Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Index
Present
1070 West Broadway
Southeast False Creek
688 East 17th Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Walter Francl, Chair
Margot Long
Nigel Baldwin
Albert Bicol
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
Tom Bunting
James Cheng
Eileen Keenan
John Wall
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao
Regrets:
Bill Harrison
Recording Secretary:
D. Kempton
*
Carol Hubbard
* Not present at the meeting. Minutes comleted from audio recording.
1. 1070 West Broadway
DE: 410287
Use: Mixed-use
residential
Zoning: C-3A
Application Status: Complete
Architect: GBL
Owner: Redekop
Homes Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Amelia
Brudar, Peter Kreuk
Staff: Dale
Morgan, John Greer
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-1)
• Introduction: Dale Morgan, Development Planner,
presented this complete application in the C-3A Central Broadway district.
Mr. Morgan advised that the application proposes a conditional density
of 3 FSR plus a 10% transfer of heritage density for a total of 3.3 FSR.
Mr. Morgan described the surrounding site context, noting that the 1000
block of west Broadway is a mix of older low-rise commercial buildings
with recent approvals of mid-rise structures.
Mr. Morgan reviewed the Central Broadway C-3A guidelines with respect
to massing and height. He noted that the proposal meets the 80 ft. separation
requirement and staff support the proposed tower height, which exceeds
the maximum in the guidelines, in order to achieve thinner massing for
less impact on the street and to reduce shadowing on Broadway. Mr. Morgan
described the proposed massing and materials and also described the landscaping
treatments.
The Panel advice is sought on the following:
•
Comments on the height considering that at 125 ft. it exceeds the guidelines;
•
Overall massing and architectural treatment of the building;
•
Comments on the base expression and treatment;
•
Whether the retail should be more continuous and the residential entry
less wide;
•
Comments on the interface between the loading bay and the adjacent amenity
space.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Amelia
Brudar, Architect, referred to the model noting that the design attempts
to minimize the impacts of views from 10th Avenue and also the overshadowing
of Broadway. Ms. Brudar advised that the commercial component is broken
up by the residential courtyard and water feature in order to minimize
the sound of traffic. Ms. Brudar described the materials that are proposed
and also some of the sustainable features that will be incorporated.
Peter Kreuk, Landscape Architect, briefly reviewed the landscape plan.
The Applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
• Summary of Panel’s Consensus Needing Improvement:
•
Concerns about the lack of specific landscaping details given the absence
of a detailed landscape plan in the review package;
• Concerns about the expression of the second floor of residential
above the retail component;
• The west retail units is a solid wall with no opportunity to
animate that space;
• Concerns about the livability of some of the narrow units;
• Consider introducing some screening or a trellis element between
the loading and amenity room and suites;
• Concerns about the integration of the massing and base of the
tower at the upper courtyard level;
• Consider continuous weather protection.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel supported the massing, height and position of the proposed
tower. The Panel felt the application was well put together and would
benefit from further details on the retail and tower interface on the
upper base and a sense of richness in details that are missing from the
drawings; particularly the appearance of the second floor residential
units.
Due to the absence of a detailed landscape plan in the review packages
it was requested that the two Landscape Architects on the Panel be sent
plans and then after review they would forward their issues as an amendment
to the minutes. The Panel asked the City staff to be diligent in reviewing
material submissions before they are circulated to ensure that all of
the materials are included in the review package.
Several Panel members expressed concern about the width of the residential
opening into the courtyard. It was suggested that a more consistent street
wall and expression on Broadway might be more successful with a smaller
residential courtyard entry and a minimal setback from the street. It
was also suggested that the back edge of the courtyard could use some
form of stepping or landscaping to soften the edge. One Panel member
suggested making the residential courtyard a public space.
With respect to sustainability, the Panel felt that the sustainable
contributions were minimal. The original scheme to reduce west and east
façade areas was supported as well as creating opportunities for
cross ventilation. A Panel member expressed concern about the amount
of glazing on the building and lack of shading opportunities on the south
facing glass.
• Applicant’s Response: Ms. Brudar thanked
the Panel for their comments.
