Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Index
Present
1177 West Pender/1180 West Hastings
688 East 17th Avenue
360 West 1st Avenue (Polygon Foundry Tower)
1680 West 4th Avenue
4575 Clancy Loranger Way (Hillcrest Park Recreational Centre
[Olympic Curling Venue])
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair
Nigel Baldwin
Albert Bicol (sat out Item #3)
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
Tom Bunting
James Cheng
Eileen Keenan
Margot Long
John Wall
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao
Regrets:
Bill Harrison
Recording Secretary:
L. Harvey
1. 1177 West Pender/1180 West Hastings
DE: 410598
Use: Hotel
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Downs/Archambault & Partners
Owner: Hayden
Properties Partnership
Review: First
Delegation: Mark
Ehman, Rob Barnes
Staff: Sailen
Black
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (4-6)
Introduction:
Sailen Black, Development Planner, introduced this application. Referring
to the model Mr. Black described the project which is a complete development
application for a 19 storey hotel with 220 rooms, located mid block on
Pender Street. The proposal is in line with the Downtown District zoning
and uses the 15% bonus offered for hotels, plus residual density from
the Shorehill building. In terms of policy both the Downtown Guidelines
and the character description for the Golden Triangle ask to consider
the quality of pedestrian oriented development at grade and the compatibility
and design of the above-grade portions. The previous DP permit in 1999
for an office included improvements to the Shorehill building on Hastings
and Pender Streets, with street widening happening on Hastings.
The Panel advice was sought on the following:
? What is the appropriate extent of painted concrete?
? What is the optimum massing of the mechanical penthouse, in balancing
the limited views through the site with the integrity of the form?
? Noting the single-site covenant will limit redevelopment of the Shorehill,
how well does the podium relate to adjacent sites along the inside property
lines?
? What is the appropriate balance along Hastings of a pedestrian scaled
and detailed streetscape with the functional requirements of a vehicle
loop, especially for the design of the retail kiosk?
Mr. Black took questions from the Panel.
Applicant's Introductory Comments :
Mr. Ehman, Architect, referred to the model and gave a brief overview
of the site. Mr. Ehman advised the Panel that much of what is being done
to the exterior of the building is to do with the programming requirements
within a hotel. He noted that in discussions with Engineering Services,
all vehicular arrival functions are to be within the site boundaries
with access exclusively from West Hastings Street. Mr. Ehman also advised
the Panel that the Planning Department had recommended a retail opportunity
on West Hastings Street be created to provide a more animated, pedestrian
friendly sidewalk experience.
Mr. Barnes, Landscape Architect, discussed the public realm and the
streetscapes as well as the landscaping on the podium. He also advised
the Panel of the sustainable strategies for the site. The applicant team
responded to questions from the panel.
Panel's Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- Concerns about the amount of painted concrete on the building
as a finish material;
- Concerns with the heavy massing of the mechanical penthouse;
- Concerns about the symmetrical orientation of the units in the floor
plan not responding well to the varied view exposures and privacy concerns
from neighbouring buildings.
- Design development to better articulate the podium side walls; and
- Design development to lighten the building base on Hastings Street
and expand the kiosk.
Related Commentary:
The Panel did not support this application.
It was acknowledged that the building has a strong presence on the street
and that the architect had done a great job on this difficult site. However,
the Panel considered that considerable design development and revision
is required to yield a satisfactory result.
The majority of the Panel members felt there was too much painted concrete.
The Panel felt there was too much massing on top of the building drawing
emphasis to the mechanical penthouse and making it appear heavy. It appears
to be larger than necessary. A change of materials, the addition of louvers
or a reduction in mass was suggested to make it more successful.
Most members commented that the podium could be better articulated by
stepping back. This would also create opportunities for planting or glazing.
The Panel was concerned about how the hotel function addresses Hastings
Street. The Panel was concerned that the retail kiosk was too small and
that it would not have enough frontage on Hastings Street. They suggested
expanding the space between the structural columns. Some felt that the
porte-cochere space was too deep and may read as a void from the street.
It was suggested that careful design of the reflected ceiling and a good
lighting plan would be needed to help animate and celebrate the entrance.
