Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Index
Present
4050 Knight Street (Phase One)
3638 Vanness Avenue
628 Kinghorn Mews (1650 Granville)
1144 Richards Street
2228 West Broadway
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat
Bruce Haden (present for Items 1 – 3 only)
Brian Martin
Kim Perry
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Mark Ostry
Jennifer Marshall
Eva Lee (present for Items 2 and 3 only)
Regrets:
Jeffrey Corbett
Reena Lazar
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 4050 Knight Street (Phase One)
DE: 408036
Use: Mixed (7 and 12 storeys, 206 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Rositch Hemphill
Owner: Kingsway & Knight
Review: First (Previously a Workshop and Rezoning)
Delegation: Keith Hemphill, Chris Phillips
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-2)
• Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this
application for the first phase of the Knight and Kingsway development
(the King Edward/Knight component), previously seen by the Panel at the
rezoning stage. The rezoning was approved by Council following considerable
neighbourhood involvement, using the C-2 regulations then in place as
a baseline (3.0 FSR). The Panel’s input in an earlier workshop
led to the massing approach pursued in the rezoning, i.e., a two tower
scheme with the primary tower marking the important Kingsway/Knight corner.
Other objectives were the inclusion of large-format retail functions
and provision of a unique quality lane to counter the harsh vehicular
environment of this particular location. As well, a key amenity for the
neighbourhood is the inclusion of a public library. At the rezoning stage,
the Panel had expressed some concern about the density, then proposed
at a little over 4.0 FSR. This has now been reduced to about 3.7 FSR.
Following a more detailed description of the project, Mr. Hein noted
the following areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought:
• The quality and anticipated execution of the lane environment
including treatment of the interior base of the project;
• Architectural expression: its quality, scale and articulation,
and how it performs in terms of breaking down the scale and distinguishing
the pieces. Also, its subsequent relationship to the phase two component
which is expected to follow fairly soon.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Keith Hemphill, Architect,
noted the Panel’s greatest concern at the rezoning stage related
to the operation of the lane as a combined vehicular and pedestrian environment.
He briefly described the revisions that were made to achieve the desired
quality of the lane, including some reorganization of the traffic pattern
through the site, noting the intent is to create an oasis of calm amidst
the three major arterial streets surrounding this site. He briefly described
the design rationale, and Chris Phillips, Landscape Architect, described
the landscape plan, including the sustainability aspects. The design
team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application.
The bridge element was an area of concern for Panel members. Since it
sets up an important focus it needs to be carefully handled in terms
of what is on the other side of the bridge, which at present appears
to be the servicing aspects of the project. While a bridge such as this
can be a charming feature, it can also present problems with respect
to noise reflection and shadowing impacts. Lighting under the bridge
will also need careful consideration. Some Panel members would prefer
to see the bridge eliminated altogether, with just a slot through the
two buildings, but certainly much more design development if it is to
be retained. It was suggested that the bridge is adding to the massive
scale of the development and it might have a more residential character
without it. However, if it is to be retained, it was strongly recommended
that the bridge should be more translucent and differentiated more from
the building component it is connecting. Extending residential units
over onto the west side of the bridge seems to be contributing to the
massive feel of the building.
With respect to materials, the Panel questioned the need to repeat the
brick at the base of the tower component. The Panel was also concerned
about an apparent “disconnect” between the residential component
and the commercial base, with suggestions to consider bringing down the
residential in some places. The level of detailing at the corners also
seems lacking at present, and the two retail entry canopies lack the
detailed articulation of the rest of the building. Design development
was also recommended to deal with the exit stair in front of the curved
corner, to work it into the project in some way. In general, the Panel
found the architectural expression of the tower component to be the more
successful of the two pieces. Comments were made that the residential
entry for the southwest tower seems a bit overlooked and could be grander
for a building of this size.
The Panel strongly recommended that consideration be given to providing
simpler roof forms, including some flat roofs which would be a much more
urban solution than the proposed sloped roofs. The dormer pieces in particular
seem like “tack-ons”. Provision of some roof decks was also
recommended.