2. Southeast False Creek
Use: Mixed-use
Residential/2010 Olympic Athlete’s Village
Zoning: Rezoning
Application Status: Workshop
Architect: Millennium
Owner: City
of Vancouver
Review: First
Delegation: Stu
Lyon, Paul Merrick
Staff: Karis
Hiebert, Scot Hein, Jody Andrews, Ian Smith
EVALUATION: WORKSHOP
• Introduction: Scot Hein, Planner, presented
the South East False Creek Olympic Village workshop, noting that the
formal rezoning submission is expected in mid-August. Mr. Hein highlighted
the differences between this proposal and the ODP.
Jody Andrews, South East False Creek Project team, introduced the project
and the overall scope and context. Mr. Andrews said this workshop will
focus on sub-area 2A with Millennium identified as the developer. Mr.
Andrews noted that there are two aspects to this project, one is to deliver
a permanent sustainable community and the other is to deliver the buildings
in time for November 1, 2009 to meet the needs of the Olympic Village
for 2010. The Olympic Village will house 2,800 athletes and officials
and therefore the project has a fixed timeline.
Ian Smith, Manager of Development for the South East False Creek precinct,
noted the changes to the site in the last two years from the tower and
podium scheme into a low to mid-rise form as well as restructuring the
site and adding a road to allow for development closer to the water for
a more active water edge.
Originally the scheme for one large park has now been divided into three
parks around three distinct neighbourhoods. Mr. Smith advised that the
heritage buildings on the City lands will remain in place as opposed
to the original plan which consolidated them in one area. Mr. Smith said
that the parks need to be strongly defined, the Salt building should
be respected as a significant heritage building and there is also a very
important public component on the site. He noted that significant progress
has been made and the work thus far has received unanimous support from
City Council at the Public Hearing stage. In terms of sustainability,
Mr. Smith advised that these buildings are likely to achieve LEED Gold
standard.
Margot Long, Landscape Architect, briefly described the open space plan
for the site noting that the buildings will frame the open space rather
than set the framework for the open space. Ms. Long said there are approximately
26 acres of park on the site.
Ms. Long said the heritage stories of the area will help to inform the
character of the open spaces. The streets and open spaces will also take
into consideration sustainability. The streets will be narrower which
will result in a narrower public realm. Consideration is being given
of how to animate the streets and retain street trees.
With respect to the public realm, Mr. Hein said there are a number of
layers relating to commemoration, heritage referencing and the opportunity,
in the private realm, to express patterns. He advised that programming,
particularly of the Olympic plaza space, is being designed for uses beyond
the Olympic period, such as farmers market stalls etc. Mr. Hein advised
that the authors of the public realm, Stantec Architecture and PWL Partnership,
received the top Urban Design award this year.
Mr. Hein asked the Panel to focus their commentary on use, density and
form of development at this workshop stage, as well as the question of
character. One of the key questions for the Panel at this stage is the
location of the food store, with two options currently presented. Mr.
Hein asked for specific advice on the proposed heights given the affordable
housing strategy. He said it is very important that the architecture
is sound and that the plaza and parks are strong.
Mr. Hein advised that there is a desire to develop this part of SEFC
without design guidelines and to use the advice of the Panel at the Development
Permit stage to seek out the quality. The rezoning submission should
include general strategies for planning of the site, form, and massing
and design character. Mr. Hein said there will be general adherence to
and compliance with the ODP intent.
• Applicant’s Comments: The
applicant said there are significant challenges in terms of the timing
of this project and delivering the project in a timely manner.
Stu Lyon, Architect, noted that the process is ongoing and the layout
is constantly changing. He said a lot of work has already been done to
establish the parameters, edges and street alignments. The public realm
and streets were established first and now the architects are beginning
to work the sites. He advised that the model represents the densities
and arrangements of massing for the site.
The applicant team described the project in greater detail and responded
to questions from the Panel.
•
Panel's Commentary:
In the question period that followed, the points and questions from
Panel members included:
Q: How much latitude is there?
A: There will be some tweaking given the aspirations for double fronting
units and townhouse units. The scale of the buildings surrounding the
plaza and Salt Building is not set; nor is that of the affordable housing
buildings. There is the opportunity for refinements to the buildings
that are below the maximum height.
