Maddox | 98M | 32flrs | Completed

[jlousa]

This one was previously approved and then delays and turned into a community park for the time being. Cressey is expected to progress with it shortly.

UDP minutes

2. 1304 Howe Street
DE: Rezoning Inquiry
Use: To rezone from DD to CD-1, to permit a residential tower with height of 300 feet (30 storeys) above a commercial/residential podium. Total FSR would be increased from 5.0 to 7.0 through transfer of heritage density. Important context is the study which is in progress for the removal of the Granville Loops and redevelopment of City-owned lands (proposed in 2002 Downtown Transportation Plan).
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: IBI Group – HB Architects
Review: Second (First Review: May 9, 2007)
Delegation: Martin Bruckner (IBI/HB Architects), Drahan Petrovic (IBI/HB Architects), Jane Durante (Durante & Kruek), David Evans (Cressey)
Staff: Phil Mondor/Anita Molaro

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)

Introduction: Phil Mondor, Rezoning Planner, introduced the application for a site in the new area that is being developed in the Granville loops area which is at the north end of the Granville Street Bridge. The area is being rezoned from DD to CD-1.

Richard Johnson, Planner, gave a short presentation on the Granville Loops study area. He noted that the area is located in Area C of the Downtown Official Development Plan (ODP) but was not included in the ODP. The main objective is to provide an improved roadway connection and “gateway” to Vancouver.

Anita Molaro, Development Planner, using the context model, described the future development for the area. She noted that the proposal had not been supported at the previous Panel in May 2007. The Panel was concerned with the distribution of the mass and thought it should be more slender. Also the Panel had concerns with the parking access and public realm interface. In response the applicant has added some additional height to the building and reduced the floor plates. As well the applicant has sculpted and shaped the building for a more slender expression and has also relocated the parking and loading access. The podium set back has been increased by three feet for a total of nine feet and a continuous glass canopy has been added. The retail has been wrapped around the corner and the outdoor amenity space has been moved to the roof of the smaller building at Drake Street.

Advice from the Panel on this rezoning application is sought on the following:
Does the Panel support the urban design response developed for this site and its relationship within the surrounding context taking into consideration:

* Siting;
* overall form of development including tower form/massing/height and proposed density (7.0 FSR);
* public realm interface/street wall/scale and articulation:
* Howe/Drake/Rolston
* Site access; and
* Landscape.

Mr. Mondor, Mr. Johnson and Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Martin Bruckner, Architect, further described the proposal. He noted that the tower location was planned to have the minimum eighty foot separation from any future development on the adjoining site. In reshaping the tower, the applicant has increased the separation of the tower from the Best Western Hotel. Mr. Bruckner noted there is only one place that the parking ramp can be located on the site.

Drahan Petrovic, Architect, described the response to the different orientations. He noted that on the south-east façade two feet wide overhangs and balconies are planned and on the south-west façade there will be five feet wide overhands which will be either balconies or sun-shades.

Jane Durante, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans noting the changes to the outdoor amenity space on the roof of the smaller building.

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:

* Provide more active uses on Howe street, consider expanding the retail space and moving the fitness centre to another level;
* Consider design development to the parking access to reduce conflicts with pedestrians both crossing the plaza and entering the building; and
* Consider on-street loading to allow for parking access off Rolston.

Related Commentary: The Panel unanimously supported the proposal and commended the applicant on the significant improvements to the project, but continue to have significant concerns about the proposed ground floor uses

The Panel agreed that the tower siting was where it should be on the site, and the overall massing of the tower worked. Several Panel members thought the Granville Street facade was the most improved. However, several Panel members thought there still needed to be some design development to the project.

The Panel still had an issue with the public realm interface on Howe Street, and thought the fitness centre was not a good use on the ground floor as it did not animate the street. They thought the applicant was giving up a whole block with the design and that Howe Street could support retail or other active uses given the planned future residential in the neighbourhood. The panel had concerns, that the planned amenity space and parking ramp would create dead space along Howe Street.

Several Panel members thought the public realm interface at Rolston Street was well done and felt like a little residential community. The Panel agreed that shifting the exterior amenity space to the roof of the smaller building was a good move as it improves daylight access.

The Panel was concerned with the location of the loading bay with several Panel members suggesting the loading and parking ramps should be consolidated. One Panel member thought the parking access point was better suited off Rolston Street and thought the residents would get use to the one-way street. Most of the Panel supported not having an internal loading bay. One Panel member noted that the loading spaces would not work for the residential occupants and there would be a problem getting in and out of the elevators as the area is too constrained. Also moving and delivery trucks need to be nearer the elevators.

Some of the Panel had concerns with the entry plaza and thought the applicant needed to rethink the circulation in terms of how pedestrians and vehicles will access the site. Also the Panel thought the applicant needed to look at the buildings that will be developed to the south and how the plaza will be a natural pedestrian route to Pacific Boulevard, and this should not be compromised by the parking access

One Panel member thought the terracotta tiles should come down to the ground more but thought it looked nice at the entrance area. The Panel thought the canopy design was a huge improvement in forming a base for the building.

Several Panel members commented on the sustainability initiatives and thought the applicant had done a good job.

Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bruckner thanked the Panel stating that he appreciated their comments and that he had an idea as to how he would change the parking access.

Council report
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20080610/documents/p2.pdf