Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, January 7, 2004
Index
Present
600 Abbott Street
1475 Howe Street
2201 Ash Street
1030 West Broadway
455 West 8th Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Stuart Lyon, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett (excused Item 2.)
Bruce Haden
Reena Lazar
Brian Martin
Kim Perry
Ken Terriss (not present for Item 1.)
Mark Ostry
Regrets:
Eva Lee
Jennifer Marshall
Sorin Tatomir
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 600 Abbott Street
DE: 408032
Use: Mixed (6 storeys, 25 storeys, 31 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Henderson Land Holdings Ltd. (Canada)
Review: Second
Delegation: James Hancock, Martin Bruckner, Peter Kreuk, Hilde Heuvaerts
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented this
application. The project was not supported by the Panel when it was first
reviewed on December 10, 2003. The applicant has made a number of revisions
to the scheme since that time and the Panel’s response to the latest
submission is requested.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Jim Hancock, Architect,
briefly reviewed the revisions made in response to the Panel’s
previous areas of concern. With respect to sustainability, he said they
believe the project will achieve at least LEED certification. He stressed
that the distribution of the massing is in accordance with the very prescriptive
guidelines for the site. Peter Kreuk briefly described the revisions
to the landscape plan, and the design team responded to the Panel’s
questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this
submission and commended the applicant team for the quick response to
the Panel’s earlier concerns.
The Panel fully supported the relocation of the vehicular access away
from the future school, as well as the improvements to the vehicular
entry at building F2. One Panel member thought more could be done to
improve the entry to F2 where the column drops down from the soffit above.
The higher canopy and commercial glazing was strongly supported by
the Panel. A comment was made that the quality of the lighting details
inside the parkade will be very important.
The Panel remained unconvinced that the brick allocation has been successfully
resolved. Further design development was strongly recommended. Some comments
were made that the switch from horizontal to vertical expression may
not be appropriate because the former provides a better contrast to the
verticality of the towers. Another comment was that concrete at the base
might lend itself better to the more sculptural openings proposed. Some
Panel members expressed concern about the faux brick paneling and suggested
it might not be as successful as presented.
A comment was made that since the oval building has a very different
shape and character than the rest of the development it might have been
worth considering expressing it in completely different materials to
provide greater interest to the project.
The Panel strongly endorsed the introduction of green roofs.
The Panel was not persuaded that the sculptural rooftop elements are
appropriate. It was suggested that consideration be given to eliminating
this feature, at least from the oval tower, in favour of reallocating
the funds elsewhere, in particular to relocating the electrical transformer.
Comments were made that the rooftop features maybe somewhat diagrammatic
and superfluous when viewed from street level. Also, that the shape might
lend itself better to metal rather than the concrete proposed.
The Panel was disappointed that the Park Board requires such a clear
definition between private and public open space, and the proposed fence
which cuts off the park was thought to be too formal a gesture. It was
recommended that consideration be given to some completely different
treatment that makes the private/public domain separation much less obvious.
The Panel found the presentation materials somewhat lacking in terms
of neighbourhood analysis. As well, given the existing retail space in
this neighbourhood has been less than successful to date, there was a
recommendation to ensure there is flexibility incorporated into the commercial
space in this development. The Panel expressed the hope, however, that
this development will contribute to the vitality of the entire neighbourhood.
The applicant was commended for the initiatives towards sustainability
which will be a major contribution to the scheme.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Hancock thanked the Panel for
its comments. He agreed they can work on the brick treatment.
2. 1475 Howe Street
Use: Mixed (29 storeys, 168 units)
Zoning: CD-1
Applicant Status: Rezoning
Architect: Rafii Architects
Owner: Qualex Landmark
Review: First
Delegation: Chuck Brook, Foad Rafii, Rolbert Kleyn
Staff: Jonathan Barrett, Alan Duncan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
• Introduction: Jonathan Barrett, Development Planner, presented
this rezoning application for one of the few remaining sites in the FCCDD
zone. The Granville Slopes Policy Plan is applicable, which suggests
a density of 4.5 FSR and 210 ft. height, and primarily residential use.
