Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, February 4, 2004
Index
Present
4176 Alexandra Street
6460 Main Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett
Bruce Haden
Brian Martin
Kim Perry
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Mark Ostry
Jennifer Marshall
Regrets:
Reena Lazar
Eva Lee
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 4176 Alexandra Street
Use: School
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Rezoning
Architect: CJP
Owner: York House School
Review: First
Delegation: Graham Fligg, Julie Paul, Terry Partington
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-2)
• Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, presented this
application for a Text Amendment to an existing CD-1 zone. The proposal
is to increase the density from 0.7 to 0.85 FSR to accommodate facilities
located underground. The current CD-1, approved in 1992, provided a master
plan for the development of the site but only half of the plan proceeded.
The proposed Text Amendment is to accommodate an on-site performing arts
centre including drama and music teaching and performance area below
the athletic field. Off-street parking will also be constructed underground.
While the proposal will increase the total floor area it will result
in a decrease in site coverage and an increase in green space on the
site. Some hard surface area will be retained to accommodate loading.
To address the issue of traffic, which is a major concern of the neighbours,
part of the strategy of the site planning is to consolidate access to
the site on the Alexandra Street frontage by introducing a lay-by that
will accommodate about nine vehicles, and to focus the primary entry
to the site from Alexandra Street.
Staff have no significant issues with this application and seek the
Panel’s advice in the following areas:
- the site planning approach;
- the strategy of locating below grade FSR;
- the form of development including the integration between the two existing
buildings;
- landscape treatment.
•
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Graham Fligg, Architect, explained
the design rationale and noted it is intended to be a fairly “quiet” addition
to the school. In response to a question from the Panel, he said the
height of the fence is not yet determined but it is intended to be a
perimeter definition. He described the materials and colours and responded
to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel strongly supported this request
for Text Amendment.
The Panel supported the applicant’s approach to the site planning,
and the proposal for locating new facilities underground was generally
thought to be an excellent concept. The Panel was pleased to see the
reduction in site coverage resulting from this strategy. One Panel member
questioned whether any consideration had been given to under-grounding
the gymnasium as well to achieve even more open space at grade. A comment
was made that the strategy of locating FSR underground is one that should
be encouraged in Vancouver because it causes little impact on the surrounding
neighbourhood.
The Panel appreciated that there is very little visible parking on
the site and supported the introduction of the lay-by in the traffic
management plan.
The Panel had a number of suggestions with respect to the form of development.
In general, the Panel thought the form of development lacked resolution
at the detail level. There were concerns about how the infill component
connects with the existing buildings, making it look quite pinched and
crowded. There were concerns about the integration of the roof forms
in particular. Some Panel members thought the infill should not mimic
the expression of the existing forms but read as a separate building.
It was recommended that the infill should be a lot simpler, possibly
with a flat roof, to provide a better relationship with the two existing,
well proportioned structures. Careful attention should be given to the
treatment of the garage entry. There was also a recommendation to give
more attention to the surface promenade, possibly including weather protection
between the two buildings. Detailed resolution of the porte cochere should
also be given careful consideration as the design proceeds.
There was a strong recommendation to introduce more natural light into
the below ground areas and the Panel thought there would be ample opportunity
to achieve this in design development, with skylights and possibly a
light well. There was a suggestion to consider some reconfiguration of
the underground space to bring the daily use areas closer to the walkway
and the more service oriented uses further back.
The Panel felt strongly that educational institutions should lead the
way in embracing sustainability measures to provide a positive learning
opportunity for students. It was stressed that the project should be
a showcase in the way the architecture is resolved. It is an opportunity
to exhibit West Coast architecture, and it should be creative, innovative
and sustainable.
The Panel stressed the importance of landscape in a project such as
this and was disappointed that this aspect was underemphasized in the
presentation materials. The Panel will look forward to seeing resolution
of the landscape plan at the development application stage. The perimeter
treatment will need to be carefully detailed in this context, with careful
attention given to detailing of fence posts. With respect to the athletic
field, the Panel urged that it be as green as possible as opposed to
artificial turf.
With respect to materials, the Panel would discourage the use of hardi
plank because it does not perform well when used in longer lengths. The
use of natural material is preferred. The extent of concrete being used
around the entry might also be reconsidered given the context of the
building.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Fligg thanked the Panel for
its comments. He agreed with the importance of the landscape in the scheme
and confirmed there is a landscape architect on the team. The detailing
of the fence will be addressed in design development. Mr. Fligg said
he also agreed with some of the comments with respect to linkages and
integration with the existing mechanical areas.
