Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Index
Present
1616 Bayshore Drive
1380 Hornby Street
4387 West 10th Avenue
2290 Cambie Street (495 West 7th Avenue)
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat (not present for Item 4)
Bruce Haden (excused item 3)
Reena Lazar
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin
Kim Perry
Regrets:
Jeffrey Corbett
Eva Lee
Mark Ostry
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1616 Bayshore Drive
DA: 407671
Use: Mixed
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Downs Archambault & Partners
Owner: Blue Tree Management Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Mark Ehman, Al Johnson, Jane Durante
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, introduced this application.
The program for the site includes market and non-market residential uses,
retail on Cardero Street, and a child daycare centre. A major underground
parkade, serving this and adjacent sites, is already in place. The proposal
responds very closely to the Design Guidelines, and the only issue identified
by staff relates to the height of the amenity which exceeds the guideline
recommended height of 23 m by 2 m, and its potential shadowing impact.
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Mark Ehman, Architect, briefly
described the design rationale and the applicant team responded to the
Panel’s questions.
Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
and liked the building’s simple elegance.
The applicant team was commended for the variety of uses on the site.
The Panel was pleased to see the child daycare use together with seniors
residences, which can be a very successful combination. The Panel also
liked the mix of the market and non-market housing, with no clear visual
distinction between the two.
The Panel was enthusiastic about the amenity for the performing arts
which it thought would be a very successful space. A comment was made
that this has been a good opportunity to be able to tailor an amenity
to the specific interests of the residents. A suggestion was made to
revisit the program of the third floor amenity space for the non-market
component, to add some glazing and make it more open and inviting. There
was also a suggestion that this amenity space might be better relocated
to the 8th floor in place of a couple of units which seem a bit problematic.
The Panel had no concerns about the additional 2 m height relaxation
being sought. It was thought to be quite minimal and insignificant. It
was suggested there could be some relief from the sea of concrete by
adding some playfulness to the expression of the rooftop amenity, possibly
incorporating signage indicating the performing arts lodge use. A comment
was made that the amenity roof element may be too heavy. There was also
a recommendation to add some landscape treatment to the lower roofs to
improve overlook. A concern was expressed that the south-facing metal
roof might be a problem for adjacent tower units with respect to reflection.
The Panel was encouraged to see an 8-storey base to this project. However,
several Panel members found the southwest corner of the base, facing
Georgia Street, to be the least successful part of the scheme. Recommendations
were made to give this facade greater interest and articulation, and
to create some architectural celebration at the corner. It was suggested
that the Georgia Street elevation seems to be treated like the back of
the building.
A comment was made that the axis of Hastings Street could be reflected
more stronger at the entry.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Ehman thanked the Panel for its comments.
2. 1380 Hornby Street
Use: Boutique Hotel and Restaurant
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Chris Bozyk
Owner: Umberto Menghi
Review: First
Delegation: Chris Bozyk, Randy Olafson, Robert Lemon, Gary Shoten
Staff: Scot Hein, Alan Duncan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this rezoning
application, noting it will return to the Panel at the development permit
stage. The site is on the east side of Hornby Street, just north of Pacific
Boulevard. The proposal is to complement and expand the existing restaurant
operation and introduce a 13-storey boutique hotel component. The site
includes the Leslie House, a Heritage “A” building built
in 1888 and likely the oldest house in the city. This proposal retains
the Leslie House in its current location as well as retains and integrates
the building at the southerly corner, although the latter is not part
of this application. The existing DD zoning allows 5.0 FSR residential
use and 300 ft. maximum height. The rezoning seeks approval for the boutique
hotel which is not currently a permitted use. The proposed height is
154 ft. 9 in.
A previous rezoning application for this site had a more literal “Tuscan” style
approach to the architectural treatment and massing, and its 170 ft.
height raised objections from the north and across the lane. This revised
scheme is reduced in FSR and height, and pulls away from the common property
line. It also has a more refined, less literal, interpretation of Italian
architecture.
The proposal has been reviewed and supported by the Heritage Commission.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
- whether hotel use is appropriate for this site;
- density;
- form of development;
- whether the Leslie House is crowded by the massing on the site;
- side and rear setbacks.
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Chris Bozyk, Architect, briefly
described the design rationale. He also referred to an earlier submission
for this site that was not pursued. The design team responded to the
Panel’s questions.
Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
The boutique hotel use was strongly supported and the Panel considered
the proposed FSR to be very achievable on this site.
While the Panel was glad that the previous scheme was not pursued,
preferring the more modern expression of this proposal, some regret was
expressed by one Panel member that it now lacks some of the delight and
interest that the former rendition embodied.