The Panel generally considered the lane had been handled fairly well.
Suggestions for improvement included eliminating the “bump” in
the surface treatment and creating better definition in the lane by dealing
with the blank walls and recesses. It was suggested that street principles
need to be applied to the lane to give it greater coherency. The canopy
on the lane elevation also needs design development. There was support
for extending some of the surface materials out to the curb, if this
is acceptable to Engineering. There was a recommendation to redirect
the parking entry from the library entrance, and to delete the lay-by
next to the library. It was also suggested that a continuous row of street
trees in the lane would improve the public realm. One Panel member recommended
considering a stairway from the public terrace to the lane (by the water
feature) to help make it part of the lane environment.
There was a recommendation to improve the visibility of the library
entry from Knight Street, possibly moving it away from the parking entrance.
There was a concern expressed about the viability of the CRU beside the
library which seems to be away from the pedestrian flow. There was also
a recommendation to relocate the stair coming down into the library area.
There was a concern expressed that some of the A3 units in the southwest
building could be compromised for natural light, and that some of the
north-facing patios may not be animated in spring and fall.
Some Panel members thought the sustainability aspects of the project
could go further, including the addition of brise soleil elements on
the south façade.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Hemphill noted the corners of
the grocery store have not been fully articulated because the tenant
has not yet been identified. He explained that the library entry has
been deliberately pulled in from Knight Street and is an important aspect
of vitalizing the interior space. Regarding the retail unit next to the
library, Mr. Hemphill noted this is on a primary pedestrian route, next
to the parking exit, and it is believed this unit will be very successful.
With respect to the bump in the lane, Mr. Hemphill said it is an important
aspect of traffic calming that has been negotiated with Engineering Services.
It is also an opportunity for landscaping, noting also it is anticipated
that the adjacent C-2 zone will be redeveloped in the future. With respect
to the grocery store windows, Mr. Hemphill noted the City requires long,
single tenant facades to be treated like individual CRUs. He said he
appreciated the Panel’s comments about the roof form and treatment
of the bridge. However, he did not fully agree with some of the comments
about the relationship between the upper and lower portions of the building
because they are significantly different uses. With respect to concerns
about north-facing units, Mr. Hemphill noted it is a very wide street
and the shadow diagrams illustrate it will be a well lit courtyard at
most times of the day and at most parts of the year.
2. 3638 Vanness Avenue
DE: 407942
Use: Residential (4 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Rafii Architects
Owner: Concert Properties
Review: Second
Delegation: Foad Rafii, Yesa Rock, Robert Kleyn
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-2)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, introduced this
application. It was reviewed previously on October 15, 2003 at which
time it was not supported. The Panel expressed concerns about the footprint
of the building and its relationship to the tower immediately to the
south. There were also some interior layout issues including the treatment
of the corridors and some of the unit plans. As well, the Panel was concerned
about the façade treatment, particularly along Vanness Avenue
and the central portion of the building, and had general concerns about
the handling of the concrete details. The Panel recommended weather protection
over some of the balconies and over the main entry, and the addition
of some additional amenity space.
Mr. Adair stressed that certain aspects of the project, including the
general massing, the footprint and its relationship with the adjacent
tower, were established at the rezoning stage and will not be revisited.
The revised submission therefore retains the original footprint and site
plan. However, to improve the livability and relationship between units
the applicant has revised some of the glazing to refocus the outlook
to avoid direct views into units. Adjustments have been made to the façade,
including the parapet design which now emphasizes the central bay over
the main entry. A canopy is proposed for the main entry. Changes have
also been made to the enclosed balconies with the addition of a glass
and spandrel expression which contributes to better organization of the
façade. The balcony towers at either end of the building have
been reduced in height by one storey.
Planning generally supports the revisions and believe the project has
been improved. The advice of the Panel is sought on opportunities for
further refinement of the elevations both in terms of the overall composition
and the general streetscape.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Foad Rafii, Architect, briefly
reviewed the revisions made to the submission. He noted a meeting room
has been added for use of the building residents. The applicant team
responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel supported this application
although found the revisions fairly minor. The challenge of dealing with
an unfortunate inherited situation was acknowledged by the Panel.
