|
Community Services | |||
| Urban Design Panel |
| CITY OFVANCOUVER | |||
|
|
Urban Design Panel
|
| DE: | 413096 |
| Use: | To rezone from RT-8 to CD-1 to allow development of a 4-storey residential building with one level of underground parking. The project is comprised of 30 units of social housing including 20 units for seniors and 10 units for people with physical disabilities. |
| Zoning: | RT-8 to CD-1 |
| Application Status: | RZ/DE |
| Review: | First |
| Architect: | Integra Architecture Inc |
| Owner: | Provincial Rental Housing Corp |
| Delegation: | Duane Seigrist, Integra Architecture Inc. |
| Staff: | Sailen Black/Michelle McGuire |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
Introduction:
Michelle McGuire, Rezoning Planner, introduced the proposal noting the proposal is a concurrent rezoning and development application. The site is owned by BC Housing and the proposal is to develop a 4-storey non-market housing project with 30 units. Twenty of the units will be for seniors and will be operated by the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House. Ten of the units will be fully accessible for people with spinal cord injuries and will be operated by the BC Paraplegic Housing Society. Also included in the proposal is a 600 square foot senior’s resource centre that will be operated by the Kitsilano Neighbourhood House. The current rezoning is RT-8 and the proposed zoning is CD-1. The rezoning is required in order to permit height and density beyond the RT-8 zoning. RT-8 permits a maximum height of 35 feet and the proposal is for a maximum height of approximately 43 feet. RT-8 zoning permits a maximum density of 0.75 FSR and the proposal is for just under 2.0 FSR. The surrounding area has a mix of development and zoning with sites to the west and north also zoned RT-8. Sites to the south and east are zoned RM-4, with the site across the lane to the southeast fronting West Broadway zoned C-3A.
Sailen Black, Development Planner, further described the proposal on the southwest corner of West 8th Avenue and Vine Street, one block north of Broadway. Mr. Black also described the context for the area noting the single-family dwellings and multi-family housing co-op. He noted the intent of the RT-8 zoning and guidelines is to encourage the retention and renovation of existing buildings which maintain the architectural style and building form consistent with the historical character of the area. For new development the emphasis is on compatibility in external character and in all cases, neighbourly building scale and placement is emphasized.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Ms. McGuire and Mr. Black took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Duane Seigrist, Architect, further described the project using a powerpoint presentation. He described how they came to design the project using the urban fabric. He noted the large trees on the property and that they are working with an arborist to save the trees during construction. He stated the project will provide a transition between the residential to the west and the commercial uses to the east and south. Mr. Seigrist further described the architecture noting the main massing will have a flat roof with outdoor amenity space. Mr. Seigrist added that the project will be designed to meet LEED™ Gold and will include sustainable measures such as heat recovery and solar devices.
Ken McKillop, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans for the project noting the project intends to create sustainable green spaces with areas planted to give a lush appearance. The roof deck is designed for outdoor actives such as gardening, social gatherings and to promote a community for those residents with mobility issues.
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 scale and massing would fit well into the neighbourhood. They also thought it was a good location for people with disabilities.
The Panel supported the scale, height and massing and thought the height took advantage of the corner site without impacting its neighbours although one Panel member was concerned that the south corner of the roof might be impacting the neighbours. The Panel thought the entire project would benefit from some editing. They were concerned that there were too many expressions and especially didn’t support the three different conditions of bay windows as they end up competing with on another. They thought there were a number of secondary roofs with different languages and materials and were diluting the project. The Panel also thought the building massing should come forward on West 8th Avenue.
The Panel thought the setbacks and where the garage entrance will be located was generous and that the elevator house and mechanical being set back on the roof worked well. A couple of Panel member suggested flipping the unit layouts to get the south light into the suites and let the building have a more residential expression.
The Panel supported the sustainability measures and hoped there was enough room in the budget for the solar heating for the hot water system. One Panel member suggested having the solar panels be more visible and celebrated as they were important in terms of public funding. They also thought the green wall was a good gesture. One Panel member suggested there be overhangs all around the building over the windows to protect the walls for the next 50 to 60 years.
The Panel supported the landscape plans with one Panel member suggesting there be an arborist on site during construction as it was critical to the life span of the trees. The Panel supported the roof garden but thought the arbour needed to be higher. One Panel member suggested that if the trellis was to be used for sun protection it needed to be back against the elevator core so it doesn’t become another element that marks the height of the building. Several Panel members were concerned that the little walkway on the west side of the building could have CPTED issues as it was a bit too isolated from the rest of the site.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Seigrist thanked the panel for their comments.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
|
|
|
Questions or Comments? E-mail: planning@vancouver.ca
|
