Posted May 27, 2013, 6:34 PM
|
 |
Ferris Wheel Hater
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 8,371
|
|
Here are the minutes from the UDP meeting.
Quote:
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (5-3)
• Introduction: Karen Hoese, Rezoning Planner, described the proposal for a rezoning on asite at Helmcken and Richards Street at the north end of Emery Barnes Park. It is currently the site of Jubilee House, a social housing site. The rezoning application proposes to increase the density and height beyond that permitted under the current zoning. The intent is to build a 36-storey tower including 428 residential units of which 73 are proposed as market rental and a private pre-school and commercial retail unit at grade. Ms. Hoese noted that in 2008, as part of the Benefit Capacity report, Council endorsed consideration for addition height and density in the DTS, up to the underside of the approved view corridors through rezoning to achieve public benefits. As part of this application the applicant is proposing to provide social housing at 1099 Richards Street including replacement housing for Jubilee House residents currently located on the site. The provision of new and replacement social housing as well as the provision of market rental housing is consistent with Council policy and the City’s housing objective. Ms. Hoese mentioned that all rezoning are subject to the Green Building Policy which requires that rezonings achieve LEED™ Gold with specific emphasis on optimized energy performance.
Sailen Black, Development Planner, further described the proposal noting the new bikeway coming to the north side of Helmcken Street. As well there is a view corridor extending from Choklit Park to Grouse Mountain that limits the maximum height over most of the site to approximately 324 feet. There is another view corridor from Laurel Landbridge to Crown that limits a portion at the corner to approximately 266 feet. Mr. Black explained that the Downtown South guidelines for the New Yaletown area recommends a form of development that is intended to provide for relatively high density living while preserving access to light, view and air for residents. To this end, the guidelines recommend a tower plate of no more than 6,500 square feet in area, but allow a wider podium base to form a well-definedstreet wall set back twelve feet from the property line to accommodate a double row of street trees and a transition area from the public to private realm. Setbacks on the other sides are recommended at 40 feet from interior property lines for building portions over 70 feet tall, and 30 feet of rear yard for building portions over 35 feet tall, which help provide at least 80 feet of separation between towers.
Advice from the Panel was sought on the following questions:
• Taking into consideration current zoning and guidelines,
- does the Panel support the proposed height (320 ft.), and density (17.1 FSR); and
- does the Panel support the proposed setbacks (0/20/30 feet), tower width (125 feet), and plate size (10,130 sq. ft.), within this neighbourhood context?
• Given the surrounding context and its location on Emery Barnes Park, is the revised form of development for the base of the tower (including open space and setbacks) a good fit for this part of Yaletown?
• Does the Panel have any advice on the overall design with regard to:
- Neighbourliness including shadow and view impacts
- Open space and landscape treatments
- Preliminary comments on the exterior composition or expression in response to this unique site and context?
Ms. Hoese and Mr. Black took questions from the Panel.
• Applicant’s Introductory Comments: Stu Lyon, Architect, further described the proposal and said he wanted to focus on the comments from the last review. He acknowledged the Panel’s comment regarding improving the relationship between the tower and the park and stated that they have moved the whole building back twelve feet. He also noted that they wanted to place the building in the park and let the park go around the tower which was in part to keep the tower profile continuous all the way to grade. Since they didn’t receive support for this expression they have created an orthogonal base that relates more strongly to the urban context. This gives more definition for the school and articulation to its
entrance. Mr. Lyon noted that the building wasn’t relating to Brookland Court(the building next door) and they have now taken that into account by reorienting the Helmcken Street frontage to follow the alignment of Brookland Court. He mentioned that there were comments about the top of the building being too flat so they have created a bevel and recessed balconies with chamfers on the corners of the building. As well they have narrowed the width of the slot. Mr. Lyon mentioned that they have improved the maneuverability for vehicles in the lane. He also explained that there is a need for a certain density on the site in order to support the non-market housing project across the
street but they have reduced it a bit and made the floor plates a little smaller. He described the material and color palette proposed for the project.
Julian Pattison, Landscape Architect, described the landscaping for the project and noted they have changed the paving pattern and will transfer some of the ideas from the park. They have created a landscape buffer that anchors the corner of the school. Along Richards Street there is a line of street trees with a series of raised terraces to separate private and public spaces in front of the townhouse units.
The applicant team took questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to improve how the tower meets the base;
• Design development to improve the entry sequence;
• Design development to improve the termination of the tower;
• Design development to the landscaping for a greener edge to the park;
• Consider other ways to activate the ground floor.
• Related Commentary: The Panel supported the proposal and thought the response at grade and how the park was relating to the tower had been improved.
The Panel appreciated the applicant’s response to their comments from the last review however while the panel supported the height and density they still had a number of concerns regarding the proposal. They thought that one of the biggest issues was how the tower meets both the podium and the park. The design development of the tower from the original submission has improved but the Panel felt it needs additional refinement. There was a great deal of discussion on the tower and a number of recommendations were made such as allowing a portion of the tower to be expressed at the base. In addition the Panel suggested the entry lobby be made smaller and more area be given over to retail, and the water feature at the corner be reduced or eliminated altogether. A number of Panel members felt that the park was still fighting the building and seemed to have a back edge to the park. One Panel member suggested letting the park end on the south to make it stronger and to explore the idea of having a green edge.
The Panel supported the south elevation of the tower as this will be the facade of the building that will be most experienced by the general public from the park however they felt that further design development needed to occur on the other free elevations. The Panel also expressed concerns over the design of the top of the tower.
Most of the Panel felt the lane way had too much hard surface area and suggested the applicant explore softening the expression and making it a stronger multi-purpose link to the park. One Panel member wondered why the lane was being continued around the building and suggested it could end at the loading bay.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Lyon said he appreciated the Panel’s comments. He agreed that the project had some significant challenges in landing density but hopefully the Panel would see that they are willing to respond to the commentary. He said he wanted to assure the Panel that their comments would find their way into the design.
|
|
Prev
Linear Mode
