Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, October 2, 2002
Index
Present
977 West 22nd Avenue
2780 Alma Street
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Walter Francl, Chair
Helen Besharat
Jeffrey Corbett
Kim Perry
Maurice Pez
Richard Henry
Reena Lazar
Sorin Tatomir
Ken Terriss
Regrets:
Gerry Eckford
Joseph Hruda
Stuart Lyon
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 977 West 22nd Avenue
DA: 406967
Use: Mixed (4 storeys)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Gomberoff Bell Lyon
Owner: Barrie Lunoch
Review: First
Delegation: Tom Bell, Damon Oriente Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (8-0)
Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, presented this
application for a mixed commercial/ residential development at the corner
of Oak Street and 22nd Avenue, in the C-2 zone. The proposal is for 42
residential units above a commercial base. Ms. Molaro briefly reviewed
the site context. The application seeks a height relaxation up to 45 ft.
in various locations. It was noted the site has a cross slope of over
15 ft.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
height relaxation, given the context, shadowing and view impacts;
relationship of the massing to the adjacent RS-5 zone which has a height
limit of 35 ft.;
relationship of the massing to the neighbouring C-2 development;
architectural quality and proposed materials.
In accordance with current Council policy with respect to this zone,
the height relaxation requires a report to Council.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Tom Bell, Architect, described
the project. Materials are painted concrete and cementitious siding at
the base, brick frames on the second and third floors and glazing/aluminum
above. It is a simple, contemporary wood frame building, rectilinear in
form. The upper glazed part of the building is set back 1.5 ft. from the
property line. The rear of the building is stepped back in accordance
with the setback requirements. Damon Oriente briefly described the landscape
plan.
Panel's Comments: The Panel unanimously supported this application.
The Panel found it a handsome, modern building, well suited to its location.
It was considered to be a good solution for C-2. There were no concerns
about the relationship to the adjacent RS-5 and C-2 zones. The floor plans
are very well resolved.
The height relaxation was strongly supported.
The Oak Street elevation was seen as the most successful. One comment
was that the side elevations look like a different building, lacking the
clarity of the Oak Street elevation.
The Panel stressed the need for improved detailing, particularly at
ground level on Oak Street. Some Panel members questioned having the painted
concrete at the base where it has the greatest visual impact, and the
brick at the top. There were suggestions to bring the brick down to cover
some of the concrete which would make it more successful at the pedestrian
level. In general, the Panel found the building somewhat austere, and
suggested that the level of detail that has been applied to the upper
areas is lacking on the large concrete areas. The integration of reveals,
lighting and details into the concrete was strongly recommended. Another
recommendation was to consider recessed doors to the ground floor commercial
units to improve animation.
Some Panel members thought the transition between the brick and cementitious
material could be improved by maker a stronger differentiation between
the two materials.
Attention should be given to proportions, particularly the size of the
windows, e.g., at the corner of the Oak Street elevation the reduction
in window size appears to be accidental.
One Panel member suggested the stairs would be much more successful
with the introduction of natural light.
One Panel member found the glazed corner at Oak and 22nd an unsuccessful
corner gesture.
One Panel member thought the columns, especially in the centre, were
too weak, making it appear as though the glazed canopy is supporting the
brick above. With respect to the canopy, it was suggested it might be
better if it were fractured rather than attempting one clear span which
might be difficult to achieve successfully.
With respect to the units at the lane, some Panel members questioned
their lack of direct access at grade, which was seen as a missed opportunity,
both for the convenience of the residents of the units and for the neighbours
who would also benefit from greater animation in the lane.
A recommendation was made to treat the windows in such a way as to avoid
direct overlook onto neighbouring patios.
The landscape plan was supported, however, it was thought to be a lost
opportunity not to do more with the upper terraces, particularly the one
on concrete. It was suggested the unit could be marketed in a way that
allows the initial purchaser the choice of how it is treated. There was
also a recommendation to consider landscaping the gap between this building
and the property to the north on Oak Street.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Bell said all the Panel's comments
were very constructive, which gives him a lot of direction and will help
with the design development as the project proceeds.
2. 2780 Alma Street
DA: 406948
Use: Residential (4 storeys, 20 units)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Rositch Hemphill & Assoc.
Owner: Eric Fefer
Review: First
Delegation: Bryce Rositch, Wendy Armstrong
Staff: Anita Molaro
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-2)
Introduction: Anita Molaro, Development Planner, presented this
application for an all-residential building in the C-2 zone. The site
is located at the corner of 12th Avenue and Alma Street, across the street
from Almond Park. Neighbouring context is RS-1, with an adjacent all-residential
C-2 development and another C-2 zoned site currently containing two small
scale duplex and single family houses. The Planning Department supports
all-residential development on this site given its immediate context.
The proposal is for a U-shaped development with a courtyard providing
access to most of the units. The courtyard is 26 ft. wide at the entry,
expanding to 30 ft. Most of the units have secondary spaces oriented to
the courtyard and primary living spaces oriented externally.
The Panel's advice is sought on the following:
massing arrangement, particularly in relationship to the neighbouring
existing residential (likely to become a 4-storey C-2 development);
courtyard design, including entry sequence into the courtyard and location
of the elevator;
architectural quality;
choice and use of materials;
massing relationship at the lane;
setbacks.
Applicant's Opening Comments: Bryce Rositch, Architect, briefly
described the project, which has a small scale character with each unit
having its own front door. He reviewed the design rationale and Wendy
Armstrong briefly described the landscape plan.
Panel's Comments: The Panel strongly supported this application.
An all-residential solution for this site was supported. The Panel liked
the ground orientation of the suites and that they have their own front
doors. This will be an asset to the neighbourhood.
Several Panel members commented on the architectural style. While it
was not strongly endorsed, it was thought it could be marketed successfully.
The building appears somewhat massive on this site and it was recommended
that every effort be made to tone it down given the amount of elaborate
detailing which may detract from the overall scheme. The large expanse
of dark, asphalt shingles on the mansard roofs was a concern to some Panel
members and one Panel member questioned the roof's proportions.
There were a lot of comments about the courtyard. Some Panel members
found the small courtyard created unacceptable privacy problems, although
the majority found it satisfactory given there are no primary living spaces
facing onto it. The elevator in its current location was considered to
be a big imposition on the small courtyard. Suggestions included integrating
it into some of the building mass or making it more open and glazed.
Serious concerns were expressed about the close proximity of this building
to the neighbouring property to the east. Some Panel members found it
a very insensitive imposition on the neighbour and were unable to support
the project for this reason. However, the majority of Panel members found
the 4 ft. separation acceptable given the existing conditions. Suggestions
for improving the situation were to minimize the roof overhang to improve
light access.
Some Panel members suggested orienting the courtyard to Almond Park.
With respect to Unit 16, one Panel member found the small balcony next
to the stairway to be unnecessary.
The majority of Panel members had no concerns about the relationship
with the neighbouring property at the lane. It was felt to be unreasonable
to impose something on this property for some future unknown use next
door.
Applicant's Response: Mr. Rositch said all the comments are valid
and he noted they have looked at a number of different configurations
for the orientation of the courtyard to Almond Park. Ultimately the current
version was considered the best.
|
