TRANSCRIPT of the Public Meeting held in the Council

Document Sample
TRANSCRIPT of the Public Meeting held in the Council Powered By Docstoc
					             TRANSCRIPT of the Public Meeting held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 141
             West 14th Street, North Vancouver, BC, on MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2001 AT
             7:00 PM


 COUNCIL MEMBERS                                 STAFF MEMBERS
 Mayor B.A. Sharp                                A.K. Tollstam, City Manager
 Councillor W.J. Bell                            B.A. Hawkshaw, City Clerk
 Councillor J.B. Braithwaite                     D.M. Rooke, Assistant City Clerk
 Councillor R.J. Fearnley                        F.A. Smith, Director, Community Development
 Councillor C.R. Keating                         R.H. White, City Planner
 Councillor D.R. Mussatto                        B. Spencer, Development Planner
 Councillor B.W. Perrault                        M. MacFadyen, Manager, Lands Division
                                                 L. Orr, Social Planner
                                                 J. Rowe, Assistant City Clerk

The meeting was called to order at 7:11 p.m.


Mayor B.A. Sharp
Mr. Hawkshaw!

Mr. B.A. Hawkshaw
Thank you Your Worship. An application has been received to amend the Official
Community Plan as it pertains to the site in the 100 Block West Esplanade/West 1 st Street,
commonly referred to as Site 5. The proposed amendment would increase the permitted
building heights from 36.6 metres and 23.0 metres to 58.1 metres and 46.5 metres
respectively Your Worship. The proposal would increase building heights in two locations
and reduce building heights in other locations on site, all as shown in the applicant‟s
PROPERTIES, Your Worship. An agenda for this Your Worship is to have an overview of
the project, introduction by staff, presentation by Grosvenor Capital Corporation and
Fairmont Properties, and presentations from the public or questions and queries from the
public, and then a Council discussion, and then move to a review of the multi-purpose centre,
with an introduction by staff and then discussion from the public, and then Council discussion
and then the Public Meeting itself, would actually conclude Your Worship.

Mayor Sharp
OK. Mr. Smith, you‟re on deck.

Mr. F.A. Smith
I‟ll be very brief. First of all, Your Worship and Council. I‟m Fred Smith, Community
Development Director. I‟m going to do the briefest of introductions. As Mr. Hawkshaw, City
Clerk has stated we have now received an application for an Official Community Plan
amendment from Grosvenor and Fairmont for Site 5 in Lower Lonsdale. You‟ll see that we
have the model before you this evening, and members of the applicant‟s group will describe
the model and describe their proposal.

City of North Vancouver                Page 1 of 41                              Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                      September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Planning staff and Engineering staff specifically, have not yet provided Council their detailed
analysis. The application was received in August, last month, and the decision to hold this
meeting tonight was made in July prior to actually receiving the application.

We knew it was imminent, so we asked Council to consider this meeting this evening, and
Council agreed to that and we did have a request from the Lonsdale Citizens‟ Association to
convene such a meeting as well, so that acknowledges that request also.

I would just like to say that staff will be reporting probably for next Monday, on a proposal for
this application. Where does it go from here, next steps, and certainly comments we hear
this evening may have an impact on what we recommend for next week, but it‟s almost
certain that we will have a report in for next week, with the next steps in this process.

With that I would like to turn the floor over to Christopher Philps of Fairmont Pacific, who I
believe is going to do an introduction and overview, and then he‟s going to hand off to some
of his people as well.

Mayor Sharp
Can you give us an idea of how long you expect to have your presentation?

Mr. C. Philps
I‟ll try and be 2 minutes, and then Paul Merrick will try and describe the proposal to you, and
then we would like to leave as much time to take questions from the public and then Council.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you.

Mr. Philps, President of Fairmont Pacific Development Ltd.
Good Evening Your Worship, members of Council. As you know, my name is Christopher
Philps. I‟m President of Fairmont Pacific Development Ltd. I‟m here tonight with my partner,
Dan Walsh, President of Grosvenor Capital Corporation with Paul Merrick and Chris Moy of
Paul Merrick Architects with Dirk Buchess, Buchess Architecture, and Mark Ehman of Downs
Archambault Architects.

It has been over a year since our original proposal was first selected by Council, and we
think that much has been accomplished in that time. We‟ve refined our proposal with the
benefit of considerable input from City staff, from the Advisory Planning Commission, from
the Advisory Design Panel, from the public meeting and the public open house we held at
Lonsdale Quay, and from the Council Workshop we had last April.

Creating the most desirable mix of residential, commercial and public uses really requires a
careful balancing of planning priorities. When you think about it, it‟s really a very complicated
jigsaw puzzle.

*       We‟ve got a 33,000 square foot community centre, that has its priorities, and wants to
        up front facing Jack Loucks Court, so we all know where it is.

*       We‟ve got a food anchored retail component that needs to front along Esplanade, and
        has its servicing and loading requirements that have to be dealt with.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 2 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
*       We‟ve got parking for all of those uses.

*       We‟ve got an additional 150 stall parking garage for the community, and we‟ve got
        the structure the support the residential on top that really pays for it all,

We‟ve got to fit it all together in a way that works, and we think what we‟ve done is we‟ve met
the priorities of each of the uses, and at the same time, we‟ve created large public plazas
and public open space. We‟ve created a meaningful connection between Jack Loucks Court
and the waterfront for pedestrians, and at the same time we‟ve respected the established
view corridors, but what the proposal needs however, is an amendment to the Official
Community Plan primarily respecting height.

We‟re eager to begin construction of this project as soon as we can. We believe what we‟re
going to create is a very high quality centrepiece for Lower Lonsdale that will contribute much
to the life and renaissance of the area, and that being said, I‟d like to turn our presentation
over to Paul Merrick to try and take everyone through the proposal. Thank you.

Mr. Paul Merrick
Thank you very much. Good Evening Your Worship and members of Council. I don‟t think I
need to dwell much on explaining the proposal in any detail. We certainly welcome any
particular questions you might have.

As you all know I think, there‟s been a dialogue exploring the implications of the proposal
through the last year, and I think three meetings with the Advisory Planning Commission and
one with a follow with the Advisory Design Panel.

It seems that with respect to the amendment necessary to the Official Community Plan that
really is before you tonight, that the question can be simply summarized by way of saying
“What is it that the community would get in exchange for considering an increase to the
allowable height on this development site?”, and the plain answers to that I think are to begin
improvement to access to natural light to Jack Loucks Court to the considerable investment
already made there, and to views from that, and I think we need to remember in reflecting on
those two qualities, that they are certainly entirely subjective characteristics – access to
natural light is subjective, and so is thing we call view.

I think I‟d only like to say that with respect to those things, they are phenomena that we
appreciate as we experience any part of the urban environment we experience. We don‟t
experience it in a static way, but in a way that is part of the place in the community that we‟re
a part of, and to the extent that this proposal is on what in other locations would be
tantamount to a whole City block, it‟s hardly a thing to be seen as one object in space, and
it‟s hardly a situation that we experience in its entirety in any one way or at any one time.

We are dealing, as Mr. Philps suggested with managing the disposition of both the mix of
uses being envisaged here, and the form that those uses might take, and that exploring that
we found ourselves taking the view and bringing forward the view, that by considering that
volume of space be managed so that it was narrower and higher, in exchange for a greater
amount of access to light and view that there were some real benefits to be accrued. In the
first and general instance, those benefits are in what we call the public realm – what do you
experience on the street and what do you experience in this part of Lower Lonsdale.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 3 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
I think the Official Community Plan well represented on the drawing on the east wall there,
illustrates fundamentally, that we‟re at a point here where several paths through adjoining
neighbourhood fabric, are congregating and coming through to a waterfront, to the ferry
access, to the market and to the Esplanade services, and in developing the proposal from
the lower but volumentrically substantial disposition envisaged in the present Official
Community Plan, I think we‟ve been able to show how in opening up more light and view
access, we‟ve also been able to facilitate at grade, in a real way, public access around,
through and to the site, and to cascade to the natural contour that otherwise exists from 1 st
Street to Lonsdale.

I think the other observation that could be made in accommodating the bulk is with respect to
the community centre, which is certainly a valuable aspect in this location since this is
certainly something that the community wants to see, and I think we‟ve been able to find a
way to incorporate it in a location in a way that it adds as great a value as it can without
adding any more bulk that it would generate unnecessary.

I gather for instance, that questions such as whether it should be on one or two levels as
opposed to three or four levels that is in this proposal, has been raised, and I think that this
configuration in the proposal yields the best of all worlds, in that a large part of that program
volumentrically, is the playing court – the basketball court, which in itself is a large bulk, that
naturally limits itself to being below grade, because it doesn‟t want in fact, natural light for its
essential purposes, and that the other uses that make up the community centre tend to be
activities that don‟t necessarily for most people on average, have a lot to do with each other,
so one who may be going to the seniors‟ facility, may not be at the same time, using the
basketball court or any such other range of communities, but by putting the bulk of it below
grade and then remaining uses that do want light and air and view, the seniors, the crafts
areas and the health services and so on, above grade, both to give them the prospect that
they want, and to give that public facility the presence and identity in sense of address that
by nature, it wants to have.

I think the other perception in terms benefit or trade of height in exchange for more openness
is accorded to those impacted by the proposal. Those who already live in the neighbourhood
who live around, and who are subject to the pluses and minuses of the form variance that
have been explored, and I think most of you have had it described in enough detail that we
can summarize by way of saying that up to say the 12-storey volume proposal that was the
basis of the offering on the site that I think you did accept a year ago, that anyone in the
surround vicinity then living at a height up to 12-storeys in fact, has a better outlook by virtue
of a smaller, higher building form affecting their view outlook, and I think in some cases,
that‟s considerable.

It‟s certainly true that between the 12 and 17 stories, there will be some who benefit and
some who get it on the swings and lose it on the roundabouts, and above the 17th or 18th
floor of adjoining sites of course, any present occupants higher than that are going to have
the view that they now enjoy anyway, by virtue of being as high as they are, so as with all
things there‟s pros and cons and trade-offs to be weighed and judged, and I think I‟d only like
to end up by asking that we reflect on, as I expect all of you have done in reality, to go and
inhabit the area if you like in your mind‟s eye, and imagine what it is that might be there, and
consider what it is you are getting for entertaining this change in volumetric form, in
exchange for the general, and we think, much broader and substantial benefit to more of the
public and more in fact, of the residents who are joining in the neighbourhood. Thank you.

City of North Vancouver                   Page 4 of 41                                Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                           September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mayor Sharp
Is there more? Is that it?

Mr. Merrick
Not unless there are questions that Council wishes to put to us.

Mayor Sharp
That‟ll be later. I‟m going to go to the public now, and ask if there are any members who
have comments or questions regarding this. I do have some names on a list. Jim Ramsay,
Mychiko Yakoda, Tom Anderson and Ingrid Driscoll. I would ask if there‟s anybody else at
this time? Connie Burns. Your address Connie? 130 West 22nd Street. Yes, your name?
Carol Sawyer – 111 West 5th Street. The woman in the pink sweater? Patty Mills
(address?). This gentleman down here El Zanaty; Vincent Federa – 170 West Esplanade.
This gentleman here. Pawel Mikolajczak – 251 West 6th Street. Mr. Ramsay could you

Mr. J. Ramsay – Lonsdale Citizens’ Association
Good Evening Your Worship, members of Council. We‟ve heard about views and heights in
the presentation, and while the Lonsdale Citizens‟ Association thinks these are important,
another overriding concern is trust between the City and the community comes into play in
this decision.

