Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Index
Present
2876 West 33rd Avenue
1402 Kingsway
955/969 Burrard Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat
Bruce Haden
Reena Lazar
Eva Lee (excused Item 2)
Jennifer Marshall (present for Item 2 only)
Brian Martin
Mark Ostry
Kim Perry
Sorin Tatomir (present for Items 2 and 3 only)
Ken Terriss (present for Items 1 and 2 only)
Regrets:
Jeffrey Corbett
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 2876 West 33rd Avenue
Use: Residential
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Rezoning
Architect: Balfour & Co.
Owner: C. Cowie
Review: First
Delegation: Art Cowie, Rick Balfour
Staff: Dave Thomsett, Dale Morgan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Dave Thomsett, Rezoning Planner, introduced this
application to rezone an RS-5 site to develop three rowhouses. The policy
that allows this proposal to be considered is the City’s Neighbourhood
Demonstration Program, the objective of which is to promote the demonstration
of different housing types that do not currently exist. Participants
in the City’s Community Visioning Program can then visit these
demonstration projects to decide if they might be appropriate in their
own neighbourhood. Demonstration projects need to meet three criteria:
demonstrate a new housing form in the neighbourhood; demonstrate improved
affordability; and have a degree of neighbourhood support. This rowhouse
project would be Vancouver’s first example of fee simple ownership.
Demonstration projects are intended to be “one off” only
and do not set a precedent for similar developments in the immediate
neighbourhood unless determined in the Visioning Program.
Following the Rezoning Planner’s brief description of the site
context, Dale Morgan, Development Planner, reviewed the RS-5 zoning which
typically seeks reference points taken from existing forms in the neighbourhood.
Up to 60 percent of the lot area may be developed outright. Up to 70
percent is also permitted, conditional upon design conditions. This particular
RS-5 lot is in a transitional area, close to mixed use and commercial
developments. The proposed form for the three units is a three-storey
townhouse form with partial basement. There are two wider units (1,900
sq.ft. and 2,000 sq.ft.) at either end and a narrower unit (1,400 sq.ft.)
in the centre. The proposal respects existing front yard setbacks and
the building depth is compatible with the RS-5 neighbours. Height is
also compatible, at 30 ft. A plain, simple massing is proposed, with
a flat roof. Proposed density is 70 percent of the lot area (above grade).
Final material selection is still to be determined but consideration
is being given to a cementitious or stucco-like finish, as well as a
panel system.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
- whether this is an appropriate form for this site and context;
- the general direction of the architectural expression given this is
a demonstration project, the quality of the finishes, the roof form and
details;
- unit configuration.
Before the rezoning application was submitted the applicant held an
Open House in the neighbourhood, although the notification area used
was a little smaller than typically used by the City for a rezoning application.
A representative of the City’s Housing Centre attended the Open
House. The City’s notification will proceed shortly and will cover
a two block radius in all directions of the site.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Art Cowie described the
history of the site and the project, and noted there has been a good
public consultation process. Rick Balfour, Architect, briefly described
the design rationale and the applicant team responded to the Panel’s
questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this
rezoning application. The Panel was quite excited by this proposal and
commended the applicant for the initiative. A comment was made that that
the key will be in achieving a larger number of units that gain greater
economies of scale compared to single family homes.
The Panel considered the three-unit townhouse form to be very appropriate
in this location, although a number of Panel members said they would
have preferred to see better contextual analysis of the surrounding buildings
to confirm the appropriateness of the setbacks, etc. Several Panel members
questioned the staggering of the units and recommended that each unit
be considered for its own specific design opportunities within the overall
composition. The Panel recognized that the design is in the early stages
and noted the need for improvement and design development as the project
proceeds. In general, the Panel thought each unit should be distinguished
more and it should be illustrated how individual owners might bring their
own identity to the units.
With respect to unit configuration, the Panel’s concerns related
mostly to the middle unit. In general the Panel found the outer unit
layouts maximize the space quite well, including room for a double storey
height space. The concerns with the middle unit related to the stair
which breaks up the interior space. Exploration of a single run stair
in this unit was recommended. One Panel member suggested that jogging
walls to create some changing width within the unit might be possible.
