Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Index
Present
1277 Melville Street
1133 Homer Street
3599 Foster Avenue
4479 West 10th Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Alan Endall, Chair
Larry Adams (excused Item #4)
Nigel Baldwin
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
James Cheng
Marta Farevaag (excused Item #1)
Ronald Lea
Margot Long
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao
Regrets:
Robert Barnes
Edward Smith
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1277 Melville Street (1280 West Pender)
DE: 409236
Use: Mixed (25 storeys)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Busby/Perkins/Will
Owner: No. 249 Cathedral Ventures Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Peter Busby, Martin Nielson, Chris Phillips
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented this
application. A previous application for this site (previously 1280 West
Pender Street) was reviewed and unanimously supported by the Panel in
September 2004. That application was subsequently approved by the Development
Permit Board but its decision was overturned by the Board of Variance
as a result of a third party appeal.
The current submission complies with the Development Permit Board’s
direction to limit the height to 270 ft. Requested density is 6.6 FSR,
which includes a ten percent heritage density transfer, as was approved
in the earlier submission. However, the tower has now been located further
to the east of the site, back from the Jervis Street corner, in direct
response to neighbouring view impacts, in particular from the Pointe
Claire.
Staff have no concerns about the current submission and note that it
has improved since the earlier scheme, particularly at the ground floor
which provides for a restaurant to replace the current popular “Crime
Lab” restaurant on this site.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Peter Busby, Architect,
briefly described the project noting the range of view opportunities
has been increased for Pointe Claire residents. He said he believed there
have been improvements to the design since the previous submission, e.g.,
the base treatment of the townhouses is more elegantly resolved and the
public space at the corner and the restaurant is a good addition to the
scheme. Chris Phillips briefly reviewed the landscape plan.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• The scheme has improved, notwithstanding the arduous process
that has been undergone and Panel continues to strongly support this
project as it did when it was originally reviewed;
•
General improvements have been made to the commercial base and the ground
plane, particularly at the corner;
•
Special attention should be given to the relationship to the neighbour
to the east;
•
Some regret at the slight loss of the flatiron expression and erosion
of the opportunity for a strong angular response to the corner.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application. While the previous
Panel had also unanimously supported the earlier scheme, the Panel commented
that in many ways it has improved even more. The project is very elegant
and has been handled in a simple way with good quality materials. There
was some disappointment that the true flatiron response has been reduced
somewhat but the gains of the current scheme were also noted.
The Panel preferred the revised commercial base which is considered
more appropriate and beneficial for the city. The restaurant will be
a great
addition to the scheme. The improvements to the ground plane treatment
were strongly supported, including the residential entrance and the
approach to the townhouse courtyards as well as the relationship of the
townhouses
to the street. The addition of the green roofs was also strongly endorsed.
With respect to placement of the tower, it was felt the Development
Permit Board was probably correct in its direction to move it slightly
to the east and in some ways it is unfortunate it has been necessary
to move it even further, which may not be as good a scheme as it could
be in terms of consideration of overall private views and proximity of
buildings. Nevertheless, it is still fully supportable as shown.
The only area of concern related to the relationship to the adjacent
building to the east, although it was noted the onus will be on that
development to respond to this one, which is the correct response.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Busby thanked
the Panel for its comments.
2. 1133 Homer Street
DE: 409193
Use: Residential (15 storeys, 197 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Imperial Oil Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Martin Bruckner, Julian Ward, James Hancock
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (0-8)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner, presented this
preliminary application. The site, 250 ft. x 120 ft., is at the corner
of Homer and Helmcken Streets in the Downtown South. The application
seeks the maximum 5.0 FSR plus a ten percent heritage density transfer
of 15,000 sq.ft. for a total density of 5.5 FSR. The site is affected
by a view corridor to “The Lions” which limits the height
and is generating a squatter than typical building form. A strong streetwall
is proposed with two storey townhouses and a third storey rendered in
brick wrapping around the site. The podium extends to the 9th floor,
stepping down to seven floors on Helmcken. The main building component
extends to the maximum view corridor height of 146 ft.
The areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought relate to the overall
massing and whether the podium up to nine storeys is appropriate, noting
the Downtown South Guidelines suggest a streetwall height of 30 ft.,
up to a maximum of 70 ft. Comments are requested on the various edges
of the development including the relationship to the development across
the lane in terms of shadow impacts, whether this site can accept the
requested ten percent heritage density transfer, and general comments
on the public realm treatment.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Martin Bruckner, Architect,
described the design rationale an responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Concerns about the overall massing and recommendation to give
further consideration to a clearer definition between the higher building
mass, the podium and streetwall;
• Recommendation for simplification of the overall architectural
expression;
• The Panel questioned whether the project can handle the additional
heritage density in the massing proposed;
• Further design development recommended at the edges, particularly
on the lane and the northeast corner where additional openings and fenestration
is recommended;
• General support for the public realm treatment;
• The amount of semi private open space could be more generous,
and locating the indoor amenity space next to the outdoor amenity area
should be considered.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel recognized that this is a challenging site but found the overall
massing to be too massive and horizontal in appearance, lacking the elegance
of a typical tower and podium development. There were comments that it
looks more like a Toronto development than Vancouver and is not very
sympathetic to what has been established in the Downtown South. Concerns
were expressed about the proportions of the building elements, particularly
the higher building mass and its relationship to the rest of the project.
There was a suggestion that it might be better to spread the mass across
the site rather than including a “tower” which looks truncated.
Most Panel members thought the site could probably take the ten percent
heritage density transfer but that it had not been demonstrated in the
form proposed.
Comments on the massing included:
- the entry of the “tower” seems jammed in and should probably
be a two storey rather than single storey expression;
- it feels like the “tower” is too close to the street and
the “girdling” of the brick is not helping to provide its
own expression;
- the curve shapes in the front seem foreign to the rest of the building;
- there are too many ideas going on;
- the lower three floors expressed in brick is a good response to Yaletown
but the two other treatments in the upper floors seems too much;
- not convinced the 70 ft. datum is meaningful in relation to neighbouring
buildings;
- the higher building mass looks like it’s trying to express itself
as a tower but it doesn’t have sufficient height;
- there could be a CPTED issue with the row of planting in the lane;
- there are good opportunities for corner windows in the living room
or small obscure windows in the kitchen;
- it is disappointing that the long view down the length of the rear
open space is given over to an exit stair;
- the two-bedroom unit is adding to the feeling of massiveness by having
the projected living room treated the same as the main building plane;
- not convinced a slab approach would work because it will be at least
eleven storeys which will be challenging to simplify;
- the two-storey penthouse on the higher building mass adds to its truncated
appearance.
The Panel had major concerns about the lane elevation and found it quite
unsympathetic and unfriendly to its neighbour. Despite what the sun angle
diagrams may indicate, it feels very oppressive and very much like the
back of a building. The northeast corner is also unsatisfactory and needs
further design development.
It was noted the trees proposed on the roof have the potential to exacerbate
shadowing issues.
The Panel strongly recommended locating some indoor amenity space adjacent
to the landscaped roof deck to make it more usable for the residents.
There were no concerns about the public realm treatment. It was thought
to be an appropriate urban response that relates well to the streetscape.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bruckner said he appreciated
the Panel’s comments.
3. 3599 Foster Avenue
DE: 409127
Use: Residential; Buildings K & L (4 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Rafii
Owner: Emerson Homes Collingwood Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Foad Rafii, Douglas Rennich, David Bird
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-2)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this
application for the last two buildings of the Collingwood Village neighbourhood.
The proposal is for two four-storey buildings containing a total of 130
dwelling units with a single level of underground parking for both buildings,
with access off Foster Street to the south. The project generally conforms
to the zoning regulations.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
• Setbacks. The guidelines call for 23 ft. along Ormidale and
Foster Avenues and the applicant is proposing setbacks of between 17
to 19.5 ft. on Foster and 16 to 18.5 ft. on Ormidale;
• Relationship of the ground floor level to the surrounding grade
all around the project, being about 3 ft. lower than adjacent grade on
the east side and about 3 ft. higher on the west side.
