1065 Pacific St rezoning application

Share 1065 Pacific St rezoning application on Facebook Share 1065 Pacific St rezoning application on Twitter Share 1065 Pacific St rezoning application on Linkedin Email 1065 Pacific St rezoning application link

This application was approved by Council at Public Hearing on March 12, 2024

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone 1065 Pacific St from RM-5A (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 32-storey residential building over five levels of underground parking accessed from the lane. This proposal includes:

  • 144 secured market rental units and 36 below-market rental units;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 11.19;
  • A floor area of 14,070.4 sq. m (151,453 sq. ft.);
  • A building height of 91.4 m (300 ft.); and
  • 100 vehicle parking spaces and 344 bicycle parking spaces.

The application is being considered under the Criteria for 100% Secured Rental and Below-Market Housing as an Alternative to Inclusionary Social Housing in the Burrard Corridor of the West End Community Plan.

Application drawings and statistics on this webpage are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone 1065 Pacific St from RM-5A (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 32-storey residential building over five levels of underground parking accessed from the lane. This proposal includes:

  • 144 secured market rental units and 36 below-market rental units;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 11.19;
  • A floor area of 14,070.4 sq. m (151,453 sq. ft.);
  • A building height of 91.4 m (300 ft.); and
  • 100 vehicle parking spaces and 344 bicycle parking spaces.

The application is being considered under the Criteria for 100% Secured Rental and Below-Market Housing as an Alternative to Inclusionary Social Housing in the Burrard Corridor of the West End Community Plan.

Application drawings and statistics on this webpage are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.

This application was approved by Council at Public Hearing on March 12, 2024

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from February 20, 2023 to March 12, 2023. 

We post all questions as-is and aim to respond within two business days. Some questions may require coordination with internal departments and additional time may be needed to post a response.

Please note that the comment form will remain open after the virtual open house time period. The Rezoning Planner can also be contacted directly for any further feedback or questions.

  • Share Applicant is asking for significant allowance for both site frontage and building setback to the point that the site seems unreasonably tight. I would assume planning would not support this without some remedy. Has the applicant even attempted to amalgamate the site with surrounding properties? on Facebook Share Applicant is asking for significant allowance for both site frontage and building setback to the point that the site seems unreasonably tight. I would assume planning would not support this without some remedy. Has the applicant even attempted to amalgamate the site with surrounding properties? on Twitter Share Applicant is asking for significant allowance for both site frontage and building setback to the point that the site seems unreasonably tight. I would assume planning would not support this without some remedy. Has the applicant even attempted to amalgamate the site with surrounding properties? on Linkedin Email Applicant is asking for significant allowance for both site frontage and building setback to the point that the site seems unreasonably tight. I would assume planning would not support this without some remedy. Has the applicant even attempted to amalgamate the site with surrounding properties? link

    Applicant is asking for significant allowance for both site frontage and building setback to the point that the site seems unreasonably tight. I would assume planning would not support this without some remedy. Has the applicant even attempted to amalgamate the site with surrounding properties?

    Inara Jaunozola asked about 1 year ago

    The staff team reached out to the applicant team for a response and they provided the following:

    Two of the three houses on Thurlow have a City of Vancouver heritage designation. We did reach out to the owners of the homes on Thurlow to determine if they would be interested in a sale. Following discussions, it became clear that their price expectations were not realistic, especially in the context of the heritage designations. As a result, we created a unique hi-rise building design that respects the heritage buildings on both the west and the east property lines and future potential building separations.

    The proposed setback is also an improvement over the currently existing situation.

  • Share The applicant states: DEVELOPMENT IS INTENDED TO MARRY THE SCALES OF THE WEST END HIGH RISES, WITH THE SMALLER SCALE CHARACTER OF THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS ON THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES, TO CREATE AN ENSEMBLE WITHIN A BUILDING FORM THAT IS EXPERIENTIALLY URBAN SCALED WHEN VIEWED FROM A DISTANCE WHILE FEELING MUCH MORE NEIGHBOURHOOD APPROPRIATE WHEN EXPERIENCED FROM THE STREET. With heritage houses on both sides of the proposed tower, I cannot agree with this statement. It is completely out of sync with the neighboring buildings. Why would the city allow such a tall building in such a small footprint, adjacent to heritage houses? Is the city not concerned about potential damage to the foundations of the heritage homes during demolition of the existing building and construction of the many levels of underground parking? on Facebook Share The applicant states: DEVELOPMENT IS INTENDED TO MARRY THE SCALES OF THE WEST END HIGH RISES, WITH THE SMALLER SCALE CHARACTER OF THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS ON THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES, TO CREATE AN ENSEMBLE WITHIN A BUILDING FORM THAT IS EXPERIENTIALLY URBAN SCALED WHEN VIEWED FROM A DISTANCE WHILE FEELING MUCH MORE NEIGHBOURHOOD APPROPRIATE WHEN EXPERIENCED FROM THE STREET. With heritage houses on both sides of the proposed tower, I cannot agree with this statement. It is completely out of sync with the neighboring buildings. Why would the city allow such a tall building in such a small footprint, adjacent to heritage houses? Is the city not concerned about potential damage to the foundations of the heritage homes during demolition of the existing building and construction of the many levels of underground parking? on Twitter Share The applicant states: DEVELOPMENT IS INTENDED TO MARRY THE SCALES OF THE WEST END HIGH RISES, WITH THE SMALLER SCALE CHARACTER OF THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS ON THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES, TO CREATE AN ENSEMBLE WITHIN A BUILDING FORM THAT IS EXPERIENTIALLY URBAN SCALED WHEN VIEWED FROM A DISTANCE WHILE FEELING MUCH MORE NEIGHBOURHOOD APPROPRIATE WHEN EXPERIENCED FROM THE STREET. With heritage houses on both sides of the proposed tower, I cannot agree with this statement. It is completely out of sync with the neighboring buildings. Why would the city allow such a tall building in such a small footprint, adjacent to heritage houses? Is the city not concerned about potential damage to the foundations of the heritage homes during demolition of the existing building and construction of the many levels of underground parking? on Linkedin Email The applicant states: DEVELOPMENT IS INTENDED TO MARRY THE SCALES OF THE WEST END HIGH RISES, WITH THE SMALLER SCALE CHARACTER OF THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS ON THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES, TO CREATE AN ENSEMBLE WITHIN A BUILDING FORM THAT IS EXPERIENTIALLY URBAN SCALED WHEN VIEWED FROM A DISTANCE WHILE FEELING MUCH MORE NEIGHBOURHOOD APPROPRIATE WHEN EXPERIENCED FROM THE STREET. With heritage houses on both sides of the proposed tower, I cannot agree with this statement. It is completely out of sync with the neighboring buildings. Why would the city allow such a tall building in such a small footprint, adjacent to heritage houses? Is the city not concerned about potential damage to the foundations of the heritage homes during demolition of the existing building and construction of the many levels of underground parking? link

