|
Community Services | |||
| Urban Design Panel |
| CITY OFVANCOUVER | |||
|
|
Urban Design Panel
|
| DE: | Rezoning |
| Use: | Construct a new 15 storey residential building with retail at grade. |
| Zoning: | C-3A to CD-1 |
| Application Status: | RZ |
| Architect: | Henriquez Partners Architects |
| Owner: | Westbank |
| Review: | First |
| Delegation: | Gregory Henriquez, Henriquez Partners Architects |
| Staff: | Karen Hoese and Anita Molaro |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-0)
Introduction: Karen Hoese, Rezoning Planner introduced the proposal for the site located in the Burrard Slopes area on West 6th Avenue directly adjacent to the Fir Street off-ramp. The site is being rezoned from C-3A to CD-1 to allow an increase in the density beyond that permitted under the current zoning. A FSR of 3.0 is permitted in C-3A and with a Heritage Bonus Transfer of 10%, the density could be increased up to 3.3 FSR. The outright height of 30 feet is permitted which can be relaxed by the Development Permit Board. The Burrard Slopes Guidelines recommend a maximum height of 100 feet. The proposal is for a 15-storey residential tower with 50 units with a mix of 1 to 3 bedrooms, ranging in size from 524 square feet to 1482 square feet. Three retail units are proposed at grade with one unit on the east side of the building and two in a stand-alone building on the west side of the site. An indoor and outdoor amenity space is also proposed at grade. The proposal calls for two levels of underground parking with 60 parking spaces and one Class B loading space accessed through the underground parking of the adjacent site. A minimum of LEED™ Silver is also proposed.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Ms. Hoese and Mr. Morgan took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Gregory Henriquez, Architect, further described the proposal, noting that they have increased the distance in the gap between the two buildings and they have opened up the view from the windows on the south facing façade. He stated that they have worked hard to preserve the relationship between the neighbours and have created a more elegant relationship to the bridge deck and as well have created some open space.
Jennifer Stamp, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans noting that the entire ground floor is open and is meant to be a visual amenity. They have tried to buffer the impact of the off ramp and have created a contemplative garden that will be outside the yoga studio. Green roofs are proposed on some of the lower roofs on the retail.
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 would be a strong addition to a transitional neighbourhood.
The Panel thought it was a well done project and would look good coming off the bridge onto Fir Street. They thought it was a nicely proportioned building and that the proposal would not have a negative impact on the park. The Panel supported the height and density and as well the form of development. Several Panel members noted that they couldn’t rationalize a shorter, fatter building on the site as they felt the height of the proposal fitted into the neighbourhood. They also didn’t see any reason that the project couldn’t go to 3.7 FSR. The Panel didn’t have any concerns with the adjacency to the building next door and thought enough attention had been paid to views from the suites to the north shore. The Panel also supported the shared driveway with the adjacent building so that there wasn’t another curve cut in the sidewalk.
The Panel thought the proposal had a good response to the off-ramp with several Panel members suggesting the area under the bridge could be developed as it would help the relationship between that area and the site. The Panel supported the landscape plans however there were some concerns with the viability of the retail studios given the distance from the pedestrian linkage and encouraged the applicant team find a way to engage the pedestrians.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Henriquez stated that he agreed with the Panel’s comments.
| DE: | 413377 |
| Use: | To develop the site with Sexsmith Elementary School |
| Zoning: | RS-1 |
| Application Status: | Complete |
| Review: | Second (first was deferred) |
| Architect: | Iredale Group Architects |
| Owner: | Vancouver Board of Education |
| Delegation: | Richard Iredale, Iredale Group Architects |
| Staff: | Dale Morgan |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
Introduction: Dale Morgan, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for a replacement school on the Sexsmith Elementary School site. The original school will remain and is fronted onto Ontario Street which is at the East end of the site. There is a grade drop across the length of the site and as a consequence the grade has been built up to create a plateau with several outdoor playing fields. The original school will continue to operate and the proposed school will be built at the opposite end of the site. The zoning bylaw will have to subdivide the site as there is a restriction for having two schools on one site. Mr. Morgan described the proposed architecture for the school noting that a more direct connection will be created with West 59th Avenue. A round about has been requested by the Fire Department. The existing Langara Golf Course to the north has a pedestrian trail along West 58th Avenue that connects Ontario Street to Columbia Street. The project has been reviewed by the Bicycle Review Committee and they suggested that the trail be turned into a dual trail with a pedestrian and bicycle path. There is also a recommendation by Engineering to restrict access through the residential area and staff are proposing a diagonal diverter along Ontario Street so that the traffic will be diverted eastward. The proposed material is brick veneer with exposed Glulam beams and columns to create an arcade in the front and a metal roof is also proposed. One of the concerns of the Park Board is the loss of a playing field and as a result the School Board is recommending that one of the fields be enlarged.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Mr. Morgan took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Richard Iredale, Architect, further described the proposal noting the building has a public neighbourhood learning component will a seminar room and a multi- purpose room that will be available weekends and evenings for the public at large to use. The gymnasium building has been designed to use the multi-purpose room as lobby and works well as a community theatre. There is also a music room funded out of the Neighbourhood Learning Program that works as kind of a staging area for productions. The library will also have extended hours. They have tried to mass the building to separate the library and multi-purpose room from the school proper. They have also tried to create a welcoming streetscape along West 59th Avenue. The younger children’s class rooms are on the lower level of the school. Mr. Iredale described the materials which will include cedar paneling and brick and a metal roof.
