Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, July 9, 2003
Index
Present
1900 West Georgia Street
728 Pacific Boulevard (Notheast False Creek Area 6A)
531 Beatty Street
3831 Main Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat (present for Items 1, 2 and 4)
Jeffrey Corbett (departed meeting at 8.10 pm)
Bruce Haden
Brian Martin
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Mark Ostry
Jennifer Marshall
Eva Lee (present for Items 1, 3 and 4)
Regrets:
Reena Lazar
Kim Perry
Recording Secretary:
Terry Dunlop
1. 1900 West Georgia Street
DA: 407663
Use: Residential (22 storeys, 78 units)
Zoning: RM-6
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: Paul Merrick
Owner: Prima Properties Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Roger Bayley, Gregory Borowski, Ali Tehrani
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (4-5)
Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, outlined the residential
proposal, located on the 1900 Block of West Georgia Street, noting that
two residential towers and a series of townhouses comprise the plans
brought forward by Merrick Architecture. Mr. Barrett further noted that
the application was not a CD-1 application but an RM-6 development.
The Panel’s comments were sought for the following considerations:
1. Massing – can proposed massing form a part of the gateway transition
and meet current guidelines?
2. Form- the relationship to other adjacent properties
3. Townhouses – are they highly penetrable from Alberni Street
under current guidelines?
4. Green Court vs Water Court proposed as part of the landscaping
5. Shadowing – the impact on adjacent properties
6. Views – The impact on views from adjacent properties as well
as consideration of the views proposed from the residential towers
7. Livability – relative to existing properties and the proposed
project.
It was noted that the difference between a preliminary application and
a complete application is a consideration.
Mr. Barrett further noted that although essentially a preliminary proposal
that clarifies use and form and provides sketch drawings depicting a
high level of detail, the proposal has gone forward to the Urban Design
Panel for consideration as a complete proposal.
The application intent is to create strong urban guidelines specific
to 2 towers. It was noted that the Ho Building, adjacent the proposed
site, was also created along similar specific guidelines as a part of
a lower form at the western end of the block. Consideration has also
been given to the information provided at a previous Urban Design Panel
workshop (March 5, 2003) also relative to the proposal.
The Panel made a variety of comments and raised a series of questions.
Of particular concern were the following items:
•
The proposed location of the tower -can it be located on the other side
of the property?
•
How much of the current view corridors would be compromised by this proposal?
•
Could the continuous line of proposed townhouses be broken up in spots
to allow for better access?
•
Would the Applicant consider providing more green space rather than the
water court contained in the application?
•
What view options would lower suites on the back of the building have?
The models were reviewed and the Panel studied views, shadows, access
to Stanley Park and the role that the proposal will play as part of a
gateway to the city.
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Gregory Borowsky of Merrick Architects,
described the design rationale, noting that the current location of the
towers would best serve the community due to restrictive components that
would be evidenced should the towers be relocated to the other side of
the site as suggested previously. The Applicant suggested that they had
tried to ensure that the construction meets all guidelines and that views
and privacy have been protected. Public comment revealed concern about
massing and location should the tower sites be changed. Mid-site options
were also explored, however, that too resulted in a negative public response
therefore a compromise was the location that is now proposed.
Shadowing and view corridors have been examined and the current proposal
will maximize those options.
The liveability potential has been addressed and the Applicant believes
the entire view is improved by locating the building mass as proposed.
The project is truly the apex of a downtown peninsula. The public approves
of the different building shape.
Landscaping between Lost Lagoon and Coal Harbour relates to the identity
of the landscaping and water court proposed. Mr. Borowsky assured the
Board that his client is seeking a quality project that will allow residents
of lower floors the right of better exposure to views while avoiding
the density of a concentrated street wall. The density builds up as you
move further into the city. The project will also interface with the
existing Ho Building adjacent.
