|
Community Services | |||
| Development Permit Board |
| CITY OFVANCOUVER | |||
|
|
Development Permit Staff Committee Report
|
| Present: | Also Present: |
| B. Boons, (Chair), Development Services M. Thomson, Engineering Services L. Gayman, Real Estate Services T. Driessen, Vancouver Park Board |
A. Molaro, Urban Design & Development Planning S. Barker, Development Services A. Higginson, Development Services K. Magnusson, Engineering Services P. Pinsker, Engineering Services C. Warren, Development Services B. Crowe, Engineering Services |
Applicant |
Owner of Development |
| Cochrane Engineering Ltd. 200 – 1770 West 7th Avenue Vancouver, BC V6J 4Y6 |
Greater Vancouver Transportation
Authority 1700 – 4720 Kingsway Burnaby, BC V5H 4N2 |
[top]
Proposal: To construct a new “Vancouver Transit Centre” facility for the operation, maintenance and storage of diesel and electric trolley buses, along with ancillary office, training and staff facilities.
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
Appendix F Applicant’s Supplementary Information Package
Appendix G Conclusions of Meeting held April 17, 2004
Appendix H Proposed Walkway and Revised Parking Layout
Appendix I Sketch Plan of Proposed Road Widening
(Apendices D - I are not included - copies of the full report may be obtained from the Planning Department)
Issues:
1. Landscape Treatment of Waterfront Edge
2. Public Access to Waterfront
3. Site Planning and Urban Design
Urban Design Panel: Non Support
THAT the Board APPROVE Development Application No. DE407997 as submitted, the plans and information forming a part thereof, thereby permitting construction of a new Vancouver Transit Centre facility for the operation, maintenance and storage of diesel and electric trolley buses, along with ancillary office, training and staff facilities, 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 maximize the width of the landscaped waterfront edge, located along the paved bus area edge, with enhanced shoreline landscape treatment;
Note to applicant: Increasing the width of the waterfront landscaped edge of the site can be achieved with a more effective employee/public parking layout, that would allow the building and bus parking area to shift northward and to relocate the maintenance employee parking to the north portion of the site. Landscaping treatments should incorporate native planting including trees.
1.2 provision of a registered statutory right-of-way for public access along the full extent of the waterfront edge of the site, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services;
Note to Applicant: This condition reflects the agreements reached at the workshop of April 17, including TransLink’s voluntary commitment to provide a statutory right-of-way. (See Public Involvement – page 8)
1.3 design development to provide a pedestrian and bicycle path, within the statutory right-of-way, along the full extent of the waterfront edge of this site to be accessed from Hudson Street, with particular consideration given to public safety and CPTED principles; and
Note to Applicant: This condition reflects the agreements reached at the workshop of April 17, including TransLink’s voluntary commitment to provide a pedestrian and bicycle path along the waterfront edge of the site, as generally illustrated in Appendix H. Enhanced shoreline landscape treatment combined with a pedestrian walkway and bike path should be reflective of similar riverfront trails. (See Public Involvement – pages 8)
1.4 design development to the enhance the roof expression with particular consideration given to its visual quality as seen from above.
Note to Applicant: Design development could include an enhanced architectural roof form, a more evident sustainable expression, roof color variation, screening and organization of the roof top mechanical units.
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 |
| Parcel A (Statutory Right of Way Plan BCP9773) District Lots 318, 3869 and 3871, Plan 19037. |
03 10 20 Complete
DE submitted 04 03 17 Urban Design Panel 04 05 12 Development Permit Staff Committee |
Site: The site is located along the Fraser River waterfront and immediately west of the Arthur Laing Bridge. To the west of the site is a vacant parcel owned by North Fraser Terminals (NFT), a subsidiary or the North Fraser Port Authority. The north edge of the site is adjacent to 75th Avenue, which is currently undeveloped. There are a variety of zoning and uses within the nearby context that include residential, commercial, industrial and manufacturing.
Significant adjacent development includes:
(a) Basalite Concrete (g) 5-storey multiple dwelling
(b) Wild Coyote Bar & Grill (h) Airport Square, 14-storey office tower
(c) Budget Car Sales (i) Coast Hotel, 4 storeys
(d) Fraser Arms Hotel (j) Scottish Cultural Centre
(e) St. Anthony’s School (k) 4-storey multiple dwelling – under construction
(f) 4-storey multiple dwelling (l) Borden Chemical
[top]
Site Selection: The proposed Vancouver Transit Facility is intended to replace the existing Oakridge Transit Centre (OTC) located at 949 West 41st Avenue between Oak and Willow Streets. In July, 2003 the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (GVTA), also known as TransLink, selected the “Eburne Lands” site (formerly occupied by Canfor Corporation) after an evaluation process that compared the feasibility of rebuilding a Transit Centre at the Oakridge location or relocating elsewhere in the city. As a condition of entering in to a contract for purchase and sale of the east 17 acres of the approximately 35 acre site, TransLink required that the owner (NFT) submit a subdivision application to the City of Vancouver to create the site.
Creation of the development site: City staff met with a project team representing NFT and TransLink, in early May 2003 to discuss a subdivision concept for the Eburne site to accommodate the TransLink proposal and other industrial uses to be carried out by the Port on the western portion of the site. A subdivision application was submitted in late May 2003, by Brook Development Ltd., on behalf of NFT.
In accordance with Section 12 of the City’s Subdivision By-law, dealing with subdivision of a parcel greater than 20 acres, the Approving Officer reported to Council (November, 2003) recommending that Council accept a payment-in-lieu of a park land conveyance as a condition of approval of the subdivision application. After considering the report and hearing from the public and the proponents, Council did not vote on the Approving Officer’s request, but resolved as follows:
“THAT TransLink and the North Fraser Port Authority work with City staff and the community to develop a pathway and park public amenity along the waterfront on the Eburne Land site.”
In January 2004, NFT submitted a sketch plan indicating a parkland dedication in conjunction with a payment in-lieu proposal. Before it was submitted to Council for their consideration, however, NFT withdrew the subdivision application.
In order to create the development site as planned, TransLink acted under their statutory authority, pursuant to the Land Title Act, to register a right-of-way plan to create the subject site without requiring the City’s approval.
In lieu of completing the subdivision through the City’s process, TransLink has offered a voluntary payment to the City of $1 million that TransLink has indicated that they consider to be equivalent to the portion of the payment-in-lieu that would have been attributable to them if the subdivision had been completed.