We had asked for this meeting last May so this discussion could take place before you had a
formal application submitted by the developer. We hope there will still be an opportunity for
significant changes to the massing of this project. By the way, we were never contacted by
the developer and until we initiated a conversation last week, there was no effort on their part
to have any dialogue with us. I did speak with Mr. Philps last week and asked that a copy of
the 12-storey proposal that was accepted and was the basis upon which your Agreement in
Principal with the City was established, also be made available for comparison purposes,
and I‟m quite disappointed to see that it‟s not her, so all we have to look at is the photograph
on the far wall that shows the applicant proposal, and below that the 12-story…………..block
contrast, so we‟ll have to work with that.

I wanted to come to this basic issue of trust. As you all know, we‟ve had a number of view
studies over the past 10 plus years and height limits were generally set at 12-storeys
throughout this area, and that‟s what the community had been led to expect. Now the game
plan has changed, and suddenly we‟re confronted with 19 – well I‟m not sure – 17/19 stories
on the City-owned land.

We think this is psychologically damaging to residents who have already seen parts of their
views disappear from things like elevator cabins were not included in height limits, and ended
up blocking the views from their units. Residents that bought into the units on the basis of a
12-storey height limits, and if the ground rules continue to change like this, how can we
expect to build a community and continue to attract people, and I think this is the basic
question you all need to think about carefully in this issue.

A lot of what was talked about in the benefits of this course, is the view preservation, but the
fact is as we indicated in our flyer, there are no ………….views of it going to be available
from Jack Loucks Court through this project, because of the existing buildings already there.
So that being the case, why inflict such tall towers on the neighbourhood.

City of North Vancouver                 Page 5 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                        September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
TLCA is concerned firstly about the impact of this development on Jack Loucks Court,
considering the lack of parks and green space in Lower Lonsdale, but also the proposed
residential towers have an impact on a much wider area of the City and a larger number of
citizens. The impact can‟t be measured in terms of the immediate buildings and streets
around the site, although obviously these are of first importance. The views of adjoining
buildings need to be carefully considered. A glaring example of course, is the Cressey tower
and the impact that that‟s had on the whole Lower Lonsdale area.

Now I think there‟s a myth surrounding this issue of view corridors that somehow people are
rooted to the spot, but huge buildings in their shadows affect much more than the immediate
surround area. The issue here isn‟t the density, the number of residential units that are
proposed. We don‟t have a problem with the density, but we think the same density of
development can be achieved on a more human scale of building.

For that reason we believe that Council should reject the 16 and 18 or whatever it is, story
plan and assist the developer make creative use of the allowed 12 story maximum, while
minimizing the view and shadow impact on the community. We also think that elevator
cabins and other rooftop protrudences should be included in these height limits.

I would also like to just briefly mention the public parking component of this facility. The 150
unit the City will be essentially buying – paying for the developer to put in, but the City is
going to leave the developer or someone else to operate that facility on the City‟s behalf, and
we‟re quite concerned about that unless the City maintains a very tight control in your
agreement with the operator that this facility is in fact, a publicly accessible space that people
can use, since parking is of course, a major concern in the area. Thank you. Councillor
Fearnley, do you have a question of Mr. Ramsay?

Councillor R.J. Fearnley
Yes I do. Mr. Ramsay, I‟ll have to do a little preamble to set this one up.

Mayor Sharp
Not too long please.

Councillor Fearnley
He‟s got to understand what I‟m talking about. Originally when this was proposed they were
talking about a street wall along 2nd Street on the south side of 1 or 2 stories, and they were
talking about housing, and to the west shops with possible housing above them in the east.
We‟ve also heard from a number of our experts that parks to the north need to be
constrained, and it needs a street wall all the way along to make it more effective.

If we were to include that it probably would have the effect of taking some of the density of
the buildings down a little bit. Would something like that be favourable to your group, do you

Mr. Ramsay
Yes, I think so. Very much.

Councillor Fearnley
That‟s fine.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 6 of 41                                Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mayor Sharp
Councillor Keating!

Councillor C.R. Keating
Thank you very much Your Worship. I guess my first question through you to Mr. Ramsay
would be do you accept the sort of basic argument of Mr. Merrick that there‟s a certain trade-
off here, in terms of the way the building is massed, and have a taller, thinner building, or a
shorter squatter building? A simple question.

Mr. Ramsay

Councillor Keating
Fine. The TLCA Your Worship, is on record as opposing then the higher iteration of the
building here – the higher narrower one, and in favour of the smaller and squatter, and I
guess when we begin to assess view impacts, as all these things will have, what will the
TLCA say to those people who will be adversely affected by the shorter, squatter buildings as
opposed to those people who will be affected by the taller and thinner version.

Mr. Ramsay
Well, the ones we‟ve heard from are all the ones affected by the taller and thinner, and we
haven‟t heard too much from the others, and you know, you have a very talented architect
here, and he can do all sorts of clever things with a shorter building. Let‟s face it, the basic
intent of the developer is to get as high up into the sky as possible, notwithstanding what
happened elsewhere last week, and the higher you can justify getting a higher view, the
more they can charge for them. That‟s what this is really all about, and sure, being sensitive
to view corridors and shadow stuff is all the words they wrap around it, but that‟s what they‟re
after, and shorter and more human scale buildings can be designed that are equally
attractive. All we have to think of in the presentation we saw unsustainable communities –
the Capers building in Vancouver is a good example of much lower-rise high quality buildings
serves all kinds of purposes, so I just don‟t buy the taller and thinner is always better than
shorter and fatter, because it‟s not always true.

Councillor Keating
I‟m tall and thin, so I would, but anyway. Your Worship, one final question, and that would be
I received a flyer that the TLCA sent round as well. I saw a picture in that there is no view
impacts from the Official Community Plan version of how this building should be constructed
upon Jack Loucks Court, yet I see behind me, and I hope you can see that, here as well a
picture which has been prepared – I‟m not sure by whom – which shows that in fact, if you do
have – I think they‟ve got a gymnasium or some blockish building there in Jack Loucks Court,
it does in fact, as the next photo shows, obliterate a view of the harbour from Jack Loucks
Court, and I guess my question would be two-fold. (a) does the TLCA think this is somehow
sort of you know, one of these ………… with pictures, sort of insert things that aren‟t
there. How do you explain the picture I guess is the first question, and the second question
is what do you say about the view impacts, if these are valid, on Jack Loucks Court.

City of North Vancouver                 Page 7 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                        September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mr. Ramsay
As I showed before it is very interesting. I actually spent quite a bit of time down in Jacks
Loucks Court, because hearing all this talk about all these view corridors, and I actually have
a whole series of photographs, and unless you stand in one particular spot, there‟s a view,
but the minute you move 3 feet this way, you‟ve lost it, and 3 feet that way you‟ve lost it, so I
don‟t believe that there‟s significant view corridor to the water to be lost, quite frankly. Sure,
you can basically perhaps see………………the building there anyway, and through there to
the left of ICBC there may be a glimpse of a corridor, not much, and again they can still – I‟m
still from Missouri – that they can‟t still minimize those problems and still come up with a
quite acceptable product that meets the City‟s and the residents needs.

Councillor Keating
Thank you Your Worship.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Bell!

Councillor W.J. Bell
Thank you Your Worship, through you to Mr. Ramsay. I guess I‟m from a different
perspective and perplexed over the matter of trust as you are. I‟ve been around the issue for
a long time as you are well aware, and have fought density in Lower Lonsdale, and now I see
of density in Lower Lonsdale, because I always believe that that was the core problem of
blocking views, and now I hear tonight that one organization who used to be concerned
about density is now saying that density isn‟t a problem here. I‟m wondering about your
thoughts on that, and as well, your organization was always very concerned sitting here
listening to…………(Tape Break) Councillor Bell’s comments incomplete Re-Record
from video

Mayor Sharp declared a recess at 7:13 p.m., and reconvened at 7:27 p.m.

Mr. Ramsay
I think for a long time we have had the opinion that we weren‟t opposed to density. There‟s a
lot of good things; a lot of benefit to having density. We don‟t get the economies of scale for
public transportation and various other things, unless we have a lot of residents here, and
there‟s no way around, so we have for a long time, many years Council accepted the City‟s
view of this being a densely populated part of the City, and we think that the City is going to
benefit in the long term from having a lot of residents down in this area. I‟m looking forward
to seeing this build out, provided it‟s done right, but there‟s good density and there‟s bad
density, and we still feel strongly that the good density can be achieved on a more human
scale and still achieve the other objectives so view corridors should exist and we‟re not
opposed to view corridors, but just that the notion of view corridors are being, I think,
misused to justify the particular proposal of the proponents and we don‟t necessarily agree
that those corridors are properly protected.

Councillor Bell
Thank you Your Worship.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you Mr. Ramsay. The next person I have on the list is Nacheko Yakota.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 8 of 41                                Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Ms. N. Yokota – 125 West 2nd Street
Good Evening Mayor Sharp and members of Council. I own a unit at 125 West 2 nd Street in
the “Sailview”. I stood here before you a few years ago asking you to reduce the height of a
building slated to be built in front of the “Sailview”. You refused to consider our appeal,
pointing out that the Official Community Plan had to be followed. I‟m again here, this time
speaking out against the height of the proposed buldings on Site 5 that are being discussed

Apart from blocking views and casting long shadows on the new Jack Loucks Court in winter,
it will also turn the Lower Lonsdale into a cold City block. The supposedly 12-storey building
that went up on the south side of the “Sailview”, eventually turned into a 13-storey with
elevated towers on top. On those rare sunny days in winter, our building is sitting in the cold
shadow of the finished new building all afternoon. I assume the same thing will happen with
the proposed 16 and 18 story buildings on Site 5. The elevated towers will raise the heights
even more. I can‟t think of anybody wanting to sit in the Jack Loucks Court surrounded by
shadows of two tall buildings on a sunny day in winter.

I respectfully ask Council to stand by their commitment to the Official Community Plan that
calls for not more than two 12-storey buildings on Site 5. People who had the wisdom and
made the effort of checking out the Official Community Plan at City Hall before buying into
this neighbourhood should have a right of protection too.

I could not get anybody in our building to join me for the public meeting tonight. I was told
that they had lost trust in the City‟s planning and that nobody is listening to us. “They‟ll do
what they want anyhow” was the reply. I hope you will prove them wrong. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you. I would ask the audience to please refrain yourselves. This is not a debate or a
public show of support. This is not dissimilar from that of a chamber in a Court of Law, and
so therefore, I would ask you to please refrain from show of support or negative aspects of
peoples‟ comments, because they came here to be heard tonight, whether we agree with
them or disagree with them, so thank you very much. I will carry on. Mr. Ivan Leonard!

Mr. I. Leonard – 215 St. Andrew’s Avenue
First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your comments earlier this evening, and thank you
very much for that.

So, here we are again. Around and around. It‟s just like a loop, year after year, every time a
piece of land comes up – bang – we‟ve got to fight for the Official Community Plan. Yes, it‟s
incumbent upon a developer to maximize his income, but within the defines needed by the
user. How many times is it necessary for the user to state their needs. The City, the
community has stated and re-stated through its Official Community Plan and through the
public process, those needs time and time and time again.

The community has emphasized we do not want towers along the North Shore slope,
especially at the foot of the slope. We do not want a high-rise wall built along our waterfront.
We do not want to repeat the folly of West Vancouver. We do not want to become another
West End. We now have our little park – Jack Loucks Court – a nice place to sit and ponder
besides still waters – sorry about that, but surely we would prefer to sit in sunlight rather than
in shadows.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 9 of 41                                Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
We know towers are not the only answer to achieve density and livability. Elsewhere in the
City creative and innovative answers have been found which maintained density and
maximized the available land on a very human and livable scale.

Site 5 affords the opportunity to fully utilize the important and considerable parcel of land for
both commercial and residential use, and I recognize the present difficulty in developing the
commercial aspect of the project while in a down-turn in the economy, but we also cannot
afford to make decisions now that will detrimentally affect our future needs in this City.

