|
5. ZONING - 228-242 BESSERER STREET ZONAGE - 228-242, RUE
BESSERER |
Committee
recommendations
(This
application is subject to Bill 51)
That
Council:
1. Approve an amendment to the Zoning By
law 2008 250 to change the zoning of 228 242 Besserer Street from R5F Schedule
70 to R5F[***] Schedule 70 revised, as detailed in Document 2.
2. Approve an amendment to the former
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of 228-242 Besserer Street
from R6M - Schedule 198 to R6M[***] Schedule 198 revised, as detailed in
Document 2.
RecommandationS du Comité
(Cette demande
est assujettie au Règlement 51)
Que le Conseil :
1.
approuve
une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation
de zonage du 228-242, rue Besserer de R5F, Annexe 70, à R5F[***], Annexe 70
révisée, tel qu’il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.
2.
approuve
une modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa afin de
changer la désignation de zonage du 228-242, rue Besserer de R6M – Annexe 198 à
R6M[***] – Annexe 198 révisée, tel qu’il est expliqué en détail dans le
Document 2.
Documentation
1. Deputy City Manager, Planning, Transit and the Environment report dated
23 September 2008 (ACS2008-PTE-PLA-0192).
Report to/Rapport au :
Planning and Environment Committee
Comité de l'urbanisme et de l'environnement
and Council / et au Conseil
23 September 2008 / le 23 septembre 2008
Submitted by/Soumis par : Nancy Schepers, Deputy City Manager
Directrice municipale adjointe
Planning, Transit and the Environment
Urbanisme, Transport en commun et Environnement
Contact
Person/Personne Ressource : Grant Lindsay, Manager/Gestionnaire,
Development Approvals/Approbation des demandes d'aménagement, Planning
Branch/Direction de l’urbanisme
(613)
580-2424, 13242 Grant.Lindsay@ottawa.ca
|
SUBJECT: |
|
|
|
|
|
OBJET : |
REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
1.
Approve an amendment to the Zoning By‑law 2008‑250
to change the zoning of 228‑242 Besserer Street from R5F Schedule 70 to
R5F[***] Schedule 70 revised, as detailed in Document 2.
2.
Approve
an amendment to the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law to change the zoning of
228-242 Besserer Street from R6M - Schedule 198 to R6M[***] Schedule 198
revised, as
detailed in Document 2.
RECOMMANDATIONS DU RAPPORT
Que le Comité de l’urbanisme et de
l’environnement recommande au Conseil :
1. d’approuver
une modification au Règlement de zonage 2008-250 afin de changer la désignation
de zonage du 228-242, rue Besserer de R5F, Annexe 70, à R5F[***], Annexe 70
révisée, tel qu’il est expliqué en détail dans le Document 2.
2. d’approuver
une modification au Règlement de zonage de l’ancienne Ville d’Ottawa afin de
changer la désignation de zonage du 228-242, rue Besserer de R6M – Annexe 198 à
R6M[***] – Annexe 198 révisée, tel qu’il est expliqué en détail dans le
Document 2.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located
mid-block on the south side of Besserer Street between Cumberland Street and
King Edward Avenue in the northern edge of Sandy Hill. The subject site is 1205 square metres in
size and currently contains three residential buildings that are to be
demolished. To the immediate west is a
condominium development at 200 Besserer Street currently under
construction. To the immediate east
there is a residential building. To the
north of the site there is a large public parking lot, which is flanked by the
Ottawa Little Theatre and the Quality Hotel.
To the south fronting onto Daly Avenue there is a mix of residential and
institutional uses which are located within the Sandy Hill West Heritage
Conservation District. The Heritage
Conservation District does not apply to the subject lands.
