City of Vancouver
Search
Help

Urban Design Panel Information

Planning Information

Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Index

Present
1142 Granville Street
606 Powell Street
604-645 West 41st Avenue
338 West 6th Avenue

Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:

Martin Nielsen, Chair
Gerry Eckford
Jane Durante (Excused Items #1 & #4)
David Godin
Bruce Haden
Oliver Lang
Steve McFarlane
Vladimir Mikler
Mark Ostry
Douglas Watts  

REGRETS:       

Maurice Pez
Richard Henry

Recording Secretary:
Lorna Harvey

BUSINESS MEETING

Chair Nielsen called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and noted the presence of a quorum.  There were several items of New Business and then the Panel considered applications as scheduled for presentation.

1. 1142 Granville Street

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-1)

Introduction:  Karen Hoese, Rezoning Planner, introduced the proposal for a new concurrent rezoning and development permit application.  The site is being rezoned from DD to CD-1 to allow an increase in the density and height beyond that permitted under the current zoning.  This is to secure a provision for rental housing.  The project is being developed under the Short Term Incentives for Rental (STIR) program approved by Council in June 2009.  STIR provides a strategic set of incentives to encourage and facilitate development of new market rental housing.  The incentives available and which are being requested include: concurrent processing; a reduced parking standard; waived DCLs; rental property assessment (through a Housing Agreement); and where a rezoning is involved, bonus density.  Ms. Hoese noted that the area allows an FSR of 3.5 subject to the provision of retail and service uses at grade and the Transfer of Density Policy further allows for up to a 10% increase in floor area through the transfer of heritage density.  The maximum height is 90 feet.  The Granville Street Guidelines, which apply to the 800 to 1200 blocks of Granville Street, further provide guidance with regard to the design and development of the site.

Anita Molaro, Development Planner, further described the project noting that currently the site is vacant and used for parking.  She then described the context for the area noting adjacent development.  The maximum height permitted is 90 feet and regulations require a building envelope with 45 degree angled planes above 70 feet at the front and 65 feet at the rear of the building.  She also noted that rooftop mechanical does not meet the 10% requirement.  The project proposes a maximum height of 90.5 feet (at the lane and 88 feet on Granville Street) with some additional protrusions into the building envelope. Ms. Molaro described the form of development noting that it will be a 9-storey mixed-use building.  There is to be 106 market rental residential units, all studios, and all 320 square feet in size on floors two through nine.  There will be an indoor and outdoor amenity space provided on the 9th floor as well as additional an outdoor amenity area on the 2nd floor.  Two retail units are proposed at grade.  Behind the retail space a mezzanine has been incorporated to provide residential storage.  There is to be one level of underground parking, accessed from the lane with 18 parking spaces (4 car shares and 4 handicap spaces will be provided to meet the equivalent of 36 required spaces).  Also one Class B loading space will be provided.  As required, the project proposes a LEED™ Silver equivalent. 

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

• Resolution and quality of the Granville Street façade and character treatment;
• Neighbourliness and livability of units including adjacency with neighbouring lightwell;
• Resolution and treatment of the exposed party walls.

Ms. Hoese and Ms. Molaro took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments:  Richard Bernstein, Architect, further described the proposal noting that most of the buildings on Granville Street have a similar height and width ratio and have a blocky massing.  The buildings typically have a high retail base with a mid section of punched window openings and topped with a heavy cornice line.  Mr. Bernstein noted the height of the building will be 90 feet as per the guidelines for the area.  The massing of the project fits with other buildings along Granville Street with a high retail base and a vertical element which has some punched balcony openings.  The cornice line is treated at the setback with an amenity deck.  The utility functions and the below grade parking will be accessed from the lane.  Mr. Bernstein described the unit layouts noting that they are all 320 square feet.  On level nine there is an almost 1,900 square feet amenity space which will be used as a party, meeting and exercise room.  There is also an outdoor amenity spaces on the 2nd and 9th levels.  Mr. Bernstein described the building materials and the colour palette.  He also noted that it will be a LEED™ Silver building and will include a communal car program, bike storage, water reduction and as well they will be optimizing the energy performance of the building. 

