Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, February 20, 2002
Index
Present
828 Cardero Street (1580 Robson Street)
5733 Vine Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl (Chair)
Jeffrey Corbett
Lance Berelowitz
Gerry Eckford
Alan Endall
Bruce Hemstock
Jack Lutsky
Maurice Pez
Sorin Tatomir
NEW MEMBERS (NON-VOTING AT THIS MEETING):
Helen Besharat
Reena Lazar
Stuart Lyon
Kim Perry
Ken Terris
Regrets:
Tom Bunting
Richard Henry
Joseph Hruda
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. Address: 828 Cardero Street (1580 Robson Street)
DA: 406407
Use: Mixed (4 storeys)
Zoning: C-5
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Rositch Hemphill & Assoc.
Owner: Orca West Developments
Review: First
Delegation: Keith Hemphill
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-2)
Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this
application for a mixed use building at the southwest corner of Robson
and Cardero Streets. The proposal is for one storey of commercial use
and four storeys of residential above. Parking and loading access is from
the rear at the lane, and the residential entry is through a lobby off
Cardero Street. Exterior materials are a combination of painted architectural
concrete with smaller areas of hardi panel and some areas of window wall.
There is a 7 ft. building line requirement on Robson Street. The C-5
zone permits retail and dwelling uses outright provided the dwelling units
are above the ground floor level. The outright height is 60 ft., further
controlled by some height angles taken from the property lines (for this
site, along Robson, Cardero and the lane). The proposed development is
below the maximum height of 60 ft. but seeks relaxation of the height
angles. Floor space in C-5 is limited to 1.2 FSR for commercial uses and
2.2 FSR overall. This proposal also seeks a ten percent heritage density
transfer, for a total density of 2.42 FSR. Heritage density transfer may
be granted by the Development Permit Board provided it is satisfied that
the additional ten percent density is handled in a way that does not generate
additional negative impacts on adjoining sites or residents.
Planning issues relate to the building form, streetwall, the requested
height angle relaxations, and the additional ten percent heritage density.
Staff believe the proposed single storey streetwall is inadequate on Robson
Street. It also compromises the potential for the adjoining sites to provide
a two-storey streetwall. As well, the single storey streetwall results
in more floor area in the upper residential component which in turn impacts
the height angles. Staff also believe the relationship of the forms between
the residential component and the podium is not as well resolved as it
could be with the single storey streetwall solution.
The following specific advice of the Panel is sought:
whether the proposal earns the height relaxations requested;
whether it deals well with the additional ten percent heritage density;
whether the single storey streetwall, and the relationship between the
residential massing and the single storey base, are supportable.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Keith Hemphill, Architect, offered
a more detailed description of the project, explained the design rationale
and responded to questions from the Panel.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application.
The Panel agreed this site can accommodate the additional heritage density
being requested.
There were no concerns about the minor encroachments into the height
angles and some Panel members suggested the site could taken even more
height. One Panel member thought the angles could be maintained with a
somewhat more complex building form.
Most of the Panel's comments related to the streetwall. The point was
made that this is an important project because it will set the pattern
for the blocks yet to be developed on Robson Street, and for this reason
the streetwall is a significant issue. There needs to be consistent treatment
along this section of the street. Consideration should also be given to
the impact on the adjacent site if they are also encouraged to go to two
storeys. Most Panel members felt strongly that there needs to be a two-storey
expression on Robson Street, although not necessarily a second floor.
From an urban design point of view it was thought that the two-storey
streetwall would hold the corner better. The additional height could be
incorporated into the ground floor retail and provide a better retail
space. Other suggestions were to explore residential use for the second
storey, or a semi enclosed courtyard for the residential component. As
well, a compromise solution was suggested, namely, for the eastern portion
of the site to be at two storeys, stepping down to one storey at the western
portion. Some concerns were expressed about how the two-storey expression
would wrap around the corner, although it was thought a way could be found
to handle this situation.
With respect to the relationship between the residential component and
the base, it was thought that providing a two-storey streetwall along
Robson Street would help the massing transition. Most Panel members found
the resolution of the residential tower form and the single storey base
to be awkward and uncomfortable. Architectural discrepancies between the
detailing of the base and the upper component were noted, with a recommendation
to tie the two together better. The roof of the residential component
also needs more resolution.
One Panel member thought the residential massing was set too far back
against the lane, compromising livability for residents of this building
as well as future residents across the lane. The applicant was urged to
consider shifting the core and the whole building northwards towards Robson
Street. It was also noted by another Panel member who supported this view,
that the current proposal results in smaller patios on the sunny south
side and larger patios on the north side.
Some comments were made about the corner element being too small to
be effective. A suggestion was made to strengthen it and repeat the element
on the other corner.
With respect to the ground plane, an observation was made that the awnings
along Cardero Street are over lawn, so they will not provide pedestrian
weather protection. It was strongly recommended that the lawn be eliminated
in favour of a more urban edge.