Jonathan Losee, Landscape Architect, noted that the site was not presentable from the street because of the fifteen foot high embankment. They carved the embankment so that the building would fit comfortably into the hillside. It gave them an opportunity to create some interesting land forms including an amphitheatre. The current stairs will be replaced with a more sweeping set of stairs. They will also be adding playground equipment and the lower level classroom will open up onto the playground.
The applicant team took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposal noting that the schools were important to the community.
The Panel appreciated the design for the site noting that there were several challenges with the change of grade across the site. They thought the grade was well handled and that the curve gives the courtyard containment without boxing it in. The Panel supported the design for the fields but suggested they should support the larger community rather than just being used for the school children. One Panel member was concerned that supervision might be a problem with having the children at both ends of the site. Several Panel liked that the children would be segregated in relation to age groups and that they could come and go from all sorts of doors.
Several Panel members had an issue with the two paths that lead off West 59th Avenue as they don’t lead anywhere. The Panel also thought the building did not have a sense of entry as the street access seemed to be the back of the building. They noted that access after hours for the public could be a problem since the entry is positioned away from the West 59th Avenue. The Panel also thought there were a lot of entry points and none clearly indicated which one was the main entrance. They suggested there be more signage and linkage added to the proposal.
The Panel also recognized the need for wheelchair access and thought the disability access and announcement of entries needed to be reassessed.
The Panel supported the materials being proposed as well they thought the general form was appropriate for a school. One Panel member suggested the plywood panels might not stand up to the weather and suggested the applicant take another look at the materials. They also appreciated the massing and thought the design was organically shaped into the site.
Several Panel members agreed that the public trail needed to be more transparent. They thought the landscape plans worked for the site but though more could be done.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Iredale thought the panel had some good comments. He said the comments regarding the entries was helpful and that the stairs could use some polishing. He noted that children don’t come in through the front door of a school and mostly use the back door. He added that normally children look for their friends rather than the front door. He also suggested that children don’t look at the building as a whole but only the part that they use. Mr. Iredale said that he planned to make the school like a village where children move from one area of the school to another as they age. He added that he was willing to go back an incorporate the Panels comments.
| DE: | Rezoning |
| Use: | 12-storey social housing project with Broadway Youth Social Service Centre. |
| Zoning: | C2-C to CD-1 |
| Application Status: | Rezoning |
| Review: | First |
| Architect: | Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects |
| Owner: | City of Vancouver |
| Delegation: | Larry Adams, Neale Staniszkis Doll Adams Architects |
| Staff: | Grant Miller and Anita Molaro |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-1)
Introduction: Grant Miller, Rezoning Planner, introduced the application to rezone a C2-C site with an 11-storey building with commercial space at grade on East Broadway. The Broadway Youth Resource Centre will be on the first and second floors with 103 social housing units above and 24 market rental dwelling units. A Memorandum of Understanding between the City and BC Housing was approved by Council on December 19, 2007 supporting the development of this site for social and supportive housing for the homeless and those at risk of homelessness such as the mentally ill, people with addictions, and residents of the City’s Single Room Occupancy hotels.
The site is located in Mount Pleasant which is currently engaged in a community planning process. East Broadway and Fraser Street have been identified as one of the important centres in the community but no policy has yet been adopted. Several workshops have been held to consider the future of the area. While there is support for change on the north side of East Broadway, and the diversity of use and improvements to the public realm is appreciated, there is some concern with the height of the proposal.
Anita Molaro, Development Planner, further described the proposal for a social housing development which is one of the twelve sites identified by Council. The zoning to the north of the site is RM-4 (apartment) with a height of 35 feet and to the south of East Broadway the zoning is RT-5 (duplex) and as well has a height limit of 35 feet. To the north of the site is a park area that terminates Fraser Street and contains a large community garden. Ms. Molaro stated that the area is undergoing a planning review and one of the elements that is under consideration is the change in the zoning from C2-C (with a height limit of 40 feet) to something else. Through this planning review process the site has been identified that it could take more height within the future context to facilitate it taking on a local landmark role. Ms. Molaro noted that the applicant had provided a comparison showing both the C2-C and C-3A massing which would allow for a height of 100 feet with a 30 foot street wall and a maximum bulk massing of 50% along the frontage of the site.
