Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, January 8, 2003
Index
Present
Business: Outstanding Design Award
1101 West Broadway (2483 Spruce Street)
Knight and Kingsway
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett
Gerry Eckford
Joseph Hruda
Reena Lazar
Stuart Lyon
Maurice Pez (not present for vote on Item 2)
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Richard Henry
Kim Perry
Ken Terriss
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
BUSINESS
Outstanding Design Award
Ralph Segal, Senior Development Planner, made reference to the Panel's
recent proposal to recognize outstanding design.
In brief, a number of concerns have been raised by the Planning Department.
Applications are reviewed by the Panel at the early stages of design and
there may be policy issues (not necessarily just relaxations) that prevent
them from being approvable, despite the Panel's endorsement for excellent
design. This applies particularly to rezoning applications.
Of secondary concern is that an award by the Panel might undermine the
Panel's ultimate position on a project.
Another issue is the criteria upon which the award is made, which appear
to be lacking at this stage. An Urban Design Awards Program was initiated
by the Planning Department some time ago but not pursued due to lack of
resources. However, it did set out some firm criteria which would avoid
the potential conflict between policy and design.
Given the main proponent of the award was absent from today's meeting,
it was agreed to defer further discussion until the meeting of January
22, 2003.
1. 1101 West Broadway (2483 Spruce Street)
DA: 407180
Use: Mixed, 10 storeys, 68 units
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: W. T. Leung
Owner: Leeda Developments Corp.
Review: First
Delegation: Wing Ting Leung
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this preliminary application in the Central Broadway C-3A zone. The proposal
is for a mixed used development with a small amount of commercial on the
ground floor and residential use above. The site is 125 ft. wide x 115
ft. deep and has a slope of 10 - 12 ft. Access to parking and services
is off the lane. Outright density and height in C-3A are 1.0 FSR and 30
ft., respectively, relaxable up to 3.0 FSR and over 30 ft. (the Guidelines
suggest approx. 120 ft.). The application seeks a height of about 100
ft. Ms. Rondeau briefly reviewed the ways in which the proposal meets
the criteria for earning the relaxations. One issue relates to the streetwall
on Broadway where the guidelines seek a two-storey frontage and the application
proposes single storey (17 ft. high) commercial use on Broadway. Other
areas in which the Panel's comments are sought relate to the treatment
of the 15 ft. setback, preservation of views, and treatment of the semi
private outdoor space.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Wing Leung, Architect, responded
to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
as a preliminary submission.
Given that some view obstruction is inevitable, the Panel had no concern
about the proposed height. Some Panel members thought it could be higher.
There was a lot of commentary but no consensus about the height of the
commercial frontage on West Broadway. Two Panel members felt strongly
that the height of the streetwall should be at least two storeys noting
the most successful buildings on Broadway are at least 30 ft. Other Panel
members, while agreeing a higher streetwall generally makes for a better
urban solution, acknowledged the dilemma of dealing with upper level commercial
space that is not viable. The solution involving a raised parapet made
to appear as a second storey was thought to be undesirable. Some Panel
members were prepared to support the proposed single storey height but
stressed there needs to be much more design development to the parapet
as well as the canopies and storefronts. One observation was that single
doors to the retail units are preferable to the double doors shown because
they provide more show windows for the retailers and create a more pleasant
experience for people on the street. Two Panel members did not believe
a two-storey streetwall is effective in creating an urban feel on Broadway
because it is a very wide street.
Another comment about the upper level above the commercial space was
to consider some direct access to the tenants given it will be the sunniest
location in the building. A suggestion was also made to strongly differentiate
the Broadway commercial frontage from the rest of the building in terms
of colours and materials.
With respect to the tower, its simple, modern expression was generally
supported, including the projected balcony. However, there were concerns
expressed about the two different facade expressions, lack of character
and the lack of a strong rationalization for the different treatments.
Some Panel members thought the residential and commercial elevations should
be reversed. Others thought all the elevations should have a residential
expression. One Panel member supported the small balconies on Broadway
as being a good addition to the street and amenity for the residents,
and suggested they should be considered on the Spruce elevation as well
to take advantage of views.
