Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, September 5, 2001
Index
Present
1005 Station Street (966 Main Street)
1321 Richards Street
1238 Burrard Street
4802 Fraser Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Tom Bunting, Chair
Jeffrey Corbett
Lance Berelowitz
Gerry Eckford
Alan Endall
Walter Francl
Bruce Hemstock
Richard Henry
Joseph Hruda
Jack Lutsky
Maurice Pez
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
None.
Recording Secretary:
M.K. Warwick
1. 1005 Station Street (966 Main Street)
DA: 405521
Use: Residential
Zoning: FC-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Nigel Baldwin
Owner: Van City Enterprises
Review: First
Delegation: Nigel Baldwin, Jonathon Losee
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (11-0)
Introduction: The Development Planner, Scot Hein outlined the
project confirming that the proposal was in accordance with the Vancouver
Agreement to provide additional low-income housing opportunities on the
Downtown Eastside for singles, homeless at risk (including females) and
noted that 10 units will be accessible to the disabled. He emphasized
that there would be no onsite "full-time care" but it was a
distinct form of housing – different from the conventional "Residential"
accommodation and that BC Housing would operate the facility with nominal
rents based on a 60-year lease between BC Housing and the City of Vancouver.
The project is a mid-block development with double frontage on Main
Street and Station Street. Mr. Hein referred to various display boards
to clarify the location in context with surrounding heritage buildings,
Thornton Park and the Sky Train Station. He confirmed that the Zoning
was FC1 (High Density Mixed Residential & Retail) with 3.00 FSR for
the residential portion and 1.00 FSR for Commercial component – with
a height of 75'. He also referenced the preliminary Techpark.com plans
and elevations for the approved high tech campus project. The proposed
mixed use building would be comprised of 6 storeys fronting Main Street
and Station Street with retail and weather protection at street level.
The residential portion will have an entrance and courtyard off Station
Street with the loading ramp located to the North of the structure to
minimize pedestrian crossings. Each floor of the residence will have double
loaded corridors of studio units with one-bedroom units at each end.
Mr. Hein commented on the emerging context of the area, namely the Techpark.com
proposal – which caused staff to consider the project in the context
of the adjacent park area. DCLs will be collected on the Techpark.com
and consideration will be given on how to "knit" the other projects
together along the block given the challenges of double frontage and the
initiative of social housing. Mr. Hein went on to explain the challenges
and how the architectural expression was responsive to the area and the
need to ensure provision of natural light for new and existing, adjacent
units. Specifically, the Panel's advice was requested with respect to:
- the project massing – especially with respect to the lounge/courtyard/multi-purpose
room functions, noting a minimum two storey Station Street context;
- Station Street - the materials proposed;
- general thoughts on how Station Street can be an extension of the Thornton
Park public realm with street trees, etc. and the need to work with Engineering
to ensure a high quality precinct;
- the potential for some retail on Main Street as well as Station Street,
similar to Yaletown.
• Applicant's Opening Comments: Mr. Baldwin commented on
the difficulty of the site and noted that when the project commenced there
was no "policy" in respect of the Station Street frontage and
that he had worked with Mr. Hein to develop one which would address the
several 100' deep lots, other potential uses in the area and the extension
of sidewalks into courtyards, etc. Mr. Baldwin acknowledged that the fence
of the courtyard could, perhaps, be moved back however there was concern
with respect to the current "drug trade" in the vicinity of
the proposed Station Street entry. He also expressed concern regarding
the City's request for retail on the Main Street frontage but suggested
that perhaps three small retail outlets could be included. Mr. Baldwin
further suggested that at such time as Station Street becomes more important,
it might be possible to look at another tower design at the end of the
"T" street wall. He suggested that everyone else developing
property in this vicinity would be using the Main Street frontage and
reiterated that with the mid-block siting, and simple setbacks for a mid-rise
tower, it was difficult to get more than single storey walls.
Mr. Lossee, Landscape Architect, illustrated the 25' sidewalk width
and suggested that at this time, he had no particular solution, although
a single row of street trees could be included. He also noted that the
small courtyard was within a small walled space.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
and generally agreed that the project was very strong and that the attempt
to solve an immediate social need outweighed many of the other comments.
