Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, July 6, 2005
Index
Present
1133 Homer Street
4375 West 10th Avenue
350 Kingsway
RAV (Information Session)
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Alan Endall, Chair
Larry Adams (excused Item #2)
Nigel Baldwin
Robert Barnes
James Cheng
Marta Farevaag
Ronald Lea (excused Item #4)
Margot Long
Edward Smith (excused Item #1)
C.C. Yao
Regrets:
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
Peter Wreglesworth
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard, Raincoast Ventures
1. 1133 Homer Street
DE: 409193
Use: Residential (16 storeys, 193 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: Hancock Bruckner
Owner: Imperial Oil Ltd.
Review: Second
Delegation: Jim Hancock, Martin Bruckner, Jennifer Stamp
Staff: Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Ralph Segal, Development Planner,
introduced this preliminary development application in the Downtown South.
The
Panel did not support the proposal when it was reviewed on April 27,
2005, having concerns about the overall massing and the relationship
of the tower and the podium. As well, Planning had concerns about the
scale of the development on the south side and its impact on adjacent
development across the lane.
Staff generally support the fine-tuning of the overall development
and the attempts to diminish the sense of scale and bulk of the massing
as presented at the south property line. Staff also support the attempt
to emphasize the verticality of the tower and the strong streetwall
expression. The density has been slightly reduced since the previously
requested 5.5 FSR to 5.34 FSR, which includes an allowable heritage
density transfer. The maximum permitted density is 5.0 FSR plus 10
percent heritage density. The height of the podium has been reduced
from the previous 95 ft. to 74 ft. A view cone affecting the site limits
the tower height to 146 ft.
The Panel’s advice is sought on the applicant’s response
to its previous concerns. As well, comments are requested on the expression
and comparative strength of the uppermost parapet, the proximity to grade
of the northwest townhouse at the lane intersection with Helmcken Street,
and the need for refinement of the surface treatment of the south-facing
shoulder party wall.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Jim Hancock,
Architect, briefly reviewed the revisions made to the scheme since the
last review.
Martin Bruckner noted the improvements made to improve daylight access
to the open space, and Jennifer Stamp described the landscape plan.
The applicant team responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• consider doing whatever is possible to raise the entry to the
westernmost townhouses at the lane and to maximize the private outdoor
space of these units;
• recommend refining the south-facing shoulder party wall by either
reducing it and/or reconsidering its surface material treatment.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this submission and commended the applicant
for the well considered response to the Panel’s previous comments.
The Panel found the refinements to the massing result in a much cleaner
building expression. The apparent bulk of the tower has been nicely reduced
and its verticality has been emphasized. The expression of the entry
is also vastly improved.
The Panel found the greatest improvement to the scheme was with respect
to its relationship to the neighbour across the lane to the south and
the efforts made to address shadowing on the adjacent courtyard.
Most Panel members had no concerns about the parapet as proposed and
only one Panel member thought it seemed somewhat heavy. One Panel member
commented that the connection between the upper parapet is a little awkward
in how it meets the tower.
With respect to the westernmost townhouses at the lane, the Panel thought
everything possible should be done to raise them, while paying close
attention to issues of safety and security. Noting the front patio is
likely to be little used given its proximity to the lane, several Panel
members suggested it would be a good gesture to introduce additional
outdoor open space at the rear for these townhouses.
The Panel strongly recommended some refinement to the blank wall on
the south elevation to soften its impact on the podium of the adjacent
building. It was suggested that it could be lowered, not necessarily
by as much as two storeys, and that any exposed area at the base should
be in brick rather than concrete.
The Panel strongly endorsed the applicant’s proposal to relocate
the indoor amenity to relate to the outdoor amenity on the 9th floor.
There were a few detail suggestions for further design development,
including:
- giving a lighter treatment to the corner exit stair;
- consider some articulation at the junction of the vertical and horizontal
elements as a means of further breaking down the scale of the building’s
long frontage;
- consider a better quality ground level treatment for the arrival driveway
off the lane;
- consider providing a small amount of private open space at the podium
roof for adjacent units.
Finally, the Panel recommended that staff consider processing the submission
as a complete application given its high level of resolution. The Panel
would not need to see the application again.