Panel’s Comments: The Chair noted that the primary concerns of
the Panel were:
•
Appropriateness of massing and location of towers on site
•
Relationship to the Ho Building
•
Landscaping and treatment of the townhouses proposed
The Panel’s comments included the following:
Massing and location of tower on site:
-the proposal contains a forward looking tower and a fresh approach to
architecture in that area
-the tower design rationale explained by the architect was generally
supported
-the tower top deserves further modification
-Georgia/Alberni street guidelines should be referred to in the proposal
-the design team should be commended for proposing a challenge to existing
guidelines
-location of the tower at the west end of the site is inappropriate
-the tower should be moved to the east side of the property
Form and relationship to other buildings:
-there is concern about how the Ho Building will relate to the new structures
-the location of the towers relative to the Ho Building remains a concern
of the Panel
-the suggestion that this structure is a “Gateway” to the
city may be premature as it does not appear to identify the ceremonial
quality of Georgia Street
-the metal screen elements on West Georgia St. and Alberni St. could
be revisited
-one member suggested that this proposal improves the relationship to
the Ho Building over the previous proposal
-the relevance of the proposal as in the “gateway” position
is not readily visible
-more of a presence is needed on West Georgia
-proposal is too close to the Ho Building
-this building doesn’t reflect the ceremonial quality of its location
on West Georgia Street
-a different pattern using medium sized buildings may have provided an
opportunity to incorporate the Ho Building and provide more of a welcoming
perspective from Georgia Street
-the project shouldn’t be designed based on popular view protection
from behind but based on the gateway aspect of this location on Georgia
Street
-it is critical that material standards be of the highest calibre
-the base of the tower appears not to have been thought out and requires
more attention
Treatment of the proposed townhouses:
-there is mixed feelings about the townhouse portion of the proposal,
however the incorporation of breaks in the townhouse row was generally
supported
-the proposed townhouses are not particularly exciting
-townhouse designs seem somewhat disassociated from tower design
-the townhouses are appropriate and this member supports the departure
from the guidelines
Green walk and Water Court:
-generally it was agreed that the proposed “water court” be
revisited, possibly in favour of more green landscaping
-sustainability has not been addressed in the proposal for the water
court
-water court proposed may be a little too large as a matter of perspective
-water court will be noisy for residents
-the landscaping is not as good as it could be
Shadowing:
-it was generally agreed that shadowing will occur, regardless of the
location of the tower, however, shadowing north across Georgia is less
important than shadowing west to Lost Lagoon
View Impact:
-may be lessened by moving the tower back on the property?
Liveability:
-liveability remains a concern, especially for lower floor units that
face a blank wall of adjacent Ho building
-can something be created to enhance the communication between the proposed
building and the adjacent property?
Applicant’s Response:
Gregory Borowsky responded to the Panel’s concerns noting that
proposed key living spaces next to the Ho Building look across Stanley
Park and Lost Lagoon. It was acknowledged that the bedrooms of these
units will look at blank walls. The location of the towers, in terms
of urban presence, is better than at the east end of the site.
Mr. Borowsky also noted that in the absence of the landscape architect,
he could not address specific concerns about the water court or landscaping.
The landscaper will attend the next meeting regarding the proposed application.
2. 728 Pacific Boulevard (Area 6A - NEFC)
Use: Residential
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: James K.M. Cheng Architect Inc.
Owner: Pacific Place Developments Corp.
Review: First
Delegation: James Cheng, Matt Mehan
Staff: Jonathan Barrett, Phil Mondor
WORKSHOP
Eva Lee removed herself from the discussion for this proposal.
Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, noted the site
under consideration is False Creek North Sub-Area 6A and 750 units are
being proposed. The project address is 729 Pacific Boulevard and this
presentation was in the form of a workshop, therefore, a vote regarding
the proposal was not required of the Panel. Mr. Barrett continued by
suggesting that both the city and applicant would welcome advice from
the Panel. At this point, the Panel assembled around the model. Mr. Cheng
referred to the rezoning rationale submitted with the plans for this
project, as follows:
The Coopers Park Neighbourhood has been designed as a total comprehensive
urban neighbourhood. The overall plan for Sub-Area 6A is to create a
residential neighbourhood complementing the recently developed Quayside
neighbourhood in Sub-Area 4. These two Sub-Areas are linked together
by a waterfront green space in the form of Coopers Park as well as the
seawall walkway. These public open spaces are then reinforced, shaped
and framed by streets and built form to enhance their quality and to
increase their safety, security and enjoyment for residents.
The waterfront park, along with the seawall walkway and street system
that links them together and ties them into the existing city street
system, is bordered by townhouses with all the benefits that accrue from
this form of development.
Mr. Barrett requested that the Panel consider how the proposal will
interact with the existing Plaza of Nations and BC Place Stadium properties.
