Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Index
Present
1178 West Pender Street
86 SE Marine Drive
1675 West 8th Avenue
2520 Manitoba Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Bruce Haden, Chair
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
Jeffrey Corbett (not present for Item 4)
Alan Endall
Marta Farevaag (not present for Items 2 – 4)
Ronald Lea
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin
Regrets:
Steven Keyes
Margot Long
Mark Ostry
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1178 West Pender Street
DE: 408949
Use: Mixed (28 storeys, 146 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Hancock Bruckner Eng & Wright
Owner: Pinnacle International Lands
Review: Second
Delegation: Martin Bruckner, Peter Kreuk, Michael Decotiis
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this
application. The Panel did not support the proposal when it was first
reviewed on January 5, 2005. The Panel generally thought the site could
accommodate the requested density but had concerns about the proposed
form of development, especially with respect to maintaining 80 ft. separation
from The Melville. Further design development was also recommended to
respond to the flatiron form, including strengthening the Bute/Pender
corner, moving the tower further to the east and/or increasing tower
height, improving grade level treatment, especially on Bute Street, maximizing
sun access to the daycare exterior, and including outdoor amenity space
for the residents.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the applicant’s response
to the earlier concerns, noting also that a height relaxation of about
2 – 3 ft. is now being sought.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Martin Bruckner, Architect,
briefly reviewed the revisions. Separation from The Melville has been
increased from the previous 61 ft.-10 in. to 79 ft.- 7 in. on the east
side and 79 ft. on the west side and 80 ft. separation from the office
tower to the east has been maintained. Fenestration on the south façade
is spandrel glass to address privacy concerns. The floor to floor height
has been reduced from 9 ft.-7 in. to 9 ft.-1 in. and an additional two
floors have been added to the tower, increasing the building height to
a little over the 300 ft. permitted maximum. The west side of the tower
has been pulled back 7 ft. to the east, improving outlook from The Melville,
and the core has also been shifted 7 ft. to the east. Mr. Bruckner noted
that moving the tower further to the east causes a separation of less
than 80 ft. from the adjacent office building. The tower width has been
reduced and it has been articulated on all sides, and the tower comes
down to the ground at the Bute/Pender corner. The daycare and associated
outdoor areas have been reshaped and each daycare floor has an enclosed
connection to the elevator access. The reconfiguration of the project
has also allowed the creation of some semi-private outdoor space adjacent
to the residential amenity area. Following a brief review of the landscape
revisions by Peter Kreuk, Landscape Architect, the applicant team responded
to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• design development to the visibility and quality of the daycare
drop-off from the lane in conjunction with design development to the
lane elevation;
•
consider enhancements to the stair tower including the top;
•
consider clarification and simplification of the corner treatment at
grade;
•
consider special glazing treatment on the second and third levels of
the Pender façade;
•
consider increasing the vertical expression of the retail units.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this submission and commended the applicant
for responding so quickly to its earlier advice. The Panel now has no
major concerns about the project and suggestions were offered only for
further design development consideration. It was noted that the project’s
evolvement provides a good example that the process is working well.
The Panel had no concerns about the building height and strongly supported
the minor height relaxation being sought. The Panel was also satisfied
that this site can accept the requested FSR with the proposed scheme.
In its commentary on the revised submission the Panel noted that the
reshaping of the tower has been very successfully handled to maintain
a strong architectural design while also achieving the 80 ft. separation
from The Melville.
The Panel also strongly supported the amenity space that has now been
achieved as a result of the reconfiguration. The private residential
patio on level two is a big improvement to livability. There remained
some regret that the roof has not been developed for amenity.
The Panel strongly supported the improvements to the public realm and
was encouraged to see that the emerging streetscape character for Pender
Street is now being coordinated over several buildings.
A suggestion for consideration was to improve the quality of the glass
on levels two and three of the Pender Street base to provide more special
glazing between the grids. Design development at the corner in how the
circular element terminates was also recommended. With respect to the
rear elevation, there was a suggestion to make the stair tower more interesting
and relieve its somewhat plain appearance. In general, it was thought
the lane elevation needed further design development in terms of its
detailed design. The Panel strongly endorsed the treatment of the lane
as a secondary pedestrian street.