Further, the Panel suggested that one couldn't expect a modest project
to set the stage for development of the rest of the area
With respect to Station Street, the Panel suggested that refinement
of the frontage is required and, further, that consideration be given
to carrying over some of the street treatment in the adjacent emerging
Thornton Park precinct, such as double or triple rows of trees. Concern
was also expressed regarding the understatement of the Station Street
entry it was suggested that treatment of the "fence" as the
property line and the addition of a ‘beam' could make it look more
like the building façade. This may help to create a more continuous
presence and alleviate concerns regarding security as well as more clearly
defining public/private spaces. The Panel also agreed that the treatment
of the wall on Station Street in order to overcome the "back alley"
perception was very challenging.
With respect to the proposed design and anticipated use of the courtyard
space, the Panel queried the potential for combining the courtyards or,
alternatively, if the North courtyard could be for more active use or
used by other groups. Further, it was queried as to whether it was possible
to reconfigure the courtyard and entrance to give more presence to the
street at the South end and set up conditions for future development.
It was acknowledged there may be programming or security reasons to separate
the courtyards, but the Panel asked if a better size might be accomplished
if the entry was moved to the North to give the courtyard more light.
It was also suggested that the proposed fencing suggested a "prison-like"
atmosphere and, like the separation, was unfortunate.
Architecturally speaking with respect to the "slots", the
continuity of the street wall on Main Street was not seen as a problem
because it is so narrow, however, a bigger issue is how it will be perceived
by the tenants/occupants and the potential of excessive litter collecting.
The Panel expressed some concern that because of the social housing use,
some livability issues were being overlooked in favour of some unique
architectural features and the applicant was encouraged to rethink some
of the design issues from livability and lighting perspectives.
The Panel generally agreed that the Main Street frontage was very appealing
but perhaps could have a stronger canopy design at a lesser height.
• Applicant's Response: Mr. Baldwin thanked the members of
the Panel for their comments and responded to the specifics raised, namely:
· Re Station Street and courtyards – acknowledged that the
design got weaker when they trying to respond to the axis issue.
· A single courtyard would be more favourable to the Budget, however,
moving the courtyard and loading area more to the north may impact the
design issues further
· They agreed that "slots" should be either shallower
or wider
Mr. Baldwin concluded by indicating they will try hard to respond to
the comments of the Panel but, due to budget constraints, may not be able
to reorganize the layout as suggested. He also agreed that there was a
balance required regarding how much of the courtyard area was hard surfaced
and how spectators could be accommodated, as the overall area in question
was not large.
2. 1321 Richards Street
DA: 406078
Use: Residential (12 storey, 87 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams
Owner: MCC Housing
Review: First
Delegation: Larry Adams, Don Droeker
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (11-0)
Introduction: Development Planner Anita Molaro briefly reviewed
the application for a 12 storey residential building to accommodate rental
units, for low-income urban singles with physical or mental disabilities.
She commented on the sloping site, the parking requirements and the 3-storey
podium for occupants' amenities use. Ms Molaro advised of the proposed
relaxation requests for the rearyard(s), height and sideyards, including
the 7' setback above the 3rd floor. The Panel's advice is sought regarding
the appropriateness of the FSR of 5.0 and the further increase to 5.22,
the massing – particularly rear and sideyard, the overall design
and its affect on the site and potential impact on the neighbouring towers,
the livability for residents, its public interface and the street character/landscaping.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Larry Adams, Architect, commented
on the relaxation in the FSR and noted that Planning Staff had requested
the podium level. He explained his rationale for his choice of access,
parking and ramp and noted that, because of the FSR, they had been allowed
to add the top floor of the building.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
It was agreed that the applicant had dealt relatively well with the site
and had taken a different architectural approach and choice of materials,
which made it an attractive project in the affordable housing market.
The Panel had no concerns with respect to the massing of the project
and generally agreed that the setbacks work for the site, although there
was a suggestion that the applicant could explore the feasibility of pushing
the building more to the south. Some members suggested that an extra storey
would be acceptable if an increased sideyard would result. A further query
was raised regarding the lack of rails on roof decks – despite the
lack of access.
With respect to the Richards Street façade, entry and continuity
with the adjacent properties, the Panel expressed concern with respect
to the north setback and the weakness of the grade-level entrance on Richards
and suggestions were made for consideration of more continuity with the
commercial/retail in adjacent buildings. There were also queries regarding
overall fenestration issues, particularly given the potential for limited
view corridors and overlook of future buildings on adjacent properties.
There were generally positive comments regarding the FSR given the additional
amenity uses provided. However, the Panel suggested that the Richards
Street frontage needed some animation and suggested a patio off the TV/games
room. The Panel also commented positively regarding the livability and
‘fit' of the project within the context of the adjacent buildings.