2. 4375 West 10th Avenue
DE: 409401
Use: Mixed (4 storeys)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams
Owner: Saliem Development Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Tom Staniszkis, Robert Fung
Staff: Dale Morgan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Dale Morgan, Development Planner,
presented this application for a mixed-use project on the north side
of West 10th Avenue between Trimble and Discovery Streets. The site,
which currently contains the Varsity Theatre, has a frontage of 66 ft.
and a depth of 115 ft. and has a downward slope of 10 ft. from the front
to the rear. Proposed density is 2.48 FSR (2.15 FSR residential, 0.33
FSR commercial). C-2 zoning permits a maximum density of 2.5 FSR. Lane
access is shared with single family residential houses to the north which
have garages facing the lane. The immediate context also includes mixed-use
developments on West 10th Avenue. While there are two nearby buildings
which have some heritage value, the Varsity Theatre has no particular
heritage value and it will be demolished. Mr. Morgan briefly reviewed
the intent of the C-2 zoning which encourages the provision of a wide
range of uses and emphasizes compatibility of uses, livability, pedestrian
interest and amenity.
The proposal is for a 4-storey mixed-use building with commercial retail
on the ground floor fronting West 10th Avenue and three levels of residential
above. The ground floor level at the rear also contains residential units
which are approximately 10 ft. above the lane and are accessed by a common
residential lobby off West 10th Avenue. All units have some form of private
outdoor space, either landscaped terraces or balconies (open or enclosed).
There is no common outdoor space. Parking, loading and garbage are off
the lane for both commercial and residential uses. The building massing
and setbacks are in accordance with the guidelines for C-2, and the 4th
floor is set back above the 35 ft. level, as required. The application
seeks the maximum permitted height of 45 ft.
The issues identified by staff are very minor. Areas in which the advice
of the Panel is sought include:
- whether the residential entry needs better distinction from the commercial
entry;
- whether the proposed privacy screening between units is adequate;
- whether there should be additional landscaping;
- whether the depth of the overhang on the uppermost storey on the north
side should be reduced for improved sunlight penetration.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Tom Staniszkis,
Architect, briefly reviewed the scheme. He noted it is a fairly modest
building on a small site and the intent is to make it part of the street
fabric. With respect to the issues identified by the Development Planner,
Mr. Staniszkis explained the residential entry treatment is intended
to be natural wood, which will distinguish it from the commercial entry.
There will also be signage to reinforce the difference. He said the
proposed privacy screens between the units are 6’6” high
prefinished metal railings with opaque glass, which they believe will
be adequate. With respect to the overhang at the rear, Mr. Staniszkis
agreed it would be worthwhile reducing it somewhat to introduce more light.
He noted they have worked very hard to screen the loading, garbage
and parking from the neighbours.
Mr. Staniszkis apologized for the absence of the landscape architect
and stressed that any questions the Panel have on the landscape plan
will be forwarded and appropriately addressed.
The applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Suggestions for the residential entry included enlarging the
entry lobby and differentiating the paving pattern and material treatment
to distinguish it from the commercial frontage;
• Increase articulation of the overhang (not necessarily reduce
it) to allow more light penetration below;
• Strong recommendation for an additional street tree on West
10th Avenue and to maintain a closer spacing of street trees if possible;
• Detailed suggestions included having the entries relate more
to the rhythm of the commercial frontages, and to consider relocating
the planter guard rails on the lane to the outside of the planter;
• Recommendation for early consideration of energy use reduction
through shading devices or reduction in glazed areas.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and generally found
it to be a handsome project. Several Panel members lamented the loss
of the Varsity Theatre and supported retaining the Varsity name for the
project as a gesture to the memory of what has been a major feature of
the neighbourhood for many years.
The Panel was generally satisfied with the proposed treatment of the
residential entry. One suggestion was to enlarge the entry lobby, and
another to differentiate the paving pattern and material treatment at
the residential entry to reinforce its distinction from the commercial
frontages. One Panel member also suggested the residential entry could
be tightened up to make the retail more dominant on the street.