Application Process: The development permit application was received on October 20, 2003. Following a TransLink-hosted public meeting, the City’s neighbourhood notification and an Urban Design Panel review, staff from the City, TransLink, and the Park Board, along with members of representative community groups, met to carry out an “interest-based problem solving exercise” through a facilitated workshop held on April 17, 2004. (See Public Involvement.)
1) Area Specific Policies
a) Zoning and Development By-law: M-2
In summary, the intent of the By-law is to permit industrial and other uses that are generally incompatible when situated in or near residential districts but that are beneficial in that they provide industrial employment opportunities or serve a useful or necessary function in the city.
b) Fraser River and Burrard Inlet Waterfront Policies and Guidelines, adopted 1973, reaffirmed 1983.
The objective of these policies and guidelines is to obtain public access to the North Fraser waterfront for a variety of recreational purposes and that public access and recreation can co-exist with industry. The policies state that within the area east of Angus Drive to Boundary Road, that a continuous waterfront walkway may not always be practical but should be developed where feasible where industry and land ownership make possible. These policies envisioned that a 25 ft.-wide public access walkway would be provided and secured through a condition of subdivision or rezoning.
For all conditional use development applications, the policy requires landscaping treatment along the Fraser River waterfront.
c) Marpole Policies and Guidelines, adopted 1979.
The policies seek to retain the integrity of the existing industrial area south of Marine Drive and to discourage the rezoning of industrial properties for commercial or residential uses.
2) City-Wide Policies
a) Industrial land Policies, adopted March 1995.
The objective of the Industrial Land Policies is to retain and stabilize the land base zoned for industrial and service business to meet the needs of port/river related industry, and city serving and city-oriented industries.
b) City Transportation Plan, adopted 1997
The Transportation Plan places support for transit among higher priority modes, and sets mode split targets for 2021, which can only be attained with a greater reliance on transit.
3) Regional Policies
a) Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP)
A key component of the FREMP partnership’s efforts to coordinate the environmental management of the Fraser River estuary is the review of proposals for shoreline development and other activities in these marine ecosystems.
[top]
1) Area Specific Policies
a) Zoning and Development By-law: M-2
Use: This proposed facility is considered a “Public Authority” use, which is a conditional approval use in the M-2 District. (The Oakridge Transit Centre is approved as a Public Authority Use.) The proposed Vancouver Transit Centre is principally a service and maintenance facility for diesel and trolley buses supported by an administration, training and staff support component. Public and employee parking and access to the main administrative building are from the parking lot through an entry stair and elevator tower through an overhead pedestrian link above the bus circulation area. The balance of the site is proposed for bus parking. The Transit Facility will be owned by TransLink and operated by Coast Mountain Bus Company.
b) Fraser River and Burrard Inlet Waterfront Policies and Guidelines, adopted 1973, reaffirmed 1983.
Landscaped Waterfront Edge: This policy seeks a landscape treatment along the Fraser River waterfront as a condition of approval of any conditional use development applications. A minimal landscaped border has been provided between the bus and employee paved parking area and the water edge of the site. Staff are recommending further design development to this landscaped border to increase its overall width and to further enhance its landscape treatment. Staff believe that this can be achieved with a more effective parking layout of the employee and public parking lot, generating a dimensional reduction (north/south) of paved surface area, that would allow the building and bus parking area to shift northward. In addition, the 51 employee parking stalls located adjacent to the landscaped border could be relocated to the northerly parking area. This increase in width of the landscaped border along the waterfront edge, increasing the site’s permeability, would not compromise the functional attributes of the bus parking and circulation. (Condition 1.1)
Access to Waterfront: This policy envisioned that public access would be provided and secured through a condition of subdivision or rezoning. As previously noted, TransLink recently created the site without involving the City. As a result, public access and a waterfront walkway were not achieved through the subdivision process.
This policy further acknowledges that the interface of public waterfront access with industry may not always be feasible and that a continuous waterfront walkway may not always be practical. The basis of this is to ensure that any proposed use would be evaluated on its compatibility, including safety and environmental impacts, with a public interface along a site’s waterfront edge. As the Vancouver Transit Centre is not a water-dependent industry, staff believe that the operation of the facility and public access to the waterfront can be compatible.
Through the facilitated workshop with the stakeholders held on April 17, 2004, as discussed on page 8 under Public Involvement, TransLink has offered to design and develop a waterfront walkway, secured with a statutory right-of-way, with pedestrian and bicycle access from the southeast portion of the TransLink site at Hudson Street. The applicant subsequently submitted preliminary concept designs for both a walkway along the river and a redesigned parking area on the north portion of the site as illustrated in Appendix H. With regard to the proposed walkway design, staff are pleased with the design direction of the landscaped waterfront edge and the width of the walkway that can be accommodated. Although further design development and plant selection is required in order to ensure that the waterfront be enhanced with appropriate landscape, which will involve Park Board, TransLink and community representatives working together, staff are generally supportive of the concept. Staff are therefore proposing acceptance of the statutory right-of-way and the pedestrian and bike path along the waterfront edge of the site. (Conditions 1.2 and 1.3)
2) City-Wide Policies
a) Industrial Land Policies, adopted March 1995.
These policies state that this portion of the Marine Drive/Fraser River lands should be retained for industrial use. The appropriateness of the M-2 zoning for the subject site was not specifically investigated during the Industrial Lands review, although from a city-wide perspective, locating this facility within easy access of several major arterial routes is consistent with the City’s objectives for service business serving the needs of the City.
b) City Transportation Plan, adopted 1997
This application supports transit by allowing updating of the aging service centre to a modern, efficient facility at a new location. Building at a new location allows activities to continue unfettered at the Oakridge Transit Centre while the new facility is built and outfitted. The new location should allow for improved transit network operations, with less dead-heading, since in the morning buses will start their runs northbound going into service and, at the end of the day, complete their runs southbound going out of service closer to the Transit Centre.
3) Regional Policies
a) Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP).
Any landscape/riparian treatments to the waterfront edge with the Fraser River would require the proposal to go through the FREMP Coordinated Project Review Process which could recommend mitigation measures. The applicant has not provided staff with any information on whether this process has been initiated or completed. Staff are requesting clarification of the application’s status in this process and a summary of any recommended mitigation measures, as they may impact on the ultimate design of the waterfront walkway and planting material. (Standard Condition A.1.5)
Site Planning and Urban Design: The site has been configured with the principle building being located between the employee/public parking (north side) and the bus parking area (south side), which extends to the waterfront. The Urban Design Panel (UDP) commended the applicant’s commitment for seeking LEEDTM certification for the development and generally supported the architecture of the building, but did not support the site organization. The Panel advised that, given the site’s high degree of visibility and the benefit of being a waterfront site, the building and employee/public parking area should be sited to the waterside of the site. This would allow for an enhanced interface between the employee and visitor parking area and the waterfront edge of the site. In addition, the facility would screen the bus parking area from the waterside of the site.
