Frances Bula header image 2

What can council decide on Tuesday about the Rize? A planner’s answer

April 16th, 2012 · 15 Comments

I’d been asking for explanations of what the limits are on what council can do when it makes its decision about the Rize tower Tuesday.

Here is the answer from former senior planner Trish French below. I’ve checked with others too, who remind me that the point of a public hearing is for council to listen to the public and suggest changes based on what they’ve heard.

Changes that flow out of the public hearing are “legally defensible,” they say. And it’s not adequate for council to say (or think), “Oh, it’s been a long process and we can’t really ask the developer to go back and do a whole bunch more work at this point.”

Council can scale down a project, but can’t scale up without another public hearing.

Here’s what Trish had to say:

Just a technical answer to Frances’ question about what Council can do at this point. based on my past experience with major rezonings.

Legally Council can approve or refuse the rezoning application as it stands; or they can approve it with any revisions they choose to impose. For example, they could reduce the height and density, place limits on the uses or size of retail units etc.

Then a revised scheme that meets the revised parameters would be prepared by the applicant, for Development Permit Application. There could be public consultation on the revised scheme before any decision on the DPA. In CD-1 rezonings like this, not only does the Development Permit Board need to approve the eventual form of development, but so does Council, before the zoning is finally legally “enacted”.

In practical terms, Council modifications at the time of a rezoning decision are usually modest, i.e. they are modifications to the proposal under consideration, not radical change to it.

What is often happening between the end of the public delegations and Council’s debate and decision is that Council is discussing with staff what the options for modification are. Staff might or might not discuss with the applicant how open they are to changes. (Council is not supposed to be talking to the applicant at this point in the process.) If Council (i.e. the majority, in caucus discussions) wants changes, they (with or without staff help) will draft wording to revise the proposed zoning bylaw. This is presented in the form of a motion at the Council, during their debate on the rezoning.

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • GNR

    Thank you for all the good articles you do Frances. I’m glad to hear that Council can ask the developer to reduce the height and density to 70 feet and 3.0 FSR at this point in the process.
    At the April 5, 2012 Public Hearing the Mayor asked staff a very good question. He said ”How much can be changed at this point. Council is being asked to decide on the density and the form, then how much can it change given the parameters, the specifications on the site? Is there options for dramatic change in the look of this building once it goes through the future stages?” Yardley Mc Neill the City Rezoning Planner said “What the rezoning would ‘lock in’ place would be the height. The outer skin of the building and the facade could be altered” & “the potential for flow through, only if the developer wants to on their own accord…”

    So I’m still confused as to what Council can do here. Yardley, the current City employee, says there will be NO changes in height if the rezoning is approved. But it seems that this article suggests that there can be changes made in height and density by Council. Can someone please clear this up for me? Is it possible at this stage to reduce the height to 70 feet per the City Guidelines and 3.0 FSR per the by-law?
    I ask because of this” In practical terms, Council modifications at the time of a rezoning decision are usually modest, i.e. they are modifications to the proposal under consideration, not radical change to it.” I turst Ms.French’s knowledge here and it seems to me if Council does not outright refuse this project the community will end up with a watered down version of what has already been presented. Therefore the only way to get this project reduce in height & density, on this not so ‘large site’, is to reject it and build under the current zoning as the Plan states.

  • Frances Bula

    @GNR. I am a little confused about how much of a modification is allowed myself. I don’t think that a reduction to 70 feet — i.e. by almost two-thirds of the current — is feasible. I don’t think even all the people opposed to the current project would agree with that. It’s more likely to be a more modest reduction, if council is willing. Councillors may choose to see this as black and white — they have to approve, except for tweaks, or turn down. But all the planners I’ve talked to say councillors have more leeway than that. They can grant the rezoning with some changes that are more than tweaks, but not too radical, which a 70-foot limit would be.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I think Bill’s counter proposal of 15 stories and an FSR of ~4.5FSR would be palatable to some of the opposition, perhaps even enough of them to make it acceptable to the community. I don’t have the time at the moment but perhaps if council turns down the application and sends it back to the drawing board I will mock together something in sketch up in the 16 story range and close to 5.0 fsr that hopefully meets the goals of both sides.

  • voony

    Rendering

    It has been strong evidence that the applicant has searched to decepit the public on the real impact of its proposal.
    This should provide enough ground to motivate the rejection of the application.

    But let’s be nice:

    Watson street
    The development ruins it. The truck berths should be relocated at a corner of the building, Watson#10th, (that can be done elegantly (see St Giles from Renzo Piano in London, or new building on Seine Rive Gauche Paris).

    The Watson facade should be the windows of condos/townhouse, and not the blind wall of the retail space.

