Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, December 8, 2004
Index
Present
1211 Melville Street
2228 West Broadway
1670/90 West 8th Avenue
405 Skeena Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Bruce Haden, Chair
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes (excused Item 3)
Jeffrey Corbett (present for Items 3 and 4 only)
Alan Endall
Marta Farevaag (excused Item 2)
Ronald Lea
Brian Martin
Regrets:
Mark Ostry
Steven Keyes
Margot Long
Jennifer Marshall
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1211 Melville Street (575 Bute)
Use: Mixed
Zoning: DD to CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Pinnacle International
Review: First
Delegation: Martin Bruckner, Peter Kreuk, Mike DeCotiis
Staff: Phil Mondor, Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
• Introduction: Phil Mondor, Rezoning Planner, introduced this
application. The Panel unanimously supported a preliminary development
application for the site in April 2004 and the Development Permit Board
subsequently approved it in principle in July 2004. The Panel supported
the complete application on October 27, 2004. The application proposed
a 34-storey tower with six or seven townhouses fronting Melville Street
and a three-storey retail and office podium along Pender and Bute Streets.
Total FSR was 6.6, which included a 10 percent density transfer, and
a height of 336 ft.
The subject rezoning application is to increase the floor area on the
site by 52,600 sq.ft. in an additional three floors in the residential
tower. This additional floor area is to increase the retail and commercial
floor space (from the 18,088 sq.ft. in the existing development application
to 52,600 sq.ft.). The proposal is for two large retail floor plates
of about 20-25,000 sq.ft. each. This proposition is strongly encouraged
by Planning staff in response to recent Council policy that Bute Street
between the waterfront and Georgia Street become a high street to provide
a neighbourhood commercial centre and some destination retail space for
the growing residential community in Triangle West and Coal Harbour.
The 52,600 sq.ft. is proposed to be transferred from across the street
to the east (1178-1196 West Pender Street, fronting Bute Street), which
is in a different sub area of the Downtown District where the maximum
permitted FSR is 7.0. However, it is a very small site and cannot accommodate
the large floor plate retail being sought in this neighbourhood commercial
centre. This area of the downtown is also in urgent need of child daycare
space and it has been determined that a fairly large, two-storey child
daycare facility can be accommodated on the West Pender site. Planning
staff are therefore prepared to recommend a transfer of density from
the West Pender site to 1211 Melville Street.
Ralph Segal, Development Planner, noted a development application for
the 1178 West Pender Street site is scheduled for review by the Panel
on January 5, 2005. The subject rezoning application seeks a maximum
density of 8.2 FSR and a height of 372 ft. There is no change to the
form proposed in the Development Application other than the addition
of three residential floors and expansion of the two main floors of commercial
retail space. Mr. Segal noted the applicant is continuing to incorporate
the Panel’s previous comments into the scheme, in particular with
respect to the treatment of the podium.
The Panel’s advice is sought on whether the site can accommodate
the additional height and density being requested, as well as comments
on the detailed design of the podium.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Martin Bruckner, Architect,
described the proposal in greater detail and responded to questions from
the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to Pender Street podium to ensure an appropriately
urban expression of CRUs including consideration of signage and consideration
of smaller scale elements;
• Design development to ensure appropriate scale and rhythm relationship
between this project and the flatiron building, especially at the podium
level.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this rezoning application and was satisfied
that this site can accommodate the additional height and density. It
was noted that this will be fairly significant building in the cityscape
but some Panel members considered the extra height to be an improvement
over the development application scheme because it adds some variety
to an area which already has a number of towers of similar height. Most
Panel members did not consider the additional view impacts to be significant.
The Panel also considered the rezoning to be very supportable for the
neighbourhood benefits it achieves. There is no doubt the destination
retail and the daycare are very worthwhile additions to the area. It
was noted that the scheme may create some challenges for the donor site
that will need to be addressed when that application comes forward.
The Panel was generally satisfied with the design development direction
being taken for the podium, although stressed that it needs further work.
Some Panel members had some concerns about the approach suggested by
the sketches noting the tendency for larger retailers to impose their
corporate image on the streetscape. The applicant was cautioned against
the emergence of a “big box” appearance on Pender Street
and urged to ensure that a smaller scale expression prevails. Some Panel
members expressed strong support for the more robust podium which they
considered to be very appropriate for this very large project.