Several members of the Panel liked the location of the ballroom but several
felt that the façade needed more articulation. One member of the
Panel suggested reducing the frontage of the ballroom and allowing the
ballroom to appear to “float” over the porte-cochere.
Several members commented that the relatively symmetrical pinwheel floor
plan created blank side walls and missed good view opportunities. There
were also overlook and privacy concerns. It appeared that more suites
than necessary were oriented into adjacent offices.
Some of the Panel members felt that the podium of the building wasn’t
relating well with adjacent sites and that the some attention needed
to be given to the massing of the podium to achieve a better fit with
the neighbouring streetscape. A quieter more neutral treatment of the
elevation, particularly the grid elements on the façade, was also
suggested by one member. Two members suggested less vertical emphasis
on the tower.
Two members suggested having green roofs on the lower roofs as there
are a number of towers overlooking the property. Green walls with a variety
of shade tolerant vines were also suggested.
Applicant's Response:
Mr. Ehman thanked the Panel for their comments. He noted that the applicant
team had discussed the lighting in the porte-cochere as they recognize
this area needs to be very well lit.
2. 688 East
17th Avenue
DE: 410111
Use: Mixed-use
residential
Zoning: CD-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Cornerstone
Architecture
Owner: 690233
BC Ltd.
Review: Second
(first review June 7, 2006)
Delegation: Scott
Kennedy, Richard Finley, Andres Vargas
Staff: Bob
Adair
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (10-0)
Introduction:
Bob Adair, Development Planner, presented this complete application
in the C-2 zone. The application was not supported by the Panel when
it was first reviewed on June 7, 2006. The site is located at the southwest
corner of 17th Avenue and Fraser Street, about a block and a half south
of Kingsway. There are water table problems which necessitated the parking
not being completely underground. Mr. Adair briefly described the site
context and noted that it is a standard C-2 development with commercial
on the main floor and three levels of residential above. Mr. Adair summarized
the Panel’s concerns from the last review which included the overall
complexity of the building, particularly the rear elevation; concerns
with the liveability of some of the floor plans; the proposed rear yard
relaxation at the fourth floor level at the north west corner; concerns
about a general lack of amenity space in the building and the small size
of the residential lobby; landscaping treatment along 17th Avenue and
along the lane and expression of the residential entries along 17th Avenue.
Mr. Adair stated that the applicant had made significant changes to address
the issues. Referring to the model Mr. Adair described the changes the
applicant has made to the project.
Applicant's Introductory Comments:
Mr. Kennedy, Architect described the changes they made to the project
including reducing the number of units in the building in order to
change the façade as well as expressing the rhythm differently
on the street.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- Concerns about the amount of painted concrete on the lane side;
- Consider
breaking down the laneway elevation; and
- Concerns about the size of
the master bedroom window in the two bedroom suites.
Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this proposal. The applicant team was
congratulated for there thorough response to the Panel’s previous
comments.
Several Panel members expressed concern about the amount of painted
concrete on the lane frontage. It was suggested that a change of materials
or color composition could improve the expression. It was also felt that
the lanescape might benefit from some more planting, especially around
the bicycle storage and garbage areas.
One Panel member felt the weather protection on both streets could be
improved. They also suggested making the main residential entry more
prominent.
The Panel felt there was a better relationship with the single family
neighbours but would like to see an increase in the size of the trees.
Several members of the Panel felt the master bedroom windows in the
two bedroom suites were rather small.
One Panel member noted that in South East False Creek, the applicants
are getting credit for enclosed balconies with the City relaxing the
50% rule in C-2 zoning with regards to solar and environmental control.
Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Kennedy thanked the Panel for
their comments and noted that they will be redesigning the windows
in the master bedrooms of the two bedroom suites.
3. 360 West 1st Avenue (Polygon Foundry Tower)
DE: 410612
Use: 106
residential units (13 storey tower with 10 townhouses)
Zoning: CD-1
Southeast False Creek Private Lands
Application Status: Complete
Architect: IBI/HB
Owner: Polygon
Foundry Tower Ltd.
