Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, May 30, 2001

---

Index

Present
550 Burrard Street (Bentall V)
3588 Crowley Drive (Collingwood Village)
4685 Valley Drive
339, 341, 349 East 16th Avenue (St. James Society Women's Shelter)

---

Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:

Tom Bunting, Chair
Walter Francl, Deputy Chair
Jeffrey Corbett (Items 2-4)
Gerry Eckford (Items 1-3)
Alan Endall
Bruce Hemstock (Item 4)
Joseph Hruda (Items 2 and 3)
Jack Lutsky
Maurice Pez (Items 1, 3 and 4)
Sorin Tatomir

REGRETS:
Lance Berelowitz
Richard Henry


RECORDING
SECRETARY: Rae Ratslef, Raincoast Ventures

---

Chair Bunting reported that 401 Helmcken received its preliminary review at the May 28, 2001 Development Permit Board meeting with conditions that effectively summarized the concerns identified by the UDP, primarily with respect to open space. The complete application will come back to the Panel and to the Development Permit Board for review.

---

1. Address: 550 Burrard Street (Bentall V)
DA: 405804
Use: Plaza and Office Tower
Zoning: CD-1
Architect: Musson Cattell Mackey
Owner: Bentall Corporation
Review: 3rd
Staff: Ralph Segal

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)

Introduction
Ralph Segal, Senior Development Planner, referencing the two models and panels posted, introduced the application for 550 Burrard Street (Bentall V). Information was relayed regarding the application's history, and concerning its public art element. As well, a review of the Panel's comments at the project's initial consideration was provided.

The Panel's comments were sought with respect to the public realm elements of the project, including how the building edge contributes to the pedestrian experience, and concerning how the landscaping in the planter area impacts views. It was noted that staff are generally very supportive of the project.

Brian Newson, City of Vancouver Public Art Program, provided information regarding Council's direction to staff with respect to public art, concerning this project's collaborative efforts between artists, architects and landscape architects to design its public art element, and regarding the process used to select an artist for this project. Mr. Newson advised that the scheme presented has been reviewed and endorsed by the Public Art Committee.

Applicant's Opening Comments
Alan Whitchelo, Bentall, Mark Thompson, MCM Architects, and Chris Sterry, Phillips, Wouri & Long, joined the Panel for consideration of this item.

Mr. Thompson, referencing the model, discussed factors that influenced the site's public art design, including the site's increasing grade, the importance of allowing pedestrians free movement throughout the site, and to address visibility and accessibility issues, both into the site and for the retail on the ground floor.

Information was then provided on the detailed design elements of the project, including the incorporation of a significant water feature with an elevated centre piece and the building materials that will be used. Mr. Thompson further commented regarding the project's references to the historic natural landscape of this site, the ground plane materials, and concerning measures taken to ensure the accessibility of the entrance.

Mr. Chris Sterry discussed details of the front entry canopy and the mezzanine aspect of the project which was designed to reference and enhance the animation of the plaza. Comments were also made concerning design features incorporated to hide mechanical units, and regarding landscaping elements, and public seating in the plaza.

In response to questions, the applicant commented regarding shadow impacts on the plaza at different times of the day and year, intended use of the plaza building, planting scheme, visibility issues considered in the design of the plaza, sources of passive security on the site, and regarding circulation of the water element.

The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.

Panel's Comments
Panel members were generally supportive of the changes made to the application since the preliminary, and noted their appreciation that it had come back as a full tower rather than a phased project. Some minor concerns were expressed however, with regard to the juncture and the detailing of the tower meeting the water feature in the plaza.

With respect to the plaza, Panel members noted their support and appreciation of its incorporation of the public art element and for the direction and sophistication of the overall design. Some members favoured the planting design, while others thought it was too neutral, it was noted that the design does obscure the food pavilion seating from Burrard. It was suggested that a restaurant, rather than a food pavilion, in this location would add a lot of sophistication and animation to the site at various times of day.

Several members indicated, concerning the corner planting, that the replacement of a single tree specimen by an anonymous grove is not a strong enough statement and the use of compacted granular materials in this location was cautioned against given its usage.

Concerning the green jade historical reference to a stream on this site, it was suggested that it could have a stronger finish and marking. Also, several members commented that the proposed location of bus shelters is in direct conflict with the building's architecture and canopies and that any bus shelter located in close proximity to the water fountain would be negatively viewed.

Panel members generally appreciated the quality of the presentation and the design of the area along Burrard Street, notwithstanding some comments regarding the pavilion along Dunsmuir with comments on how to make it a stronger edge and focus on the approaching view of the corner from east to west along Dunsmuir.

The Panel indicated its unanimous support for the application.

Applicant's Response
The applicant thanked the Panel for its comments and advised that most of the comments submitted are concerning issues that the applicant has also grappled with and will continue to do so as the project develops.

