Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Index
Present
2550 Maple (1996 West Broadway)
1252 Hornby Street
1022 Seymour Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Larry Adams, Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Robert Barnes
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
Marta Farevaag
Ronald Lea
Edward Smith
Regrets:
James Cheng
Alan Endall
Margot Long
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard, Raincoast Ventures
1. 2550 Maple (1996 West Broadway)
DE: 409749
Use: Mixed (6-storeys)
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Preliminary
Architect: Brook Development Planning & Abbarch
Owner: Staburn Property Group Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Laurie Schmidt, Mike Burton-Brown
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau, Dale Morgan
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (2-4)
Two letters from concerned neighbours were distributed and circulated
to the Panel for information prior to review of this application.
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented
this preliminary application in the Central Broadway C-3A zone. The site
is at the southeast corner of Broadway and Maple Street, close to the
Arbutus-Broadway shopping area. Immediate context includes an IGA grocery
store and a Government Liquor Store directly west of Maple Street. The
proposal includes a new Government liquor store on the ground floor which
will replace the existing store to the west. This will be a “Signature” store,
approximately double the size of the existing outlet. At the corner is
a two-storey high open entry area, and escalators at the front of the
building to access a proposed grocery store on the second floor. Residential
use is proposed for the third to sixth storeys. The project also includes
a 2,000 sq.ft. community police office which, while welcomed by Staff,
is not considered a factor in earning the requested height and density.
In the C-3A zone the outright permitted height is 30 ft. and outright
density is 1.0 FSR, which may be increased to about 70 ft. and 3.0 FSR,
provided certain criteria are met. This application seeks a maximum height
of 78 ft. and 3.0 FSR. Ms. Rondeau briefly reviewed the height and massing
suggested in the recently re-written Central Broadway C-3A Guidelines
and outlined how maximum height and density may be earned.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
• whether the requested increase in density from the outright
permitted 1.0 to 3.0 FSR is appropriate and has been earned;
•
whether the requested maximum height of 78 ft. is acceptable;
•
how the massing conforms to the guidelines and whether it is an appropriate
urban design response, particularly the relationship between the lower
and upper massing and its relationship to the neighbours across the lane;
•
the appropriateness of the glass roof and impact of the massing on the
sun angle.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Mike Burton-Brown,
Architect, reviewed the scheme in greater detail. He stressed that the
requested height is very important to the success of the building and
noted it is largely driven by the need for a certain height for the first
and second floor retail uses. They also believe the height is appropriate
in this location in order to achieve the presence and character they
seek as a gateway expression to the neighbourhood. Mr. Burton-Brown also
highlighted the corner entry area as an interesting and useful public
space, and the inclusion of a community police office which will help
to improve conditions in the area. He briefly described the landscape
plan and responded to questions from Panel members.
•
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• While the Panel considered that the requested height and density
can be achieved on this site, there were significant concerns about how
the massing has been resolved. Notwithstanding that this is a preliminary
application, there is need for extensive design development to reduce
its bulky appearance and the impression that the proposal is “pushing
all the envelopes”;
• Major design development is needed to the treatment of the lane,
particularly in terms of its relationship to the adjacent RT-2 Zone.
•
Related Commentary:
The Panel was unable to support this application. While some Panel members
suggested that sufficient design development improvements could be achieved
in the next stage of the design, the majority thought too much work was
required for it to be acceptable as a preliminary submission. The Panel
had no concerns about the requested height and density per se, but did
not believe they had been earned by this proposal.
The Panel had no concerns about the proposed uses. It was noted that
both grocery store and liquor outlet offer public amenity and having
them both in one building is not an issue. However, it was suggested
that having these uses on two levels may not be the best solution. The
community police office was not considered to be a significant addition
to the neighbourhood, nor does it contribute to earning the requested
density. It was also suggested that its proposed location on the site
in relation to the proposed new liquor store may do little to address
the conditions currently experienced around the existing liquor outlet.
