Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Index
Present
C-2 Zoning Review
4775 Valley Drive
7000 Mont Royal Square
1201 West Hastings Street
86 SE Marine Drive (WAL-MART) - Workshop
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett (present for Item #1 only)
Bruce Haden
Brian Martin
Kim Perry (excused Item #3)
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Mark Ostry
Jennifer Marshall
Eva Lee
Regrets:
Reena Lazar
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
The Chair briefly reviewed the meeting format for the benefit of new
Panel members.
Ken Terriss reported on the Development Permit Board meeting of April
14, 2003.
The Chair noted there will be a special meeting of the Panel, to be held
at Robson Square Media Centre, to which one or two high profile architects
with expertise in very high buildings will be invited to participate.
Two specific proposals will be reviewed and the guest architect(s) (not
yet identified) will provide advice and vote along with members of the
Panel. This meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 18, 2003.
1. C-2 Zoning Review
Presentation: Trish French and Tom Staniszkis
Trish French, Senior Community Planner, explained that a major consultant
study, completed last year, reviewed certain aspects of the C-2 zoning.
The recommendations will be incorporated into a revised District Schedule
and Guidelines. The draft report is expected to be considered by Council
at the end of May and forwarded to Public Hearing in late June. Therefore,
the earliest date anticipated for the zoning change would be late July.
Ms. French briefly described the purpose of the study, what was included,
and the consultation process that took place.
Tom Staniszkis, Consultant Architect, reviewed the process in greater
detail and the issues that were identified. A set of options was then
developed for further discussion with an advisory group that included
developers, property owners and neighbours as well as architects who are
active in C-2 design. Mr. Staniszkis described the final options/directions
that were developed, and responded to questions from Panel members.
Panel Comments:
Height
strong support for a height limit of 45 ft. (measured horizontally) because
it allows for better design and more workable buildings. Adjacency issues
will be addressed by the setbacks;
the designer should have the discretion as to whether or not the top floor
should come forward;
greater height will result it more viable commercial units;
Parking
has there been any provision for relaxation of parking on smaller
projects, noting they are generally in locations best served by transit?
(Mr. Staniszkis advised a recent Engineering study concluded that the
parking ratio is appropriate.)
Front setback
it is not appropriate to require the 8 ft. front setback in all cases;
no strong opinion about the 8 ft. setback at the top;
the setback at the top is good for the architectural vocabulary but it
should be a decision of the designer;
the 2 ft. front setback is good but with some concerns about street continuity;
share the concern about the impact of the 2 ft. setback on continuity
and the streetscape, noting there is also a charm to narrow sidewalks;
support the 2 ft. front setback to allow some articulation;
the sidewalks should be wider.
Rear setback
support the rear setback to minimize impact;
the 20 ft. setback at the lane is good;
question the adequacy of a 2 ft. planting strip at the lane - it should
either be a real landscape buffer or delete it altogether; maybe more
attention should be given to the character of the 15 ft. base at the rear;
the 2 ft. planting strip does serve some purpose because it softens the
wall if it is a parkade;
support for suites overlooking the lane for surveillance;
Density
reducing the FSR to 2.5 is a good idea: it will provide much better
units (less deep) and likely no fewer than currently;
on some sites it is possible to achieve more than the maximum density
- in terms of sustainability it is unfortunate to be decreasing the density
in C-2.
Courtyard
question reducing courtyard size to a 20 ft. minimum clear dimension
because it diminishes the quality of the environment.
General
taming of traffic should be encouraged wherever possible;
the balconies should be open.
2. 4775 Valley Drive
DA: 407380
Use: Residential (7 storeys, 92 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Nigel Baldwin
Owner: Arbutus Gardens Holdings Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Nigel Baldwin, Brian Ellis, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)
Introduction: Eric Fiss, Development Planner, introduced this
application for Phase 2 of Margeurite House which is the largest building
in Quilchena Park, formerly Arbutus Gardens now undergoing redevelopment.
The overall site will ultimately contain approximately 700 dwelling units.
The Panel unanimously supported Phase I of the development.
