Urban Design Panel
Minutes
For: Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Index
Present
26 SW Marine Drive (Canadian Tire)
4453 Main Street
3611 West 18th Avenue
Present: Members of the Urban Design Panel:
Bruce Haden, Chair
Larry Adams
Robert Barnes
Jeffrey Corbett
Alan Endall
Marta Farevaag
Ronald Lea
Margot Long
Regrets:
Steven Keyes
Jennifer Marshall
Brian Martin
Mark Ostry
Recording Secretary:
Carol Hubbard
1. 26 SW Marine Drive (Canadian Tire)
Use: Retail
Zoning: I-1 to CD-1
Application Status: Rezoning
Architect: Kasian Kennedy Architects
Owner: Canadian Tire Real Estate
Review: Second
Delegation: Mike McDonald, Joanne Stich, Mary Chan-Yip
Staff: Scot Hein
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (7-0)
• Introduction: Scot Hein, Development Planner, presented this
rezoning application. The Panel did not support the form of development
when the application was first reviewed on November 24, 2004. The current
zoning allows a density of 0.6 FSR and the application seeks 0.79 FSR.
Mr. Hein briefly reviewed the Panel’s previous concerns and suggestions
with respect to the form of development and described the applicant’s
response. The advice of the Panel is sought on this response, including:
• density (specifically the increase in retail density);
• form of development, including:
- the relationship of the new building to the heritage structure;
- treatment of the northeast corner of Marine Drive;
- the Ontario streetwall with respect to use, scale, expression and signage;
- landscape treatment and sustainability strategy.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Mike McDonald, Architect,
briefly described the revised scheme, noting the approach is now for
more of a single building which is set farther back from the heritage
structure. Signage will be addressed in greater detail at the development
application stage. Joanne Stich briefly summarized the approach to sustainability
which includes a bio-filtration pond to handle the “first flush” water
off the parkade roof and the use of grey water for toilet flushing. To
reduce energy costs, the incorporation of skylights in the Canadian Tire
building is being investigated, as well as wrapping the rear building
with clerestory lighting to get some daylight into the retail space.
Large clerestories on the north façade will also bring daylight
into the upper retail. A more sustainable approach to the mechanical
systems will also be pursued at the development application stage.
The applicant team responded to questions from the Panel.
•
Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Design development to strengthen and clarify the architectural
character and authenticity of the expression;
• Design development to the north landscape and bio-filtration
pond to ensure functionality, giving consideration to the potential for
a simpler, more formal language reflecting both the heritage building
and including consideration of pedestrian desire lines;
• Enhance and emphasize vertical connections between parking levels
including consideration of both way-finding and addition of natural light
to the lower level;
• Enhance the Ontario street ground plane to emphasize pedestrian
quality, greenway links, planting quality and way-finding;
• Provide an integrated signage strategy that is respectful of
the simplicity of both the heritage building and the new building, particularly
on the Marine Drive façade.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel unanimously supported this revised submission. There were
no concerns about the proposed use and density.
The Panel found the form of development considerably improved and was
satisfied the project is now moving in the right direction. It is much
simpler and the industrial language works well. Panel members liked the
warehouse character as a backdrop to the heritage building but with some
concerns expressed that the Chrysler building still seems a very inert
building. Concerns remained about the relationship of the heritage structure
to the new building with respect to connection details and suggestions
were offered to make it engage more. There was a recommendation to ensure
that the overall architectural expression takes precedence over the commercial
uses on the site.
The Panel supported the massing and the bicycle hub at the northeast
corner and thought it would work well. A number of concerns were expressed
about the proposed bio-filtration pond. Some Panel members questioned
whether it would be successful because they tend to dry out and pumping
water would contradict the goal of sustainability. It was also noted
that the natural landscape expression around the pond seems counter to
the very formal aspect of the lawn. The heavy vegetation and shrubs may
also work against the goal of maintaining the vista across the lawn.