This is a valuable piece of property that will affect the City‟s tax base as we attempt to
maximize every piece of land in this small City of ours. We must plan for the future, and
think in terms of 40 and 50 years ahead. That said, we must also consider the people of the
neighbourhood and how the community can sustain itself within the larger community. As
recent events on the North Shore have shown – I‟m referring to the problems with our two
bridges – travel around the City was brought to a near standstill many times. By developing
sustainable neighbourhoods, vehicular travel can be reduced.

The City‟s present course of sustainable community development in urban living, where
people live, work, shop and play within their own communities and neighbourhoods is very
commendable. What is commendable is the City‟s present course, and must be allowed to
continue. People love to walk, meet and talk. It must be allowed to continue to enhance the
unique character, the historic heritage of the area to continue to develop the Lower Lonsdale
area as a waterfront community that has coherence – a place where people want to live; a
place where people want to work, and a place where people want to visit. Will two towers
and a high-end food store cut it? No, I don‟t think so. A community, towers won‟t make.

I want to look at these two pictures up here, and the lower one is designed to look like two
mausoleums. The ones above it have enhanced balconies and such. That‟s not very nice. I
mean it‟s not very nice by the developer to present two pictures like that. As I‟ve said,
around this City there are all kinds of creative ideas, where we don‟t even have to go up 12
stories and have two blocks just like that. We can maintain the same density at a much
lower level. It is important to think of a neighbourhood as a neighbourhood; as a community.
The comment the gentleman made earlier, said that this is a beautiful centrepiece for the

We‟ve already got a community. We‟ve already a neighbourhood. We‟ve already got people
walking around the Lower Lonsdale talking. We‟ve already got a character. Now we‟ve got a
park. What are we going to do with the rest of the area? Are we going to build more towers,
more towers, more towers? We have to think about what we‟re doing to the neighbourhood
for the people that live here.

I get so mad. We do this year after year after year. We go on and on and on. We‟re going
in the right direction, but why do we have to continually fight. When we look along 3rd Street,
all those 3,4-storey new buildings. That‟s what we‟re looking for. That‟s the community.
That‟s what we want. We want the stores below. The residences above. Europe has been
doing that for hundreds of years.

City of North Vancouver                 Page 10 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
We now, cannot afford to just take whole block and build a tower in it. We‟ve got a swimming
pool along 2nd Street, that takes up a whole ½ block that doesn‟t belong to anybody, and I
don‟t think anybody uses it. We should make that a public place. I‟m referring to the big
tower along West 2nd there.

Why do we think of towers all the time? I understand it‟s the cheapest and most cost
effective way of building, and I appreciate the developer who puts his money forward and he
wants to make a profit, but it has to be within our needs. It‟s for the people. It‟s for us that
live here. Thank you very much.

Mayor Sharp
I have a couple of Council members that have some questions of you Mr. Leonard.
Councillor Bell!

Councillor Bell
Thank you Your Worship, through you to Mr. Leonard. You started you‟re talk talking about
living within the Official Community Plan, but am I to understand that in fact, you want us to
go below the Official Community Plan?

Mr. Leonard
Well yes. We‟ve got an Official Community Plan. We started off and then we‟ve gone up a
little bit, then we‟re going up a little bit more. I was at a workshop with you folks with the City
a few weeks ago. We had five different presentations. It started off with 3 or 4 stories, and
the end of the evening it was these 16/18 stories. The next thing I know we‟re just talking
only about 16 and 18 stories. What happened to all the other little proposals before? I don‟t
know how it happens.

Councillor Bell
Your Worship, just to get it straight it my own mind, you don‟t mind the density that has been
given the developer – you want it smaller than 12 stories. You don‟t want towers. You want
a block building.

Mr. Leonard

Councillor Bell
OK Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Keating!

Councillor Keating
Your Worship, Councillor Bell asked the same question I was going to.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Fearnley!

City of North Vancouver                  Page 11 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Councillor Fearnley
Yes, one thing you mentioned interests me. You were talking about the experience in
Europe with open public spaces like our park, and they‟ve got lots of wonderful examples
over there. What do you think the characteristics of a space like that is, that works?

Mr. Leonard
Can you ask the question again, because I missed it.

Councillor Fearnley
I know it may not be an easy one for you to answer. In Europe you‟ve got a lot of open
public spaces with small parks that work. You don‟t seem to have as many examples over
here that really work well, and I‟m just wondering if there‟s anything that you can single out to
make those spaces effective.

Mr. Leonard
Well, the argument was build a nice park or a court. That‟s one thing. We didn‟t have it
down here in Lower Lonsdale. We have a court, we have a park for people to come and
walk around, meet and talk. Europe has that, but the other thing Europe does it builds all
along the streets. It builds up 5,6,7 stories. People live up there in all these beautiful
apartments, because of the density, and all the stores are down below, and all the homes
and houses are all behind, and they feed the merchants; they feed the people. We don‟t
seem to have any kind of concept like that.

One of the things that‟s happening in North America, and this is the sustainable urban living
programs that Simon Fraser and some of the other universities, but don‟t seem to do it in
North Vancouver. We come along and say let‟s put a tower up there. Then let‟s do this and
then in another couple of years, let‟s put a tower up there. There‟s no cohesiveness. No one
is working together on a whole kind of a plan.

I‟m looking at your towers here. They look good and when you put the other ones up they
just…………things, and that‟s the sort of thing that‟s like a con job. I don‟t like that. That‟s
not nice. I‟m just wondering where are the two blocks that we had before it. There isn‟t any
overall plan. What‟s going to happen at Versatile; what‟s going to happen all along here.
The bottom picture here shows two squat buildings. What‟s going to happen in the block
next to it. It‟s just like block, block, block, block, block. Let‟s bring it down. Let‟s think of
what the people want. Let‟s learn from Europe for heavens sake.

Councillor Fearnley
So I guess to get back to one of the things – and you actually said one of the things here. In
Europe they quite often have shops below and they have residences above and they add life
a public space like that. Do you believe that?

Mr. Leonard
We‟ve got it all along 3rd Street. We‟re doing it. We‟ve got it along 1st along here. We‟re
doing it. Let‟s keep on doing it.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Smith, you have a comment?

City of North Vancouver                 Page 12 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mr. Smith
Your Worship, if you will indulge me for about 30 seconds, I just want to correct a couple of
statements that have been made this evening. This complex floating out here in Burrard
Inlet, this is the insert that would go in to where the towers are now, and this represents one
rendition of what the Official Community Plan allows now, and it allows one 12-storey
building or 120 feet in the southeast quadrant of the site. The rest of the site must be 75 feet
or less, so I‟ve heard someone refer to two towers and that‟s not correct. The Official
Community Plan allows only one tower, and the City did not accept a bid on this property on
the basis of two 12-storey towers. We accepted on the basis of the Official Community Plan.
Anything beyond that and that‟s up to the applicant to fight for, so this is one rendition of the
Official Community Plan. 12 stories in one location. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
Your comment is that it isn‟t really intending to be floating out in the Inlet?

Mr. Smith
That‟s correct your Worship.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Keating!

Councillor Keating
No that‟s fine Your Worship.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you very much Mr. Leonard. The next person is Tom Anderson.

Mr. T. Anderson – 1205 – 444 Lonsdale Avenue
These pictures don‟t show what I‟m going to see from my home. I didn‟t build models, but I
stood on my balcony with my thumbs and I counted up 12 floors just to see what would
happen. Being on 444 Lonsdale, I‟m looking at the building from a diagonal, and I think what
I‟m going to see is going to apply to anyone who is looking at the building from a diagonal.
Either way, it doesn‟t matter how thin you make those. From my perspective it‟s a wall. You
can have think planks in this wall – it‟s still a wall, because I‟m not going to see these
protected view corridors. If you build it 12 stories – one tower is great. I had my thumbs up
looking at two towers, I still see water. If you allow 50% more, then I just see a huge wall.
That‟s it, and that applies to everyone in my building, and everyone I‟m sure, in the buildings
adjacent to me.

The question was asked earlier “What would I say to those people who right now would
benefit from these protected view corridors”. These are enhanced view corridors. Under the
Official Community Plan, they have protected view corridors. What I would say to them is
they are being enhanced at the cost of my view, which is protected solely by the height
restrictions. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
The next person I have is Ingrid Driscoll.

City of North Vancouver                   Page 13 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                           September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Ms. I. Driscoll – 102-133 West 3rd Street
Your Worship, members of the Council. I‟m a little nervous because I haven‟t done this

Mayor Sharp
That‟s O.K.

Ms. Driscoll
I listened to all the arguments tonight, and a lot of them are things I would repeat myself, the
main one being the value. When we bought into the area – I bought 3 years ago – the
Official Community Plan mentioned 12 story maximums. It wasn‟t even set in stone that they
were going to be 12 story buildings. If it is true that there‟s only one 12 story allowed, that is
one little sigh of relief for me, but my big concern is I am on a ground floor suite. We‟re
talking about people who are worried about their views on the 5th floor, 10th floor, 15th floor.
For me I‟m going to lose a view whether it‟s a 3 story or 6 story, it doesn‟t really matter, but I
have two view corridors left which are going to be occupied by the proposed two buildings,
and I don‟t know where these view corridors exactly are, and to whose viewpoint they show
as a view corridor, because they‟re slowly disappearing.

When the building on 1st Street was built, I lost that view corridor. The building that is on 2nd
Street, I think it‟s called the “Observatory” with a large pool. If it wasn‟t for that pool actually
the residents in my building probably would have no view, because there would be buildings
right there, so we‟re kind of breathing a sigh a relief that it is there.

Another huge concern for the people especially in my building, myself as an example, the
Observatory, for about 3 hours every day I'm in complete shade. I have no light and that‟s
one building. When the 1st Street building came, that added another ½ hour, so I‟m
wondering with these additional buildings, if eventually it‟s going to cause a light problem. I
don‟t know mathematically how it casts a shadow down, but all I see is that it‟s just going to
be a grey day all day, and like some other people have said “Who wants to sit in a park
where you‟ve got shadows around you all day and you don‟t have any sun”.

One thing that hasn‟t been mentioned too is the noise factor of all this building and
community planning. When they built the building on 1st and also the one on 2nd, which I
believe right across from the liquor store – I can‟t remember the address – but between the
two buildings, it drove the residents crazy with the noise for about a year, as well as at 6:45
in the mornings, Saturdays, sometimes Sundays as well as Montana‟s until 3 in the morning
or whatever. It‟s a very noisy area. How long is this Official Community Plan going to be
taking effect. The bulldozers, the backhoes and the jackhammers that we get to look forward
to, and no one has really mentioned a time plan of how long this is going to take to
accomplish once it is Okayed. I was curious about that.

The lady that was talking about this earlier, the one in the green shirt, had some very good
points about the light and whatever, and I don‟t want to repeat everything that she said, but I
agree with everything that she said. I think that‟s really all about what I want to say.

Mayor Sharp
O.K. Thank you very much. The next speaker I have is Carol Sawyer.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 14 of 41                                Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                           September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Ms. Carol Sawyer (no address given)
I have just recently – I‟m at a bit of a disadvantage because I‟ve just bought into property in
the City. I‟ve moved from the District, and I want to say that I was very happy to see that
North Van City had an Official Community Plan, which I purchased, I reviewed, I talked with
the Clerk to discuss. I saw the 12 story limit and I just want to say that I‟m disappointed that
you‟ve gone to this work to provide a Plan, and now a developer wants to come along and for
whatever reasons or excuses, they want to make changes to your Plan. If this is approved,
what does that say to other developers. Here‟s this plan, but if we sidestep here, we make a
few excuses, we change this, we can get what we really want, which is higher, more
property, better income for that height. I would be really disappointed. I bought in and I
know it's going to affect my view, but I‟m just one person, but what I‟m trying to say is what
does that say to other developers for your Plan?