With respect to the general assemblage of buildings on the site, the
Panel was generally in support of the effort to break the building down
to respond more gently to the building behind. There was also a suggestion
that this could go further, possibly lowering one section and increasing
the height of the tower.
The Panel strongly supported the proposed restoration of the Leslie
House which it felt earned the requested heritage bonus. However, one
Panel member found these efforts somewhat token at present, suggesting
the building needs to defer to the heritage house in a different way.
The Panel acknowledged the applicant’s dilemma of either crowding
the Leslie House or the lane but felt that, in this case, the house should
take precedence. A comment was made that this design solution will bring
more attention to this “little gem” in the middle of the
city. The Panel had no concerns with the proposed rear setback.
In general, the Panel thought the success of the courtyard and the
heritage renovation will depend on how the building comes to the ground
and how it relates to the courtyard and the Leslie House. Further design
development was recommended on this aspect of the scheme.
A comment was made that this is not a very efficient building, with
a considerable amount of circulation contributing to the extra bulk between
the buildings. It was questioned whether this could be reduced to a glass
corridor, introducing light through to the courtyard to the north. It
was stressed that the bridge between the house and the new building will
need to be detailed with great care.
While the view impact on the adjacent building was acknowledged, it
was felt that the assets gained by the city in terms of a high quality
piece of urban design outweigh those issues. A comment was made that,
given the use of the adjacent open space and the distance between this
project and the neighbour’s south wall, privacy is not an issue.
However, the wall facing the courtyard will need to be very attractively
detailed. There were no concerns about the amount of glazing on the side
wall elevation.
One Panel member thought the module of three units facing south could
have a more modern expression.
There was a suggestion to consider more glazing in the two units facing
Hornby Street.
Given the bonus density is squeezing somewhat the site coverage and
the courtyard, a suggestion was made to explore freeing up the base in
favour of additional square footage at the top. In general, the Panel
had no concerns about the building being higher.
The Panel found this an exciting, modern project and looked forward
to seeing it proceed.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Boyzk commented that they have been
working to reduce the height of the building although they would like
to explore the possibility of going higher.
3. 4387 West 10th Avenue
DA: 407672
Use: Mixed-ALW
Zoning: C-2
Architect: Oliver Lang
Owner: RoarVentures Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Sergio Rodriquez, Oliver Lang, Bruce Haden
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-1)
Introduction: Eric Fiss, Development Planner, presented this application
in the C-2 zone, noting that the residential guidelines seek high quality
architectural design and materials. The site is in an existing C-2 commercial
zone on West 10th Avenue in Point Grey, with RS-1 residential neighbourhoods
to the north and south. The 66 ft. x 115 ft. site is located mid-block
between the Varsity Theatre and a 1920's commercial building. The site
slopes significantly to the north to a maximum of 8 ft. The proposal
is for four storeys of mixed use comprising 2,600 sq.ft. of retail on
the main floor (0.34 FSR) and ten residential units above (2.4 FSR).
Seven of these units are for artist live/work use. Underground parking
is proposed, accessed from the lane. The application seeks a height relaxation
to 45 ft. Height relaxations may be considered providing the additional
height does not cause increased shadowing or view obstruction and taking
into account the provision of non-combustible building materials, and
the slope of the site. Proposed materials include concrete, aluminum
storefront glazing and metal mesh.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the use and livability, architectural
quality, the height relaxation, and the landscape design.
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Oliver Lang, Architect, described
the design rationale and the applicant team responded to the Panel’s
questions.
Panel’s Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application
and generally found it to be a refreshing departure from typical C-2
projects.
With one exception, the Panel supported the proposed height and in
general the Panel found the proposal to be a very innovative and outstanding
design. The Panel found the indoor/outdoor “slots” a very
interesting and creative solution.
The Panel considered the units to be exceptionally livable and the
courtyard improved by having the units face outwards. The linear shape
of the live/work units has been very well handled, with good natural
light penetration.
Much of the Panel’s commentary related to the proposed metal
mesh material. Concerns were expressed about the experimental nature
of this material and how it will stand up over time, including the potential
for water penetration. There were also concerns about its reflectivity,
particularly on the south elevation. The Panel stressed that the use
of this material will put extra pressure on the designers to achieve
a very high level of detailing to ensure the building’s success.
It was strongly recommended by one Panel member that commercial quality
detailing be employed rather than basic residential detailing.
Given the east and west elevations will likely be exposed for some
time, the detailing of these walls will need to be carefully considered.