One Panel member found the unit entries, front and rear, somewhat weak
and providing no transitional area between the exterior and interior
space. To make these units suitable for “empty nesters” there
was a recommendation to include a small elevator.
Given this is a demonstration project it was recommended that the City
should maximize its exposure with an Open House, and the applicant should
provide more detailed information. The importance of educating the broader
community was emphasized. Several Panel members strongly urged that the
highest level of sustainable design standards be sought, including one
or two innovative elements. A strong commitment to sustainability should
be sought at the development permit stage. It was noted the project could
be used as a model to demonstrate the kinds of sustainability measures
that can be achieved in single family dwellings.
With respect to the architectural expression, a concern was expressed
about the quality of the materials. If stucco is chosen, it should be
used in an innovative way. The Panel commented on the roof form which
it thought could be clarified more as opposed to reading as a single
roof covering the three units. Another comment about the architectural
expression was that it looks somewhat commercial. Expressing the floor
levels more strongly would help break down the scale and create a more
residential character.
The Panel was very interested in the fee simple challenge and considered
it to be a very innovative scheme. The applicant was encouraged to proceed
with the project. Because the materials are not yet finalized for this
precedent setting proposal the Panel suggested it would be appropriate
for the project to be returned to the Panel at the development application
stage. The applicant should provide material samples at that time. The
applicant should also provide a larger scale detail model that demonstrates
the relationship with adjoining properties. The Panel stressed that high
quality detailing will be important to the project’s overall success.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Cowie thanked the Panel for
the comments. He agreed the stairs in the middle unit could be changed
and said they are deliberately leaving it for the purchasers to make
their own choices with respect to finishes. Mr. Cowie advised they do
intend to have an elevator in the larger units.
2. 1402 Kingsway
DE: 408144
Use: Mixed (16 storeys, 185 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Rositch Hemphill
Owner: Tri Power Developments Inc.
Review: Second
Delegation: Keith Hemphill, Eva Lee
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-3)
• Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, introduced this
application for Phase Two of the redevelopment of Knight and Kingsway.
The Panel previously reviewed this project at the rezoning stage (both
phases) and the complete development application for Phase one, which
was supported. Mr. Hein briefly reminded the Panel of the issues identified
previously and Keith Hemphill, Architect, described this phase of the
development in greater detail. After the response to questions of staff
and the applicant, Mr. Hein noted the areas in which the advice of the
Panel is sought:
- response to the treatment of the corner of Knight and Kingsway;
- appropriateness of the Kingsway façade expression;
- public realm – execution of the courtyard but excluding the periphery
which is under review as part of a larger precinct study.
The Landscape Architect, Eva Lee, briefly reviewed the landscape plan
noting the intent is to delineate the pedestrian and vehicular traffic
in the courtyard using high quality materials and creating a place for
people to congregate. Mr. Hemphill also noted the project includes a
significant public art component.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel supported this application
and recognized that a number of improvements have been made to the scheme.
While it was acknowledged that the form of development was determined
at the rezoning stage, the Panel thought more could be done to slim the
appearance of the tower. One Panel member commented that the massing
on the corner above the seventh floor looks awkward, and recommended
removing as much density as possible from the corner and redistributing
it along Kingsway. There was a recommendation to eliminate the white
window frames in favour of something darker to accentuate slimness. The
applicant was strongly urged to have commercial space rather than residential
on the second level under the tower. Residential use in this location
could also conflict with the commercial signage.
The Panel thought more could be done to improve the clarity of the residential
entrance, and strongly recommended a better secondary entrance at the
east end of the building. In general, the Panel thought there should
be more architectural clues about how to get into the building.
With respect to the courtyard, there was a suggestion to include a focal
point, and to introduce some water to provide white noise. There was
also a recommendation for more interesting plant material.
