City of Vancouver
Search
Help

Urban Design Panel Information

Planning Information

Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Index

Present
Passive Design Toolkits
2408 East Broadway
Marine Drive Station Site (8430 Cambie Street)

Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:

Bruce Haden, Chair
Jane Durante
David Godin
Oliver Lang
Maurice Pez
Douglas Watts
Richard Henry

REGRETS:       

Martin Nielsen  
Gerry Eckford
Vladimir Mikler
Mark Ostry
Steve McFarlane

Recording Secretary:
Lorna Harvey

BUSINESS MEETING

Chair Nielsen called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m. and noted the presence of a quorum.  There being no New Business the meeting considered applications as scheduled for presentation.

1. Passive Design Toolkits – New Tools for Building Green

EVALUATION: NON-VOTING WORKSHOP

Introduction:  David Ramslie, Manager, Sustainable Development Program, reminded the Panel that they had brought the draft Passive Design Toolkit to the Panel about a year ago.  He stated that they had incorporated a lot of the Panel’s comments in the final document.  Mr. Ramslie noted that the toolkit is meant to reach out to different audiences.  The toolkit contains an Executive Summary, Context, Passive Design Strategies, Passive Design Elements along with a Glossary of Key Terms and several appendices and case studies.

Mr. Ramslie noted that they will be doing a Passive Design Road show and giving a presentation to various architectural and engineering firms in the city.  They have currently done three presentations and another ten firms are already booked for the presentation.  Concert Properties and BC Hydro are also part of the presentation.

Currently staff are working on screening zoning and development bylaws and are looking at where the bylaw is prohibitive to passive design and will be recommending those bylaws will be removed.  They are interested in removing barriers to passive design and want to encourage applicants to look at passive design for their projects. 

Mr. Ramslie noted that they will be publishing a bulletin to promote the toolkits.  They will also be giving out the toolkits to the development planners as well as applicants when they come into the City with their proposals.  He added that they want to set people up for success beyond the building code obligations. 

Council has approved the toolkits and is looking at the city being carbon neutral by the year 2030.  The City is also looking at renewable energy being more productive and Mr. Ramslie stated that they hope to have a program and a bylaw requirement by the fall of next year.  Mr. Ramslie noted that they will be going to Council In December with their recommendations.

Mr. Ramslie took questions from the Panel.

Related Commentary: 

• Written for a broad audience, not just for architects;
• Doesn’t seem to cover really complex, large urban design projects;
• Contains information on how to lower the carbon foot print and while maintaining views and light;
• Buyers educate developers and will tell the developer what they will pay for;
• It would work to tell the development and design community what their maximum energy use would be on a per square foot basis which would allow them to meet those targets in the way they consider most effective;
• How we attract people back into the city centre means we can do away with models that are just about efficiency.  The guide seems to be heavy on the efficiency side in promoting compactness and idealized building envelopes.  Passive design needs to have a cultural understanding: consideration of human nature;
• Current zoning bylaws contradict the Toolkit dramatically;
• Multi-residential is the hardest to make sense in terms of passive design.  There is no incentive to the developer to actually have energy efficiency.  In most commercial buildings there is an incentive.

2. 2408 East Broadway

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)

Introduction:  Dale Morgan, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for a development of a four storey structure located at the south-east corner of the intersection of East Broadway and Nanaimo Street.  The current zoning is CD-1 which was recently amended to permit a four storey mixed use building with commercial/retail uses at grade and dwelling units at grade at the rear and three storeys above.  The applicant is seeking a density of 2.3 out of a possible maximum of 2.4.  Mr. Morgan noted that residential dwelling units are viewed as Conditional Approval Uses under the zone.  He also noted that the site shares a common easement with its eastern and southern neighbours and functions similar to a laneway providing access to parking, utility locations and garbage collection.  Mr. Morgan read through the rezoning draft conditions that have been revised.

Mr. Morgan took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments:  Joe Minten, Architect, further described the proposal noting the reason they moved the access to the underground parking.  They have also made changes to the canopy design.

Mr. Minten took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:  

• Improve the architectural expression at the corner;
• Design development to reduce the heaviness at the roof;
• Consider CPTED solutions with respect to the easement between the neighbouring buildings;
• Consider using more brick but with lighter colours; and
• Consider reworking the amenity space.

Related Commentary:  The Panel supported the proposal.

The Panel supported the changes since the last review noting they were minor in nature.  They noted that the materials in the notch area on the Nanaimo Street side was not consistent with the East Broadway side and looked like the brick was missing.  They also thought the Nanaimo Street side could use more brick on the façade as well as in the courtyard.  Several Panel members thought the colour of the brick should be lighter in colour. Several Panel members thought the top of the building needed to be capped and they also thought the lintel was too heavy. 

The Panel thought there should be glazing on the south facing wall at the eastern side edge and if possible to add units on that face.  Several Panel members thought the amenity room was disconnected from the outdoor space and should be south facing to benefit the residents.  Several Panel members thought the staircase should be detailed to encourage use.  The Panel had some concerns regarding possible CPTED issues and thought there should be a fence between the neighbouring buildings.