With respect to the building expression on the West 10th Avenue frontage,
there was a recommendation for the four pilasters to be the same width
to reinforce the rhythm of the three bays, and to have a retail entry
door in each bay. Similarly, it was suggested the top floor units could
be reversed so that the rhythm of the three bays could also extend to
this level.
The Panel had no concerns about the proposed screening between units.
With respect to the overhang on the north side, the Panel generally
thought it should be left to the decision of the architect. There was
an observation that there may be an opportunity to open it to the sky
to introduce some light below.
The Panel strongly recommended introducing another centrally located
tree on the West 10th frontage, noting the gap was likely in response
to the theatre use. Likewise the three concrete planters were probably
related to circulation around the theatre entry and they should be removed
if possible. There was also a strong recommendation to consult with the
City with respect to general streetscape improvements.
A further suggestion for landscape improvement included better resolution
of the treatment of the planter at the lane, relocating the guard rail
to the outside of the planter to relate the planting more to the patio
rather than the lane. There was also a recommendation to consider more
substantial planting than grasses for the patios.
There was a recommendation to give early consideration to sustainability
issues, noting it could also be a strong marketing tool for the building.
Finally, the Panel questioned the current policy for all C-2 projects
to be reviewed, suggesting it is only necessary for the Panel to comment
on those which have areas of concern.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Staniszkis acknowledged the
Panel’s comments about the guard rail at the rear. He said they
have considered the issues and concluded that the glass is better located
on the inside, as proposed.
3. 350 Kingsway
DE: 409433
Use: Mixed (13 storeys)
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Acton Ostry Architects Inc.
Owner: 350 Kingsway Development Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Mark Ostry, Russell Acton, Shendoor Japavji, Don Vaughan
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-1)
• Introduction: The Development Planner, Mary
Beth Rondeau, pointed out some minor differences between the application
drawings and those in the presentation booklet. The changes relate to
the design of the public open space as a result of relocating the lobby,
and deletion of the curved top of the building and the townhouses.
Ms. Rondeau briefly described the site at Kingsway and East 12th Avenue
in the core Mount Pleasant area. Staff recognize that this site offers
some very good opportunities given it is also at the highest point of
Mount Pleasant and highly visible from many parts of the city. It was
noted the historic Lee Building at Main and Broadway characterizes the
period architecture of Mount Pleasant, and aspirations for the area include
a strong streetwall presence. The C 3A zoning allows an outright height
of 30 ft., relaxable to an unspecified maximum height. The guidelines
suggest a height up to 70 ft. to respect the height of the Lee building
which is about 78 ft. However, in considering the height and massing
in the area, Staff conclude that the Lee Building is more of a streetwall
building and that it would add prominence to this fast-evolving neighbourhood
to allow greater height than suggested by the guidelines. A number of
other developments have recently been approved above the recommended
guideline height. Ms. Rondeau briefly reviewed the height of nearby buildings
and noted that significant height is anticipated at the core of Mount
Pleasant.
The proposal is for a car dealership along the base on Kingsway, with
market residential above. The application requests an increase in density
from the outright permitted 1.0 FSR to the maximum 3.0 FSR. Proposed
height is 126 ft. The proposed site is currently two sites and the scheme
includes a corner public open space that will connect with the emerging
Wellness Walkway in the area. It is proposed that the lane which currently
bisects the two sites will be purchased from the City and closed. However,
the existing services beneath the lane will be protected by a right-of-way
agreement, allowing for it to be better integrated with the project without
being built upon.
In addition to the main question of whether the proposal earns the requested
height and density, the advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
• Whether the general layout and design of the open space triangle
at the 12th and Sophia intersection meets the challenge of providing
a very usable public outdoor space while providing an appropriate private
residential entry and access to parking for the residential and commercial
uses;
• Overall massing resolution, in particular the streetwall presence
and continuity of the massing on Kingsway, including axial views to the
north and south;
• Whether the proposed 126 ft. height contributes to the overall
success of the form of development;
• Continuity of street level animation and character, in particular
the character of the retail at street level and the relationship of the
retail uses to the street;
• Overall architectural character, particularly the residential
components and the townhouse expression and orientation.
