The proposal, given its relatively small site size, does not provide public open space but contributes to the public realm on its two fronting streets through the prescribed Downtown South streetscape treatment of setbacks, double rows of trees and landscape. The combination of townhouse front doors along both streets and small corner retail component will contribute to both street animation and surveillance which is particularly needed at this specific location.
A number of items regarding the detailed treatment of the public realm interface need to be enhanced to ensure its success, including refinements to the townhouse setback and entry areas, and provision of adequate soil depth for healthy growth of the second row of trees (Condition 1.3). In addition, the landscape treatment along the lane needs further “greening” to enhance its relationship to future adjacent developments and to provide additional on-site semi-private open space for residents (Conditions 1.1 and 1.2).
Livability: Overall, the livability of units is acceptable in the context of the more affordable market units sought by the developer at this location. Opportunities for on-site common open space are proposed at the second level as well as the sixth level (roof of five-storey podium), where garden plots for residents interested in urban farming are proposed. Staff support these proposed open spaces and recommend their design be enhanced (Condition 1.4). In addition, Staff recommend that another common open space be provided off the ground level amenity lounge area, by undergrounding the emergency generator room proposed at the lane and relocating a small bicycle storage room. This would also provide an opportunity for further landscaping at the lane edge (Condition 1.1).
To improve the usability of private open space in the relatively small units proposed, Staff recommend increasing the depth of a number of narrow open balconies in the tower to a minimum of 5 ft. (Condition 1.5). Units 210, 315, 415 and 513 contain bedrooms without direct access to natural light. Compliance with Section 4.4 of the Downtown South Guidelines is sought. (Standard Condition A.1.7)
Architectural Treatment: While the overall architectural character of the proposal is supported a number of improvements are recommended, including several suggested by the Urban Design Panel, as follows:
• creating a more dynamic overall roof expression including added
height to the upper penthouse level that is outside the view corridor
(Condition 1.6);
•
enhancing the expression of the north façade of the tower (Condition
1.7);
•
architecturally treating the podium’s blank north party wall (Condition
1.8);
•
improving the expression of the Helmcken Street podium (Condition 1.9);
•
providing a more residential character to the two townhouses facing Helmcken
Street (Condition 1.10).
[top]
Staff recommend approval, subject to the conditions presented in this report.
The Urban Design Panel reviewed this application on March 17, 2004, and provided the following comments:
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented this complete application which seeks a 10 percent heritage density transfer.
The application generally meets or comes very close to the parameters of the zoning regulations and guidelines. Staff consider the overall form has been worked out quite acceptably.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
- whether the additional ten percent heritage density can be accommodated
on the site;
- the overall massing resolution of 2-storey townhouses within a 5-storey
podium element along Seymour Street, a tower at the corner and a commercial
base on Seymour;
- open space and public realm interface, both the Seymour and Helmcken
streetscape;
- lane treatment;
- tower expression and its response to the view corridor restriction.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Richard Henry, Architect, briefly described the design rationale and how they dealt with the partial height restriction of 165 ft. to respect the view corridor dissecting the site. He noted the building is designed around a fairly blocky, robust floorplate due to the imposition of the view corridor restriction but to attempt to break up the massing it has been broken down into four quadrants, linked with recesses. The intent is for this to be a background building in its context. The proposal takes advantage of the large roof areas with the incorporation of garden plots for the use of the residents. While they do not intend to seek LEED certification, the proposal aims for environmental sensitivity in terms of energy consumption. Materials include cast-in-place concrete and brick. Chris Sterry briefly described the open space plan, and the applicant team and staff responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Summary of Panel’s Key Issues:
- Design Development of the Base/Tower relationship;
- Exploration of a higher feature element on the rooftop;
- Consider entry onto Helmcken.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application and highlighted design development issues only.
The Panel was unanimous in its opinion that this project can satisfactorily accommodate the ten percent heritage density transfer. The Panel liked the strong, 5-storey podium base in which this extra density is being absorbed, and thought the podium integrated well with the two-storey townhouses. There was a suggestion that the open balconies on the 5-storey podium may not be well used in this location, with a recommendation to consider some other expression or possibly a French balcony as an alternative to the more typical residential balcony.
The Panel supported the approach that this is a background building. While it was noted the view corridor restriction is resulting in a somewhat bulky tower form, the Panel generally thought the restriction was being handled quite competently. Some Panel members commented that it is a refreshing change from the more typical Downtown South scheme which has a slender tower with a two or three-storey podium.