I want to make a comment about what Councillor Keating had mentioned to Mr. Ramsay
affecting the original residents when the original Plan went in. I think that was fine based on
the original Plan. I think people were probably happy because it was going along with the
Official Community Plan, but I think people are objecting now because of the changes, and I
agree with many other things. I won‟t repeat them, but I will be very disappointed if this is
accepted. That a developer can come in and make changes to your Plan. That‟s all I want
to say. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you very much. The next speaker I have is Patty Mills.

Ms. P. Mills (no address given)
I would just like to reiterate what Nacheko has said and a couple of other people have said. I
live in the same building as Carol. It‟s very sad. We have in front of us, the most ugly
cement grey 16 storey building at Lonsdale and West 5th. How that ever happened is beyond
me. Somebody told me that City Hall was afraid of being sued, so they let it go through. A
lawsuit will end, but that monstrosity will be there forever, and what that monstrosity does in
addition to being an eyesore and I understand that there was some light study done and
presented to the public. I wonder what season that light study was done, because just now
when winter is approaching and the sun is getting lower in the sky, our sun is cut off for 4
hours a day. Just at the time in winter when the sun is needed the most, both for physical,
mental etc., etc., and there‟s just this period of doom in your day.

I would also like to reiterate that I believe that the Official Community Plan was sound and
should be followed, and it would make it very easy for you people to just follow it, instead of
bowing to somebody else who is going to profit. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
The next person is Ehab Elvanaty.

Mr. E. Elvanaty – 124 West 1st Street
Good Evening. I live in the Que homes. It is a new place as you may know, and I just
learned today that our building was just another obstacle some of our neighbours, and I‟m
really for that, and just to tell you I think this project is a repeat and is going to be a
continuous repeat of the same misery again for new owners and new residents of the North

City of North Vancouver                 Page 15 of 41                              Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                        September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Basically, the Que homes are also going to be affected from building such high towers, and
the developer here actually today, charged us more money for the higher we go up, the
higher money we paid, and I could tell you that we squeezed so much money in order to be
able to enjoy a better, and to tell you the truth, I was promised by the developers, the same
developer here, that those buildings on the west side of our view are not going to go higher
than 12 storey building, and his sales people said definitely it is not going to be higher than
12 story, and today, they are applying for 17 or 18 story building. Where is this going to end,
and who is going to stop it.

We trust Mayor Sharp and Councillors here could stop this kind of atrocity and abuse to the
public, and I could also tell you I suffer from other types of abuse. We have been shown very
nice suites on the 5th floor with very nice finish, and unfortunately, I‟m suffering from complete
difference totally here, I don‟t want to waste your time, but the finish is totally unsatisfactory,
and we didn‟t really get the value for our money. This is another story and I assure you if the
people who live in the same building today know about this meeting, I‟m sure they would be
here, but I knew of this meeting by coincidence while I was walking the ………..park
yesterday, and I saw a display yesterday, and a nice gentleman from the City talking about a
new project and new development, and told me about this meeting so I came today,
otherwise I wouldn‟t be able to know about it, and I‟m sure if other owners from the Que
know about this new extension, which if they are given the chance to be given this notice by
hand or in the mailbox or something like that would be fantastic and they would come here
today and tell you like myself, that please put a stop to this misery.

I paid more for the view to the developer – much more in order to be on the 10th floor, and
today an 18-storey building and it‟s going to block the west side of the view. It‟s like a wall. If
you see from there, it‟s going to be a wall in front of us blocking half of the view we paid for
by the developer. I don‟t know if you have any questions for me, but you‟re welcome to do

Mayor Sharp
There are no questions, so thank you. The next person I have is Vincent Federa.

Mr. V. Federa – 170 West Esplanade
Good evening. I‟ve been around here for a while, and I‟ve see the area kind of going up and
down for a while. There are some parts of Esplanade that look like a war zone sometimes,
and a lot of the businesses in the area have suffered a lot because of the SeaBus strike and
the bus strike.

I have suffered myself as have a lot of other people, and hear a lot of the citizens who have
talked tonight about the view. They don‟t really care if the area gets developed and creates
jobs in the future, since a lot of the people in this area are retired, and a lot of them don‟t
really care if they‟re going to have a job in the future, and I agree that the area is going to
change, and has been changed for a while. Right in front of my building they built a high-
rise, and blocked the view, and that‟s normal. It‟s part of our times right? I see that there is
no way to stop the progress, unless we want to move in a nostalgic era, and if we talk about
nostalgic era, maybe that‟s the old Europe, but there is also the new Europe where they build
high-rises too. Maybe the gentleman that was talking about Europe hasn‟t been there for the
last 20 years and hasn‟t seen the development that‟s going on.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 16 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
I‟ve looked and studied the plans, and I‟m very – I don‟t speak English very well, but I know
about architecture and planning and stuff like that, and I‟ve looked at those plans and they
look really nice. I think there‟s nothing wrong with that – to build a skinny and taller, and it
doesn‟t create a lot of shadow and everybody can have a little bit of view. However, it‟s
better than building like in the West End, where they build one building after the other and
nobody gets a view, so who gets behind, they lose their whole view. At least here they get a
little bit, so they can‟t complain very much.

The other thing that I see is that people who may complain and whine about the development
and the view and that stuff, don‟t realize that this area is going to be beatified a lot by the
park that they‟re going to build, and the community centre. I‟ve seen right behind me – the
previous project – they have built a beautiful park with a waterfall, rocks and things like that.
I don‟t think anybody else could have built such a thing, unless somebody had been allowed
to build a bigger building of course to occupy and to have more people living there, and of
course, they can afford to build a nice park, so I think we have to support this idea because
the developer yes, they‟re going to get a little bit more, but look at what they‟re going to give
in exchange for what they‟re going to get for the height. They‟re going to give a community
centre, they‟re going to provide a parking lot, which we really need. In the area, there‟s no
parking, and everybody‟s struggling; everybody gets tickets, and maybe the City won‟t like
that because you get a lot of money for the tickets, so you might be against it, but I get lots of
tickets myself. I spend maybe $500.00 a year on tickets, because there‟s no parking, and
when I hear people walking around on Lonsdale – there‟s nobody walking.

You go there after 6 o‟clock, where‟s the community; where‟s the Lonsdale Citizens‟
Association. I never see anybody around, so a lot of the people may say they‟ll lose a little
bit of the sun, or the view, in exchange look at what they‟re going to get. I think this is a good
project, and it‟s going to be there for another 100 years, and it‟s not going to be a little house
that you‟re going to tear down in 10 years like most of the houses there behind it. A lot of the
houses there are not going to be there for another 10 years. We can‟t stop progress to
come. That‟s all I want to say.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you. The next speaker is Pawel Mikolajczak.

Pawel Mikolajczak – 251 West 6th Street.
Your Worship, Councillors. My name is Pawel Mikolajczak. I live at 251 West 6th Street,
North Vancouver.

I inhabit this space, the City I walk through, not in my imagination, but everyday. So I have a
few thought to share about this situation. First I think that the City Council, Planning
Department and public at large are trying to develop a philosophy for this City, for developing
the City, and it seems to me that they are trying to have some integrity in that. There are
some good examples in terms of development that has taken under consideration the uses,
which is mixed uses. Taking care of disadvantaged people, providing shelters, caring where
people will be living with different incomes. There is also an integrity that you can see in
terms of providing public amenities, providing public art, developing theatres and doing a lot
of things. I think there is a lot of positive.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 17 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
I think that one of the thoughts that I have, that what I see here doesn‟t really relate to this
philosophy. I wouldn‟t think that there is something that doesn‟t provide us integrity and
harmony. There is an Official Community Plan, there is a three dimensional example of what
can be there. I think there are people that spent quite a lot of time of developing, not from
the perspective of one lot, but the whole City. There is a certain density that is relating to
that site and it works very well in the context of the whole density and form of the City of
North Vancouver.

What I think this project is asking for is mainly the height is the issue. In first case the
developer is asking for about 60% extra height which is from 36.6 to 58.1. In the second
case its 100%, so we are asking twice of the height that is permitted. That‟s really quite a
lot. The high quality of the proposal, I think that what I am seeing here doesn‟t really convey
that quality. There are two towers that can be anywhere, not in such a beautiful place as
North Vancouver, but anywhere that can be locate there is nothing characteristic about them.
There is something at the base of the buildings that still is not very well defined. The sense
of place and identity I don‟t think this project doesn‟t do anything to that. You have the two
towers that really interact, there is something about the view that they are interacting right in
the centre. There‟s no relation to the developments to the West. There is some
condominiums that were nicely renovated lately. In the winter right now already the shadows
…. so long that they will overshadow all the courtyards that are in those buildings. Jack
Loucks Court is going to be completely dark. The other thing is… people talked about the

Now the obstruction of views. If you look at these photographs the right one and the left
one, we have to imagine that to the right and to the left we have sixteen storey towers. So
the little sliver of a view doesn‟t really mean anything because you have huge overpowering
masses to the left and to the right. Those things don‟t create sense of place and people
don‟t want to be among those big buildings. The courtyard that‟s between the two towers is
never been really interesting, only in about one hour at noon, that you will have some light
between the two towers otherwise it will be always in the shadow. The bottom photographs
show the shadows of the trees but they don‟t show any photographs of the towers.
Otherwise the whole photograph will be really dark, I think.

There is a certain honesty that has to be presented here to everybody that lives here so you
know what the proposal really does. These are some of the thoughts that I have. I don‟t
know I think that if you have questions maybe you could ask.

Mayor Sharp
There are no questions. We don‟t have any other speakers on the list. Is there any other
members of the public that want to speak. What is your name sir?

unknown speaker
I will get up in front of the mike so everyone can hear me.

Mr. Hawkshaw
Excuse me just don‟t put it as close.

unknown speaker
I‟ll try not to, how‟s that? Does everybody else find it hot in here or is it just me that‟s very
agitated? Like to talk about a couple of things.

City of North Vancouver                 Page 18 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mayor Sharp
Can I have your name and address please?

Ken Hawthornee, West 2nd in the 200 block
Excuse me. My name is Ken Hawthorne and I live at West 2nd in the 200 block down at
Lower Lonsdale and I have lived there for just over 10 years.

Mayor Sharp
Is it 200, is that the address? Is there a building at 200?

Mr. Hawthorne
Yeh the building is 236 West 2nd.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you that‟s what I needed, the address.

Mr. Hawthorne
200 Block, if you want to be so specific. I wasn‟t sure of that.

break in tape

Mr. Hawthorne
A couple of points I‟d like talk and it‟s been brought up by some of the Councillors. One is
density. I think the people in Lower Lonsdale are going to be put upon by the increase in
density. It‟s going to be a quantum leap in density increase and that block alone that we
have been about is been nothing but parking lots, no density at all. Nice open space. Now
with these two buildings and the others that are going to be built under the community plan
it‟s going to be a mini city in there. We are going to be subjected to and living with a lot of
density. Which brings up parking problems. That corner down there at West Esplanade and
Chesterfield is a nightmare and everybody here I‟m sure knows that. With towers there,
trucks going by, you can just imagine the noise that‟s going to be down in that area. Not to
mention the noise just during the construction of these buildings and all the other ones that
are going on before, after and during. It is going to be a nightmare, dust, noise, everything is
going to be to the detriment of the people who live down in the Lower Lonsdale area at the

Also, with this development being so packed in there, there is going to be a certain precedent
set that other developers who are going to be building in this area, there going to see the
leeway that maybe has been given this developer in increasing the height by 100%. And I
have to say those neat little sketches there, which are very amateurish for an architect. I find
it disgusting that they would present something like this to us. A couple of blocks sitting
there, probably not even to scale. It‟s disgusting, so I hope that Council, when these people
come again with their proposals, present something that is real not just artistic impressions
that are supposed to try and convince us that what they are proposing is very nice and

City of North Vancouver                  Page 19 of 41                             Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                        September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Also, they talk about views. On the picture there you see views taken from the plaza, out on
the corner of the street there, somewhere else. Where the views are being shown from all
the buildings that are going to be built here people are going to be living in these buildings,
people aren‟t going to be standing around on those little blue spots looking to try and see the
view. These people bought and especially in the Q building, which has just been built, and
more or less sold out and I believe it is by the same developer. Correct me if I am wrong,
that‟s developing this lot and lo and behold these people are now getting two structures that
are going to basically blinker the view of the Lions Gate Bridge and goodness knows what
else to the west. I went into the Q building and I looked at it when it was being open housed
and I thought “if these people if they only knew what is going to happen here” and while the
community plan looked good, 12 storeys, that‟s okay but look what they‟ve got now. I mean
it is total blockage. I would imagine a lot of people would not have bought in the Q building if
they had seen this here. It is very interesting that this meeting and these presentations come
along, as far as time is concerned, in the blink of an eye after they‟ve basically sold the
building out. Very suspicious, it‟s my Scottish nature I guess.

