Vancouver City Council

Urban Design Panel - Wednesday, October 13^th, 2004

Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Mark Ostry (Chair, Item 1)
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
Jeffrey Corbett
Alan Endall
Marta Farevaag (present for #3 only)
Ronald Lea
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin

Regrets:
Steven Keyes
Margot Long

Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard

Southeast False Creek
Use: Mixed
Zoning: CD-1
Architect: Hotson Bakker Boniface Haden/VIA/Stantec
Owner: City of Vancouver
Review: Second
Delegation: Graham McGarva, Norm Hotson, Joyce Drohan, Derek Lee, Jeff Olson
Staff: Ian Smith, Karis Hiebert, Brian Sears

EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-0)

· Introduction:

Ian Smith, Central Area Senior Planner for Southeast False Creek (SEFC), outlined Council's motions and instructions to staff from their meeting on July 26, 2004. His presentation noted Council's expectations for a high quality development that is characterized by its leadership in the promotion, implementation and education of evolving principles of sustainability. Mr. Smith emphasized Council's high expectations for the development as well their expectations for economic performance. He referred to the previous plan prior to Council's July instructions which was characterized by larger development sites, point towers above podium forms and a contiguous waterfront open space system.

Scot Hein, development planner for SEFC, reviewed the approvals process noting that staff would bring forward more developed information at the sub-area re-zoning stage following Council's approval of the Official Development Plan. The first two sub-areas are anticipated to include the sites associated with the 2010 Olympics Athletics Village and the Private Lands between First and Second Avenues. Mr. Hein highlighted the significant Council instructions which have influenced the new plan from their July 26, 2004 meeting including the following:

THAT Council establish a target of 1/3 (non-market)/ 1/3 (affordable)/ 1/3 (market) housing policy for the SEFC City-owned Lands;
THAT SEFC provide a full-size community centre serving all of SEFC, including a community boating facility for non-motorized recreational boating;
THAT only Low and Mid-Rise buildings be permitted, west of Quebec Street, with the intent to realize the target density;
THAT, while 26.4 acres of park is preferred, slightly less park space (up to 2.64 acres less park) may be considered in order to meet other priority objectives;
THAT the intent is not to widen 1st Avenue but to include building lines on City Lands to widen if necessary in the future after staff report back on the comprehensive transportation plan for SEFC including the Downtown Streetcar;
THAT a more active water's edge as a lively destination be pursued - encroaching into 30 m setback if necessary (phase so as to minimize encumbrance with False Creek sediment contamination management);
THAT instead of almost all residential, consider the opportunity for more than 200,000 sq. ft. of commercial development and jobs - especially of compatible activity such as eco-businesses, artistic businesses, net portal offices, and live-work; and
THAT the Salt Building and one or both of the other heritage buildings be kept generally in-situ (do not move them).
THAT the SEFC ODP explicitly express the intent for architectural excellence and to bring significance to community buildings as `signature' designs; and ensure a distinctive design image for the whole community;
THAT Council confirm as a priority, the policy requiring environmental sustainability (and LEED) that provides a new level of "base case" sustainability performance that can be applied to other projects in the City and implement demonstration projects to showcase especially innovative environmental measures (take risks to experiment) - such as using alternative energy and maximizing green roofs;
THAT Council confirm as a priority the policy requiring significant urban agriculture;
THAT Council confirm that the SEFC ODP boundaries will include City and adjacent private lands - and that this be reflected in an integrated Illustrative Plan and phasing policies;
THAT Council confirm that the SEFC development on City-owned lands be structured with a variety of parcel sizes so as to foster an incremental quality to the pattern of that development; and
THAT Council confirm as a priority the policy of universal design to provide high levels of accessibility, acknowledging that there are some exceptions that may be necessary related to rowhouse or multi-storey residential units; and include provisions for aging in place, including accessibility, mobility, and safety in the SEFC ODP.
THAT the Southeast False Creek Official Development Plan and its Illustrative Plan be further developed with the following instructions: show strong preference for pedestrians, bicycles and transit over cars; reallocate park to provide a better balance between the east and west including smaller parks in the east neighbourhood providing that they do not dissipate usable park space; provide direct linkage of the Ontario greenway/bikeway into the park system; develop roofs as green spaces and for recreation with some consideration of linkages; and investigate approaches to bring water in closer association to the in-situ Salt building.
THAT in completing the ODP and Illustrative Plan for SEFC, staff consider possibilities to narrow the exclusively residential streets to provide greater area for development or park.
THAT the ODP be amended to make provision for the preservation, maintenance, and incorporation into the site of found artifacts and any discovered heritage fabric.
Given these Council instructions, and the design response to them embodied in the new plan, staff have developed 15 questions which are intended to illicit more general advice from Panel members at this stage. Mr. Hein emphasized that a more detailed review by the Panel would occur at the sub-area re-zoning stage, and related development permit applications, where greater understanding of programming, public realm systems, commercial viability, Olympic requirements and Council's more definitive instructions on sustainability performance are known. Mr. Hein confirmed that future reviews by the panel would be done in the context of draft design guidelines for each sub-area. His questions, with respective Panel commentary, are summarized below. Mr. Hotson, Ms. Drohan and Mr. Lee reviewed various aspects and characteristics of the plan in response to Council's instructions including the guiding planning principals.

