Advisory Design Panel Minutes

Transcription

1 Chair: S. Lyon Panel Members: CPL. M. Searle K. Newbert L. Mickelson M. Ehman R. Myers M. Mortensen Advisory Design Panel Minutes Guests: C. Hogan, Focus Architecture Inc. A. Good, DMG Landscape Architects D. Mangat, Darman Holdings Ltd. J. Losee, Jonathan Losee Ltd. P. Martin, Wilson Chang Architect Inc. W. Chang, Wilson Chang Architect Inc. Parks Boardroom #1 City Hall Avenue Surrey, B.C. THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2010 Time: 4:13 p.m. Staff Present: T. Ainscough, Planning & Development M. B. Rondeau, Planning & Development T. Mueller, Legislative Services A. RECEIPT OF MINUTES Moved by L. Mickelson Seconded by M. Ehman That the minutes of the Advisory Design Panel meeting held on November 4, 2010 be received. B. OTHER COMPETENT BUSINESS Schedule be adopted. Moved by K. Newbert Seconded by M. Mortensen That the 2011 Advisory Design Panel Meeting C. SUBMISSIONS 1. File No.: New or Resubmit: Resubmit Last Submission Date: June 10, 2010 Description: Proposed mixed-use high-rise residential/commercial development consisting of 210 residential units and 5 commercial units. Address: Avenue, City Centre Developer: Alphonse Kho, Kenstone Properties Architect: Colin Hogan, Focus Architecture Inc. Landscape Architect: Allison Good, DMG Landscape Architects Planner: Pat Lau Urban Design Planner: Mary Beth Rondeau h:\adp\minutes\2010 minutes\min adp docx Page 1

2 The Urban Design Planner made the following comments: The development is situated in a prominent location on King George Boulevard and generally meets the intent of urban design guidelines. Green treatments have been incorporated on the boulevard. During the June 10, 2010 ADP, there was discussion surrounding loading and driveway at 98 Ave.; this area has been revised and the loading and driveway have been deleted. In the resubmission, the podium is a more consistent 3-storey base, the tower form has been significantly adjusted, and most of the design responses were related to the response to solar. noted that the FAR has increased slightly from 4.8 to 5.1. With this type of density, it is a matter of how well the building responds to the context and the quality of the proposal. The Project Architect made the following comments: In the June 10, 2010 submission, the base was disjointed and there was concern with how it would interface with future developments. The tower was previously symmetrical and orientation was an issue. There was a feeling that there was a missed opportunity to have the tower more strongly anchor the corner. The loading area has been revised and an auto court provided at the west end of the site. There are two residential units at level 1 of the tower and the feeling from the developer is that they like having residential units at this location. There is a good grade break and the residential units are above the circulation. The big design change is evident in the tower design. The mass of the building has been pulled out to the corner. The north side and the east sides are primarily glazed and have relatively few balconies. At the June 10, 2010 Panel there was a lot of discussion about the south and the west sides and since that time, work was done to improve the response to solar gain. There is more of a punched window kind of language and it takes it down to 50% glazing. The podium is brick at the townhouse level there is more of a glass bay type of glazing. The grade has been raised there by 3 or 4 feet off of the sidewalk elevation to give a stronger sense of entry. On the west side there is a significant amount of balcony to control solar gain. There is now direct access from the living level to south facing rooftop access. The Landscape Architect made the following comments: The site planning changes are minor. There was some discussion about the row of existing trees; the area will be re-landscaped. Decorative paving and exposed aggregate bands will be added. The edge of the green space area will be planted; in the future as more development occurs in City Centre, the City can remove it. h:\adp\minutes\2010 minutes\min adp docx Page 2