2. 6460 Main Street
DE: 408084
Use: Mixed (two storeys)
Zoning: C-2
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: IBI Group
Owner: Claire & Dhillon
Review: First
Delegation: Tony Gill
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this
application for a 66 ft. x 102 ft. C-2 site located on the east side
of Main Street, mid block between 48th and 49th Avenues. The site is
at the north edge of the Punjabi market area. The proposal is for commercial
use on the ground floor with four 2-bedroom dwelling units on the second
floor. Parking is at grade at the rear. Proposed density is 1.24 FSR.
Exterior materials include concrete, clear glazing with spandrel panels,
corrugated aluminum siding, and cedar trellises at the rear. The adjacent
buildings conceal the side elevations.
The areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought relate to:
- whether or not part of the second floor should come to the street
to create a stronger streetwall on Main Street; and
- treatment at the rear, noting the guidelines recommend secured parking
for residential use including screening or partial covering of parking
that cannot be underground.
In general, staff support the proposed form of development and materials.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Tony Gill, Architect, briefly
explained the history of the project and the design rationale. He said
they wanted to create something clean and fresh with good quality, low
maintenance materials. With respect to parking, Mr. Gill noted it is
a very tight situation because of the overall density, and pulling the
façade out, as suggested, would add square footage and trigger
the requirement for an additional parking stall. Enclosing the parking
would likely result in the loss of a parking space. It is also not necessarily
more vulnerable to break-ins. Mr. Gill responded to the Panel’s
questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this
application which it thought will provide a good complement to neighbouring
buildings, particularly the attractive building on the corner.
The Panel did not believe it was necessary to bring the second floor
out to create a stronger streetwall and thought it might diminish the
clean qualities of the design. However, if the applicant decides to do
this, the Panel suggested taking advantage of FSR exclusions for enclosed
balconies and in suite storage space. There is also the possibility of
increasing the height. Providing weather protection over the balconies
was recommended. One Panel member noted the current configuration results
in relatively narrow balconies in front of bedrooms, and they tend to
end up as unsightly storage areas.
The Panel did not believe that covering the parking at the rear was
necessary, noting that enclosed parking is no more secure than surface
parking. However, the Panel felt strongly that the treatment of the lane
area needs to be improved. The use of pavers instead of asphalt for a
more sustainable project was strongly recommended. There is also the
potential for planting some trees at the rear given there is no obstruction
below to impede their growth. In general, the Panel thought much more
attention should be given to the lane so that it sets a good precedent
for future redevelopment in the area and starts to create the kind of
lanescape the City aspires to. There was also a recommendation to consider
screening the parking area from above to improve the overlook from the
second floor. It was noted that the rear entry will likely be the most
used by the residents so attention should also be given to the wall treatment.
The Panel recommended further design development to the residential
entrance, including attention to light fixtures and handicap access.
Some Panel members found the entry currently somewhat mean and narrow
and lacking a sense of arrival.
Several Panel members recommended that careful consideration be given
to signage so that it is not left to the tenants. Because the building
is so crisp and well detailed it was thought important to incorporate
signage into the design now. On the other hand, some Panel members cautioned
that controlling the signage may not be a good precedent for future development
because there is a danger it could become too sterile and diminish the
currently vibrant, eclectic character of the neighbourhood. One Panel
member found the metal and glass canopies, while very appropriate for
the building, out of character for the neighbourhood.
The Panel liked the choice of materials, although one member cautioned
that the punched metal weathers poorly. Another member suggested using
the same material as the trellis for the balcony partition wall, to soften
the appearance and allow greater light penetration.
The introduction of natural light to the upper hallway by way of skylights
was recommended. It will improve livability and make the units more rentable.
Some members of the Panel suggested the unit layouts need more work
to enhance their flow, possibly locating the bedrooms on either side
of the living room. There was also a suggestion to make sure that furniture
can be easily moved in and out.
With respect to the roof, there was a recommendation to screen the
air conditioning units in some way.
In general, the Panel found the design refreshing and contemporary.
The Panel commended the applicant for introducing a modern vocabulary
to this block.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Gill expressed appreciation
for the positive commentary. He agreed with the suggestions with respect
to better quality paving at the back of the building. With regards to
moving the units closer to the street, he noted a concern for privacy
given the amount of glazing on the building.
|