Suggestions for the podium treatment included:
- the wrapping of the retail onto Melville Street might be handled in
a more interesting way in terms of how it blends into the residential
character of Melville;
- further thought should be given to the angle of the retail canopies
on Bute Street;
- further consideration should be given to the treatment of the knife
edge corner at Bute and Pender where glass rather than solid wall would
create more interest on the Bute Street side.
It was noted that transition of this development to the adjacent flatiron
building will need careful consideration to ensure the two projects mesh
appropriately, particularly at the podium level.
Given the Panel has now reviewed this project five times (including
an initial non-support), one Panel member urged the applicant to ensure
that care is taken to achieve a coordinated presentation with all the
design details properly documented when the proposal is returned to the
Panel at the next Development Application stage.
The Panel commended the City for taking the initiative to address off-site
issues that impact the community in general. Such broader thinking will
achieve much welcome public benefits for the whole neighbourhood.
2.
2228 West Broadway
DE: 407977
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete after Preliminary
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: 665428 BC Ltd.
Review: Third
Delegation: Jim Hancock, Colleen Dixon, Sheldon Chandler, Jim McLean,
Chris Phillips
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-0)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, introduced
this complete application. The Panel supported the preliminary submission
in May 2004 and the Development Permit Board subsequently approved it
in principle in July 2004. The proposal is for a London Drugs store on
the ground floor and a grocery store slightly below the street grade,
with residential use above. The Development Permit Board supported the
requested maximum permitted density of 3.0 FSR and a maximum height of
about 78 ft.
Ms. Rondeau briefly reviewed the issues raised by the Panel and the
Board at the preliminary stage. The Panel’s advice is sought on
the applicant’s response to the conditions of preliminary approval,
including:
- whether the project has earned the discretionary increased density
and height;
- rear lane treatment and setback;
- retail street resolution including scale of weather protection and
entries;
- Vine Street treatment including setback, vertical feature and treatment
of public corner plaza;
- sustainable design issues.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: The developer, Jim McLean,
introduced the design team and Jim Hancock, Architect, briefly described
the revisions to the scheme in response to the conditions of the Development
Permit Board and the Panel’s previous comments. Chris Phillips
briefly reviewed the landscape plan and noted that public art will be
incorporated into the architectural façade to enhance the public
realm. Colleen Dixon addressed the sustainability measures, and the design
team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to enhance the autonomy and differentiation
of the residential entries relative to the retail frontage;
•
Consider relocation of grocery store entry further eastward, if practical;
•
Design development to the loading bay materials and lighting to enhance
the quality of the loading bay.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and generally considered
it to be very well handled. The Panel considered the requested height
and density to be well earned by the design approach taken to break up
this large block, the successful integration of the uses, and for the
project’s sustainability initiatives.
The Panel acknowledged the significant improvements made to the treatment
of the lane. Some concerns remained about the large loading dock, although
acknowledging its necessity for the commercial uses. The applicant was
urged to consider a high level of finishes and lighting in this area
to soften its impact on the neighbourhood. Treatment of the loading dock
should be residential rather than industrial in appearance.
The improvements made to the Vine Street frontage were strongly endorsed
by the Panel. Extending the pavement up to the building will make it
much more usable by the general public, including the corner plaza. The
corner specimen tree was also strongly supported. It was noted that moving
the westerly building away from Vine Street creates more breathing space,
both for the Vine streetscape and for the small building across the street.
The Panel found the corner plaza and bistro to be one of the most successful
aspects of the project.
The Panel strongly urged that the Broadway streetscape and character
be further refined. Suggestions and comments included:
- Relocating the westernmost residential entry to Broadway contributes
positively to the Broadway streetscape;
- There needs to be greater variety and distinction between the residential
and retail entries;
- London Drugs should be encouraged to make their windows as permeable
as possible;
- Attention should be given to coordinating the entries with the pattern
of street trees;
- There may be a conflict between the grocery entry and the bus stop;
- The Broadway streetscape could benefit from a higher quality of materials,
perhaps more brick and less painted concrete;
- Recommend the grocery store entrance be located further to the east
to be more mid-way between the residential masses (similar to the London
Drugs frontage);
- Interior lighting adjacent to the street will be very important to
the quality of the streetscape;
- The smaller retail units should be deeper to make them more workable.
Other minor comments included a suggestion for the vertical elements
to be slightly more disengaged from the mass behind (as suggested in
the rendering). Also, a comment that the roofs may be somewhat weak given
they will have a prominent profile from the street.
The Panel welcomed the inclusion of sustainable design features and
strongly urged that the applicant seek up to LEED silver certification.