It was noted that this building will be highly significant for the area
and it is important that the neighbouring RT-2 zone is taken into consideration.
The lane elevation feels massive and very much out of character with
its neighbours. Greater attention should be given to the parking entry
and the loading bays should be gated.
The Panel found the overall massing fairly clunky and presenting a form
that appears too high for its width. It also contains no important characteristics
of Kitsilano. While the regularity of the design is not an issue it seems
out of character for the neighbourhood. There were also concerns about
the lack of relationship between the retail and residential components
which seem very foreign to one another. The massing of the residential
superstructure seems too wide on Broadway and too deep on Maple. The
large cornice also seems to add to the sense of bulk and is out of character
with Kitsilano. As well, the sloping glass roof is an anomalous aesthetic
that fights with the heritage references of the residential component.
The proposed liquor store was thought to lack street appeal. Further
design development was also recommended to the canopies which add little
interest to the building as shown. It was strongly recommended that the
stairs and escalators be reworked, noting also that they do not contribute
to an interesting streepscape. Given that continuous retail has not yet
been achieved in Broadway, everything should be done to maximize interest
and activity on the street. Concerns were also expressed about the corner
entry area at Broadway and Maple and its value as a usable public space
was questioned. More needs to be done in terms of public space as a contribution
towards earning the requested increases in height and density.
With respect to landscaping, the Maple Street landscape treatment was
thought to provide good pedestrian amenity and the private amenity is
appropriately located.
The applicant was commended for inclusion of a sustainability strategy
in a preliminary submission, which is a very appropriate stage for its
incorporation into the design.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Burton-Brown explained that
it is intended to gate the loading bays. He said they believe the community
police office will improve conditions around the liquor store and provide
eyes on the street at Maple and the lane.
2. 1252 Hornby Street
DE: 409789
Use: Mixed (15-storeys, 70 units)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: GBL
Owner: 0719187 BC Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Stuart Lyon, Daryl Tyacke
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
•
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented this
complete application in the Downtown District, Hornby Slopes Sub Area.
The site has a frontage of 100 ft. It was noted there are no criteria
with respect to tower developments in relation to site frontage in this
sub area of the downtown. The proposal is for office use on the ground
floor and residential above. The application seeks 5.5 FSR (5.0 FSR plus
10 percent heritage density transfer) which is permitted in this zone.
The height of the building is 150.7 ft., noting the maximum 300 ft. is
not achievable on this site.
Areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought include its relationship
to the existing building to the northwest and to the future development
site to the southeast.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Stuart Lyon, Architect
noted this project has evolved through discussions with the City and
the applicant team and one of the major drivers has been to create a
building with a simple expression. He briefly described the proposal
and responded to questions from the Panel. The landscape architect briefly
reviewed the landscape plan.
•
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
The only minor recommendations were to reconsider the planting and integration
of the canopy on the Hornby frontage, and to reconsider the amount of
glazing in relation to energy consumption.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application. It was considered
to be an excellent, well crafted and interesting design.
The Panel found the landscaping and weather protection were not working
well together at the entry and recommended reducing the amount of planting
and increasing weather protection.
The Panel had no concerns about the relationship to the building to
the northwest, nor did it think the future development site would be
compromised by this building.
Another minor concern expressed by one Panel member was that the top
of the penthouse needs greater differentiation, finding it somewhat ordinary
for an otherwise expressive building.
One Panel member accepted the 6 ft. setback but found it somewhat troubling
because it creates a temporary condition.
An observation was made that while this is a beautiful looking building
it is lacking from a mechanical point of view. Reconsideration of the
amount of glass was strongly recommended to take into account livability
issues resulting from heat gain. Consideration should be given to the
addition of shading and spandrels.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Lyon thanked the Panel for the
feedback.
3. 1022 Seymour Street
DE: 409843
Use: Mixed
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: GBL
Owner: ONNI Development Corp.
