Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Index
Present
1323 Barclay Street
1055 Richards Street
525 West Broadway
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Alan Endall, Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Robert Barnes
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
James Cheng
Marta Farevaag
Ronald Lea
Margot Long
C.C. Yao
Regrets:
Larry Adams
Edward Smith
Peter Wreglesworth
Recording Secretary:
Debbie Kempton
1. 1323 Barclay Street
DE: 409286
Use: Residential (4-storeys)
Zoning: RM-5
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Matthew Cheng
Owner: Kallista Properties
Review: Second
Delegation: Matthew Cheng
Staff: Bob Adair
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, introduced this
application. Mr. Adair noted that this is a revised submission after
the original submission received non-support from the Panel on June 22,
2005. At that time the main issues that the Panel identified were the
streetscape and landscaping.
Mr. Adair said that the Applicant has addressed those issues. The slab
has been lowered in the front yard with a minimum of 2.5 ft. of soil
to enable planting in the front street. The Applicant has made an element
out of the balcony and porch structure below and expression of the balconies
has been taken into the expression of the building. As well, Mr. Adair
noted that identification of individual unit entries has been achieved
and the scale and visibility of the main entrance was addressed. The
stairs have been flipped from the original submission and now provide
a much more direct connection to the elevator as well as a more spacious
lobby. The main entry to the building is identified by means of a trellis
structure and staff want the Panel’s opinion on that.
Additional screening for ramp has been proposed. The exit stairs from
the parking garage turn into the common courtyard in the back for more
security and there are some raised planters and landscaping proposed
at the lane.
The areas in which advice of the Panel are sought include:
- Expression of entries as seen from the street for both the side entries
and the street fronting units. Comment on whether the trellising effect
is the best way to handle the side yard entry.
- Overall aesthetic of the building, materials and expression.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Matthew Cheng, Applicant,
did not have any comments for the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- further design development to better define and strengthen the entry
situation to the building including consideration of a more hierarchical
expression to the primary public entry, private entries to individual
units, and exit routes, etc;
- consider a stronger landscape edge and possibly raising and gating
the private yards of units fronting the street;
- design development to strengthen and define the primary entrance on
the east side yard to achieve a stronger differentiation from other entrances.
•
Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously did not support this application. The panel felt
that the overall expression is still too ambiguous and further simplification
would be warranted along with careful selection of materials and colors.
Several Panel members suggested careful consideration of the proposed
window patterning, particularly as it applies to livability, natural
light and day light between living and bedroom areas.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Cheng said that there are a
lot of comments from the Panel that he will take into consideration.
2. 1055 Richards Street
DE: 409696
Use: Residential (18-storeys)
Zoning: DD
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Rafii Architects
Owner: Cressey Richards Development Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Foad Rafii, James Patillo, Peter Kreuk
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
• Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, introduced this
complete application. Ms. Rondeau reviewed the site context in relation
to surrounding towers and explained that this block is close to being
finished which makes tower placement a particular consideration.
The proposal is for 18 storeys of all residential use on a site that
is constrained by a 165 ft. view cone. There will be a typical setback,
second row of trees and townhouses in relation to the street as per the
Guidelines. A small drop off area is proposed and parking access off
of the lane. There will be an opportunity for landscaping off of the
lane, which staff are always looking for. The spaces facing the lane
will be for amenity uses to keep the residential units off of the lane.
The tower floor plate in this proposal is approximately 6,300 sq. ft.
which is below the suggested maximum of 6,500 sq. ft. in the Guidelines.
The tower width however, is proposed at 97 ft. and the absolute maximum
tower width in the Guidelines is 90 ft. Noting that this site is constrained
by the view cone making it challenging to achieve the massing on this
site.
Areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought include:
- comments on the proposed tower width of 97 ft. given that it exceeds
the absolute maximum of 90 ft in the Guidelines;
- comments on the symmetrical approach to massing overall and resolution
of the tower;
- comments on the treatment of semi private open space as well as the
symmetrical treatment of street wall podiums;
- comments on the materials at street level and the appropriateness
of a softer, fine grain material and increase of masonry up to the podium.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Foad Rafii, Rafii Architects
Inc., noted that the extra length of the tower is an attempt to get the
allowable 5 FSR without having to go for an extra 10 percent of heritage
density. The design has tried to incorporate bigger slots to reduce the
apparent tower width. Peter Kreuk, Landscape Architect, reviewed the
landscape plan. The applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- further design development to the overall treatment of roof areas
on the 4th level including clear differentiation of the type of uses
intended;
- better interface of the north wall to the existing adjacent townhouses;
- consider lightening the overall exterior expression by using more
of the lighter wheat tones and less of the predominant darker brown color;
- consider introducing more textured and lighter coloured materials
at the street levels and possibly utilizing more of the masonry cladding
on the 4 storey podium.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and generally found
it to be well planned. Some members of the panel would like to see further
refinement of the heavy expression to the top of the tower and noted
that the stairs on top appeared “tacked on”. The majority
of panel members supported the extra tower width of 97 ft. given the
site constraints and the fact that the 90 ft. tower width is just a guideline.
There was also a majority of support for the symmetrical design although
a few Panel members commented that there could be some deviation from
the symmetry at the street wall podium adjacent to the existing townhouses.
Further refinement to break up the massing at the 3rd and 4th level was
also suggested by some Panel members.
The rationale for having the amenity spaces at grade was acknowledged;
however several Panel members were concerned that the spaces may not
receive as much use as they would if the indoor and outdoor amenities
were better related. One Panel member asked the applicant to consider
creating an opportunity for children to play in one of the proposed outdoor
amenity spaces.