• Applicant’s Response: With respect to
the grocery store entry, Mr. McLean noted there are some very practical
considerations
for making it work as proposed. He said they can continue to work on
it but moving it further to the east would be very difficult.
3. 1670/90 West 8th Avenue
DE: 408976
Use: Residential (11 storeys, 49 units)
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Gateway Architecture
Owner: Prima Properties Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Tom Morton, Michael Cox, Michael Patterson
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this application in the Burrard Slopes C-3A neighbourhood. The proposal
is for all-residential use, which meets the intent of recent policy for
a predominantly residential neighbourhood. The application seeks 3.3
FSR, comprising the maximum permitted 3.0 FSR plus a ten percent heritage
density transfer. The proposal responds well to the guidelines for the
area. A setback of 12 ft. is proposed for the 8th Avenue frontage and
10 ft. on Pine Street. Materials are concrete and masonry.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following areas:
- whether it earns the requested density;
- massing and general setback treatment including the corner plaza.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: The design team briefly
described the design rationale and responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to the east elevation to simplify and clarify
the rhythm and stepping strategy of both massing and openings;
• Increase the relationship between the west curved wall and the
townhouses below including consideration of continuing the curved wall
to grade while maintaining the townhouse use behind;
• Increase the visual separation between the tower and the townhouse
on the north side.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and thought it earned
the requested height and density, including the additional ten percent
heritage density transfer. In general, it was thought to be very handsome
and suitable for the area.
The Panel found the project to be very thoughtful in a number of ways,
including the treatment of the parking and the amount of amenity on the
site, both private and public. The project makes a good contribution
to the public realm, including the double row of street trees.
There was strong support for the treatment of the amenity space, its
overall usability and good relationship to the children’s play
area.
The Panel found the building expression to be the weakest aspect of
the proposal, particularly the east elevation. Panel members appreciated
the way the building is carved to respond to view considerations but
would have preferred to see the curved wall come all the way down to
the ground. There was thought to be a need to separate the townhouses
much more from the tower on the north side. In general, the Panel thought
the expression should be simplified, including reconsideration of the
angle enclosed balcony which seems to be foreign to the vocabulary that
has been developed for the building. There was also a suggestion to reconsider
the alignment of the window patterns, and to consider better quality
materials for the east elevation given its high exposure from the Fir
Street on-ramp. Another minor suggestion was to return the brick of the
upper two levels of the townhouse so that it mirrors that suggested on
the other three townhouse units.
The Panel strongly supported the corner plaza treatment, including the
water feature. There was a word of caution, however, concerning the ongoing
maintenance of water features, and a recommendation to consider deleting
the secondary water feature in favour of one main water feature with
better quality equipment to increase its longevity. The Panel also strongly
supported the soft courtyard amenity. There was one suggestion to bring
the guard rail to the edge of the west elevation. Additional planting
on the roof was also recommended.
Overall, the Panel found that thoughtful and intelligent decisions had
been made on the project and commended the applicant team. The Panel
also appreciated the completeness of the presentation documentation and
general attention to the landscape elements and details.
4.
405 Skeena Street
DE: 408783
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-2/C-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Rositch Hemphill
Owner: Aragon Group
Review: First
Delegation: Keith Hemphill
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-3)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, introduced this
application. The site, located at the corner of East Hastings and Skeena
Streets, measures 260 ft. x 102 ft. The context includes RS-1 zoning
across the lane to the south and continuous commercial development on
both sides of Hastings Street. The proposal is for a mixed use building
with commercial use at grade and three levels of residential above. There
is also residential at grade at the rear, facing the lane, for about
half the length of the site. Parking access is from the lane. There is
also access to the adjacent McDonald’s parking lot from the lane.