Review: Second
Delegation: Jim
Hancock, Robert Barnes, Heather Tremaine
Staff: Mary
Beth Rondeau
EVALUATION: (SUPPORT 9-0)
Introduction:
Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner, presented the application and
noted that this is the first SEFC application seen at this stage. The
application was not supported by the Panel when it was first reviewed
on April 12, 2006. The development is a 125 foot high all residential
mid-rise building with ten three storey townhouses on West 1st Avenue.
This site is next to the Best Warehouse site. Mr. Rondeau briefly described
the use and massing of the proposal and noted the proposed density is
3.5 FSR.
The Panel advice was sought on the following:
- Should there be a more visible response to solar orientation (SE
and SW facades, slab extensions to the North facades) and building
durability
(rain penetration)?
- Has the north-south link been developed sufficiently to provide the
visual permeability through the site given that it will not be publicly
accessible?
- Is design development needed to provide a uniquely South
East False Creek (SEFC) character and historic reference in the Public
Realm?
Ms. Rondeau took questions from the panel.
Applicant's Introductory Comments:
Jim Hancock, Architect, noted that they are at 37 LEED points and may
make LEED Gold. He stated that they are redesigned the North and East
facades of the building by adding more glass to increase sun penetration
into the suites. On the South side for both solar gain and privacy reasons,
smaller windows are used. There has also been additional modeling of
the west façade and a downsizing of the glass to achieve a comfortable
range of heat gain. Regarding through-site permeability, a gate is currently
shown and it will be up to the Strata Council to make the decision as
to whether or not it’s locked. Mr. Hancock also noted that the
material palate has been selected to address the uniquely SEFC character.
Mr. Barnes, Landscape Architect, briefly described the landscaping and
sustainability plans for the development. Ms. Tremaine noted that they
are using a green roof on the tower as well as having a cistern located
in the parkade for the irrigation needs of the site.
The applicant team took questions from the Panel.
Panel's Consensus:
- Design development for the townhouses, especially on the south
lane facade;
- Recommendation for shading on the south west façade.
Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this proposal and felt the project was
nicely resolved.
The Panel felt the public realm was strong and that adding high quality
pavement would give character. One Panel member suggested having some
fun with the design of the gate and to develop the imagery on the gate
and the roof to relate to the industrial heritage of the neighbourhood.
Some of the Panel felt the north side link should not have public access
and should have a gate. The Panel agreed that part of the charm is the
lane and the open areas that tie everything together. Several members
would like to see all the developers in the area come together on the
design theme to develop a consistency in the character of the public
realm.
In terms of the north south link through site link, several members
of the Panel felt it might help the elevation and character of the building
if that link was heightened by raising the opening up one floor.
Some members of the Panel felt the south side of the townhouses were
the weakest part of the scheme in terms of character and solar control
and felt that an overhang might help with some solar shading. Some members
also felt the metal screens appeared a little heavy on the top of the
townhouses. Several Panel members liked the north screen on the townhouses
but felt that the project would be better served if it was on the south
side.
One Panel member suggested using shutters on the south west orientation
of the tower to control solar gain. They also suggested that using the
steel from the penthouse roof screen for these shutters might be a more
practical use of the screening elements.
One member of the Panel suggested that the expression could be different
on West 1st Avenue from the lane and to make the expression unique for
the townhouses.
One Panel member liked the terracotta on the base and felt it speaks
well to the industrial precinct and history of the area. The Panel member
would like to see more of it at grade level on the mews between the two
buildings and felt it would help to develop a stronger reading of the
mews through the site.
Several members noted that the top of the tower seemed less resolved
and didn’t seem to fit with the building. It could be emphasized
in a manner more complementary to the rest of the building.
Applicant's Response:
Mr. Hancock thanked the Panel for their comments and mentioned that
the team would work to accommodate the Panel’s suggestions.
4. 1680 West 4th Avenue
DE: 410474
Use: Mixed-use
Grocery Store/Residential
Application Status: Complete
Architect: IBI/HB
Owner: Cressey
Pine Holdings Ltd.
Review: First
Delegation: Martin
Bruckner, Tracy Chong, Dylan Chernoff
Staff: Dale
Morgan
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (10-0)
Introduction:
Dale Morgan, Development Planner introduced the
C2-B application which is a five storey mixed-use building with retail
at grade and residential above and three levels of underground parking.