Also, the Panel was asked to consider how the proposal forms will relate
to each other, the existing bridge system in that area, the bikeway and
pedestrian walkway. It was noted that there has been considerable debate
over park relationships and whether a road next to the park improves
accessibility or whether it is better to have residential units adjacent
the park. Mr. Barrett noted that this was an important site for the continuation
of development along False Creek. Another sensitive issue is the height
of the 16 storey or 18 storey tower. It was also noted that this proposal
does not contain any retail property options.
Regarding future process, the Panel was advised that after this workshop,
the Applicant will refine the proposal and bring it back to the Panel
for formal consideration once it is ready to go forward through the normal
process.
There were questions of the Planner and a Parks Board representative
responded to park issues that were brought forward regarding the distinct
differences in usage for the park properties located along the False
Creek area.
Applicant’s Opening Comments: James Cheng, the architect, identified
the proposed extension to the Smithe Street corridor to provide new access
and a buffer zone between the Cambie Bridge off-ramp and the proposed
project. It was noted that the land is currently deeded to the City and
the proposal is an attempt to try to create a better environment. The
open space concept for whole Concord neighbourhood would be achieved
by series of parks and open space with a formal garden at the west end
by Burrard Bridge. The David Lam Park would be considered an active park
and the Davie Street marina-side crescent would serve as a hub, guiding
visitors on to Coopers Park (built) as a passive park.
A clarity of views would be created by extending the city grid down
to the waterfront with a series of different character parks along the
waters edge. Some parks do and some do not have roads adjacent to the
park. Mr. Cheng presented 4 scheme alternatives set up on display boards
for the Panel’s consideration.
Mr. Cheng continued with a review of the 4 options while seeking comment
from the Panel on the proposals. He further noted that a park is critical
to the success of the neighbourhood and would provide residents with
a sense of belonging. Mr. Barrett also noted the proposed plans for the
Cambie Street viaduct over the corner seen from Pacific Boulevard. Mr.
Barrett, responding to questions regarding the annual Dragon Boat Festival,
advised that the long term intent is to move the Festival over to the
end of False Creek.
Panel’s Comments: In the general discussion that ensued, the Panel’s
comments included the following:
-regarding the cityscape level, all the proposed schemes are an odd jumble
of shapes.
-where the road is located, the public should come first
-the tallest building proposed should be at the back of the group
-it is an interesting concept at the bridgehead where further public
connections for public access are encouraged-this may encourage a more
positive development of property around the Plaza of Nations in future
-a mid-block road may attract more people to the area
-screening parking access from the park is good and provides an enhanced
experience for park users and residents who do not have to look out at
traffic
-the distance separation between the towers is good
-one Panel member suggested a smaller building on the point of the project
-it was suggested that there are not enough amenity spaces and noise
buffers to provide protection from noise at the Plaza of Nations and
the stadium.
-several Panel members expressed support for a road along the waterfront
areas
-having buildings on the park makes it less public and residents will
then discourage noisy activities in the park – therefore a road
adjacent to the parks is a better direction to pursue
-more public open space between buildings is a good idea
-there exists a real challenge for the use of space under the bridge
ramps and the ideas put forward are interesting
-as the area to the west of the proposal is already a park road, an internal
road could provide diversity to the area
-it is unfortunate that there is no commercial space proposed at all – the
project may benefit from some commercial space for a community oriented
service such as a gym or coffee shop
-the mid-road option does not afford much flexibility for development
of residential units
-the height of the proposed towers may be a consideration however, a
lower form of building may receive more support
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Cheng thanked the Panel for its input.
3. 531 Beatty Street
DA: 407649
Use: Mixed (9 storeys, 40 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Brook Development Planning/Rafii Architects
Owner: Western Canadian Holdings (2002) Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Foad Rafii, Laurie Schmidt
Staff: Scot Hein
Eva Lee returned to the meeting at this time
Helen Besharat excused herself from consideration and voting on this
application
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (UNANIMOUS)
Introduction:
Scot Hein, Development Planner, convened the Panel at the model and advised
that the proposal is a retail/residential development located at 531
Beatty Street. The proposed FSR for this project is 4.3 FSR, 3.5 of
which is residential, where 0.5 FSR (10%) is intended to be a heritage
density transfer. The proposal includes:
• An 8-storey building containing 40 residential units and 1 commercial
retail unit
•
31,500 sq. ft. of residential floor area, plus 1,445 sq. ft. of amenity
space
•
3,000 sq. ft. of semi-private open space
•
1,682 sq. ft. of commercial floor area
•
42 parking stalls including 2 levels underground and 1 level above grade
•
1 loading bay located within the building and accessed from the rear
lane
Mr. Hein further noted that this proposal will also go to the Development
Permit Board for consideration. Furthermore, the parking is being counted
in the FSR where there was specific interest to create some parking above
grade. Sub area C allows for a 150 foot building. There is a strong heritage
context with a series (6) in the block of buildings. There is an adjacent
(DPC) parkade that is city owned and might eventually develop out. The
proposal highlights the downtown guidelines and the built form appears
to be compatible with the prevailing context. The Architect noted that
the guidelines recognise prevailing context and mixed uses as well as
a mixed environment.
