Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, March 19, 2003
Index
Present
1451 Homer Street
2576 Kingsway
2582 Kingsway
370 East Broadway (Kingsgate Mall)
2096 West 46th Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair (excused Item #1)
Jeffrey Corbett
Gerry Eckford
Richard Henry
Reena Lazar
Stuart Lyon (Chair, Item #1, excused Item #5)
Sorin Tatomir
Regrets:
Helen Besharat
Joseph Hruda
Kim Perry
Maurice Pez
Ken Terriss
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1451 Homer Street
DA: 407362
Use: Daycare (2 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Walter Francl
Owner: Concord Pacific Developments
Review: First
Delegation: Walter Francl, Bruce Hemstock, Shira Golden
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-0)
Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this application for a Daycare facility in the Beach Neighbourhood at
Homer Street and Pacific Boulevard. He briefly reviewed the neighbourhood
context and noted the Beach Neighbourhood Guidelines anticipated a daycare
in this location. Parking for the daycare has been provided in the adjacent
building (tower 1A). Staff have no issues at this stage.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Walter Francl, Architect, described
the design rationale, noting that because the structure is so small they
felt it had to stand on its own without being completely foreign to what
is around it. It is quite a tight site and there are requirements for
outdoor space, covered and uncovered, on both levels. The roof form overhangs
provide the required covered space on the upper level and the projected
deck for the lower level. Bruce Hemstock, Landscape Architect, briefly
reviewed the landscape plan and the design team responded to the Panel's
questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
The Panel found it an exciting architectural form that fits well in
the neighbourhood. Both the architecture and the landscape architecture
are very nicely resolved and the tightness of the site is compensated
by its adjacency to David Lam Park.
The Panel strongly recommended exploring an easement for the use of
the adjacent triangular grassed area. It may not be extensively used but
it will help to open up the entrance which is somewhat under emphasized
due to the geometry of the site.
A recommendation was made to consider more of a buffer between the main
play area and the sidewalk, and there was a word of caution that the wooden
trellis elements could be a maintenance problem.
The daycare will be an excellent addition to the Beach Neighbourhood
and the Panel looks forward to seeing it built.
2. Address: 2576 Kingsway
DA: 407300
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Terry Yen
Owner: Donna Chan
Review: First
Delegation: Terry Yen, Donna Chan
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-3)
Introduction: Eric Fiss, Development Planner, presented this
application in the C-2 zone on Kingsway near 34th Avenue which cuts across
behind the site. The adjacent C-2 property (2582 Kingsway) is also being
redeveloped. Staff's attempts to get the two owners to work together for
one project were unsuccessful and the two sites are being developed independently.
The site is 33 ft. x 104 ft. and the proposal is for a 3-storey mixed
use building containing 1,100 sq.ft. of retail space on the ground floor.
The second and third floors contain eight studio dwelling units. Total
FSR is less than 1.80 (1.44 residential, 0.33 retail). Loading and garbage
and access to surface parking is from the lane. Materials are brick, metal
panel, concrete block, aluminum storefront glazing and fabric awnings.
Some enclosed balconies are provided on the second and third floors.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
whether the residential density is appropriate and producing livable
dwelling units;;
architectural quality, the form and massing including impact on residential
development across the lane;
streetscape response, the wall-window composition and articulation;
adequacy of private outdoor open space which is all achieved in either
enclosed or open balconies;
pedestrian weather protection;
materials, including side and rear elevations;
landscaping and relationship to the public realm.
Mr. Fiss noted that the remaining adjacent site on the corner is owned
by Neon Products and contains a large, two-sided billboard. This is likely
to remain for some time.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Terry Yen, Architect, briefly described
the project and responded to the Panel's questions.
Panel's Comments: The Panel narrowly supported this application.
The proposed density was supported. Comments were made that it is unfortunate
that advantage is not being taken of the potential density because it
is unlikely these parcels will be redeveloped for some years to come.
Some Panel members expressed disappointment that to date the redevelopment
of Kingsway has been less than successful.
The Kingsway façade was considered to be satisfactory. The Panel
stressed that the focus should be on the first floor in terms of quality
of materials and finishes to ensure an appropriate pedestrian interface.
Some Panel members would have preferred to see something more durable
than fabric awnings although others found the fabric acceptable. There
were some recommendations to provide coloured awnings to add some interest
to the project. Certainly, the design of the awnings should be a part
of the architectural contribution to the scheme. A recommendation was
also made provide a break in the canopy in anticipation of two different
tenants who can create individual storefront expressions. Similarly, it
was recommended that the sign band be broken up to allow tenants to provide
different signs. The sign band should not extend over the entry to the
residential units.
There was a suggestion to include flower boxes on the Kingsway frontage
as well as the back to help soften the façade and add to the streetscape,
and to differentiate the residential entry from the entry to the retail
to ensure it does not appear like an all-commercial building.
A recommendation was made to re-examine the balconies at the rear. They
are quite deep and will be very dark.
