Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, February 5, 2003
Index
Present
Outstanding Design Recognition
600 Beach Crescent (1530 Granville Street)
475 East Hastings Street (375 Jackson)
1477 West 15th Avenue (3036 Granville)
1305 Arbutus Street
5025 Willow Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair (excused Item #3)
Helen Besharat
Gerry Eckford
Richard Henry (Chair, Item #3; not present for Item #5)
Joseph Hruda
Reena Lazar
Stuart Lyon
Maurice Pez
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Regrets:
Jeffrey Corbett
Kim Perry
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
BUSINESS
Outstanding Design Recognition
Ralph Segal, Senior Development Planner, referred to his memorandum to
Panel members dated February 4, 2003, in which an alternative approach
to the Outstanding Design Recognition is proposed.
After further discussion,
It was moved by Richard Henry, seconded by Reena Lazar, that the Panel
adopt the following procedure for Outstanding Design Recognition:
after an exceptional project receives the Panel's unanimous support,
a member may put a Motion of Special Commendation to consider the project
for recognition. This motion will require majority support (not necessarily
unanimous) to be returned to the next meeting;
if the motion passes by majority, at the end of the meeting (separately),
a brief commentary is drafted, citing some of the particularly outstanding
aspects of the scheme;
the draft commentary is e-mailed to Panel members for their comments
to bring to the next meeting;
at the Business session of that next meeting, the Chair tables the Motion
of Special Commendation, along with the finalized summary commentary,
for the final adopting vote for inclusion in the minutes. This motion
must be carried unanimously.
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
1. 600 Beach Crescent (1530 Granville Street)
DA: 407194
Use: Residential (two towers)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Busby & Assoc.
Owner: Concord Pacific Group
Review: First
Delegation: Peter Busby, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)
Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this application. The Beach Neighbourhood guidelines are very specific
with respect to building locations, heights, floor plates and the broad
configuration. The general concept is for towers to step down towards
the water from Pacific Street. This proposal comprises two residential
towers of 24 and 11 storeys whereas the guidelines suggest 24 and 10 storeys
for this site. The proposed floor plate of the taller tower is also slightly
larger (17 m2) than suggested in the guidelines. As well, the guidelines
indicate a maximum of seven storeys along the park edge whereas the application
proposes three storeys, with a modest break. The guidelines also call
for continuous townhouses. The applicant has also chosen not to include
a vehicular access point off Beach Crescent. Staff have identified no
substantial issues with respect to this application and strongly support
the applicant's intention to seek LEED silver certification for this project.
The general areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought relate
to the modest increase in floor plate on the taller tower, the increase
in height from ten to 11 storeys on the lower tower, and the break in
the townhouses. There is also some concern about the wall between the
park and this site.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Bruce Hemstock, Landscape Architect,
briefly described the proposed programming for George Wainborn Park. Peter
Busby, Architect, described the design rationale and responded to questions
from the Panel.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
The Panel had no concerns about the increase in floor plate on the taller
tower, nor with the increase in height on the lower tower. Some Panel
members questioned using the identical form for both towers, also noting
that the space between the buildings that results from this massing may
not be the most successful. One Panel member suggested stepped buildings
flanking the park on both sides would have been a stronger and more dynamic
arrangement.
The massing of the base of the two buildings was an area of concern
for some Panel members who thought it should be much stronger, e.g., the
flimsy column on the elevations is not convincing.
The Panel liked the ingenious use of the large balconies and the modulation
of the façade.
The Panel supported the proposed three-storey townhouse form as opposed
to the seven storeys suggested by the guidelines. One Panel member thought
that given the steep grade there might have been an opportunity to respond
with a less rigorous height, e.g. a minimum of five storeys, dropping
down to three. The internal planning of the townhouses was strongly supported
in terms of their broad exposure and light access.
The break in the townhouses was supported. Comments were made that it
is a nice gesture to provide an opening for people to look through. One
Panel member questioned whether the break should necessarily need to be
at the top as well, rather to extend the townhouses across the top of
the opening.
There was a recommendation to give some attention to the park edge and
find a way to mitigate the high portion of wall at the midpoint of the
stepped terrace. It was suggested this wall should be more than just a
functional element but include lighting or some other detailing.
Parking access for the future development coming into the lower tower
was supported, as was the proposed vehicular access for the taller tower
which has the benefit of reducing traffic along Beach Crescent.
With respect to the courtyard, one Panel member said it is essential
that it be tied in visually with the future neighbouring development.
