Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, August 2, 2006
Index
Present
1409-1477 West Pender Street
1808 West 1st Avenue
1100 Granville Street (Chateau Granville)
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Margot Long, Chair (Item 1)
Walter Francl, Chair (Item 2 and 3)
Nigel Baldwin (excused Item 2))
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
Tom Bunting
Eileen Keenan
Bill Harrison
John Wall
C.C. Yao
Regrets:
Albert Bicol
James Cheng
Peter Wreglesworth
Recording Secretary:
*Carol Hubbard, Raincoast Ventures
*The Recorder was not present at the meeting. These minutes were composed
from the audio recording and some notes.
1. 1409-1477 West Pender Street
DE: Rezoning
Use: Residential,
Retail, Live/Work, Restaurant
Application Status: Rezoning
Zoning: DD
to CD-1
Architect: Martin
Bruckner of HB/IBI
Owner: Reliance
Properties Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Jim
Hancock, Jennifer Stamp, Jon Stovell
Staff: Phil
Mondor, Ralph Segal
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (3-2)
Introduction: Phil Mondor, Rezoning Planner,
provided a brief overview of the context and background of the rezoning
application and noted the applicant sought public input at an open house
held in mid June. The site is located within the “Triangle West” precinct
of the Downtown District. In January 2005, the applicant applied to rezone
1409 West Pender Street to allow a 20-storey tower with access to parking
below grade from Broughton Street. However, the site was small with difficult
access arrangements and it proved to be unworkable. The development site
has now been expanded and encompasses the entire block.
The application seeks two residential towers on the site, which was
anticipated when Council approved guidelines for the block. The proposal
is for a 30-storey (340 ft.) tower at the westerly end, and a 15-storey
(160 ft.) tower at the easterly end, joined by a podium of live/work
uses with retail at grade. Requested density is 10.6 FSR. 6.0 FSR is
the maximum allowable in this district. The earlier rezoning application
sought 13.6 FSR. With respect to public benefit to be derived from this
application, Mr. Mondor noted the applicant owns a property in Gastown
(55 Water Street) which has a significant amount of heritage density
available for transfer to this site. Heritage density transfer is identified
as a major community amenity among the rezoning recommendations for consideration
by Council.
Ralph Segal, Development Planner, referring to the model, conducted
a review of the proposal and discussed the various options that might
be considered within the zoning and the guidelines. He identified the
surrounding buildings and described how the area has been developed to
date. He sought the advise of the Panel in the following areas:
• whether the massing (tower positions, proportions, street relationship)
achieves an appropriate fit with the surrounding context while minimizing
impacts of views, shadowing, privacy, etc.;
• whether the proposed height relaxation from 300 ft. to 340 ft.
is appropriate;
• whether the proposed zero street setback street edges are acceptable,
noting the guidelines call for 2 m. street setbacks;
• whether the proposed additional density (from zoned maximum
of 6.6 to 10.6 FSR) is satisfactorily accommodated on this site;
• appropriateness of the public realm interface.
Mr. Segal responded to questions from the Panel and noted that, in general,
staff consider the massing to be a very interesting form with a number
of positive aspects.
Applicant's Introductory Comments: Jim Hancock, Architect,
noted they considered five different schemes for the site but determined
this option caused less view obstruction and shadowing. Jon Stovell, Developer,
explained the heritage density is proposed to be transferred from two sites,
55 Water Street and 210 Carrall Street, both of which provide rental accommodation
and live/work uses in accordance with Council policy for Gastown and the
Downtown Eastside. He said they believe the design guidelines for the block
allow for a significant amount of density on the site and a large heritage
density transfer, in a way that is respectful of the neighbourhood. Jennifer
Stamp, Landscape Architect, provided a brief overview of landscape plan
and the applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
Panel's Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Mixed reaction to the height;
• Major concern with the separation between taller tower and the
neighbouring Dockside building although the smaller tower works quite
well in its context;
• Concerns that the density is quite tight, with some suggestions
that this could be mitigated by reallocating some of the density around
the site;
• Mixed opinions as to whether the requested density is demonstrated
to be earned, although given this is a very challenging site it has the
potential to be earned by the architecture;
• Strong support for the live/work component on West Pender Street
which could contribute to alleviating ongoing concerns about the loss
of commercial space in the area.
Related Commentary:
The Panel supported this application.
It was acknowledged that the scheme has some interesting sculptural
qualities and that the applicant has clearly worked hard to find a good
fit for the density on this very tight site. However, the Panel considered
that a lot more work and fine-tuning is needed to make it work successfully.
A comment was made that for a project that achieves the requested density
on a very narrow, challenging site, it is extremely well done.
The majority of Panel members thought the proposed height of the westerly
tower was supportable although some Panel members found it difficult
to assess because of the overriding concern about the tight relationship
to the Dockside building which the Panel found unacceptable. Compared
to typical tower relationships throughout the downtown, the separation
from Dockside seems too constricted and is the main detriment to making
this project a good fit in the neighbourhood. One Panel member found
the interface of the middle section to Dockside to appear “forced” and
not fitting well.