The applicant is seeking a density of 2.5 FSR and a height of fifty
feet. The project is located on the corner of West 4th Avenue and Pine
Street.
The building massing is grouped into two separate blocks and will be
adjoined by a glass enclosed bridge element. There will be two residential
entrances; one off Pine Street and another off West 4th Avenue. The ground
floor will be large tenant retail with smaller CRUs off Pine Street with
three off West 4th Avenue. The parking is accessed off the lane with
two Class B loading bays. The landscaping will upgrade the sidewalk with
new trees on both West 4th and Pine Street. The units are primarily one
and two bedrooms with some form of outdoor space. The top of the building
steps back and there are terraces on the top floor. The predominate material
is to be painted concrete while the base material is to be stone. The
canopies are steel and fabric. Staff is supportive of the project and
feel the conditions are relatively minor.
The Panel advice was sought on the following:
1. Height and Massing:
- The proposed height exceeds the conditional maximum of 50
feet by approximately 1.5 feet (to be confirmed). Under Section 5.3
the Director
of Planning
may relax any of the regulations of the C2-B By-law for developments
involving dwelling units in conjunction with any other permitted
uses. Do you support the extra height and have they earned this
discretionary increase?
- General comments are requested on the building massing.
2. Streetscape frontage/edge treatment:
- The C2-B By-law limits commercial frontage for a single occupancy
to a maximum of 50 feet. This can be relaxed provided a pedestrian
amenity
area such as a courtyard or resting area is provided, or where
pedestrian interest is maintained. Has this been achieved?
3. Entries:
- Comments are requested on the two residential entries at the
east and west corners of the site. Do they need stronger
identity and
greater differentiation than the store entry?
4. Material treatment:
- Comments are requested on the proposed material treatment.
5. Liveability:
- Comments are requested on general liveability including
the absence of an indoor amenity room, the size and
location of
shared open
amenity space, configuration of the internal corridor,
and issues of sound
attenuation from West 4th Avenue.
Mr. Morgan took questions from the panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments:
Mr. Bruckner, Architect
gave a brief overview of the site. Mr. Bruckner noted that a relaxation
in the height means they will be able to use concrete construction.
Dylan Chernoff, Landscape Architect gave a overview of the landscape
plans for the site noting there will be benches and trees on West 4th
Avenue. The 4th floor has an amenity deck and there will be a green roof
with a bar code of visual interest on the top of the two buildings. The
applicant team took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
The Panel had some concerns about the residential entries and locations
and thought that a single more central location may be preferred.
The Panel felt that the color palette was too uniform and grey.
Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this application and found the additional
height supportable and they agreed that the applicant had earned the
discretionary increase.
The Panel members would like to have more landscaping on the streetscape
with seating and and additional greenery, especially at the residential
entries. It was suggested that the tree on the corner could be enlarged
to make a bigger statement. Moving the exhaust grilles to the inside
of the building would give more of an opportunity to plant the lane.
One member suggested making the maple trees on the patios larger.
Several Panel members questioned the location of the residential lobbies
and suggested having a mid block entry. Since the corner of West 4th
Avenue and Pine Street is a major corner, several of the Panel members
suggested having a plaza on that corner to make for a stronger entrance.
One Panel member felt the residential lobby was too small.
A number of Panel members felt the building colors where rather sombre
and needed to be more vibrant to animate the façade.
The Panel felt it was a positive move to have green roofs on the two
buildings. Several members expressed concern for the location of the
amenity roof deck and would like to see it attached to an amenity room.
They felt that an outdoor amenity wouldn’t work without an indoor
space as the residents need room for storage as well as a sink to wash
up after a barbeque.
One Panel member suggested open corridors to promote cross ventilation
and also one member thought the bridge could be covered with some landscaping
and that it didn’t need to be as narrow as the interior corridor.
Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Bruckner thanked the Panel for
their comments.