The very long corridor on the third and fourth floors was considered
to be unacceptable from a livability point of view and the applicant
was strongly urged to revisit this aspect of the scheme. There were also
some privacy issues noted on internal courtyard units with about 12 ft.
separation between balconies. There may be ways to reconfigure windows
to improve this situation and take advantage of longer views.
The Panel agreed the Kingsway façade is somewhat homogenous,
although some Panel members thought it was acceptable given that in many
ways this project is setting its own context. A comment was made that
the somewhat relentless cornice may be making the building seem heavier
than necessary. There were concerns about the height of the retail bays
and the conflict with the residential units. Ways to make the glazing
more residentially oriented should be explored, and greater clarity provided
with respect to the retail entries. Some Panel members identified the
bridge element as having the potential to break up the façade
more by being more transparent. One Panel member questioned the use of
fabric awnings because they are not very durable. It was suggested more
diversity at pedestrian level could be created with awnings and weather
protection detailing.
The Panel stressed the importance of signage around the perimeter of
the building, in particular to include some strongly pedestrian oriented
signage to identify the location of the library.
The Panel strongly recommended that a project of this magnitude should
incorporate sustainability measures, not necessarily to LEED certification
level but gestures such as storm water management and green roofs were
strongly recommended. It was noted there are a number of units overlooking
large expanses of roof area, where there should be at least some kind
of patterning provided to relieve the appearance. The Panel was disappointed
that there has been no acknowledgment of orientation of the facades in
terms of solar heat gain. Given this location is well served by transit
one Panel member suggested this would be an ideal site to provide some
co-op cars for residents.
The Panel expressed the hope that the City will allow for some special
paving treatment on its part of the project.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Hemphill agreed the lobby will
be identified more strongly on the Knight Street side, possibly with
a more significant canopy. With respect to the use of the second storey,
until quite recently this was envisaged as commercial use but it has
now been abandoned in favour of residential use. He agreed with the Panel’s
comments regarding this aspect of the scheme and agreed it will be studied
further. With respect to sustainability, Mr. Hemphill agreed it would
be useful to take the project through a LEED check list to determine
what can be achieved. With respect to transit, the regional plan calls
for a modern contemporary shelter as opposed to a gap. Signage direction
to the mews is a key issue that will be addressed in the signage package
and some of the public art funding might be used in this area. Mr. Hemphill
noted that Phase One contains a water feature. Regarding the lane treatment,
discussions are continuing with Engineering Services who have shown some
interest in features such as texture and stamped concrete. He agreed
there is a need for a secondary entrance on the east tower. The massing
of this project has been fairly well determined and it meets the requirements
of the rezoning. However, there is room for study of ways to make the
tower appear slimmer. With respect to shadowing, Mr. Hemphill stressed
the studies have indicated the courtyards will be very sunny.
3. 955/969 Burrard Street
Use: Mixed
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Rezoning
Architect: Stantec
Owner: Concert Properties & YMCA
Review: Second
Delegation: Alan Endall, James Cheng, Peter Kreuk
Staff: Jonathan Barrett, Phil Mondor
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-1)
• Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this rezoning application. The project was seen by the Panel in a Workshop
in October 2003. The Panel is requested to consider the proposed form
of development, Council having indicated support for the general planning
strategy, the densities, usages and heritage density transfer. Mr. Barrett
briefly reviewed the site context and the proposed development. The application
for rezoning is for two adjacent sites (the YMCA site and the First Baptist
Church site).
The urban design criteria to be considered are:
- legibility - how it fits into the city fabric;
- heritage, public and private views;
- relationship between the proposed buildings;
- shadowing on open space;
- built form and scale relationships;
- built form and character formation;
- livability relationships;
- function, quality and character of pedestrian access systems and
servicing.
Mr. Barrett briefly reviewed the Panel’s comments at the previous
Workshop discussion of this proposal. The advice of the Panel is sought
on the following:
YMCA site:
- tower height and location, referencing shadows, views and scale relationship
in the neighbourhood;
- floorplate – its general shape and size;
- accommodation of the heritage component on Burrard Street;
- building character directions and intentions;
- landscape systems.