It was suggested a simpler, more urban approach might be better. Instead
of the bio-filtration pond, there was a suggestion to consider a green
roof, even partial, which might be easier to achieve than the pond. Given
the size of the building, a green roof would also help to bring down
its scale and would be more reflective of the simple heritage green lawn.
The Panel supported the preservation of the simplicity and clarity of
the lawn. It was suggested the circulation in the open space needed more
work, with a recommendation to consider respecting some diagonal desire
lines.
The Panel found the Ontario Street elevation much improved. It has much
greater clarity and the trellis is an interesting solution. It was stressed,
however, that the detailing will be critical in terms of the amount of
transparency it has and whether there should be variable heights. Further
design development was recommended to ensure this façade more
accurately reflects the uses behind it, which would also help with way-finding.
One Panel member questioned whether the trellis element was warranted
between major building masses, suggesting a more distinct break between
primary building masses might offer greater visibility to the parking
areas above as well as help to clarify the expression of the different
components on the site. Some concerns were expressed that way-finding
might be confusing. Greater attention at the development application
stage was recommended to strengthen way-finding and to make the arrival
and movement to the upper levels a more positive pedestrian experience.
In general, there is need for greater consideration at the ground plane.
With respect to signage, the Panel liked that the signage will be contained
within the overall frame of the building rather than protrude. It was
also suggested the signage seen driving east along Marine Drive should
be similarly sensitively handled. Signage will be an important consideration
at the development application stage.
With respect to the driveway crossings on Ontario Street, it was recommended
that priority be given to pedestrians rather than vehicles. Likewise,
the circulation in both levels of the parking lot should ensure pedestrian
priority, possibly with a central north-south spine through the centre.
There was also a recommendation to consider skylights in the upper parking
level rather than trees, to allow light down to the lower level, noting
that trees in upper parking decks are seldom successful. It was strongly
suggested that everything be done to get some daylight into the lower
level parking to create a more pleasant environment and improve security.
With respect to the Ontario Street greenway, it was noted there is opportunity
to increase the setback (a least three metres) from the CRUs and garden
centre to offer more than a typical streetscape and create more of a
greenway , making it a bold statement rather than a narrow boulevard.
It was noted the second row of trees currently will have insufficient
room to produce a full canopy but with a greater setback at least one
of the rows could be quite large specimens.
With respect to the north façade, it was stressed that night
lighting will be an important consideration at the next stage of design
development.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. McDonald thanked the Panel for
what he considered to be good recommendations.
2. 4453 Main Street
DE: 409034
Use: Mixed (4 storeys, 51 units)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: GBL Architects
Owner: Kevington Building Corp.
Review: First
Delegation: Tom Bell, Amela Brudar
Staff: James Boldt
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (6-1)
• Introduction: James Boldt, Development Planner, presented this
C-2 application. The site is at 30th Avenue and Main Street, 101 ft.
deep with a frontage of 210 ft. The immediate context is small, single
storey retail on Main Street and single family residential across the
lane. The proposal is for three floors of residential (51 residential
units ranging in size from 492 sq.ft. to 601 sq.ft.) above ground floor
retail. Total density is 2.51 FSR. The fourth floor is set back in accordance
with the C-2 regulations. The residential entry lobby court breaks the
wide frontage on Main Street and separates the retail components. At
the rear, landscape decks are proposed up to about 20 ft. from the lane,
except for a central community garden area which steps down to about
2 ft. from the lane. The proposed architecture and landscape design are
contemporary in expression and the materials include concrete brick,
cement fibreboard, steel, and coloured glass balcony panels.