    The Big Box,
    You will find people against it at the suburban Walmart Saturday morning! The reality is that the big box is part of the retail picture. It is good when done correctly (that is not sterilizing the street frontage): it acts as an anchor, making small business around thriving. There is nothing wrong with it and the exploitation of the level difference (as at cambie#broadway) make it a sensible proposition here (thought, it could go one level underground, meeting a future skytrain extension)

    The FSR seems about right considering the location.
    But if you are really concerned by housing affordability and housing for families, you should be adamant by the dismissal number of 3 bedrooms unit (11).
    The building along Kingsway and Watson should be deeper to either accommodate 3 bedrooms or 2bedroom+bachelor (as at Univercity) instead of 2 bedrooms…the interior courtyard size allows for that. It is not what the market want, yes, that is the reason it will make those unit priced attractively.

    Probably, a level of townhouse on 10th avenue could be good too.

    Bill Mc Creery suggest to reduce the height of he floor in the tower: I am more than convinced that the generous height provision in the original application has been done to anticipate the Bill request.. Everyone then will feel good…Well that if you don’t care about building proportion, or in other word good architecture,…but who cares in Vancouver?

    The neighborhood?
    Some people read the MPCP like some evangelist read the bible…they want to stick on the letter, and not on the spirit. They don’t understand what a community plan is done for.
    Save for the treatment of Watson street, the Rize is in the spirit of the MPCP if you bother to read it.

    And who are the neighbor anyway…people here try to make us believe that it is Main street…
    If you bother to come on the site, you will see that the Main street character is not under attack.

    What is the character of the Kingsway#Broadway intersection?

    Does there is some people living there?
    Neighbor against change will explain you that the new building should respect the Kingsgate Mall character (because that is the character of the neighborhood)…or at least not make shadow to its parking lot.

    Obviously, the Renzo Piano buildings, be the Central St Giles in London, or more obviously the Beaubourg museum in Paris could never be build in a Vancouver neighborhood (honestly in Paris, it has been possible, only because all the neighborhood attention was focused on les Halles nearby…but guess which building/neighborhood is the most acclaimed). They could obviously not have fit the definition of “good neighboor” as stated by the local Nimbys …and still they will come to resort European example.

    Michael Geller has on its blogs an interesting picture of the Baker&Mckenzie House in Amsterdam:
    (See how the building massing is reminiscent of the Rize, and that includes the tower below, see also, the street is of size similar to the Watson one).

  • Brent Toderian

    Hi Frances: I just read the article you asked me to comment for that will appear in print tomorrow, and given the incorrect title (I note you often tell me that reporters don’t write the titles), I felt the need to clarify that i didnt “recommend” that Council modify the proposal.

    Specifically for your readers, here’s the article link, and below it what I wrote to you (with a few off-topic things omited) and said you could quote me on:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/former-planning-director-advises-vancouver-council-to-reduce-size-of-proposed-tower/article2404403/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2404403

    “The Rize project and many others illustrate the biggest challenge in the much-needed evolution of the city outside the downtown; in “density done well” in many different contexts, how big is too big? Some developers start with proposals that are too large for site, context or policy, antagonising communities early in the process, and staff are caught early in finding/negotiating a workable design that developers might claim is too little and some in the community say is too much. The parties sometimes play what I call “squeezing the balloon”, taking density off one part of the project, and casually suggesting it could be added back in somewhere else, most often in additional height, instead of recognizing that the density proposed is too high. Thus the stage can be set for tensions and controversy. This has to change, as “how big is too big” really is the key urban design question as we seek to implement “density done well” across the city. You can’t be reluctant to talk about it. It also needs better clarity across the city, which is why I wanted to undertake a first city-wide plan that would consider clarity of form and density in the many contexts across the city.

    I say all this as an obvious strong supporter of density, the primary author of EcoDensity. But not out-of-context density, over-building, or over-density for the wrong reasons (ie cac calculations or pressures to “solve affordability” in one project). “Density done well” leads to successful densification, density done poorly leads to densification being justifiably opposed.

    For the Rize, the site is a very good site for density, and an appropriate site for height as a form for density as per the freshly approved Community Plan. I felt the density proposed was on the high end of supportability, it pushed the envelope, but the design was well done and made the density workable. Council doesn’t have to treat the application as black-and-white though. They can approve, refuse, OR MODIFY the application if they are convinced by what they’ve heard, and there’s nothing to say that this is the exact right density for the site; just that staff thought it was supportable. The public hearing is PART of the decision process, not something that happens after the decision process is over – thats true for both Council AND staff. They’ve done a lot of listening, and although I think the application should be approved, that listening could reasonably lead to Council modifications to the proposal. Council has that choice. A proposed, and even a supported, density level is never an absolute truth.”

    I hope this clarifies things. I stand by what I wrote to you, but I’ve been told in your paraphrasing in the first few paragraphs (which every reporter has to do), it came across differently. In any case, the title is simply wrong.