Purpose of
Zoning Amendment
The purpose of the application is to permit a change in zoning to allow for the development of 14-storey mixed-use building. Limited commercial/retail uses would be permitted and restricted to the ground floor of the building with residential units above. It is intended that one of the commercial uses be a restaurant with in outdoor patio area to contribute to the animation of Besserer Street. The residential component of the building would comprise of 103 units. Tenant parking for the building would be provided underground via a shared access point on the abutting property at 200 Besserer Street. The new building would also share recreational facilities with the abutting building and would be physically connected underground by the parking lot and through a second storey walkway.
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2008-250
The subject properties are zoned “R5F – Schedule 70”, which is a High-Rise Apartment zone with a schedule that regulates the maximum permitted height. The R5F subzone permits a range of residential uses along with ancillary uses including a restaurant and limits those uses to a ground floor location. An outdoor commercial patio is permitted to abut or face a residential zone provided that there is a minimum of 30 metres from a residential zone and minimum screening is provided.
Former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98
The subject properties are currently zoned “R6M Schedule – 198”, which is a High-Rise Apartment zone subject to a schedule which details the maximum building heights on various properties, including the subject lands. The zone permits a variety of residential uses and limited commercial uses such as a convenience store. Former City of Ottawa By-law 93-98 does not permit an outdoor patio in a yard which abuts a residential zone.
City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 2008-250
The application proposes a R5F[***] exception subzone, with an amended height schedule. The site-specific exception subzone would introduce minimum front, rear and interior side yards to accommodate the proposed building design. A revised height schedule would permit a new maximum height of 42.5 metres for the subject lands. The proposed zoning would also modify the requirements related to an outdoor patio to permit such a patio to abut a residential zone subject to minimum screening requirements.
Former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98
The application proposes a R6M[***] exception subzone, with an amended height schedule. The site-specific exception subzone would introduce minimum front, rear and interior side yards that would accommodate the proposed building design. The revised height schedule would permit a new maximum height of 42.5 metres for the subject lands. The proposed zoning would also permit an outdoor patio to abut a residential zone with minimum screening requirements.
DISCUSSION
The subject properties are designated as Central Area in the Official Plan. The subject properties also fall within the Sandy Hill West Secondary Plan area. Section 3.6.6 of the Official Plan states that the Central Area is the economic and cultural heart of the city and the symbolic heart of the nation. The policies of the Plan aim to promote the Central Area’s vital role in the city and will be supported by the protection of residential neighbourhoods and an increase in number of downtown area dwelling units. New buildings and spaces will reflect a human scale of development, and will be guided by design criteria, which will result in an enhanced pedestrian environment. As well, heritage resources will be protected and new development will respect existing resources.
The policies of the Central Area outline that the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy (DOUDS) will be implemented to promote the liveability of the area and ensure that new development have regard for the Central Area Secondary Plan policies. Residents living downtown serve an essential role in creating a more complete community by supporting facilities and services. To enhance the appearance and liveability for residents the city will ensure that development has regard for the compatibility criteria in Section 2.5.1 and the design criteria in policy 6. The Plan further states that residential development will contribute to a human sense of scale, where appropriate create transitions in building profiles, minimize sun shadowing and undesirable wind conditions and provide adequate visual privacy for proposed residential units.
Compatibility Considerations
To address policy 6 of the Central Area, the proposed building provides soft and hard landscaping along Besserer Street in the form of street trees, planting beds and sidewalks. At grade commercial/retail uses are proposed at each corner of the building along with outdoor seating areas. The entrances to the commercial/retail units are covered to provide protection to pedestrians from the elements, sun and wind while the separation between buildings and yard setbacks allow for sunlight to penetrate the site. The orientation of the building’s residential and commercial/retail entrances are towards the street thereby creating a lively streetscape with commercial and/or retail opportunities for local residents. Private landscaped amenity space for residents will be appropriately screened and secured, as it will be located at the rear of the building.
Direction is provided in Section 2.5.1 as to the meaning of compatible development. Generally, it provides for compatible development meaning that, although not necessarily the same as or similar to existing buildings nonetheless enhances an established community and coexists. The development fits well within its physical context and works well among the functions that surround it.
