|
Community Services | |||
| Urban Design Panel |
| CITY OFVANCOUVER | |||
|
|
Urban Design Panel
|
| DE: | 413437 |
| Use: | Construct a 2-storey community centre to replace the existing Trout Lake Community Centre. This new faclity will be connected to the recently constructed ice rink. |
| Zoning: | RS-1 |
| Application Status: | Complete |
| Architect: | Walter Francl Architecture Inc. |
| Owner: | Vancouver Board of Parks |
| Review: | First |
| Delegation: | Walter Francl, Walter Francl Architecture Inc. |
| Staff: | Anita Molaro |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for The Trout Lake Community Centre that will be located on the south west corner of John Hendry Park. The site is bordered by single family residential, townhouses and apartments and a special needs facility to the south west. John Hendry Park provides access to multiple user groups who utilize the parking facilities and includes a Farmer’s Market and other community events. The proposal is to replace the existing community centre facility which is the second phase of the civic institution and public building and includes the recently completed ice rink facility that will be used as part of the 2010 Winter Games as a practice facility.
The building orientation and location responds to the diagonal grid of the neighbourhood context in addition to taking advantage of the significant drop in grade allowing the building to be tucked into the slope minimizing impact into the park area. Entries into the building are at the street level, parking level and from the ice rink. The roof form is a predominate expression of the building which will comprise of steel trusses and Glulam beams and supports. The roof will be treated with a thermal plastic vinyl membrane. Other materials for the building include architectural concrete and metal cladding. Ms. Molaro noted that the applicant will be pursuing a LEED™ Gold standard.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Walter Francl, Architect, further described the proposal and noted they generated the site placement and the planning, both internal and external, around the building on the notion of the Cedar Cottage neighbourhood grid that runs on a diagonal and provides an access path through the building and out into the park. The plaza space was created to fill a void along side the building and to provide an outdoor activity area. Parts of the program are below grade for sustainability purposes. The building has a character in the structure and the form of the roof that is consistent with the ice rink. The glazing strategy has been developed in response to the results of the energy model. The energy modeling indicated that an eastern orientation of the windows was a favorable choice for this type of building and for the uses and hours of operation. An atrium space in the building becomes a central animating feature for all of the program components. Mr. Francl described the sustainable features noting that the ice rink is currently venting its heat to the atmosphere and they plan to use that heat for space heating and domestic hot water for the community centre. He described the material palette noting it is similar to the ice rink and includes architectural concrete and swiss pearl.
Chris Mramor, Landscape Architect, described the landscaping plans noting there are four main parts to the plan. On the south entrance they are proposing an arrival green that will transition down to a courtyard space. There is also a change in pavement and trees to reduce the scale. Some of the storm water management ideas were that water would come off the roof and would funnel in through a feature that would then drain into the lake. There will also be an arrival plaza on the north end of the building. This is mostly a hard surface area with some planters and a green wall. The daycare space is set in behind a row of trees. The east terrace will allow the building programs to step out from the building edge with stairs and grass spaces.
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 handsome project.
The Panel supported the overall architecture and thought it was appropriate to have a similar design as the ice rink. They felt it responds well to the context in the urban gird. They noted that it will be a huge structure in the landscape and the grade change will assist in making it sit well in its context.
Several Panel members thought the daycare should be located in an area of the site that would receive more sunlight. They suggested flipping the daycare with one of the multipurpose rooms. One Panel member would like to have seen more glazing in the gym as it would be advantageous on the west side for the neighbours to be able to see into the building. The Panel was concerned with wheelchair access and thought it needed to be reassessed. They wanted to see a more direct access to the building from Victoria Street.
The Panel supported the landscape plans and thought it was a favorable approach with respect to imbedding the program into the site. The Panel felt the landscaping was interesting and the outdoor rooms would have a different character and use. The Panel was concerned with the amount of hard surface in the outdoor area for the daycare. They suggested more soft landscaping be added to the area around the bottom of the gym. One Panel member was concerned with the lack of sunshine in the plaza due to the number of trees being proposed. It was suggested that the area be treated in a way that will allow more access to sunshine.