One Panel member recommended greater articulation on the lower level
of the rear elevation as it meets the lane and cautioned that attention
be given to potential safety and security and graffiti problems in the
lane. It was also noted that more thought needs to be given to what appears
to be a conflict between the garbage enclosure and the loading stall.
One Panel member recommended adding a window in the stair since this will
be a primary entrance for the residents from the parking area.
Concerns were expressed about the livability of the units. One Panel
member thought the bedroom niches were unworkable. It was strongly suggested
that more work needs to be done on the plans.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Yen said he will take into consideration
the Panel's comments which he found very good.
3. Address: 2582 Kingsway
DA: 407377
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Terry Yen
Owner: Ken Sam
Review: First
Delegation: Terry Ken, Ken Sam
Staff: Eric Fiss
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-1)
Introduction: Eric Fiss, Development Planner, presented this
application in the C-2 zone on Kingsway near 34th Avenue which cuts across
behind the site. The adjacent C-2 property (2576 Kingsway) is also being
redeveloped. Staff's attempts to get the two owners to work together for
one project were unsuccessful and the two sites are being developed independently.
This site is 33 ft. x 85 ft. and the proposal is for a 3-storey mixed
use building containing 1,100 sq.ft. of retail space on the ground floor.
The second and third floors contain five dwelling units, two studio units
at the front and three larger 1-bedroom units at the rear, for total residential
density of about 1.23 FSR. Materials are similar to the adjacent proposal.
Applicant's Opening Comments: The architect had no further comments.
The property owner, Ken Sam, described the history of the site and his
unsuccessful attempts at consolidating the four properties on this block.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application.
The Panel strongly recommended providing a third floor expression on
Kingsway and did not favour the terracing. It was suggested this could
be achieved by creating a central lightwell/courtyard and redistributing
the massing, perhaps separating the two upper units. A comment was made
that skylighting into the stairwell could make the top floor units quite
exciting.
The Panel thought more design development was needed to the façades
and stressed that the success of the project will depend on the quality
of materials and detailing at the ground level.
The Panel noted that the adjacent billboard poses a particular challenge
to this building. Given the billboard site is unlikely to be developed
for some time it is important that the prominently exposed fire wall be
treated more handsomely, possibly with a combination of masonry materials.
Some Panel members recommended turning the brick on this façade.
It was also recommended, if possible within code requirements, to include
some fenestration which may ultimately need to be bricked in.
Further design development was recommended with respect to the treatment
of awnings and window-wall proportions, differentiation between the residential
and commercial entries and individuality of the signage.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Yen said he liked the idea of creating
a courtyard and thanked the Panel for the comments.
4. Address: 370 East Broadway (Kingsgate Mall)
DA: 406733
Use: Commercial
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Hotson Bakker
Owner: Vancouver School Board District No. 39
Review: Second
Delegation: Alan Baniface
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-2)
Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this
application, first reviewed by the Panel in June 2002. The proposal is
to add a floor of retail at grade on what is currently a parking lot for
Kingsgate Mall. The retail comprises general retail and restaurant space
facing the corner plaza and Staples office supplies store above. Rooftop
parking is proposed above Staples, accessed by a ramp along the Broadway
property line. Exterior cladding materials include clear glazing, sandblasted
concrete, some brick and corrugated metal siding along the top. The site
is zoned C-3A which has a maximum FSR of 3.0. The rooftop parking is included
in FSR calculation. While supporting the use and density, the Panel did
not support the project and expressed a number of design concerns, in
particular the general expression of the building as a whole, which was
considered to be too corporate in character and not an appropriate urban
design solution for this important location. There was also some concern
about a proposed arcade along East Broadway and the location of the entry
of the mall. There was concern about the general corner treatment, including
the design of the signage and the design of the plaza area at the corner.
There were also a variety of edge treatment issues, including the treatment
of the parking ramp along the north facade and the need for greater transparency.
Planning staff believe the applicant has made significant progress in
this submission, acknowledging the challenge of working with a number
of stakeholders. In general, it is believed that the architect has managed
to address most of the issues raised by staff and the Panel. In summary,
Planning supports the general approach of this revised submission and
most of the concerns are of a detailed nature.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
expression of the corner. Staff believe much progress has been made
and it is acknowledged that signage is critical for the application. In
general, there is agreement that there will be a major amount of signage
on this corner. The Panel's advice is sought as to whether the signage
can be further integrated into the building and the architectural treatment
strengthened at the corner;
exterior materials and whether the use of additional brick might help
to tie the development more strongly into the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood;
edge conditions and adequacy of the landscape treatment of the rooftop
parking area.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Alan Boniface, Architect, gave a brief overview
of their approach to the project and reviewed the revisions made to the
scheme since the Panel's previous review. Jeff Philips, Landscape Architect,
reviewed the landscape plan and the design team responded to questions
from the Panel.