First Baptist Church site:
- relationship of the proposed form, both within the site and with the
neighbours;
- building height and shadow impacts;
- landscape system.
If this proposal is supported at the Public Hearing the Panel will be
requested to review the project at the development application stage,
which will likely be two separate applications.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Alan Endall, Architect,
reviewed the response to the Panel’s previous comments and described
the design rationale. He asked for the Panel’s support not only
for the overall form of development but also a clear direction on the
tower height, floorplate size, and density. James Cheng, Architect for
the First Baptist Church site, noted there is a forecourt at the corner
of Nelson and Burrard which was the starting point to repeat the scale
of Nelson Street. He described the proposal for the church site and Peter
Kreuk described the landscape systems. The applicant team responded to
questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application
and thought it was progressing well since the last review.
The Panel strongly supported the location of the YMCA tower and generally
thought the site could support the floorplates indicated. The Panel also
supported the placement of the tower on the First Baptist Church site.
Comments/advice with respect to the YMCA tower included the following:
- tower height strongly supported and several Panel members thought it
could be higher;
- the tower belongs to the ceremonial scale of Burrard Street rather
than the West End;
- the tower needs to “embrace the ground” at its base on
the lane and Barclay Street;
- design development is needed to the top to conclude it in a more satisfying
way;
- the flat west façade gives the appearance of the back of the
building;
- question whether this tower should be subordinate to the Wall Centre;
- strongly urge that the tower meet the High Building standards – the
Panel expects considerable design development and will hold it to the
highest level of design excellence;
- the upper floors could take some sculpting; maybe reconsider the elevators,
perhaps reducing them on the upper floor and having banks of elevators
which do not all extend to the full 40 floors;
- the height is appropriate in relation to Wall Centre and Electra.
One Panel member found the tower too big because, being set back from
Burrard Street, it impinges too much of the smaller scale of the West
End.
Integration of the heritage component:
- headed in the right direction;
- like the way the Y building is handled in the way the glass adjacent
is celebrating the heritage character of the Y;
- some concern that it creates a sense of a modern monolith overwhelming
the scale of the smaller building;
- acknowledge the successful resolution of dealing with the functional
requirements of the YMCA;
- commend the early involvement of the heritage consultant;
- there could be a contemporary element on the front of the building
which would bring the scope of the project through to Burrard Street
at the pedestrian level - possibly incorporating modern canopies;
- entry canopies should be included off the lane;
- the climbing wall needs more breathing space around it;
- the top of the atrium is unresolved and needs some design development;
- there needs to be a strong gesture to detailing and materials on the
Burrard façade, otherwise the expression of the elegant elements
shown will be lost;
With respect to the lane, the Panel urged that the treatment of the
lane be extended to the end of the block to make a better connection
to the park.
The Panel generally found it difficult to comment on the First Baptist
Church site, given this project is much less well developed than the
neighbouring site. However, the location and height of the tower were
strongly supported and several Panel members thought it could be slimmer
and higher as opposed to relating it to the Vancouver tower. One Panel
member strongly recommended improving the overlook by carefully addressing
the appearance of the mechanical and including roof landscaping. Two
Panel members commented on the church courtyard but had differing opinions
as to whether it should be conceived as one space or broken up, as proposed.
The Panel urged that at the next stage of development these projects
should have a very strong commitment to sustainability. A project of
this size needs to be to at least LEED silver standard. There was also
a recommendation to include a sky garden somewhere in the building.
One Panel member was concerned about the loss of the Y accommodation
and questioned whether opportunities for retaining it, either on this
site or elsewhere, could be explored.
The Panel noted that this application has benefited considerably from
being reviewed first in a workshop and stressed it is an important component
of the review process for large, important sites such as this. The applicant
team was commended for the excellent quality presentation and very comprehensive
analysis of the design rationale which the Panel found very convincing.
A few Panel members, however, expressed some discomfort with reviewing
and voting on two distinct projects that are being presented in very
different forms and level of development.
|