Anyway, I won‟t dwell on the density and the views too much longer, only that I would like
Council to be well aware of the precedent they‟re going to set in allowing this developer to
put up structures like that which are basically going to block the view, block the sunlight,
create untold traffic congestion and everything that goes with that, noise, dust, everything. I
really hope Council will take all that into consideration when they further ponder on this
proposal, which I hope never, gets beyond this first meeting stage. Any questions?

Mayor Sharp
There are no questions.

Mr. Hawthorne
No questions.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you for asking.

Mr. Hawthorne
Somebody might disagree with me. I would like to say in closing that this meeting I found
about with this little piece of paper and also a couple of days ago I just happened to walk by
and saw the nice big white plaque down on the bottom of Chesterfield. Other than that I
wouldn‟t have known about this and this to me is a precedent setting meeting, which is going
to dictate how the whole development to this Lower Lonsdale area is going to proceed. So I
think Council has to be very careful how they do proceed and the precedents set if they allow
this kind of variance from the community plan which we have known about and endorsed
after many many variations and alterations and then after the fact we‟re allowed to see this
happen. I don‟t think it should be allowed and I will stop there before I fall down. Thank you
very much.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Tollstam have you got the information about the size of the board that is down by that
area, what other way this was advertised for this evening?

Mr. A.K. Tollstam, City Manager
Your Worship I don‟t have that but if I can ask a member of staff. Dorothy!

City of North Vancouver                 Page 20 of 41                              Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                        September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mayor Sharp
Could you use the microphone, sorry. I don‟t think it is on actually.

Mrs. D.M. Rooke, Assistant City Clerk
Yes Your Worship. This was a public meeting as a public forum and there wasn‟t an actual
address. I did mention to Mr. Penway, who had to prepare a map for me, and I did mention
that as a public meeting it would be advertised, which it was. It was in the paper twice.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you very much. I saw another hand. Yes, could you please come down and state
your name and address for the record.

undecipherable name, 239 East 11th Street
Good evening. ………, 239 East 11th Street. May I ask the Mayor can I just take that model
that was presented by the City planning because I want to make a point of the model?

Mayor Sharp
I don‟t see no problem.

undecipherable name
Thank you. My wife and I

Mayor Sharp
Watch you don‟t break it…

undecipherable name
No I am not going to break it. It is very valuable. I want to keep it very very valuable. My
wife and I we are immigrants from Europe. There are many questions and comments about
how the buildings are there. I am not going to go there. Many things were said tonight. I
have been here a few times before. It is late so I am trying to make only a few points. I
suggest, one thing that was not mentioned, the public involvement. I suggest a referendum
or some of public consultation, this is not enough. There are more people out there that
don‟t know about this. My wife and I bought into this neighbourhood when we can here in
1996 in North Vancouver. We actually bought a new building, we love that building, it‟s
called Seascape. It is a combination of residential, commercial and this is and I believe it is
an example of how the development should happen in that area. It is a four storey building,
our unit is facing the South. We bought because with the light, because we have the views,
we paid a huge price for that. Before this buying this place we did our due diligence, like it
was mentioned here before. We came to the City Hall, we came and saw the 1992 OCP and
this is what we saw. Many times I was here before, for other issues, having comments or
asking the City to do something about certain developments where we live now. And every
time I was told that we respect in the City the OCP and that‟s why other things are happening
because of the OCP. This is the game that we play, the OCP. So I cannot understand how
can we change right now and say we don‟t respect the OCP anymore. We cannot have it
both ways.

City of North Vancouver                 Page 21 of 41                             Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                       September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
It was mentioned here about a precedent. Yeh, what‟s going to happen with the OCP next
time. Everybody will come here and double the heights of the OCP. It is not a trade off, we
have to respect the principal, otherwise we loose the trust in the City. People bought in the
City, they put all savings money with double mortgages and now we are losing the value and
who knows else. There was no mention about the traffic, it was mentioned about traffic
congestion. There is a traffic calming policy here, all things that were not mentioned and I
respectfully suggest to the City Planner to consult with other departments within the City. I
don‟t see wide consulting within the impact, you said about the report that was going to be
presented next week. I suggest that the report be made public because they‟re a lot of
impacts of this development into the area.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Hawkshaw!

Mr. Hawkshaw
Your Worship, sorry I was going to interrupt you just for a second. This is the beginning of a
long process, this isn‟t the end of the process. This is the Public Meeting on the Official
Community Plan subsequent to this there would be rezoning, Public Hearings, on the Official
Community Plan. Public Hearings on the rezoning that would be required as well, with
notification and that. There is a process and any reports at all that would be coming out to
be presented would all be public, so that is part of the process.

undecipherable name
Thank you Mr. Hawkshaw. Thank you for educating me on the procedural things here. So
this it, I agree with the majority of all but one of the previous speakers here. It is basically
unfair to go on with this development and we hope and we ask you to respect the previous
plan. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
Would you like to come down to the microphone.

Charles Craver, 2702 – 120 West 2nd Street
I am the one that can‟t hear. I am Charles Craver, and live in this big high tower here that
nobody wants to have there.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Craver, I just want to ask the audience, is there anybody here for the Finance Committee
Meeting? I want to send them home if there is nobody here, we are going to re-schedule it
for next Monday because we are not going to carry on that late tonight. I don‟t see anybody
so that answers my question. Please proceed.

Mr. Craver
I have a comment first of all.

Mayor Sharp
Could I get your address too please. Your address?

City of North Vancouver                 Page 22 of 41                              Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                        September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mr. Craver
I am at 2702 East 21st that‟s in the Observatory. That‟s the tower that nobody likes. They
can build all the hi-rises they want and they won‟t block my view totally. I am on the 27th
floor. However, when I first came to Canada, I used to live in the country, I‟m from
Washington, I moved to Canada. I used to live out in 41st and I‟d drive down Lonsdale to
work all the time. At that time you could see the mountains, you could see the oceans, you
could see everything. Then the corridors started filling in. Now you can drive down Granville
Street and you can‟t see the mountains, you can‟t see the water. All you can see is
buildings, that‟s your corridors, that‟s just a warning to North Vancouver. What I am
concerned about is not this particular structure here, but this is just a beginning. We got all
along Esplanade, there‟s going to be hi-rise buildings all along there. Are they all going to
be 18 storeys? We‟ll have a wall like the Berlin Wall all along Burrard Shipyard there on the
North side of Esplanade. ……… There‟s going to be development coming there that‟s going
to shock the pants off of half you folks here because it is going to be hi-rise buildings the full
length of that and then think of what it‟s going to be on the other side of the street on the
shipyard side. I understand, I‟ve been trying to figure out whether this City figures they got
22 acres in Burrard Shipyard to auction off that they hope to get $40 million dollars for it. I
being trying to figure it out because you got ….… you got a shipyard that‟s supposed to be a
museum and then you got Versatile Drydocks over on the other side and I can just see a little
stretch in there. So that‟s going to be all hi-rises and everything to if they sell it off for $40
million. They‟re not going to say to the developers you can‟t build big towers on there. It‟s
going all be the same thing, the whole Lower Lonsdale. So much for our low density in North
Vancouver. It isn‟t going to exist 10 years from now. I just moved into that tower five years
ago because I didn‟t want to own a house and cut a lawn anymore but I can still see the
cruise ships every day come and go. I am as happy as a clam up there but I feel sorry for all
these people who are living in darkness, in shadows of the big towers around them now. I‟ve
seen two … since I‟ve been here and I just say buyer beware and I hope the City of North
Vancouver realizes that this development down there, that land was there only because
there was a shipyard there and we had a war. All this was tax land. Our taxes haven‟t come
down, our developments are going up but the taxes don‟t come down. To me ……………..all
I‟m saying is……………you can hardly drive down the street and on the 27th floor you think
you are living right beside a gravel pit there‟s so much dirt coming in the window. 27 th floors
up. Talk about noise. I live on the 27th and from 12 o‟clock till 3 o‟clock in the morning I don‟t
get any sleep at all because we‟ve got a nice little corner beer parlour called Montana‟s and
they keep us awake every night, every weekend I should say. That‟s all I‟m going to say for
now. I am just going to sit back and watch it evolve. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
Your name and address please.

Larry Sander, 131 West 3rd Street
My name is Larry Sander and I live on 131 West 3rd. My wife and I bought a southern
exposure view, partial view. We did all our planning, research and we were hoping that
decisions and the place that we bought would be the same thing as when we bought it. It
seems like with all this development going on the price of our units are going down, and
down and down. I really don‟t think it‟s fair to all the people who are buying in the area to
change from the plans that you guys laid out years ago and let us look at what you‟ve done
and if you continue to do that it‟s just really unfair to everybody down there. That‟s all I
wanted to say. Thanks.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 23 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mayor Sharp
Thank you. Your name and address please.

Tylor Soprovich, 150 West 2nd Street
Tylor Soprovich, I live on 150 West 2nd. My concern is tourists who come in from Vancouver
to the North Shore. Due really want to see, do you want the tourists to come over and see
nothing but walls? That‟s my statement. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
Any other comments? I really don‟t want to go back again, it‟s getting late. Thanks.

Mr. Hawthornee
Could I ask a question of the developer?

Mayor Sharp
Just ask your question please, no pontification okay.

Mr. Hawthornee
Your accusing me of that, I think this meeting deserves that. Question to the developer. The
rest of the block there (points to the diagrams) does the developer own the rest of that block?
Two white spaces that are not developed there?

Mayor Sharp
I am not sure where you are pointing at.

Mr. Hawthornee
Just to the south of the proposed towers, between the proposed towers and West Esplanade
there is two white empty spots. That is what I am referring to.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Spencer can you point it out on one of the diagrams please.

Mr. Hawthornee
Well, it is fairly straightforward here. Let me point it out for you.

Mayor Sharp
I didn‟t ask for it to be an insult sir. Please, we are just wanting to make sure we understand
where you are talking about.

Mr. Hawthornee
Okay. Excuse me I am sorry your honour. As I said earlier I get agitated rather easily.
Could I ask the question again?

Mayor Sharp

Mr. Hawthornee
Does the developer own those two, that part of the property?

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Merrick, Mr. Philps!

City of North Vancouver                   Page 24 of 41                           Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                       September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mr. Merrick
Speaker not audible.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you.

Mr. Hawthornee
Thank you I didn‟t know that.     So there is some empty property there that‟s yet to be

Unknown Speaker
Speaker not audible.

Mr. Hawthornee
Okay fair enough. That is the only question I had. Thank you your honour. Sorry for my

Mayor Sharp
I am now going to go on to any questions from members of Council about the overview of the
project. Councillor Braithwaite!

Councillor J.B. Braithwaite
Yes. The overview of the project.

Mayor Sharp
We are not going on to the multi-purpose centre.