Existing parking for McDonald’s will remain on this site, under
the Hastings Street frontage. There is also an open loading space at
the rear on the lane. Proposed density is 2.52 FSR. Materials are architectural
concrete at the base and a combination of hardi plank and vinyl siding
on the upper levels. At the suggestion of staff, the application proposes
pulling the massing of the building forward on Hastings Street in return
for a better relationship to adjacent residential across the lane. This
will require a relaxation of the height angle regulations in this zone.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
- relaxation of the height angle at the Hastings Street property line
in exchange for reduction of massing at the rear;
- overall scale, including the handling and articulation of the massing
along East Hastings Street, noting the length of the site;
- Skeena street elevation expression;
- Lane elevation in terms of impact on the adjacent single family development
and the exposed ramp and loading;
- Livability of the ground floor rear units.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Keith Hemphill, Architect,
described the design rationale, noting the most difficult aspect of the
site is its severe slope, which is further exacerbated by new requirements
for handicap accessibility. As well, there is a requirement to provide
lane access to the adjacent McDonald’s site. After describing the
project in greater detail, Mr. Hemphill responded to questions from the
Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to the recessed lane units to enhance light
access, security, privacy, and horizontal separation from the lane;
• Landscape design development to increase pedestrian amenity
including the possibility of street trees along Hastings Street and the
lane, and the addition of a planted sidewalk boulevard adjacent to Hastings;
•
Consider moving the upper floor further north to reduce street-side deck
space in favour of south-facing deck space; also consider enclosed balconies
and visual simplification above grade on Hastings Street;
• Increased detailed variegation, e.g. canopies, recesses and
colours on the Hastings Street retail, including consideration of some
vertical appurtenances.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel supported this application with a number of concerns.
The severe restrictions on the site were acknowledged by the Panel as
well as the inherent nature of the C zones which have to deal with the
transition between a busy commercial area and single family residential.
This project is also challenged by the strict height limit of the zoning,
the topography of the site and the need to provide parking access to
the neighbouring McDonald’s restaurant. Given these limitations,
the Panel thought the applicant had made a reasonable massing response.
It was noted the stepping and ramping of the central corridor has produced
in a wider and more interesting corridor which is of benefit to the building.
Relaxation of the height angle regulation was unanimously supported
by the Panel in order to achieve a better relationship to the neighbouring
residential neighbourhood across the lane. Some Panel members recommended
pulling the building even farther forward on Hastings Street to improve
this relationship even more.
The Panel’s main concerns were with the Hastings Street frontage.
Suggestions were to strengthen the pedestrian scale at the lower level
and respond more to the vehicular scale at the upper levels. Given the
260 ft. length of the frontage greater animation was recommended, including
the introduction of coloured canopies and variation in the rhythm to
strengthen the retail component. There were concerns about the overhang
of the balconies on the fourth floor and its impact on units below. It
was strongly recommended that enclosed balconies be considered for the
Hastings frontage, noting it is north facing and on a very busy street
which will severely reduce the livability of open decks. Enclosed balconies
would also contribute to calming down the upper façade on Hastings.
The Panel was very disappointed with the lack of landscape and street
trees on Hastings Street and strongly urged that these be provided
along with street furniture and possibly some paving patterning. There
was also a suggestion to consider creating a physical barrier, perhaps
with bollards, to help shield pedestrians from the traffic.
There was support for the strength of the corners on the Hastings façade
but a suggestion that this approach should be reversed on the lane façade
so that the neighbourhood perceives a three-storey mass on the corners.
The Panel found the Skeena Street elevation to be quite successful in
its landscape response although with some comments that the façade
is somewhat flat and plain. There were suggestions to add some articulation
to this facade, including richer materials around the entry. It was suggested
this elevation could respond to either the Hastings or the lane expression.
The addition of a bench for public use was recommended.
The Panel was disappointed with the landscape response on the lane and
recommended improvements including the addition of trees. This will add
to the livability of the units on the lane by providing some visual separation
from the houses behind.
The Panel had concerns about the deeply recessed lower units on the
lane and strongly recommended further design development. Some Panel
members indicated support for the second floor overhang and thought they
might even benefit the lower units in terms of providing weather protection.
There were concerns about security and privacy of these units and suggestions
to increase landscaping and add screening to make the patios more livable.
Other suggestions included provision of a stop sign and landscaping
at the McDonald’s entrance, and reconsideration of the use of vinyl
siding.
It was noted the landscape plan was not included in the project documentation.
More contextual information would also have been helpful.
Some Panel members would have preferred this building to be higher,
noting that shadowing is not an issue on Hastings Street. It was noted
that the regulations in this zone are causing severe difficulties in
some instances where adherence to a number is no longer relevant. It
was suggested that this zone is in urgent need of review by the Planning
Department, noting also that it currently is contrary to what the neighbourhood
is seeking in the Hastings/Sunrise Vision.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Hemphill expressed appreciation
for the constructive commentary. He agreed with the comments about the
public realm treatment and acknowledged it is not well represented. He
noted they are in negotiations with Engineering about specific items,
including the degree of street trees on the Skeena elevation. Mr. Hemphill
said he appreciated the advice about the articulation and agreed there
is room to deal with the grade level on the lane elevation, possibly
adding some screening of the patios. He said he will make every effort
to incorporate the Panel’s suggestions.
|