3 At 98 th Avenue the Green Network Study was responded to by adding small unit pavers along the curb edge. There are cut -throughs to all entries to the townhomes. The roof deck plan changed and the space is now more useable. There is an outdoor fitness area and an outdoor amenity area common to the building. As well there is a nature play space for children in the lawn and it very much functions like a back yard for the entire complex. ADVISORY DESIGN PANEL STATEMENT OF REVIEW Avenue, City Centre File No Moved by M. Ehman Seconded by M. Mortensen That the Advisory Design Panel (ADP) recommends that the applicant address the following issues to the satisfaction of Planning and Development. STATEMENT OF REVIEW COMMENTS Context and Site Circulation The applicant should be commended for responding to the comments. Good contextual response to adjacent buildings. Form and Character Consider better articulation of form between townhouses and tower. Still an awkwardness where the townhouses connect to the tower along the street edge. There is a conflict; they are not townhouses but are actually tower units. Consider varying the expression at the junction with the tower, e.g., might mean dropping the parapet on the tower part of it to break the line. The top of the tower is improved; there are opportunities to use the tower top as a green roof or amenity space without taking the elevator up. Make it an amenity for the building. On the roof of the townhouses, consideration should be made for a green roof. The two ground floor units seem orphaned / awkward. Landscaping Previous landscaping plan was well developed and the issues have been addressed. h:\adp\minutes\2010 minutes\min adp docx Page 3

4 CPTED and Accessibility Make sure access is secure for after hours entry sequence, e.g., at the south. Consideration should be given for placing clearly readable address at the top of the building for police air support activities. Sustainability The work done on the south and west elevations are a big step in the right direction. Could look at a little less glass or maybe have a better performance glass on the south and west side to alleviate difficulties due to solar gain. 4:45 PM 2. File No.: New or Resubmit: New Description: Proposed 3-storey apartment consisting of 29 units Address: 10601/09/ Street, City Centre Developer: Darshan Mangat, Darman Holdings Ltd. Architect: Wilson Chang, Wilson Chang Architect Inc. Landscape Architect: Jonathan Losee, Jonathan Losee Ltd. Planner: Jennifer McLean Urban Design Planner: Mary Beth Rondeau The Urban Design Planner provided an overview of the project: Project is located in the NE residential area of the City Centre. It is a residential development with flats on the ground floor with street orientation and 1 level of underground parking. The finer grade road network is being worked out; given the very long existing blocks a partial east/west road would have been sought as part of this development. A future road or lane will likely be sought along the south side of the property. Therefore, the south side of the building should be treated as a primary facade. The proposal is a rezoning to CD with a 1.5 FAR. The area is multiple residential that could be 4 6 storeys and up to 2.5 FAR so this site is below what could be considered. The project generally meets the urban design guidelines; planning staff has no major issues with the site but suggested that the elevation along the south side could have more brick added. The Project Architect made the following comments: The context includes one multifamily development, the rest is single family. The development is a modern character with a flat roof with rooftop balconies, consistent with recent projects in city centre. Brick is the dominant material along the street front. h:\adp\minutes\2010 minutes\min adp docx Page 4

5 On the first level there is access to 138 th St. and for the upper units there is an entrance through the primary courtyard. The courtyard is slightly elevated as opposed to a typical townhouse design. Each upper unit has an accessible rooftop. The south walkway connects 138 th to the back of the development to provide a street front treatment. The parking entrance is located at the lowest part of the site. The vertical access point from the parking to the courtyard is quite clear and well lit lending to natural surveillance. Due to the project type, it is difficult for wheelchair accessibility. The ground floor units are accessible from the street and to underground parking. Materials used are Hardie board with metal trim. The Landscape Architect made the following comments: There is walkway access to the sides of the building for continuity. The centre has bike parking and terraced gardens. The hydro kiosk will require maintenance; in response, a reinforced turf area was incorporated to allow for vehicular access. Landscaping columns serve as partitions between the units. There is hedge planting to the sides of the units. There are nodes with wide fire access pathways paved with unit pavers. Access to the roof will be a conservative approach of unit pavers and slabs (with appropriate loading); it will be left to the individual homeowners to generate their own landscape response. ADVISORY DESIGN PANEL STATEMENT OF REVIEW 10601/09/ Street, City Centre File No Moved by L. Mickelson Seconded by R. Myers That the Advisory Design Panel (ADP) recommends that the applicant address the following issues to the satisfaction of the Planning & Development Department and, at the discretion of Planning Staff, resubmit the project to the ADP for review. STATEMENT OF REVIEW COMMENTS Context and Site Circulation Review of the context was helpful. The scheme and the orientation have a lot going for it because the courtyard is north / south. The general orientation and the way the project links up are interesting. h:\adp\minutes\2010 minutes\min adp docx Page 5