One Panel member questioned whether the glazed storage area is permissible.
The sustainability aspects of the scheme were a major concern for one
Panel member who seriously questioned using the same treatment for the
north and south facades of the building, without regard for the differing
climatic conditions of these orientations. It was suggested that the
use of brise soleil, either indoor or outdoor, would be a natural, modern
solution for this building.
One Panel member had serious concerns about the proposed colour scheme
and the use of the “super graphic” motif on the building.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Lang agreed the Panel had identified
some very valid issues, including those relating to sustainability. He
stressed the detailing will be very carefully handled. He explained that
the height resulted from a long optimization process and noted that most
of the building is within the 40 ft. maximum. Most of the additional
height is in the front of the building.
4. 2290 Cambie Street (495 West 7th Avenue)
DA: 407204
Use: Commercial (4 storeys)
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Kasian Kennedy
Owner: Canadian Tire Real Estate Ltd.
Review: Second
Delegation: Michael McDonald, Joanne Stich, Mary Chan-Yip
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-0)
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented this
application. The project was first reviewed by the Panel in February
2003 and not supported. The application seeks a density of 2.5 FSR which
includes 0.5 FSR for rooftop parking. The outright height in the C-3A
zone is 30 ft. and the guidelines suggest a maximum of 90 ft. with a
30 ft. podium base. A 25 ft. setback on Cambie Street is also recommended.
Ms. Rondeau briefly described the revised submission and sought the Panel’s
comments on whether the additional density has been earned.
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Michael McDonald, Architect, reviewed
the Panel’s previous concerns and how they have been addressed
in this revised scheme. Mary Chan described briefly described the revised
landscape plan and the design team responded to the Panel’s questions.
Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this submission
and acknowledged the positive improvements made to the scheme since the
last review.
The Panel fully supported the proposed density. There were also no
objections to the proposed height, with some suggestions that it could
be higher in places, including the 7th/Cambie corner where the wedge
shaped element might benefit from greater verticality. Another suggestion
about this element was to flatten it out which would reduce some shadowing
on the street. The Panel felt that the basic box was an elegant building
but the signage elements of wedge and column arm take away from the urbanity
of the building and create an automall image that is out of context.
The applicant was commended for the environmental initiatives of the
project. The Panel thought the pedestrian amenity on the rooftop parking
area could be further improved, however, stressing the importance of
weather protection, circulation and pedestrian safety. Different surface
treatments were recommended, as well as a more residential type of lighting
to make it friendlier and less stark. These improvements would also benefit
the neighbours who overlook the building.
With respect to the column and lintel running around the top of the
project, a comment was made that it seems a bit high, suggesting better
integration and a possible reduction in its height would be an improvement.
There was a recommendation to improve the quality of the material at
the service entrance on 7th Avenue, to provide something more interesting
than concrete.
The Panel thought this project should be very innovative with its signage,
less suburban. This high profile site and ownership provides a good opportunity
for something much more than typical Canadian Tire imagery. One suggestion
was to consider something three-dimensional for the triangle of the Canadian
Tire logo, possibly including some blade signs in places, particularly
for people approaching from 7th Avenue. A comment was made that it needs
to respond to both the scale of the automobile traffic as well as the
pedestrians, creating the challenge of providing greater transparency
at the base and more substance at the top. In general, the applicant
was encouraged to pursue the signage in a more urban way, noting this
could work to the advantage of the store. One Panel member also thought
more could be done with the signage for the Best Buy component, suggesting
a neon wall sign behind the glass would be a little more interesting
that the typical signage.
The Panel strongly supported the proposed bicycle hub amenity at the
corner of 7th and Cambie. There were concerns, however, that it currently
is not very inviting and needs further design development. For example,
there is little room between the bike pump and the wall and the central
location of the fountain deters people from gathering in the middle.
The column placement obscures the corner from view.
Concerns were expressed about the treatment of the corner entry, with
recommendations to strongly detail the entry as opposed to just having
a gash in the elevation. Suggestions were made to perhaps peal away some
of the harsh, light material and reveal some of the structure to add
some liveliness. Consideration should also be given to the placement
of the benches.
In general, the Panel found the scheme much improved and liked the
direction the project was taking.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. McDonald appreciated the Panel’s
recognition of the improvements made to the scheme. With respect to the
rooftop parking, the safety of pedestrians is crucial for Canadian Tire
and this will be studied further. Mr. McDonald acknowledged there is
more work to be done on the bicycle hub at the corner and said they are
keen to see it work well as an amenity on the bike route.
|