Subsequent to the Urban Design Panel’s commentary, the applicant provided staff with analyses of alternate site planning configurations and view analyses (Appendix F), including one with the building located on the waterfront side of the site (see page 17 of 17). Based on the applicant’s key criteria for efficient on-site bus circulation, on-site storage of in-coming buses and overall bus traffic flow in a preferred counter-clockwise direction; the applicant advised that the proposed site plan arrangement provides the most effective and efficient layout. Staff have assessed the supplementary information and concur with the applicant’s analyses that the proposed site plan is the preferable arrangement based on Engineering and Health criteria. (See Engineering Services commentary and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority commentary). With respect to the urban design implications of the proposed site configuration, staff believe that, on balance, when the engineering performance criteria, acoustical impacts, and an enhanced landscape treatment along the waterfront edge are taken into account, the proposed site planning configuration is acceptable.
Nevertheless, as the site is also visible as seen from the Arthur Laing Bridge, staff are recommending that additional measures be taken to improve the overview of the site, with particular regard to improving and enhancing the visual quality of the building roof. (Condition 1.4).
Staff commend the applicant’s commitment to developing a sustainable site and building. The applicant proposes achieving LEEDTM certification with the utilization of sun shading devices, low-e glazing, operable windows and light reflective roofing membrane. Staff are requesting further information on the details of these features and the LEEDTM check list. (Standard Condition A.1.4)
Public Involvement: From submission of the subdivision application through the development application process, there has been a significant level of interest and involvement in the project not only by local residents and property owners, but by city-wide groups. The most commonly heard concerns relate to the use of the site, the desire to secure public access to the Fraser River in this location, the impact of the anticipated bus and employee traffic in the neighbourhood, and the desire to secure a larger area of land from the Eburne site for park purposes to serve all of the Marpole neighbourhood.
Following a public meeting hosted by TransLink in March 2004, and a widespread notification carried out by the City, where these issues were consistently brought forward, the City, TransLink, the Park Board and members of representative community groups met to carry out an “interest-based problem solving exercise” around concerns identified by all parties, with a particular focus on public access to the riverfront. As a result of the highly productive workshop held on April 17, 2004, the following agreements were negotiated:
1) THAT, in time for the May 25th Development Permit Board meeting, the City and TransLink will determine the capacity for moving 51 parking stalls to the 75th Avenue right-of-way and/or the south end of Hudson Street and/or the north end of the TransLink site.
2) THAT, in the event that these spaces can be moved, TransLink will develop a riverfront walkway, within a statutory right-of-way, with pedestrian and bicycle access from the southeast portion of the TransLink site, such walkway to be no narrower than 15 ft. in any location and maximizing the width without negatively affecting bus parking.
3) THAT, agreement be reached regarding the construction of the walkway to include a combination of resident/TransLink involvement, Parks Board input and TransLink design, focusing on soft treatment and native planting, consistent with the landscaping of the riverfront walkway to the west (e.g. The Angus Corporate Centre).
4) THAT, TransLink, the City, Parks and the Community commit to further exploration of a visioning process for the Marpole/Vancouver Gateway.
5) THAT, the participants of the April 17th meeting agree that it would be desirable for the TransLink payment-in-lieu to be dedicated to parkland acquisition in Marpole.
6) THAT, TransLink meet on a regular basis through development, construction and operation of the facility, with a community committee and appropriate other stakeholders to discuss additional issues of concern.
With respect to the first three agreements, subsequent to the workshop, TransLink staff undertook to review their parking scheme with a view to relocating the maintenance employees’ parking area to the north portion of the site and extending onto the 75th Avenue right-of-way as necessary, in order to provide the desired walkway. City staff undertook to perform the required “due diligence” on the question of whether or not the City Engineer would be prepared to recommend that Council lease a portion of the 75th Avenue right-of-way to TransLink, in the event that the parking layout could be redesigned.
TransLink submitted a preliminary design for both a walkway along the River and a redesigned parking area on the north portion of the site. (Appendix H) The parking area extends only marginally onto 75th Avenue – to a far lesser degree than was originally imagined. As a result, staff believe that a lease arrangement need not be entered into, but that the extension onto the right-of-way can be dealt with as an “encroachment” instead. Although further design development is required to the proposed parking area, staff are in general agreement with the approach. (See Standard Condition A.2.6)
As previously noted, (Access to Waterfront), staff are pleased with the design direction as illustrated in Appendix H that will be further developed and secured through Conditions 1.2 and 1.3.
• Other public involvement: Refer also to the Notification section of this report.
[top]
Staff are recommending support for the proposed Vancouver Transit Centre, subject to the recommended conditions contained within this report, including the provision of an enhanced waterfront edge, statutory right-of-way and public walkway, as committed to by TransLink.
The Urban Design Panel reviewed this application on March 17, 2004, and provided the following comments:
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (1-6)
• Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, presented this application in the M-2 zone which permits industrial uses. The site is located off Southwest Marine Drive next to the Arthur Laing Bridge on the Fraser River waterfront. Neighbouring context includes a mixture of industrial and commercial uses. The proposed Vancouver transit centre use is conditionally permitted and includes service and maintenance facilities, training facilities, administrative offices and parking for diesel and trolley buses.
The proposed building has been located on the site to provide access from Hudson Street. Materials are precast tilt-up concrete panels, corrugated metal cladding, flat metallic silver metal cladding and blue tinted glass. The proposal seeks to achieve LEED certification and incorporates a number of sustainability building design features.
The advice of the Panel is sought, acknowledging that this is an industrial zone but the development of this site is important because it is highly visible as a gateway to the city. The Panel’s comments are sought on:
- the overall site planning;
- design quality of the building;
- whether a more expressive response to sustainability should be incorporated
into the building;
- soft and hard landscaping treatments.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Ian McKay, Architect, noted the siting of the building is driven by the flow of the buses on the site and the parking and landscaping is located on the city side of the site. The third floor access to the administrative offices via a pedestrian bridge is for safety reasons. A higher quality of finish is proposed on the upper proportions of the building facing the bridge to acknowledge that most of the view of this site is from the bridge. Windows are oriented to the south to take advantage of river views. The proposal will seek LEED silver certification. Peter Kreuk, Landscape Architect, briefly reviewed the landscape plan.