Within Section 2.5.1 design objectives are set out as qualitative statements of how the City wants to influence the built environment. These objectives are broadly stated and are applicable to all land use designations either at the city-wide level or on a site-specific basis. Design principles are further set out to describe how the City hopes to achieve the design objectives with acknowledgment that all the design objectives may not be achieved or achievable in all cases.
The proposed development is consistent with and implements the design objectives which speak to enhancing the sense of community, having new development respect the character of existing areas, and providing for the creation of adaptable and diverse places.
The design
objective to enhance a sense of community is being achieved by infilling a
large underdeveloped site and strengthening the urban fabric of the street both
physically and functionally. The
development incorporates pedestrian level amenities in order to create a
relationship between the site and the community. The proposed development will also establish complimentary focus
points at the street level to contribute to the rejuvenation of Besserer Street
as a complete street for the community offering both residential and
commercial/retail opportunities.
The second
design objective is focused on development complementing the massing pattern,
rhythm, character and context. The
Besserer Street elevation compliments the pattern along the Besserer Street
which is in the midst of a transformation with significant new
development. The positioning of the new
building is slightly recessed from Besserer Street to allow for development of
a pedestrian friendly environment, which incorporates landscaping, and
opportunities for street level commercial/retail uses. The style of the building is compatible with
the buildings in the area currently under construction as part of the
redevelopment of the area.
The objective of creating
adaptability and diversity will be implemented through a more diverse and
compact building envelope that efficiently uses land, while contributing to the
regeneration of Besserer Street. The development proposal will add new
commercial, retail and housing options along Besserer Street. The development will also help reduce
resource consumption by promoting residential intensification inside the urban
area in proximity to a designated urban arterial road and in proximity to mass
transit routes.
Sandy Hill West Secondary Plan
The Sandy Hill West area is predominantly a residential area with a substantial heritage component. Policies included in the Secondary Plan require infill developments to protect and enhance the heritage residential character, as well as improve the liveability of the area. To provide for new development that is compatible, the Secondary Plan establishes policies relating to the profile of development, residential liveability and the pedestrian environment.
With respect to building profile, the policies state that there is to be a transition in profile with nearby heritage buildings. To assess the ability of the proposed building to create an appropriate transition, the context of the surrounding area must be examined. The planned function of the north side of Besserer Street would permit development in the range of 139-149 metres above sea level (approximately 20-24 storeys). The proposed height of 42.5 metres (14 storeys) would provide a transition to the existing lower profile development within the Heritage Conservation District which generally range from 7.8 metres to 18.9 metres (two to six storeys). The transition in building height will be further enhanced by the natural increase in grade moving southerly of approximately four metres, thereby lowering the height of the building from 42.5 metres to 38.5 metres relative to the heritage district.
Both the pedestrian environment and residential liveability of the area will be enhanced through the proposed treatment of the boulevard which will include new street trees and additional landscaping thereby creating a softer streetscape. Proposed commercial/retail elements on the ground floor of the building will animate the street and create opportunities for local residents to interact in the area.
The Department is satisfied that the proposed zoning will meet the intent of Secondary Plan related to building height transition. Further, the proposed building and street design elements to be implemented through the application for Site Plan Control will meet the objectives and policies of the Sandy Hill West Secondary Plan for public realm improvements and the creation of animated pedestrian friendly streets.
Design Review Considerations
The subject property is within the area covered by the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy (DOUDS) and subject to design control as per Schedule L – of the Official Plan. Properties within this area require review by the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Review Panel. The role of the Panel, where a rezoning application is submitted to allow for increased building height and or density, is to assess these changes in the context of the design objectives outlined in DOUDS in order to assist the Department in assessing the application and in bringing forward a recommendation to Committee and Council.