The Panel thought the raised planter on City property seemed in a difficult location at the diagonal entry and should be redesigned or eliminated in order to open up the corner. One Panel member suggested adding bike racks or other street furniture in the area.  The Panel liked the courtyard with several Panel members suggesting there should be benches and amenities available for the residents to enjoy the courtyard. 

A couple of Panel members noted that the grass proposed for the north side wouldn’t grow under the trees and should either be a hard surface or shade tolerant shrubs should be planted. 

Regarding sustainability, it was suggested the applicant consider the roof assembly is able to carry the weight for solar hot water.  They felt it wasn’t necessary to be added at this time, but in preparation for future use.

Applicant’s Response:  Mr. Minten said he would take care of the landscaping issues and will look at the brick and see how it could be brought to the back of the building. He added that they will look at adding another unit on the south side.

3. Marine Drive Station Site (8430 Cambie Street)

EVALUATION: NON-VOTING WORKSHOP

Introduction:  Anita Molaro, Development Planner, noted that a public consultation is underway on the draft principles for the development of the site.  There are six draft principles that have been developed for the Cambie Corridor from King Edward Station to Marine Drive Station.  Those principles are:

• Provide land use that optimizes the investment in transit.
• Provide a complete community.
• Create a walkable and cycleable neighbourhood seamlessly linked to public transit.
• Focus intensity and community activity at stations and other areas with strategic opportunities for sustainability, renewable energy and public amenity.
• Provide a range of housing options and job diversity.
• Balance city-wide and regional goals with the community and its context.

Ms. Molaro noted that alongside the draft corridor principles is an interim rezoning policy.  This policy will allow the City to consider rezoning applications at sites immediately adjacent to the Canada Line Stations in the Cambie Corridor. The criteria is:

• Site location, site size doesn’t preclude other possibilities.
• Rezoning address the Cambie Corridor principles.
• Sustainable transportation strategy.
• Greenhouse gas reduction strategy.
• Housing choice and affordability strategy.
• Job space analysis.
• Viability for a connection to a district energy system.

Ms. Molaro noted that there will be an exploration of higher building forms that are responsive to the Marine Drive Station area’s role as a civic gateway, the context of the surrounding neighbourhood and the role and function of the industrial lands south of Marine Drive.  She noted that Council endorsed the work program in July.  The two key elements that were also endorsed include the protection of the industrial lands to the south and east and given the special role of the site, a residential use component will be included.  Because of the concerns related to the activities of the industrial lands and in particular, the transfer station, the residential component will be located strategically on the site to minimize any negative interface.

Ms. Molaro gave some background on the Canada Line noting the alignment of the portal/tracks and the station location.  She noted that because the bus loop is on the south side the site, the entry to the site will be at Marine Drive.  One of the key benefits of the alignment of the guideway and station was to reduce the crossing widths across Cambie Street.  Engineering is looking at adjusting the crosswalk to make it easier for pedestrians to get to the east side of the station.  The station design is highly glazed providing the transit rider views both east and west.  As a result of the station location and the elevated tracks, the road network around the site has been modified.  Trucks, particularly those going to and from the Transfer Station use Yukon Street.  The bus circulation is along Yukon Street also with a portion coming out onto Cambie Street. 

Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:

• Pedestrian Desire Paths – How to best address transit users/pedestrian circulation movements (desire lines) through the site to the transit station?
• Form of development – building mass and orientation, scale, height, uses.
• Sustainability.

Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel. 

Related Commentary: 

• Several members of the Panel supported the height, density and massing and they thought the buildings could go higher;
• The Panel thought the form of development should not be driven by the proximity to the Transfer Station;
• The project is extremely large and there is concern that there is no guarantee that the same architect will be involved at the DP and construction phases to keep a high level of architecture;
• An example of a complete community within an uncompleted community;
• There is a range of uses that needs to be carefully thought out for the community;
• Buildings look like more than 5.0 FSR;
• Some concern with the proximity of the two buildings;
• Office floor plates don’t look adaptable enough;
• Recommend the rental component have some family units;
• Recommend no parking be attached to the rental component to guarantee that the units are always affordable;
• Have a variety of unit types i.e. live work, studios, 1 bedroom, family, etc;
• Great sustainability response especially with the use of a Neighbourhood Energy Utility;
• The bus loop is in the wrong location and shouldn’t be driving the project.  If moved it would better address the pedestrian circulation;
• Pedestrian routing works but need to think about the Cambie Street connections down to the Fraser River;
• Would like to see covenants attached to the residential units so they can’t complain about the industrial uses in the area later on;
• The elevated walkway is not a good idea;
• Could the range of uses be greater rather than commercial office space;
• Since the site is the epi centre, there should be more public spaces to take advantage of cultural activities;
• Public space strategy is struggling on the ground plane; there seems to be three ground planes and there is some concern regarding the viability of 2nd floor retail space;
• More creativity is required at the ground plane;
• Surprised that the city hasn’t come up with a community plan for the larger area;
• The project appears to be driven by use and orientation but what makes it a great space?

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

Questions or Comments? E-mail: planning@vancouver.ca

© 2009 City of Vancouver