Development Permit Board and Advisory Panel
Minutes
For: Monday, April 26, 2004
Index
Present
1082 Seymour Street
(click here to read the report)
Minutes
Motion
Present
Board
F. Scobie Director of Development Services (Chair)
L. Beasley Co-Director of Planning
B. MacGregor Deputy City Manager
T. Timm Deputy City Engineer
Advisory Panel
B. Haden Representative of the Design Professions (Urban Design Panel)
J. McLean Representative of the Development Industry
E. Mah Representative of the Development Industry
D. Chung Representative of the General Public
K. McNaney Representative of the General Public
C. Henschel Representative of the General Public
Regrets
J. Hancock Representative of the Design Professions
G. Chung Representative of the General Public
Also Present
City Staff:
R. Segal Development Planner
G. Thorne Project Facilitator
M. Thomson City Surveyor
1082 Seymour Street
L. Doyle Lawrence Doyle Architect Inc.
R. Henry Richard Henry Architect
R. Estey El & El Investments Ltd.
C. Sterry PWL Partnership Inc.
Recording Secretary
C. Hubbard
[top]
1. Minutes
It was moved by Mr. Beasley, seconded by Mr. Timm, and was the decision
of the Board:
THAT the Minutes of the Development Permit Board and Advisory Panel
Meeting of March 29, 2004 be approved with minor corrections on pages
4 and 5.
2. Business Arising from the Minutes
None.
[top]
3. 1082 Seymour Street - DE408246
- Zone DD
(Complete Application)
Applicant: Lawrence Doyle Architects
Request: To construct a 19-storey multiple dwelling containing 181
units, including six street-oriented townhouses, with retail space at
grade, all over three levels of underground parking for a total of 192
vehicles.
Development Planner’s Opening Comments
Ralph Segal, Development Planner, introduced this application. Referring
to a context model, he briefly reviewed the buildings surrounding the
development site which is at the corner of Seymour and Helmcken Streets
with a 200 ft. frontage. The site is affected by a view corridor which
has largely dictated the proposed massing comprising a lower tower
than is more typical in Downtown South with a more substantive streetwall
element. Staff support this response to the view corridor restriction.
Mr. Segal advised there is a non-market residential tower with social
services on the ground floor (youth drop-in) at 488 Helmcken Street,
also fronting on Seymour Street and facing four of the proposed townhouses
in this development, noting that staff encouraged the applicant to
locate townhouses on the Seymour frontage as a means of creating a
balance between the retail at the corner and the residential tower
entry. However, in response to this condition staff are requesting
design development to increase the security of the townhouses and enhance
the interface between the townhouses and the public realm. Staff are
generally satisfied with the level of livability achieved for the units,
including the provision of on-site open space. Mr. Segal briefly reviewed
the recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Segal noted a response to notification from the Gathering Place
(488 Helmcken Street) questions the proposed townhouses across the street
from the youth drop-in centre which they operate. Staff recognize this
may be a difficult condition for future residents but believe the townhouses
achieve “eyes on the street” and will result in a better
overall environment on Seymour Street.
The Staff Committee recommendation is for approval, subject to the conditions
contained in the report dated March 31, 2004.
Questions/Discussion
Mr. Beasley noted the Urban Design Panel comments include a reference
to extending brick to the inside of the lower building mass, which is
not among the Staff Committee recommendations. Mr. Segal advised that
in response to the applicant’s concerns about the economics of
this project, which is intended for affordable housing, Staff concluded
the extension of brick was not essential.
With respect to the response from the Gathering Place, Mr. Beasley noted
they do not oppose the inclusion of the townhouses but suggest their
location might be better switched with the commercial space at the corner
and along Helmcken Street. Mr. Segal advised that staff supported the
rationale that the podium element should be solely residential, noting
also a desire to achieve a good balance between a strong townhouse-street
relationship on both Seymour and Helmcken Streets. Certainly, increasing
the townhouse frontage on Helmcken, being much more of a residential
street, is strongly encouraged. Mr. Beasley said he did not believe the
guidelines specify that the retail space should be located at the corner;
only that retail use is encouraged on corner sites. Mr. Beasley also
advised it was his understanding that the youth drop-in is to be moved
from this location and integrated with the proposed new Dusk-to-Dawn
facility on Burrard Street, so the adjacency issue will likely not apply
by the time this project is built.