Some Panel members found that the top of the building was not to the
level of the rest of the building. It was thought the roof could be more
elegant, in keeping with some of the neighbouring buildings. The elevator
penthouse is somewhat bulky.
One Panel member suggested that more could be done to acknowledge that
this building is the western termination of the entire Concord development.
It was also recommended that this project take some responsibility for
the bicycle path and to work with the City and the Park Board to ensure
this connection is more strongly made.
The Panel was very supportive and enthusiastic about the proposal to
seek LEED silver certification for this building.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Busby thanked the Panel for its helpful
comments.
2. 475 East Hastings Street (375 Jackson)
DA: 406835
Use: Residential (Seniors) (5 storeys, 51 units)
Zoning: DEOD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams
Owner: City of Vancouver
Review: First
Delegation: Larry Adams
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-4)
Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this
application for a 5-storey residential building at the northwest corner
of Hastings and Jackson Streets. The site is currently occupied by a gas
station. The proposal is for 51 dwelling units on the upper four floors,
with kitchen, common dining area and lounge on the ground floor. The L-shape
design provides a courtyard on the north side of the building. Parking
access is from the lane at the rear. The building occupants will be low-income
seniors, many of whom will be mental health consumers. The application
proposes 3.0 FSR which is the maximum approvable in the DEOD zone. Exterior
materials are brick along Jackson Street and wrapping around onto Hastings
Street. The remainder of the Hastings facade is steel siding which continues
around the back of the building and the lane elevation.
Overall, staff consider this to be a very skilfully designed building.
The Panel's input is sought in the following areas:
ground floor treatment and uses along Jackson Street;
massing at the north end of the building to minimize impact on the outdoor
open space;
expression of the Hastings Street facade;
whether steel siding is appropriate for the Hastings Street elevation;
livability of the rear courtyard.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Larry Adams, Architect, described
the design rationale, noting it is intended to be a straight forward,
background building. The building will be one of the last remaining social
housing projects to be funded by BC Housing out of the Homes BC Program.
An earlier proposal, submitted in July 2002, included a Vancouver Public
Library branch on the ground floor which did not proceed. Mr. Adams said
they have attempted to design a building that is essentially "outright".
He acknowledged the concerns about the use along Jackson Street; however,
given that the Jackson/Hastings area is the centre for prostitution in
the Downtown Eastside, any dwelling units in this location would be only
5 ft. from this activity. The Katherine Sandford Housing Society which
will be operating this project believes that any units in this location
would not be leaseable for this reason. Mr. Adams noted there are ways
they can manipulate the parking level to be at or below the base surface
in order to avoid any FSR overage. They believe the proposed height of
18.8 m has minimal impact on surrounding buildings. With respect to the
Hastings Street facade, Mr. Adams noted the frontages of other larger
developments along Hastings Street are not broken down to a 25 ft. rhythm.
They believe their proposal responds to the site. They also believe the
proposed steel siding is appropriate, noting there are other buildings
in the area which use this material quite successfully. In general, the
material palette along Hastings Streets is quite eclectic. Regarding the
rear courtyard, Mr. Adams acknowledged it will be in shadow in spring
and fall but noted this is an urban situation and there could ultimately
be a neighbouring building up to 30 m high. They believe the form and
massing of the building is very appropriate and the courtyard is usable.
He stressed they are trying to develop this project to provide badly needed
housing in the Downtown Eastside. Mr. Adams responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel supported this application.
There were mixed opinions about the appropriateness of this site for
the proposed use. Some Panel members strongly supported it for providing
much needed housing for seniors. Others suggested that seniors should
not be housed in this very difficult area of the Downtown Eastside.
Some comments about the Hastings Street façade were that the
treatment at grade seems weaker than what is happening above it. There
were no concerns about the modulation along Hastings. It was recommended
that the canopy be extended along the full façade. There was a
suggestion that the small module of brick that wraps around on Hastings
could benefit from another small window. It was also recommended to explore
the possibility of relocating the exit stair on the lane and providing
windows on the north side to take advantage of the view.
Some Panel members found the choice of materials quite appropriate.
Others thought the treatment of the Hastings and Jackson façades
should be reversed. It was thought the simple, brick façade on
Hastings would be more in keeping with neighbouring buildings on Hastings.
There was a recommendation to wrap the brick around the north edge as
well as the front.
There was mixed response to the rear courtyard. Some Panel members found
it quite appropriate in this very urban setting and agreed that some shading
is inevitable. There were some recommendations to explore raising the
courtyard somewhat to improve light access. It was also recommended that
the City ensures the neighbouring property is sensitive to maintaining
afternoon sun on this courtyard when that site is redeveloped. Other Panel
members found the courtyard unacceptable, noting the outdoor space will
be very precious to the residents of this building. Several Panel members
recommended exploring having the parking underneath a raised courtyard.