The following advice is sought from the Panel:
- whether this phase achieves the high standard of architectural design
established by Phase I;
- whether the proposal creates an appropriate relationship to its context,
on the street and future development to the south, and to phase I;
- the roof form and its massing;
- architectural expression;
- landscape design and site circulation around the buildings.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Nigel Baldwin, Architect, briefly
reviewed the proposal, noting that all the existing site trees have been
preserved and the design intent is to allude to the Craftsman style. Bruce
Hemstock briefly described the landscape plan, and the design team responded
to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
The Panel found the continuity of vocabulary between the phases to be
quite good although there was some commentary that this phase does not
quite meet the standard established in phase one. This could be partly
because the granite has been limited to the two main elevations. It was
recommended extending the granite around to the south and west elevations
as well. It would also strengthen the sense of arrival at the entry area.
With respect to the roof, comments were made that the sloped roof will
not be visible at ground level and the vertical decorative elements are
unnecessary. It was noted that the roof on phase one comes to the edge
of the building on the south side, which this phase does not. Given it
is uncertain whether the sloped roof of this phase will be perceived at
all, it was suggested to either eliminate it or bring it to the edge so
the slope can be appreciated.
Some Panel members thought the south elevation needed a lot more articulation,
in keeping with the first phase which has a podium that has been defined
at the fifth floor with articulation at the top of the building which
wraps around. There also needs to be more development of the corners and
the ends. An observation was made that the transparent corner contains
a master bedroom which needs to have the most privacy.
There were some questions about the appropriateness of the entrance
canopy and the form and shape of the porte cochere not being quite in
keeping with the architecture. Concerns were also expressed about how
it will be drained and detailed.
Some Panel members questioned the underground location for the exercise
room. It was strongly recommended that daylight and view potential be
introduced to this room.
It was noted that the corridors are very long and could benefit from
some breaking up. There would also be a good opportunity to introduce
some natural light into the exit stairs which would make them much more
usable.
The Panel strongly supported the landscape plan and commended the applicant
for retaining the mature landscape and specimen trees. A suggestion was
made to make the front yard of the building more pedestrian friendly by
eliminating the fence in favour of visually extending the park to this
area. An alternative means of delineation could be achieved by repeating
some of the stonework from the first phase.
Minimizing the number of parking access points was appreciated.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Baldwin thanked the Panel for its commentary,
much of which he agreed with. He stressed they will be working on the
south façade
3. 7000 Mont Royal Square
DA: 407381
Use: Residential
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Burrowes Huggins
Owner: PCI Palladium Projects
Review: First
Delegation: Mike Huggins, Kim Perry
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (2-6)
Introduction: Eric Fiss, Development Planner, presented this
application and briefly reviewed the history of the site. The application
is the final phase of the redevelopment of Champlain Mall (Parcels F and
G). The overall site planning and massing was established at the rezoning
stage and some minor adjustments were later made to the form of development.
Mr. Fiss briefly reviewed the design conditions that were applied at the
preliminary stage and noted the following areas in which the advice of
the Panel is sought on this phase:
end conditions on rows of townhouses;
diversity of units across the site;
architectural identity for each cluster;
amenity;
children's play area in association with each cluster;
overall form of development;
livability of the outdoor open space;
the distinct character of this phase;
architectural design, including composition, details, finishes;
building edges.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Mike Huggins, Architect, described
the design rationale, noting that this phase is a sister project to Parcels
A and B. Kim Perry, Landscape Architect, reviewed the landscape plan and
the design team responded to questions from the Panel.
Panel's Comments: The Panel did not support this submission.
The Panel had major concerns about the tightness of the building forms
on the site, not necessarily the density but the footprints of the buildings.
This has resulted in serious overlook issues as well as difficulties with
way-finding around the site. The Panel strongly recommended deleting one
of the townhouses in building B to improve the tight adjacency condition.
The Panel agreed with the architect's intent to cut back the roofline
to bring light into the building 6 interior units which are currently
overshadowed.
The Panel had major concerns about the architectural character, suggesting
it may be inappropriate for this neighbourhood. Panel members had difficulty
with the use of a style that bears no relationship to its context. Some
Panel members acknowledged the difficulty of designing in a context that
is already underway on the overall site, and urged the developer to revisit
the approach. A number of comments were made that the buildings could
be significantly simplified, noting there seem to be many different elements
competing on the form. The use of the same roof material on both building
types was questioned. There is also need to consider overlook in treating
the roof of the lower buildings. The entry to the 4-storey building was
considered to be quite unlike the rest of the building.