The Panel remained concerned about the quality of the long corridors
and strongly recommended the introduction of natural light wherever possible,
particularly on the top floor which would be easy to achieve with skylights.
The Panel questioned the repetition of enclosed balconies on the ground
floor which fails to fully take advantage of outdoor patio space.
The Panel generally thought more could be done to improve the concrete
detailing, especially at the cornice level, noting this is a fairly rare
opportunity to do a four-storey building in concrete construction. The
detailing of the entry will be critical to the perception of the quality
and character of the building. The Panel supported the awning over the
entry.
Most Panel members thought an amenity room should be included, provided
it is usable and adds animation to the building.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Rafii thanked the Panel for
the comments and said they will do their best to respond. He noted that
every ground floor unit does have outdoor space.
3. 628 Kinghorn Mews (1650 Granville)
DE: 408001
Use: Mixed (9 storeys, 26 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Busby & Assoc.
Owner: Concord Pacific Group
Review: First
Delegation: Peter Busby, Bruce Hemstock, Fred Roman
Staff: Jonathan Barrett
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-1)
• Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this application for the last building of the westerly portion of the
Beach Neighbourhood, the guidelines for which are quite specific with
respect to urban design principles. He briefly reviewed the context and
noted a decision has been made to route the Seawall to the north of the
building. There will also be a narrower public walkway all the way around
the building, not to the same standard as the Seawall. Parking is accessed
below grade and the building contains a small retail component at the
corner. No issues have been identified on this project. The areas in
which the Panel’s comments are sought relate to the blank wall
at the above-grade bicycle parking area, and the visibility of the retail
space.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Peter Busby, Architect,
briefly described the design rationale and Bruce Hemstock reviewed the
landscape plan, including sustainability aspects. The applicant team
responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application
and thought it was an excellent project: a beautiful sculpture at the
terminus of an ensemble of other very well designed buildings.
The Panel was concerned that much of the ground floor is taken up with
residential use which tends to privatize the waterfront walkway, albeit
a secondary route in front of this building. The Panel thought the café will
be very successful. Most Panel members would prefer the rest of the ground
plane to be retail use as well, although it was acknowledged it may not
be commercially viable at this time. One recommendation was to increase
the building height by one floor, possibly with a smaller footprint,
and devote the ground floor to amenity uses, perhaps also revealing the
structure of the building at the base, to provide some animation and
give the walkway a more public feel. Another suggestion was to widen
and emphasize the openings at the edge of the retail to make the space
more public. One Panel member also noted there is an opportunity to locate
the restaurant right at the waterfront, which would be a refreshing variation
from the monotonous treatment of the rest of the seawall to date. Another
member also questioned whether the ground floor units would be marketable
given the lack of privacy in what will be very high end housing.
The Panel had few concerns about the bicycle parking area at the corner,
and the water feature was strongly supported. There were no concerns
about the wall as a backdrop to the moat. The Panel strongly recommended
that the applicant and the City find a way to connect the water feature
to the creek, via a bridge. Some concerns were expressed about crossing
the bicycle route and connecting to the turnaround and urged that the
City work closely with the designers to ensure its clarity and safety.
Other comments and suggestions included:
- investigate lighting on the roof;
- the geometry of the west façade is not as disciplined as the
east and north elevations;
- the rail detailing will be very important;
- details of the elevator penthouse need careful consideration;
- suggest acknowledging the north-south direction of the bridge and
the street grid by making the northwest corner orthogonal rather than
angled;
- design development recommended at the top of the elevator stair wall;
- question whether this should be a LEED certified project.
The Panel commended the applicant on a great project and looks forward
to seeing it built. Panel members stressed that the final detailing will
be critical to the success of this building and urged that the current
design team continue through to completion. Alternatively, that high
quality dealing is a condition of the development permit.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Busby expressed his appreciation
to the Panel for the suggestions. He noted there has been considerable
discussion about the use of the ground floor. With respect to sustainability,
the building will be at least LEED certification standard but at this
stage there is no firm commitment until further cost impact studies are
undertaken.