Most Panel members thought the 2 m setback requirement should be met,
notwithstanding the challenges of this very tight site. One Panel member
suggested it might be worth exploring robotic parking which would provide
greater freedom to move the core to the centre of the site and avoid
the high blank concrete wall on West Pender Street.
There were no concerns about the lower, easterly tower which was thought
to work well in its context. A comment was made that at the pedestrian
level this tower has a very nice relationship to the park and its prow
over the park is an interesting and compelling form. The applicant was
encouraged to highlight these good qualities of the scheme. The relationship
to the pumphouse plaza was also supported and it was thought that the
restaurant will help to animate and create an active street corner. More
work on the Pender/Nicola corner was also recommended, not as a major
public open space but as an important intersection in the city that includes
a large tower.
The live/work use units were strongly supported and it was noted they
seem to be genuine live/work with the potential for retail space at
ground level and an authentic townhouse above. This will contribute
well to street level animation. There was one suggestion to explore
making the townhouses more interesting by providing private internal
courtyards which allow good southerly light access and make them more
permeable from the street.
There was some concern about the loss of commercial space in the area.
While the increased residential use may be good for the neighbourhood,
the loss of commercial space is a challenge and affects the potential
for retail to work successfully. In this respect, the live/work component
of the project on West Pender Street is a very positive aspect of the
project.
One Panel member expressed concern about the livability of the units
on the north side of the westerly tower.
Although it was acknowledged that architecture is not generally a major
issue at the rezoning stage, the Panel thought it was an important consideration
for this site and this context. The requested density should be tied
to design excellence and more details and information are needed to demonstrate
to how the height, density and subtle relationship issues are resolved
and made to work architecturally. While the Panel thought the architecture
as shown could work, it is not yet proven out. There was a comment that
the pure form of the towers seems somewhat unrelenting. One Panel member
also found the architectural expression to be somewhat commercial, albeit
that the geometric strategy is very good.
The Panel was concerned about the requested density which seems to be
too much for the site. There was a suggestion to consider redistributing
some density from the taller to the lower tower while maintaining some
height variation.
A comment was made that while the Panel considers the project on the
basis of its architecture and urban design, the difficult issue of the
impact of the requested density on the surrounding neighbourhood must
rest with City Council. While public shadowing impacts are well handled
by this scheme, it does undoubtedly create greater private view blockage
than would occur without the bonus density.
Applicant's Response: Commenting on the loss of
commercial space, Mr. Hancock noted the scheme proposes 26,000 sq.ft. compared
to 43,000 sq.ft. prior to rezoning. He said the suggestion of earning the
additional density through the architecture is well taken and noted there
is opportunity to refine it at the next stage of development. Mr. Stovell
added, they recognize the livability issues with respect to the north end
of the westerly tower and are working with their interior designers to
shift the amenity space to that location.
2. 1808 West 1st Avenue
DE: DE410458
Use: Mixed
Use
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Nigel
Baldwin Architects
Owner: Wedgewood
Ventures Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Nigel
Baldwin, Ken Williams, Joy Rackley, Gerry Eckford
Staff: Mary
Beth Rondeau (for Dale Morgan/Vicki Potter)
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-1)
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development
Planner, presented this application in the C-3A zone at 1st Avenue and
Burrard Street. The proposal contains retail use on the ground floor
on both streets with five storeys of residential use above. There are
two levels of underground parking. An amenity room is proposed on the
second floor with a small associated outdoor space on the parking podium.
Careful consideration has been given to this site given its important
location in the city. Ms. Rondeau noted that a recently approved development
at 3rd Avenue and Burrard Street begins to provide a strong streetwall
along this prominent portion of Burrard Street and, at 5-1/2 storeys,
is higher than the 45 ft. suggested by the guidelines. The five storey
penthouse height of the subject proposal relates to the previously approved
development and seeks a similar height relaxation to a maximum of 65
ft. at the lane. This is supported by staff. The proposed massing also
responds to the City’s long term goal to create an “urban
room” around the “formal green” of Seaforth Park.
All roofs are actively or passively landscaped.
The advice of the Panel is sought on the requested height of 65 ft.,
noting the by-law indicates an outright maximum of 30 ft. to an unspecified
maximum and the guidelines suggest 45 ft.
Applicant's Introductory Comments: Nigel Baldwin,
Architect, reviewed the project in greater detail and responded to questions
from the Panel. He stressed the importance of the site and noted the
proposal is for a modest, six-storey brick frame building. The lane elevation
will be a visible façade and will have an east-west orientation.
The east elevation has punched openings, the south has overhangs and
the north elevation has balconies. The roofs are greened and/or provide
outdoor spaces.
Gerry Eckford, Landscape Architect, advised that a band of Japanese
Cherry Trees is proposed along 1st Avenue and some new trees will be
added on the Burrard Street frontage. The top of the building is a green
roof, fully functioning with all storage capacity and paver bands for
articulation. There are a number of roof top terraces with landscaped
elements to minimize structural screening between the units.
Panel's Consensus on Key Aspects:
• Support for the height, density and massing. The building will
create a good end to the park;
• Good massing transition to neighbouring C2B buildings and good
prominence on Burrard Street; and
• The residential entry could be emphasized more.