With respect to the streetscape, the Panel suggested that the frontage
on Richards Street did not address the ‘Downtown South' streetscape
guidelines and encouraged the applicant to revisit landscaping issues
on the alley in order to make a stronger statement of the "front
door". The Panel also raised questions with respect to the lane access
vis a vis the variety of "vehicles" such as shopping carts.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Adams thanked the Panel for their comments
and acknowledged the points were well taken and briefly responded to the
issues raised, namely:
- given the understanding that Commercial was not an available use, amenity
spaces were created to try and bridge the gap.
- movement (south) of the building was interesting but would affect the
windows and it was questionable as to whether or not the neighbours would
agree.
- guidelines suggested an eclectic streetscape
- agreed to look at window treatments – in particular as to how many
windows are needed/wanted in the 320 sq.ft. units
- landscaping on the street frontage will be re-examined.
3. Address: 1238 Burrard Street
DA: 405874
Use: Mixed
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: L. Doyle
Owner: Incofact Consultants Ltd.
Delegation: Larry Doyle, Calvin Chan
Staff: Eric Fiss
Mr. Corbett indicated a Conflict of Interest and withdrew from the consideration
of this item.
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-4)
• Introduction: Mr. Fiss summarized the application and noted
this was the second review. The revised proposal is for a 14 storey residential
building comprised of 102 units (8 per floor) with a second storey podium,
with commercial at grade and amenity space on the 2nd floor. With the
assistance of display and photoboards, Mr. Fiss reviewed the context of
the 125'x120' site with a partially constructed building that had been
initially approved in 1991, although the permits have expired. This proposal
is for a building that fits the overall massing, density, use and FSR
of the original application, which had previously been approved by the
Development Permit Board, in 1998.
Mr. Fiss commented on the relationship of this proposal to the neighbouring
office building. He outlined the concerns regarding livability, noting
that the applicant had been requested to redirect the views and consider
the ceremonial character of the location and how it ‘fits' within
the block. He then referred to the prior Panel comments and concerns and
noted that the applicant had met with Staff on several occasions to address
the issues, including:
creating an asymmetrical design, and making the base more asymmetrical
to shift it away from the office tower.
· closing some apertures, and using more corner windows
· using modulation and colour shifts
· reconfiguring the penthouse – accenting the height by stepping
down to the north
· decreasing one unit on the lower floor (for a total of 102)
Mr. Fiss indicated that the advice being sought from the Panel was with
respect to how to properly respond to a difficult site but one that was
an important "gateway" to the City.
• Applicant's Opening Comments: Mr. Doyle commented that
a number of changes had been made to the plans to address the issues resulting
from the process, particularly with respect to the corner windows and
views. In referring to the plans, Mr. Doyle specifically referenced the
layout of a residential floor vis a vis the office building and how corner
windows and balconies had been utilized in the design in order to try
and create as much distance from the office building as possible. He also
explained the rationale for the curves of the building and its affect
on the overall scale of the building. He noted that on the top floor a
12' ceiling height had been used on the Burrard Street side while the
other side drops off. Mr Doyle confirmed that articulation of the tower
had been accomplished with terraces being used on the 3rd floor and amenity
space on the front of the 2nd floor. The ground floor was asymmetrical
with the lobby offset from the centre elevator and the amenities area
off the lane landscaped to separate the area from the lane and, further,
with retail on the Burrard Street side to match the adjacent building.
Mr. Doyle then responded to requests for clarification from the Panel
members.
Mr. Hemstock withdrew from the meeting at this point.
Panel's Comments: The Panel's support for this application was
divided with 5 members in support of the application and 4 members opposed.
The applicant's response to the previous Panel's review was acknowledged
with respect to separation, quality, landscaping, integration of the penthouse
and the ceremonial approach. There were comments, however, that if the
project had not been previously approved, it would be a very different
project but as it had been approved, there is now some pressure on the
Panel
The Panel acknowledged the difficulty of the site and agreed that a
lot of effort had been put in to modifying and improving the design since
the last application.
With respect to the setback from the north there were concerns expressed
regarding the tower and its proximity to the adjacent office tower and
the oblique views etc., suggesting that there was still some fine-tuning
to be done on the north side to alleviate the setback and overlook concerns.
There was a query as to a possible shift to the North side face and a
suggestion that perhaps the tower could go higher and the units moved
to the south in order to deal with adjacency issues. However, given the
certainty of what is on the north and the uncertainty as to the future
of the south (i.e. views might not exist in the future), it may not be
possible to shift the building dramatically to reorient it to the street
and the sun. It was generally agreed that the Architect has made a good
shift in massing of the building but the north face is overcomplicated.