The applicant team and staff responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Summary of Panel’s Key Issues:
- Consider relocation of building to river side of property;
- Design development with respect to large asphalt area and perimeter;
- Consider possible addition of planting, quality lighting and/or paving
patterns;
- Enhance roof treatment from both a sustainability and aesthetic point
of view.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel did not support this application, having concerns about the overall site planning and the relationship of the building to the Fraser River. The Panel was also concerned about how the proposal deals with the “sea of asphalt” on the site. As well, a stronger response to sustainability was recommended. A comment was made that while TransLink necessarily needs to ensure appropriate use of public funding, in a project such as this it is also incumbent on the organization to address issues of public amenity.
The Panel had no concerns about the architectural expression of the building which it generally found handsome and interesting. There were some concerns at a detail level, including recommendations for further design development to the windows and doors as well as the location of entrances.
The Panel was quite disappointed with the site plan and the way the project turns its back on the river. The Panel also expressed some frustration with the lack of information as to how this proposed site plan was determined and said it would have been helpful to have seen how the project team arrived at its conclusions. There were concerns expressed that this centre will be the first vision of Vancouver for visitors to the city. It was noted that the site will be a sea of trolley wires, buses and asphalt and in this respect it was strongly recommended that the model reflect this reality. A comment was made that the trolley wires could be used to advantage by integrating them into the overall site planning in some way to help mitigate negative view impacts. There were suggestions to locate the building closer to the river with car parking in front, and this parking area could have a permeable surface to deal with ground water in a sustainable way. The Panel acknowledged that there may be operational requirements that are driving the current site plan but thought that, from an urban design point of view, the building should be closer to the river’s edge.
One Panel member suggested the site should be bigger in order to provide some relief to the expanse of asphalt by providing some meaningful landscaped areas to break it up. This would go a long way to making the site less industrial and oppressive. Another Panel member commented that, although the proposed use is permitted in this zone, this is a difficult site to have chosen for this facility. Some Panel members also expressed disappointment that the proposal fails to take advantage of potential public amenity at the river’s edge, noting the efforts made in recent years to provide pedestrian connections along the area’s waterfronts. This is particularly important for a LEED certified project. Others commented that rather than attempting to hide the site, it should perhaps be celebrated more by providing some relief to the asphalt in the way it is treated (patterning and colour) as well as in the arrangement of the wires and poles. It was stressed that lighting will be an important consideration in dealing with the asphalt areas.
The applicant was commended for the proposal to seek LEED silver certification for this project. However, the Panel thought a lot more could be done to strongly indicate that this is a sustainable development. In addition to providing permeable paving wherever possible and increasing the amount of landscaping, particular attention should be given to the roof treatment. Suggestions were made to consider integrated solar panels to harvest electricity, making a connection to the function of the building and acknowledging how the buses are powered. It was suggested that the large roof area provided an opportunity to make a larger gesture towards sustainability. Consideration should also be given to its appearance in terms of overlook.
Other comments and suggestions included:
- the overhead walkway entry looks like a good solution on paper but
might present problems;
- the linear parking lot could be broken up more with tree islands;
- the roof deck next to the cafeteria should be on the west side of the
building;
- the front entry is a long way from the public pedestrian connection
to Hudson Street;
- the use of the building should be celebrated more and not screened
as much;
- suggest swapping the hedge along 75th Avenue and the deciduous trees
in front of the bus bays, opening up some of the site from 75th and screening
the bus bays;
- the hedging seems a bit relentless and needs to be broken up with different
types of materials;
- the site does not need as much screening as shown, especially on the
front edge
- the security fence along Hudson Street could be something other than
chain link;
- the relationship with the ancillary buildings could be stronger.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. McKay noted that orienting the building to the water side is problematic due to poor soil conditions. Mr. Pedley agreed they could put some material together to show how they arrived at this scheme, noting there were extensive workshop discussions with all the user groups to arrive at the most efficient layout for the movement of the buses.
[top]
Park Board staff participated in an all-day workshop with TransLink,
City staff and community members on April 17, 2004, that explored a number
of interests in regards to this application. The workshop participants
arrived at an agreement on several issues, as noted on page 9. The revised
landscape plan indicating a public walkway (Appendix H) is generally
consistent with those agreements.
Park Board staff are supportive of this proposal as five important objectives
are met:
• Creation of riparian habitat along the Fraser River to support
its fish-bearing capacity;
•
Public access to the river for a neighbourhood that is short of recreational
opportunities;
•
Building another piece of a waterfront trail that may one day link up
with other sections of public waterfront further west;
•
Mitigation of some of the environmental impacts of the proposed development,
such as reducing the urban heat island effect of the large amount of
paving; and
•
Provision of a recreational amenity for TransLink staff and a forum for
building neighbourly relations with the community
The proposed landscaping as illustrated in Appendix H is a step in the
right direction. Park Board staff see an opportunity to increase the
environmental benefits of the landscaping, and propose consultation with
interested community members to review the details of plant specifications
in order to maximize the diversity and productivity of the riparian habitat.
Much transportation planning effort has gone into preparing for the relocation of the Transit Centre from the current Oakridge site to the proposed location on the site of the former Eburne sawmill. A study by Ward Consulting Group was undertaken to review the traffic implications in the vicinity of the site, to recommend infrastructure and operational measures, and to propose the amount of parking to be provided. There are several areas of concern to Engineering in regard to the proposed Transit Centre:
Traffic Implications - The consultant projected that traffic volumes will increase at the Marine Drive/Hudson Street intersection (especially on the south leg) such that installation of a traffic signal will be necessary. Improvements for left turning vehicles were also deemed necessary to accommodate traffic safely and avoid increases in delay. While the consultant also recommended removal of on-street parking on portions of both sides of Marine Drive to allow for freer flows, staff generally do not support such removal, with the exception of a short curb length on the south side of Marine Drive for eastbound traffic turning right (south) onto Hudson Street. Geometric changes to the intersection of Marine Drive and Hudson Street, taking into account the needs for transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, and general traffic, are yet to be finalized, but should be at the full cost of TransLink given that the need is almost solely driven by the proposed Transit Centre, however, since pedestrians and vehicles from the neighbourhood north of Marine Drive will derive significant service from the proposed traffic signal, it is recommended that the cost of the signal be split evenly between TransLink and the City. (Standard Condition A.2.9) Note that the new traffic signal would need to take into account protection at the CP Rail crossing. It is not required that the new signal at Marine Drive and the crossing controls be interconnected due to the distance between them, but if TransLink feels it is in the best interest of their operations, then the cost of the interconnection shall be the responsibility of TransLink. Finally, the consultant proposes that left turns be restricted for westbound Marine Drive at Oak Street to avoid congestion here; staff support this in principle, subject to signage improvements to ensure clear route finding.