4. 1144 Richards Street
DE: 407957
Use: Residential (6 storeys)
Zoning: DD
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: L. Doyle
Owner: Townline Homes Inc.
Review: First
Delegation: Richard Henry, Rick Ilich, Robert Emslie, Dylan Chernoff
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, presented this
application to develop a 50 ft. wide site on Richards Street opposite
the new Downtown South park. The proposal is for a six-storey residential
building containing four 2-storey units on the ground floor with two
single storey units per floor on the upper four floors. The application
seeks 3.0 FSR and the maximum height of 70 ft. Materials include painted
concrete, stone veneer and metal panel.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
- relationship to the neighbouring buildings on Richards Street at the corners;
- application of building materials especially the front façade; and
- the level of entry identification to the ground level units.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Richard Henry, Architect,
briefly described the history of the site which is one of the few remaining
undeveloped small lots in the Downtown peninsula. He briefly reviewed
the design rationale, noting the building takes advantage of the new
park across the street. Mr. Henry responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this
application and considered it a very handsome piece of architecture.
With respect to the building’s relationship to its neighbours,
the Panel strongly recommended bringing the building out to the street
by a couple of feet. This could also allow room for a bench, although
the Panel was not convinced that a bench is necessary. It was suggested
that the guideline for a 10 ft. setback might be revisited for these
smaller sites. It might also improve the project by allowing larger terraces
at the rear, which would help to address safety issues in the lane. Alignment
with the adjacent buildings was not recommended, the preference being
for some kind of recess so that the building looks entirely separate
from its neighbours.
The Panel supported the high quality materials but had some concerns
about their application, especially the stone veneer which could look “appliqué” if
not detailed carefully. Close attention should be given to proportions,
the ratio of solid to glass, and the detailing at the change between
the different materials.
The Panel did not believe that stairs to front entries of the townhouses
were necessary. However, if they are a requirement then the entries themselves
need to be strengthened. The preference was for larger outdoor patios,
without stairs.
Other suggestions and comments included:
- opposition to tree grates in the sodded lawn;
- the two rear units need some kind of front entry identification as
well (not just signage);
- suggest widening the stone clad walls beside the steps at the side
so that they match the width of the podium frame;
- look for opportunities for increasing “eyes on the lane”;
- it would be nice to have a rooftop space for all the residents, not
just the penthouse units.
The Panel found this to be a charming infill project and hoped to see
more like it.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Henry thanked
the Panel for its comments which he said will be pursued.
5. 2228 West Broadway
DE: 407977
Use: Mixed (97 units)
Zoning: C-3A
Applicant Status: Preliminary
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: 665428 BC Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Jim Hancock, Jim McLean, Sheldon Chandler
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (3-4)
• Introduction: The Development Planner, Mary Beth Rondeau, presented
this application to redevelop the former ICBC Claim Centre site on West
Broadway at Vine Street. The proposal is for a London Drugs store on
the ground floor (about 35,000 sq.ft.) as well as a smaller urban gourmet
grocery store (22,000 sq.ft.). At the second level, facing West Broadway,
about 20,000 sq.ft. is proposed for medical offices associated with London
Drugs. The remainder of the development, up to the maximum permitted
3.0 FSR, is residential use. A small public open space plaza is proposed
for the corner of Broadway and Vine. The applicant proposes sustainability
features, including a green roof and storm water retention, to LEED silver
standard. An art feature is also proposed for the Broadway frontage.
This proposal is proving to be very controversial in Kitsilano, as is
the concurrent Home Depot inquiry at Broadway and Maple. The major concern
expressed by the neighbours with respect to this site relates to traffic.
This is being addressed by Engineering Services and traffic consultants
and the issue is expected to be resolved. The neighbourhood is also concerned
about the impact of the London Drugs use in this location but the residential
use is generally supported.
This site is located at the westerly end of the C-3A zone which permits
outright density of 1.0 FSR and 30 ft. height. The density may be increased
to a maximum of 3.0 FSR, and the guidelines suggest a height of 55 ft.