It is suggested that the Architect needs to work on making it more consistent.
Work to date is considered to be generally in the right direction.
The Panel generally agreed that the landscaping has improved but was
still concerned regarding the quality and suggested that the applicant
was not taking advantage of the opportunities available to address the
conflict between the public and private areas.
Concern was expressed regarding the entry which as result of the existing
base, seems to be overly contorted. A number of issues remain to be resolved
with respect to finding a practical entry solution. A more pronounced
canopy was suggested as a possible means of strengthening the entry.
There were also concerns expressed with respect to the staircase to
the lane given the potential maintenance and security problems.
With respect to the street edge, although this proposal was better,
the Panel still had reservations regarding the landscaping quality and
the failure to address the streetscape standards for Vancouver.
• Applicant's Response: Mr. Doyle responded to the comments
of the Panel as follows:
- Site situation – the existing development constrains a legitimate
development site.
- With respect to the Panel's comments that the project has improved but
issues still remain, he suggested that there are issues that have been
talked about but not really dealt with by coming back to the Panel again.
- He would appreciate having the project being looked at as an existing
site with some direction being given as to where to go. He suggested he
needed to get a better design, not have the Panel kill the project.
The Chair broke with tradition and responded to Mr. Doyle's comments
and emphasized that Panel members express their individual opinions and
the vote remains to be taken. He suggested that many of the comments leave
the door open and more discussion is required.
The Chair reiterated that the Panel was an Advisory body only. The Minutes
would render all of the comments, not just a consensus. The Planning Staff
would then have to take the comments into consideration.
4. Address: 4802 Fraser Street
DA: 406053
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Pavlina Ryvola
Owner: Filipino Canadian Support
Review: First
Delegation: Pavlina Ryvola, Tim Avendano, Eleanor Guerrero-Campbell
Staff: Eric Fiss
Messrs. Endall, Hemstock, and Hruda were not present for consideration
of this application.
EVALUATION: (SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Mr. Fiss summarized the application noting
the subject property was owned by a non-profit society, funded through
fundraising and government support. He confirmed that the two-storey with
basement development was within height regulations and was located on
32nd Avenue across from the Cemetery. The application is required because
of the proposal to include one dwelling unit on the upper floor. With
the assistance of a site model and photoboards, Mr. Fiss explained the
terrain of the site as well as the proposed uses, which include office
and counselling space on the main floor (street access) with kitchen and
service areas in the basement. He advised that the access to the dwelling
unit would be from Fraser Street and that although only two parking spaces
were required, five are proposed. The Panel's review and advice was requested
by Council resolution however Mr. Fiss requested specific advice regarding
form, massing, streetscape, window/wall compatibility, weather protection
for pedestrians, material proposed for the rear and side walls and the
landscaping off the lane/32nd Avenue.
• Applicant's Opening Comments: Ms Ryvola confirmed that
funds for the construction were raised from donations and government grants
resulting in a simple, yet functional design of which the group can be
proud. She advised that had funds been available they would want to build
something approximately three times the size of the proposed structure.
Ms Ryvola acknowledged the corner of the building by slanting the design
and by using a small canopy for weather protection. In order to be more
modern (and to take advantage of the mountain views), storefront glazing
had been utilized along with the culturally significant traditional colours
of Filipino textiles. She confirmed that landscaping was minimal because
of the limited space and suggested that it was more advantageous to the
neighbours to have additional parking rather than extensive landscaping.
The interior was based on an open plan to maximize flexibility of use
and provide accommodation for the resident caretaker. In response to comments
from the Panel, Ms Ryvola addressed various issues including the feasibility
of tandem parking, the potential for future expansion of the building,
the exterior finish proposed and the rationale for retention of the retaining
wall in its present location.
• Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this
application. It was agreed that the applicant had provided a nice, "fun"
and modern addition to the block.
The Panel suggested that reduction in the amount of asphalt proposed
and increased landscaping – continuing the bright traditional colours
of the façade – would improve the overall project, as would
the inclusion of street trees. The use of tandem parking with appropriate
screening should also be explored.
With respect to livability, some concern was expressed regarding the
common family space proposed and the lack of exterior open space (deck).
There were some comments that the applicant may wish to seek expert
consultations with respect to the removal of the retaining wall and, further,
regarding the potential for water damage to the structure.
• Applicant's Response: Ms Ryvola indicated appreciation
for the Panel's comments and agreed she would pursue the possibility of
using tandem parking with Mr. Fiss.
|
