Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, March 2, 2005
Index
Present
1752-60 West 3rd Avenue
1750 Davie Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Bruce Haden, Chair
Mark Ostry
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
Jeffrey Corbett (excused Item 2.)
Marta Farevaag
Ronald Lea
Margot Long
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin
New Members (NON-VOTING THIS MEETING):
Nigel Baldwin
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
Edward Smith
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao (excused Item 2)
Regrets:
Alan Endall
James Cheng
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 1752-60 West 3rd Avenue
Use: Mixed (2 storeys, 20 units)
Zoning: IC-1 – CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: GBL
Owner: Tasolini/Chetner
Review: First
Delegation: Tom Bell, Jonathan Losee
Staff: Grant Miller, Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)
• Introduction: Grant Miller, Rezoning Planner, presented this
rezoning application. The site is currently zoned IC-1. The rezoning
application is to allow the development of a mixed-use building with
commercial use at grade and ten two-level residential units on the second
and third floors. Proposed density is 1.36 FSR (1.0 FSR residential).
Parking is at grade, with access off the lane. The site falls within
the Burrard Slopes I-C District Interim Policies which allow development
of a maximum 1.0 FSR residential use in conjunction with commercial and
light industrial uses through a CD-1 rezoning. The intent is to allow
the introduction of residential uses to the area without unduly compromising
its downtown support services role while maintaining the existing small-scale
and architecturally varied character of the area.
Comments from the Panel are sought with respect to use, density and
form of development. The application complies well with the Burrard Slopes
policies with respect to use, density and height. Maximum permitted height
is 45 ft., the proposal seeks 37 ft. in three storeys. Staff have no
major concerns with the design but seek the Panel’s comments on
the residential interface with the street in terms of the frame elements.
It was noted that a project of this small scale is unlikely to be returned
to the Panel at the development application stage.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Tom Bell, Architect, briefly
reviewed the design rationale and the applicant team responded to questions
from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to the courtyard to enhance sunlight access
and livability of both the courtyard and private terraces. This should
include consideration of expanding the width of the courtyard and should
definitely including opening up the party wall where possible;
• Design development to enhance the entry sequence from the street
to the courtyard with respect to visibility, distinctiveness from the
retail, openness and safety;
• Consider increasing the usable outdoor private space for the
north block;
• Design development to street edge landscaping adjacent to the
building to better integrate it visually and functionally with the adjacent
commercial use, with consideration to future possible configurations;
• Design Development to the frame element.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application. There were no concerns
about use and density and the Panel thought the building would be a good
addition to the neighbourhood.
With respect to the form of development, concerns were expressed about
to the courtyard. Given the limited private open space elsewhere in the
building and the likely limited usability of the rear decks, the Panel
thought more effort should be put into the design of the courtyard to
maximize the sense of community with some common amenity space and to
provide more light access. Deleting some or all of the end walls of the
courtyard was strongly recommended. It was not thought to be a Building
Code issue. The courtyard was considered to be somewhat relentless at
its south edge. One suggestion for improving the quality of the courtyard
was to consider flipping the bedroom balcony on the upper units. As well,
there was a comment that the concrete walls in the north courtyard will
promote heat gain, affecting the livability of the top units.
The amount of usable outdoor space on the north block was thought to
be insufficient and the addition of roof decks, including opportunities
for gardening, was strongly recommended, especially on the north block.
It was also recommended to provide a greater connection between the
courtyard and the street to make it more inviting. There was thought
to be a good opportunity to create a gracious entry, playing down the
elevator in favour of an attractive exterior stair. Safety and security
should also be carefully considered in design development of the residential
lobby.
There were differing opinions about the frame element, although the
Panel in general agreed that it needed better resolution. One Panel member
thought the frame was gratuitous, another that it seemed neither one
thing or the other and needed to be either stronger or more integrated.
Another thought it was a legitimate architectural expression but needed
further design development. One Panel member questioned whether the frame
should be in steel rather than concrete to better reflect an industrial
character, and suggested the success of the frame in concrete might also
be difficult to achieve in such small dimensions. There was also a note
of caution that concrete frames tend not to age very well.
With respect to materials, the Panel stressed the success of the building
will be in its detailed treatment and how the various materials come
together. One Panel member recommended reconsidering the use of cementitious
board for the canopies, and to pay careful attention to the top flashing
to ensure a clean expression.
With respect to the landscape there was a suggestion the landscape architecture
is too residential in character. There were also questions about the
planting in front of the CRUs because it could interfere with the intent
if the units are for retail uses having display windows to encourage
passersby to look in. This should be clarified in design development.