While the Panel strongly supported the overall approach being taken it was thought that further design development was needed, particularly to the Helmcken Street elevation. There were a number of comments about the curved façade on Helmcken Street and its relationship to the podium. Several Panel members recommended bringing the tower expression to the ground without interception by the straight wall of the podium. Some Panel members commented that they found the concept of breaking the building down into quadrants to reduce its apparent scale quite interesting; however, they were not convinced it was entirely successful, suggesting that further consideration be given to materials and colours to strengthen this idea.
The Panel expressed some disappointment with the treatment of the top of the building and strongly recommended exploring a more dynamic roof expression to counter the general bulkiness of the building. Extra height to the roof element was strongly recommended, and a crisper response to the view corridor. There was also a strong recommendation to consider relocating the building entry to Helmcken Street, directly beneath the roof form.
The Panel strongly supported the inclusion of the garden plots which it thought would be an excellent amenity for the residents and a good selling feature for the development. However, one Panel member questioned the practicality of gardening beds in full shade and recommended further consideration be given to ensuring year-round interest. As well, there was a concern about measures residents might take to discourage birds (netting, etc.) which could have very untidy results. There was also a concern about shadowing on the second floor outdoor amenity space, with a recommendation to bring the seating out to the north edge as far as possible and provide areas for people to congregate.
The Panel strongly supported the greening of the lane. However, there were comments that the edge treatment seems somewhat weak, including the canopy over the vehicular drop-off where the columns look a bit spindly. Increased landscaping on the lane side at the podium level was recommended to help contain that space and provide some screening across the lane.
Other comments and suggestions included:
- increased glazing to the living rooms on the north façade, to
take better advantage of the views;
- the Seymour Street elevation could be stronger if the two tower bays
were paired, similar to the Helmcken Street expression;
- consider wrapping the podium brick around to the back, and consider
brick cladding for the small stair shaft on the podium level vegetable
garden;
- the units where the tower meets the podium (units 210, 315, 415 and
513) could be difficult and need further resolution;
- question whether the size of the suite entries meet accessibility guidelines;
- the townhouse balconies are quite tight – consider adding small
gates for improved security;
- consider surface texturing on the party wall;
- the townhouse units on the lane seem to be the “poor country
cousins” of the development and look a bit like left-over space.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Doyle noted that relocating the entry to Helmcken Street is problematic because it would affect the connection between the vehicular drop-off area and the main lobby. With respect to increasing the height of the roof element he noted the view corridor restriction prevents having a full stair at that point. However, he agreed that can look at making that element more of a feature although noted they had deliberately tried not to acknowledge the view corridor in the belief that it has little meaning for most people. Mr. Henry thanked the Panel for the comments and said they will work with Planning to explore as many of the suggestions as possible.
[top]
The recommendations of Engineering Services are contained in the prior-to conditions noted in Appendix “A” attached to this report.
Recommendations related to CPTED issues are contained in the prior-to conditions noted in Appendix “A” attached to this report.
Recommendations related to landscape issues are contained in the prior-to conditions noted in Appendix “A” attached to this report.
This proposed development has 30 units which are suitable for families pursuant to the “High-Density Housing for Families with Children” Guidelines (two or more bedrooms, at the 8th floor or lower), but does not incorporate a children's play area. Staff recommend that a play area be located on the 6th floor roof terrace to maximize sunlight and visual surveillance from the amenity room and that it be fenced for security. (Standard Condition A.1.23)
A Site Profile and Phase 1 Environmental Assessment Report were forwarded to the Ministry of Land, Water and Air Protection during this review process. There are no requirements related to soil contamination issues for this development permit application. The applicant is advised that an erosion and sediment control plan is required for review and approval by the Environmental Protection Branch during the Building Permit process.
[top]
This Development Application submission has not been fully reviewed for compliance with the Building By-law. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that the design of the building meets the Building By-law requirements. The options available to assure Building By-law compliance at an early stage of development should be considered by the applicant in consultation with Processing Centre-Building staff.
To ensure that the project does not conflict in any substantial manner with the Building By-law, the designer should know and take into account, at the Development Application stage, the Building By-law 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.
Further comments regarding Building By-law requirements are contained in Appendix C attached to this report.
