800 Granville Street | 137.5m | 42, 38 fl | Proposed

[s211]

Originally Posted by Feathered Friend

https://council.vancouver.ca/20220719/documents/r7.pdf

The application to allow consideration of rezoning 800-876 Granville Street will on the July 19th, 2022 council agenda, and if approved as staff are recommending, will lead to an official rezoning application, which they caution may not end up being supported.

If anyone's interested, here's the link to register to sing up to speak to this item.
https://vancouver.ca/your-government...ng-form-1.aspx

Policy über alles.

[Denscity]

It has made it to the next step.

[officedweller]

From the Downtown thread:

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Watch the council meeting for the Bonnis redevelopment on Granville

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrP2hCnfbXE

Staff presentation:

https://council.vancouver.ca/2022071...Directions.pdf

Report:

https://council.vancouver.ca/20220719/documents/r7.pdf

One of the deviations was the 20ft separation from The Capitol condos across the alley.

It would make sense to have a cut out or cut away in that area to break up the massing - sort of like the Plaza of Nations massing, but smaller scale.

[Migrant_Coconut]

I suspect that a hole in the building will only make it look "uglier" to the detractors.

[Feathered Friend]

The language of what was approved last night:

Councillor Hardwick opposed the first and second paragraph,

Paragraph 3 was approved unanimously,

Councillor De Genova opposed Paragraph 4.

[vanman]

City council is actually allowing this proposal to move on to the next step against staff recommendation. There is hope for Granville Street after all.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/800-...zoning-process

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by vanman

City council is actually allowing this proposal to move on to the next step against staff recommendation. There is hope for Granville Street after all.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/800-...zoning-process

good to hear. i was hoping theyd do that.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

good to hear. i was hoping theyd do that.

Agreed. The staff report and those who composed it were completely out to lunch (as usual), but gotta give credit where it’s due, the council did the right thing for both the city and the area in particular (what a concept), and allowed this great proposal to go through with only the usual wing nuts voting against it.


And while we’re at it, kudos for the developer for having the stones to call out the idiot city staff and rightfully question if they’ve even been down there recently, before spewing their usual verbal diarrhea of made up, kooky, pie in the sky reasons to not support the project

[GenWhy?]

The policies and zoning is there in the Report. Their reasons of non-support are in the Report.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Agreed. The staff report and those who composed it were completely out to lunch (as usual), but gotta give credit where it’s due, the council did the right thing for both the city and the area in particular (what a concept), and allowed this great proposal to go through with only the usual wing nuts voting against it.

It didn't 'go through' anything. They allowed the developer to submit a rezoning, and the next Council will decide whether to permit it or not. They also added a couple of requirements for replacement SRO rooms and a free rehearsal/performance space that might give the developer 'pause for thought'.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by Changing City

It didn't 'go through' anything. They allowed the developer to submit a rezoning, and the next Council will decide whether to permit it or not. They also added a couple of requirements for replacement SRO rooms and a free rehearsal/performance space that might give the developer 'pause for thought'.

Actually it did “go through” by allowing it to move to the next stage. They could have voted the proposal down out of hand as under the terms suggested by the aforementioned idiot staff. The changes that were added are relatively minor and actually pretty reasonable for a refreshing change.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

Actually it did “go through” by allowing it to move to the next stage. They could have voted the proposal down out of hand as under the terms suggested by the aforementioned idiot staff. The changes that were added are relatively minor and actually pretty reasonable for a refreshing change.

i mean i wouldnt call them idiot staff.

i can see why they had a "no support" recommendation. it does go against set up policy/president for the area.

one thing to keep in mind is that CoV staff is meant to only follow the set up rules/bylaws/policy/etc. to make a recommendation.

105 Keefer is a prime example of where they didnt. and there are others as well. such as the "unwritten rules" thing and using "guidelines" as set in stone rules. those are ridiculous.

in this case, though, i can see where the recommendation from CoV staff came from.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, we should actually be upset at whichever council decided to downzone Granville in the Nineties because its "neighbourhood character" needed protecting.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, we should actually be upset at whichever council decided to downzone Granville in the Nineties because its "neighbourhood character" needed protecting.

That would be mayor Gordon Campbell, leading an NPA majority Council. (1990-1993). I'm not sure there was a downzoning - the allowed density was still 3.5 FSR, although it was a bit lower than the parallel corridors on either side that allowed up to 5.0 FSR for towers (and more with rezoning). The 1991 Downtown South Guidelines encouraged the retention of the 22 heritage buildings by transferring density, but that was mostly taken up in other areas, and only one has been demolished (on the corner of Robson).