Q: How will this play out architecturally? Is there a vision for the
vocabulary, consistency, colour, materiality or degree of similarity
at the conceptual level?
A: An attempt is being made to differentiate and tighten the public
armatures and streets and consolidate space and focus on the square and
water. There is a fundamentally different way of seeing the urban pattern
settlement. Typically the city is made up of 66 ft. wide roads and streets
with lanes that bisect and negate the opportunity to create the things
that we can here. Images of the shipyard circumstance that used to exist
and images of False Creek and how it has evolved are being considered.
A fundamental factor inherent in the design is the value of dwellings
that are created. This will be a place where you can live and not have
to go outside the precinct or neighoburhood for services. It is also
a place that people from other neighbourhoods come to, a place to be
in Vancouver and enjoy the delights of the particular neighborhood.
Some similar characteristics might occur at the base that begins at
the street, permeability, and accessibility. The ODP differentiates where
that happens. The design will be driven by the demands of the building
to be a habitable and sustainable environment. Some the issues that need
to be considered are sunlight, south facing versus east, west or north
facing, outlook and views.
The building expression is born out of good passive performance and
design. There is a desire to achieve vertical circulation which will
help with ambient light at night. There is some reiteration of west coast
modernism. Staff expect to see high quality materiality, detailing and
the use of sustainable materials such as wood in the material palate.
Q: Approximately 70,000 sq.ft has been identified for retail space,
what does the consultant think the capacity is?
A: The food store will be approximately 22,000 sq.ft. but in terms of
neighbourhood retail the remaining amount is in excess of what is sustainable.
Q: What is the mandate for the Salt Building and what is accomplished
in moving the Salt Building back?
A: Council has not specified the use of the Salt Building. It needs
to link to the community and there is a retail strategy to create a level
of activity and interest. Part of the concern is that the uses are heading
more in the direction of public uses versus retail uses.
Streetscape:
- The east/west streets are compromised streetscapes, especially at 1st
Avenue.
- 1st Avenue is losing definition, it needs more variation of height
and the park space is also losing definition. Higher buildings cause
a loss of quality to the park space.
Forms, Massing and Density:
- The forms on the edges feel like stubby vertical buildings and have
been developed to avaid a design driven by the corridor alighnment.
The physical living environment is intriguing.
- Try to achieve more density up and towards the waterfront.
- Have to be true to the building form determined by the ODP.
Character:
- Like the character images.
- This is a working class area and the buildings should be functional
and not pretentious.
Sustainability:
- Want to see a visual sustainable response.
- Important to follow through with sustainability.
- Very hard to express sustainability on east/west facades.
- Mini elevator access is good from a sustainability standpoint.
- The biggest and most repeated building block for the scheme is questionable
in terms of sustainability. It does not seem to get anymore daylight
or through ventilation and will be reliant on electrical energy.
- 70-75% of the buildings seem to be east/west oriented which is not
in keeping with sustainability. Consider having more north/south oriented
units.
- Consider the roof tops and how they will be used from communal and
private standpoints. Aside from the podium levels are the roof tops going
to be useable?
- Consider how to use the roof tops in a variety of ways versus making
them all green roofs. Some of those ideas might drive the building forms.
Grocery Store Location:
- Consider creating corner stores to encourage people to walk instead
of driving to just one large store
- A coffee store would create the same level of activity for the plaza
as the food store would; therefore the food store could be located in
either proposed location.
- From an urban design point of view the grocery store will generate
traffic and would be better located at the northwest corner than in the
residential core.
- Prefer grocery store loading to happen out in the open the way it is
done in Europe
- Would prefer to see the grocery store located on the biggest open space
and have as much retail activity off of the plaza as possible.
- Having small retail on the square instead of a large food store will
animate the square more. Granville Island is an example of single fronting
retail that works well.
- The grocery store works well in both proposed locations.
The Applicant indicated that their preference is to locate the grocery
store on site 9 for an ideal interface with other uses.
Salt Building:
- The Salt Building should remain where it is.
- Concerned about the relationship of buildings to the Salt building.
Find a form that doesn’t destroy the scale of that.
- Salt building needs to be animated.
Miscellaneous:
- There is a lot of material to consider and it is still not clear whether
the layout is working. The question of formality or informality remains.