The Panel agreed with the applicant's rationale that the mature trees
already shadow the neighbouring co-op building.
The most serious issue for the Panel was the use at grade along Jackson
Street. There were comments that this project's response to its unsavoury
environment is actually contributing to sustaining it. At the very least,
it was recommended that the above ground parking be built in such a way
that future development of a more appropriate use might occur, e.g., providing
removable exterior wall panels. It was suggested there are better ways
to deal with the wall, perhaps a combination of solid and grille and interior
lighting to animate it more. One Panel member suggested the ground floor
space might be occupied by a community police office or volunteer organization.
For some Panel members the preference was for residential use in this
location.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Adams thanked the Panel for its input.
Regarding the suggestion to move the stair, he noted there are hydro transformers
against the property line which preclude having windows in this location.
With respect to the courtyard, he noted this is a five storey building
and it will get sun in the summer. The question of whether this project
can on its own address the social problems in the area is interesting.
Ideally, there would be residential units along Jackson Street but empty
residential units are no better than the proposed solution. Screening
of the parking garage raised CPTED issues. Mr. Adams said they can address
many of the issues raised but the economics of the project is also an
important consideration. They did explore putting the parking underneath
the courtyard but it was found to be unfeasible. Other uses along Jackson
Street were considered, including a gallery and social service agencies,
but there was no interest in taking the space.
3. 1477 West 15th Avenue (3036 Granville)
DA: 407015
Use: Mixed (Retail/Residential) (5 storeys)
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Walter Francl
Owner: 4354 Investments Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Walter Francl
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-1)
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this
mixed-use application in the C-3A zone. The site is located at the northeast
corner of 15th Avenue and Granville Street and currently contains two
"B" listed 3-storey heritage buildings which will be renovated
and retained. The application does not seek additional density for heritage
preservation. An outright height of 30 ft. is permitted in C-3A, with
unlimited relaxation, and the guidelines reference 6- to 7-storey height
as the upper maximum. However, in response to concerns expressed by residents
of Hycroft directly south, the applicant has accommodated the density
in four storeys at approximately 47 ft.
The proposal is a fully integrated mixed-use development including the
introduction of underground parking for the heritage buildings. The scheme
comprises ground floor CRU's fronting Granville and 15th, three storeys
of residential above (42 units) in a courtyard configuration with residential
entry between the heritage buildings fronting 15th Avenue.
The Heritage Commission saw this proposal as an inquiry and had no major
concerns.
Staff seek the Panel's advice in the following areas:
- whether it earns the maximum 3.0 FSR, noting the heritage exercise
as the public benefit;
- general form of development/courtyard configuration and how the residential
entry is handled in the context of heritage/height noting view concerns;
- integration of the heritage components and how they are distinguished
from the new construction with respect to both the Granville streetwall
and the penthouse components.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Walter Francl, Architect, briefly
described the project. In response to concerns raised by the neighbours
regarding view blockage, an earlier, higher scheme was redesigned. Mr.
Francl noted that the scale of the deciduous trees between this site and
Hycroft is such that the view of this property from Hycroft will be totally
blocked in summer. He briefly described the proposal to renovate the heritage
buildings, including alleviation of the current non-conformity with respect
to parking. He noted they have sought to make a strong differentiation
between the heritage buildings and the modern addition. They have also
taken the opportunity to use the gap between the two heritage buildings
as a primary residential entry. The architect responded to the Panel's
questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application and, with
one exception, Panel members thought the project has earned the maximum
FSR. The applicant was commended for the public consultation process in
resolving the height.
The Panel generally thought the heritage component had been handled
very well and supported applying the modern elements to it. There was
general support for the gap between the two heritage buildings which makes
an interesting residential entry, with some suggestions for further design
development to the entry around the canopy. A number of concerns were
expressed about the integration of old and new elements, with suggestions
that they should be more clearly differentiated. Some Panel members thought
a more modern penthouse expression should be wrapped around the top to
bring the two forms together rather than a using a language derived from
the heritage buildings. One comment about the Granville Street frontage
was that it appears somewhat of a collage at present, with a lack of clarity
about where the heritage ends and the modern begins. One Panel member
hoped the subtle chamfer on the corner would be retained. With respect
to the corner of Granville, there was a suggestion to return it to the
more traditional way of bringing the brick down and reinforcing the upper
character of the building.