It was stressed that Robson is a very important street and its streetscape
ground plane treatment needs to have the same importance as Georgia Street.
The applicant and the City were encouraged to come up with some more interesting
elements for the street in terms of street furnishing and finishing.
Disappointment was expressed about the landscape plan. The plants selected
are not particularly urban and do not lend any urban character to the
space. More design development is needed to delineate patio spaces and
create privacy. More planting can be added to enhance privacy and livability
of the units.
There were some concerns about the retail on Cardero and how successful
it would be, particularly the end two units beyond the residential entry.
Some Panel members found the residential access was not well integrated
or friendly. One suggestion was to move the entry further to the south,
making it more generous and with better daylight access.
One Panel member suggested greater attention be given to the livability
of some of the units which are very deep on the north side. Another Panel
member questioned the small size of the units. It was noted that garbage
access for the residential is unresolved.
With respect to materials, one Panel member questioned the use of hardi
panel, suggesting it is too suburban for a street as important as Robson
Street. Panel members also recommended that the applicant be more specific
about the type of architectural concrete being proposed, noting that detailing
will be important for the success of the streetscape. The use of the railing
was questioned, especially on Robson Street.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Hemphill noted the Planning Department
encouraged the building to be pulled back from Robson Street. With respect
to the streetwall, one of the difficulties of simply raising it to increase
the height of the retail is that it exacerbates the height angle issues.
Mr. Hemphill said he did not disagree with the notion of raising the wall
with something behind, to give the appearance of a two-storey streetwall
at street level. With respect to the architectural concrete, he stressed
it will not be bare concrete but will be carefully coated which allows
it to be properly finished. He agreed the corner "icon" could
be stronger and consideration will be given to repeating this element
on the other corner. Mr. Hemphill apologized for the absence of the landscape
architect. He agreed with some of the comments about treatment of the
streetscape itself and agreed a lot can be done to improve the treatment
of the sidewalk. With respect to the retail use on Cardero, Mr. Hemphill
commented that Robson Street is one of the areas where retail down the
side streets is very successful.
2. Address: 5733 Vine Street
DA: 406329
Use: Mixed (4 storeys)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Rositch Hemphill & Assoc.
Owner: H.Y. Louie Co. Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Keith Hemphill, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Eric Fiss, Development Planner, presented this
proposal and briefly explained why C-2 projects are brought to the Panel,
to ensure a high standard of architectural design and to review height
relaxations over 40 ft. As well, Mr. Fiss noted a study of the C-2 zone
is being undertaken and is nearing completion. He briefly reviewed the
context for this proposal, located at the corner of Vine and West 41st
Avenue, at the western end of the Kerrisdale commercial district.
The application proposes a 4-storey mixed use building - a concrete
commercial base with wood frame residential above (34 dwelling units).
The residential entry and lobby is off Vine Street. There is an internal
courtyard and 1-1/2 levels of underground parking. A building line on
West 41st Avenue is a constraint on this site. The 5 ft. crossfall on
the site allows consideration of a relaxation of the 40 ft. maximum height.
Marginal increases above 40 ft. are being sought. Materials are brick,
architectural concrete and some accent areas of siding.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following aspects:
residential livability;
architectural quality;
materials;
height relaxation;
landscape design.
Keith Hemphill, Architect, described his design rationale, with further
input from Bruce Hemstock, Landscape Architect, on the landscape plan.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
and generally found it to be a very attractive project.
The Panel supported the height relaxation.
The Panel had no concerns about livability and was confident the courtyard
will work quite well. One Panel member recommended treating the bedroom
windows facing into the courtyard so that they are partially screened
or blocked. There were some concerns about the "floating bridges"
rather than a more typical galleria courtyard because they will never
be gathering spaces where residents can look down onto the courtyard below.
They also have a negative impact on the courtyard in terms of shadowing.
On the plus side, this arrangement does avoid the interior corridor and
provides for more livable floor plans and allows for cross ventilation
in the units. One Panel member suggested looking at having two lobbies
which would reduce the amount of corridor space crossing the courtyard.
One Panel member questioned whether the trees in the courtyard would actually
achieve the size being portrayed. There was a recommendation to consider
mosaic paving in the courtyard.
The applicant was commended for achieving one unified space for the
retail space so that it can be used functionally for one tenant.
Some Panel members questioned the number of different colours and materials
being used, suggesting simpler would be better.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Hemphill assured the Panel the courtyard
will be very well lit, as is the experience with a similar courtyard project.
He added, locating the walkways in the centre is very deliberate, to avoid
people walking directly beside bedrooms. As well, particularly at the
upper levels, it provides a transparent but obvious separator. The light
from the courtyard also makes a significant difference to the light within
the interior of the units. He stressed, the intent was not to achieve
a highly livable courtyard, rather an alternative to a double loaded corridor
arrangement.
|