There is a good opportunity here for high quality development, a funky
chaos and experimental feel.
- Concerns that the SEFC developments are falling short of the promises
and becoming similar to developments elsewhere in the city with shorter
buildings designed around views and glass.
- There shouldn’t be any retail until a retail plan is completed
that deals with the demand of the neighbourhood and what amount of retail
is actually needed.
- The buildings fronting either side are a part of the major public spaces
and the area in the middle is a jewel and creates a unique precinct in
the middle. I like how fundamentally different it is.
- Have more rigor with the plan, you are losing the small “f” formality.
Rigor will be the backbone that will generate a wealth of images.
- Concerned about the 4-5 townhouses because they don’t appear
to be very wide. They should be two storeys.
- The bookend scheme seems like two different languages that are fighting
each other. The bookends are becoming relentless; some variation in height
would relieve that.
- Front Street could have more mass. Consider a stepped unit with two
storey townhouse and narrow depth would still give good sun penetration
and also enliven the scheme.
- The massing is going in the wrong direction in terms of sustainability,
urban form and legibility.
- Like parcel 11 and the fact that it is broken up and is three buildings
now.
- The end buildings need to be bigger or move them back into the view
corridor. It can’t always be reinforced that every time you look
down the street you see the water.
- Some of the linearity to the north/south buildings slab form is missing.
- The buildings need to work together and right now they are separated.
Consider how you take different land uses and make them work.
- Like that access to the waterfront sites is off of the front rather
than at the ends of the streets. This is a strong move and is better
for frontages on the ends of the buildings.
- There is a lot of residential and commercial use and nothing in between.
The in between is what will make the neighbourhood unique and special.
Flex space will help to give a varied street experience.
- The whole scheme has the same unit types, consider a greater variety
of unit types.
- Concerned about the possible tendency to repeat typology across the
site. Take advantage of the opportunity to create a variety of expressions
and experiments on this one project. Get the massing and character in
place for the rezoning and then consider bringing more architects on
board to add variety to the design.
3. 688 East 17th Avenue
DE: 410111
Use: Mixed-use
residential
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Cornerstone
Owner: Mason
Sewing Machines
Review: First
Delegation: Scott
Kennedy, Andreas Vargas
Staff: Bob
Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (0-6)
• Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner,
presented this complete application in the C-2 zone. The site is located
at the southwest corner of 17th Avenue and Fraser Street, about a block
and a half south of Kingsway. The site is 158 ft. x 122 ft. Mr. Adair
briefly described the site context and noted this is the first major
C-2 development application in this part of Fraser Street. One the challenges
of the site is that that the water table is very high, limiting the depth
of excavation.
The proposal is a four-storey mixed-use building, commercial at grade
with three floors of residential above. The main residential access is
off East 17th Avenue. There are also two ground level units further west
on East 17th Avenue which have individual street access. Parking access
is from the rear lane. Total FSR is 2.49, 2.5 FSR being the maximum permissible.
However, the upper level parking is counted in FSR because it is above
grade which was necessary to deal with the high water table. Proposed
materials are a combination of brick, hardi panel and hardi siding. Staff
generally support the proposal conceptually given the site constraints
and seek the advice of the Panel in the following areas:
• Relaxation of the rear year setback on the fourth floor level.
The requirement is for a 35 ft. setback and the proposal seeks 30.5 ft.
for part of the building, adjacent to the single family house across
the lane;
• Overall architectural expression of the building, particularly
the Fraser Street elevation and the detailing approach to the fourth
floor, including materials, glazing expression, and resolution of the
roof overhangs which are consistent on all sides of the building;
• Residential entries, both the main residential entry on 17th
Avenue and the individual entries further west.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Scott
Kennedy, Architect, said the biggest concern with the site is the high
water table and how to create enough parking to achieve a viable building.
He briefly described the proposed parking arrangement which is to set
the whole building face back at the ground floor to create a paved parking
court which accommodates two disabled stalls. Trelliswork and landscaping
is proposed around the area to help soften its impact on the neighbouring
residential neighbours. He said they believe the interface with the neighbours
is generally better than is typically seen in C-2 developments. Mr. Kennedy
responded to questions from the Panel.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel did not support this application.