Councillor Braithwaite
No, no, no, we are talking about this project here. Is that correct? What I would like to find
out, and I don‟t know if it would be from the developer or from Mr. Smith, which is very
important. I would like to know the stages the developer has gone through from the Official
Community Plan project as we see there (indicates diagram) with eight and twelve storey
buildings and low rises. To where the developer has reached the sixteen to eighteen storeys
development because there were or are intermediate stages of development and at the
workshop in April, as you know, the developer did show us, that‟s City Council, it was a
workshop, the present proposals, sixteen to eighteen storeys. I think for the public interest I
think we should be told how the OCP has transposed to the present development. It is very

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Smith!

City of North Vancouver                Page 25 of 41                              Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                       September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mr. F.A. Smith, Director, Community Development
Through Your Worship. First the Official Community Plan has not changed. There is now an
application to change it so it remains in fact with the maximum height of, in one part of the
site, Site 5, 120 feet and the balance of the site at 75 feet. Certainly the developer has spent
a lot of time and the architects putting together and formulating what they think is a better
plan and as Councillor Braithwaite said that was presented to Council, I think, and the public
were invited. It was held in the room across the hall from us here. It was held several
months ago. I think four or five options were presented right from the Official Community
Plan through to something very similar to what we see here today and is contained in the
application. Perhaps at that point I could turn it over either Mr. Merrick or Mr. Philps to flush
out what they have done in between there.

Mr. Merrick
Thank you. I appreciate you asking that question Councillor Braithwaite because I think it is
important that all those here do understand that this, I think, is procedural discussion, it is not
a public hearing and it is not a question to be answered tonight. The purpose of our being
here is to understand is how we have got from an existing state of affairs to where the
present proposal is.

It has been said but I think it is worth reiterating that the amount of total space in this form of
development that is presently inherent in the Official Community Plan has an amount of
space in it that is the same as that which is in the proposal. I think that is generally
understood but needs to be appreciated and I think we have respected the fact that a
number of you have commented on the fact that you don‟t think the density being
entertained, which in fact is allowed in the Official Community Plan, is in question. So we are
discussing the form that that density might take.

To answer the Councillors‟ question directly. From the form of development in the Official
Community Plan the proposal that our client brought to the municipality, in making an offer
for the property some year ago, already envisaged and was suggesting revisions to that
community plan because the present detriments in the Official Community Plan didn‟t see
what they perceived to be the opportunity. This in the Official Community Plan (points)
describes the form of development that is consistent with this, which was generally the
description inherent in the proposal brought to the municipality some year ago. The biggest
single difference between one and the other is that the proposal was based on a good deal
more residential use than what this form of development would facilitate. (compares
diagrams) I wanted to put one beside the other because you can see here how big a
residential unit is and if you apply that kind of scale to this form it becomes a very thick
building and living in it would either become completely inappropriate or very much larger
than most of us would willing to buy or consider necessary. In simple terms it is not a
building form but lends itself to residential development and I think that observation was
made and brought forward in the process of bringing the development forward.

Subsequent to that, and that generated the general notion that something of the order of
twelve storey buildings be entertained in order to better suit that use. The process that had
got us from there a year ago to tonight where the proposal has higher overall height but more
open space has resulted from three sessions to the Advisory Planning Commission, as I
mentioned, I think one last fall and one in March and a further one in April. And in fact in
shaping, modeling and refinement of the proposal now being brought forward has responded
to the comments made in that process coupled with one official and other unofficial
discussions with the municipalities Design Panel.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 26 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mayor Sharp
Councillor Braithwaite!

Councillor Braithwaite
Thank you Your Worship. I have another question if you don‟t mind. I understand where the
two developers actually are coming from in terms of promoting their project. But could you
answer the question based on the OCP as you see it there (points) and from an architectural,
as well as a density point of view, could you not envision developing something like the

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Merrick!

Councillor Braithwaite
Keeping in mind that there is this position of the community centre.

Mr. Merrick
Thank you again because these are important questions. I think it is worth beginning with or
observing, notwithstanding some of the inferential remarks that we heard tonight, but I don‟t
think we are for or against or like or dislike higher building form better than lower building
form. We have had some of that conversation. It is decidedly true that, if you like in
academic terms, that the form of development that a lot of old city has taken, the European
model that we have heard referred to tonight, is a good model of urban living. The fact that
at this density, at this ….. half time site area kind of density that form of development is
indeed possible. It would be lower and in order to get the necessary lighting view to each
individual living unit, at the scale I was referring to, you would basically find yourself having to
distribute it around the edge of the property as is typically the form in the old city. That is true
and possible in principle and yet it would have a least a couple of ….. characteristics that we
have already heard alluded to or referred to many times tonight. The first two are shadowing
and viewing. We have heard several people say they don‟t like shadow, they don‟t want to
be in public space that is shadowed and that is what we would expect people to say. We like
sunshine, we like access to natural light, and I think through the studies we have done, which
I didn‟t think we would go back into tonight, but Council is familiar with. Some of you here
who have been to the public information meetings have had a chance to discuss and I think
we would be happy any time to further discuss with anyone that wants to. There is a myriad
of them so it is not appropriate to go through them one by one but what we have observed is
that because of the orientation of this site that most being generally on the angle, not straight
up and down as we tend to presume. The morning sun, whether it is four or fourteen storeys,
seem to shadow sideways down the block. The noon, at the peak of sun, and March till
September solstice, is roughly at 45° angles to the site. So even eastern towers shadow
does not reach the park. It is true that in the middle of summer that shadow is not really
enough to cover any of Jack Loucks Court. At March and September it does go far enough
to cover only the park but by the time it has moved across it, it starts to open sunshine up in
what was previously covered and it is to that extent that (…tape not legible…) It is for the
same reason that the proposal suggested, and in fact this came out of the Advisory Planning
discussions, that the western building be a little higher than the eastern in order to eliminate
that shadow.

I think if one is concerned about those issues it is worth some reflection on some of these
details, which I would be happy to do any time.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 27 of 41                                Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                           September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Councillor Braithwaite
One last question if I might? You indicated earlier that a trade off of height for openness,
natural light and so forth, in terms of getting your height. Now I have walked and driven
along West First a number of time and I am sure you have done the same think, walked it
anyhow, checked it out. We are talking about views from Jack Loucks Court. Could you
indicate to the audience when you walk along in front of Jack Loucks Court, past Montana‟s
and along there, or driving and you look south, could you tell us what you see.

Mr. Merrick
Yes indeed. Thank you. As I think we said in our general remarks and was reflected on by
one of the other speakers, view is not an absolute thing or a constant thing, it changes as we
move through the City streets.

Any of you living in the lower part of North Vancouver would appreciate the value of the
streeting view, looking down any of the streets in lower Lonsdale, you see that harbour, you
see the skyline and the light beyond. I think any other municipality that I have experienced,
where that is a factor, highly values those outlooks. People don‟t necessarily expect a view
to be absolute in its entirety but as you move through street by street the exposures to that
lighting view accumulate in your sense of what it is you are able to see and your sense of the
natural light ……………….. as it applies here, as we come west from Lonsdale for instance,
even the one storey buildings that are now there completely obliterate, of course ones view,
or sense of the harbour and the light to the south. The first opportunity that is inherent in the
community plan and I certainly have every respect for it, is the view down the remainder of
Rogers Street and although it has been partly realized up to the lane with the Keg
development, the completion of that has not a series of terraces and steps but a sloping
street like condition that would end up in the bridge that already exists that goes across to
the ferry and the market would be retained. That is your first outlook.

If the former development of the OCP were continued with the next opportunity you would
get would be Chesterfield, essentially a city block to the west, and it is as long as it is from
Esplanade to First. What we have considered with trading off here is a more substantial
opportunity to get a real exposure between Rogers and Chesterfield through the middle of
the project. I think this view (points to diagram) which is notwithstanding the comments that
might have been made by, generated, in the way that it is dimensionally accurate and
meaningful, shows that if there was less height then the remainder of the bulk has to go
somewhere or other as it did in the first proposal, around the lower floors. Then that is what
you get. And if, this in the foreground of course (points to diagram) is the present now ….
Jack Loucks Park and its western pathway across First and into the same view, albeit a
glimpse, between ICBC and its neighbour that now exists and would continue to exist. It may
seem small in itself but coupled with the recurrence of those outlooks that you do get when
you move east west through the city fabric, it seems a worthwhile trade off and benefit to
Jack Loucks Park.

City of North Vancouver                 Page 28 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Councillor Braithwaite
Well Your Worship when I walk along West First Street and from Jack Loucks Court and I
don‟t care if there is a building there, towers there or OCP there, all I see is ICBC building
and the BC Rail. So when you start talking about views you don‟t get it to the water, you get
it to ten twelve storeys are they on Esplanade with that kind of view.          I am just a bit
concerned with those kind of views you are talking about and I think if you can do it with the
two towers, you can do it with the OCP. Cause any architect, that‟s a real good architect,
and I think you got them, can do something with building. I have known for many years
architects who say they can‟t do anything and when Council say “get it done”, they get it
done. So I am a little concerned with these views because you have got two towers but you
can get views with low rise too. That‟s all.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Bell!

Councillor Bell
Thank you Your Worship. My question is to staff. I know that there hasn‟t been a
tremendous amount of debate over the density but the statement that was made is that this
building here that is down on the water that fits into the other building under this community
plan building and the one that is replacing it with the changes, is the exact same density so I
want to get that clear in my head Your Worship. If it is exactly the same density because I
have got a feeling that it is a little bit of a misleading statement. If our staff could tell me, has
there been any type of transfer of density into this building that is now before us.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Smith!

Mr. Smith
Through Your Worship. When staff refers to density we are talking about a floor space ratio
and the maximum allowed on the site under the OCP is 2.6 f.s.r. Now there has been
transfers to some of the sites around Jack Loucks Court, when the roads were stopped up
and closed. Some of the density was distributed to some of the different sites. So I believe a
bit of the density would come on to Site 5. However in the both the proposals you see,
whether it‟s the OCP that is floating in Burrard Inlet or the towers, it is the same density
distributed in a different configuration. Both of them use the same density available just a
different configuration of using that allowable density.

Councillor Bell
So Your Worship, I thought there was some density added for the parking at Rogers?

Mayor Sharp
Ms. MacFadyen!

Ms. M. MacFadyen, Manager, Lands Division

Mayor Sharp
Is the microphone on?

City of North Vancouver                   Page 29 of 41                                Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                            September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Ms. MacFadyen
Your Worship I think Councillor Bell is remembering that part of the gymnasium is located
underneath the adjacent Rogers Plaza so is technically off-site, part of it is off-site.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Bell!

Councillor Bell
Okay so to be completely clear. Cause I know that we transfer density all the time quite
often into these buildings and in fact a 2.6 f.s.r. is not necessarily, when they build it is not
necessarily 2.6 f.s.r. because of stopping up and closing of alleyways and then selling that
density into a transferring density. What we are getting is exactly 2. whatever is allowed
there? I‟ll hold you to it.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Smith!

Mr. Smith
Your Worship. I think the actual density will be with any transfer will be slightly higher than
2.6 f.s.r. and staff has not reported on this application so we have not, that is coming next
week. We have not put forward to Council any definitive figures, certainly that would be part
of it. I think with the transfer density and from Rogers Plaza, for example, it would be above
the 2.6 f.s.r. That applies under the OCP build out for under the application you see before
you tonight.

Councillor Bell
Yes Your Worship I know we can do it under the OCP and we can do it any way we want to
but when it comes down to it Your Worship, and I have been the lone one, maybe not the
lone voice, but I truly believe that it doesn‟t matter if you have short squat buildings or tall
high buildings, if your density is high you are going to block someone‟s view. To me that is
very important. When we go to the next zoning I do want to know exactly how much density
is going to be put into this site. Whether it is allowed under the OCP, we as a City are
selling the property, we as the City are transferring that density into that property. I think we
have an obligation to the community to truly understand what that impact of that transferred
density is on views. Thank you.

