City Planning has sent a letter to the 25 Stafford (“Parc”) developer. Their summary of the letter is below.
NNN agrees with the city's assessment and looks forward to seeing changes to the development that are in line with the city's recommendations.
[City Summary Start]
• We consider the height and massing inappropriate for this location. The proposed height of the building should provide an appropriate transition between the adjacent building at 15 Stafford Street and the heritage listed Edward McNarmara row houses at 857-879 King Street West, and it should also provide an appropriate transition in height between the building to the west at 18 Stafford Street and Stanley Park South.
Our preliminary built form analysis shows that by reducing the height of the building further and stepping back the upper floor levels, a more context appropriate building could be developed that has no incremental shadow impacts on the Park above the 18m as-of-right shadow. This position is consistent with the position staff took regarding the building at 15 Stafford Street, where staff worked with the applicant to ensure there was negligible shadowing of the Park above the as-of-right shadowing.
The recommended changes would also reduce the overall density on the site (currently 9.4 times the lot area), bringing it more in keeping with the density at 15 Stafford Street (5.4 times the lot area) and 18 Stafford Street (6.4 times the lot area). The reduction in density would also help to address the deficiencies in parking and amenity space.
• The Bylaw requires 206m2 of indoor amenity space and 206m2 of outdoor amenity space. Only 76m2 in indoor amenity space is being provided and no outdoor amenity space is being provided. Additionally, indoor amenity space is required to be adjoining or directly accessible to the outdoor amenity space. While staff are usually supportive of minor reductions in amenity space requirements, we believe there is an opportunity to provide some outdoor amenity space onsite for all residents at grade, adjacent to the park as this many residents should not have to rely on a public park for all their outdoor amenity needs. Staff have reviewed the ground floor plan and have identified an opportunity to locate the indoor amenity space adjacent to the outdoor amenity space, while still allowing for approximately three units at grade, with private outdoor amenity spaces overlooking the park. There is also an opportunity to provide a direct connection from the lobby to the park, so that all residents of the building can directly access the park.
• With regards to the Stafford streetscape, staff would prefer to see the building frontage activated and the residential character of the street maintained and enhanced by:
• Setting the building back at grade to provide the same setback as 15 Stafford Street, which will produce a continuous street frontage and allow more landscaping opportunities;
• Locating residences at grade fronting Stafford Street, with patio areas adjacent to the sidewalk; and
• Locating the underground parking and loading access points adjacent to each other.
• Urban Forestry staff are concerned about the impact of the building on the trees adjacent to the site at the rear of the heritage building, given the trees canopies extend over the subject site. Urban Forestry are also requiring street trees to be planted along the Stafford St frontage.
• Staff request that a greater mix of unit types and sizes be integrated into the proposal, including bachelor units to increase affordable housing options and three bedroom units to allow more families to live and stay in the area. The current proposal contains one and two bedroom units only.
• Staff requested that consideration be given to the concerns raised by the community about the proposed building's proximity to the north facing balconies on the 15 Stafford Street building, which would limit the enjoyment of those balconies and the windows on the south face of the proposed building which have also raised privacy and overlook concerns.
• Planning and Technical Services staff have advised that onsite visitor parking will be required.
The city has asked that the developer continue to work with the city to revise the proposal, and is waiting for the applicant’s response.
[City Summary End]