Review: First
Delegation: Stuart Lyon, Chris Evans
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-2)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented this
application in Area 1L of the DD zone (Downtown South). At a width of
275 ft., this site meets the necessary criteria for a tower development
but the height is restricted by a view cone to a maximum of 166 ft. The
maximum overall tower dimension is 90 ft. The application seeks the maximum
permitted density of 5.0 FSR, plus 0.3 FSR heritage density transfer,
noting the full ten percent is difficult to achieve given the height
restriction.
The application proposes retail use on the ground floor on Nelson Street,
wrapping around onto Seymour Street. Office use is proposed on the first
three floors on Seymour Street. The remainder of the building is residential
use, including six townhouses on Seymour Street.
Areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought relate to the lane
elevation and the relationship of the development to the residential
building across the lane and the massing of the office space in relation
to Nelson Street and the lane.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Stuart Lyon, Architect,
briefly reviewed the design rationale, noting the tower location is largely
fixed on this site and the intent is to achieve an asymmetrical tower
form. He noted that the developer intends to accommodate its offices
in the building. He said they have no concerns about the width of the
retail space and think it will work. Mr. Lyon explained that the amenity
space will be programmed for the use of both residents and commercial
occupants of the building and will include fitness rooms. Chris Evans,
Landscape Architect, briefly reviewed the landscape plan and the design
team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to the lane elevation is recommended to address
concerns about the setback of the office from the lane; improvements
to the drop-off area including stronger integration into the building
and possibly adding a canopy;
• Stronger integration of the office building into the building
is recommended;
• A sustainability strategy should be investigated, noting that
having the owner’s business office in the building presents a unique
opportunity to pursue some interesting sustainability measures;
• Consider simplifying the building by reducing the number of
materials;
• The tinted glass as shown should be reconsidered;
• The location of the amenity and its glazing should be revisited
to investigate raising it to provide more eyes on the lane.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel supported this application with a number of suggestions for
further design development.
In general, the Panel found the building skilfully massed and expressed
and supported the “big moves” of the scheme. The challenges
of a view cone site were acknowledged and the Panel generally found the
project a good fit with its neighbours.
The inclusion of office use was strongly supported although its massing
creates problems, particularly at the lane where it is very unfriendly
to the neighbours. There was a suggestion than the second and third storey
office space should be reduced to make it livable. The expression of
the office component was also thought to be unproven, with concerns expressed
about the need for it to be better integrated into the building. The
proposed dark glass was also seriously questioned.
One Panel member was disappointed by the static nature of the tower
and suggested the balconies should be of equal size to strengthen the
form. With respect to the base, the single storey expression of the retail
and the way it wraps onto the lane was questioned.
There were concerns about the brick expression and in general the Panel
thought it could be put to better use on the building. The Panel generally
thought the building needed to be simplified and the number of materials
reduced from four to three.
The Panel was disappointed with the lack of response to the drop-off
and thought it should be strengthened in some way, perhaps adding a canopy
and bringing it closer to grade. There was also a recommendation to create
a setback at the lane and soften it with landscaping. Treating the amenity
to present eyes on the lane would also be helpful.
There were no concerns about the depth of the retail at 20 ft.
With respect to the amenity it was stressed that it will be important
to get some assurance regarding its shared use, otherwise it will be
necessary to include some good common outdoor space for the residents,
possibly on the 9th floor.
With respect to sustainability, it was noted that the project would
benefit from considering how the building will operate in the long term.
The lack of consideration for sustainability issues at the early stage
of the design is disappointing although opportunities still remain, noting
the mixed use and presence of the developer offer advantages for shared
energy. The need for attention to glass detailing was stressed to ensure
livability of the residential units. Thermal bridging might also be considered.
Applicant’s Response: Stuart Lyon thanked the Panel for its suggestions
which he said they will consider incorporating into the scheme.
The meeting adjourned at 7.00 pm.
|