Transit Routing - The applicant intends to route most buses from the Transit Centre into the network via Hudson Street, Marine Drive eastbound, and then onto Oak Street northbound, with a minority of buses feeding north along Granville Street. Staff have serious concerns about the implications of routing most buses across the eastbound off-ramp of the Arthur Laing Bridge as drivers must change lanes abruptly to reach the connecting lane to Oak Street. At the same time, staff would not support buses being driven through the Marpole neighbourhood via Hudson Street to connect with Oak Street north of Marine Drive. The solution supported by staff is to extend the existing network of trolley wires eastward along Marine Drive to feed the network via Cambie and/or Main Streets. In the meanwhile, TransLink should consider continuing to make use of the Oakridge Transit Centre. A second routing issue relates to contingency needs should Hudson Street or Marine Drive be obstructed such that the normal route is not available. In order to ensure that the buses are running, an alternate network access route from the Transit Centre, along 77th Avenue and Oak Street to Marine Drive, should be designated and improved. (Standard Condition A.2.13)
Neighbourhood Through Traffic - Protection of the neighbourhood north of Marine Drive must be a high priority. As such, routing of buses through this area should be avoided, and transit drivers and other staff or visitor traffic generated by the Transit Centre should be encouraged to avoid traveling on local streets to access the site. TransLink is being asked to comment on the implications of restricting traffic moving straight through northbound along Hudson Street crossing Marine Drive, or other neighbourhood traffic calming that could alleviate potential impacts due to this development. (Standard Condition A.2.13) To avoid parking overspill problems, staff seek to maximize preservation of on-street parking on both the north and south sides of Marine Drive, while seeking appropriate parking provision on the Transit Centre site.
Transit Centre Layout – The functional needs of the Transit Centre should dictate how the site is laid out, and where access and circulation occur. In response to the Urban Design Panel's concerns about site layout, and specifically the location of the main building, City Staff requested TransLink to evaluate a site layout option where the main building and staff parking would be along the riverfront. The option, called Alternate #5 as shown in Appendix F, was evaluated on the four main criteria that TransLink used to evaluate their previous layouts options. These four criteria include: efficient flow for returning buses; efficient on-site traffic flow; ability to store buses on-site prior to the vault pull; and the ability the create an overall traffic flow in the counter-clockwise direction. TransLink, in their evaluation, concluded that Alternate #5 performed poorly in three of these four criteria, where their preferred option, Alternate # 4, preformed well in all four. Engineering staff have reviewed this evaluation and generally agree with TransLink's conclusions. While Alternative #5 does provide efficient flow for returning buses, it does not create seamless on-site traffic flow, as the layout requires an intersection on-site where vehicles would cross paths creating a point of conflict for traffic flow. Also, Alternate #5 does not allow for as much bus storage on-site prior to the vault pull. Finally, although a counter-clockwise circulation can be maintained, Alternate #5 layout creates two locations where the trolley wire network would cross, creating points of conflict for site circulation which could be a source of delay if a trolley bus was to de-rail from the overhead wires, as is fairly common at wire intersections. Based on this evaluation, Engineering staff support the layout provided by TransLink in this application and do not believe that Alternate #5 is a suitable alternative. However, staff would like to see further efficiencies achieved in the parking layout to allow for greater landscaping opportunities along the river's edge.
Employee Parking Site Access - The site layout as submitted has the employee parking being located in the northerly portion of the site. As a result of the positioning of the entrance for buses onto the site (on Hudson Street just south of the employee lot), there are limited choices for the employee lot access point. Unfortunately, the location preferred by the applicant is at a poor location relative to the intersection of 75th Avenue, and constrains the future operation of 75th Avenue at Hudson Street. Since the location of the employee parking lot access is not critical to the efficient operation of the whole facility, it may be relocated to a point along currently undeveloped 75th Avenue approximately 25 to 30 metres west of Hudson Street. That is, a short length of 75th Avenue should be developed; i.e. to the parking lot entry. (Standard Condition A.2.6) Staff recommend that this be done, in conjunction with the road dedication at the northeast corner of the site, in order that a proper alignment of the east and west legs of 75th Avenue be achieved. (Standard Condition A.2.10)
Parking and Transportation Demand Management - The consultant estimated the peak parking demand at 335 vehicles, some 10% less than observed at the Oakridge site, primarily in anticipation of transit use by employees, and proposed a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDMP) to encourage reliance on carpooling and other mode choices other than single occupancy vehicles. Staff support the TDMP, as long as it includes a Guaranteed Ride Home provision. (Standard Condition A.2.11) While intuitively it would seem that the employee parking demand would be low, given that employees all have transit passes, there will still be significant need for parking since the work shifts for many include either a start or finish time when transit service is limited. Coupled with implementation of the TDMP, the parking provision should be reduced to no more than the 335 spaces identified by the consultant. This would enable more landscaping to be provided in the employee parking lot and mean that the row of parking spaces along the southern border of the site, near the riverfront, could be eliminated. A much lower minimum parking standard is required, however, as determined by consideration of the current practice at the Oakridge site where a reported 142 employee vehicles make use of some of the bus parking spaces on a time-share basis. Extending the 10% reduction mentioned above to this parking as well, employee calculate that the minimum should be 128 spaces less than the maximum, for a requirement of no less than 207 spaces.
The recommendations of Engineering Services are contained in the prior-to conditions noted in Appendix A attached to this report.
Staff have reviewed the application as a whole and the revised landscape plan in particular (Appendix H) with regard to CPTED principles. Although a dead-end walkway is generally not desirable, staff consider that design modifications can be made which will mitigate the less desirable attributes of this walkway configuration. Specifically, the fencing between the walkway and the TransLink secured parking area should be visibly open, landscaping should be kept low with fastigiated trees, security cameras should include coverage of the walkway and included in TransLink’s own on-site security and the lighting should support the camera coverage. Surfaces which might attract graffiti should be avoided. On that basis, staff consider the walkway will provide a safe and useable public benefit.