The application proposes a height of about 80 ft. at its highest point.
There are already buildings above 55 ft. in the vicinity and staff believe
a height of up to 65 - 70 ft. could be supported, depending on view and
shadow impacts.
The Panel’s advice on this preliminary submission is sought on
the proposed height and massing, the retail treatment along Broadway
and relationship with the sidewalk, and treatment and location of the
open space.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Jim Hancock, Architect,
briefly reviewed the project. He said a key issue is the height and he
noted the proposal does not cause shadowing on the north side of Broadway.
They have kept the higher massing towards the east end of the site, tapering
down to the west end. He noted the programming for the two proposed retail
uses is fairly inflexible and to make it work they need to overlap. However,
there are some benefits because the grocery storey then has a direct
connection to the adjacent underground parking, and the open plaza at
the end provides an animated complement to the two-storey building across
Vine Street. Mr. Hancock noted the London Drugs façade has considerable
glazing and is reasonably transparent. While the grocery storey is slightly
sunken there is grade level entry off Vine Street for disabled access.
Another advantage of the below grade grocery store is that it offers
greater visual permeability at the sidewalk level. The residential massing
is basically in three clusters of about 150 ft. wide, with fairly large
recesses between so that they will read as three separate masses. Mr.
Hancock added there is a considerable amount of green space included
in the scheme.
Jim McLean, Developer, advised the program for the medical offices is
not yet finalized at this stage but what is being considered is a new
form of health and wellness centre including doctors’ offices and
some larger areas to accommodate fitness facilities and a clinic. It
will not be strata titled as individual offices. Mr. McLean stressed
that they are trying to provide goods and services for residents to be
able to shop in their own neighbourhood.
The applicant team responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel did not support this submission.
There was general support for the proposed mix of uses and the Panel
indicated it believed the full 3.0 FSR could probably be achieved on
this site.
General concerns were expressed about the length of the building and
the need for it to be broken up, both at ground level and the residential
component above. The very long corridors were considered unacceptable.
Breaks in the corridor could be achieved by staggering the buildings.
Several Panel members recommended exploring separate residential clusters
with space between to offer some views through. At ground level, the ‘big
box’ storefront was thought to be compromising the pedestrian realm.
The Panel recommended inserting smaller CRUs in front of the London Drugs
to provide animation on the street, maintaining the drug store entry
on the street in a more subtle fashion. The Panel was confident there
would be no problem with people identifying the London Drugs without
being so obvious. It was stressed that signage will be very important
and it will need to be integrated well within the overall project.
The Panel noted a significant disconnect between the residential portion
and the commercial base which needs to be resolved. There were suggestions
to bring the residential component out to the property line and perhaps
bringing the residential down to grade in places.
The Panel had major concerns about the lane treatment, which it found ‘brutal’ and
the high wall unacceptable. Resubmission materials should include analysis
of development potential across the lane to ensure that neighbouring
property is not jeopardized.
Other comments and suggestions included:
- care should be taken to properly integrate the art feature into the
project;
- a more direct response to the small red building across Vine Street
is recommended, possibly extending the open space along the full edge
along Vine;
- design development is needed to the sunken plaza;
- the combination of uses is very positive but the distribution of the
mass and treatment of the streetscape needs considerable design development;
- there are very few precedents for this kind of use engaging the street;
- greater consideration should be given to the nature of the medical
office component;
- the intended retailers need to adapt to the neighbourhood they are
in;
- Vine is an important street and some additional setbacks/open space
might be appropriate;
- There appears to be an unused area in the centre of the underground
parking that might be redistributed to achieve more lane width to help
relieve traffic congestion.
The Panel stressed that this is a very important project in terms of
the precedent it will set for future development in the area. Some Panel
members questioned whether the somewhat convoluted arrangement for the
retail tenancies is workable. The Panel generally thought the maximum
density was achievable but that it needed to be handled in a more positive
way to be earned. The Panel will look for greater evidence of earning
the requested height and density at the next stage of development.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Hancock commented that the Panel
has touched on every issue they have been struggling with.
|