· Panel Comments: The Panel reviewed the materials and offered advice as follows:

General Advice: The new plan was strongly supported noting a strong preference for the concept of a "working framework" that was both robust, and flexible, as a strategy to implement new sustainability approaches over time. Members generally agreed that the plan responded effectively to the July 26, 2004 instructions and commended Council for the change in direction, specifically the adjustments to economic performance expectations for the development. Members, while acknowledging the proponent's intentions to develop three specific sub-areas, felt that more character defining detail will be necessary at the re-zoning stage to clearly distinguish each sub-area environment and looked forward to their next review where greater resolution of technical requirements, including road and public realm systems, parcelization, heritage, artifacts, and most importantly - sustainability qualities/features/ systems that would characterize the overall development and the distinct sub-areas. The Panel expressed very high expectations for the development, specifically in its leadership, education, applicability to future development throughout the city and for architectural and public realm excellence.
Advice sought on USE

1) Is the village centre appropriately located?
Panel members generally agreed that the village centre was appropriately located but were unsure of the extent of ground oriented commercial programming that would ensure long term viability. The village identity will benefit by accommodating a variety of uses with greater intensification. Design of the public realm should announce the village location from both Main Street and 2nd Avenue to ensure integration with the surrounding context.

2) Are the related ground-oriented retail frontages appropriately located with respect to longer term viability?
Panel members were unsure about long term commercial viability with respect to Council's instructions at 200,000 square feet and suggested that further study be completed to inform the sub-area re-zonings. Members confirmed strong support for flex space, especially at grade, as referenced on the colour coded plans (red and orange references). Further analysis of floor to floor heights, and related building height limits, should be analysed to ensure interchangeability of uses both at grade, and on upper floors, to fully realize the flex-space concept.

3) Are the activities planned for the lower scale waterfront oriented sites appropriately located?
Panel members strongly supported the activities, and proposed building typology, for the waterfront and encouraged the city to pursue necessary negotiations to realize this aspect of the plan which was seen as integral to the success of the development and village centre. Panel members emphasized that the appropriate design response should be of very low scale and industrial in expression to reflect the working history of the waterfront and more specifically, shipyards activities. Some members felt that the hotel site was too prominent on the waterfront and suggested a more internal siting while remaining integrated with the village centre. The east - west bike routes, noting five possibilities for travel in this orientation, should not rely on the waterfront, with pedestrian emphasis on a boardwalk concept, for commuting or faster travel. The panel recommended consideration of aggressive parking relaxations for these waterfront sites, and for the development as a whole.

4) What uses should be considered at grade for 1st and 2nd Avenue frontages?
Is the community centre and school appropriately located?
Panel members confirmed support for the community centre location given proximity to larger open space programming but expressed some concern with the school location noting its prominence as a prime development site highly visible from the north shore of False Creek. Flex space uses with retail emphasis as presented were supported. Panel members noted that efforts were required to maximize the Second Avenue setback on the north side given the vehicular environment impacts as a well utilized truck route. Opportunities for double-fronting ground uses that provide pedestrian interest at grade, and for the internal courtyards, were encouraged for First Avenue.

Advice sought on DENSITY/FORM OF DEVELOPMENT
(Placemaking/Imagability considerations)

5) Is the overall planning concept legible? (is the urban structure coherent noting the three distinct "grains" or sub-areas (work/ship/rail yards))
Panel members felt the plan was generally legible and well conceived for the ODP level of detail presented. Further design development at the re-zoning stage for the sub-areas, and for specific development permit applications, to achieve greater clarity of the sites distinguishing qualities is required. A greater mix, and intensification of uses, that more clearly announce the village centre, more specifically the Salt Building, should be pursued. Efforts to capitalize on the site's working history and memory through integration of heritage resources and artifacts is crucial to the success of the overall development

6) Is the parcelization strategy appropriate and will it facilitate incremental development of varying scale noting Council's instructions?
Panel members felt that the new plan provided a robust framework that could accommodate a wide range of proponents, uses and building types over time. A more incremental approach through smaller parcel patterning provides greater opportunities to "learn as you go" which could yield greater value in the application of sustainability approaches both on and off site. The plan was seen as more democratic with greater opportunities for participation and ownership over the previous plan.