Mr. Beasley sought clarification regarding the amount of commercial
space proposed. In discussion, Mr. Segal advised the technical analysis
in the report is not accurate and there is a much smaller discrepancy
between what is proposed and the maximum permitted.
Mr. Henschel questioned the rationale for staff’s support of the
proposed heritage density transfer, noting the site is quite constrained
and the application seeks a number of relaxations. Mr. Segal advised
that staff concluded the project would not be more livable without the
extra density and the floorplate would not be significantly reduced.
Staff generally thought there was no detrimental impact from the heritage
density transfer, noting also that accepting the heritage density is
considered to be a public benefit in itself.
In response to a question from Mr. Scobie regarding the requested children’s
play area, Mr. Segal advised the best location would be identified in
consultation with Social Planning. Mr. Scobie also questioned the impact
of the heritage density transfer on the size of the floorplate. Mr. Segal
agreed the floorplate could be reduced somewhat without the additional
density; however, the current floorplate provides the greater efficiency
necessary to achieve a larger number of smaller units for the intended
market. The extra floor space resulting from the proposed heritage density
transfer has essentially been located in the podium. Mr. Segal added
that this site is one of the few Downtown South sites affected by the
view corridor, which is the primary factor for a floorplate that is larger
than that recommended in the guidelines. The Board has previously approved
floor plates in excess of the recommended 6,500 sq.ft.
Applicant’s Comments
Lawrence Doyle, Architect, advised they would be happy to work with staff
to resolve the conditions contained in the Staff Committee Report.
With respect to condition 1.5, he requested that the size of the balconies
be less prescriptive, noting they will be pleased to work with staff
to achieve the objectives. With respect to the request for more landscaping
at the edge of the second floor terrace (1.2), Mr. Doyle explained
they have kept hard surface at the edge to avoid an overheight railing.
He briefly explained the rationale with respect to the use of brick
on the project and the retail space, noting they believe it is very
important for the retail to be located at the corner. They intend to
provide the maximum permissible 2,500 sq.ft. retail space to ensure
its viability.
Richard Henry, Architect, noted the project began as a rental building,
with a large number of fairly small units. The proposal is now for market
residential (condominium) but with the intent of keeping the units affordable.
Since the proposed floorplate accommodates approximately nine small units
per floor, the allowable eight percent FSR excluded balcony area results
in proportionately smaller balconies per unit. This is an inherent difficulty
with buildings which attempt to target the affordable housing market.
With respect to the project as a whole, Mr. Richard said they believe
it will contribute to improving the current difficult conditions on Seymour
Street.
With respect to condition 1.2, Chris Sterry, Landscape Architect, explained
the rationale for avoiding a continuous landscaped edge and the attempt
to achieve two, large, usable open space areas.
Prompted by a question from Mr. Haden regarding the maximum allowable
balcony area, Mr. Segal agreed that distributing the allowable area among
all the units results in smaller than average balcony sizes. However,
Staff would prefer to see an alternative distribution of the balcony
area so that those units that would benefit more from open balconies
have balconies of usable size, where other units, facing Seymour Street,
might have enclosed or French balconies. He noted that staff will be
pleased to work with the applicant to achieve a good resolution and would
have no objection to deleting the reference to a minimum depth of 5 ft.
Referencing the City’s guidelines for high-density housing for
families with children, Mr. McNaney noted the two bedroom (family) units
are facing away from the recommended location for the children’s
play area, which precludes surveillance of the area. Mike Thomson, City
Surveyor, advised that in addition to surveillance, the guideline calling
for family units to be within the first eight floors also refers to the
ability to quickly get to the play area. Social Planning staff have identified
thirty such units in this building. Mr. Segal added that another
important factor for the location of the play area is an associated amenity
room where caregivers can oversee the children.
Comments from other Speakers
None.