•
General expression and scale of the elevations and compatibility with
the surrounding context, both buildings and the park to the west.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Foad Rafii, Architect, briefly
reviewed the project and Douglas Rennich, Landscape Architect, described
the landscape plan. The project team then responded to questions from
the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Given the requested setback relaxation on the east side of the
building is exacerbated by the grade differential, the Panel was concerned
that the setback relaxations were not justified in terms of other benefits
derived from that setback. The applicant was encouraged to examine opportunities
for fine-tuning of the floor elevations, particularly on the Ormidale
elevation, to find ways the floor slab can relate more directly to grade
and alleviate concern over the setback reduction. This also applies to
the park elevation but to a lesser degree;
• Further design development of the architectural expression is
recommended, e.g., the expression of the dormers, the height of the roof,
the definition and legibility of the entrances as well as the sequence
of entry in terms of circulation and wayfinding;
• Consider a somewhat more contemporary architectural expression
that relates more deliberately to other buildings in Collingwood Village,
notwithstanding the guideline to respond to the residential character
across the street;
• Design development to the landscape plan to reinforce the definition
of entries and ensure the continuity of street trees;
• Adjustments to the setbacks and floor elevations should not
be at the expense of reducing or significantly altering the treatment
and separation between the buildings.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel strongly supported this application and acknowledged the budgetary
restraints but had a number of concerns and suggestions for improvement.
Most Panel members did not support relaxing the setbacks. It was noted
the patios along Ormidale are 3 ft. below grade and their sunken appearance
is exacerbated by shortening the setback. The extent of the relaxation
was thought to be quite significant in relationship to the surrounding
neighbourhood. There were suggestions to massage the building to address
some of the issues arising from the grade differential, possibly raising
the building slightly or altering the roof pitch in order to raise some
of the sunken areas. There were no concerns about the ground floor on
the west side being 3 ft. above grade, which was considered to be a good
response. It was recommended that if the guideline setbacks are adhered
to on Ormidale it is important that it not result in a reduction of the
public walkway between the buildings at the rear. Given there is a generous
amount of public open space nearby, reducing the amount of semi public
open space would be acceptable.
There were a number of comments about the architectural expression and
concerns that it lacks any relationship to neighbouring projects. Several
Panel members questioned the corner tower elements which seem foreign
and inappropriate, particularly at the corner of Ormidale and Foster.
There was a recommendation for further design development with respect
to the relationship between the entrances and entrance canopies and the
balconies at the entries which are offset from each other, creating a
feeling of being tacked on. The large scale of the dormers facing the
residential neighbours was questioned, and some Panel members expressed
disappointment that the architectural expression fails to recognize the
more contemporary expression of Collingwood Village. One Panel member
noted the north elevation of Building L is quite blank compared to the
other elevations.
There were concerns that the project fails to encourage and welcome
the public to go through the inner walkway and treats them as leftover
space between buildings rather than celebrating the public entrance.
It was strongly recommended that the landscape design give some recognition
to the major pedestrian thoroughfares in the neighbourhood. It was suggested
that further thought be given to the park edge, with a concern expressed
about the relationship of the setback to the park where it doesn’t
seem to relate to the park or the building’s amenity space. The
project also fails to respond somewhat to the guideline calling for attention
to entries off the street or the park.
Concern was expressed about the treatment of the entrances where the
lobbies and small amenity spaces seem uninviting and lack a sense of
arrival. There was also a concern about residents having to walk past
front doors to get the elevator. In addition, there was a comment that
the landscape fails to respond to the entrances or contribute to wayfinding.
It was noted there seem to be some street trees missing from the scheme;
the number of street trees should be maximized and a gap in the street
trees to emphasize the entries is not recommended.
• Applicant’s Response: David Bird, Developer, noted that
Planning directed that buildings facing the residential neighbourhood
should look residential. With respect to the corner treatment, the guidelines
specifically recommend an architectural feature, although Mr. Bird agreed
it can be reduced in size. He explained that when they purchased the
property there was already a design in place with even smaller setbacks
which had been accepted by Planning. With respect to the sunken ground
floor units, Mr. Bird said they would be pleased to raise the building.
The relationship at the edge of the park has been reviewed by the Park
Board. He agreed that attention can be given to the entrances.
Mr. Rafii thanked the Panel for some good ideas that they will try to
incorporate. He noted that individual access to units from walkways is
not in the guidelines. With respect to the setbacks, Mr. Rafii noted
the guidelines also refer to the setback between the buildings which
has been increased significantly and this was supported by Planning.
This in turn resulted in the reduced setback on Ormidale.