Related Commentary:
The Panel strongly supported this application and thought it was very
well handled. The proposed height and density were supported.
The Panel was very pleased to see this part of Burrard Street being
redeveloped and noted there is the potential for it to be a great pedestrian-oriented
street. As a gateway to the downtown the building makes for a good, strong
corner. It also fits with the character of the neighbourhood.
The project was thought to be very well handled in terms of its transition
from 1st Avenue to Burrard Street. The six-storey massing and masonry
frame on Burrard Street is a very appropriate response to the aim of
making it a more ceremonial street and it provides a good transition
from the three-storey forms on 1st Avenue with the use of glass elements
to separate and define the north and east elevations. There was strong
support for the horizontal expression of the south façade with
the more modern vocabulary overlooking the lane.
One Panel member had a concern about the relationship of the building
to the future character of Burrard Street. The applicant and the City
were urged to consider increasing the height by another three or four
feet in order to provide more generous ceiling heights in the CRUs at
ground level. It would also help the proportion of the building and provide
greater presence in response to the goal of making it a more ceremonial
street.
The Panel was pleased to see the building providing a good relationship
to Seaforth Park. There was a suggestion to make it more playful, although
another opinion was that it was nice to see a subtle building among the
disparate mix of buildings that surround it.
The Panel found the sustainability issues to be well addressed.
There was a concern from one or two members that the residential entrance
may be too subtle. It may be dark and unsafe at night. A canopy was one
suggestion put forward as an option to strengthen the entrance.
One Panel member expressed disappointment that the standard City street
treatment of concrete and concrete tree surrounds has not yet been revisited,
noting the latter does not encourage healthy tree growth. The typical
concrete material is also counter to the goal of making this a pleasant,
pedestrian-oriented street.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Baldwin thanked the
Panel for its input.
3. 1100 Granville Street (Chateau Granville)
DE: DE410542
Use: Modifications
to ground and second levels of existing 14-storey hotel
Zoning: DD – K3
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Relative
Form Architecture Studio
Owner: Best
Western
Review: First
Delegation: Abdallah
Jamal, Chris Sterry
Staff: Mary
Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (3-4)
Introduction: Mary Beth Rondeau, Development
Planner, presented this application to modify the exiting Chateau Granville
Hotel in the DD zone. The hotel is built to the maximum allowable 5.0
FSR. The proposal seeks to transfer heritage density to the site to enable
the open space at the corner to be improved with the addition of a restaurant
on the Helmcken Street frontage, with outdoor seating on Helmcken and
Granville Streets. The upper level conference area will also be slightly
increased.
Applicant's Introductory Comments: Abdallah
Jamal, Architect, briefly described the area context and the proposed
additions to the hotel. The Landscape Architect, Chris Sterry, briefly
reviewed the landscape plan and the applicant team responded to questions
from the Panel.
Panel's Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Retail for the ground floor is the preferred use but restaurant,
if well handled, is also supported as appropriate;
• Concerns about the compositional strategy and material selections
in relation to the existing building; the finer scale of the frame on
the Granville Street frontage may be at odds with the more massive scale
of the existing hotel;
• Recommendations to simplify the composition to relate to the
larger scale of the existing building.
Related Commentary:
The Panel did not support this application.
The Panel was very pleased to see this rather barren corner being improved
to introduce some much needed animation. There were no concerns about
reducing the existing plaza in order to bring some life to the corner.
Some Panel members thought the proposal was moving in the right direction
and supported the proposed restaurant spilling out onto the street. Retail
was thought to be a better choice but the Panel thought restaurant could
also be appropriate, if handled well. It was thought that more work was
needed on the indoor/outdoor interface of the restaurant on Helmcken
Street.
The treatment on Helmcken Street was generally supported. There was one
question about a possible CPTED issue relating to the indented Helmcken
entry which might provide unwanted refuge at night.
There were concerns about the Granville Street façade which was
generally thought to lack an appropriate scale in relation to the hotel.
The secondary entries to the restaurant and lounge seem to be somewhat
haphazardly located along Granville Street and further thought needs
to be given to the canopy, either underplayed or emphasized. In general,
the Granville Street façade was thought to demand a much bolder
statement to create a bigger presence on the street. It was also suggested
that the materials might not be congruent with the existing building.
The main concerns of the Panel related to the lack of a clear strategy
in the composition and how it relates to the existing building. There
seem to be two different vocabularies in the additions. There were concerns
about the material choices, e.g., the limestone is at odds with the existing
hotel, albeit not a great building. It was also suggested that a more
asymmetrical composition for the restaurant would be more appropriate.
The applicant was strongly urged to look at the expression and materials
and try to make it more sympathetic with the original building. The hotel
has a very strong geometry that should be responded to in form, scale,
detail and materials.
The proposal for the upper meeting rooms to overlook the atrium space
was strongly supported.
It was noted by one Panel member that the bus stop on Granville Street
seems to be a long distance from the check-in. It was also suggested
that the hotel entry on Granville could be improved by removing the existing
stair.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Jamal noted the location
of the bus stop on Granville Street is a City requirement. |