With respect to the landscape plan, the separation of private and public
spaces with elevational differences was appreciated and found to be quite
successful. One Panel member suggested the need for some outdoor meeting
spaces for the residents, perhaps a kiosk in the lawn. Improvements to
the allee were strongly recommended to deal more sensitively with the
edge and create more of a social connection between the allee and the
rear yards of the townhouse units. There is a need to create a friendlier
and safer environment along the allee in terms of surveillance. The hedge
needs to be kept low.
One Panel member commented on the amenity space, suggesting it is too
small for a complex of this size.
Concerns were raised about access to the underground parking and a strong
recommendation for a thorough analysis of pedestrian circulation patterns
throughout the site. It was considered particularly difficult for visitors.
Other concerns included the overlook onto the lightwells of the townhouses,
more design development around the interior townhouse entries, and the
abruptness of the vehicular entry which might be softened in the detailing.
The end treatments, especially of the large buildings, were also found
to be somewhat abrupt in their relationship to the townhouses.
Some Panel members suggested that the volume of drawings provided by
the applicant was excessive and unhelpful. One set of elevations would
have been adequate.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Huggins thanked the Panel for very
good comments. He commented it is difficult to challenge an established
site plan and setbacks. With respect to the architectural style, he noted
there is no context to respond to and the attempt has been to create a
style to inject some life into it. He agreed the lightwell treatment is
not a preferred arrangement and design development can be done to make
them less severe.
4. 1201 West Hastings Street
Use: Mixed (30 storeys, 141 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Downs Archambault
Owner: Delta Land Development Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Mark Ehman, Bruce Langeveis, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Alan Duncan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)
Introduction: Rezoning Planner, Alan Duncan, presented this application
to rezone this split-zoned (DD/CWD) site to CD-1 to permit residential
use and a single storey retail space for grocery store. Proposed density
is 6.8 FSR, 6.0 for residential and 0.8 for grocery store. The proposed
form of development is a 30-storey tower with 5-storey choice-of-use townhouses
fronting onto Hastings Street, and the one-storey grocery store fronting
onto West Cordova and Bute Streets. 354 below-grade parking spaces are
proposed (including 27 for the retail component), and 178 bicycle parking
spaces. The proposal also includes a public art component for the corner
of Hastings and Bute Streets. Mr. Duncan briefly reviewed the site context
and surrounding zoning, noting the Coal Harbour Official Development process
did not provide this site with any regulations, resulting in it being
an "orphaned" Central Waterfront District parcel. In 1997, the
City rezoned the CWD portion to remove its development potential and to
include it in the Coal Harbour Official Development Plan area. This allowed
the future negotiation of an appropriate CD-1 zoning for the entire site.
The DD portion of the site includes about 13 percent (27,000 sq.ft.) of
the total site density, but most of the density (about 165,000 sq.ft.)
will be achieved by the purchase of density from the heritage density
bank.
Staff generally support the proposed uses and overall massing. The form
of development is fairly consistent with other recent development in the
area, noting it will be assessed against the Coal Harbour development
criteria which encourages slim towers and a strong streetscape relationship
to provide street enclosure and animation, as well as a neighbourly response
to a largely built-up context.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
- use, overall massing and public realm interface;
- general tower location and form;
- height;
- location of the amenity space at the top of the tower;
- response to public and private views;
- response to the three street frontages, in particular the adequacy of
the one-storey podium frontage along Cordova Street; width of sidewalk;
streetscape retail frontage along Bute Street; relationship of the townhouse
frontages along Hastings Street and the entrance;
- response to the interior property, in particular the four townhouses
facing directly onto the site.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Mark Ehman, Architect, described
the project and the design rationale, and Bruce Hemstock, Landscape Architect,
reviewed the landscape plan. The design team responded to the Panel's
questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this rezoning
application. All but one member of the Panel supported the proposed height.
The Panel unanimously supported the grocery store use in this location.
It is a much needed amenity for this area.
With respect to the placement of the tower, the Panel generally supported
the applicant's rationale although several Panel members thought consideration
should be given to moving it slightly to the west given its tightness
on Bute Street and the potential impact on public views. It was thought
that moving the tower somewhat could be achieved without impacting views
from the Palladio. One Panel member suggested the tower could be a bit
bolder as it meets the ground by strongly expressing its at the corner.
The Panel supported the rationale for the location of the retail and
townhouses, although noting that reversing the locations would be ideal
if it weren't for issues of loading and site topography. The live/work
use was strongly supported. One Panel member found the Hastings Street
townhouse elevation lacking and not as elegant as the tower.