Mayor Sharp
Okay. Councillor Fearnley!

Councillor Fearnley
Yes. Question through the Chair to the developer but I am going to preface it just by telling
you that my last term on Council I sat on the Advisory Planning Commission and this time I
sit on the Advisory Design Panel. We spent a lot of time considering how to make the street
livable and how to make the park livable, how to make these really lively vibrant spaces.
One of the things that we concluded was that you needed a continuous street wall along First
Street, one storey at least but we preferred two. Shops towards the eastern end. More
townhouses towards the western end. It gives you eyes on the street, it gives you more life
on the street and it was going to give us, we thought, a more livable and more vibrant street.
A street with some life to it. A park with some life to it.

City of North Vancouver                 Page 30 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Now you have gone away from this. You have taken some of that density that we wanted to
put in that podium structure at the bottom of the building, you transferred into the height of
the building. I want to know if you can go back and put some of that height back into that
sort of podium structure that we concluded, and we spent a long time thinking about it, but
bring more life to the street?

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Merrick!

Mr. Merrick
Yes we have had those discussions and I think we share the Design Panel‟s views on the
issue of life on the street. I think that in developing this proposal we tried to find a balance
between that reality and some of the broader benefits of the lighting view than continuation of
the public realm away from the automobile that is also a part of this. In particular, the
circumstance that you are alluding to, coming west on First, past Rogers, begins with the
entrance to the community centre facility and continues as community centre to the far end of
that piece where a coffee house or café would be associated both at the community centre
and at the street proper. To the west of that essentially has been realized as a series of
individual addresses to street related townhouses, to the two storey height and those
continue around the corner on Chesterfield and then have outdoor residential garden courts
on the Chesterfield Street side to the laneway where, of course, the corner comes into an
ownership that is not part of the proposal. There is this break in the middle that perhaps
would be in question, inherent in your question, and the benefit for that, I think, we felt is best
described in those views there (points to diagram) in terms of whether it is 300 feet of
continuous frontage however live versus a piece of live frontage and a piece of public
thoroughfare through an open space that would let light in and let view out from those that
live there and beyond. I think the other frontages are probably not in question but down
Rogers Street, as we said, we see it continuing as a sloping street that is entirely community
centre frontage, the meeting rooms and the seniors‟ lounge and the crafts area on the main
floor, beyond which is a restaurant frontage round the corner with decks over Esplanade that
would get the view that you gain from there next to the existing …..              And of course
Esplanade frontage itself is all retail/commercial frontage.

Councillor Fearnley
We‟ll go back …. talk about

Mr. Merrick
I think as you go around the whole of the site there is only that 85 foot dimension that
perhaps would call out in this discussion with trade offs.

Councillor Fearnley
I‟ll go back to some of the statements that were made at the Advisory Design Panel. They
were in favour of the continuous, well they were very concerned about the space that was
being created between the buildings and lower down and how viable that was that they were
of the opinion …. continuous street wall. When you look at what made the older cities in
Europe work around some of these spaces it was that continuous street wall. What we have
done now, quite often, is we have these isolated towers and the space between them
becomes very sterile. That is one of the worst features I think of our North American cities.
What we are talking about is blending the two. Have the towers but you have that
continuous street wall. I wonder again if you can‟t change your plans to include that.
Transfer some of that density out of height and into podium.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 31 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mr. Merrick
Well it is those very values that we are discussing. I personally I don‟t disagree with you
philosophically whatsoever but what we are discussing here is the +‟s and –„s of 85 feet of
what is probably six or seven hundred feet of frontage around this whole site. Remaining
continuous street wall in exchange for the light and view and public access that it would
otherwise afford that is a trade off. I certainly respect the fact that old city, such as good
city, that define the public realm and has a live edge to the public realm, that life and shop
and café and interest to residents also is interjected intermittently with public open space,
piazzas, squares, parks or the like. I think that in this case this is the analogy here.

It is true that, that thinking is certainly the reason that the notion was introduced in the first
place by virtue of the fact that Jack Loucks Court had already been created but that it had
value and that we, in addressing, this site should try and respect what could be done to not
only maintain but enhance the value of that place as a public place to be.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Perrault!

Councillor Perrault
Through you Your Worship to our staff. I have a question. Listening to the comments
tonight I heard many people make reference to the elevator shafts at the top of buildings.
Looking at the Official Community Plan we talk about a maximum allowable of up to 12
storeys. Just through you to staff, I wish staff would comment on the elevator shaft. Are
they not part of the building? Should they not be the twelfth storey?

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Smith!

Mr. Smith
Through Your Worship. Normally they are not included as a storey, certainly, and usually
considered as a height exception for elevator shafts. That is why you see them on top of
almost every high rise building and are generally a height exception unless they are
specifically dealt with under a height control.

Councillor Perrault
Hearing that I have a brief comment to the developer. I would like to say that if you, when
you are looking at the building configuration, the less impact those elevator shafts can have
on the building I think, and on the view corridors of people, I think that is really important to

Second question I have through you Your Worship is with regard to parking. Not clear to me
how much actual public parking is going to be available in the application. Could you give us
a figure of how many parking places will be allowed for the public?

Mr. Philps
Your Worship. There is 123 stalls for commercial and the community centre as required
under the parking bylaw. In addition to that there is another 150 stalls for public parking. I
think it was originally intended to replace parking that presently exists for the businesses in
the community.

City of North Vancouver                  Page 32 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Councillor Perrault
Would it be fair to say that is 270.

Mr. Philps
273, I believe that is correct.

Councillor Perrault
120 and 150?

Mr. Philps
123 is required with the amount of commercial that we are contemplating in this proposal
right now. The 150 is in addition to that.

Councillor Perrault
One very brief comment Your Worship. A concern for me is the livability of the street and the
area. I think it is really important to have, I don‟ t want to see a street wall, with just walls. I
want to see shops, boutiques and things that are going to be of interest to people who
happen to be walking along the street. Attention paid to street trees and greens wherever
possible for the benefit of the whole community.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you. Councillor Mussatto!

Councillor Mussatto
Thank you Your Worship. I will be brief given the hour. Through you to Mr. Philps. It seems
to me tonight the trade off is that to go above the Official Community Plan, to put the extra
floors on, your saying that the trade off is that the City will get more natural light and
openness and I guess better views. Obviously there is a benefit to your development by
having more floors. You are going to increase your revenue. What more is the City going to
get beside this natural light and views, is that all we are going to get on this?

Mr. Philps
Your Worship what is contemplated at this time in the presentation we for you is not just light
and views but a significant amount of public open space. I think Mr. Merrick tried to point out
on the drawing on the wall there (points) the area between the towers is publicly accessible.
That walks down to a large terrace across the entire south side of the site that offers views
and place to enjoy the sun and to really just expand the sort of ground level, public ground.
We see also within that opportunities for public art. We think that with a project of this scale
we can have a meaningful contribution to that program and in addition to that we talked with
staff and with some of the public in our early meetings, in separate meetings , about what
other things we may be able to incorporate that could be helpful to the citizens in the
neighbourhood. We haven‟t gone any further than that with those, at this time, because we
are trying to establish the building form so we will have a little bit better idea what we are
dealing with.

We certainly realize the taller buildings are valuable. The low bulky building has many
planning characteristics that Mr. Merrick has tried to explain are less desirable than these.
But, as a developer, I would rather have the taller building than a lower bulky one, or other
reasons, obviously just besides planning characteristics. So having said that we understand
that the trade off needs to be valuable for the community and we are trying to provide that.

City of North Vancouver                   Page 33 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                           September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Councillor Mussatto
So just to follow up that Your Worship. So am I hear you saying that this public open space
will be the City‟s open space or will it be owned by your development? Will this be donated
to the City?

Mr. Philps
At this time we are contemplating it as publicly accessible private open space. I don‟t know
how we could do that differently because it is sitting on top of parking and other components
of the program. We are trying to create it as part of the public realm.

Councillor Mussatto
I appreciate that. I guess my comment is such Your Worship, thank you Mr. Philps that quite
clearly you are asking for us to go above the Official Community Plan. There are residents
that are very much opposed to that. I don‟t know if the trade off for more natural light and
views and this open space that is in the private realm, because Capilano Mall is public open
space but that is that is private space. This is private space too because at any one time the
owner of this site could change that. So I wouldn‟t really qualify that as public space. I don‟t
know if the deal is sweet enough for the residents, or for the City, so it is going to take a lot
more convincing for me to go above the OCP if this is all we are going to get is more natural
light and views. I may oppose some of the people here. I don‟t have a big problem with a lot
of the height. I think the quality of the streetscape at the pedestrian level is of critical
importance, whether is a twelve or fourteen storey building, I don‟t know if it makes a
difference, but quite clearly here the City is not going to benefit. The residents as they
perceive it are not going to benefit so it is going to take some convincing to go above the
Official Community Plan limits we‟ve got for me.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Braithwaite!

Councillor Braithwaite
I wonder if one of our staff could answer this or maybe the developer. If we, when I saw we I
am talking about Council, contemplate on looking at the two towers, sixteen to eighteen feet,
could you indicate to us what is the impact on that change in OCP have on the potential
development of Montana‟s, which is across the road, which is in front of the two buildings
and Site 2, which is owned by the City, on the south west corner of West First across the
road from this development, in terms of land value? Is that too complicated? Does impact
of anything that occurs that once you start going up and other developments come in, in
terms of the value of these properties next to them, what is the impact of land value?
Especially having two towers in front of you.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Smith!

Mr. Smith
Through Your Worship. I can‟t be completely specific about actual values, certainly I don‟t
think you expect $ values.

Councillor Braithwaite

City of North Vancouver                 Page 34 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mr. Smith
But certainly in terms of impacts, probably these two towers and certainly the westerly of the
two towers, has more impact on the City‟s Site 2 than it would on the, what you referred to as
the Montana‟s site. In terms of the Montana‟s site and the site to the east of that, which is
also privately owned. There is a large parcel of land, I think which is in the ownership of two
individuals, I think that represents a potential development parcel, which is actually shown
on that model. I don‟t think there is a particular negative impact on that site because that
site isn‟t slated for high rise at any rate in the OCP.

We own Site 2 to the north of the western tower shown on that model. I think certainly one of
the impacts, we as staff, will be dealing with is the value or potential loss of value to our site
in the future when we go to market it, with an eighteen storey tower sitting across the street.
It is our property and we would have to look at what the impacts of this proposal would be on
our property.

Councillor Braithwaite
On top of that, through you Your Worship to Mr. Smith. It is obvious that the land east of
these potential two towers, I am not saying they are going to be, but lets say they did get in.
The land to the east as you indicated owned by two private individuals, according to the
OCP, that is only if we go twelve storeys or 75 feet. But obviously if you rezone or change
the OCP to the west, obviously those developers can say I am sorry we want sixteen to
eighteen storeys too, to the west. So that is what I am talking about impact, how it triggers.
I heard a gentleman tonight, he was very eloquent actually, talking about sites good, good
job and all that but you know, he said, you can‟t stop progress but dammit to hell we certainly
control it.   So I am saying we should be very careful of what we do in this particular
development. Thank you Your Worship.


Mayor Sharp
The next part of the Public Meeting deals with the review of the Multi-purpose Centre and we
have an introduction by staff. Now who is doing that? Mr. Spencer?

Mr. Spencer
The Multi-purpose Community Facility that you have heard mentioned this evening has been
proposed, many years ago, at the corner of Rogers Avenue and West First Street. In the
early iteration of the plan, the Official Community Plan, it was identified as a, just a basic site
with no buildings on top of it.