The recommendations related to CPTED issues are noted in Appendix A to this report.
[top]
A Conditional Certificate of Compliance was issued by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP) in 2001. The site has been satisfactorily remediated for industrial and commercial or urban park land use soil standards and aquatic life water standards. In April 2004, the applicant submitted a further Site Profile to the Ministry for review, based on the proposed Transit Centre use. A further clearance from MWLAP will be required prior to permit issuance. In addition, a “soils agreement” will be required for any areas which are to be dedicated to the City. (See Standard Conditions A.4.1 and A.4.2)
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]
Staff of the VCHA advise that there is potential for significant noise problems to result from the Urban Design Panel’s suggestion of altering the site configuration to place the bus parking area closer to the north end of the site. This would interfere with both of the noise mitigation measures that are proposed.
Firstly, the building’s massing is intended to buffer the noise impact of the buses prolonged early morning warm-up on the nearby residences by about 10 dB. Secondly, the location of the diesel bus parking/warm-up area at the southern most end of the site was supposed to further reduce the noise by approximately 6 dB. While some of this latter reduction would be retained, as it is a function of distance from nearby residences, it appears that all of the suggested 10 dB reduction would be lost.
In addition to the increased noise exposure, the residences would be more likely to be affected by diesel fumes from the buses during their prolonged idling during warm-up if the bus parking area is moved closer to the north end of the site.
Staff will further assess the impacts of the development once a full acoustic report has been submitted. (Standard Condition 3.1)
The VCHA also advises the applicant to take note of the following:
(i) Detailed drawings of food/retail spaces are 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.
(ii) The garbage storage area is to be designed to minimize nuisances.
(iii) The bus maintenance areas are to be adequately ventilated to prevent the build-up of noxious gases.
(iv) 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.
Further recommendations from VCHA are contained in Appendix A.
[top]
The comments of Fire and Rescue Services are contained in Appendix C attached to this report.
A sign describing the proposal was installed on February 5, 2004. On February 19, 2004, 770 letters were sent to neighbouring property owners and community groups advising them of the application. Forty-one responses have been received to date – 33 from individual property/business owners and eight from local organizations. The comments received are summarized as follows, from the most often mentioned, to the least often mentioned:
• Requests that a park or a waterfront walkway be obtained on
this site, in order to provide residents with access to the water;
•
Concerns regarding the view of the development from the Arthur Laing
bridge, as this site is located at a gateway to the City;
•
Concerns that industrial use is no longer appropriate for this site,
and requests for a comprehensive planning process to discuss alternatives
for this site and the other remaining industrial lands to the west;
•
Concerns regarding the environmental impacts of the use, such as how
the stormwater run-off from the large expanse of asphalt in the bus parking
area will be dealt with;
•
Concerns regarding the volume of traffic that would be generated by this
proposal and its impact on the Marpole area, on noise and air pollution
and on the local businesses; and
•
Concerns regarding how TransLink acquired the site without completion
of the subdivision process.
Staff response to notification results:
In response to many of the concerns raised through the notification process a facilitated interest based workshop was held on April 17, 2004. Through this exercise with the stakeholders, TransLink offered to provide for a public access along the waterfront edge of the site. (Conditions 1.2 and 1.3)
Staff are seeking improvements to the overall roof to enhance its visual quality as seen from the Arthur Laing Bridge. (Condition 1.4)
The subject site was not specifically investigated through the Industrial Lands review. This policy seeks to retain and stabilize industrial lands to meet the needs of the port/river related industries and city service and city-oriented uses.
The applicant is proposing a number of sustainable building features for the development. Staff are requesting further detailed information on a storm water management plan for the site. (Standard Condition A.1.4)
Implications of increases to traffic volumes and flow have been assessed with recommendations for improvements to nearby intersections and streets. See also Engineering Services and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority commentary. Further, as noted in Standard Condition A.2.13, TransLink is required to upgrade West 77th Avenue to provide alternate access to Marine Drive.
As noted earlier, TransLink acted under their statutory authority to register a right-of-way plan to create the subject site without requiring the City’s approval.
APPLICANT’S PUBLIC MEETING – MARCH 10, 2004
On March 10, TransLink hosted an Open House and Public Meeting in the community regarding the proposal. The evening was well attended, with more than 100 local residents, business owners, community representatives and political representatives in attendance. Comment sheets returned after the meeting mirror the comments received in response to the City’s neighbourhood notification. The most commonly stated concerns were the following:
• The lack of a waterfront walkway or park land dedication; and
•
The impact on traffic, noise and pollution from the buses and employees
trips on Marpole.
[top]
Staff Committee noted that it was unusual for a project to proceed to the Board with a recommendation of approval, without the support of the Urban Design Panel, however, the Committee also noted that the Panel had not had the benefit of the applicant’s rationale (Appendix F) for their site organization, based on the optimum performance of their operation, at the time of the Panel meeting. Based on the staff analysis of the supplemental information and the conclusion that the direction provided by the Panel would actually have had several disbenefits, not only on the site and the operation of the facility, but also on the neighbouring community with respect to noise and pollution, the Committee supports the application proceeding to the Board.
The Staff Committee also noted that several off-site conditions that we would not normally seek, or necessarily have the ability to seek, as part of a development permit process are recommended as conditions to this approval. The Committee is pleased to see that the applicant recognizes the impact of their proposal on the neighbouring infrastructure and neighbourhood and has offered to pay for such off-site works identified in order to mitigate those impacts and ensure the efficient operation of the new Transit Centre.
Staff Committee commended TransLink for their participation in the April 17th workshop, which resulted in the offering of the waterfront walkway and enhanced landscape treatment along the rivers edge, noting that this had caused delay in the consideration of their project by the Development Permit Board. Condition 1.1 sets out the requirement for additional landscaping along the River’s edge, in accordance with Council policy and Condition 1.3, stemming from the April 17th workshop, enables a walk/bike way to be developed within that enhanced landscaped edged.
Staff Committee further noted that if the City were to acquire the foot of Hudson Street, it would enhance the open space provided on the TransLink site. Staff Committee urged the appropriate parties to pursue the acquisition.
While there are still issues to be addressed through the applicant’s response to the recommended prior-to conditions, staff will continue to work toward a resolution that will see the agreements of April 17 related to the waterfront walkway implemented.