Noting the C-2 regulations call for a high level of design and livability,
the advice of the Panel is sought on the following:
• The overall expression of the building, both front and rear
elevations, and the extent to which the scheme addresses the wide 210
ft. frontage, including the depth of the residential entry court;
•
The materials and the manner in which they are employed, in particular
the relationship of the brick to the large window areas, and the use
of cement fibreboard;
•
The lane treatment including setback of the terraces and the commercial
parking and loading area;
•
Relationship and integration of the residential and commercial uses.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Tom Bell,
Architect, briefly described the design rationale and responded to questions
from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Treatment of the currently untreated lane roof with consideration
to expanding the community garden and/or expanding the adjacent decks
and/or providing a green roof or expanding the outdoor amenity space;
• Consider providing a more direct link from the indoor amenity
space to the outdoor amenity space;
• Enhance grade treatment of Main Street including street trees,
new concrete and consideration of art, sculptural lighting or other features,
particularly at the entry;
•
Consider reducing the depth of the entry inset or providing other means
of enhancing security;
• Consider providing a shed roof over the loading area which will
address issues of overlook and acoustic separation;
• Ensure transparency of the storefront detailing to enhance visual
interest on the street.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel strongly supported this application. It was thought to be
a very well handled scheme and a fine example of a mixed-use urban building.
It is contemporary and interesting and will set a nice tone for the neighbourhood.
The Panel had no concerns about the separation of residential and commercial
uses and strongly supported the provision of rental accommodation.
The Panel generally found the front and rear elevations to be very handsome.
The Panel had no concerns about the treatment of the long frontage and
considered the massing to be broken up quite well. There were some concerns
about the depth of the residential entry, mostly from a security point
of view. Suggestions included bringing it out and enlarging the lobby,
adding glass to the entry space, ensuring good night lighting, adding
a transparent ornamental gate, and providing public art rather than planters.
It was noted there are currently no City guidelines for treatment of
the public realm in this area. However, the applicant was urged to provide
more than the minimum for this important site; something that responds
to the energy of Main Street, including larger tree wells and better
than conventional landscape treatment at the entry.
The Panel thought the two major commercial tenants will do a lot for
the street. However, the applicant was encouraged to ensure the whole
frontage of the market is as transparent as possible and providing a
strong indoor/outdoor relationship. Containing the commercial branding
within the signage strip was strongly recommended.
There was a livability concern noted with respect to the two end party
walls at the property line, affecting the end patios.
With respect to materials, the Panel had no concern about the use of
cement board in this location. In general, the Panel’s concerns
were in the details and how one material relates to another. With respect
to the coloured balcony panels, there was a recommendation to consider
a ceramic grid behind them rather than metal, to bring more light into
the units and still maintain the desired solid expression. There was
also a comment that opaque coloured glass balustrades have a tendency
to look dated.
With respect to the lane elevation, several Panel members recommended
extending the lower roof community garden and to ensure it is handicap
accessible. It need not all be community garden but could include some
other amenity. There was a recommendation to provide more direct access
from the lobby to the community garden without the dog-leg through the
corner of the end patio. The applicant was cautioned to give careful
attention to the guard rail to ensure it does not end up looking monolithic.
Some Panel members recommended enclosing the loading area, possibly with
a trellis, although there were concerns about covering this area given
its proximity to the liquor store parking lot. A change in paving texture
for the loading area was recommended. Some Panel members recommended
including a suspended canopy over the loading bay to provide some screening
for overlook and to help mitigate noise.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Bell noted
that, on the advice of staff, the extent of the community garden was
limited to reduce noise
impact on the neighbours. He appreciated the Panel’s advice which
has provided some good ideas for improving the project.
3. 3611 West 18th Avenue (at Dunbar)
DE: 409057
Use: Mixed (4 storeys, 16 units)
Zoning: C-2
Application Status: Complete
Architect: Ankenman Marchand Architects
Owner: Erika Zellman
Review: First
Delegation: Francois Marchand, Patricia Campbell, Saeid Ansari
Staff: James Boldt
EVALUATION: SUPPORT (4-3)
• Introduction: James Boldt, Development Planner, presented this
application. The site, at 18th Avenue and Dunbar, has a frontage of 99
ft. and a depth of 96 ft., and has a significant slope in two directions.
Overall density is 2.35 FSR. The project proposes three storeys of residential
(16 units) above ground level retail on Dunbar and medical offices on
18th Avenue extending to the lane at the rear. The residential entry
is on 18th Avenue. The proposal is for a highly sculpted building with
contemporary materials and expression. The massing on Dunbar is broken
down into three blocks which reflects the typical 30 ft. rhythm on Dunbar.