• Applicant’s
Opening Comments: Mark Ostry, Architect, addressed the key elements
of the scheme and stressed the major distinction between this location
and
the central node of Mount Pleasant at Broadway and Main is its completely
different character because of the orientation of the streets. He noted
that a number of different forms and massing orientation were studied
before they concluded that the proposed scheme is optimal, particularly
with respect to residential livability.
Mr. Ostry briefly described the proposal. He noted that considerable
effort has been given to incorporating the lane into the project in order
to be able to create a more meaningful open space which ties in with
the wellness walkway. He also stressed that the owner/developer has a
major commitment to the site and intends to maintain a big presence for
the long term. He noted the provision of increased sidewalk width on
12th Avenue, as well as a street widening dedication. The project also
proposes high quality materials and design, and significant sustainability
features. Mr. Ostry added there is also a possibility of giving up some
of the currently proposed car display windows for smaller retail units
to improve the grain along Kingsway.
Don Vaughan, Landscape Architect, briefly reviewed the landscape concept
and the applicant team responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Further consideration should be given to the handling
of the public open space at the southwest corner of 12th Avenue and Sophia.
It needs to be reconsidered at a very conceptual level in terms of how
it sets up the residential entry and resolves everything that needs to
be taken into account;
• Greater attention should be given to the overall streetscape
including continuity of street trees along both 12th and Kingsway.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel strongly supported this application and had no major concerns
about the overall height and density increases. In general, the Panel
was confident that the increases can be earned provided the design of
the landscape components and detailed resolution of the corner public
open space can be proven out.
In general, the Panel thought the overall massing and siting of the
elements on the site were very well handled. The massing moves were acknowledged
to be somewhat unorthodox but rational and successful nonetheless. The
Panel considered the slab building to be very handsome architecture.
It was also agreed that this intersection is distinctly different from
Broadway and Main and it was noted that additional height at this high
point will also contribute to a more interesting city skyline.
The Panel’s main concerns related to areas below the podium level,
in particular resolution of the residential entry and relationship to
the open space on the corner. The residential entry seems weak and hidden,
needing to be expressed more clearly and better integrated with the residential
above, possibly bringing the residential expression down to ground level
to clearly differentiate the residential from the commercial podium.
The Panel generally found the corner open space to be too complicated.
The Panel was not convinced by the small sign at the corner of 12th and
Sophia. It was recommended that people should be encouraged to linger
and sit down in the open space. There were some questions about the berm
which, together with the trees clustered in front of the residential
entry, could raise CPTED issues. The addition of a water feature might
also be considered to provide a white noise buffer from the traffic.
Some Panel members also suggested reconsidering the nature of the lane,
possibly reintroducing a driveway which could contribute to creating
a stronger residential forecourt and provide for access to the garage.
It was strongly recommended that the whole approach to the corner open
space be reconsidered, including greater consideration of pedestrian
desire lines. It was noted the space could be both public and serve the
residents but it should first be perceived as an entrance to the residential.
Some Panel members also suggested reconsidering the nature of the lane,
possibly allowing it to remain as a paved surface to create a stronger
residential forecourt as well as allowing its use for access to the garage
and reduce the overall amount of paved area.
The Panel generally liked the massing of the townhouses on Kingsway,
with some concerns. There was a suggestion to use a more vertical and
residential expression to improve the long, low motel-like appearance.
One Panel member also thought the townhouse windows were less successful
than those on the tower because they seem to be hidden behind the masonry
element. There were also concerns about access to these townhouses which
is somewhat awkward and circuitous. Consideration should be given to
at least providing some weather protection, or consider relocating the
access off Kingsway, with some private space added at the rear. There
was also a concern expressed about how the corner component relates to
the townhouses with a suggestion that moving it up might improve the
relationship.
With respect to the streetscape there was strong recommendation for
continuation of the street trees, both on 12th and Kingsway. Street trees
should take precedence over signage, and any signage should be integrated
with the architecture. The existing street trees should also be retained
if at all possible. The possibility of including small retail units on
Kingsway was seen as positive by one Panel member although another Panel
member did not believe it to be very important given there is little
pedestrian traffic on Kingsway. However, a comment was also made that
while Kingsway is currently a harsh vehicular street, it will hopefully
not remain that way and every opportunity should be taken to enhance
the streetscape. The applicant was urged to liaise with the City on an
appropriate streetscape program. As well, one Panel member stressed that
the road dedication area should not be more asphalt.