[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 provide a larger scale drawing of the parking areas (at a minimum of 1:100 scale) confirming:
i) the total number of parking spaces, small car spaces, and disability
spaces;
ii) the proposed number and location of visitor parking;
iii) spaces designated for employee and maintenance parking, and;
iv) the total number and size of bicycle lockers.
Note to Applicant: Drawings should show complete dimensions for all parking spaces and manoeuvring aisles. See also Standard Condition A.2.5.
A.1.2 provide larger scale drawings of the principal building (at a minimum of 1:100 scale) with complete dimensions;
A.1.3 clarify the location of the Class B loading spaces and comply with the required number of loading spaces per Section 5 (Off-Street Loading Space Regulations) of the Parking By-law, or apply for relaxation with a rationale;
Note to Applicant: The Director of Planning, in consultation with the General Manager of Engineering Services, may consider a relaxation to the required number of off-street loading spaces. A written relaxation rationale shall be submitted by the applicant to support any such relaxation. The applicant should not anticipate support for a relaxation to as few as two Class B spaces. Increased loading, including a mix of Class A and Class B spaces, should be provided. All loading bays should be fully dimensioned on the plans.
A.1.4 submission of detailed information and drawings for sustainable building features including a LEEDTM checklist;
A.1.5 submission of confirmation of the proposal’s review within the Fraser River Estuary Management Program (FREMP) and summary of recommended mitigation measures; and
Standard Landscape Conditions
A.1.6 provision of a storm water management plan for the site;
Note to Applicant: Consideration should be given to providing an onsite water treatment system for the surface water draining from the site.
A.1.7 design development to provide additional landscaping and permeable surface treatments within the employee/public parking areas;
A.1.8 provide a detail drawing (at a minimum of 1:50 scale) of the proposed security fence to include proposed dimensions and materials;
Note to Applicant: See also Standard Condition A.1.10.
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)
A.1.9 design development to reduce opportunities for graffiti; and
Note to Applicant: Buildings located along the property lines should be set back to allow for landscaping treatment. Surfaces on the public walkway should be designed to avoid graffiti.
A.1.10 design development to improve the safety of the public walkway.
Note to Applicant: This can be achieved by providing visibly open, unclimbable fencing, by providing low landscaping with fastigiated trees, by providing a security report which includes camera locations to cover the public walkway and a lighting concept plan that addresses the walkway.
A.2 Standard Engineering Conditions
A.2.1 clearly identify and label the site boundaries on the site plan;
A.2.2 provide a charge summary in order to clarify the charges shown on title;
A.2.3 arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services for provision of adequate water and sewer services for the site;
A.2.4 arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services for the modification of private Easement BW73721 as depicted on Explanatory Plan BCP9775;
Note to Applicant: The private easement must be modified to add the City as a party so as to prevent its release and to modify the terms to make it clear who is responsible for amendments required to the current development scheme should this easement be put to use. An alternative parking layout will be required should the easement area be used. It is important to ensure that the number of required (minimum) parking spaces is not impacted by this potential easement.
A.2.5 provide disability spaces with adequate stall widths;
Note to Applicant: A 4.0 m stall width is required. The provision of standard parking stalls with a shared 1.5 m pedestrian aisle is also acceptable.
A.2.6 design development to relocate the parking entry to be from the unopened 75th Avenue, approximately 30m west of Hudson Street and to reconfigure the parking layout to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the General Manager of Engineering Services;
Note to Applicant: An Encroachment Agreement will be required for any use (entry, landscaping, parking) on the unopened portion of 75th Avenue.
A.2.7 arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services for improvements to Hudson Street, along the entire length of the site, including curb, gutter, and pavement upgrades, sidewalk and street trees, to be funded (100%) by TransLink;
Note to Applicant: Details of the public realm treatment of Hudson Street, (including inside boulevard, sidewalk, and curb) should be illustrated on the Landscape Plan.
A.2.8 arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services for improvements to the intersection of Marine Drive and Hudson Street to allow for improved site access, to be funded (100%) by TransLink;
Note to Applicant: The geometric design proposed by TransLink is not supportable. Engineering Services staff are working with TransLink to create a supportable solution.
A.2.9 arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services for cost sharing by TransLink and the City (50/50) for signal work at the intersection of Marine Drive and Hudson Street;
Note to Applicant: If TransLink requires the new signal to be interconnected with the crossing controls at the CP Rail line, it will be entirely at TransLink’s cost.
A.2.10 arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services for the dedication as road of a 159 square metre (see Appendix I) triangular corner-cut at the northeast corner of Parcel A (Statutory Right-of-Way Plan BCP9773);
Note to Applicant: This dedication is required to ensure the safe use of the intersection of 75th Avenue and Hudson Street by vehicles arriving to the site and exiting there from. Please contact Mike Thomson (604-873-7328) for a plan of the road widening requirements.
A.2.11 provide a letter from TransLink committing to the Transportation Demand Management Plan, as developed by Ward Consulting, and to include a Guaranteed Ride Home Service;
A.2.12 clarify security measures for the employee parking lot;
Note to Applicant: Confirm whether gates are proposed at the parking lot entrance and exit. If gates are proposed, the entrance gate should be set back a minimum of 15 m from the entrance.
A.2.13 arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services for required off-site road and traffic improvements, to mitigate the impacts of the proposed facility on the local traffic, on the alternative access route from the Transit Centre, to Marine Drive, via 77th Avenue and Oak Street, all costs to be 100% funded by TransLink;
A.2.14 arrangements shall be made, to the satisfaction of the General Manager of Engineering Services and the Director of Legal Services, for all crossings over City property.
Note to Applicant: A crossing application is required to be submitted to Engineering Services;
A.3 Standard Vancouver Coastal Health Authority Conditions
A.3.1 an acoustical consultant's report shall be submitted which assesses noise impacts by the development and recommends noise mitigation measures in order to achieve noise criteria;
A.3.2 confirmation is supplied by the applicant that the acoustical measures 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); and
A.3.3 confirmation is 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.
A.4 Standard Licenses & Inspections (Environmental Protection Branch) Conditions:
A.4.1 clearance shall be received from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection of the site profile submitted in April, 2004;
A.4.2 arrangements shall be made to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Branch, and the Director of Legal Services for a "soils agreement" for the areas to be dedicated as road and any rights-of-way for utilities.
[top]
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 May 12, 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 November 25, 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 The site shall be maintained in a neat and tidy condition.