Materials include brick, hardi panel, hardi plank, steel canopies, concrete
bases, metal soffits, precast concrete caps and sills, aluminum and glass
railings, and a small amount of wood.
The advice of the Panel is sought in the following areas:
• Overall expression of the building, in particular on 18th Avenue
and the exposed elevator core;
•
Materials and how they are employed, in particular the large areas of
hardi panel;
•
Impact on the property to the north and its internal courtyard;
•
Transition of landscaping and massing at the lane corner and the impact
of the medical office use on the adjacent single family lots across the
lane.
• Applicant’s Opening Comments: Francois Marchand, Architect,
described the project in greater detail, noting it is a very difficult
site because of the severe grades. The applicant team responded to questions
from the Panel.
• Panel’s Consensus on Key Aspects Needing Improvement:
• Add a street tree on 18th Avenue, if possible;
• Provide quality material treatment to the north party wall facing
the courtyard of the adjacent building, in harmony with the building
to the north;
• Expand and enhance the residential entry;
• Consider simplification of the roof line including consideration
for enhancing vertical visual links with the façade;
• Consider simplification and clarification of colour and material
strategy.
• Related Commentary:
The Panel acknowledged the applicant had done a very good job of achieving
a workable plan on this very challenging site, although some Panel members
thought there was too much on the site.
There were some concerns expressed about the sloping roof on Dunbar
Street. There were suggestions that a stepped roof pattern would work
better with the rest of the building, extending the three massing elements
up to the roof. The Panel generally found the Dunbar elevation to be
the most successful façade in the way it picks up on the rhythm
of the street with the separately expressed storefronts but there was
a suggestion that it is currently too complex and in need of greater
simplification, particularly at the datum line. There was a recommendation
to reconsider the fourth floor roof deck and hot tubs; they may be too
ambitious for the project and the guard rail could have a negative impact
on the massing.
The Panel had no concerns about the 18th Avenue façade. The exposed
elevator core was supported and the vertical expression considered acceptable.
There were, however, concerns about the residential entry lobby which
the Panel found too small. There were recommendations to eliminate the
indentation and bring the glass to the street. Also, to eliminate the
exit through the lobby in favour of direct street exit, making the lobby
appear a lot more spacious and interesting from the street. One Panel
member also thought the glass roof over the lobby should be reconsidered.
There were no concerns about the step down at the lane. There was a
recommendation for street trees in the lane, and to relocate the hydro
kiosk.
The Panel had some concerns about the material palette and it was stressed
that the success of the building will depend on how well the details
are handled. The handling of colour on the 18th and lane facades was
a concern for one Panel member who thought it could be better used to
express the function of the building. Simplification of materials at
the roof level was recommended.
The Panel had no major concerns about the impact on the property to
the north but acknowledged it is unfortunate there will be some loss
of light. The Panel strongly recommended sensitive treatment of the party
wall to minimize the impact, possibly a brick facing or some other treatment
to soften the upper level courtyard. Screening of the HVAC equipment
was also strongly recommended.
The Panel was satisfied with the transition of the lane massing and
the relationship between the medical office windows and the lane which
was thought to be quite neighbourly to the residents across the lane.
There were no concerns about the windows on the lane, noting they will
likely be permanently covered.
It was noted there appears to be a tree missing from 18th Avenue, and
a recommendation to give greater consideration to the streetscape on
Dunbar Street. As well, a more consistent landscaping was recommended,
noting it is currently a mix of 70’s landscape with tropical planting
at the corner.
One Panel member had a concern about livability with respect to the
ramp in the hallways which result in very awkward narrow corridors.
• Applicant’s Response: Mr. Marchand thanked the Panel for
the comments. The Landscape Architect, Patricia Campbell, added that
a street tree on 18th Avenue was omitted to accommodate the existing
street light.
|