Much of the Panel's commentary related to the courtyard, with differing
opinions as to whether it can be livable and successful. Some found its
very narrow width created serious privacy issues. Others suggested its
intimacy will help to generate a sense of community for the residents.
There were suggestions for ameliorating the situation with angled windows,
increased articulation and more landscaping. Several Panel members found
the courtyard very austere at present. The involvement of a landscape
architect was strongly recommended. One suggestion was that a "green
wall" would work quite well in this courtyard and might help deal
with privacy issues. Several Panel members recommended deleting the glass
cover and a suggestion was made that it might exacerbate acoustic problems
in the courtyard. Careful attention should be given to choosing materials
for sound attenuation qualities.
There was a suggestion from one Panel member that the City consider
relaxing the rear yard setback requirement in order to add a few more
feet to the width of the courtyard.
One Panel member suggested this might not be the best solution in terms
of the type of housing proposed, suggesting consideration be given to
maisonettes with 2-storey units above which would avoid much of the walkway
system and mitigate some of the problems with rear facing bedroom windows.
There was a recommendation for further development of the roofscape
to ensure an attractive overview, especially in winter. Another comment
was that the service area on the rear elevation could benefit from more
articulation.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Francl acknowledged that greater attention
needs to be given to the courtyard.
4. 1305 Arbutus Street
DA: 407191
Use: Multi-Use/Restaurant
Zoning: RS-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Anthony A. Robins
Owner: Vancouver Park Board
Review: First
Delegation: Tony Robins, John Hemsworth, Jim Lowden, Jane Durante
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (3-6)
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this
application for the Kits Beach Restaurant. He noted a project of this
scale would not normally be reviewed by the Panel. However, due to the
level of public interest with respect to use and traffic and parking impacts,
the application will be considered by the Development Permit Board. The
input of the Panel is typically sought by the Board on all applications
it considers. Mr. Hein noted that Staff have no concerns with respect
to the architectural quality of this project. In addition to the new restaurant
the application will replace the existing buildings on this site providing
concession and lifeguard functions. The proposed building will be accommodated
more or less within the footprint and siting of the existing building
and Staff believe there may be opportunities to further reduce the size
of the footprint. The proposed building comprises concession and lifeguard
functions at the ground level and restaurant functions on the upper floor
with 120 inside seats. There is also an outdoor deck, oriented on the
beach side, which will accommodate an additional outdoor 60 seats.
RS-1 zoning permits food service delivery in a park setting as an accessory
use and allows a density of 0.6 FSR because of the very large site associated
with the beach and the park. 0.02 FSR is proposed. RS-1 typically allows
30 ft. height, relaxable to 35 ft. The proposed building is the same height
as the existing structure at 29 ft.-10 in. The only relaxation this application
will seek relates to yards, similar to that required by schools and churches
in RS-1 given the size of the sites.
The architectural expression is very contemporary and takes advantage
of an iconic reference to the lifeguard tower. Staff have no significant
concerns with the project. Engineering Services is heavily involved in
the parking and traffic analysis and will be reporting the impacts that
may be attributable to this project to the Development Permit Board.
Given the neighbourhood concerns, the Panel's advice is sought on the
appropriateness of the restaurant use being introduced in addition to
the historical concession and lifeguard uses on this site. The Panel's
comments are also sought on the siting, general arrangement and orientation
of the program on the site, noting that, apart from the restaurant, it
is essentially replicating the existing program. Comments on architectural
expression would also be appreciated, as well as on the landscape quality
and integration with the sea wall, and screening of the loading functions.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Tony Robins, Architect, briefly reviewed
the design rationale. He noted the design has been through a number of
changes in response to public input. The massing of the building is a
product of moving the turret and the restaurant away from a certain view
corridor. Mr. Robins noted the Park Board intends this to be a flagship
building for environmental sustainability and LEED silver certification
has been achieved for the project.
Jim Lowden, Vancouver Park Board, explained the RFP specifically sought
a two-storey structure in order to limit the liquor license to the second
level. For this reason, the architect was asked to reconsider his initial
submission for a 3-storey structure. He briefly reviewed the history of
Park Board concessions and facilities in City parks and beaches and described
the current philosophy for delivery of these services.
Jane Durante, Landscape Architect, briefly reviewed the landscape plan
and noted it will be very minimalist landscape treatment.
The applicant team responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously and enthusiastically
supported the proposed restaurant use for this site. In general, the Panel
strongly encourages more uses and amenities along the waterfront and considers
this location to be very appropriate for a restaurant. One Panel member,
while indicating personal support for the use, suggested it is a broader
issue that the community and the City should decide.