There wasn't too much interest in developing on Granville by the owners, and when they did develop, it was at much lower densities than policy permitted. Amacon and the Bonnis family built a series of single storey (double height) retail buildings on Granville at under 1 FSR to 2.0 FSR from the late 1990s right up to 2012. Bonnis just tore that building down on the 900 block, but all of those projects could have been 3.5 FSR.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i mean i wouldnt call them idiot staff.

i can see why they had a "no support" recommendation. it does go against set up policy/president for the area.

one thing to keep in mind is that CoV staff is meant to only follow the set up rules/bylaws/policy/etc. to make a recommendation.

105 Keefer is a prime example of where they didnt. and there are others as well. such as the "unwritten rules" thing and using "guidelines" as set in stone rules. those are ridiculous.

in this case, though, i can see where the recommendation from CoV staff came from.

If they are only to follow the rules/bylaws/policy/etc to make a recommendation, then their existence is pointless because anyone can follow an already established policy or bylaw. If they only spoke to those issues and those issues alone, they could be upgraded to redundant or useless status.

Where the idiot part comes in is when they make absolutely idiotic statements such as they see no reason to justify the proposed rezonong. Really? Have they been down there? What’s not to like about this proposal? The increased foot traffic to that area which is desperately needed during the day? The badly needed increase in cultural infrastructure? How about the influx of new workers and workspace? To not see or at least acknowledge those positive aspects just idiotic. SOMETHING needs to be done. And this one proposal addresses items and goes a long way to bettering that area. To not see that and to say you don’t see a reason for the rezoning is ridiculous.
Hence idiots.

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

If they are only to follow the rules/bylaws/policy/etc to make a recommendation, then their existence is pointless because anyone can follow an already established policy or bylaw. If they only spoke to those issues and those issues alone, they could be upgraded to redundant or useless status.

You could essentially make the same argument against accountants or lawyers. Anyone can read the ITA or the criminal code and follow what's in there

From my vantage point, the main role of city planners is to first know what all of the bylaws say, which may all be written down on paper but are very convoluted and long, and to balance compliance, community benefits, and a lot of other factors we plebs might not think of.

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

You could essentially make the same argument against accountants or lawyers. Anyone can read the ITA or the criminal code and follow what's in there

From my vantage point, the main role of city planners is to first know what all of the bylaws say, which may all be written down on paper but are very convoluted and long, and to balance compliance, community benefits, and a lot of other factors we plebs might not think of.

City bylaws are a piece of cake compared to interpreting the law and tax codes.
One is cookie cutter, while the others (in particular law)is not.
There are immigrant builders out there who know zoning and building codes but I don’t see too many people practicing law on their own successfully.

The fact that this cast of morons apparently saw no community benefits from this proposal highlights both their tunnel vision, and lack of understanding what the issues are in that area. These dolts actually stated they see “no reason” to recommend a change in zoning for the site. Really? A blind person in a dark room could see the benefits this proposal is offering.
I would humbly suggest these clowns wouldn’t know a community benefit outside of a preschool, daycare, or bike lane if it bit them on the arse.

[GenWhy?]

"[staff] saw no community benefits from this proposal"

How do you mean? I think you misinterpreted the report. Are you referring to this section:
"This property has no special considerations or constraints that warrant deviation from the established policy framework. Neither have staff identified a compelling public interest to construe a benefit on this property that would not be available to other nearby properties. "

It appears a Council would need to direct Staff to change the whole strip's District Schedules to permit this and developments like this on other similar adjacent sites. You should be blaming politicians, not Staff for following the rules. The proposed development ignores like a dozen policies and the zoning itself.

[idunno]

^^this is accurate. Staff make recommendations to respond to policy. It's up to Council to press for changes in those policies, if they deem them necessary or in the public interest.

[EastVanMark]

The proposal acknowledges they aren’t complying with established policies and zoning. Hence the revoking application.
And the second part of the identified excerpt from the report spells out in plain English that they don’t see “a compelling public interest” to provide any extra consideration than what would be allowed in any other site in the area when in fact this proposal is providing plenty of items of “compelling public interest,” that would justify a special rezoning consideration for this proposal.

The staff’s job is to make recommendations, not to just look up the zoning. A quick Google search tells us that. Once the recommendation is made, then council will act on that recommendation, one way or another, or direct the staff to look into one or more aspects of the proposal.

The politicians are actually being pretty reasonable on this one-so far.