6 Units on the ground floor are the only units that are potentially wheelchair accessible. In the underground parking there are spaces allowed for disabled parking. In the context of the development (above grade) no provision has been made for wheelchairs. Design develop the pathways to allow more accessibility for the disabled, e.g., remove steps to ground floor units. Form and Character Architecturally the aesthetic is interesting. Biggest concern is the ground floor plan and the liveability of those units. They are very long and narrow. The only access for light is in an area with a glazed canopy. The sun room does not seem like it would provide much light; should be looked at in a different way. The windows are too small in such a deep space; it is not very well thought out. The kitchen design could be more useable. Support the notion of extending the brick along the south side. The proportion of the brick element on the front of the building works; however, the mirroring effect does not work (at the living rooms). There should be another way of articulating, the parapet line could be broken, a fin added, further refinement of the double bay should be considered. Provide weather protection at entrances of all units. Currently there is a two foot overhang and that does not seem to be sufficient. Accessibly is a concern for able bodied people as well as those in wheelchairs. A hydraulic elevator would be beneficial for everyone and expand the market for children, groceries, laundry, etc. Like the roof decks on the third level. Consider opportunity to add shading and a covered area. Consideration should be given to a different treatment than light coloured Hardie panel. The thin profiles around the windows are a challenge to achieve. In terms of the finish detailing of the exterior, the Hardie panel is a rough material and there are more polished panels that cut nicer edges. The way the panel is detailed is important to the success. Landscaping Prudent to look at year round planting and selection that offers year round interest. Large use of hydrangeas is a concern; a more appropriate species should be considered. Some deciduous materials are problematic during the winter months. CPTED and Accessibility Historically the area has been a challenge for police. There is no street lighting and the alleyways and footpaths have pockets of criminal activity. Need to provide lighting at all faces of the building and at key locations, e.g., at the intercom. h:\adp\minutes\2010 minutes\min adp docx Page 6

7 Full consideration should be given to a lighting scheme. Encourage a clear definition of public and private space, areas in the back of the development should be strongly defined to prevent / deter individuals with criminal intent. Residents of the complex and visitors need to feel comfortable to exit their buildings from their back doors. Employ structures / techniques to prevent individuals gaining access to the property who should not be there, e.g., signed gates, ensure the gates are high enough so they cannot be easily climbed or jumped. The underground and visitor parking areas are a concern; consideration should be given to making the bike parking area more secure. Proximity of the bike storage room to the entry ramp makes it more vulnerable. One way to provide universal access from the parking is to make sure there is a walkway on either side from the underground up to the drive way. Sustainability Build in more shading on the west facade. There are large expanses of glass; more solar control is required to limit the amount of heat in the summer time. The fact that the windows are inset is a good idea; anything to create more shade would be beneficial; i.e., adding a fin between the large pieces of glass. Other ideas for low sun would be encouraged due to the east / west exposure. The Project Architect made the following comments: Appreciates the comments for the liveability of the ground floor units. Have tried ways to make less problematic. D. NEXT MEETING The next Advisory Design Panel is scheduled for Thursday, December 2, 2010, at 4:00 p.m. in Parks Meeting Room #1. E. ADJOURNMENT The Advisory Design Panel meeting adjourned at 5:34 p.m. Jane Sullivan, City Clerk Stuart Lyon, Advisory Design Panel h:\adp\minutes\2010 minutes\min adp docx Page 7