The relationship to the neighbouring townhouses was agreed to be a major
challenge for this project. The Panel emphasized that they must be given
serious consideration in this scheme and every attempt made to be a little
more polite. It was suggested there may be other options worth exploring
for this edge.
The Panel was very enthusiastic about locating the amenity at the top
of the building and thought it would be a wonderful space for the residents.
It also provides an opportunity to reduce exposure of the mechanical.
Suggestions were made to wrap it all the way around, although one Panel
member preferred that the west deck be retained.
The initial attempts at a landscape plan were supported as moving in
the right direction. It was stressed that the public art will need to
be carefully integrated with the street frontage and the landscape.
The Panel strongly recommended a significant usable outdoor space close
to the corner. Several suggestions were made for a large outdoor café
in this location. The Cordova/Bute corner needs to be very public given
its location across from the entry to a public park.
5. 86 SE Marine Drive (WAL-MART)
WORKSHOP
Use: Retail
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Brook Dev. Planning/Abbarch Partnership
Owner: First Pro
Review: First
Delegation: Chuck Brook, Darren Kiniatkowski, Mike Burton-Brown
Staff: Scot Hein, Lynda Challis
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, introduced this
workshop on the proposal to rezone this large site for large-format retail
use (Wal-Mart). A formal rezoning application is expected to be submitted
in the very near future. Staff believe a successful application will need
to be distinguished and represent a different way of thinking about large-format
retail. The purpose of this workshop is to explore site planning options
for this site as well as to consider some principles that might apply
to not only this site but large-format sites in general. The Panel's feedback
is also sought on the images presented by the applicant.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Chuck Brook briefly described the
site which is the former Dueck on Marine property, just west of Main Street
on the south side of Marine Drive. It is part of an area which Council,
in May 2001, designated for highway oriented retail use. The site is flanked
by buildings on the east and the west, its open street frontages being
on Marine Drive and East 69th Avenue to the south. Mr. Brook noted there
is another large-format store to the east, The Real Canadian Superstore,
which was approved under its existing M-2 zoning in 1986 (as a wholesale
distribution centre with store above).
The proposal is to pursue the first CD-1 rezoning in the Marine Drive
highway oriented retail policy area. The main element is approx. 133,000
sq.ft. for a Wal-Mart store plus about 20,000 sq.ft. in a number of smaller
buildings for smaller retailers and restaurants, and approximately 700
surface parking spaces. The proposal is guided by the following basic
principles:
1. to achieve a campus-like design in the organization of all the buildings;
2. to treat the edges appropriately;
3. to design circulation systems that accommodate pedestrians, cyclists
and transit users as well as vehicular traffic;
4. to break down expansive areas of surface parking so that the "campus"
is understood as a series of spaces;
5. to "tame the box" in terms of the architectural approach;
6. to introduce "green" systems;
7. to integrate appropriate signage, both commercial and directional.
Darren Kiniatkowski briefly reviewed the Wal-Mart formula, noting that
Wal-Mart considers site design to be a fundament part of its success in
creating a positive shopping experience for its customers. He stressed
that all Wal-Mart stores are not the same and they have adapted to more
urban markets, particularly in California, where the architectural expression
of various communities has been recognized. The floor plan is fundamental
to Wal-Mart's operational efficiencies so the building footprint is the
least flexible aspect of the design.
Mr. Brook noted that Wal-Mart is committed to providing a sustainable
development and the intent is that this store will be the most environmentally
friendly discount department store to date. The following options are
being considered: the use of permeable asphalt; use of grey water and
storm water run-off from the roof (including irrigation for outdoor plant
displays and ways of managing stormwater over the site); a geo-thermal
heating contribution to the hot water system in the store; LEED certification
will likely be pursued; there will be a higher level of energy efficiency
in the insulation of the store; Natural Resources Canada certification
will be sought for environmental features; bio-swales will be placed along
69th Avenue to relieve the burden on the stormwater system; on-site transit
facilities will be incorporated (requiring discussion with TransLink and
Engineering Services); a home delivery system will be established; recycling;
incorporation of native plants to reduce the need for irrigation and pesticides
and to pursue certification under the BCHydro green program.
Mike Burton-Brown reviewed the various site planning options that have
been considered.