[top]
The Environmental Health Division advises the applicant to take note of the following:
a) Detailed drawings of food / retail spaces to be submitted for review by the Environmental Health Division for compliance with Health By-law #6580 and the Food Premises Regulation prior to construction.
b) Garbage storage area to be designed to minimize nuisances.
c) Underground parking to be adequately ventilated to prevent to build-up of noxious gases.
d) Detailed drawings of amenity spaces to be submitted for review by the Environmental Health Division for compliance with Health By-law #6580 and the Food Premises Regulation prior to construction.
Additional recommendations from the VCHA are contained in Standard Conditions
A.3.1 through A.3.3.
[top]
The comments of Fire and Rescue Services are contained in Appendix “C” attached to this report.
One sign was erected on the site on February 23, 2004. On March 3, 2004, 1743 letters were sent to neighbouring property owners advising them of the application. On April 8, 2004 an e-mail was received from a staff member at the Gathering Place, which is a drop-in/community centre on Seymour Street across from the subject site. The respondent indicated he was writing with the intent of minimizing any future potential issues with new neighbours in the community:
“As you know our community centre service a fairly needy population
and we often have issues raised by some neighbours about people sleeping
outside the building etc. The Parking Corporation of Vancouver also has
issues with people sleeping in the parking lot below the building. We
are here and there are no plans for us to be moving anywhere in the future.
This a City owned building and we are a City facility.
The current proposal of the Seymour site has 4 townhouses facing us and
the businesses facing on to Helmcken St. In the recently approved Downtown
Traffic Plan, Helmcken St., is designated to be developed into a greenway.
Given both of these facts wouldn't it be better for the businesses to
be on Seymour and the townhouses on Helmcken St.”
STAFF RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION
The respondent raises a legitimate concern. The broader policy intent calls for a more active “eyes on the street” approach which can be provided by residents in the Seymour Street townhouses. As noted above, the combination of townhouses along both streets and a small corner retail component will provide both street animation and surveillance which is particularly needed at this specific location. Designing the townhouses to enhance the interface with the public realm along both Seymour and Helmcken Streets will also enhance their security. In addition, recommended design development to the townhouse front entries and reconsideration of the front patios (condition 1.3) will improve security of the townhouses.
[top]
The Committee concurred with the recommendations presented by staff.
With respect to the project’s relationship to the lane, the Committee
felt that, with rearrangement of rear yard components as recommended,
an improved landscape and loading layout could be achieved.
[top]
The following is a list of conditions that must also be met prior to issuance of the Development Permit.
A.1 Standard Conditions
A.1.1 compliance with Section 3 – Density, of the Downtown (DD) District Schedule of the Official Development Plan By-law;
Note to Applicant: The proposed commercial floor area exceeds the maximum permitted commercial floor area of 2,500 sq. ft. The proposed overall and enclosed balcony floor area exceed the maximum permitted 8 percent of the provided residential floor area. The enclosed balconies must not be more than 50 percent of the overall excluded balcony floor area. The following items have not been included in the overall floor area calculation; however, clarification is required to verify these areas are excludable from the calculation:
[a] Class A Bicycle rooms must be clearly noted to be located at or
below base surface in order for the area to be excluded;
[b] Ensuite bulk storage room floor area has a maximum exclusion of 40 sq.
ft. per suite. If the actual area is less than the maximum permitted, only
the actual square footage is excluded. If the storage room exceeds the maximum
40 sq. ft., the total area will be included in the floor area calculation;
and
[c] Areas, such as vestibules, corridors, storage rooms, etc., that are used
for commercial use must be included in the commercial floor area calculations.
Areas that are shared by both commercial and residential occupants should be
pro-rated.
A.1.2 submission of complete and fully-dimensioned floor plans;
Note to Applicant: Dimensions and elevations on site plan must be written in larger fonts in order for it to be legible. Provide dimensions for all yard setbacks and all semi-private open space. All bulk storage, enclosed balconies, balconies, etc. must be clearly dimensioned. Provide detailed dimensioned Unit Plans and amenity rooms. Proposed loading space must be properly dimensioned on plans.
A.1.3 clarification of the proposed commercial use;
A.1.4 indication on plans, of any proposed amenity space, including details regarding type, finishing, equipment and / or furnishing;
Note to Applicant: Submit a letter of undertaking, signed by the owner(s), regarding the security, furnishing and availability for use of the amenity areas.