5. 4575 Clancy Loranger Way
DE: 410676
Use: Hillcrest
Park Recreational Centre (Olympic Curling Venue) – Legacy Community Centre & Percy
Norman Aquatic Centre
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Hughes
Condon Marler Architects
Review: First
Delegation: Rudy
Roelofsen, Darryl Condon, Jim Waugh, Margot Long
Staff: Dale
Morgan
EVALUATION: (8-0)
Introduction:
Dale Morgan, Development Planner, introduced this application which is
the Olympic venue for the curling facility. This application applies
to the legacy mode, which represents the conversions of the Olympic
Curling venue after the 2010 Winter Games. Mr. Morgan introduced Rudy
Roelofsen, Manager of Facility Development for the Park Board who gave
an overview of the Master Plan and history of the site. Mr. Roelofsen
stated that the Legacy Building would be converted to a community centre,
ice rink and other community uses after it has served its function
for the Olympic Games and a new Aquatic Centre would be constructed.
The Master Plan also includes revised parking and access for Hillcrest
and Nat Bailey Parks. Once the facilities are in operation the plan
calls for the demolition of the Riley Park facilities.
Mr. Morgan added that the Master Plan and rezoning process is being
fast tracked to have the facilities ready for the 2010 Winter Games.
He reminded the Panel that as a condition of approval for the proposed
form of development, the Director of Planning may allow minor alterations
to the proposed form of development when approving the detailed scheme
of development.
The Panel’s comments were requested on the following:
1. Scale and Massing:
Noting the programming requirements for large, simple spaces, has the
massing successfully broken down the building scale into smaller, finer
scaled elements that reduce its apparent bulk? Does it relate well to
the existing stadium?
2. Material Treatment and Architectural Expression:
Is the material treatment and expression well handled?
3. Landscape and Parking:
General comments were requested on the proposed landscape treatment.
Are the building’s edges well integrated with the landscaping?
Are the pedestrian paths leading from the parking areas and from the
park’s edge well handled? Comments are requested on the central
parking area on which the existing stadium and the proposed aquatic
centre both face, and the potential to make this a more meaningful
urban space.
Mr. Morgan took questions from the panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments:
Mr. Condon, Architect,
discussed some of the design decisions that were based on considerations
raised by the community to keep traffic to a minimum and developed
the project with a series of pedestrian pathways through the site. He
also
went through the challenges of building a site for the Olympic which
will then be reconfigured to add in the library and other facilities
after the Olympics. Margot Long, Landscape Architect described the
landscaping for the project, noting the large entry plaza area and the
landscaped
green terraces with granite bands around the trees and seating.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects:
• Consideration to use a metal roof, rather than the membrane
roof being proposed.
Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this proposal. The Panel felt that it
was well handled. The applicant team was congratulated for their work
on this project.
The scale and massing has been effectively and satisfactorily dealt
with and while it sits on a very large site next to other large structures,
it holds its own. They also felt that the team produced a legible, coherent
resolution to a very complex program.
To the question of material treatment, a majority of the Panel felt
it was a shame that the roof material proposed was a membrane roof. They
would like to have seen either a metal or possibly a green roof. As a
civic project and legacy building the Panel felt it was short sighted
not to have sufficient money to do the roof properly.
Some of the Panel felt that the West façade needed a bit of work.
They felt there could be some difficulty, especially in the library and
the fitness area with inadequate solar shading. One Panel member suggested
that since the north side has an angled façade using angled glass
could reduce solar gain without using overhangs.
One member of the Panel stated that the final master plan was an improvement
over the original, particularly in the revised distribution of parking.
Another Panel member noted that the Preschool was located on the far
side, and remote from the drop off.
The Panel felt the public spaces had been well designed spatially and
were well detailed. One member noted that the parking lot seemed to have
fewer trees than the other similar parking lots.
One member suggested that the there seemed to be a lost potential for
a more ceremonial entry by having the entry closer to Nat Bailey and
building on the qualities of Nat Bailey to make a kind of semi urban
space where the two significant buildings share a common urban forecourt.
One member of the Panel suggested introducing skylights to provide natural
light into the circulation spine of the building. Also one member suggested
a glass canopy be added to emphasize the entrance and to provide rain
protection.
Applicant’s Response:
Mr. Condon thanked the Panel for their kind comments. He stated that
the entry canopies and the interior spaces were still part of their
development. He noted that the project has been designed with an integrated
design process and is meeting LEED Gold targets and is integral to
everything they have done in designing the building.
Meeting concluded at 9:40PM.
|