7) Does the plan capitalize on the in situ heritage resources (5 sites) in creating/enhancing sub-area identity? (overall approach supported by Heritage Commission)
Panel members strongly supported the approach taken in utilizing in-situ heritage resources as a strategy for place-making and sub-area definition. Appropriate uses for these buildings should be identified to ensure that the historic buildings are well utilized while assisting pedestrians in their understanding of the site's urban structure. The suggested relationship of these buildings to their immediate new context should be strengthened at the sub-area re-zoning stage.

8) Is the open space system, related courtyard emphasis and pedestrian network successful as an integral component of the overall concept and does it contribute to placemaking?
Panel members generally supported the overall open space structure and believed that it could be well integrated through further design development at the sub-area re-zoning stage. The scale of buildings that define the larger open space components was seen to be appropriate although concern with shadowing on the "hinge" park was expressed. Further refinement to the adjacent building forms for this park, including pursuit of terraced forms, should be pursued at the re-zoning stage. Further clarification of the edge/public access/private open space relationship for the two generic "crescent" buildings adjacent to the westernmost park is required. The courtyard approach for both the public and private lands was strongly supported noting that further clarity to differentiate between public and private spaces is necessary at the next stage. Members recommended that the Official Development Plan address the proposed courtyard concept with respect to public access, design technical expectations, noting that success/implementation may be dependent upon by-law compliance and other legal mechanisms such as ROW agreements.

9) Is the hierarchy of streets legible and are they appropriately scaled noting Council's instructions?
Panel members agreed with the proposed hierarchy of streets and general dimensional attributes presented in the schematic cross-sections. Further detailed refinement to ensure that Council's expectations for "tight" streets should be pursued. Panel members expressed expectations for a high quality public realm, including external expression of sustainability, materials and detailing at the sub-area re-zoning stage. Specific streets should be identified where surface parking is appropriate.

10) Is the building typology appropriate for the site's position in the city?
Given advice on typology, are designated heights and respective locations appropriate?
Building typology, including proposed heights and form, were generally supported noting the panel's strong support for the new direction taken. The panel also believed that the proposed north-south siting of buildings yielding greater view potential was supportable. Detailed analysis to ensure that proposed FSR's are achievable with more refined massing, including greater articulation, is necessary in advance of ODP consideration by Council. The panel supported some east-west modulation in heights to emphasize important site entries and features including the hinge park and village centre. Panel members looked forward to their review of more detailed building typology, that more clearly, and outwardly, expresses sustainability and the industrial context that characterizes this area of the city, at the next stage.

11) Should the massing approach be characterized by modulation through varied heights and form and if so, does the plan effectively achieve that goal?
Panel members supported some east-west modulation in building heights across the site to emphasize logical places of emphasis. The overall north-south massing approach that locates lower heights approaching the waterfront, with heights rising towards the private lands, and scaled down to a second avenue streetwall was supported.

12) Is the proposed building form adjacent to larger open spaces appropriate?
Panel members felt that more detailed shadow analysis is required at the next stage noting concern with overshadowing on the "hinge" park. Further analysis of solar access for internal courtyards is also required.

13) Does the network of lane oriented courtyards, and related building form, provide an appropriate response to 2nd Avenue impacts, the industrial context to the south and as transitional form to the water?
Panel members agreed with the courtyard approach taken, specifically for the private lands, noting that more work is required to confirm how public spaces will be secured.

14) Commentary on the pedestrian and bicycle network?
Panel members felt that the proposed bicycle network, characterized by five east-west routes, was well conceived. Members expressed general support for a vibrant pedestrian network with an emphasis of activity occurring on the streets/sidewalks first. Mid-block connections was viewed as an important component of the overall network noting longer east-west block lengths for the private lands. Further analysis to ensure that secondary connections are appropriately located, well utilized, public, safe and integral to the overall network is necessary at the next stage.

15) Which option for the Manitoba Street approach to the Salt Building is preferred?
Panel members preferred the option presented in the overall plan as opposed to the option characterized by the one-way couplet with the triangular forecourt traffic island. An additional setback for new development on the southeast corner of First Avenue and Manitoba Street was recommended to further reveal the south facade of the Salt Building as a strategy to announce the village centre.

Mr. Hotson thanked the panel for their commentary and advice which was considered very helpful at this stage and looked forward to more detail resolution that addressed the Panel's advice at the sub-area re-zoning stage.