Dylan Chernoff, Landscape Architects, described the landscape plans noting that Granville Street has been redesigned.  The interface between the building and the street is a simple, contemporary approach.  The material in the lobby will come out to the property line.  On the 2nd level there is some private spaces as well as an amenity space with an exterior courtyard that links the exit stair.  This area will be separated from the private patio with a landscape planter.  Trees will also be around the patios.  On the 9th level amenity there will planters at guard rail heights and as well, benches will be placed around the space.

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement: 

• Consider adding more exuberance to the colour palette and further articulation to the facade;
• Design development to increase animation of the façade and provide more balcony access for the units;
• Consider future access to the roof;
• Consider having the laundry room adjacent to the amenity space on the 9th floor.

Related Commentary:  The Panel supported the proposal and thought it was a good example of a project taking advantage of the STIR program. 

The Panel supported the massing and thought the design had gone a long way to provide animation consistent with Granville Street although they suggested some design development and resolution could still be done at the retail level.  They noted that the key factor of the legibility on Granville Street was signage and needed to follow the spirit of the street.  Several Panel members thought the applicant needed to look more closely at the colour palette and composition as they felt it should be more contemporary with one Panel member suggesting the applicant be more daring with the approach.

The Panel thought the building was stepped back enough to be sensitive to the neighbours but thought there could be additional openings and windows.  The Panel commended the applicant for adding windows at the end of the corridors to daylight the halls.  The Panel had some concerns with the light well as they thought it was a little small.

Several Panel members thought the interior twin units facing north were problematic but also thought they would be less expensive rentals because of their location and lack of views.  One Panel member noted that the units needed some resolution internally and that the applicant should look at other social housing units as there were precedents regarding the suite layout that could work better in this project.  One Panel member was concerned that when the neighbouring building gets redeveloped in the future it might not respect those units.  Several Panel members thought the units could use more balconies with a couple of Panel members suggesting a French balcony to give a feeling of the outdoors.  .

The Panel felt the party wall needed some resolution although they acknowledged that the Howard Johnson site would be developed some time in the future.  They felt it was handled in a predictable way but felt that other opportunities could be explored.

The Panel commended the applicant for the communal parking but thought there could be less parking considering the project is in the downtown and most people won’t have a car.  The Panel thought the amenity space was well done but a couple of Panel members suggested putting the laundry room off the amenity space so that it would be used more often.

Regarding sustainability, it was suggested that the façade may not be the solution for energy performance.  The Panel member noted that the energy standards have become more stringent and thought it would be a challenge to achieve LEED™ Silver with electric baseboards.

The landscaping was considered appropriate for the location, simple and modest with one Panel member suggesting the length of the planter on the top level could be reduced in size and that more animation could be done to the roof because of the overlook.  One Panel member suggested the roof design be adaptable for the possible future addition of solar panels or urban agriculture.

Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bernstein said he appreciated the comments from the Panel and was sympathetic to the issues that have been raised.

2. 606 Powell Street

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (9-0)

Introduction:  Anita Molaro, Development Planner, introduced the proposal for a rezoning to construct a 10-storey building.  She noted that the current neighbourhood consists of a wide array of scale and density and a mix of land uses and buildings.  The housing goal for the area is to retain and provide new affordable housing and to increase the proportion of self-contained dwellings through both rehabilitation and new construction.  The commercial goals are to improve the viability of the commercial by encouraging the upgrading of existing uses and the development of new commercial uses which will serve both local residents and the working population in the area.  Changes in the area include providing a focus to Princess Avenue through programming and capital improvements to transform it into a Children’s Interpretive Walk.  The route has been identified as a place for children and family through art, interactive signage, improvement to traffic safety, and programming based on culture and the history of the area.  The direction is to develop Princess Avenue as a pedestrian-oriented corridor emphasizing neighbourhood connections from the north to the south.  Ms. Molaro noted that the site and the previous social housing site at Princess and Alexandra Streets were identified as part of the emerging directions to take additional height at 100 feet to emphasize and highlight Princess Avenue within the future neighbourhood context.