A.1.5 Provision of details of balcony enclosures;
Note to Applicant: To qualify for an exclusion from floor space calculations (FSR), an enclosed balcony must be distinct space separated from the remainder of the dwelling unit by walls, glass, and glazed doors [hinged or sliding], have an impervious floor surface (tile or stone), a flush door threshold [for disabled access], large, openable windows for ventilation, and distinct exterior architectural expression. In addition, each dwelling unit should have not 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.1.6 submission of a letter from a Building Envelope Professional, signed, sealed and signed, recommending the proposed wall types, as indicated on the Building Envelope trace overlay;
A.1.7 compliance with Section 4.4 - Horizontal Angle of Daylight of the (DD) Downtown South (excluding Granville Street) Guidelines of the Land Use and Development Policies and Guidelines.
Note to Applicant: Provide at least one (1) window on an exterior wall of all habitable rooms in the building. Bedrooms of Units 210, 315, 415 and 513 do not comply.
A.1.8 provision of a minimum of two (2) parking spaces designated for commercial use, in accordance with the Parking By-law, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services;
A.1.9 provision of a minimum of one (1) Class A loading space and one (1) Class B loading space in accordance with the Parking By-law, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services;
A.1.10 provision of a minimum of one (1) Class A Bicycle space for commercial use in accordance with the Parking By-law, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services;
Note to Applicant: The one (1) Class A Bicycle spaces used for commercial use must be clearly indicated on plans.
A.1.11 notation of plans stating that: “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.1.12 notation of plans stating that: “The design of 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.1.13 written confirmation is to be submitted that the notification sign on the site has been removed;
Standard Landscape Conditions
A.1.14 design development to change the inner row of trees in front of the Seymour Street town house entrances to match the outer row of trees as per Downtown South Public Realm Treatment;
A.1.15 design development to improve public amenity along Seymour Street by providing benches or other acceptable street furniture;
A.1.16 provision of a notation on the Landscape Plan of top and bottom of wall elevations for all planters on the roof decks in order to ensure adequate planting depths for trees and shrubs;
A.1.17 provision of a notation “Final species, quantity and spacing to the approval of City Engineer and Park Board” on the Landscape Plan regarding new street trees adjacent to the development site;
Note to Applicant: Contact Eileen Curran (604-871-6131) of Engineering Streets Division regarding street tree spacing and quantity. Contact Bill Stephen (604-257-8587) of Park Board (604-257-8587) regarding tree species.
A.1.18 provision of an irrigation system shall be specified in all common areas, including the roof terraces;
Note to Applicant: Hose bibs should be provided in private areas such as the private patios and the 6th floor gardening plots. Notations to this affect should be added to the Landscape Drawing. The irrigation system design and installation shall be in accordance with the Irrigation Industry Association of B.C. Standards and Guidelines.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
A.1.19 provision of direct internal access to all townhouses;
A.1.20 clarification of the stair shown on main floor lobby adjacent to exit stair core;
A.1.21 design development to reduce opportunities for theft in the underground;
Note to Applicant: The visitor parking, double gate arrangement is considered to be very positive. Provision of an additional door in the central exit on P-1 level to the P-2 level will further reduce theft.
A.1.22 provision of an interim graffiti strategy for the exposed wall on the north property line; and
Social Planning/Housing Centre
A.1.23 provision of a secure and equipped outdoor play area suitable for children to the satisfaction of the Director of Social Planning;
Note to Applicant: The play area should be located onto the 6th floor roof terrace in order to maximize sunlight and visual surveillance from the amenity room and to be fenced for security. Refer to City of Vancouver’s Land Use and Development Policy and Guidelines and Section 3.3 of the City’s High Density Housing for Families with Children Guidelines. Particular care should be given to locate the play area in close visual proximity to the building's amenity room, in sunlight, with a resilient play surface, securely fenced, and to avoid toxic plants and landscaping materials in and around the play area. A list of toxic plants is available as an appendix to the City's Childcare Design Guidelines and is available on line or by calling the City's Childhood Development Co-coordinator at 604-871-6042.
A.2 Standard Engineering Conditions
A.2.1 correction of the design grades on Ground Floor Plan;
Note to Applicant: Correct the one design grade along Seymour Street, on page A.3.4 from 164.92 ft. to 163.94 ft. and provide two additional design grades opposite the two entries on Helmcken Street.
A.2.2 provision of on-site access from loading spaces to commercial units;
A.2.3 deletion of reference to loading lay-by adjacent lane;
Note to Applicant: See also Condition 1.2
A.2.4 provision of correct ramp grade notations for internal ramps;
A.2.5 provision of improved manoeuvring and circulation around elevator core on all parking levels;
Note to Applicant: This will require designating the two standard parking stalls in the southwest corner as small car stalls, the relocation of columns out of the manoeuvring/circulation aisle south of the elevator core and addition of convex mirrors for the southwest corners.
