Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Index
Present
4463 West 10th Avenue
East Fraser Lands
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Alan Endall, Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Robert Barnes
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
James Cheng (excused Item 2)
Marta Farevaag
Ronald Lea
Margot Long
Regrets:
Larry Adams
Edward Smith
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao
Recording Secretary:
Debbie Kempton
1. 4463 West 10th Avenue
DE: 409912
Use: Mixed (4 storeys, 20 units)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects
Owner: Salient Point Grey Development Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Tom Staniszkis, Robert Fung, Scott Pettipiece
Staff: Dale Morgan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Dale Morgan, Development Planner, introduced this application
for a 4-storey mixed use development in the C-2 zone. Referring to the
model Mr. Morgan described the project, the site of which is currently
occupied by a single storey retail building.
Mr. Morgan reviewed the intent of the C-2 zoning and the material palate
that is being proposed. He noted that parking and loading access will
be off of the lane.
Areas in which the Panel advice is sought include:
–
Comments on the lane elevation and how the building meets the ground
at the lane side. Issues around the open stair, CPTED, service issues
and combined loading and parking entry;
–
Treatment of the party walls and sidewalls;
–
Retail frontage and streetscape and how they fit the rhythm of the building
above;
–
Comments on the roof top amenity viability and shared space. The importance
of the roof top outdoor amenity considering the potential view impact
and accessibility issues;
–
Comments on sustainability and how it can be addressed.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Tom Staniszkis, Architect,
addressed the Panel and briefly reviewed the scheme. Mr. Staniszkis noted
that a sustainable feature of the project is its location on a transit
route and within a shopping area that residents can walk to. As well,
the amount of parking on-site has been reduced, as part of the C-2 zone
parking relaxation, in anticipation of residents walking, biking and
using transit.
Mr. Staniszkis described the proposed materials. With respect to the
issues identified by the Development Planner, Mr. Staniszkis questioned
the viability of taking the elevator up one more floor to create wheelchair
accessibility to the deck. He said that the plans don’t lend themselves
to having individual stairs accessing the roof deck either. In terms
of loading, Mr. Staniszkis said that they are trying to take advantage
of the grade to enable loading as close to the commercial as possible
and the garage entry as low as possible. With respect to security issues,
Mr. Staniszkis agreed that further comments on the rear stair and fence
may be useful. There is some potential to raise the landing up which
would result in the planter being raised or removed completely. Mr. Staniszkis
felt that the retail streetscape had a strong horizontal band and the
change in materials was intended to be a separation. He said that he
wanted to allow flexibility in the store fronts and did not want additional
columns.
•
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
– Strong recommendation to delete the cage/fence by the exit stair
and get the landing up higher;
– Consider providing more relief to the lane elevation in terms
of notching and more vertical emphasis;
– Consider making the roof terrace accessible;
– The roof area needs more structured planting, furniture and
services;
– Reconsider the lobby for the residential component.
• Panel’s Comments:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and felt that in terms
of sustainability the applicant had gone as far as they could to address
sustainable aspects. There was general consensus that the minor issues
of the lane interface were solvable and the Panel liked the parking separation
from the loading. The Panel also felt that approaches described to address
the party wall/sidewall treatments were adequate.
In general the Panel supported the retail frontage and scale noting
that it had been well handled considering the slope of the site. There
was strong support to take the elevator access all the way up to the
roof deck; however the Panel clearly said that decision was up to the
applicant team.
• Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Staniszkis thanked the Panel for their suggestions and said that
the applicant team will endeavor to meet those comments.
2. East Fraser Lands
Use: Mixed
Application Status: Official Development Plan
Architect: James Cheng/Duany Plater-Zyberk
Owner: Parklane Homes
Review: Second
Delegation: James Cheng
Staff: Matt Shillato
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-1)
Introduction: Matt Shillato, Planner, introduced this proposal and provided
some background noting that the Panel had before them a formal Official
Development Plan submission for consideration. Mr. Shillato said that
there has been considerable refinement to the proposal since the workshop
in October 2005. He said that retail layout and marine frontage have
been well addressed and staff are not seeking Panel advice on those two
aspects.