Questions of the Planner were as follows:
•
Is the parking entrance at the back of the building? – Yes
•
Is the heritage bonus requested the maximum available? – Yes
•
When the DPC is developed will the lane be kept? – Yes
•
Regarding the liveability and unit layout, what is the city’s response
to in-suite storage and what options are available (in the case of this
application) that will make storage areas more accessible? Mr. Hein responded
by noting that the city will ensure that storage space is used as such
and does not become an urban design issue, since this factor is examined
prior to submission to the Board to ensure that storage space is not
converted to an additional living space.
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Foad Rafii, the architect for this
application, provided a history of the property owner’s desire
to develop this site and to include sufficient parking. It was determined
that 3 levels of underground parking were not feasible and the owner
had agreed not to maximize density, in order to provide some retail space
at grade. It is intended to discreetly use some of the remaining density
to provide parking at and above grade without going more than one full
level underground. This was facilitated by only using one elevator. Parking
next door belongs to the strata complex across the street and although
negotiations to access some of that parking area are ongoing, there has
been no agreement reached as yet. If agreement is reached a new application
will be presented to the Panel. Mr. Rafii noted that there is an August
15th deadline and that is why he is going forward with this application
to the Development Permit Board. Mr. Rafii further advised that he had
tried his best to respond to the neighbourhood architectural context.
This would include articulation of walls to prevent a monotonous appearance
at the rear of the building.
The Panel’s comments were sought regarding the following:
-Integration of heritage density transfer bonus
-The way the building is programmed in terms of small above ground parking
and walls, potential windows to the 2 level parking area and liveability
-General advice is sought regarding the façade quality (brick
or painted concrete) expression and on the 2 storey penthouse and how
it is handled in terms of detailing
Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported the application.
The Panel’s Comments included the following:
Integration of Heritage Density
-the Panel unanimously agreed that this development has been well handled – the
heritage density application should be approved
Programming of Building Features
-the proposal has a consistency of expression and this Panel member respects
the owners attempt to reflect rhythms of the opposite building
-the model shows a curious suspended space along the south side
-top floor glass treatment is appropriate
-it is unfortunate that there are blank walls at the back of the building
due to the parking at grade
-regarding liveability the bedrooms on the south side look into a space
that is not allocated for use
-one penthouse entrance is right into the kitchen and the applicant may
wish to address this unfortunate design feature
-the parking issue has been cleverly handled
-the blank walls, especially in the parkade area, could benefit from
openings to provide more light, better aesthetics and some measure of
safety for residents
-the proposed outdoor terrace is well handled
-the building interior has not been given a lot of attention (ie: the
elevator lobby area)
-a recessed entrance for the building may not be a good idea with respect
to personal safety issues
-the living room in the units is buffered from street noise whereas the
bedrooms are not
-bedrooms on the west side that are not set back will be very hot during
the summer season-provision of shading may provide some relief
-it was noted that the corridor almost extends to an exterior wall except
for a pantry -the applicant may wish to investigate the introduction
of more exterior light into the interior in lieu of a closet
Façade Quality
- elimination of the brick on the façade has possible merit
-one member suggested that the brick façade be continued down
the north side of the building so that both the north and south sides
appear the same
-the theme of dual columns on the penthouse appears misplaced and should
be revisited
-the penthouse looks fragile and the cornice could use some help
-it was suggested that the decorative materials (such as cornice work)
could be sacrificed in favour of more brick detail
-the top of the building should be revisited regarding too much equality
of the four sides
-façade materials appear to be of high quality
-the wrap-around store front use is welcomed
Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Rafii noted that the Panel has provided many good ideas, and he
would follow up on them with a view to incorporating suggested improvements
into the proposal. Especially welcome was the comment regarding opening
up the wall adjacent the parking area to provide light and security.