There was support for the roof deck, with a recommendation to include
more planting.
The applicant was urged to give careful consideration to sustainability
issues, noting the large amount of glazing which is energy inefficient
and the black colour which produces radiant heat. One Panel member suggested
an attempt should be made to design a building that has no greater consumption
of energy and utilities than the existing site. LEED certification should
also be the goal.
Finally, a suggestion was made that adjustments are made to the model
to ensure it is the correct scale and the details are added before the
project is reviewed by the Development Permit Board.
• Applicant’s Response: Mark Ostry thanked
the Panel for the very good comments. He said there is no question that
they
will be incorporated into improvements to the project. Shendoor Japavji
also thanked the Panel for its positive comments. She stressed that
they are part of this neighbourhood and intend to stay.
4. RAV
Use: Transit Line
Application Status: Information Briefing
Owner/Applicant: RAVCO/In Transit
Review: First
Delegation: Edward Leflufy, Chris McCarthy, Allen Parker
Staff: Anita Molaro, Lon LaClaire
Anita Molaro, Planner, Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Transit Office, introduced
this information briefing session to bring the Urban Design Panel the most recent
information in the evolution of the RAV project. Ms. Molaro also acknowledged
the presence of two members of the Development Permit Board Advisory Panel who
were invited to this session.
Ms. Molaro briefly outlined the City’s role in the project which
is to provide advice to RAVCO and InTransitBC on issues relating to the
alignment, stations, station entries and connectivity. As well, each
of the station designs will be taken through a Design Advisory Process,
which is the typical major development application process of review
by the Urban Design Panel and the Development Permit Board, but for advice
only rather than approval since the stations do no require a development
permit. In addition to the Design Advisory Process around each of the
stations, City staff will be undertaking a precinct planning exercise
to ensure appropriate bicycle and pedestrian access, and dealing with
traffic, parking and other issues in and around the stations. Some of
the stations will also trigger a more intense review of land use, e.g.,
2nd Avenue Station, City Hall and ICBC Marine Drive.
The three principal City objectives are:
•
good connectivity for transit users and pedestrians;
•
to achieve station entries out of the street right-of-way, i.e., within
existing or future developments; and
•
where the alignment affects the Cambie boulevard that there will be no
net loss of green space.
Edward Leflufy, Consultant to RAVCO, referred to the presentation material
and provided some background related to transit design and the Design
Advisory Process that will commence this Fall. The procurement process
(financial close) is expected to be completed at the end of July 2005,
at which time RAVCO and InTransitBC will be fully in effect to begin
their work to design, build, operate, maintain and partially finance
the RAV line. Mr. Leflufy briefly reviewed the alignment of the Vancouver
portion of the RAV line, below ground from Waterfront to approximately
63rd Avenue and thereafter elevated across Marine Drive to an elevated
station at Marine Drive and thence on a bridge over the Fraser River.
Mr. Leflufy briefly described the roles of the various bodies involved
in the project. TransLink is the lead agency which created RAVCO as a
wholly-owned subsidiary to manage the procurement process through the
design period to opening day in November 2009, providing oversight of
InTransitBC’s work to ensure they meet the terms of the contract.
InTransitBC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SNC-Lavalin which will design,
build, maintain and operate the system.
The station design process was then briefly outlined including the alignment,
station design principles and system design and station identity, as
described in the presentation booklet. Mr. Leflufy stressed that the
access agreement between the City and RAVCO included a commitment to
public consultation and a series of public open houses was recently completed.
InTransitBC has identified six prototypical stations at a functional
level: elevated side platform, elevated centre, elevated single platform,
underground side, underground centre, and underground stacked. Of these
six only four apply to the Vancouver section: the elevated centre, underground
centre, underground side and
underground stacked. Over the next two months the intent is to determine
the functional plan for each station. This will be followed by overall
system design elements and station architecture, at which time the project
team will return to the Panel for further consultation.
