|
Community Services | |||
| Urban Design Panel |
| CITY OFVANCOUVER | |||
|
|
Urban Design Panel
|
| DE: | 412763 |
| Use: | To construct a 4-storey mixed-use building containing 2 levels of under-ground parking, ground floor commercial and dwelling units above on this site. |
| Zoning: | C-2 |
| Application Status: | Complete |
| Review: | First |
| Architect: | Adab Architects Inc. |
| Owner: | Trafalgar Enterprises |
| Delegation: | Fred Adab, Adab Architects Inc. |
| Staff: | Marie Linehan |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-1)
Introduction: Marie Linehan, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for a 4-storey commercial and residential building, with underground parking accessed from the lane with two commercial units at the ground floor and three storeys of residential above. The entry for the residential units will be on East 30th Avenue. As well there are two adjacent townhouse units. Exterior cladding materials are brick, hardy-panel, metal cladding at enclosed balcony projections with a steel and glass canopy and architectural concrete at the lane elevation.
Ms. Linehan described the context for the area noting Clarkdale Motors and the adjacent zoning district for single-family houses.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Comments from the Panel on the overall design with particular regard to how the corner conditions are handled:
Ms. Linehan took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Fred Adab, Architect, further described the proposal. He said he hoped the proposal would help to improve the neighbourhood. The property has a slope along Main Street and as a result there have been some difficulties in transitioning the brick with the hardy panel. The zoning requirement on the 4th floor has helped to create a design which is horizontal along with vertical elements in the bay windows that gives more scale to the design. The colour palette for the building includes a light yellow colour on the hardy panel with a light grey brick veneer.
Mark Van der Zalm, Landscape Architect, noted that landscaping is not extensive on the project but is an important part of the sustainability objectives with the use of an eco friendly system. There are three existing street trees that will be retained. Mr. Van der Zalm described the various proposed plant material for the project. The roof garden will have some trees and a drain structure that will capture rain water as irrigation is not proposed for the project.
Damien Crowell, Environmental Consultant, described the sustainability features which will include passive design, low-e glazing on the western façade and using highly efficient mechanical systems.
The applicant team took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposal and thought it was a successful background building for C-2.
The Panel thought the applicant presented an overall well designed building that had some challenges within the zoning bylaw. They felt the northeast corner of the building needed more articulation to open up the building. They suggested the corner at the lane could have some brick and more glazing as it is a prominent corner. The Panel noted that Main Street has a history of brick construction and several Panel members thought the general balance of solid and glazing was successful on the project.
The Panel supported the height relaxation. Several Panel members thought the units could be more liveable. The Panel also thought the applicant needed to address the colour as they felt it was too muddy with one Panel member stating that the applicant need to add a vibrant colour so that the building looked good on rainy days. Another Panel member encouraged the applicant to include something more abstract for the building to have a presence in the urban environment. A couple of Panel members thought the angled doorway didn’t work and suggested it could be an indentation in the building. The Panel had a mixed reaction to the use of hardy panel. One Panel member noted that detailing of the guard rail was important for the architecture of the building and needed to be a higher quality.
Regarding the landscaping, one Panel member was concerned that irrigation wasn’t being installed and thought the landscape would suffer even if there was a contract with a landscape or gardening company. It was also suggested that the outdoor space be made more useable by adding a trellis and benches for a more interesting space that the residents would use. Also, the two suites with patios would benefit from a glass railing to let light into those suites since they are on the north side of the building. Several Panel members thought the public space needed to be more habitable and felt there wasn’t a sense of a program with one Panel member noting the lack of a sign band on the building. One Panel member thought the roof should have access or perhaps a green roof.
Regarding sustainability, the Panel applauded the applicant for a pursuing LEED™ Silver equivalency.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Adab though all the Panel’s concerns are achievable.
| DE: | Non-voting Workshop |
| Use: | Review of height, form, scale and typology considerations for the downtown area east of Richards Street including Gastown, Victory Square, Chinatown, East Hastings and Main Streets corridors. The workshop session will focus on the materials that will be shared with the public. |
| Zoning: | N/A |
| Application Status: | N/A |
| Review: | First |
| Architect: | N/A |
| Owner: | N/A |
| Delegation: | Brent Toderian, Director of Planning |
| Staff: | Scot Hein |
EVALUATION: NON-VOTING WORKSHOP (Joint Meeting between UDP and the Heritage Commission)
Introduction: Brent Toderian, Director of Planning, introduced the workshop noting that staff would not be presenting a completed piece of work as the presentation was at the beginning of a public engagement process. Jessica Chan and her team have already begun the process with the public which is an urban design exercise looking at the value of heritage. The review was implemented because of a number of tall building proposals that the Planning Department had looked at over the last couple of years. It culminated in a Council motion and was added as an action item under the EcoDensity work program by the past Council to consider looking at significantly higher buildings in the historic area of the city. The community has expressed some concerns regarding adding height and density and as a result a motion was re-crafted to adjust the values. The new motion will “look at opportunities for height in the area that didn’t fundamentally damage or harm the historic scale and character of the area”.
The purpose of the additional height and corresponding density is to achieve public benefits. One of the public benefits is the landing of heritage density from the Heritage Density Bank. There is a challenge around the size of the Heritage Density Bank and staff are looking for ways to preserve the potential of onsite heritage.
Additional public benefits would include everything from affordable housing, social housing, daycare, and the kinds of amenities that multiple communities might want in order to make this part of the city more liveable. There are all sorts of public benefits that could be achieved through height and density while making sure the appropriate heritage scale is preserved.
Mr. Toderian concluded by saying that Council had asked staff to peruse a National Heritage designation as well as looking at the possibility of an UNESCO Heritage Density while also considering height and density for the area.
Jessica Chan, Senior Planner, noted that the heritage area is the birth place of the city and is rich with history. As part of the planning program for the Downtown Eastside (DTES) the historic area height review looks at how growth and development is managed in the area while maintaining the overall character and scale. Another objective is to make sure that potential new developments resulting from the review will be able to help generate public benefits such as affordable housing, heritage conservation and social/cultural infrastructure that will help support the current and future community. The approach of the review starts from understanding and respecting the function of the community as it is home to many low-income residents. Given the complexity of this historic area, planning staff have always taken an integrated approach to planning in the DTES, looking not only at community issues but also land use. This particular review is trying to address and have a public discussion with the issue of built form and in particular how sustainable rehabilitation of heritage buildings owned by Chinese benevolent societies can become contemporary housing.
Ms. Chen noted that staff have also looked at new construction that would be suitable for heritage, particularly in Chinatown. They have engaged consultants to help look at the urban design for possible heights above current policies and appropriate locations for the taller buildings. They are in the middle of the process with public consultation and will be talking to different advisory bodies and community groups. The community workshops will start on April 23rd with three public workshops planned in the neighbourhood that will be open to the general public. As well, two open houses are planned. Ms. Chen stated that they on having the process concluded in May and then will report back to Council with their recommendations in July.
The result of this review will form the Chinatown Community Plan that will include the revision of the zoning and design guidelines as well as how planning staff will respond to the taller building and rezoning inquiries in the future for the historic area.
Tanis Knowles, Planner, showed a Power Point presentation which was an abbreviated version of all the material available. The presentation will also been shown at the community workshops.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
The staff team took questions from the Urban Design and Heritage Commission Panels.
Related Commentary from the Urban Design and Heritage Commission Panels:
More information available on the website at the link below:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/hahr/studyarea.htm
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.
|
|
|
Questions or Comments? E-mail: planning@vancouver.ca
|