B.2.4 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.2.5 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.2.6 All approved street trees shall be planted 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.2.7 This site is affected by the Development Cost Levy By-law No. 8149. Levies will be required to be paid prior to issuance of Building Permits.
[top]
Processing Centre - Building comments
The following comments have been provided by Processing Centre - Building and are based on the architectural drawings received on October 20, 2003 and February 25, 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.
1. A Geotechnical Report will be required. This site is in an area identified as being subject to potential liquefaction. The Geotechnical Report should address this, and contain specific recommendations pertaining to the foundation design and subsurface drainage.
2. This site is located in the designated flood plain of the Fraser River. The design of the buildings must conform to Sentences 3.2.3.7.(1) and 1A.6.1.9.(1) of the Vancouver Building By-law (VBBL), and Clause A-1.1.3.2(a) of Appendix A of the VBBL.
3. The building at the East property line (that is to be used for hazardous materials storage) will be reviewed as a Group F Division 1 occupancy. This occupancy classification will also apply to the ground floor portion of the main building that is designated as a body shop which includes a spray painting booth. The 3rd and 4th floors of the main building will be reviewed as a Group D occupancy. A Group F Division 2 occupancy classification will apply to the Rectifier Building and the remainder of the main building.
4. The occupant loads of the buildings will require conformation in order that an assessment of the proposed number of water closets can be compared to the requirements of Sentence 3.7.4.2.(14) and Table 3.7.4.2.C of the VBBL.
5. There are several large rooms and spaces that may require at least two egress doors as per Article 3.3.1.5 of the VBBL. It is recommended that the applicant indicate on the drawings all rooms and spaces that will have an occupant load greater than 60 persons as per Clause 3.3.1.5.(1).(b) of the VBBL, or that have travel distances or areas in excess of those cited in Clause 3.3.1.5.(1).(d) of the VBBL.
6. An exit analysis will need to be submitted once the occupant loads of the buildings have been identified. The exit analysis must cover items such as exit capacity, travel distance to an exit, minimum required distance between exits, and fire separation of the exits. Exiting must conform to Subsection 3.4.2 (see also Articles 3.4.3.4, 3.4.2.3 and 3.4.2.4, and, Subsection 3.4.4 of the VBBL).
7. The buildings must be sprinklered as per Sentence 3.2.2.18.(3) of the VBBL, and, a fire alarm system must be provided as per Sentence 3.2.4.1.(1) of the VBBL. A standpipe will also be required at the main building as per Article 3.2.5.8 of the VBBL.
8.* The mezzanine above the parts/stores area does not appear to conform to all Clauses of Sentence 3.4.2.2.(2) of the VBBL, and therefore, Sentence 3.4.2.2.(1) will apply which requires that the mezzanine be provided with exits in conformance with Subsection 3.4.2 of the VBBL. (i.e. at least two exits will be required and must be separated from the remainder of the building by a fire separation as per Subsection 3.4.4.) The travel distance, distance between exits, etc. must conform to Articles 3.4.2.3 and 3.4.2.4.
9. The overhead walkway must conform to Article 3.2.3.18 of the VBBL.
10. The operations maintenance area and the parts-stores area (and its ancillary rooms and spaces) must be separated from the Group D occupancy and the Group F Division 1 occupancies by a fire separation having a fire resistance rating of not less than 2 hours as per Sentence 3.3.5.5.(1) of the VBBL.
11.* A single exit would appear to be sufficient from the second floor of the Rectifier Building as per Clause 3.4.2.1.(2).(b) of the VBBL, however, the open stair shown on the drawings is an interconnecting stair. The interconnected floor space is within a Group F Division 2 building, and therefore, Sentence 3.2.8.2.(6) cannot be applied, and the interconnected floor space must conform to Articles 3.2.8.3 to 3.2.8.9. of the VBBL. The design does not currently conform to Articles 3.2.8.3 to 3.2.8.9 of the VBBL, and for this reason, the exiting from the 2nd floor is not acceptable.
12.* The 2nd floor of the Bus Wash will require a second exit as per Sentence 3.4.2.1.(1) of the VBBL unless it can be demonstrated that this is a separate building of not more than 2 storeys as per Sentence 3.4.2.1.(2) of the VBBL. As drawn, this would appear to be part of the 4 storey main building connected by a canopy roof. Whether or not this is a separate building, the exit doors at the stairwell must swing in the direction of exit travel as per Sentence 3.4.6.11.(1) of the VBBL, and the ground floor detail storage room is not permitted to open directly onto the exit stairwell as this contravenes Sentence 3.4.4.4.(8) of the VBBL.
13. The accessible 3rd and 4th storeys of the main building must conform to Article 3.8.3.19 of the VBBL. Unless the floor areas are divided into 2 zones as per Clause 3.8.3.19.(1).(b) of the VBBL, areas of refuge will be required at the required exits as per Clause 3.8.3.19.(1).(f) of the VBBL.
* Items marked with an asterisk have been identified as serious non-conforming Building By-law issues.
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.
The applicant may wish to retain the services of a qualified Building Code consultant in case of difficulty in comprehending the comments and their potential impact on the proposal. Failure to address these issues may jeopardize the ability to obtain a Building Permit or delay the issuance of a Building Permit for the proposal.
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 October 20, 2003 and February 25, 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. Conformation of the principal entrance/address for Fire Department response, location of the Fire Department (Siamese) connection, the location of the fire alarm annunciator panel, and location of the standpipe connections is required.
2. Class I and II standpipes are required. Hose stations will be required to comply with Section 3.2.5.11 of the VBBL (100' ft. hose and 30 ft. water stream).
3. Private fire hydrants will be required on site. A maximum of 45 m (148') from the fire hydrant to the Fire Department connection is permitted.
Note to Applicant: Additional fire hydrants (private) will be required on the south side of the building and throughout the trolley parking area.
4. Fire access route is to comply with Section 3.2.5.6. of the VBBL. A minimum of 6 m (19'-8") is required throughout the site.
5. Provide a larger site plan complete with all buildings and the signage at the Hudson Street entrance identified.
6. Provide the main gate access through a security fence into parking area
7. Clarify that Fire Department access is provided to all areas above grade level from the principal entrance.
8. Review the sprinkler system, sprinkler zoning, & fire alarm annunciation of various areas of the building.
9. An additional Fire Department review is required for hazardous material storage, underground tank farm, rectifier and carbon areas.
[top]
|
|
|
Questions or Comments? E-mail: carol_hubbard@city.vancouver.bc.ca
|