The proposal consists of a ten and a nine storey building components comprising 105 Provincial Homelessness Initiatives (PHI) units and 41 units of non-market residential housing for families.  The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) identified this site for 100 plus PHI units with some further opportunities for additional housing.  In addition to residential components, there is now also a commercial office component for the Rain City offices to be located on the second floor facing Powell Street.  The ground floor residential amenity space will be located along Princess Street as well there will be ground floor retail uses along Powell Street.

Ms. Molaro described the zoning context noting the proposed height is 117 feet along Princess Street which is higher than the 100 feet recommended emerging policy The Powell Street elevation is proposed at 110 feet. Staff are struggling with the extra height proposed beyond 100 ft. here, of 110 ft. and how the building mass will relate to the future context of 75 ft.  Ms. Molaro noted that the applicant has proposed a setback at the upper floors, generating a “cornice line” or streetwall expression at approximately 75 feet which staff support.  It is an important urban design question about the massing within this context. Ms. Molaro reminded the Panel that the other social housing project at Princess and Alexandra Streets will achieve 112 feet in height with a 75 foot shoulder. 

The architectural material components under consideration are brick masonry, coloured metal siding, concrete and glazing.  The project is intending to achieve LEED™ Gold.

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

• Is the form of development (form, height, density) supportable taking into consideration the emerging policy directions of the DEOD and Princess Avenue (higher building form along Princess plus 100 Feet to the lower contextual massing envisioned for the neighbourhood of 75 feet)
• Overall building design/character including resolution/distinction of the various massing and elevation components.
• Ground floor interface with street frontages.
• Livability of the units
• Use, quality and articulation of the proposed materials.
• Design of the open space and street edges.
• Sustainability attributes

Ms. Molaro and Mr. Miller took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments:  Larry Adams, Architect, further described the proposal noting the higher mass on Princess Street and a lower mass on Powell Street with a courtyard and strong urban edges and frontages.  He added that Powell Street is more urban.  The project is one of the last to be built under the Provincial Homelessness Initiatives with 105 single units and 41 family units in the residential component of the building.  There is also a retail component along Powell Street as well as an office component.  The project is focused on women who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and women centered families.  There is a significant amenity component from the street to the courtyard on the south side.  There is also a children’s play area along Children’s Walk edge.  Mr. Adams described the proposed materials and sustainable initiatives.

Carolyn Kennedy, Landscape Architect, described the landscape plans for the project.  The Powell Street edges are more retail and urban which will be mainly hardscape.  There are currently two street trees with more being added.  On the Princess Street side, they are planning on something more playful because of the Children’s Walk with colourful paving and plantings.  The courtyard will have some children’s play area and sunny seating areas.  On the second floor they are planning a bit of a green roof and some seating.

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:  

• Clarify the massing on the corner of Princess and Powell Street;
• Consider adding a sense of lightness to the project to reduce the heaviness in the design; and
• Consider other uses for the roof.

Related Commentary:  The Panel supported the proposal noting that it was a challenging project. 

The Panel thought the project would provide much needed housing in this part of the city and they appreciated the level of detail the applicant had in their presentation.  The Panel supported the height, use and density although several Panel members thought the mass needed to be reconfigured to make a distinction between the Princess and Powell Streets facades.  Several Panel members suggested the corner on Princess Street could be higher than the Powell Street side to create some playfulness.  It was suggested that the Powell Street height could be reduced to eight storeys and the Princess Street height be increased to eleven storeys so as to improve the massing.  Also, some of the Panel thought the there should be more variety in the design of the building to make it less institutional looking.  They also thought the proposed colour scheme and materials added to the somberness of the project.  Several Panel members thought the building had a masculine feel which they found odd since the residents will be women and children. 
Most of the Panel thought the ground floor design was very strong especially the generous setback on Princess Street.  Several Panel members noted that Powell Street is not an entry street and thought there should be some variety in the canopy since there is an absence of retail in the area and this could help articulate the street.