The Panel agreed unanimously that the architecture has been very nicely
handled, and admired the sculptural, contemporary expression of the building.
Some Panel members were comfortable with the modern expression in this
location and found it a refreshing departure for the Park Board; others,
however, while acknowledging its attractive architectural quality, did
not believe it was appropriate for this site. There were questions about
the design rationale and how Vancouver's evolving identity is interpreted
in this building. Comments were made that it seems too light and airy,
and too commercial and industrial. Some Panel members thought the earlier,
3-storey proposal would have been more appropriate.
Some Panel members expressed disappointment that there is no public
access between the two building components. There were also concerns about
the location of the works yard which blocks the view to the beach.
It was noted the beach facade is much more highly resolved than other
elevations and there were concerns that there should be no obvious "back
of the building". In particular, the east elevation is very austere.
Questions were raised about the use of materials and how the galvanized
panels will weather. A suggestion was made to introduce other materials
to this facade. As well, there were concerns about the longevity of the
mechanical screens in front of the building. One Panel member recommended
expressing the fireplace in the building, and to give greater emphasis
to the stair in terms of its proportions.
The Panel had no concerns with the height of the building but some Panel
members questioned the rationale for siting it precisely on the footprint
of the existing building. While some Panel members thought the approach
was appropriate because it creates the least disturbance, others suggested
this could have been an opportunity to re-think the location and configuration
of some of the elements. A suggestion was made that the restaurant could
be located behind the tennis courts where it would be totally screened.
The other facilities could be dealt with differently, organizing them
such that they create less visual impact between the neighbourhood and
the water. One Panel member found the lifeguard penthouse to be an anomaly,
and recommended that the same care and attention be given to this feature
as the rest of the building.
With respect to the widened driveway between this building and the tennis
courts, a suggestion was made that careful attention should be given to
the corner of the building of the building that first comes into view
from this driveway.
The Panel was unable to support the application at this time.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Robins thanked the Panel for the comments
and said the building will continue to be improved. Commenting on the
rationale for keeping the washrooms and restaurant components together,
Mr. Lowden noted the Park Board attempts to put as few buildings as possible
in parks: the preference is to have one consolidated building as opposed
to having a number of structures on a site. There is also the very important
programmatic consideration of parents not wanting these functions separated
so that good surveillance of their children can be maintained. He also
stressed that this location has the greatest demand for washrooms facilities.
5. 5025 Willow Street
DA: 406997
Use: School Addition
Zoning: RS-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Grant & Sinclair
Owner: Vancouver School Board
Review: First
Delegation: Patrick R. May, Henry Ahking
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-1)
Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, presented this
application for an addition/ renovation to Eric Hamber Secondary School.
The application will be considered by the Development Permit Board because
of neighbourhood concerns. The application seeks a minor height relaxation
to a maximum of 9.77 m. The zoning permits 9.2 m outright, relaxable to
10.7 m. Proposed materials are a combination of concrete at the lower
floor and metal panel on the upper floor addition.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
- height relaxation;
- view impacts;
- the general form of development in terms of how it fits in with the
existing school program;
- proposed materials;
- loss of existing trees and relocated parking for staff.
Mr. Molaro noted the school has significant drop-off and pick-up problems
along Willow Street.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Patrick May, Architect, described
the project rationale and responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application
and had very few comments.
The requested height relaxation was unanimously supported. There were
no concerns with the general fit of the addition and the proposed materials.
The Panel also had no problem with the loss of the trees. However, it
was suggested that this project might take the opportunity to give some
attention to an overall landscape plan.
A comment was made that it is unfortunate that some rooms will lose
their exterior windows, and a suggestion made to revisit the concrete
reveals at the base of the building and possibly incorporate another window
in the corner. Some Panel members commented that better integration of
old and new materials typically would be sought, but in this instance
it may not be appropriate. The circulation on the site seems to work well.
The Panel noted the main issue with this project relates to traffic.
Some Panel members recommended exploring an interior service road parallel
to Willow Street to bring the driveway/drop-off onto the site. One Panel
member felt strongly that site planning was a major problem with the project,
noting there is no congregating space for the 1,700 students of this school.
An overall planning exercise was recommended rather than a piecemeal approach.
Another suggestion was to consider staggered class schedules to alleviate
traffic congestion.
Applicant's Response: Mr. May acknowledged the biggest concern
relates to traffic, drop-off and parking. He also noted there are budgetary
restrictions to be considered.
|