With respect to the storefront expression on Pender Street, there was
a comment that the architecture fails to recognize that they are double
height units; nor does it recognize opportunities for signage.
• Applicant’s
Response: Mr. Bruckner thanked the Panel for
its input.
2. 86 SE Marine Drive (Wal-Mart)
Use: Retail
Zoning: I-2
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Busby Perkins Wills
Owner: First Pro.
Review: Second (previous Workshop)
Delegation: Peter Busby, Jennifer Stamp
Staff: Scot Hein, Lynda Challis
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
• Introduction: The Panel previously saw this
proposal in a Workshop in April 2003. The Rezoning Planner, Lynda Challis,
provided a general
overview of the application and the policy background. In 2001, Council
approved policies and guidelines for Highway Oriented Retail (HOR) use
which focus on enhancing the quality of the public realm and encourage
a high quality environmental response. The 5 hectare (12.5 acre) site,
previously occupied by Dueck Motors, comprises two lots fronting on Marine
Drive
between
Ontario and Main Streets. Surrounding zoning includes I-2 and RS-1,
and C-1 at the corner of Main Street. After the rezoning application
was first submitted in September 2001 a retail study was carried out
and there was some public consultation. In the 2003 workshop discussion
the Panel offered advice on site layout and strongly encouraged the pursuit
of green initiatives.
The application proposes mixed retail and service uses, consistent
with the HOR policy, and includes five buildings. The main building
will contain the Wal-Mart store at the southwest corner of the site
and four buildings fronting on Marine Drive, two for retail and two
for restaurant/service use. The policy and guidelines require a 12
m (40 ft.) setback along Marine Drive. The remainder of the site provides
surface parking for 755 vehicles, which exceeds the Parking By-law
minimum requirement by over 200 spaces. Vehicular access is off Marine
Drive and there are two lanes connecting to Ontario and Main Streets.
Loading is along 69th Avenue as well as some smaller loading spaces
associated with the smaller commercial pads. Proposed density is 0.3
FSR (0.28 FSR retail). HOR policy permits up to 0.6 FSR. A special
feature of the application is its proposed sustainable design.
As well as advice on use and density, the Development Planner, Scot
Hein, requested the Panel’s response to the form of development,
including:
- overall site planning including the campus concept (arrangement of
parking and pedestrian routes and access) and location and orientation
of the smaller retail pads;
- the general form of the Wal-Mart building;
- sustainability features, in particular the wind turbines;
- the encroachment of three of the retail pad buildings into the 40 ft.
setback along Marine Drive;
- the amount of parking proposed, particularly as it relates to the environmental
performance of the project.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Peter Busby, Architect,
briefly reviewed the proposal and Jennifer Stamp described the sustainability
strategy, following which the applicant team responded to questions from
the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• design development to generally maintain the 40 ft. setback,
with some minor intrusions acceptable to maintain the integrity of the
grid orientation and sense of entry;
•
design development to the location of the pad buildings and the treatment
of the ground surfaces and landscape to enhance the sense of campus by
increasing links between the buildings, and making the pedestrian routes
more visible, comfortable, efficient and direct. This design development
should include consideration of links to transit;
•
consider increasing variability of the paving surface to enhance permeability
and visual interest of the parking area;
•
design development to the wind turbines and their siting, with specific
consideration to the acoustic impact.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this rezoning application and found
it a refreshing approach to big box retail design. There was a comment
that the architect has done an excellent job of recognizing the rigid
formulaic requirements of a Wal-Mart store and working in an authentic
way with the inherent building form it creates. The Panel had no concerns
about the proposed use and density.
The Panel liked the simple elegance of the building form and thought
the elements on the roof will be very visible and readily understood
as a sustainability feature. All the green initiatives of the proposal
were very positively received by the Panel. Given that Wal Mart is possibly
the largest property owner in North America it was suggested it could
also have far-reaching positive affects beyond this site if its success
sets the tone for other Wal-Mart developments.