Several Panel members thought there should be a way for the residents to experience the outdoors and suggested either French balconies or real balconies.  They also noted that livability of the public lounge was important and should be south facing, perhaps on the south-west corner.

The Panel thought the landscape was well done although there was a suggestion to add more to the roof tops.  The roof top patio area could also have a portion for urban agriculture and could use some planters to help screen the view.  One Panel member suggested softening the lane by adding some trees which would also give a sense of habitation. One Panel member noted that the large party wall on the east façade needed some design development and suggested a large mural considering children will be living in the project.

Regarding sustainability, it was suggested that the west and south facades could benefit from exterior shading elements to help with solar gain and would make the units more comfortable.  The applicant was commended for the targets they are perusing including geo exchange with radiant floor heating.  One Panel member suggested the roof design be adaptable for the possible future addition of solar panels and as well to look for opportunities on how the building could plug into a neighbourhood energy utility. 

The Panel requested seeming the proposal again at the Development Permit stage.

Applicant’s Response: Mr. Adams thanked the Panel for their comments.  He said he thought it was a refreshing idea regarding the height and agreed that the massing of the two towers could be different.  Mr. Adams also noted that mural space has been set aside in the courtyard and they will be engaging the residents in the community in an art program.  

3. 604-645 West 41st Avenue

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-1)

Introduction:  Grant Miller, Rezoning Planner, introduced the proposal for a rezoning on a site on West 41st Avenue across from Oakridge Mall to allow the development of a six-storey Senior’s Supportive and Assisted Living building with 102 units. The site falls within the Riley Park South Cambie Vision Area and the Cambie Corridor Interim Rezoning Policy.  The proposal may be considered in advance of further planning as it provides for Seniors Housing. Regarding future development of the RS-1 properties north of the lane, the Vision approved additional housing near Cambie and the West 41st Avenue Shopping Area/Canada Line Station.  Housing types could range from more apartments near the Canada Line station to more ground-oriented housing within walking distance of the station to be determined through an area planning process. 

Sailen Black, Development Planner, further described the proposal for a six-storey senior and supportive and assisted housing project.  He noted that there were several design goals. These include the transition of form from West 41st Avenue, which is a heavy arterial condition, where the building expresses the full 6-storey in height and massing to the back side of the building which has been sculpted in order to consider some solar access for the single family neighbourhood to the north.  As well the sculpting does offer some outdoor private space for the residents adjoining amenity rooms. There is a design goal to break up the massing on the West 41st Avenue side of the building. In term of the setbacks around the building, there is approximately ten feet of setback.  Another challenge has been to accommodate the different users groups who would be interested in using the open space.  The front yard is intended to provide a visual transition from the public realm to the site. 

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

• Proposed landscape and architectural design;
• Quality of the public realm interface on West 41st Avenue;
• The projects ability to serve the various user groups that are expected to come along West 41st Avenue;
• The approach the building has taken in transition from the higher density of Oakridge Mall to the single family neighbourhood.

Mr. Miller and Mr. Black took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments:  Stu Lyon, Architect, further described the proposal noting the site will be for assisted living for seniors and will not include nursing care.  It will be for independent living but with a full amenity package for meals and activities.  He noted that the developer has been waiting for City policy to come into place so that the project could be developed.  The proposal will provide an alternate form of housing as well it is a site that requires less parking and is only one block from the Canada Line and bus transportation.  Mr. Lyon described the architectural plans noting that there will be 102 units.  The entire ground floor will be used for amenity space and as well the project includes underground parking.  The drop off and pickup area will be off the lane. 

Senga Lindsay, Landscape Architect, described the landscaping plans for the project noting the plant material that will provide colour, texture, flowers and animation through the whole garden.  The plan is to provide a garden like setting for the residents.  A double row of trees are planned along West 41st Avenue.  The north side will have a sitting area in the garden area.  The roof top terrace will have big planters with a large tree in the middle. 

