Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission:
One year ago when the applicant came before you with a proposal to redevelop the subject property, the response of the Commission was that it was unhappy with the nature and number of variances that the applicant was requesting and it instructed him to revise his plan after consulting with the planning department. He is before you again tonight with a somewhat modified proposal, but one that is no better than the original proposal but rather worse in its most important aspects.
The applicant’s original proposal was for a single structure that was 21 storeys in height that occupied 97.4% of the site with an FAR of 7.92. The setbacks from the street were 6.9 meters facing St. Paul Street, 3.96 meters at the rear, 5.33 meters facing north and south. In his new proposal there are two structures, one at 22 storeys and the other at 26, the FAR is 8.92, and the setbacks are 2.66 meters facing St. Paul St., 3.3 meters at the rear, 4.6 meters to the north, and 1.5 meters to the south.
The building heights in the new proposal are taller than the original structure by an average of 2.5 storeys, the FAR is greater, and the setbacks from the street less with the latter corresponding to an increase in the floor plate of the building beyond the already excessive amount that appeared before. The only improvement is a small reduction in the site coverage from 97.4% to 91% in the current proposal. The planning department is prepared to accept variances when the architectural quality of the project merits the increases that are being asked for, but in this case they have stated in their report to the Commission that “The variances requested by the proposed project, in the estimation of ,staff, are not justified by the quality of the design” and “these [newly] incorporated elements, while considered improvements to the initial submission, do not sufficiently elevate the design to a level where the variances can be supported based on architectural merit.” In fact, in my opinion, the improvements that the applicant has brought back to the Commission are more than negated by newly offensive aspects. In sum, I think that the Commission should feel insulted that the applicant is wasting its time on a proposal that obviously raises the same objections that the Commission had before.
Perhaps the most offensive aspect of this new proposal is the building heights that the applicant is proposing on the subject property which exceed the maximum allowable under the C-7 zone by nearly 50% and do not conform to the existing building heights nearby, most notably the Madison immediately to the west which is 15 storeys tall. Commenting on this, the planning department in its report identified some objectives for development within the Official Community Plan and the fact that this proposal does not meet them. As stated in the OCP, “All development should be an appropriate response to its physical context, or anticipated future context where an area is designated for increased density or land use transition in the OCP (this project is not).” And “All development should contribute to a sense of community identity and sense of place (integration of development within larger community, belonging, community cohesiveness) (this project does not). Commenting on the conformity of the proposal to the City’s Guidelines for Development within Urban Centres and in regards to the topic “Building Massing,” the planning department’s report states “The proposed building is NOT compatible with the massing and rhythm of the emerging streetscape.”
On the important subject of density, although the proposal is within the maximum density allowed under the C-7 Zone at a density of 8.92 (the maximum allowable being 9.0), the density of this project should still be considered excessive as in the words of the planning department, “The FAR [in this zone] was intentionally set high with the expectation that no development would ever approach this upper limit.” Therefore, given that admission on the part of the planning department, I think it is fair to say that just because this project’s density is within the allowable amount that does not mean that it is acceptable as the reference density of 9.0 is admittedly excessive. And since the density of this project is almost equal to the reference density, that makes the density of this project excessive as well. Accordingly, I think the Commission should require that the applicant stay within the maximum allowable building height under the C-7 zone and plan for a density that conforms to this height and with other requirements of the zone such as building setbacks and floor plates. Additionally, the structures should also occupy only enough of the site so as to not create a bulky look.
As the applicant has come before the Commission a second time having failed to do this, I request that the Commission recommend against all applications before it in regards to this proposal including the applications for a rezoning, a development permit, and all the requested variances.
Thank you.
Tags: Advisory Planning Commission, C-7 Zone, density, downtown, Doyle Ave., height, highrise, Kelowna, St. Paul St., variances
