Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, July 5, 2006
Index
Present
256 East 2nd Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
MEMBERS OF THE URBAN DESIGN PANEL:
Nigel Baldwin (Chair)
Albert Bicol
Shahla Bozorgzadeh
James Cheng
Eileen Keenan
John Wall
Regrets:
Walter Francl
Margot Long
Tom Bunting
Bill Harrison
Peter Wreglesworth
C.C. Yao
Recording Secretary:
D. Kempton
1. 256 East 2nd Avenue
DE: 410276
Use: Live/work
Zoning: IC-3
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Christopher Bozyk Architects
Owner: Intracorp
Review: First
Delegation: Roger Koodoo, Tom Miller, Craig Taylor, Ed Craig, Peter Kreuk
Staff: Dale Morgan
EVALUATION: NON-SUPPORT (5-0)
• Introduction: Dale Morgan, Development Planner, presented this
complete application for a live/work and residential development in the
IC-3 zone along East 2nd Avenue. This steeply sloped site is located
on East 2nd Avenue west of Scotia Street. Mr. Morgan described the surrounding
site context noting that to the east, there are three old timer buildings
with some character merit but not on the heritage register. He also advised
that the three buildings have a minimum setback from the side property
line and there is an existing two storey wall which partially blocks
views. Mr. Morgan said that Brewery Creek passes through the neighbourhood;
however the watercourse does not cross this site.
Mr. Morgan advised that there are no design guidelines for IC-3 but
there are external design requirements that are part of the IC-3 regulations.
The use is conditional and the permitted height is 60 ft. outright with
a permitted outright density of 3 FSR and up to 2.5 FSR for live/work.
In IC-3 front yards are not permitted on 2nd Avenue, side yards are not
required and there is a 10 ft. rear yard setback requirement. The proposed
height exceeds the 60 ft. maximum, projecting beyond the envelope at
the west end of the site.
The typical floor to floor heights are 10 ft. and 12 ft. at grade. Underground
parking is provided for 138 cars, which is 14 spaces in excess of the
requirement, accessed from the lane. There is no provision for outdoor
amenity space, except at the gallery entrance. Mr. Morgan advised that
the live/work guidelines call for shared outdoor space.
Following the project description and overview of the material palate
and landscaping, Mr. Morgan noted the following areas in which the advice
of the Panel is sought:
- General scale, massing and neighbourly fit; specifically with respect
to the adjacent dwellings to the east and south of the subject site;
- Comments on the interface with the street;
- Livability of units, noting the lack of outdoor amenity space;
- Comments on the lane treatment and specifically the driveway access
location.
•
Applicant’s Introductory Comments: The applicants briefly described
the design rationale and responded to questions from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
- Scale and massing should respond better to the sloping grade on the
street;
- Revisit issues of natural light accessibility, ventilation and livability
of the units, in particular the long narrow units exacerbated by north
east exposure with deep balconies.
- Concerns about the long narrow hallways in general;
- Have a more sensitive relationship to the sloping topography. The suite
entries below grade are not acceptable;
- Concerns about possible CPTED issues with the deeply recessed common
entry;
- Create more outdoor amenity space.
- Lack of an indoor amenity space aside from the gallery.
• Related Commentary: The Panel did not support this application
and had a number of suggestions for improvement.
There were no concerns about the general materiality and balcony treatments
which were generally well regarded.
The Panel generally thought more attention should be paid to the response
of the scale and massing to the sloping grade of the street. The Panel
also felt that the interface with the neighbours deserved further consideration
and several options were suggested.
Design development to the lane elevation was recommended to add some
screening to the parking access area. It was also suggested that the
lane treatment itself could be more articulated and the patios could
be further developed.
In terms of sustainability, the Panel felt that the suite layout concept
was backwards. The long narrow units should be south facing and the shallow
units should be north facing. The Panel was concerned about the livability
of the dark, deep suites and noted that the bedrooms are at the back
of the bottom floor suites.
The Panel felt that the long corridor on the top floor needed further
consideration to create a sense of arrival. One Panel member suggested
exploring opportunities for modulation to create a space for socializing.
With respect to amenity space, the Panel felt strongly that the basement
exercise room would be underutilized due to lack of natural light or
ventilation and that an outdoor amenity space should be developed. There
were suggestions to allow roof access and possibly create a common area
on the roof top and to consider developing the top floor walkway as a
social spine.
Two Panel members thought that the gallery area could be improved by
opening the wall between the gallery and the entrance to give it more
transparency. One Panel member encouraged the applicant to consider providing
additional amenity such as storage, back of house functions and a wet
bar for the gallery space.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Taylor agreed with the livability
issues addressed by the Panel; however he advised that the building is
not purely facing north. Mr. Taylor said that there will be good morning
light coming into the northerly facing units.
The applicant team responded to the Panel commentary and indicated where
they might be able to make changes to the design. It was noted that this
design is similar to the UNO building where the view is the amenity and
the view is what makes the units livable. The applicant team indicated
that they could resolve the outdoor amenity space concerns and added
that the basement exercise room would also be a workshop space and that
skylights and ventilation would be provided. In addition, the applicant
team said they have considered using a glass wall in the gallery space
and are sorting out the structural implications.
|