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement: 

• Design development to create a more urban response and improved architectural character;
• Consider more height if necessary to develop the scheme;
• Further design development of the landscape treatment to improve public open space.

Related Commentary:  The Panel supported the proposal.

The Panel thought it was an appropriate and convenient location for seniors and agreed that a six storey building was supportable.  Several Panel members suggested that they would support additional height in order to create a more urban character for the project.  They liked that the building was terraced back to the residential neighbourhood and would make for a good acoustic barrier from the traffic and noise on West 41st Avenue.  A couple of Panel members recognized that the design elements are traditional given the residents, but it was suggested that it could also be more forward thinking in its design as the project will set a precedent for future development in the area.

Several Panel members thought there were some missed opportunities with the landscaping. A couple of Panel members suggested the landscaping needed to be more urban on West 41st Avenue.  Although the Panel appreciated the exuberance of the landscaping they thought the patios and terraces on the south side needed some design development. Several Panel members would like to see the terrace off the dining room be pushed further out beyond the setback.  They also thought the loading and arrival area was the only open space on the project and contributed to the loss of outdoor space for the residents.  The Panel thought the space could be better organized and improved to allow for more garden space so it could be used by the residents rather than just as a loading dock and drop off area.   As well they thought the patio on the west was in too shady of an area to be used often.  Overall they thought the landscape plans needed to have more thought regarding events that would happen outside.  A couple of Panel members didn’t support the single tree in the middle of the roof deck and thought there were other landscaping opportunities that could be applied.  A number of Panel members were concerned with the proposed plant material and thought the material chosen would not offer much greenery in the winter months.

Regarding sustainability, the orientation of the building is beneficial for the energy performance, although it was suggested that some functional articulation could be added to the south façade such as sun shades to reduce solar gain. 

Applicant’s Response:  Mr. Lyon thanked the Panel noting that the project was currently a rezoning application and they were looking for feedback and would consider all of the comments as they move forward.

4. 338 West 6th Avenue

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-3)

Introduction:  Bob Adair, Development Planner, noted that the Panel had reviewed the application in October of last year and received non-support on the basis of a number concerns.  The applicant has responded with a resubmission.  Mr. Adair went through the Panel’s concerns which included:

The general form and expression of the building.  The applicant has since done an analysis of the Burrard Street façade of the Dal Grauer substation downtown, and has adjusted the elevation treatment to try to create a greater sense of transparency and animation on the central portion of the West 6th Avenue façade.  An LED lighting system is being proposed that would fluctuate with power usage and help to express some of the internal functions of the building.  A functional lifting frame has been added over the transformer bays to further express the industrial nature of the site.

Choice of materials and colours.  The material palette has been simplified by the elimination of one of the two metal panel systems and the composite wood framework at the edges of the site.  the proposed materials are now poured-in-place concrete, charcoal coloured true brick veneer, curtain wall glazing, copper-coloured standing seam enameled metal cladding and punched metal screened finished to match the cladding.

Treatment of the Alberta Street elevation.   This elevation has been revised, with the removal of the previously proposed graphic panels and replacement with a punched metal panel system, and ventilation louvres below. The landscape plan is largely unchanged, but the use of metal ‘grow mesh’ has been expanded on the West 6th Avenue and lane facades of the building.

Sustainability initiatives.  The applicant has had a number of discussions with the City’s SEFC Neighbourhood Energy Utility staff, and has also consulted with Hyundai, the manufacturer of the transformers. Discussions with the City are ongoing as to potential use of any recovered heat, but the applicant has received word from Hyundai that installation of any of the proposed heat recovery systems would void the warranty for the transformers.

Mr. Adair noted that staff generally accept the overall proposal as shown, but have some questions as to whether additional simplification of the massing is warranted and possible. There are also some remaining concerns about materials.

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

• Whether the overall form would be strengthened by additional simplification of the massing in the central bay, noting the overlapping forms and materials in this area.  
• Comments on the standing seam metal panel system, from a standpoint of long term quality and appearance, as well as the colour choice. The applicant has brought a sample of the actual panel for review.

Mr. Adair took questions from the Panel.