The Panel acknowledged the challenge of providing affordable housing
but some Panel members suggested that given the constraints of this site
it might be better to build bigger and more regular units.
The Panel’s main concern related to the livability of the units
which is seriously compromised by very small windows and set back bedrooms,
particularly on the upper floor beneath the overhangs. There will be
very limited light penetration and there are a lot of deep recesses that
that will cause severe shadowing. While the challenge of creating affordable
housing was acknowledged, the Panel found the suite layouts extremely
tight, making furniture layout almost impossible.
There was a concern expressed about the expression of the ground floor
residential component which it was thought could be more sensitively
integrated into the neighbouhood; perhaps a change in fenestration or
re-massing of the rear corner to make it feel more appropriate to the
scale of the neighbouring properties. The deep recess of these north-facing
ground floor units will make them very dark.
With respect to the entries, some Panel members found them too small,
with the main entry elevator pushed off to the side. It seems like a
leftover space rather than a front door gathering space, particularly
in a building which offers no communal space. It was suggested the residential
entry could be used as a vertical break that not only better defines
the entry to the whole complex but also creates a transition to a more
residential character.
The Panel generally supported the architectural expression on Fraser
Street and most Panel members supported the requested relaxation of the
setback of the 4th floor. In general, it was thought the side and front
elevations were much more successful than the rear. There were concerns
about the roof overhangs; carrying them out to a single cornice line
is contributing to some very dark conditions particularly in the upper
floors at the rear. As well, a comment was made that the soffits seems
to be contributing the sense of bulk of the building.
The Panel was concerned that sustainability needs to be addressed. One
Panel member commented on the lack of attention to solar heat gain and
energy efficiency in the design, and suggested it can be addressed quite
simply, without additional expense. For example, the skylights could
be used to better advantage by having them angle to the south. As well,
while the overhangs on the fourth floor provide weather protection, those
on the west and east sides are too short to offer any shade. Another
Panel member suggested an approach to sustainability could be not only
providing affordable housing for people of low and moderate income, but
to make the building as energy efficient as possible so that it is affordable
to live in on an ongoing basis. Consideration should also be given to
providing a communal roof deck.
There were concerns about the minimal amount of landscape. It was noted
that a lot of the materials are very small scale so they will have virtually
no impact, e.g., a 2 m high tree in a planter will take a very long time
to mature. The guardrails beside the planters on the second floor terraces
were questioned. It was also suggested that the slope on the ground floor
patios will need much more plant material to keep the soil in place.
As well, having them raised seems to be more of a suburban approach.
A comment was made that the project seems too complex for the simple
uses it contains. The Panel generally thought a simpler solution would
help the overall architectural expression.
A comment was made that while the project seems generally to meet the
intent of the C-2 Guidelines, it is not being a very good neighbour.
It was noted the most recent revisions to the C-2 guidelines with respect
to density and setbacks were to address relationships with single family
neighbourhoods across the lane. The lane is not very friendly to the
neighbour and is largely hard surface parking.
• Applicant’s Response: With respect to
planning the suites, Mr. Kennedy stressed it is very much a matter of
market demand, noting that realtors have indicated that the suites are
too large, and this has been a challenge from the outset. He noted that
in most of their other C-2 projects they have been able to make the suites
deeper. The reason for the massing at the back was to try to create more
bedrooms rather than providing a lot of one-bedroom suites. Mr. Kennedy
said they have included 9 ft. ceilings in recognition of light penetration
problems in these kinds of buildings. With respect to the top overhangs,
Mr. Kennedy said he thought they were too small because rain protection
is a far more important consideration than light outdoors in Vancouver.
With respect to the recessed entries to the ground floor units, Mr. Kennedy
noted that front porches are now being encouraged for single family houses.
As well, it provides a rain sheltered seating area. The ceiling heights
in these units is 10 – 11 ft. which also allowed some high windows.
Regarding the guardrails along the planters, Mr. Kennedy noted this has
been changed from what is shown on the model. He said he does not agree
with what the C-2 zoning does to the lanes and thinks there is not enough
parking in the lane for the commercial. He suggested a stair could be
taken up to the roof to provide some roof deck amenity, although there
may be an impact on the height.
|