Panel Opinion
Mr. Haden advised the Urban Design Panel unanimously supported this application
which it considered to be a successful background development. The
Panel had three concerns: the base/tower relationship; resolution of
the rooftop element; and location of the residential entry. Mr. Haden
supported approval, with the recommended conditions. He noted the extension
of the brick along the back of the townhouses was not a strong concern
of the Panel. He agreed that adding another exterior amenity space
would be advantageous although noted the current location of the bicycle
storage is very convenient. With respect to the children’s play
area, Mr. Haden agreed that having it closer to the building would
be helpful. With respect to concerns about the proximity of this development
to the Gathering Place, Mr. Haden commented that with the increase
in population in the area it is important to find mechanisms to ensure
that ongoing necessary social services are protected. He suggested
there should be a requirement for purchasers to sign a waiver acknowledging
their understanding of noise conditions in the area and foregoing the
right to complain.
Mr. McLean said it is a very good development given the height limit
imposed by the view corridor. He questioned whether the townhouses could
be live/work use to allow professional offices, which works well with
residential use. He agreed with the applicant that the maximum permitted
2,500 sq.ft. is necessary for the retail to be viable.
Mr. Mah supported staff’s recommendation for addressing the distribution
of allowable balcony area, having the flexibility for larger, more usable
balconies for certain units and enclosed or “balconettes” for
others. He supported adding height to the upper penthouse level to improve
the roof expression. He did not support relocating some of the commercial
space to the other side of the residential lobby, but would support adding
more townhouses to Helmcken Street if possible. Mr. Mah did not support
slimming the tower in favour of increasing the size of the podium, preferring
the proposed arrangement. He supported the application.
Mr. Chung also supported the application. He concurred with Mr. Mah
regarding the balconies and strongly supported the proposed garden plots
which add some visual variety to the scheme.
Mr. McNaney supported the proposal and strongly endorsed the proposed
smaller, more affordable units. He also strongly supported the garden
plots. He had some concern about the recommendation to add additional
communal space on the second floor, next to the amenity room, given it
is only a couple of metres from a residential unit.
Mr. Henschel agreed it is a very supportable project and the proposed
modifications to the north façade will improve it considerably.
He strongly supported condition 1.9 to bring the tower expression down
to the sidewalk which will provide a greater sense of slimness. He thought
the treatment of the lane side of the townhouses should be in brick which
will make the amenity area more pleasant and usable.
Board Discussion
Mr. Beasley said it is a good project. With respect to the townhouses,
he noted that live/work use is now permitted on Seymour Street. He
said he would prefer the use of brick on the back of the townhouses
but would not impose a condition given it was not a strong recommendation
from the Urban Design Panel. He suggested the applicant give it further
consideration. Mr. Beasley strongly supported the proposed garden plots.
Noting that Helmcken Street is the Downtown greenway, Mr. Beasley said
he was disappointed to see only two townhouses proposed on Helmcken.
He agreed, however, that the maximum floor area is necessary for viability
of the retail space. He moved approval of the application, with minor
amendments to the conditions.
Mr. Timm commented that the development of high density residential
use in the downtown is generating issues for residents and the City with
respect to noise, parking and traffic congestion complaints, and it will
be an ongoing problem as long as incoming purchasers do not fully appreciate
the very urban conditions into which they are moving. Mr. Timm said he
found the proposal a good development in a difficult location. With respect
to the proximity of the townhouses to the drop-in centre, he agreed it
will likely be difficult for the townhouse residents but it will be a
general benefit for the street.
Mr. MacGregor supported the motion of approval. He said it is worthwhile
to note that having agreements registered on title does not preclude
the generation of complaints.
In response to a question from the Chair, Mr. Doyle confirmed he saw
no problem with the issues raised by Processing – Building and
Fire & Rescue Services, in Appendix C.
Motion
It was moved by Mr. Beasley and seconded by Mr. Timm, and was the decision
of the Board:
THAT the Board APPROVE Development Application No. 408246, in accordance
with the Development Permit Staff Committee Report dated March 31, 2004,
with the following amendments:
Amend 1.2 to delete: “and providing a landscaped edge to the
level 2 deck”;
Amend 1.5 to delete “by increasing their depth to a minimum of
5 ft.”’
Delete the Note to Applicant in 1.7.
CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
[top]
5. Other Business
None.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4.30 p.m.
[top]
|