A.2.6 provision of Downtown South sidewalk treatments adjacent the site, including reconstruction of the curbs adjacent the site;
Note to Applicant: The building grade plan provided contemplates corrected curb elevations. Please submit a copy of the landscape plan directly to Engineering for review. The plan should include all details of Downtown South sidewalk treatments.
The Downtown Transportation Plan proposes corner bulges at many locations within the downtown core with a possibility of a bulge at this location. Engineering will provide confirmation of the bulge requirement which should then be incorporated into the plans.
A.2.7 clarification of garbage pick-up operations; and
A.2.8 provision of a 5 ft. x 8 ft. x 8 in. (1.5 m x 2.4 m x 0.2 m) concrete slab for recycling for residential development with more than eight dwelling units, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services.
A.3 Standard Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Conditions
A.3.1 confirmation must be supplied by the applicant that the acoustical measures as set out in the accepted Acoustical Report will be incorporated into the final design, based on the consultant's recommendations as concurred with or amended by the Medical Health Officer (Senior Environmental Health Officer);
A.3.2 confirmation must be supplied by the applicant that adequate and effective acoustic separation will be provided between the commercial and residential portions of the building; and
A.3.3 confirmation must be supplied by the applicant that mechanical
(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 #6555.
[top]
B.1 Standard Notes to Applicant
B.1.1 The applicant is advised to note the comments of the Processing Centre-Building, Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and Fire and Rescue Services Departments contained in the Staff Committee Report dated March 31, 2004. Further, confirmation that these comments have been acknowledged and understood, is required to be submitted in writing as part of the “prior-to” response.
B.1.2 It should be noted that if conditions 1.0 and 2.0 have not been complied with on or before October 26, 2004, this Development Application shall be deemed to be refused, unless the date for compliance is first extended by the Director of Planning.
B.1.3 This approval is subject to any change in the Official Development Plan and the Zoning and Development Bylaw or other regulations affecting the development that occurs before the permit is issuable. No permit that contravenes the bylaw or regulations can be issued.
B.1.4 Revised drawings will not be accepted unless they fulfill all conditions noted above. Further, written explanation describing point-by-point how conditions have been met, must accompany revised drawings. An appointment should be made with the Project Facilitator when the revised drawings are ready for submission.
B.1.5 A new development application will be required for any significant changes other than those required by the above-noted conditions.
B.2 Conditions of Development Permit:
B.2.1 All approved off-street vehicle parking, loading and unloading spaces, and bicycle parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Parking By-law within 60 days of the date of issuance of any required occupancy permit or any use or occupancy of the proposed development not requiring an occupancy permit and thereafter permanently maintained in good condition.
B.2.2 All landscaping and treatment of the open portions of the site shall be completed in accordance with the approved drawings within six (6) months of the date of issuance of any required occupancy permit or any use or occupancy of the proposed development not requiring an occupancy permit and thereafter permanently maintained in good condition.
B.2.3 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.
B.2.4 The site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy condition.
B.2.5 Amenity areas / common residential storage spaces, excluded from the computation of floor space ratio, shall not be put to any other use, except as described in the approved application for the exclusion. Access and availability of the use of all amenity facilities located in this project shall be made to all residents, occupants and / or commercial tenants of the building;
AND
Further, the amenity spaces and facilities approved as part of this Development Permit shall be provided and thereafter be permanently maintained for use by residents/users/tenants of the building complex.
B.2.6 The enclosed balconies are to be maintained at all times in accordance with the balcony enclosure details on the approved plans and are not to be used as an integral part of the interior space of the building.
B.2.7 In accordance with Private Property Tree By-law No. 7347, all trees are to be planted prior to issuance of any required occupancy permit, or use or occupancy of the proposed development not requiring an occupancy permit, and thereafter permanently maintained in good condition.
B.2.8 In accordance with the Private Property Tree By-law No. 7347 the removal and replacement of trees is permitted only as indicated on the approved Development Permit drawings.
B.2.9 This site is affected by the Development Cost Levy By-law No. 6924. Levies will be required to be paid prior to issuance of Building Permits.