The Panel supported the orientation of the pad buildings but the majority
of Panel members thought encroachment into the 40 ft. setback should
be avoided. There was a comment that encroachment into the green boulevard
also seems contrary to the sustainability goals of the project, and it
should be possible at this low density to maintain the orientation of
the pads without intruding into the setback. However, it was acknowledged
that the siting of two of the pads does announce the entrance. Reflecting
the main building’s form and architectural expression in the smaller
pad buildings was very positively received and supported.
In general, the Panel thought more could be done to create a sense of
campus on the site, in particular the connections between the buildings
and between the retail pads and the main store. Further work is needed
to better respond to pedestrian desire lines and to deal with some incomplete
connections and pinch points, particularly the Marine Drive approaches.
The Panel acknowledged, however, that this is predominantly a vehicle
oriented place and there may be little pedestrian traffic between buildings.
One Panel member recommended that, as a minimum, it should be comfortable
for pedestrians to move from the two corners of the site and from the
bus stop to the main entry.
The Panel was intrigued by the proposed wind turbines and will be interested
to see if they can be made to work in this location. There was concern
expressed about possible noise impacts and further study was recommended
at the development application stage. There was a variety of opinion
about their best location on the site and a strong recommendation that
they should not have branding colours on them. Given that many of the
sustainability features of the building might be too subtle for the general
public to readily perceive, the wind turbines could become an interesting
iconic feature of the site.
The Panel had no concern about the amount of parking being proposed.
The applicant was strongly urged to reduce the overall amount of asphalt,
however, possibly providing an area of “grass-crete” or similar
alternative treatment that may function as something other than parking
in off-peak periods. There should also be some pedestrian-friendly areas
within the parking area itself, at least in the east-west direction for
ease of wayfinding. There was also a suggestion that the access from
the lane to Main Street might be better oriented to the drive aisles
as you enter the main parking area.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Busby thanked
the Panel for the excellent critique. He stressed that any encroachment
into the Marine
Drive setback would be much less than 7 m.
3. 1675 West
8th Avenue
DE: 409080
Use: Residential (10 storeys)
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Nigel Baldwin
Owner: Intra Corp Pine Street Dev. Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Nigel Baldwin, Tom Miller, Bruce Hemstock
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (3-4)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this application. The site is located at Pine Street and West 8th Avenue
in the Burrard Slopes C-3A zone. The site has a frontage of 250 ft. and
a depth of 110 ft. Parking access is from the rear lane. The application
seeks the maximum permitted density of 3.0 FSR, plus a ten percent heritage
density transfer. With respect to height, the guidelines suggest 100
ft., which the proposal exceeds by about 7 – 8 ft. at the rear.
The proposal also varies from the guideline massing recommendation at
the back of the site. The proposal includes public open space at the
corner and an unspecified public art feature. Materials include brick,
concrete and glass.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
•
whether the application earns the density being sought;
•
variation from the guidelines with respect to height at the rear;
•
treatment of the lane;
•
treatment of the semi-private open space;
•
corner plaza beside the townhouses.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Nigel Baldwin, Architect,
briefly described the design rationale and Bruce Hemstock reviewed the
landscape plan. The applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• design development to reduce the apparent scale and mass of
the building above the townhouse levels, particularly on the north elevation;
•
consider the integration of the indoor and larger outdoor amenity space
while improving sun access to the outdoor amenity space if possible;
•
design development to the lane wall to reduce its visual scale;
•
consider integration of the corner open space with the entry if possible
and/or design development to the walls of the flanking townhouses.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel did not support this submission and generally thought the
overall composition needed to come together better. While not a high
rise, the project has a massive appearance which some Panel members thought
may be suffering from trying to push the building envelope to the limits.
It is resulting in a building form that does not allow for articulation,
particularly at the upper levels of the centre piece, and seems aggressive
as a result.
The Panel expressed concern about the north elevation which was thought
to need greater articulation and interest to reduce its apparent scale
and somewhat monolithic expression along the lane. There was also a suggestion
that the building might benefit from richer materials, perhaps less painted
concrete. Introducing one or two stronger vertical elements on the north
façade was suggested.
With respect to the lane treatment, the Panel thought the unbroken expanse
of wall needed some attention to reduce its apparent scale. Creative
lighting might help to articulate it.