    The applicant states: DEVELOPMENT IS INTENDED TO MARRY THE SCALES OF THE WEST END HIGH RISES, WITH THE SMALLER SCALE CHARACTER OF THE HERITAGE BUILDINGS ON THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES, TO CREATE AN ENSEMBLE WITHIN A BUILDING FORM THAT IS EXPERIENTIALLY URBAN SCALED WHEN VIEWED FROM A DISTANCE WHILE FEELING MUCH MORE NEIGHBOURHOOD APPROPRIATE WHEN EXPERIENCED FROM THE STREET. With heritage houses on both sides of the proposed tower, I cannot agree with this statement. It is completely out of sync with the neighboring buildings. Why would the city allow such a tall building in such a small footprint, adjacent to heritage houses? Is the city not concerned about potential damage to the foundations of the heritage homes during demolition of the existing building and construction of the many levels of underground parking?

    Dawn McCormick asked over 1 year ago

    City staff will be reviewing the proposal for its compliance with built form provisions in the West End Plan and any relevant guidelines and bulletins. The review will also be informed by feedback gathered from the public consultation process and the Urban Design Panel.

    The site is located in Area G of the Burrard Corridor under the West End Plan. Building heights up to 300 feet can be considered in the area. Development proposals with frontages of less than 39.6 m (130 ft.) can be considered at the discretion of the Director of Planning, where these proposals include contributions to the Public Benefits Strategy, including secured market rental or social housing. Staff will be evaluating the proposal’s contribution to the Public Benefits Strategy and its compliance with relevant urban design objectives in determining the suitability of a site frontage less than 130 ft.

    In regards to construction, this development must comply with the Vancouver Building By-law, which regulates the design and construction of buildings, as well as the administrative provisions related to permitting, inspections, and the enforcement of these requirements. A Demolition Plan must be submitted which outlines the procedure for demolishing a building in a manner that does not negatively affect the integrity of any other buildings, structures, buried or above ground utilities or any other real property. This Plan must be provided by the Demolition Contractor or a Professional Engineer registered in the Province of BC. Additional plans are reviewed at the Building Permit stage and regular inspections are carried out through the construction process to ensure compliance with the Vancouver Building By-law.

  • Share Why so many levels of underground parking for a building that is so central, close to transit, ferries, Canada Line etc? on Facebook Share Why so many levels of underground parking for a building that is so central, close to transit, ferries, Canada Line etc? on Twitter Share Why so many levels of underground parking for a building that is so central, close to transit, ferries, Canada Line etc? on Linkedin Email Why so many levels of underground parking for a building that is so central, close to transit, ferries, Canada Line etc? link

    Why so many levels of underground parking for a building that is so central, close to transit, ferries, Canada Line etc?

    Dawn McCormick asked over 1 year ago

    The staff team reached out to the applicant team for a response and they provided the following:

    The short answer is that we would like to reduce the number of parking stalls and eliminate parking level P5.

    This task is not quite that simple however, as we still have to satisfy the minimum code requirement. At the time of submission we weren’t sure if staff would accept our rational for a 20% parking reduction based on proximity to transit. We now have this confirmation. With that we have to provide a minimum of 77 residential stalls (compared to the 95 stalls we are currently providing). There are, however, 24 stalls on P5, and deleting all of them would bring the count down to 71. The parking by-law allows us to count each of the required accessible stalls as 2 for code purposes, which would bring us up to 78.

    In addition we will have to ensure that we can provide a minimum of one (1) storage unit per suite. We would be losing 37 on level P5 and about 12 on level P4 because the elevator machine room would need to move up one level. Currently we provide one storage unit per suite in the parkade. We would now have to rely on the 60 in-suite storage units to make up for the loss of 49 storage units in the Parkade, which is acceptable by code.

    It is quite tight to make all this work and delete P5. However, if what is described above can be achieved and is acceptable to staff, we would go ahead and delete P5.