2. Address: 3588 Crowley Drive (Collingwood Village)
DA: 405823
Use: Residential (18 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Architect: Larry Doyle and Nigel Baldwin
Owner: Concert Real Estate Corp.
Review: 1st
Staff: Bob Adair

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)

Introduction
Bob Adair, Development Planner, referencing posted drawings and a model, introduced the application for 3588 Crowley Drive in the context of the surrounding area. Information was provided on the status of buildings in the area, concerning neighbouring park sites, and regarding the public right-of-way. The Panel was informed that there has recently been a text amendment to the CD-1 for Collingwood, to reorganize some floor space on the site in response to changing market conditions and community feedback.

Mr. Adair offered further information regarding the pedestrian right-of-way and building materials, and noted that staff generally feel that the expression of the building is handled well. The Panel's comments were sought regarding the treatment at grade, the mini park element, the orientation of units, location of exit stairs, extent of the proposed brick facing on the building, and proposed colour scheme.

Applicant's Opening Comments
Larry Doyle, Lawrence Doyle Architects, Nigel Baldwin, Nigel Baldwin Architects, and Chris Sterry, Phillips Wuori and Long, joined the Panel for consideration of this item.

Mr. Baldwin, referencing the context boards, commented on the affordability of the project's units, the strength of its articulation and vertical expression to set up street rhythm, the articulation of the base in response to neighbourhood feedback. Mr. Baldwin noted that the brick building materials have been kept to a level where it can be easily seen, including planter walls, the lobby, corner and entrance. Comments were also offered regarding the truck turning area and the rationale for its design and location to obscure a 7 ft high mechanical unit.

Mr. Sterry commented on the open spaces elements of the project, added to the plan in a variety of forms. In response to the community's encouragement, the areas have been moved closer to the street so that they are more visible. Also, simple shapes have been utilized to enhance the visual amenity of the areas for tower residents and it was noted that private gardens with patios and planting are included along Crowley.

The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.

Panel's Comments
The Panel indicated its support of the shift in character in the area that the project has achieved and concerning the overall form of development, its treatment and colour. General support was also expressed for the amount of brick used, notwithstanding one member's comment that too small an amount of brick has been included to credibly use it.

It was agreed that the two storey brick elements and how they have been detailed works well. With regard to the corner pergola, members agreed to the general need to mark the corner, but the present proposal seems too harsh and large. Some softening of this corner is encouraged. The west elevation and the stair design as suggested by the Planning Department to create units to the mini-park was generally supported to orient the eyes on the mini-park without breaking the main street facade. However, the exiting west stair issue needs more work to resolve, particularly with respect to safety concerns.

With respect to the entry, members suggested that it requires more prominence and is fairly understated, also it was suggested that the street tree rhythm be aligned to highlight the entrance. Comments were also made that any softening of the loading bay, i.e. turning in the loading bay and parking, would be welcomed. Suggestions of grass and other porous paving materials were given.

The Panel indicated its unanimous support for this application.

Applicant's Response
The applicant indicated support for the Panel's comments with the exception of the understated entrance, which he suggested was obviously located in the tower's centre.

3. Address: 4685 Valley Drive
DA: 405780
Use: Residential (7 storeys, 120 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Architect: Nigel Baldwin
Owner: Polygon Development 104 Ltd.
Review: 1st
Staff: Eric Fiss

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)

Introduction
Eric Fiss, Development Planner, referencing the posted drawings and model, introduced the application for 4685 Valley Drive in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. Information was provided on the re-zoning of this site and concerning the concept approved in principle by Council at the time of the re-zoning, including the intent to recover some turn of the century craftsmen character, retain trees, respect the overall landscape context, create major focal spaces, re-use site access, clarify precincts as well as buildings, strengthen and clarify outdoor spaces, and integrate site edges, building form and shape to optimize views and light.

The Panel's direction was sought concerning the proposed height of the development, noting that the height was reduced to by Council to seven storeys after re-zoning, as was the other tall building on this site. Comments were also sought concerning the stepping at the edges which is a variance on what was seen by Council at the time of re-zoning, and concerning how the applicant responded to the general intent of the re-zoning, the relationship of this building to its neighbours, and how it relates to the outdoor open space.

Applicant's Opening Comments
Brad Tone, PHL, Rene Rose, PHL, Nigel Baldwin, Nigel Baldwin Architects, and Bruce Hemstock, Phillips Wuori Long, joined the Panel for consideration of this item.

Mr. Tone commented on the application noting it refers to the evolution of a precinct/campus like community and is a very unique, garden-like space in the City. The form of development responds to the gardens and open spaces between the projects and approximately 80% of the trees on the site have been maintained. The project concentrates on the open spaces because this is all about long-term livability, the units are quite wide and shallow. The craftsman style is about home and character to create a legacy and to evolve a new generation of buildings.

Mr. Baldwin, referencing the model, noted that this project is the centre of the development, surrounded by four storey buildings. He discussed the evolution of the building design to respond to the context and commented regarding the building materials and the notion of enclosure and comfort that comes from the sloped roof design. Mr. Baldwin also discussed the rationale for the parking entry location and design.