The guidelines also include a massing diagram for the site. The proposal
is for a 30-storey residential tower (151 units) at about 290 ft. and
4.95 FSR. The increase in density over that suggested in the policy is
achieved by importing heritage density from the heritage “bank”,
which is appropriate to consider for this site. The tower has a 4-storey
base opposite the park and a 3-storey townhouse base along Howe Street.
Setbacks are as required in Downtown South. The tower is sited slightly
further south (about 25 – 30 ft.) than indicated in the policy
diagram, and the tower is taller and slimmer with a floor plate of about
5,600 sq.ft. as opposed to the more typical 6,500-6,800 sq.ft.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
- whether the height of the tower is appropriate in relationship to
the immediate context and the surrounding ‘family’ of buildings;
- whether the location of the tower is appropriate;
- whether the overall form can accommodate the additional heritage density;
- whether the 4-storey base facing the park is appropriate, noting the
policy suggests six storeys;
- landscape setbacks and provision of semi private open space.
The application will be returned to the Panel for further consideration
at the development permit stage.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Chuck Brook provided some
background information and Foad Rafii, Architect, described the design
rationale. It was noted the intent is to seek LEED certification, possibly
bronze or silver level. Following a description of the landscape plan
the applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this
application.
The Panel considered the tower to be well located on the site and had
no concerns about the proposed height. There were suggestions that the
tower could be even higher and some Panel members indicated a preference
for slimmer, higher towers. The setbacks were considered to be appropriate,
and the additional heritage density well handled.
The Panel liked the modern expression of the building.
The Panel thought the townhouse base needed a lot more design development
and looks forward to seeing greater resolution at the development permit
stage. With respect to the townhouses facing the park, the Panel supported
the townhouse form in this location rather than a higher apartment base.
Provided the same setback is provided, the Panel saw no need to continue
the height of the base of the neighbouring development.
With respect to the townhouses on Pacific, a suggestion was made that
it might be appropriate to deviate from the plan somewhat and consider
deleting them on this site, especially noting the site immediately to
the east will be unlikely to achieve townhouses beneath the on-ramp.
The Pacific townhouses were thought to be the least successful of this
project.
Some Panel members stated a preference for the tower to be expressed
down to the ground and eliminating the four townhouses at its base.
The provision of semi private open space was considered to be acceptable.
The Panel very strongly supported the proposed “sky gardens” and
urged that the applicant not be penalized by including them in the FSR
calculation. They were considered to be a very good amenity, both for
the residents of this development as well as for the neighbourhood in
general given their visibility from the Granville Bridge on-ramp. There
was a suggestion that it might be better to have one large sky garden,
or several small ones, rather than the two proposed. Another comment
was that they might be more usable if they are oriented a bit differently.
It was recommended that the provision of the sky gardens be included
in the rezoning conditions.
Careful attention should be given to the relationship between this
development and the existing development to the west.
The applicant was commended for the proposal to incorporate public
art on this site. However, several Panel members thought it would be
more appropriate to locate it on the south side facing the public park.
In this way, the northeast corner would be more solid, which is more
typical of corner treatment in this neighbourhood. It was also recommended
to explore other ways to incorporate public art into the scheme, possibly
through significant enhancement of the lane. Given its location next
to a public park, consideration should be given to upgrading this lane
to street standards. One Panel member suggested that the sky gardens
could also be part of the public art contribution.
As the project proceeds, attention should be given to livability issues
with respect to the balconies of the middle north units and east units.
The applicant was commended for the goal to seek LEED certification
on this project. However, it was noted that at present there is little
in the architecture that acknowledges issues of sustainability, i.e.,
response to the orientation of each elevation and incorporation of elements
such as brise soleil to address solar gain on the south and west facades.
The Panel will look for greater commitment to sustainability at the development
permit stage.
