Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Index
Present
1120 West Georgia Street
2008 Bayswater
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Larry Adams, Acting Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Robert Barnes
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
James Cheng (excused Item 1)
Marta Garevaag (excused Item 1)
Ronald Lea
Margo Long
Edward Smith
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao
Regrets:
Alan Endall
Recording Secretary:
Debbie Kempton, Recording Secretary
1. 1120 West Georgia Street
Use: Mixed (58 storeys)
Zoning: CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning (text amendment to add one storey in height)
Architect: James Cheng
Owner: KBK No. 11 Ventures Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: James Cheng, Dawn Guspie
Staff: Ralph Segal/Phil Mondor
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-2)
• Introduction: Phil Mondor, Rezoning Planner, introduced this
application. This application is returning to the Urban Design Panel
with a proposal for additional floor space and an increase in building
height. In view of this proposal for one of the tallest buildings in
the city and the prominence on the skyline, staff thought it would be
helpful to have Urban Design Panel advice given some of their questions
last May. There have been further changes to the roof form since the
last time this application was before the Panel.
Mr. Mondor provided some history on the application, including the rezoning
of December 2003 which was further amended in December 2004 with a development
permit issued in February 2005. The applicant is now proposing to add
an additional live/work floor with 7 units for a total of 11,100 sq.ft.
of additional floor space. There have been several moves taken to accommodate
the additional floor while minimizing impact on the building height.
The total proposed height increase is 6 ft. which has been accomplished
by the core of the building rising higher. Mr. Mondor explained that
only the mechanical penthouse has increased by 6 ft. while the curtain
wall remains unchanged in height.
Mr. Mondor stated that the habitable space in the development permit
reached 600 ft. and under the new proposal is 629 ft. which is a combination
of the additional floor plus the conversion of some of the mechanical
room to habitable space. The change to floor space ratio went from 13.2
to 13.41 and the building height from 640 ft. to 646 ft.
Mr. Segal, Development Planner, very briefly discussed the proposal.
Mr. Segal stated that from a design perspective staff consider this a
neutral or positive change to the top of the building. The slight manipulations
at the top of the building are equal to or unperceivable from what has
already been approved. Mr. Segal noted that the panel was supportive
before and staff remain so.
The advice of the panel is sought on the following:
- the text amendment to add one floor.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: James Cheng, Architect,
stated that he didn’t have much to add after the staff presentation.
Mr. Cheng said that he was open for questions from the Panel.
•
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- The panel unanimously supports the addition of an additional floor
of work / live apartments.
- The panel unanimously supports the increase in height.
- The panel, however, does not support the current design with the "truncated" top.
The panel feels that the proportion of the current approved design is
correct. As such, the panel would support a further increase in the overall
height of the building to enable the applicant to achieve the correct
proportions, translucency and elegance of the original application.
• Related Commentary:
The panel supported this application with the provision that the proportions
of the top need work. In other respects, the Panel found the proposal
supportable. The Panel felt that the request for an additional floor
and height was earned.
Some panel members recommend that the applicant consider taking the
buttons on the glass on all the way up as on the original proposal.
2. 2008 Bayswater
DE: 409471
Use: Mixed (4-storeys, 27 units)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Studio One
Owner: Orca West Development Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Jonathan Losee, Tomas Wolf, Kal Bachra
Staff: Dale Morgan
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (9-1)
•
Introduction: Dale Morgan, Development Planner, introduced this application
in a C-2 zone at the corner of Bayswater and West 4th Avenue. Referring
to drawings for the site context, Mr. Morgan described the buildings
in the surrounding area some of which date back to the turn of the last
century.
Mr. Morgan stated that the heritage issue has been a concern from the
neighbours at large in terms of what is proposed and the demolition of
four buildings, particularly the one on the corner. The results of the
208 letter notification mail-out were one letter of support plus 41 letters
of non-support and a petition of 91 names. These buildings have cultural
and historical value in the repository of memories for the neighbourhood.
Mr. Morgan stated that the Vancouver Heritage Commission concluded unanimously
that retention was not a viable option.
Mr. Morgan reviewed the proposal, a 4-storey development with continuous
storefront wrapping around the corner to midway on site. There is a proposed
painted concrete band with black 5 ft. deep awnings and an alternating
rhythm of brick which comes down to the base at the corner and at the
base of the residential entry.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
- in light of the existing context, noting the older building two doors
down that is on the heritage register (C designation), and the sensitivity
of the neighbourhood to the proposed demolition Mr. Morgan asked the
Panel to consider if the architectural expression is appropriate or should
the applicant look at something in keeping with a more traditional scale,
materials and detailing;
- the public realm treatment, particularly at the corner and the integration
of the parking entry, electrical transformer and the lane treatment
interface.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Tomas Wolf, Architect,
spoke to the concerns about the heritage value of the buildings on site.
Mr. Wolf stated that in considering how to treat the site they looked
at the neighbourhood and were not able to find much to relate to in terms
of historic buildings. Once the emotional attachment to the buildings
became apparent through the notification process, Mr. Wolf said they
decided to take elements from the old buildings and implement them into
the new one. Mr. Wolf described design details such as the deep red brick,
blue siding, cornice and the bay window that enable the proposed building
to relate more to the context of the neighbourhood than the old building.
With respect to the landscape plan, the applicant said that they picked
up on the theme from across the street with a curb, gutter and layby
proposed. The street trees will be golden locus which the applicant feels
light up the corner. The ground plain is a standard mat as allowed by
the City of Vancouver with exposed aggregate between the property line.
The lane will be planted with a small tree at the garage entrance and
a hedge to be clipped high to buffer the garage from adjacent units.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• The building needs to focus on integrity of expression. It seems
thin at this point as to whether the intent is a heritage or modern building
design. The Panel is supportive of a design that does not refer to heritage;
• Design development is needed to the base plane at the street
level;
• Consideration should be given to better integration of the 2nd
and 3rd floors as well as a better response to the single family dwelling
across lane with materials;
• Design development to improve the east elevation;
• Consideration should be given to enrich the public realm (street
treatment). Look at adding street trees, street furniture and acknowledging
the existing mural;
• Development of a sustainable design strategy is recommended.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel did not support this application. The Panel acknowledged the
time consuming process that the applicant went through, as a result of
neighbourhood comments, in trying to save the buildings even though they
are not on the heritage register.
Some members of the Panel did not support the use of bright colors to
articulate the building. It was suggested the applicant use a single
color for the building and put more work into the patterning, form, materials
and scale of the streetscape.
The Panel strongly recommended that the building be resolved at street
level. There were a few details for further design development, including:
- add more greenery;
- add trees to West 4th;
- consider alternate materials to the exposed aggregate to provide interest
at the ground level;
- consider treatment for the east wall to address the blank, abrupt feeling;
- consider providing green area on roof for residents to use which would
improve both the livability and energy performance of the building;
- better expression of the Bayswater residential entry;
- more sympathetic design of the parking entrance in relation to the
single family home across the lane.
• Applicant’s Response
Mr. Wolfe thanked the Panel for their comments and agreed that the ground
floor needs some improvement.
|