The Panel supported the sustainability strategy and thought it was a good idea to take advantage of the exhaust heat from the ice rink.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Francl thanked the Panel for their good comments. He said they will be able to address most of the issues. He appreciated the comments regarding the preschool noting that they had moved it several times around the site but agreed that they could adjust the design to improve the daylighting in the area.
| DE: | Rezoning |
| Use: | To construct a 12-storey and a 24-storey tower as well as rehabilitate and redesign an industrial heritage building. |
| Zoning: | M2 to CD-1 |
| Application Status: | Rezoning |
| Review: | Second (first was non-support) |
| Architect: | IBI/HB Architects |
| Owner: | Bastion Development |
| Delegation: | Jim Hancock, IBI/HB Architects |
| Staff: | Dale Morgan |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-2)
Introduction: Dale Morgan, Development Planner, introduced the proposal to rezone two parcels from M-2 Industrial to CD-1 residential in conformance with the South East False Creek ODP and partial retention and integration of the heritage resource, the Opsal Steel Building. Retail uses are proposed at grade with residential above.
Mr. Morgan noted that this was the second review by the Panel as it received none support although there was support for the proposed height and density. At the last review the proposed height was for 12 and 18 storeys with density of 4.3 and 5.1 FSR. The current proposal has increased the height of the east building from 18 to 24 storeys.
The Panel wanted to see the relationship of the east tower to the Opsal building improved so that there is a clear landmark entry to the heritage building from the corner of Quebec Street and East 2nd Avenue. Also they wanted to see a clear separation between the old and new structures so the warehouse character of the heritage building was retained. The Panel asked the applicant to consider putting Tower B behind the Opsal Steel Building and retaining as much of the existing heritage structure on East 2nd Avenue as possible. The east end elevation of the Opsal building should maintain its historic connection to the corner of East 2nd Avenue and Quebec Street. Finally the Panel asked the applicant to keep with the spirit of the SEFC and change the surface of the parking area to a plaza.
Mr. Morgan described the context for the site noting the two parcels are separated by a small mid block site that is currently a car wash. He then described the changes proposed by the applicant since the last review.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Mr. Morgan took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Jim Hancock, Architect, further described the proposal noting that the basic premise is to make the east building as narrow as possible to pull it away from the heritage building. One more bay has been added from the previous scheme. The building has taken on a slightly different form and they have attempted to have some fun with the balconies. A portion of the rear building will also be preserved. Because the site has been split in two the western building will have a more traditional expression. The old crane way is being preserved and there will be some surface parking off the lane. Mr. Hancock stated that there are plans to have a brew pub in the building off the lane. The density hasn’t been increased but the height of the east building has been increased.
Michael Patterson, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans noting the streetscape treatment is coming from the City’s guidelines. In terms of the boulevard and parking area treatment, there will be concrete sidewalks and granite sets. The overhead structure for the crane will be delineated in the ground plane with a stronger band of darker concrete. In the courtyard area a water feature is proposed that will wrap around the building. There will be roof decks that incorporate both exterior amenity space as well as a green roof. On the top of the tower there will be a patterned green roof.
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 the design had been improved since the last review and would fit with the neighbourhood.
The Panel felt there was a need for some design development at the corner of Quebec Street and East 2nd Avenue. The Panel had some concerns regarding the east building with the relationship to the Opsal building and felt there needed to more room between the two buildings. They also thought the corner expression needed to be considered similar to the lane corner and that the tower should be kept light and high at the corner and the ground plane be more transparent. The Panel thought that retaining more of the heritage building and raising the tower further to allow the heritage to slide under the tower would be a better design solution. The Panel felt the tower could have a smaller floor plate and another two floors could be added to keep the amount of density.
The Panel supported keeping the extra bay in the heritage building with a couple of Panel members encouraging the applicant to consider the adjacency to the car wash site regarding future development. They fully supported the design for the gantry cane which will be incased in a glass space.