The Panel had a number of concerns about the Spruce Street edge and
generally found the degree of resolution at the ground plane to be lacking.
Treatment of the canopies, including the round canopy and column at the
corner, was found to be needing more design development, and the stepped
planters at the corner were not considered to be successful. It was recommended
that the planters be of a higher quality to discourage graffiti. There
were major concerns about the treatment of the residential entry which
was considered to be quite weak. A suggestion was made to lower the residential
entrance and amenity uses to the Spruce Street level.
The Panel generally supported the proposed 15 ft. setback which opens
up the view down Spruce Street. The Panel agreed that townhouses along
Spruce Street would be difficult to achieve successfully and it was noted
there are no other townhouses in the immediate neighbourhood. One Panel
member suggested there should still be more substantial mass at the lower
levels; something other than amenity that provides animation at all times
of the day. It was suggested the corner at the lane needs some reworking.
With respect to the open space, a suggestion was made to reverse the
two open spaces at the lower level, with the tree-planted area is in shade
and the sunnier open space at the lane. Another suggestion was to raise
the rear courtyard another level to get more sun.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Leung explained the intent of this
preliminary submission is to "test the waters" with respect
to the streetwall height on Broadway, noting that some three-storey based
buildings on Broadway are visually successful but the use has suffered
because second storey retail is not very viable. The proposed double height
retail space on Broadway is to try to raise the height somewhat. Comments
about the commercial detailing are well taken and will be addressed at
the complete stage. With respect to the two different facade expressions
of the building, Mr. Leung said the dilemma is that a more commercial
appearance facing Broadway causes marketing problems because potential
residents see it as being the noisier side of the building whereas there
are very good views to the north and a desire to have as much window as
possible.
2. Knight & Kingsway
Use: Mixed
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Rositch Hemphill
Owner: Aquilini Investment Group
Review: Second
Delegation: Keith Hemphill, Chris Phillips, Radoslav Lepur
Staff: Scot Hein, Lynda Challis
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-2)
Introduction: Lynda Challis, Rezoning Planner, introduced this
application, on which the Panel's advice is sought with respect to use,
density and form of development. The site is one hectare in area and is
bounded by three major arterial streets: Kingsway, Knight Street and King
Edward Avenue. It is currently zoned C-2. Ms. Challis briefly reviewed
the recent history of the site, noting the City initiated CD-1 rezoning
in Spring 2002. This was approved by Council but not enacted. However,
there is a no-development covenant that prevents any new development on
the site without a rezoning occurring.
The current proposal is for commercial uses at grade along Kingsway
and Knight with anchors at the corners of Knight and King Edward Avenue
and Knight and Kingsway. It is hoped that one of the anchors will at some
time in the future be a grocery store, if and when the existing covenant
on the site can be removed. Office space is proposed for parts of the
second and third storeys. Approximately 330 dwelling units are proposed
for the residential component, comprising townhouses on King Edward Avenue,
apartments on the third to seventh storeys of the midrise section and
in the towers. The development also includes space for a public library,
to be relocated from the existing Kensington Branch on Knight Street.
Overall density is 4.11 FSR, comprising approximately 1.0 FSR commercial
and 3.0 FSR residential use. Building height ranges from the 3-storey
townhouses to a high of 16 storeys. The midrise portions range between
five and seven storeys along Kingsway and three to five storeys along
King Edward. There is also a 12-storey tower at the south portion of the
site. Tower floor plates are approximately 7,000 sq.ft. at the upper levels
of the towers. Four access points are proposed: off Kingsway, Knight,
King Edward and the lane. The project uses the existing lane as an internal
street system and includes an open space or retail mews in the central
area as an additional public benefit. Underground parking for 880 cars
is proposed.
The Development Planner, Scot Hein, briefly reviewed the Panel's comments
from the previous workshop when a number of options were considered for
the site. No single option was identified as a strong preference and a
number of different approaches were suggested. The applicant has attempted
to respond to the Panel's advice. Mr. Hein also noted that an economic
analysis to determine bonus density attributed to a new library had not
been completed and, as such, the Panel should focus its comments on the
proposal's urban design performance given the density proposed.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Keith Hemphill, Architect, described
how they have responded to the Panel's previous advice. He reviewed the
project in greater detail and responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel supported this rezoning application
and thought the applicant had responded quite well to its earlier comments.