3. 2201 Ash Street
DE: 407961
Use: Residential (35 units)
Zoning: FM-1
Applicant Status: Complete
Architect: Ankenman Marchand
Owner: Nystar Developments
Review: Second
Delegation: Francois Marchand, Nicolas Santorelli
Staff: James Boldt
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-2)
• Introduction: James Boldt, Development Planner, presented this
application. The Panel reviewed the project on November 12, 2003 when
it was not supported. The Development Planner briefly reviewed the FM-1
zoning regulations and noted the City will consider an all-residential
development provided a 12 ft. setback is provided along 6th Avenue, given
the harsh environment of this street. The proposed density is about 1.48
FSR, reduced slightly from the previous submission. Outright density
in this zone is 0.6 FSR, conditionally relaxable up to 1.5 FSR. Mr. Boldt
briefly reminded the Panel of the concerns raised previously, and the
applicant’s response in this revised submission.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
- general massing and expression of the building, including the nature
of the townhouse expression on Ash and 6th Avenue given the inward-looking
nature of the development in response to the harsh environment along
6th Avenue;
- livability of the units and outdoor amenity; and
- materials and colour.
•
Applicant’s Opening Comments: Francois Marchand, Architect, described
the revisions made to the scheme since the Panel’s previous review.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel strongly supported this submission
and thought there had been significant improvements made, particularly
to the exterior courtyard spaces which are now a much more useful amenity
for the building.
The Panel acknowledged the restrictions on this site, including the
25 ft. height limit at the lane and the additional setback requirement
along West 6th Avenue. Nevertheless, most Panel members thought the proposed
massing had handled the issues reasonably well in order to achieve the
proposed density.
The Panel did not consider it necessary to have an identifiable townhouse
expression around the edge of the project, particularly on West 6th Avenue
which is a very urban street.
One Panel member suggested the courtyards could be further improved
by reducing the middle block from six to four units to achieve better
light penetration to the west courtyard. Another suggestion was that
the rectangular planter in the easterly courtyard may not be necessary.
While most Panel members found the livability of the units improved
since the last review some concerns remained and two Panel members still
found the livability unacceptable. Suggestions for further improvement
included increasing the number of skylights and increasing the size of
some of the windows. It was also suggested that poor livability may be
the result of some rooms being misidentified, with a recommendation to
consider some use other than bedroom, possibly home office.
The Panel generally supported the proposed materials and colour scheme
and stressed that the success of the project will depend largely on how
well it is detailed. The Panel reiterated its earlier appreciation for
the refreshing, modern approach taken with this building.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Marchand thanked the Panel for
the comments.
4. 1030 West Broadway
DE: 407719
Use: Mixed (12 storeys, 72 units)
Zoning: C-3A
Applicant Status: Complete after Preliminary
Architect: W. T. Leung
Owner: Tom Peng
Review: Second
Delegation: Wing Ting Leung, Lena Chorobik, Bob McGilvray, Mehdi
Sadeghi
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this C-3A application. An earlier Preliminary submission was not supported
by the Panel on August 20, 2003, with concerns expressed about the proposed
massing and the provision of semi private open space. The project has
now been revised and is submitted as a Complete Application.
The proposal is for a 12-storey residential building containing 73 dwelling
units, and an adjacent dance studio with retail on the ground floor.
Vehicular access and loading is at the lane which improves pedestrian
amenity on the Broadway frontage. The lane is 17 ft. higher than West
Broadway. The application seeks the maximum permitted density of 3.0
FSR and a height of 114 ft. (maximum permitted is 120 ft.), and is slimmer
than the massing suggested in the Central Broadway C-3A Guidelines. Proposed
materials include painted concrete and glass.
The advice of the Panel is sought on whether the proposal has earned
the requested 3.0 FSR and whether the shadowing created on the north
Broadway sidewalk is acceptable.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Wing Ting Leung, Architect,
briefly described the project and the design rationale. The landscape
plan was briefly reviewed by Lena Chorobik and Bob McGilvray, Architect,
provided some further details about the project, and the design team
responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this
submission and commended the applicant for responding so well to its
previous comments. The proposed rental units and the dance studio were
considered to be great assets. Several Panel members suggested this proposal
could set a new precedent for Central Broadway.
The Panel confirmed that it believes the project earns the requested
FSR, and the height and slenderness of the tower was considered to be
a great advantage. The marginal shadowing it causes on the northerly
sidewalk was thought to be insignificant and quite acceptable. The Panel
strongly supported the tower coming right to the street and did not believe
a 30 ft. streetwall was necessary in this location. The Panel also strongly
supported the vehicular entry at the lane.