Applicant’s Introductory Comments:  Ian McKay, Architect, further described the project noting that they have made several changes to the design including bringing the glazing forward on the West 6th Avenue side of the building.  There is an issue with the transparency regarding security because there is some equipment that shouldn’t be seen.  They have introduced punched metal screens in the openings to allow more light to enter the building and for more transparency.  Windows have been introduced into the bay with louvers in the middle.  The punched metal panels will also be used in the stairwell and the railings.  On the east side of the building, there needs to be a removable panel to get the transformer pieces out so a steel frame has been added to the opening with perforated panels and some horizontal mullions on top.  Mr. McKay noted that there is now less in-take louvers with only four on the lane.  The materials include copper and aluminum colors that are expressing the wiring that is used on the inside of the building. 

Peter Kreuk, Landscape Architect, noted that not much has changed since the previous review by the Panel.  There is an increase in wire mesh systems around the building.  There will be a little seating area at the corner of West 6th Avenue that is part of a bulge on the corner that deals with storm water issues. 

Marcel Reghelin described the sustainability measures noting that they have done an assessment on the sources of heat potentially recoverable within the building.  As a result of the study, they have come up with five different configurations of heat recovery systems from the transformers.  They met with representatives of the South East False Creek Energy Centre and are still waiting for their assessment on the value of taking heat recovery from the sub station.  Mr. Reghelin also noted that they have sent the five different configurations to the transformer’s manufacturer in Korea to evaluate and assess what the impact would be and whether the heat recovery system could be accomplished without compromising the reliability of the transformers.  Essentially Hyundai’s has a couple of concerns with the attempt to recover heat because it may compromise their cooling system for the transformers and may be a greater risk of the introduction of air and moisture into the oil stream to the transformers.  He noted that they are still doing further assessments although if the manufacturer’s assessment is maintained then they wouldn’t be able to entertain a heat recovery system.  Regardless, Mr. Reghelin noted that the project is being developed with sustainability in mind and there are a series of other features that have been built in to the design to have the building qualify for LEED™ Silver.

The applicant team took questions from the Panel.

Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:  

• Consider simplifying the building components;
• Consider using metal copper panels rather than using paint;
• Consider making the building more transparent; and
• Continue to find a solution for the waste heat capture.

Related Commentary:  The Panel supported the proposal and thought the project was going in the right direction.

The Panel thought the improvements on the transformer side of the building was supportable but had mixed feelings about the use of copper paint rather than using actual copper sheeting.  A couple of Panel members were concerned with the use of ribbed materials on the lane way side as they felt it would be easily damaged.  Most of the Panel thought the design would benefit from more simplification in the mass as there were still too many forms and shapes although it was noted that most of the elements were simple and elegantly detailed.  One Panel member suggested using the palette of materials to simplify the building. Several Panel members thought the building didn’t need to apologize for being a big industrial building and although they supported the building stepping back they thought it didn’t need to try too hard to step down to the residential scale.  Several Panel members still thought the project would benefit from having more transparency into the building to allow the public to have an opportunity to see the use. 

The Panel supported the landscape plans and thought they were simple and strong but thought the landscape could be better tied to the use in the building.  One Panel member suggested using paved strips for the trucks that would back into the building in front of the transformer doors.  One Panel member suggested having something in the landscape that reflects the movement of the transformers out of the building.

A couple of Panel member suggested that there should be a statement that informs the public of the building’s use and that some sort of art form that is informational could be used as an expression of that use.

Regarding sustainability, it was noted that the applicant took the opportunity to discuss the waste heat capture with the manufacture who had some concerns that the process might damage the transformers.  The Panel encouraged the applicant to continue talking to the manufacture regarding the waste heat capture from the transformers and to find a way to make it work.  The Panel also encouraged the applicant to continue their talks with the South East False Creek Neighbourhood Energy Centre.

Applicant’s Response:  Mr. McKay said it was an exciting project to work on noting that having to understanding the function of the building and trying to put the components together made for an interesting challenge.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.

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

© 2009 City of Vancouver