Chris McCarthy, Manager of Fixed Facilities, InTransitBC, reviewed the
projected timeline for the process for a typical station. This process
is expected to begin in August 2005. Construction of the alignment will
begin this Fall and the main cut-and-cover construction will begin in
2006. The goal is to complete the design process on the critical path
stations by the end of this year so that the excavation work can begin.
The detailed design will proceed while the main excavation is being completed.
There will be further public consultation on the critical path stations
in mid to late September 2005, followed by further input from the Urban
Design Panel.
Mr. Leflufy advised that a schedule of packages will be developed this
summer, in preparation for returning to the Panel with more than one
station at a time, with the goal of completing the Panel’s input
within the tenure of the current members. Mr. Leflufy noted there is
also a community and business liaison program which also provides input
into the design process but focused more on construction and traffic
management issues.
There was some discussion about whether the Panel would have the opportunity
for a further review of the whole line. Mr. Leflufy said it was not the
intent but if the Panel wanted a further overview, this could be discussed
with staff.
In discussion about the bridge over the Fraser, the project team agreed
to provide information to the Panel on its design. It was noted, however,
that the bridge design is quite advanced and is part of the work that
begins this Fall. The constraints with the bridge involve river navigation
and air traffic. Ms. Molaro added that Marine Drive is a challenging
station with respect to the portal and impacts on the Cambie Street median.
It is also the only elevated station in Vancouver. She agreed it may
be worthwhile to bring this component to the Panel early in a workshop
session as opposed to a design conclusion.
In the question period that followed, the points and questions from
Panel members included:
Q: What was the criterion for selecting the location for the Broadway/City
Hall station?
A: RAVCO is working with the City to refine the functional plan. The
City is intending to demolish its property on the north side of Broadway
and the objective is to locate the station entry at the southeast corner
of Broadway and Cambie for future integration with redevelopment of the
site.
Q: What is the intended process for the stations proposed to be integrated
with future development?
A. Some may come forward as part of an integrated development, or clearly
set up to be part of an integrated development. Any commercial development
that is part of or in association with a station is subject to the City’s
conventional development process. It is only the transit facility that
falls under the Design Advisory Process.
Q: Is it intended to have an architectural review of the elevated guideway
supports and can the guideway supports for RAV be improved over the Skytrain?
There must be a way to make them not just appear as being expedient.
A. There is no question that some of the vertical profile and drainage
decisions made in the pre-build section of Skytrain (Terminal Avenue)
were less than satisfactory. The Urban Design Panel’s comments
would be very helpful around the portals of the RAV line and some of
these items could be brought to the Panel for advice in the Fall.
Q: Is RAVCO able to meet the City’s goal of no net green space
loss on Cambie boulevard, and how will the vents be expressed in the
landscape? Are there sustainable features apart from the sustainability
aspect of the transit line itself?
A: RAVCO has committed to obtain heritage alteration permits. RAVCO
commissioned a broader evaluation of the corridor from heritage, landscape
and urban design perspectives and have prepared the first draft of a
statement of significance that would guide the heritage alteration permit
process. No net loss is very achievable on the Cambie corridor. The approach
to tunnel ventilation is to have grilles at the sidewalk level which
have minimal visual impact. Stations themselves do not lend themselves
to a LEED-type accreditation process. Sustainability will be considered
for the stations, noting that except for the ancillary spaces, they are
not heated or air-conditioned.
Q: Is there any opportunity for energy conversation in the tunnels,
e.g., supplying geothermal systems to neighbouring buildings?
A: The re-use of water in the tunnels has not yet been part of the strategy.
One of the opportunities that might exist could be to re-use the water
for irrigating the median.
Q: Is there a reason for so many stacked platform type stations, noting
the CPTED issues of this type? It requires really good design to make
them work well.
A: The decision related to urban fit and protection of the boulevard,
noting the stacked tunnels result in a tighter footprint. Side-by-side
platforms result in a larger, less efficient station and footprint.
Mr. Leflufy thanked the Panel for the discussion and said some of the
issues will be further reviewed with staff.
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8.45 p.m.
|