Mr. Hemstock reviewed the landscaping elements of the project with the Panel, noting that the challenge was to create a landscaped space that works with the building and the adjacent park. A park-like setting has been created with an Asian influence and shared spaces between buildings. It was noted that the project exceeds the City's tree by-law requirements and includes a greater variety of planting species than would normally be seen on the site.

The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.

Panel's Comments
Panel members agreed this is an exemplary proposal that is well handled in its design, form and scale. Appreciation was also expressed for the project's interpretation of the craftsman style of architecture in a non-literal way and its re-invention of the style with more contemporary elements.

It was also agreed that the ‘Asian fusion' as described by the applicant, has produced a warm and house-like massing and form of building, however, some members commented that use of a warmer colour palate would add needed warmth to the project's overall character. Generally, Panel members also agreed that the unit layout is very livable, bright and interesting.

With respect to the landscaping, members commented that the project has a good integration of open spaces with neighbours, that the retention of trees is highly supportable and that the landscaping overall is acceptable.

In commenting on the building form, members noted that the project's height, mass and scale are handled very well in a seemingly effortless way, notwithstanding some members' comments regarding the northwest corner on Valley Drive that is somewhat close and overbearing to its neighbours. It was also agreed that there was a very nice approach to the courtyard and dual entry to the future building and that the amenity building serves as a nice entry beacon.

The Panel expressed its unanimous support for the overall application.

Applicant's Response
The applicant thanked the Panel for its comments.

4. Address: 339, 341, 349 East 16th Avenue (St. James Society Women's Shelter)
Use: SNRF
Zoning: RM-4N to CD-1
Architect: Davidson Yuen Simpson
Owner: St. James Community Services Society
Review: 1st
Staff: Eric Fiss/Phil Mondor


EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)

Introduction
Phil Mondor, Rezoning Planner, introduced the rezoning application submitted on behalf of St. James Society Women's Shelter, and discussed the proposed use, developed according to the provisions of the zoning schedule, in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. It was noted that there are small ways in which the application departs from the zoning schedule with the exception of its significant departure relating to use. Providing emergency accommodation (18 sleeping rooms) and transitional housing (10 dwelling units) for women and children, the intended use of the site, is dwelling units combined with a special needs residential facility (group living). This is a combination of uses which is not permitted under the existing zoning, and is what requires a rezoning application.

The Panel was informed that, although the zoning intends for this type of development, it would be the first four storey project on a street of one storey plus basement houses. Information was also provided on the enquires that the City has received since the public notification two weeks ago.

Eric Fiss, Development Planner, referencing posted drawings, provided general information regarding the intent of RM-4N zoning. Mr. Fiss then discussed the proposed form of development, noting it would set a precedent for further development in this zone to create a more distinctive architectural style.

The Panel's comments were sought regarding the character of the roof, street wall presence, articulation of the facade to respond to the adjacent buildings, landscape plan, whether extra height has been earned through the design, the project's response of the front yard to neighbouring front yards, concerning its public open space, and its circulation and access.

Applicant's Opening Comments
Ron Yuen, Davidson Yuen Simpson, Rob O'Dea, Joseph Lau and Gerry Eckford, joined the Panel for consideration of this item.

Mr. O'Dea commented the applicant team has been working with a community group for a year on this proposal to house women and children in both short and long term transitional housing. Efforts have been made to stay within the existing zoning and neighbourhood context. The height is 2'9" above the height regulations in the rear, eastern corner, but the majority of the development is below the 35' limitation. It was noted that lowering the height would require including another ramp for wheelchair access.

Mr. Eckford commented on the project's landscape which was designed to provide a sense of home and appropriate play areas for the children. Issues of privacy and security of importance given the use were discussed and the rationale for the ramp design, and positioning and of the interior spacial orientation was provided.

The applicant responded to questions regarding the overall design, its intended usage, neighbourhood consultation process underway, and the rationale for two entrances and for one of these to be a side entrance.

The Panel reviewed the model and posted materials.

Panel's Comments
Generally, Panel members offered supportive comments regarding the project's architectural expression, notwithstanding one members' less favourable comments concerning the relation of the project's massing to the site size. It was agreed that the form of development with the approved zoning and the use are compelling and supportable.

With respect to the treatment of the facade along the street, differing views were offered as to its value in breaking down the bulk of the building in relation to its neighbours versus unnecessarily trying to make it not look like an apartment building. The applicant was encouraged to look for methods of softening the shoulders of the flat roof, particularly at the lowest part of the site.

Panel members noted that the landscaping is done very well given the high level of programming necessary. Also, the height relaxation was universally supported and it was suggested that the project fits the RM4N zoning quite well given the height limitations.

Concerning the side entry, it was noted that its location is somewhat problematic and it was suggested that the applicant try to move the entry towards the front of the building and approach this as a test case with more of a set-back from the future adjacent building.

The Panel expressed its unanimous support for the application.

Applicant's Response
The applicant thanked the Panel for its comments.

5. Adjournment
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:33 p.m.

---

Comments or questions? You can send us e-mail.

© 2001 City of Vancouver