Suggestions/comments included:
- design development to the dance studio roof;
- consideration for tying in the elevator penthouse with a connecting
element between the roof appurtenances;
- provide a sense of volume to the dance studio and offer a sense of
what is happening inside from the street;
- it may not be necessary for the north and south elevations to be identical
in their resolution;
- consider adding some solar shading to the south elevation;
- consider adding a little height on the Broadway frontage by increasing
the floor to ceiling height of the front units;
- the courtyard should be carefully detailed, both for the benefit of
the residents and pedestrians looking in from the street;
- consider eliminating the glass pavilion;
- suggest re-orienting the living room of unit 307 away from the dance
studio;
- question the necessity for the elevator element at the corner.
The Panel congratulated the applicant for this response to the Central
Broadway Guidelines which the Panel believes are long overdue for review.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Leung thanked the Panel for
its input. He noted the design of the dance studio is not yet finalized
and, with respect to the courtyard, having the front door facing the
street is necessary to meet fire regulations. Mr. McGilvray added, it
is interesting to note that some of the nicest developments on West Broadway
have not met the guidelines.
5. 455 West 8th Avenue (2300 Cambie)
DE: 407357
Use: Mixed (6 storeys, 80 L/W units)
Zoning: C-3A
Applicant Status: Complete after Preliminary
Architect: Nigel Baldwin
Owner: Ryan Beechinor
Review: Second
Delegation: Nigel Baldwin, Ryan Beechinor, Jane Durante, Janet Smithson
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this complete application. The preliminary submission was approved in
principle by the Development Permit Board on May 12, 2003 and strongly
supported by the Panel. Ms. Rondeau briefly described the proposal for
this site which comprises the full block bounded by Cambie Street, 8th
Avenue, Yukon Street and 7th Avenue, noting the major issues with respect
to massing and view impacts have been resolved. An urban gourmet grocery
store is proposed along 7th Avenue (30-40,000 sq.ft.) and small scale
retail units on the Cambie Street frontage with larger retail space behind.
The proposal meets the guideline for a 25 ft. setback on Cambie Street
and an art feature is also proposed for this setback area. This revised
submission now proposes two residential entries on 8th Avenue, providing
access to the 92 artist live/work studios above the commercial. In this
sub area of the C-3A zone purely residential use is not permitted. LEED
certified level is proposed.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Nigel Baldwin, Architect,
briefly described the project and Jane Durante described the landscape
plan and the proposed art feature. The design team responded to the Panel’s
questions.
• Panel’s Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this
application. The Panel found it to be an excellent response to the urban
design issues and noted major improvements to the scheme since the preliminary
stage. The Panel acknowledged that it is a major challenge to develop
a full block with such a program and commended the architect for an exciting
response to dealing with large retail tenant spaces without creating
large blank walls.
The Panel liked the simplicity of the central open space for the ALW
residents and found it very appropriate. There was a recommendation to
consider the relationship of the amenity room to the green space to the
south and to avoid the step if possible. A comment was made that it is
unfortunate the space fails to have a view to the north. The Panel believes
the courtyard will be very well used by the tenants and recommended including
electrical outlets and gas lines to enhance its usability. One Panel
member commented that the walkways feel somewhat tight and suggested
reallocating some of the central green area to increasing the space between
the units.
The Panel noted that while the ALW component represents about a third
of the whole project, the residential entrances on West 8th Avenue are
rather diminutive, making the units appear to be quite disconnected from
the ground. The Panel recommended strengthening these entries to provide
greater street presence.
Several Panel members were not convinced that the proposed colour scheme
will be successful, finding the grey too dark and overwhelming. It was
suggested there may be opportunity for some variation in colour with
a full block development such as this and to introduce warmer colours.
The applicant was commended for the serious commitment to sustainability.
Other comments included:
- the retail corners dominate the project;
- the West 7th Avenue elevation could be less rigorous;
- the least successful corner is 7th/Yukon with the diagonal glazing;
- the edge treatment of the AWL decks will be very important;
- hope the signage will not dominate.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Baldwin thanked the Panel for
the input. With respect to the suggestion to incorporate more playfulness,
he commented it is a very large project and if it is broken down too
much it begins to look even bigger and chunkier.
|