Panel's Comments: Following the ensuing general discussion, the
Panel was asked to respond to the proposed site planning. The following
comments/questions arose:
- since the building will be at the back of the site, will there be
a huge identification sign on SE Marine Drive?
- is there any possibility that the properties fronting Main Street
might begin to connect with this development in some way?
- how much pedestrian activity will there be? Is it realistic to expect
much pedestrian traffic on this side of SE Marine Drive?
- you have probably put the building in the best place on the site;
- agree with all the urban design principles with the exception of the
campus design which I am not yet convinced is the right way to go. While
recognizing that, to some extent, Wal-Mart needs to pretend to be doing
something different than it actually is, the fact is that this is fundamentally
a car-oriented place which has certain design implications. What is the
visual role of Marine Drive vs. its functional role? Approaching it to
make it more like a nice little place results in a different solution
than to make a great building and a great parking lot that responds to
the scale of Marine Drive and recognizes is fundamental role in the city;
the latter arrives at very different site planning solutions. As soon
as you try to pretend that things are different than they are, it makes
it much more difficult to do things properly;
- I would tend to disagree with the idea of trying to create small scale
retail along Marine Drive which has a different role in the city; you
can't create a streetwall condition along Marine Drive and any attempt
to do that will appear quite disjointed;
- regarding the streetwall, it depends on the relationship of the smaller
buildings to the Wal-Mart building and that will determine the connectivity
of the site; this will be important in terms of the site being cohesively
planned; the layout will be successful if the uses of the smaller buildings
are well related to Wal-Mart;
- the ability to achieve a campus is very challenging, especially when
you consider the City's policy about frontage on Marine Drive;
- based on the criteria, this is the plan that makes the most sense
in terms of the major components;
- regarding the use of permeable paving, this is a huge area of paving
and the water has to go somewhere (soils issue);
- in this case, with the building at the back of the site, the north
edge of the building will be very important; it is also very important
to make the landscaped parking lot not look like a huge parking lot;
- support for what I have seen so far;
- this site is in similar circumstances to Ikea on Bridgeport Road,
Richmond, which works well;
- try to use different types of paving material in the parking lot as
a method of signage;
- your preferred solution seems the right one;
- how will the site topography be handled?
- the green initiatives are laudable but this project could go further
and be a demonstration project;
- I have a problem with the terminology of "campus"; the more
accurate term would be "shopping mall format" - call it what
it is; it sets up a different expectation when you call it "campus";
- not sure whether the building should be at the front or the back of
the site; it will all come down to the details; it will rely on meeting
a much higher standard for design than applies to other shopping malls;
- regarding the green initiatives, I will look for demonstrated commitment;
this is a huge opportunity to be in the forefront of green technology;
- we must ensure that the standard is raised not only for Wal-Mart but
the smaller retailers on the site as well;
- the quality of the pedestrian paths is very important to the experience;
- this is the only option(at the back of the site) that will fit and
I have no problem with it;
- the project should be at least LEED silver; it is easy for a building
of this size to achieve silver because it does not have the complexities
of other types of industrial buildings: it will force you to introduce
more natural light and be more sensitive with lighting; to do it right,
LEED requires orientation and natural light;
- materials are very important;
- consider having part of the parking underground;
- the quality of artificial light is unpleasant; more natural light
will be better for the employees and improve productivity;
- the building is in the right place and has the right orientation for
this site;
- it is not a good urban experience to drive along SE Marine Drive;
what is disappointing about Marine Drive is that all the intersections
look the same; it is unfortunate that this project has not captured the
corner because Main Street is a principal street but it has no terminus;
encourage Planning to consider how the Main Street frontage might be brought
into the project in the future so that it becomes a stronger focal point
in the city.
The following comments were made with respect to the representative
images presented:
- the issue of scale is interesting because some of the more successful
buildings of this type actually recognize that it is not exclusively pedestrian-scale
but a larger scale automobile culture as well (Ikea is a good example);
- we are in the stage of development about green design that you should
make it obviously green in some way;
- I feel fairly confident we will get a good building but the landscape
is key; plan to have a lot of curved areas with trees to give a sense
of being in a park rather than a parking lot;
- the traffic is a big component of how successful this will be; the
69th and Ontario elevations are relevant and should not be overlooked;
- focus on the lighting and paving; asphalt is not necessary, there
are other alternatives that cost more but do not have the same impact
on the environment.
|