[top]
The following comments have been provided by Processing Centre - Building and are based on the architectural drawings received on February 2, 2004 for this Development application. This is a preliminary review intended to identify areas in which the proposal may conflict with requirements of the Vancouver Building By-law #8057
1. This is a high-rise building, as a result Subsection 3.2.6 is applicable to this project.
2. Vestibules may be required at levels P-2 and P-3 for the exit stair near the vehicle ramp, since access appears to be provided from the adjacent storage rooms to this stair. Please review Sentence 3.3.5.4.(1) and provide vestibules as necessary.
3. Exit stair shafts serving below grade levels are required to be separate from the above grade levels, both for the high-rise measures and for the assault security measures. The exit stair adjacent to the bicycle storage rooms does not appear to meet these requirements as it connects to the stair serving the residential levels above.
4. A stair is indicated adjacent to the ground floor amenity room. This stair appears to go up but does not connect with anything on the 2nd floor.
5. The second exit stair serving the tower levels does not appear to discharge properly to the exterior. Is it meant to connect with the stair noted in Comment #3?
6. If the ground floor lobby is intended to be an exit lobby, confirm that it complies with Sentence 3.4.4.2.(2).
7. The exit corridor at the ground floor level that serves the core exit stair has a service room and a storage room opening directly into it. This condition is not permitted per Sentences 3.4.4.4.(7) and (8).
8. The above grade exit stairs serving the tower are required to be vented per Sentence 3.2.6.2.(3). Clarify how this is to be accomplished, given the positioning of the core and the large lobby and exit corridor between the stairs and the exterior.
9. The ground floor amenity rooms require access to 2 separate exits, per Sentence 3.4.2.1.(1). Further, the exits are required to be separate from one another, per Sentence 3.4.1.2.(1). The amenity rooms are not served by 2 separate exits because occupants have to travel through the lobby exit to reach an alternate exit. Please review and clarify.
*10. The residential units do not appear to comply with the enhanced accessibility requirements of Sentence 3.8.2.27.(4). Note that the townhouse units are exempt from these requirements.
11. The terrace at Level 6 is required to be a fire separation with a 2h fire resistance rating, per Article 3.2.2.13.
12. Review carefully the requirements in Subsection 3.3.4.4 regarding Egress from Dwelling Units. The two level penthouse units to not appear to comply with any of the options in this Article.
*Items marked with an asterisk have been identified as serious non-conforming
Building By-Law issues.
The Applicant is to note Vancouver Building By-law requirements that
are applicable for building applications received on or after August
15, 2003, regarding the provision of accessible access to all storeys.
For further information, see Bulletins 2002-06-BU (July 22, 2002), and
2002-08-BU (August 28, 2002). The Applicant is to note that Vancouver
Building By-law requirements that are applicable to building applications
received on or after June 1, 2003, regarding new elevator devices and
alterations to existing ones, which will need to conform to the new elevator
code. For further information, see
www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/commsvcs/CBOFFICIAL/pdf/BCI2003-003.PDF.
Fire and Rescue Services Comments
The following comments have been provided by Fire and Rescue Services and are based on the architectural drawings received on February 2, 2004 for this Development application. This is a preliminary review intended to identify areas in which the proposal may conflict with fire provisions of the Vancouver Building By-law.
1) Access to above & below grade stairs must be more direct. Distance to access door for below grade levels is approximately 75' from entrance doors through two sets of doors and down 4'-6" wide stairs (six risers). Distance to the access door for above grade levels is approximately 85' from entrance doors through the same two sets of doors and stairs. The distances proposed and through two sets of doors and around corners (to scissor stairs) will lead to confusion for fire fighters and is not acceptable. Note: The access stairs in centre core are scissor stairs. There is another stair from el 164.0 which does not appear on 2nd floor. Clarification required.
2) Access (internal) is required from fire department response point to the Bike Room area.
3) There is no internal access on the Ground Floor for Town Houses #1-6. Note: Town Houses #3-6 have access from 2nd floor. No internal access creates problems for standpipe coverage.
4) Access (internal) is required from the fire department response point to the Bike Room area.
5) There is no internal access on Ground Floor for Town Houses #1-6. Note: Town Houses #3-6 have access from 2nd floor. No internal access creates problems for standpipe coverage.
The above-noted Items have been identified as serious fire department concerns. Written confirmation that the applicant has read and has understood the implications of the above noted comments is required and shall be submitted as part of the 'Prior To' response. Failure to address these issues may jeopardize the ability to obtain Fire Department clearance or delay the issuance of a Building Permit for the proposal.
[top]
|
|
|
Questions or Comments? E-mail: carol_hubbard@city.vancouver.bc.ca
|
