|
Community Services | |||
| Urban Design Panel |
| CITY OFVANCOUVER | |||
|
|
Urban Design Panel
|
| DE: | 411334 |
| Use: | To construct a new 4 storey mixed use commercial/residential building on this site providing 37 parking for residential and 11 parking for commercial. |
| Zoning: | C-2 |
| Application Status: | Complete |
| Architect: | Acton Ostry Architects |
| Owner: | Choi Shun Pong |
| Review: | Second (First Review: Oct 24/07) |
| Delegation: | Francis Yau , Andrew Cheung Architect |
| Staff: | Bob Adair |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Bob Adair, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for a new development on Kingsway. The Panel did not support the proposal when it was first reviewed on October 24, 2007. Mr. Adair read over the concerns of the Panel from the previous review as well as the changes made by the applicant. The proposal is for a four storey mixed use building with commercial on the ground floor and residential above. Commercial and residential parking access is off the lane. The residential entry is off Kingsway at the east end of the site. Mr. Adair described the other developments in the surrounding area.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Francis Yau, Architect, further described the project noting the improvement to the landscape treatment with the addition of planters. Also the lane has been reconfigured to allow for more landscaping with the addition of perimeter planters on the 2nd floor and the residential lobby expression has been strengthened.
The applicant team took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Related Commentary: The Panel unanimously supported the proposal as they thought there were significant improvements since the first review and would be a great addition to Kingsway.
The Panel encouraged the applicant team to look for further design development on some of the detail elements to the building. They thought the contrast between the brick returns and the central balconies were improved but would like to see a better integration between the retail and residential brick elements on the façade. The Panel suggested the applicant consider strengthening the retail base of the building by distinguishing between the brick elements and the glazing to the CRU’s. Several Panel members thought the previous scheme worked better with regards to the retail glazing as the glazing continued to the ground. To make for a stronger distinction between mass and opening they Panel suggested reducing the small band of brick under the windows. They thought the overhangs worked better and that the top of the building had been improved but encouraged the applicant to reduce or delete the braces as they weren’t necessary on a contemporary building design. One Panel member thought the rear façade needed some work and should have the same articulation as the Kingsway side of the project. One Panel member thought the windows on the 2nd and 3rd floor could be bigger to improve the façade. Several members of Panel members suggested adding some height to the CRUs and the residential units to improve the massing and to make the units more liveable.
Most of the Panel members thought the awning should project a bit further over the sidewalk and that there needed to be careful integration of lighting and signage on Kingsway. A few members thought there should be a glass canopy all the way along the front.
The Panel thought the public realm treatment along the lane was improved and liked the use of bigger planters. One Panel member suggested adding two large shade trees to the two large planters. The Panel agreed that the lane treatment had been improved but that it might still improve further by adding shade trees and detailing the privacy screens at the balcony edge. A couple of Panel members also suggested integrating the loading with the garbage pickup area to help decrease the number of openings along the face on the lane.
Regarding sustainability, the Panel suggested taking opportunities to get more lighting into the units to allow for less artificial lighting and more natural ventilation.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Yau said he had nothing to add.| DE: | N/A |
| Use: | City of Vancouver initated remassing proposal with minor changes to ODP heights. |
| Zoning: | SEFC ODP and M-2/FC-1 |
| Application Status: | N/A |
| Architect: | N/A |
| Review: | First |
| Staff: | Mary Beth Rondeau/Thor Kuhlmann |
EVALUATION: Urban Plan: SUPPORT (7-0) Extra Height on Social Housing: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Referencing the re-zoning and context model, Mary Beth Rondeau, Development Planner introduced the workshop regarding Sub Area 3C which lies between East 2nd Avenue, Quebec Street, Terminal Avenue and Main Street. Ms. Rondeau gave an overview of the ODP for SEFC regarding massing and height as well as an update on the heights in other projects in the South East False Creek precinct. She noted that the height has changed considerably in SEFC and that Sub Area 3C has had the least amount of attention. The area is characterized by strong arterials going north- south and is bounded by East 2nd Avenue. The plan is to keep a simple, low, blocky profile on Main Street which is becoming more residential. The future plans for Quebec Street include a boulevard with trees and a street car on one side and which may eventually make its way up to Kingsway. Ms. Rondeau noted that they will be looking for a lot of flexibility in the way the sites will be resolved as the buildings step up from Main Street towards Quebec Street.
Related Commentary:
The Panel thought have lower building heights on Main Street with higher buildings on Quebec Street made sense. They agreed that having thinner floor plates going east/west also made sense and will allow for more light into the interior courtyards of the blocks and limit the shadowing of the buildings behind them on Main Street. They felt the shadow studies were important and had been taken into consideration. Also, the Panel liked having a higher façade on the west and lower in the east to give a terracing effect towards the sun.
Most of the Panel wanted applicants to have the ability and flexibility for higher building heights on Main Street in order to let the step happen and to get a “saw-tooth” effect to the parapets. Several Panel members thought there should be minimum heights set for Main Street of three or four stories. There could be minimum heights established and a maximum foot print for the forms on Quebec Street which would make for a nice urban solution.
A couple of Panel members recommended adding stronger east – west public realm connections through out the neighbourhood to allow for easy pedestrian and cyclist movement from False Creek Flats across Main Street and Quebec Street to the waterfront. Strong east - west pedestrian connections across Quebec Street should relate to the East – West street forms in scale and character. Also the Panel agreed that adding retail on Quebec Street and wrapping it around the corner onto Terminal Avenue would allow for more pedestrian activity and would blend in with the commercial at the Sky Train Station. (Note: The City should include additional urban design concepts to address East-West pedestrian and cyclist movement and note the location of active/retail edges.)
One Panel member liked the public realm along Quebec Street and thought it should be mimicked on Main Street. Several Panel members thought there should be a pedestrian connection mid block between Quebec Street and Main Street.
The Panel agreed that BC Housing’s project on Main Street should be allowed more height to make it a 12 storey building and to make the project more liveable. They felt it had earned the extra height due to the non-market component and its architectural expression. A couple of Panel members felt the Shell Station at the corner of East 2nd Avenue and Main Street could be kept in its current location with the addition of residential on that site. A few panel members supported adding some extra height at the East 2nd Avenue and Main Street corner.
5. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
|
|
|
Questions or Comments? E-mail: planning@vancouver.ca
|