Several Panel members expressed concerns about the proposed balconies
with one Panel member commenting that the balconies are visually interesting
but they don’t feel protected. Another Panel member suggested taking
the outer balconies around to the side of the building to soften the
look of the tower.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Rafii thanked the Panel for
their positive comments and said that he will respond to the Panel comments
and try to achieve as many of the items identified as possible. Mr. Rafii
plans to add more elements to the roof top and improve the programming
of those spaces.
3. 525 West Broadway
DE: 408752
Use: Mixed
Zoning: C-3A (3-storeys, 41 units)
Application Status: Complete after Preliminary
Architect: Busby/Perkins/Will
Owner: PCI Holdings Corporation
Review: First
Delegation: Peter Busby, Gerry Eckford, David Dove
Staff: Mary Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
•
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented this
complete after preliminary application. Ms. Rondeau noted that this is
an important site at the intersection of Cambie Street and Broadway.
This site is the location of a significant transit interchange adjacent
to the future RAV line which will run down Cambie Street, as well as
the future millennium line extension under Broadway.
This proposal is very similar if not the same as the preliminary development
application in terms of use. This is a large site with 3 streets and
no lane access. In terms of height, there are many view cones and view
corridors on this site so where you would expect to see significant height
at such an important corner it is not possible because of the view cones.
A change from the preliminary development application is the orientation
of the upper massing from east/west type shapes to a more desired north/south
massing which is closer to C-3A zoning intent to allow light and views
through from the north to the south. Beyond that we are looking at significant
design development and refinement to the building. One condition that
came out of the preliminary process was that the street interface is
important and the slope on Cambie Street, as well as all of the big retail
should be looked at carefully. The applicant has gotten the proposal
down to 2 driveway entrances with all vehicular access coming off of
West 8th Avenue. There will be glass display panels along Cambie Street
and the applicant has worked hard to ensure that those will be animated.
With respect to slopes on the site, the grade changes have been creatively
addressed.
There are a couple of issues on Broadway such as the treatment at the
corner with the slope. As you move into the site the slopes become such
that stairs are required. We are not looking for a big open space just
a really good street interface and resolution.
There is a significant setback area proposed on the street outside of
London Drugs which totals 40 ft. from the curb to the front of the store.
Staff are concerned about how well that space will function when the
retail is closed.
Ms. Rondeau summarized the comments from the Development Permit Board
at the preliminary development application review relating that the Board
generally thought that the street wall presence was too strong and there
were view issues related to the proposed massing.
Areas in which the advice of the Panel is sought include:
- comments on the street interface at the Cambie Street and Broadway
corner as well as the issue of the stairs;
- comments on the proposed setback on Broadway;
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Peter Busby, Busby Perkins & Will
Architects, briefly reviewed the scheme noting that they have separated
the building from the north to the south in response to the preliminary
development application comments. The view opportunities have focused
on the views out and maximizing the distance between buildings.
Mr. Busby stated that the entire project uses high quality materials
with the idea of creating a flowing horizontal pedestrian scale for the
building. The flush, no hands glazing coming out of the solid dark plate
at the Cambie Street and West 8th Avenue elevations will really showcase
what is in the building.
With respect to the proposed setback issue, Mr. Busby stated that the
applicant team feels strongly that it works with the anticipated crowds
for this high traffic area. He also notes that continuous rain protection
will be provided. In terms of signage, there will be graphic designers
working on a signage package as this application moves forward.
A canopy structure is proposed that includes glass over top and underneath
will have shaved wooden structures to form tree like structures that
will be like pieces of sculpture. These wooden structures also support
other canopy structures and serve to soften the look.
A green roof is being proposed with water collected on the roof and
absorbed, dispersed and used on site. The green strategy on this project
is at the developers lead with a commitment to pursue LEEDS certification,
possibly with a silver certification. A commitment has also been made
to use organic finishes, planting and green roofs.
Gerry Eckford, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans and
noted that he supports the applicant team’s notion that the setbacks
can be wider to accommodate the transit, commercial and restaurant users.
The applicant team responded to the Panel’s questions.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- consider widening the proposed stairs at the Royal Bank/Broadway corner;
- give careful consideration to lighting and signage as the design develops;
- suggestion to consider adjustments to the residential plan form to
enhance view potential and minimize overlook issues to adjacent buildings;
- recommendation to strengthen the identification and prominence of
the RAV station as design development progress and discussions continue
with RAV staff;
- recommendation to provide a better separation between the residential
entry and parking entry;
- RAV entrance is recessed and needs a stronger identity.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application with some lighting
concerns with respect to the proposed 40 ft. setback from the curb to
the front of London Drugs. In general, the Panel found this complex program
to be well resolved and well presented. It was felt that this project
will set a new standard for development on Broadway; especially with
the proposed 2 storey animation to the street. One Panel member stated
that London drugs windows are notoriously opaque and asked the applicant
to ensure that the windows are transparent and do not end up covered
up.
One Panel member stated that because this is such an important corner,
as a pilot project, the City should consider allowing the design team
to work all the way to the corner and not be sited by the Engineering
Department. Another Panel member stressed the importance of considering
weather protection for people as they move from the buses to the RAV
station.
There was a general consensus that the proposed streetscape is well
handled and that the landscape is well integrated. It was suggested by
a Panel member to consider planting at the curb where there isn’t
parking or bus stops; such as the use of boxwood hedge on Denman Street.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Busby thanked the Panel for their strong
support and said that he has been given some great ideas.
|