Helen Besharat returned 8:10 pm
Jeff Corbett departed the meeting at 8.10 p.m.
4. 3831 Main Street
DA: 407525
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Esther Csutkai
Owner: Luigi & Rose Fabbiano
Review: Second
Delegation: Eszter Csutkai, Luigi & Rose Fabbiano
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-1)
Introduction: Proposed development of commercial and residential building
on 3831 Main Street (a consolidation of 3825 & 3835 Main Street)
Bob Adair, Development Planner, reviewed the project and introduced
new drawings that address previous concerns expressed by the Panel regarding:
the lack of landscaping; the treatment of the 2nd floor windows; the
construction system impact on detailing of the building and the resolution
of weather protection canopies on the Main Street frontage of the building.
Mr Adair noted that staff has some concerns regarding the height guidelines.
The FSR above the main floor is only 1.6 (the guidelines indicate 1.8).
Massing of the building has increased with generous floor heights. Advice
from City Council and a relaxation of the current height restrictions
will be required if the proposed application is approved.
Other staff concerns are about scale and expression on the Main Street
façade; the grade level parking appearance as well as the height
of the second floor canopies.
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Eszter Csutkai, Architect, addressed
areas of change noting that the serious concern about 2nd floor rounded
windows was expressed previously. The design has now been modified to
provide squared windows.
Adhering to the suggestion to improve landscaping, the back entrance
will be improved with a 3 foot irrigated solid box system with hanging
ivy and other treatments. Further, it is proposed to install railings
that will allow the landscaping to grow through and provide a benefit
to both the residents and the public. The back entrance design has been
improved to avoid water falling into the rear stairwell. The addition
of trees is also proposed for each deck area. The concrete theme of the
building will continue at the rear with a 2 foot setback and a 1/8” layer
of pigmented, high strength walking surface.
The architect noted that she has checked many areas around the city
and noted that the proposed canopies (canvass) are the similar to those
used in numerous other locations in Vancouver. The suggested use of glass
canopies is not feasible.
The sign location has been extended to 3 possible locations: one on
the face of the canopy; one inside and above the window and a further
option of a banner hanging perpendicular to the canopy. The cornice has
been cut back with a gentle sloped angle. Weather protection is proposed
for the top balcony and the front of the building.
Regarding interior issues, a shallow lot due to parking needs dictates
the small lobby space. Therefore the elevator positioning has been changed
to create a better impression on entering building. Second floor units
are almost the same. Balconies are 7x8ft; the kitchens have been enlarged
and rest of interior would be left for residents to finish to their own
design.
The colour treatment of the building exterior has also been modified
to incorporate a lighter colour in addition to the original proposed
colour.
Panel’s Comments: The Panel’s comments included the following:
Height Relaxation to 45 feet
-the Panel unanimously agreed that the height guidelines be relaxed for
this application to 45 feet.
Canopy height and façade configuration on Main Street
-it was suggested that the Architect or owner establish a policy regarding
signage on Main Street that all occupants would adhere to
-front façade is improved with squaring off of windows
-the squaring off of canopies would be desirable
-front balconies are a little small for plant materials unless they are
in pots
-one member noted that Main Street is a place for individual expression
and it is inappropriate to be dealing with detailed issues of aesthetics
-one member advised of difficulty in understanding the planes of the
façade
-concern about the doorway drop to the sidewalk area
-the architect is to be commended on the response to the Panels’ previous
concerns and the amount of detailed response now provided
-canopies made of canvass would be acceptable
Elevation at Rear & Configuration of continuous planter
-there are concerns regarding the size and plant material proposed for
the rear planters
-evergreen trees (as proposed) would not be a good idea as they can grow
quite large – whereas deciduous trees would allow for more light
during winter months
-it was suggested that the planter across the rear elevation not be continuous
but could be broken up to make it appear friendlier.
-the less formal elevation at the rear is normal
-if the rear planter were dropped below slab, views out would be considerably
improved
The Chair summarized by noting that the Panel appreciates the number
of improvements to the plans and elevations; there is consistent support
regarding height; changes to the planter at the rear are a consideration;
a signage control policy would be beneficial; there is mixed response
on the canopies but generally the proposal is acceptable; the architect/property
owners should decide the colour scheme.
Applicant’s Response:
The architect thanked the Panel for its comments
|