There was unanimous support for the proposed uses and mix.
There was support for the residential character of this development
with some design development. It was noted the residents of this development
will themselves contribute to the success of the commercial retail uses.
With respect to the density, several Panel members were uncomfortable
with the proposed 4.11 FSR and suggested something between 3.5 and 4.0
FSR would be more appropriate. There were a number of concerns relating
to the distribution of the massing on the site and some Panel members
did not believe it was workable in its present form, particularly referencing
the second tower. A comment was made that it is unfortunate this developer
does not have control of the entire site at this time.
There was unanimous support for the massing at the corner of Knight
and Kingsway although some concern with floor plate size. An icon building
in this location is very appropriate, and some Panel members suggested
it could be higher. One Panel member found the curved glass base of the
corner element unsuccessful with the tower component set back from the
base and suggested a better integration with the podium.
The Panel had major concerns about the tower element on King Edward
Avenue, both its location and form. One comment was that it should be
more symmetrical in response to the gateway beneath it. Most Panel members
failed to see the rationale for the 12-storey tower on King Edward Avenue
and thought there was an uncomfortable relationship between the tower,
the portal and the townhouses. The transition to the park and existing
single family houses is also an important consideration. Some Panel members
thought the townhouses should be deleted in favour of ground oriented
units or something that integrates better and makes a stronger portal
building. Several Panel members suggested the massing from the 12-storey
tower should be redistributed elsewhere on the site, particularly to the
tower at Knight/Kingsway.
The Panel agreed that the courtyard retail and restaurant spaces will
be a major challenge. A comment was made that the geometry of the courtyard
has remained quite strong in its plan but this has not been reflected
very strongly in the geometry of the buildings. The Panel agreed the courtyard
concept should be retained and liked the intimate urban space it will
provide, away from the busy surrounding streets. However, there was concern
expressed about the viability of the cafes in this space and the amount
of blank wall and loading in this area. One Panel member suggested consideration
be given to reducing the size of the courtyard in favour of just a widening
in the street if the viability of the retail is in question. Much more
work is required to achieve a successful pedestrian environment.
Several Panel members commented on the street elevations. Attention
should be given to proportions of openings along Knight Street and Kingsway
in terms of the expression of uses, and on Kingsway the architectural
vocabulary needs more resolution. One Panel member found the Knight Street
elevation to be the most successful. Some members strongly supported the
5 - 7-storey massing and urged that it not be lowered. More effort to
reduce the perceived "scale" of the development is required.
A concern was expressed about the proposed fabric awnings which will
not be very durable. It was suggested that a project of this size and
calibre needs to have a plan for permanent weather protection in the form
of substantive canopies, which could also be a means of linking the different
elements on the site.
One Panel member was concerned about traffic congestion, particularly
at the main parking access off Kingsway. The access to King Edward Avenue
was also not understood, with some members questioning whether it will
be required, and a suggestion that the project needs a complete traffic
analysis.
Attention should be given to the residential entrances and how the buildings
are addressed. It might be more appropriate for the main residential tower
entry to be off a main street rather than at the rear. As well, some of
the other residential entries are very close to commercial entries.
Two Panel members commented on the complexity of constructing the whole
project at the same time and recommended some thought be given to a phased
development.
Applicant's Response: With respect to the concern about viability
of the courtyard spaces, Mr. Hemphill cited the Bread Garden at Park Royal
is an example of a very successful café located at a busy main
intersection. Much of the neighbourhood response has indicated there is
a lack of places to go, with great interest being expressed in the internal-oriented
commercial spaces as destinations. Mr. Hemphill added, they believe the
library is an essential and significant part of this development that
is much wanted by this community. He stressed this is very much a community-driven
project. Mr. Hemphill acknowledged there is much opportunity to massage
the massing, adding they would be very pleased to see the tower at the
Kingsway and Knight corner increased in height.
|