Areas in which advice of the Panel are sought include:
–
Overall massing strategy for the property and specifically tower locations
and clustering, tower heights and impact on views;
–
Comments on the relative merits of the dish versus dome versus twin peaks
configuration;
–
Comments on the scale and massing of riverfront blocks which were identified
earlier as being long and relentless. Comments regarding the permeability
and pedestrian views to the riverfront;
–
Size and massing of the larger central blocks, either side of High Street
and in the east neighbourhood;
–
Commentary on the eastern most greenway (Avalon Park) and its potential
success as a north/south linkage. How the massing of buildings fronting
that space contributes or not to open space and the relationship of that
linkage and greenspace to the community gardens and whether that is successful
or not.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: James Cheng, Architect,
provided a broad overview of the proposal and the applicant team response
to the previous Panel comments. He said that the whole project works
in three zones: Marine Way, Kent Avenue and the shoreline. Mr. Cheng
said that the applicant team has interpreted the site and distributed
the FSR based on topography changes, rather than being rigid.
Mr. Cheng described the connections to the community and the eco corridor.
All anchor retail has been pulled to the centre of the project to form
a vibrant High Street all the way to the water. The town square has increased
in size and the community centre provides another anchor. The waterfront
zone will be a productive and sustainable zone with the introduction
of islands, wetlands and restoration of the natural environment.
Mr. Cheng said that the towers have been grouped so that views to the
river are preserved. The towers are also thinner to allow for more views
through the towers and by concentrating the towers the views and flight
paths of the songbirds were preserved.
Each block has a neighbourhood park and all of the tall buildings have
been kept out of the greenways. In terms of organization and patterning,
the idea is a softer revelation of views with the plaza view set to Mount
Baker.
There will be a community garden with the idea of allowing the growth
of foods or an urban orchard. This will be kept separate from the park
because most community gardens develop their own character and features.
The public art for this project will be used as an enhancement of the
sustainable features such as using the storm water within the greenway
to create a public art piece that also serves a function.
The Landscape Architect described the public realm and open space noting
the balance throughout the site of human use and wildlife habitat. The
introduction of water channels and perched wetlands is being proposed,
as well as a sanctuary island which will not be accessible for people.
There is a songbird strategy and connectivity to Ever Crowley Park. There
is also a more urban zone, a historic reference to the old mill and then
traditional Vancouver park space that will be flexible for soft or hard
landscape use.
Mr. Cheng concluded by stating that the applicant team has tried to
create a variety of housing types and open spaces. He said there have
been challenges with the north/south roads and the limitation of only
four railway crossings.
• Panel Consensus:
– All major pieces are in the right places and in general a very
thorough and thoughtful approach and progression to how the plan has
evolved;
– In terms of overall massing and tower location there was general
support and comfort with the overall massing. There were no particular
issues with the proposed clustering; however there was some concern and
discomfort with the heights of the towers. It was not a case of the dish
versus dome configuration but more a case of what is working;
– With respect to the riverfront blocks there was some concern
about the scale and a discomfort with the proposed 6-storey scale. There
was a feeling that there should be a maximum of 4-storeys for those blocks
and the massing should be broken up;
–
The blocks on either side of High Street have improved significantly
since the last workshop. The east/west smaller scale pedestrian oriented
walkway is working;
– In the western neighbourhood there was general commentary about
the workability of the massing of individual buildings. Testing of plan
layouts is warranted;
– In the eastern most neighbourhood there was general consensus
that it needed to loosen up and be reviewed in general to be more in
keeping with the character of the other areas of the site;
– The eastern greenway is working; however the weak link is the
northern portion adjacent to the playing field. The natural character
and pedestrian aspects of the greenway should be prioritized over the
playing field. Strengthen the north/south connection.
• Panel Commentary:
The Panel supported this application and felt that the project was at
the point where there was a solid foundation to begin examining in more
detail the massing, density, livability etc. The Panel felt that this
was an exciting project and a lot of consideration had gone into it.
One Panel member questioned the livability on Marine Way.
There was support for the community garden and it was felt that the
connection was working. Several Panel members suggested reflecting the
character of the rail line in the community garden and one Panel member
suggested making the garden larger. A Panel member supported the street
patterns and layouts, noting the less formal layouts were working really
well. It was also suggested that, to create more variety, not all of
the streets need to be entirely lined with street trees.
It was felt that the building shapes may be too simplistic and might
be more interesting if they were of a smaller scale. In general there
was support for the density, which seemed appropriate in terms of the
form of development.
One Panel member suggested that the applicant give strong consideration
to a separate bike route for cyclists. The Panel strongly supported the
waterfront/foreshore experience and variety. It was suggested that the
transition from Kerr Street should be seamless with an opportunity for
more than just one project meeting another.
Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Cheng thanked the Panel for their comments and said there is room
to improve this project.
|