Ms. Molaro noted that there are four main components to the project. There will be 103 units of supportive housing (30 of which will be available for youth), the Broadway Youth Resource Centre (on the first and second floor of the podium with access from Fraser Street) along the back of the site and commercial ground floor retail space facing East Broadway. The fourth component will be 24 units of one and 2 bedrooms of affordable rental housing on the top three floors. The additional three floors will increase the height of the building to approximately 132 feet (11 storeys measured from the East Broadway elevation). The unit size will meet the 320 square foot minimum. The resident’s out door space will be provided off the third and fifth floor amenity areas. Ms. Molaro noted that the proposed materials include brick, metal siding, painted concrete and aluminum framed glazing. The proposal is to achieve a LEED™ Gold standard.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Mr. Miller and Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Larry Adams, Architect, further described the proposal noting the process for the visioning of the site has been going on in terms of the community for several years. There is support for more density on the site however there are some issues with the size of the project. The project will have a rental component, the housing for Provincial Homelessness Initiative which is from the 2nd floor to the 11th floor. The City will lease out the retail space on the ground floor. The Broadway Youth Resource Centre is across the back lane with the entrance on Fraser Street. Access to the parking is also off the lane. Mr. Adams noted that it is to be an economical building and so they are using a double loaded corridor system and a slab expression. Mr. Adams described the planning that went into the design and how they arrived at the current expression and as well described the architecture. The top three floors will be rental housing and will be run by the Vancouver Native Housing Society and is contingent on receiving funding. The neighbourhood has asked that some of the units be family oriented. Mr. Adams noted that the project will be registered as LEED™ Gold and he further described the sustainable measures proposed for the project.
Bob Barnes, Landscape Architect, noted the landscape plans. They hope to have trees along East Broadway in front of the retail. They are planning on adding some plantings at grade on the Fraser Street side of the building and possibility a rain garden. Screening is planned for the lane. The third floor amenity will have some small trees and large shrubs. On the fifth floor, there is a bit of a breeze way with some seating and some patterning with urban agriculture and some small trees.
Mr. Adams and Mr. Barnes took questions from the Panel.
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
Related Commentary: The Panel supported proposal.
The Panel thought it was an interesting project but had some mixed feelings. They thought there was a conflict between the urban design point of view and the social responsibility. They supported the programming and community benefits and thought the project was in an appropriate location, but thought that from an urban design point of view, it was not the best location. Several Panel members said they would be more comfortable in terms of the massing if the neighbourhood was evolving into more than a C3-A zoning. They noted that the programming was driving the building but wasn’t sure that the building deserved a landmark gesture. They also noted that the building design was conservative which they thought would make it more manageable financially but wondered if it could have more playfulness in the massing as the building will be visible from a distance along East Broadway. Several Panel members thought the quality of the architecture was important to the neighbourhood and thought it should be less institutional looking.
Several Panel members were concerned with the height of the building but did like the reference to the Lee Building at the corner of East Broadway and Main Street and the contemporary approach to heritage. A couple of Panel members thought the building should adhere more to the C-3A massing. The Panel also liked the native art on the spines but wanted them to be more prominent on the façade.
A couple of Panel members noted that the orientation was appropriate and that the relationship to the street was successful but felt there was a lack of open space and landscaping. The Panel thought the proposed materials were appropriate but more lightness and whimsy could be added to the architecture. A couple of Panel members also noted that more colour could be added to the building. Several Panel members noted that the roof space could be used as an outdoor amenity in the space between the youth centre and the tower and as well on the 5th floor roof.
Regarding sustainability, one Panel member noted that although electricity is considered green energy, he recommended that the applicant involve BC Hydro in the discussion and to use a system that would be compatible with a district energy source.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Adams noted that the proposed colour was a reference to the Lee Building. He stated that there is a strong interest by the client to introduce public art on the building by way of the native art on the windows. Mr. Adams agreed that roof access was an interesting suggestion noting that there are some concerns with overlook. He said they are trying to daylight the corridors in that area so there would be limited access to the roof. They are still having conversations with the neighbourhood regarding the streetscape and massing and have already responded to a lot of ideas from them. He said he didn’t think the neighbours would support a taller building but noted that the detailing and use of good materials would produce good architecture and would meet market expectations.