    Regards,
    Brent Toderian

  • GNR

    Brent has given us the answer to the problem with this development by showing us were the process is broken.
    The process is up-side-down; it puts the horse before the cart.
    Brent says the developer comes in with his outrageous ideas of height and density and then the City tries to fit them with the zoning and justify what they’re doing.
    The process must be that the developer comes in with plans that fit the zoning and discusses with Planning staff and the community together where it might be possible to increase the height or density. If it can’t be done then it is developed under current zoning.
    If we don’t start with a base line where everyone starts equally in the development process then it becomes a crap shoot. With fussing an fighting on all sides and it is a big waste of time
    The way the development process is run now is not development to create a great, livable City but instead to create a huge amount of money for the developer. This is not good for society; it creates very rich and very poor people. Is this what Canada planed for the citizens? NO! There must be more equality.

  • Frank Ducote

    Very informative and useful info in this chain of comments, for the most part. Thank you, all.

  • Michelle S of Mt Pleasant

    Thank you GNR for stating what this situation is and for removing all of the fluff and sticking to reality.

    Planning is very broken in this City as it seems they are always putting up something (bridges, highways, transit systems) that work for the here and now but are not designed to grow with the City.

    It is why a vocal group have stood up and said ‘excuse me please, but do you think we can get it right this time around’.

    Putting a large amount of density on an area that already feels the squeeze with regards to transit and traffic and escalating lack of affordability is just plain stupid, like you say its “putting the cart before the horse”.

    Again I must say, as I have in the past, fix the ills that plague our City that exisit now and then move forward instead of this backwards manner of Development.

  • Brent Toderian

    I see the on-line article title has been changed since my posted comment (not sure what the print version says), no longer directly stating that “I recommend modifying the proposal”. Certainly many others do, so the new title is reasonable, while my comments were about what Council COULD reasonably do under the circumstances.

    Thanks for the change.

    Brent Toderian

  • Jon Petrie

    A comment under the Bula Globe and Mail article that is worth reproducing here:

    memories1

    Brent Toderian, whose picture is displayed beside the article title: “Vancouver council advised to reduce size of proposed tower” states ‘the title is simply wrong’ in his comment posted near here.

    I don’t see a problem with the title, it’s appropriate, it has the same relationship to Toderian’s written comments to Bula as does the Rize project to the neighborhood community plan and the zoning for the Rize site. And the Rize project was supported by City Planning staff when Toderian was director. Toderian has been ‘hoisted with his own petard.’

    [Phrase re ‘petard’ is out of Hamlet:
    … marshal me to knavery. Let it work;
    For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
    Hoist with his own petar; and ‘t shall go hard
    But I will delve one yard below their mines
    And blow them at the moon: O, ’tis most sweet …]

  • ler

    the application never should have been accepted in the first place. I am so sick and tired of off shore developers and the City dictating what they think is good for neighbourhoods all over the city. I think the citizens of Vancouver have the right to stick up for want they want where they live. Mr. Lin lives in Shaughnessy and do you think he would like a skyscrapers next to his house?

  • West End Gal

    Good comments Brent, but I have a question for you. Don’t you think that they (the mighty Vision council) are going to do exactly the opposite of what you have suggested? Didn’t they let you go so they wouldn’t bother with your direction any more? so… I wouldn’t hold my breath!

  • GNR

    @Brent Toderian
    Can you please tell me how this rezoning project could have possibly be accepted by the CityPlanning Dept. on July 26, 2010 before the MPC Plan was adopted by Council on November 18, 2010?

  • Terry M

    GNR, WestEndGal, ler,Jon Petrie… Brent Toderian is need of an audience,now that he is doing the tour of the city,you’ll never get an answer from him unless it’s something that could put him in the spotlight. He talks about himself, and his achievements/ contributions like he built these buildings with his own hands, how sad is that? I heard he went to that BIG big lecture so he could get a little more praise… Did it occur to you that RIZE project was approved by the Planning dept. and that it went through his hands? Yes that’s right.

  • InsiderDoug

    Terry M, not sure what makes you think you know Brent, but i and my co-workers (and those who have sadly moved on or been moved on who i worked with for years) do know him pretty well after years of working together, and in my opinion theres never been a planning director more willing to share credit and praise the accomplishments of others. He wasn’t perfect but was breath of fresh air. He also many times stood up and took criticism and even apologized (the only one who did) often for things others did, because he would’t “throw staff or his bosses under the bus” as we say. No one else does that at city hall that i can see.

    Brent notes his role in the Rize, so no big revelation from you there, but helps us with understanding of councils choices and the role of the public hearing as part of the process. Good on him. All staff i hear from are glad that he’s sticking around, and is still out there contribbing to the discussion. And still has staffs back. Keep going Brent!

    Lots of people were at BIG event taking credit that they didn’t deserve. Brent, i’m told, was invited by the architect himself, and the developer? Was nice to see him there, he deserves the acknowledgement he got for bringing that situation together. We need more of that.