There was also concern expressed that the CRUs do not provide much flexibility
for individual treatment of the units.
Finally, there was a suggestion that even a project of this small scale
should include consideration of sustainable design.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bell thanked
the Panel for the comments.
2. 1750 Davie Street
Use: Mixed (12 storeys)
Zoning: C-5 – CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Henriquez & Partners
Owner: Holyburn International
Review: First
Delegation: Rui Nunes, Paul Sander
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this application to rezone a C-5 site to CD-1 to permit the addition
of one storey of commercial infill in front of an existing residential
tower which is set back from Davie Street and also contains ground floor
commercial use. The proposal adds commercial space at the ground level
and the three residential units impacted by the addition will be converted
to storage and amenity uses. The existing building is currently non-conforming
and this proposal increases the non-conformity to 2.3 FSR (C-5 permits
2.2 FSR). Approximately 4,800 sq.ft. is being added by a transfer of
heritage density and the proposed new amenity spaces are excluded from
the FSR calculation.
The rezoning application is strongly supported by staff because it improves
the retail continuity on this part of Davie Street. The Panel’s
advice is sought on use, form and density. As well, comments are sought
on the strong horizontal element on the retail frontage and whether it
should be broken down, especially at the residential entry.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Rui Nunes, Architect, noted
that for a small increase in floor area they are able to repair the Davie
streetwall. He briefly reviewed the design rationale, noting the coloured
concrete frame expression and glazing are intended to reference the original
60’s building. The applicant team responded to questions from the
Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Review the entry with respect to CPTED concerns, visual differentiation
from the retail and the overall depth of public access;
• Increase the opportunity for a finer grain of storefront differentiation.
This could be within the context of an overall horizontal strategy and
could include consideration of stepping the canopy but should include
a comprehensive signage strategy;
• Enhance the rooftop detailing including detailed consideration
of plant species and patterning taking into account overlook from the
tower;
• Design development to the lane planter to improve durability;
• Include street trees if practical.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this rezoning application and thought
it achieved a good urban design objective for a very small increase in
density. The improvement to this section of Davie Street will be very
welcome.
Concerns were expressed about the treatment of the façade, although
one Panel member thought its horizontality was a legitimate architectural
response. However, most Panel members thought it should better reflect
the incremental nature the Davie Street frontage and be broken up more.
Design development was recommended to provide greater opportunity for
individual store expressions. One Panel member acknowledged the horizontal
element brings the two neighbours together but thought there could be
some articulation or change of materials at the entry. There were also
comments that the building needs to be more playful, warmer and more
inviting. One Panel member did not support reflecting the horizontal
banding of the 60’s tower in the commercial addition but recommended
considering it as two projects: a residential tower at the rear and a
streetscape urban design exercise at the front. Questions were raised
about the row of bamboo, which contributes to the monolithic appearance
of the building. More landscape details will be necessary at the next
stage of the design. Another Panel member questioned whether the bamboo
will achieve the crisp horizontality suggested in the illustrations;
some other plant material might be better.
Design development to the canopy was recommended, and to bring it down
to a level where it is more effective as weather protection. Signage
will also need to be carefully considered at the development application
stage.
The Panel had concerns about the residential entry, in particular with
respect to security because it will likely attracted unwanted overnight
guests as currently designed. Several Panel members suggested a courtyard
entry would be a better solution.
One Panel member questioned whether the back-illumination of the spandrel
glass would be successful, and stressed that careful attention should
be paid to the details in the way the glass joins the concrete.
Reconsideration of the planter in the lane was recommended, making it
bigger and replacing the fibreglass with concrete. There is also opportunity
to soften the rear parking deck to improve overlook from the tower.
Street trees were strongly recommended and the building should respond
to the Davie streetscape. There was a strong recommendation to relocate
the bus stop.
One Panel member questioned the livability of the centre residential
unit in the tower and suggested deleting this unit in favour of increasing
the size of the gym.
Careful attention should be given to the west wall
screening the outdoor amenity space to improve its livability. Attention
should also be given
to overlook of the commercial roof. Surface patterning or planting
should be considered.
Finally, there was a recommendation to consider replacing the boiler
in the existing residential tower because it is likely very inefficient
by current standards.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Nunes said they will look at
the grain of the façade and noted that stepping the canopy was
a consideration at the onset. He agreed that signage will be part of
the design development at the next stage.
|