4. 4479 West 10th Avenue
DE: 409156
Use: Mixed (4 storeys)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Allan Diamond
Owner: Tri-Core
Review: First
Delegation: Peter McGill, Craig
Staff: James Boldt
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-1)
• Introduction: James Boldt presented this application to develop
a small 66 ft. x 115 ft. C 2 site at 10th and Sasamat. The site has a
significant cross slope to the northeast. The site context includes single-family
residences at the rear to the north. The proposal is for a mixed-use
building comprising three floors of residential above a retail base.
Both the height and square footage have been maximized and the proposal
responds to the C-2 regulations which have prescribed setbacks and require
the fourth storey to be set back. Materials include a composite panel
system.
The areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought are:
• Building expression;
•
Use of materials to achieve a high level of finishes and durability;
•
Livability, in particular the provision of outdoor open space and terraces.
Street trees and the provision of appropriate sidewalk treatment will
be sought.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Peter McGill said they have
met the intent of the C-2 zoning and appreciate the need to be sensitive
to the residential neighbours at the rear. He briefly described the scheme
and noted the ground floor commercial has been kept at a scale to relate
to the neighbourhood.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• The Panel was satisfied with the architectural expression and
treatment and had no issues with the materials;
• Some concerns about livability, particularly for the second
floor units, with mechanically vented bedrooms and lack of useable, accessible
outdoor space;
• Major concerns about the lane elevation and regret that the
loading and parking spaces are exposed to the lane. At grade level, the
lane elevation is a fairly unattractive elevation to present to the residential
neighbours, particularly the second floor deck above the lane which is
on spindly posts. Recommendations to consider either enclosing with garage
doors and/or turning the two end parking spaces parallel and screened
to the lane and accessible off the entrance aisle rather than perpendicular
and open to the lane. Careful consideration should be given indirect
lighting in the lane to alleviate glare and light spillage yet at the
same time address security issues.
•
Recommendation to improve the treatment of the concrete block side
walls, even as an interim measure, by providing some openings to the
stairwell for natural light access;
• Clarification is required with respect to the details of the
landscape treatment of the terraces, including materials, planting and
paving, and a recommendation to introduce trees in the planter at the
rear as well as more detailed consideration of the treatment of the rooftop
terraces.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel strongly supported this application.
The architectural expression was strongly supported, particularly the
street façade which was thought to be very appropriate for the
neighbourhood. It was thought to be a very nice, simple building that
will also set a good precedent for future development in the neighbourhood.
One Panel member suggested it would be more interesting with a simpler
and larger overhang at the top level. The expression of the carriage
lamps and the railway station canopy supports was also questioned as
being somewhat out of context.
The Panel had no concerns about the materials. Few Panel members had
direct experience with the proposed composite panel but liked its appearance
and hoped it would meet durability objectives.
The Panel liked the variety of unit type in the building but livability
was a serious issue, particularly the second storey units facing the
street. One Panel member questioned whether making them studio units
might reduce the amount of compromises on the space. There were suggestions
to reconsider the kitchen layouts or reduce the number of units. The
small balconies were generally thought to be acceptable.
The Panel’s main concern related to the lane elevation and the
relationship to the neighbouring single-family homes which was thought
to be quite severe and obtrusive. There was a suggestion to increase
the size of the decks and add a trellis. The introduction of some windows
at the exit stair was strongly recommended to relieve the concrete block
facing the neighbours. Lighting in the parking and loading area will
also need to be carefully considered to avoid glare.
Design development to the landscape plan was strongly recommended, noting
a number of items are unclear, including the material used for the planters
and the type of planting. In general it was thought the landscape design
does not reflect how the patios would be used. Attention should be given
to the size of the plants relative to the size of the containers. It
was also recommended to add trees in the rear of the building. Design
development is needed to the top floor deck where the placement of the
planters seems random and creating some awkward spaces.
Finally, one Panel member questioned whether it is appropriate for the
Panel to continue to review C-2 projects given the fairly prescriptive
nature of the revised guidelines. The City should also consider a policy
relating to the provision of private open space for each unit so that
all applicants are treated fairly.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. McGill explained the units at
the front of the second floor were included to respond to a demand for
young people who would choose these types of unit next to the street
activity. He noted the parking and loading on the lane is difficult to
deal with and agreed they can rotate the two end parking spaces as suggested,
and add a small planter for screening.
|