Panel's Comments: The Panel supported this submission and noted
that considerable progress has been made since the previous review. The
applicant team was commended for the improvements.
With the exception of the signage, the Panel found the corner expression
quite successful. The plaza has been very nicely resolved and the treatment
of the stair around the corner and the water feature are very successful.
It was noted that this is a landmark corner of the city and the architectural
expression and the signage must respond accordingly. There was a recommendation
from one Panel member to seek the cooperation of the Engineering Department
in allowing the corner treatment to extend out to the curb.
There was a lot of commentary about the scale of the signage on the
corner. Many Panel members still found it too much like a billboard and
strongly recommended that it be integrated further into the building.
While the renderings show a subdued red, this is unlikely to be the colour
that is ultimately achieved given the bright red of Staples corporate
image. It was noted that there will also be restaurant signage below the
Staples sign. One Panel member suggested there could be potential for
an arcing, free-standing element in the front that picks up on the geometry
of the corner, making it a stronger icon and a more memorable landmark.
The Panel strongly supported the layering of the materials, the colours
and the overall transparency of the building. Some Panel members suggested
extending the brick to the end of the parking ramp, if not to the full
extent of the frontage, while others saw no need for more brick.
It was suggested the mall entry lacks strength and legibility.
One Panel member expressed disappointment that this scheme turns it
back on the existing mall, suggesting there should be access to the mall
from the corner of Kingsway and Broadway. There is no prominent access
to it from the rooftop parking.
With respect to the rooftop parking and landscaping, some Panel members
thought it was unfortunate the loading does not allow for more landscaping
but found the proposal generally satisfactory. Others strongly recommended
that far more be done with the rooftop landscaping, including green edges
that share the landscaping with the street as well as offer screening
from overlook.
The Panel appreciated the beautifully drawn elevations and expressed
the hope that they are an accurate reflection of what is ultimately constructed,
noting that the transparency of the interface with the sidewalks is an
important aspect of the pedestrian experience. It was stressed that this
approach be strongly pursued as the project proceeds.
Applicant's Response: With respect to the signage on the corner,
Mr. Boniface commented that part of the mandate they have been given by
Planning over the last few months is to move the signage out of the realm
of the storefronts, completely away from the first two floors. This is
part of the reason or the superstructure above the second floor. He noted
they have chosen to create a skylight that lights the space below.
5. Address: 2096 West 46th Avenue
DA: 407279
Use: Residential
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Gomberoff Bell Lyon
Owner: Transpacific Realty Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Eric Schroeder, Damon Oriente
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-0)
Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, presented this
application in the C-2 zone. The site is located on 46th Avenue at West
Boulevard and there is no lane separating the site from the adjacent residential.
The proposal meets the requirement for a 25 ft. setback for the first
floor, extending to a 37 ft. setback at the fourth floor level. Materials
are a combination of brick, hardiplank for the upper floors, brick, stone
and concrete. The building form attempts to avoid an obvious front and
rear facade and each elevation is treated with the full composite of materials.
The proposal is within the 40 ft. height limit for this zone.
Planning have no major issues with the proposal. The Panel's advice
is sought on the following:
46th Avenue transition and massing towards the adjacent residential
front yard;
whether further articulation is needed within the composition of the elevations
(e.g. the integration of the materials, parapet line);
choice of weather protection components on the retail side of the project.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Eric Schroeder, Architect, briefly
described the project and responded to the Panel's questions. Damon Oriente
reviewed the landscape plan.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application
and generally found it quite a handsome project. The Panel liked the fact
that no one elevation can be considered the back of the building.
The transition to the adjacent single family house was generally supported.
The Panel recommended deleting the fence, at least in its current location,
to remove the sense of barrier between the two buildings. One Panel member
thought it needed to take a stronger step back at the corner and recommended
creating something in the landscaping to find a middle ground between
the two types of structures.
The Panel generally supported the articulation of the elevations. The
cornice at the top of the building was considered somewhat weak and fragile
looking, and suggestions were made to deepen its proportions or to cant
it slightly, or to eliminate it altogether. Greater attention should be
given to the proportions of the fenestration, particularly at the corners.
With respect to materials, some concern was expressed at the use of
hardipanel in this location. A suggestion was made that prefinished metal
panel would be more appropriate. Most Panel members found the fabric awning
satisfactory, provided it is detailed well. A comment was made that the
awning is too small to be effective as weather protection but is a good
addition as an ornament.
There was a suggestion to take another look at the proportions of the
residential lobby as well as some of the ground floor unit plans.
The landscaping in front of the commercial storefronts should be removed.
It was recommended that attention be given to the relationship between
the bedroom projections and the parking ramp to ensure the bedrooms windows
are not looking onto the ramp railing and guard rail.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Schroeder explained that to break down
the building they tried to create a building within a building so that
the central portion of the elevation is a little bit different than the
corner pieces. He agreed there is some coordination needed with respect
to the fenestration.
|