Several Panel members thought the quality of the ground plane materials would be important especially in the parking area. One Panel member suggested reviewing the number of parking stalls as most people will walk to the site from the surrounding buildings. Another Panel member suggested eliminating the parking and turning the area into an opportunity for the public realm to enjoy the heritage rather than as a back drop or entry to the parkade. Several Panel members suggested retaining the rhythm of the trusses to express the form of the old buildings. Also, it was suggested that the gantry area be heated as it would make a fantastic terrace for a neighbourhood pub or restaurant. One Panel member noted that the street is different from any other place in the city and is actually unusual and differs from the basic precept of the ODP and as there is little industrial presence still existing it would be a shame to not retain as much of the building as possible. The Panel member also thought there was value in retaining the signage on the Opsal Steel building.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Hancock said they were looking for opportunities for a different building form. Ms. Maust said she appreciated the comments and looked forward to incorporating them into the design.
| DE: | 413377 |
| Use: | To develop the site with Sexsmith Elementary School. |
| Zoning: | RS-1 |
| Application Status: | Complete |
| Review: | First |
| Architect: | Iredale Group Architects |
| Owner: | Vancouver School Board |
| Delegation: | Richard Iredale, Iredale Group Architects |
| Staff: | Dale Morgan |
EVALUATION: This project was deferred by the Urban Design Panel.
| DE: | Rezoning |
| Use: | To rezone from MC-1 and CD-1 to a consolidated CD-1 zone to allow redevelopment of the site including retention of the existing Coast Hotel, replacement of the existing pub, and development of a 6-storey building that would contain either all residential units or mixed use hotel and residential units. |
| Zoning: | MC-1+CD-1 to CD-1 |
| Application Status: | Rezoning |
| Review: | First |
| Architect: | Robert Turecki Architect |
| Delegation: | Bob Turecki, Robert Turecki Architect |
| Staff: | Grant Miller/Sailen Black |
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (1-6)
Introduction: Sailen Black, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for a rezoning at the north east corner of Osler Street and SW Marine Drive. The proposal will consolidate two MC-1 sites into the CD-1 site and rezone the combined properties to CD-1. The proposal would retain the existing hotel and develop the remainder of the property with a 6-storey building and reconfigure the lane. MC-1 Guidelines recommend maximum height of 45 feet with a step-back at the upper floor. Proposals above four storeys are not normally permitted in MC-1. The new pub will be similar in size to the existing pub and part of the existing pub will be converted into a fitness centre. The proposal will be for either 71 residential units or two floors of hotel use creating 56 new hotel rooms located on the 2nd and 3rd floors and 39 residential units.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Grant Miller, Rezoning Planner, noted the proposal is for a CD-1 that will support the two options. The zoning will be flexible so the owner can pursue either option; 71 residential units or residential and hotel uses.
Mr. Miller and Mr. Black took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Bob Turecki, Architect, further described the proposal noting that the area is in transition. The hotel has existed for many years and a large portion of the hotel customers are from the airport. The reason for the two options is that the site won’t be built on for three or four years and since it isn’t known how the economy will be then, the two options were put forward. Mr. Turecki noted that there is a major sewer line running through the site and part of the project will be to move the line to a new lane. The building is being transitioned from four storeys on the north stepping up to five storeys and then six storeys for the portion of the building that fronts onto SW Marine Drive. Townhouse units are proposed for Osler Street. The project proposes a concrete building with some stone cladding at the base. Landscaping on Osler Street will enhance the townhouse quality. Underground parking is proposed and depending on the option chosen parking will be reduced by 52-54 spaces for only residential use and if it’s a mixed hotel and condominium use it will be reduced by half the parking spaces. As a community benefit, Mr. Turecki said they have suggested supplying seven market rental units in the project for a minimum of 60 years or the life of the building.
Mr. Turecki took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Related Commentary: The Panel did not support the proposal but thought the use, height and density was supportable.
The Panel agreed that there was a rationale and support for additional density on the site and there was a general consensus that the seven storeys would be entertained if it addressed the other issues identified. The Panel thought it was a difficult site because of its shape and location on a major arterial. They thought the form of development had a lot of issues in the way it fits onto the site noting that it was hard to set up good floor plans.
There is also another challenge in terms of the outlook onto the lane. The Panel thought the overlook had a lot of hard surfaces which would work for a short stay hotel but not for a residential building. Residential use on the site was supported by the Panel, however the residential option presented was problematic and the Panel felt the hotel option was more supportable. One Panel member suggested having all the residential on the Osler Street side of the site and just the hotel use on the SW Marine Drive side.
The Panel thought a simpler building form would be a better resolution and thought it had too much articulation. Several Panel members thought the connection between the new building and the existing one looked like a collision of the two buildings and needed work in the massing. The Panel did support the massing strategy in term of moving from four storeys to six storeys. They thought the planning was awkward and wasn’t simple and strong enough on SW Marine Drive and needed a better relationship to the existing hotel. The Panel suggested the building could go higher to alleviate the awkwardness of the site. Most of the Panel also thought the corner of Osler Street and SW Marine Drive was tight and that the building didn’t respect the corner.