The Panel found that pushing the limits of the building envelope has
also affected the semi private open space on the site which is quite
minimal and in less than optimum locations for sun access and connection
to spaces within the building. It was suggested the north-facing open
space will serve only as a visual amenity. Ideally, it was thought there
should be a shared roof deck amenity either on the building shoulders
or at the top of the building.
The Panel supported the public plaza at the corner as a commendable
gesture to the community but found it lacked animation and connection
to the building. Some Panel members thought it should have a stronger
relationship to the building entry. One Panel member urged that it should
be clear that this is a public space and not private amenity associated
with the adjacent townhouses.
The provision of public art was encouraged.
One Panel member expressed concern about the townhouse expression, particularly
as it turns the corner on the street. It was suggested the townhouse
expression along 8th Avenue might be stronger if the landscape treatment
and walls were more consistent. As well, the merit of varying the setback
of the townhouses was questioned given the zero lot line expression of
the adjacent Fircrest building.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Baldwin acknowledged the Panel’s
advice about bringing the parts of the project together better. He said
he did not believe the north elevation needed much work but agreed it
needs greater refinement in the way the decks are articulated. Further
detailed work will be done to improve the corner plaza to provide a sense
of some semi private overlook of the public space, and there will be
less concrete on the building than currently shown. Mr. Baldwin thanked
the Panel for its comments.
4. 2520 Manitoba Street
DE: 408554
Use: Mixed, 7 storeys
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete after Preliminary
Architect: Downs Archambault
Owner: 677002 BC Ltd.
Review: Third
Delegation: Al Johnson, Alan Shatwell, Pawel Gradolski
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-2)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this application which was not supported by the Panel when it was reviewed
on February 2, 2005. Ms. Rondeau briefly reviewed the Panel’s earlier
concerns and requested the Panel’s advice on the applicant’s
response. The concerns related to the expression of the easterly building
component, the corner streetscape treatment, and the amount and location
of outdoor amenity space. The proposed density remains unchanged at 2.85
FSR.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Al Johnson, Architect, noted
they have focused on improvements to the east wing in the clarity of
materials and massing to better tie it in with the 5-storey element.
He described the revisions made in response to the previous concerns
and responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• consider design development to the amenity space to improve
its usability, or its deletion in favour of enhancing other public spaces
in the building such as the lobby, if possible;
• consider enhancing the livability of Unit D.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel supported this submission. In general, however, the Panel
preferred the original 7 storey proposal and reiterated earlier concerns
that the reduction in height in response to some private views has been
at the expense of a successful urban design solution that benefits the
public at large. It was also questioned whether most of the neighbours
on West 10th Avenue will benefit from the revised massing. Nevertheless,
the improvements to the scheme since the last review were acknowledged.
The Panel found it a handsome building and thought the project was going
in the right direction. The Panel endorsed the improvements to the easterly
massing.
While the Panel previously had expressed concern that the streetscape
at the corner was too complicated, there was a comment that it may now
have been over-simplified. Better alignment of the street trees on Broadway
was recommended. There was also a suggestion that the rounded weather
protection on the ground floor might be better with a more modern approach.
As well, deletion of the uppermost open balcony at the corner and relocating
it to Unit C to the east would be a stronger solution and achieve a better
corner transition.
Concerns were expressed about the livability of Unit D. As well, the
blank wall of the second bedroom of Unit C is very visible on Broadway
and might be something richer than painted concrete.
The Panel remained disappointed with the amenity space and considered
it quite inadequate for a building of this size. The applicant was discouraged
from adding a water feature to the open space at the rear given the associated
interior space is quite small and likely will be little used. There was
a suggestion to delete the interior amenity in favour of creating a larger
lobby, possibly also including an interior water feature in the lobby.
One Panel member urged that the applicant be allowed to keep the concrete “eyebrow” that
projects beyond the property line given the need to consider energy efficiency
and prevent water penetration.
There was a general comment made that while this particular project
is able to maximize the allowable density on the site and the architect
has been very inventive in making it work, particularly given the height
constraints, there is an underlying concern that on many sites achieving
the maximum makes it very difficult to produce livable and workable unit
layouts.
|