The centre has evolved from a number of meetings and focus groups. We have had
professional facility planners helping us to identify a range of uses. We have worked with the
North Shore Recreation Commission, Neighbourhood House, North Shore Health, and some
other community groups to evolve a whole list and area of relationship of uses. Now the
problem I have is that the boards now have to be hung on the wall so I don‟t know if I could
ask my colleague to assist? Maybe Mark Ehman, who I would also like to introduce at this
point. He is the architect who has been retained to do this work. And in fact Mark Ehman,
who is with Downs-Archambeault Architects, will be making the primary presentation.

Really I was asking Mark to step forward to perhaps supervise the actual relationship of
boards.   I believe we have everything in place. I pass over to the actual designer Your

City of North Vancouver                  Page 35 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                          September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mayor Sharp

Mr. M. Ehman, Downs-Archambeault Architects
Thank you Your Worship, members of Council. The Lower Lonsdale Community Centre will
provide facilities that will serve the needs of a wide range of the public and house a full
spectrum of age groups. I think that this is, this mix of programs and people, I think that it is
what is so exciting about this facility.

The spaces are arranged on four levels. On the lower two levels, the recreation component
would be located on the lower two levels. The third level, which is actually ground level, will
house the seniors and youth centre and some craft spaces. On the upper level, which is the
second storey from grade, will be the family resource centre and the health centre that will be
run by North Shore Health Unit.

Starting off on the ground floor plan. The entry and the entrance is oriented towards Jack
Loucks Park. So one entrance, the centre from that corner (points to diagram) and that will
be a pretty prominent entranceway. It will have a very prominent expression towards that
court. The Seniors‟ centre will be comprised of a number of rooms, including seniors‟
meeting rooms, seniors‟ hall and lounge area, will be located directly off of Rogers Plaza.
You can envision that they would have an outdoor terrace, it would open out on to that plaza
area. Moving down further into the centre we have the youth centre located, as well off of
Rogers Plaza, and that to would have its own outdoor area across an individual entrance into
that centre so that the youth does not need to necessarily go through the centre to get to the
youth centre. As well, on the ground floor, would be some craft studios.

Upstairs, as you enter the building, off to the left will be the major circulation stairway and
elevator. I can envision that, that stairway will be open. Light will come in from the top,
skylights or …. windows and the elevator would be located there too, which …. would be
open as well.

Leading upstairs from that point to the second floor, the second floor as I said houses the
family resources centre, which is in green here (points to diagram). Once again with
windows facing outside. Towards the north and towards First would be the meeting rooms
and there would be several multi-purpose meeting rooms leading to a major multi-purpose
room which would be used for North Shore Health as well as for other uses in the evening.

We leave from the ground floor, down one level, it is a mezzanine level, a middle level,
which will be the weight room/rehab facility and that is intended to look out over the
gymnasium below. This would also have the changing room facility as well and then finally
down in the lowest level is the gymnasium itself. It is a 6,000 sq. ft. gymnasium as well there
will be a fitness and dance studio, a 2,000 sq.ft. fitness and dance studio.

So essentially that is the mix. Once again very exciting because of the mix of spaces and
the people that will be using them, that facility.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you. At this time I am going to go to a very patient member of the public up in our
audience, Ms Connie Burns!

City of North Vancouver                 Page 36 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Ms. Connie Burns
Thank you Your Worship. I wasn‟t sure whether you said patient or impatient but I think both

I was here last week with the presentations that were put, such as those drawings, and there
were two other people with me who are from the Advisory Committee on Disability Issues.
We would like to draw attention to the planners and the architects because we know these
are just very general rough and conceptual drawings. There are some things that we are
concerned about even at this stage. What we want to point to, particularly, in the beginning
is the fact that there are two levels, which are down below grade. Although it is unlikely that
there would be a great number of people with disabilities in those areas I believe that there
could very well be people in the rehabilitation centre and also some people with disabilities
who might be using the fitness equipment for their own personal uses. So I think that the
thought that there are no emergency exits, other than the elevator, is of concern that is
troubling to all of us. Secondly on that floor, in the basement floor and perhaps on the
mezzanine floor the hallways are quite narrow.           If you will note the doors from the
gymnasium open out into the hallway that is making it very, very narrow and if there was by
chance someone who was using a wheelchair or scooter or even a walker that person would
have a very difficult time being able to progress from say one end to the elevator.

Now that moves into the area of safety. I have spoken about accessible exits. I have some
comments and eventually would like to know some things about the elevator. What is the
capacity of the elevator for numbers of person, and what is the capacity of the elevator for
numbers of wheelchairs, scooters and those types of adapted equipment? How quickly does
the elevator move from floor to floor? Also, in emergencies we are advised not to take

Another question that I have is how great are the population, or how much of the population,
that is anticipated to use this centre, might be people who are elderly or disabled? I suspect
that it would be a fair percentage.

The next item that we are concerned about is the parking.

Mr. Spencer
Your Worship, to be fair, I don‟t think the architects have worked out the overall plan in any
great detail. I think at the current evolution of this design the thought was that there would
be an elevator here (points to diagram). Just to clarify for everybody. The public parking
into the commercial levels and the public levels will be from Esplanade, via the existing
parking, it already serves North Shore Health. You will come in the same place up into this
area here (points to diagram) and then sort of wind your way back down and then under this
area (points to diagram). I think that is correct. There will be some public parking down
here (points to diagram) which we would be able to use an elevator at this location and then
come up to this plaza level here (points to diagram) and then access through Rogers Plaza
through into the entrance here. So it is relatively long. I guess it is going from the lower
portion of the site to the upper.

City of North Vancouver                Page 37 of 41                              Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                       September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Ms. Burns
Thank you for that. I guesstimate that that distance might be 1¼ to 1½ blocks. Again,
people who have mobility problems, people who are visually impaired and people who are
perhaps frightened to be out on the street, particularly after dark, might find that distance a
little overwhelming. These are suggestions or questions to take into the further thought and
development that goes in at this time and I don‟t expect you have, but at this time there
seems to be no protection for people who would be going along that external corridor.
Protection from weather, or perhaps street people who might frighten or harass pedestrians,
or from someone who is about to commit a crime.

Another question for the future on this is, what kind of lighting and safety measures are going
to be put in. So there is a question that I am going to make so that overall, which may or
may not be possible, but I give this to fuel your creativity and your thinking about this parking
issue. That is, is there some way possible that parking can be provided closer to the
entrance to the community centre for people who have disabilities and would be reluctant to
go around the long way?

Finally, another question for consideration, is how would these factors of safety and
convenience affect the usage and enjoyment of the community centre. Thank you very

Mayor Sharp
Thank you. We might have an answer for you on at least one of the answers.

Mr. Merrick
I would just like to address the speakers concerns which is the facility with which you can
come and go from this centre. As was explained, the general, the single and the public
entrance is on the street at the corner of Rogers and First. Out of our various discussions it
was felt that one effective entrance was preferred to several alternative, such as lower level,
sideway from parking which are theoretically possible but were considered undesirable. That
being the case the concerns the speaker has been raising were indeed addressed.

First of all if you were seriously impaired or had difficulty with mobility you could be dropped
at that door and I think it would be the municipality‟s choice, but there could easily be
designated handicapped parking assigned for those that have already been developed and
exist on First along Jack Loucks Park within 50, 70, 80 feet of that entrance. That would be
the most convenient. The next most convenient would be a part of the general public
parking which is accessed of course off Esplanade at the Esplanade level and that brings
you in through, essentially the entrance that now exists under the Keg development. It is a
shared access so that we don‟t create any more crossing on Esplanade and that would get
you into a parking area that then could be immediately adjacent to an elevator that takes you
up from parking in this location (points to diagram) and out on, and I think Mr. Spencer is
unaware of this, literally within about 100 feet of that front door. It would be connectable
along the Rogers Street corridor under canopy glazing so it could be weather protected albeit
not indoors.

Ms. Burns
Your Worship may I respond?

Mayor Sharp

City of North Vancouver                 Page 38 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Ms. Burns
Thank you very much for the information that we didn‟t have before, that there can be
parking at a close proximity for people who need that. I am concerned that the question
around exits from the lower levels have seen to have been deemed not workable, and I
understand that a measure of protection of people in the centre and for the convenience of
the centre so that they aren‟t wondering who this person wandering through might be.

I think if you can put yourself in the place of someone who is in a wheelchair and down doing
fitness or working out and there being an emergency I hope that will lead you to at least re-
examine that particular issue and I thank you very much.

Mayor Sharp
Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that have any comments regarding
this amenity space at this time? Yes, would you please come down to the microphone.

Unknown Speaker
It is just a simple question.

Mayor Sharp
Your name if you wouldn‟t mind.

Ivan Leonard
Ivan Leonard. Do you want my address again?

Mayor Sharp
We have got that thanks.

Mr. Leonard
I just simply want to know how large the gymnasium is? How many badminton courts can
we have in the gym?

Mayor Sharp
Who want to go with that? Mr. White, Mr. Spencer!

Mr. Ehman
Your Worship, there are anticipated four badminton courts, one basketball, two cross
basketball courts, and one volleyball court.

Mr. Leonard
Thank you very much. Very good.

Mayor Sharp
Any other member of the public that have any questions or comments about this facility at
this time? I am going to go to members of Council. Councillor Bell!

Councillor Bell
That is okay.

Mayor Sharp
Councillor Braithwaite!

City of North Vancouver                Page 39 of 41                            Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                     September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Councillor Braithwaite
Yes Your Worship. We had an explanation in the description of the community centre and of
course this is based on the design of the two towers, twin towers, is that correct through you
to Mr. White, Larry Orr, whoever?

Mayor Sharp
Mr. White!

Mr. White
The two uses are one on top of the other Your Worship. I guess you could say that they are
inter-related, it would be a way of putting it. Does that respond to your question adequately?

Councillor Braithwaite
So you are saying yes, it is based on the two tower design.

Mr. White
That is correct Your Worship.

Councillor Braithwaite
That isn‟t in stone, is that correct?

Mr. White
Your Worship not until the building permit drawings are produced Your Worship.

Councillor Braithwaite
Because as you know we could receive a letter from North Shore Neighbourhood House
indicating their concerns with the operation and the function of a four storey community
centre. So that will be taken into consideration?

Mayor Sharp
Mr. White!
Mr. White
Your Worship I think that is part of the material that Council is considering right now, in terms
of the Public Meeting component. There have been a few commentators that, earlier, have
given Council information on the multi-purpose centre. Neighbourhood Board sent a letter to
Council over the summer.

Councillor Braithwaite
Yes, well the reason I am bringing this up, Council did last week receive ….. information.

Mayor Sharp
Mr. Hawkshaw have you got that information?

Mr. Hawkshaw
Your Worship I don‟t have it at my fingertips.

Councillor Braithwaite
Okay. The question I am saying is I hope that letter is seriously taken into consideration
when staff, the planning staff, is going to put a report in as to what would be submitted to

City of North Vancouver                 Page 40 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height
Mayor Sharp
So Mr. White, staff will take that into consideration when they put the report in?

Mr. White
Yes Your Worship. I think it would ideal I guess if Council gave us direction, not tonight, but
in the not too distant future. What we had planned to do, as a result of the public input
tonight, is to respond with a detailed report to Council and ask Council to tell us which things
they want us to focus on. Whether it is a four storey facility as currently proposed or
something different is one of the questions Council will have to consider.

Councillor Braithwaite
The last question Your Worship through you to the architect. Is that coffee shop part of the
community centre or not?

Mr. Ehman
The coffee shop is not part of the community centre.

Councillor Braithwaite
It isn‟t, it is privately owned.

Mr. Ehman
That is correct.

Mayor Sharp
I don‟t see any other members of Council have any questions so a motion to conclude the
Public Meeting.

Moved by Councillor Bell, seconded Councillor Keating

        THAT the Public Meeting adjourn.

                                                             CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

The Public Meeting adjourned at 10:49 p.m.

City of North Vancouver                 Page 41 of 41                               Public Meeting
Official Community Plan                                                         September 17, 2001
Site 5 Text Amendment
Re: Height