The Panel thought the streetscape was not resolved and the materials and configuration didn’t work.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Turecki said the comments from the Panel were satisfactory.
| DE: | 412830 |
| Use: | To construct a four storey building containing office and retail, with three levels of underground parking on this site. |
| Zoning: | C-2 |
| Application Status: | Complete |
| Review: | Second (first was non-support) |
| Architect: | Jordan Kutev Architecture |
| Owner: | 0782633 BC Ltd. |
| Delegation: | Jordan Kutev, Jordan Kutev Architecture |
| Staff: | Sailen Black |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
Introduction: Sailen Black, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for the south east corner of Kingsway and Earles Street. Mr. Black noted that this was the second review by the Panel as it received non-support previously.
Mr. Black described the goals of the C-2 zoning guidelines including: compatibility among variety of uses, especially residential and non-residential; mitigated privacy and visual impacts on adjacent residential; appropriate street scale and pedestrian interest; architecture and landscaping of rear and sides as important as the front; and parking and loading designed to screen them from nearby residences. Massing and design should also consider neighbourliness, including: fourth storey setback of 7.9 feet to reduce apparent scale on the street, although decreased setback may be considered above grade to allow projects of bays; front yards of 2 feet to provide more sidewalk space. In this case reduced or zero setback is proposed at the corner.
Mr. Black noted that the proposal will have retail at grade and healthcare and general offices above. The proposed design has been revised, following comments from the UDP recommending simplification of the exterior expression. The following had been deleted from the design: corrugated metal spandrel, spikes at retail and office, window display boxes at grade, and coloured panels.
Panel commentary is sought on the following:
Mr. Black took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Jordan Kutev, Architect, further described the proposal noting that the previous comments from the Panel stated that the building had too many colours and there was too much going on for a small site. He said he tried to simplify the finishes and the expression. Mr. Kutev described the design changes noting that they had simplified the windows by removing the boxes and eliminated some of the balconies over the lane. There is now one main patio on the second floor. Another major revision was to change the two-storey glass block to one level. Mr. Kutev noted that they have engaged a sustainability consultant and the project will meet or exceed ASHRAE. The store signage will be channel letters attached to the canopy. They also engaged a traffic consultant with respect to the parking garage.
Fred Liu, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans noting that the building takes up almost the entire site. They put their efforts into the paving materials, street furniture such as bike racks, benches and lighting. Along Earles Street there are three existing trees one of which will be replaced with a larger tree. Another tree will be added closer to the lane and as well on Kingsway. The only planting will be along Earles Street. The same plantings will be carried over to the balcony and as well some flowering shrubs will be added. The paving along Kingsway will have a strip of exposed aggregate next to the curve and one against the building. Vines will be added to the parking ramp for a screening effect.
The applicant team took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposal
The Panel thought the applicant had simplified the building too much since the last review. Several Panel members thought it had gone too far and has lost the exuberance and colour in the design. The Panel thought the corner element was going to need the highest level of detail in order to be successful. Several Panel members thought the corner needed more of a break between the commercial and the retail. One Panel member felt the projecting screens and shades had been reduced too much. Another Panel member suggested the glass go straight up and not angle out. A Panel member felt the curved and sloping glazing would be difficult to detail. They noted that the glazing on the retail comes right to the ground and thought there should be a plinth element for the glazing to land on because there are so many different levels. The Panel agreed the projecting fin at the Northwest should be removed and recommended the architect look at the code requirements. They also liked the window boxes (from previous submission) because of the interest they added to the retail plate glass and asked the applicant to put them back into the design.
The Panel supported the reduced setbacks as they thought there was enough room in the pedestrian realm to allow for the setbacks. The Panel acknowledged that not of lot of landscaping could be done on Kingsway as there is a bus stop and a street light. The Panel appreciated the use of vines on the arbour over the parking access. As well they liked the use of planting in the lane to add some colour and to soften the building. A couple of Panel members suggested moving the bench closer to the door or to have a more formal sitting area.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Kutev thanked the Panel for their comments. He said he was glad they wanted the window boxes back in the design.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
|
|
|
Questions or Comments? E-mail: planning@vancouver.ca
|