| DE: | Rezoning |
| Use: | to construct a mixed-use development consisting of a duplex and an 8-unit rowhouse with 4 commercial units at grade. |
| Zoning: | Amending CD-1 (190) |
| Application Status: | Rezoning |
| Review: | First |
| Architect: | Ramsay Worden Architects |
| Owner: | MacKenzie Street Development Inc. |
| Delegation: | Doug Ramsay, Ramsay Worden Architects |
| Staff: | Ingrid Hwang and Patrick O'Sullivan |
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)
Introduction: Ingrid Hwang, Rezoning Planner, introduced the proposal for a rezoning application at the southwest corner of West 33rd Avenue and Mackenzie Street. The site is currently developed with an automotive service garage under the existing CD-1 zoning. The application proposes to amend the CD-1 zoning to allow a mixed-use development with eight residential units and four commercial units, fronting onto Mackenzie Street. A separate duplex building is proposed on the western portion of the site. The site is located in the Dunbar Vision area and it borders the Arbutus-Ridge/Shaughnessy/Kerrisdale Vision area located to the east of Mackenzie Street. Both visions recognize the importance of this commercial node and encourages the retention and the enhancement of local shopping areas. Under the Vision Rezoning Policy for existing CD-1 zones, this rezoning application will be assessed based on its own merits in the context of the surrounding neighbourhood. An open house was held were there was significant commentary from the residents.
Patrick O’Sullivan, Development Planner, further described the proposal noting the general massing approach which will be a robust 4-storey mass with relatively tight setbacks at the corner and a smaller two family dwelling on the west part of the site as a transitional massing to the adjacent single family use. The proposal has four townhouses above the commercial with entries from the courtyard and four rowhouses with entries from Mackenzie Street. Four commercial modules are proposed on the corner for either retail or other commercial uses such as offices. The project proposes Built Green BC – Gold. Nineteen parking spaces below grade are proposed with one space at the lane and one Class B loading space. Mr. O’Sullivan described the proposed materials noting the brick, siding and shingle cladding.
Advice from the Panel on this application is sought on the following:
Ms. Hwang and Mr. O’Sullivan took questions from the Panel.
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Doug Ramsay, Architect, further described the project noting that they have had several public meetings regarding the proposal. The plans call for commercial on the corner transitioning down to the residential, single family RS-5 both on the south and the west side of the project. He added that the commercial in the area is under utilized and often vacant. Mr. Ramsay added that the Planning Department supported more commercial in the area. The proposal calls for 1,800 square feet of commercial on the corner to help make the commercial more vibrant in the area. They have tried to design the commercial with some flexibility so that it can be connected through to the residential units. As there is a bus stop in the area, they thought the commercial might be more rentable and provide some outdoor space on the corner as the building has been set back. Mr. Ramsay said they tried to create a wide palette in terms of colour to give the project some variety and to break down the scale of the building. In terms of sustainability, the site was a service garage and the whole site will be remediated. As well they have retained a sustainability consultant and plan to build the project under the Built Green Gold program. From an energy point of view, they are looking at individual air source heat pumps and heat air recovery ventilation.
Peter Kreuk, Landscape Architect, noted that the landscaping is basic with some plantings around the patios and courtyard. There is a handicap spot on the loading dock with reinforced grass paving and as well there are some trellis and vines planned to prevent graffiti.
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 wonderful little infill project.
The Panel supported the City’s initiative to make the commercial work in the area but was curious that an adjacent commercial development didn’t appreciate the synergy of having more commercial in the area. Several Panel members were concerned that the applicant was not making a commitment to have the commercial to have it be more successful as the Panel supported having commercial/retail space on the corner. One Panel member noted that there was a lack of synergy vertically as well for the live/work units. It was suggested that the commercial better relate to the residential and be a different kind of commercial than those across the street. The Panel supported the height, density and character of the project and thought it was a good reflection of the more traditional house shapes in the neighbourhood.
Several Panel members noted that the street on the MacKenzie Street side of the site was tight although the ground plane and landscaping was well handled. They also thought the courtyard was efficient with good access and liked the amount of open space in the front yards. A couple of Panel members noted that the canopy was fighting against the character of the building and thought the base needed to relate better to the rowhouse rhythm. They also thought there was a disconnect between the commercial and the rowhouses above and needed a stronger relationship between them. One Panel member thought the entrances and windows needed more design development.
A couple of Panel members were concerned with the complexity of the roof lines, considering there are only six units. It was suggested that the roof line be simplified, bring the chimneys closer and remove them from the bottom of the valleys in order to have less heat loss and improve the character of the project.
Applicant’s Response: Mr. Ramsay thanked the Panel for their comments. He said he agreed with their comments regarding the canopy and the relationship with the retail to the residential. Mr. Ramsay added that they are trying to pull the commercial detailing around to the residential and maybe it needs to be the other way around.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
|
|
|
Questions or Comments? E-mail: planning@vancouver.ca
|
