Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, April 2, 2003
Index
Present
2303/05 West 41st Avenue
3089 Oak Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
*Walter Francl, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett (present for Item #2 only)
*Gerry Eckford
*Richard Henry
Reena Lazar
Stuart Lyon
Kim Perry
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
NEW MEMBERS (Non-Voting this meeting):
Mark Ostry
Jennifer Marshall
Eva Lee
Regrets:
*Joseph Hruda
*Maurice Pez
Bruce Haden (new member)
Brian Martin (new member)
*Retiring Panel members
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
The Chair introduced the new Panel members and announced that the next
Chair and Vice Chair will be Stu Lyon and Helen Besharat, respectively.
These appointments were endorsed by the Panel.
1. 2303/05 West 41st Avenue
DA: 407335
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: F.P. Sly
Owner: 607767 BC Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Fred Sly
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (1-7)
Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this
application in the C-2 zone. The proposal is for a single storey residential
addition (two dwelling units) to the top of a 2-storey commercial building
on the north side of West 41st Avenue in Kerrisdale. The new residential
units are accessed by a common stair and elevator that already serve the
commercial floors below, and a new exterior stair is added at the rear.
Council requires C-2 conditional applications to be reviewed by the Panel
to ensure good architectural design. The proposed dwelling use is conditional
and there may also be a height relaxation.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
- general design, materials and detailing and whether the addition appropriately
matches the existing character and materials of the existing building;
- height, noting a relaxation will probably be required for the small
gable roof which would not qualify as an architectural appurtenance.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Fred Sly, Architect, briefly described
the proposal noting he has tried to keep the character of the existing
building in the addition. He noted the small gable element will require
a height relaxation of about 3.5 ft. However, because it only extends
to the depth of the livingroom of the front unit it will cause no shadow
impact at the rear. He explained that the residential units are intended
to be used by the owners of the building whose offices are below. Mr.
Sly responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The use and density were unanimously supported.
Panel members liked the idea of adding residential on top of an existing
commercial building and agreed that this is an ideal location to do it.
However, the Panel had major concerns about the form of development and
was unable to support the application at this time.
The residential units were considered to be very livable. I was suggested
they could be improved with the introduction of more natural light from
the lightwell.
The Panel had major concerns about the language of the building. It
also recommended that the proposed materials be re-examined. It was thought
that the existing structure has a certain modern elegance that is being
seriously compromised by the proposed addition. While the addition may
not be visible from the street below, it will be visible from buildings
beyond. Something light and modern was recommended. The use of rainscreen
stucco was questioned, as well as the somewhat token amount of granite
trim at the top. It was suggested that something other than granite might
better complement the building below, e.g., metal cladding. The fenestration
is also very foreign to the existing building.
Some Panel members thought the building could benefit from bringing
the addition flush with the current building face.
A height relaxation for the pediment was not supported by the Panel.
The pitched element was thought to be an unnecessary feature and it was
suggested the existing peak could be removed without compromising the
integrity of the building.
There was a recommendation from one Panel member that the hot tubs be
deleted from the scheme because they will be very difficult to achieve.
A comment was made that the outdoor space for the west unit is not very
useful. An alternative could be to set back a part of the building for
outdoor space.
2. Address: 3089 Oak Street
DA: 407274
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Eco Design.ca
Owner: 651850 BC Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Brian Palmquist, Michael Apostoudes, Lena Chorobik
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-1)
Introduction: Eric Fiss, Development Planner, presented this
C-2 application located on the west side of Oak Street, north of West
15th Avenue. The site is currently vacant and previously contained a gas
station. The proposal is for a 4-storey mixed-use building containing
retail on the ground floor and residential above (27units). The proposal
is below the maximum allowable 40 ft.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
- livability of the courtyard;
- architectural quality and response to Oak Street context (form and massing,
streetscape, materials);
- landscape design;
- appropriateness of the residential entrance.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Brian Palmquist, Architect, described
the design rationale. He noted the proposal fits all the zoning criteria
and a deliberate decision was made not to seek relaxations. The major
challenge has been to create a building that is an attractive addition
on a very visible site, noting they have had to deal with the S-curve
in this location.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application.
It was noted that this is a significant development because it will set
a precedent for other redevelopment in the neighbourhood.
The Panel supported the residential entrance off Oak Street. Most neighbouring
apartment buildings have entries off Oak Street and locating the entrance
on the narrow strip on 15th Avenue was thought to be inappropriate. It
was recommended that the residential entry could have greater emphasis
and be more strongly differentiated from the commercial.
Careful attention should be given to the quality of the canopies. They
were thought to be too light as currently shown. There also needs to be
clarity about how the tenants will treat their canopies.
The Panel agreed the courtyard is a bit tight but can still be quite
livable given it is secondary rooms that face onto it. One Panel member
suggested reconfiguring the three end units and eliminating the setback
at the lane in order to enlarge the courtyard. The Panel strongly recommended
introducing some windows into the courtyard to provide some natural light
in the stairwell. One Panel member suggested that greater investigation
is warranted to line up the courtyard with the neighbouring building's
courtyard. Most Panel members found the lack of alignment satisfactory.
I'm usually not a fan of stepping back the top floor but I think because
of the large overhang it works quite well. There was a recommendation
to increase the overhang for improved weather protection.
There was mixed response with respect to the setback on the lane. Some
thought it was detrimental to the building and unnecessary while others
appreciated the opportunity it provides for outdoor space for the residents.
The vista this building offers down Oak Street was thought to be quite
interesting and appropriate. Several Panel members questioned whether
the building should relate to the neighbouring Roger's building which
has little merit. Others thought the building could respond a little better
to the Oak Street elevation. There were a number of comments about the
treatment of the corner and the clarity of the "drum". Several
Panel members thought it could be improved, and some questioned whether
it does the corner justice. It might also create some livability issues
for the units behind the curved piece. It was also suggested that corner
"drums" seem to becoming a bit of a cliche.
The Panel liked the choice of materials and thought the intent of the
guidelines were met in this respect. One Panel member questioned the board
and batten vocabulary at the top of the building.
Some Panel members had a serious concern about the grille on 15th Avenue
and strongly suggested that an alternative be found for dealing with the
HVAC.
It was suggested the number and proportions of the windows needs to
be revisited.
It was recommended that the materials be taken farther around the corner
onto 15th Avenue so that it does not look like an applique. It was also
suggested there could be opportunity for another street tree on 15th Avenue.
One Panel member questioned the interior unit layout, finding it unacceptable
for the front door to open into the kitchen.
One Panel member recommended that consideration be given to changing
this building from wood frame to non combustible steel frame.
There were some questions raised about the choice of the yellow brick
in this context.
The Panel liked the forecourt which provides some relief between the
building and the street. There were suggestions to reconsider the lawn.
It was thought to be a good location for a coffee shop with outdoor seating.
There were, however, major concerns that Engineering proposes to straighten
the S curve which it considered would be a great loss to the city from
an urban design point of view as well as to this building. Panel members
strongly urged that everything possible be done to reverse this decision.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Palmquist thanked the Panel for the
comments. He agreed the canopies should and will be appropriately designed,
and light can be introduced from the courtyard into the corridors, consistent
with code requirements. He said the drum expression has been an interesting
challenge and they will work with the Panel's suggestions. He agreed the
corner on the lane may benefit from having less or no curve. Mr. Palmquist
said they do not know the anticipated timing of the proposed adjustments
to the S curve. He suggested that one solution might be to create the
best possible temporary urban space which may encourage the local neighbourhood
to strongly oppose the loss of the curve. The colour pallette can be revisited.
|