The application was reviewed by the Design Review
Panel. Comments provided focused more
on the proposed contribution of the project to the public realm which will be
addressed in greater detail through the site plan approval process. The panel expressed that there is a need for
the proponent to demonstrate not only the planning merits of the increased
height proposed, but also the design merits of the project that are being
achieved as a result of the proposed height increase in addition to addressing
the effects increased height on the adjacent properties to the south. The panel’s comments are included in
Document 4.
Heritage Considerations
The subject properties are located immediately
north of the Sandy Hill
West Heritage Conservation District. Section 4.6.1 of the Plan requires that new development
adjacent to heritage buildings shall respect the massing, profile and character
of adjacent heritage buildings. It is
the Department’s position that the adjacent Heritage Conservation District
(HCD) will not be adversely impacted by the planned development. The proposed height limit is compatible with
new development that abuts the HCD where allowable heights range from of 13.3
metres to 18.9 metres. While the
proposed height limit is 42.5 metres, it is the Department’s position that the
impact is minimal. The lands within the HCD are approximately four meters
higher in grade, resulting in a natural reduction in the building height and
potential impacts. Further potential
impacts of the building would be reduced with the stepping back of the
thirteenth and fourteenth floors as proposed and through landscaping and
establishing minimum building setbacks.
Details of Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to By-law 2008-250
Amended Height Schedule
The application proposes an
amendment to Schedule 701
to establish a uniform increase in height of 42.5 metres, whereas the current
by-law permits a range in height decreasing southerly from Besserer Street from
24.1 metres to 21.4 metres to 18.9 metres.
The increase in height is compatible with the adjacent building on
Besserer Street which has a maximum height of 41.5 metres. An amendment to the applicable Sections of
the former City of Ottawa Zoning By‑law 93-98 will be made as well to
implement the revised height schedule as shown on Document 2.
Reduced Interior Side Yard
As the proposed building is to be connected to the residential building currently under construction at 200 Besserer Street via an elevated walkway, the application proposes a 0.0m westerly interior side yard. The minimum easterly interior side, required front yard and rear yards will conform to the By-law. An amendment to the applicable Sections of the former City of Ottawa Zoning By-law 93-98 will be made as well to implement the reduced rear yard as shown on Document 2.
CONSULTATION
Notice of this application was carried out in accordance with the City's Public Notification and Consultation Policy. The Ward Councillor is aware of this application and the staff recommendation. The City received six letters in opposition to the application. A summary of the comments received is included in Document 5 – Consultation Details.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
APPLICATION PROCESS TIMELINE STATUS
The application was not processed by the "On Time Decision Date" established for the processing of Zoning By-law amendments due to additional time required for the applicant to prepare an application for site plan control and consult the Design Review Panel and community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Document 1 Location
Map
Document 2 Details of Recommended Zoning
Document 3 Proposed Building Elevations
Document 4 Design Review Panel Comments
Document 5 Consultation
Details
DISPOSITION
City Clerk’s Branch, Council and Committee Services to notify the owner, 1618719 Ontario Inc., 2280 St. Laurent Boulevard, Suite 201, Ottawa, ON, K1G 4K1, applicant, Kevin Yemm, Richcraft Homes Ltd. 2280 St. Laurent Boulevard, Suite 201, Ottawa, ON, K1G 4K1, OttawaScene.com, 174 Colonnade Road, Unit #33, Ottawa, ON K2E 7J5, Ghislain Lamarche, Program Manager, Assessment, Financial Services Branch (Mail Code: 26-76) of City Council’s decision.
Planning, Transit and the Environment Department to prepare the implementing by-law, forward to Legal Services Branch and undertake the statutory notification.
Legal Services Branch to forward the implementing by-law to City Council.
LOCATION
MAP DOCUMENT 1
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ZONING DOCUMENT 2
Proposed Changes to
By-law No. 2008-250
1. The properties known municipally as 228-242 Besserer Street as shown on Document 1, are rezoned from R5F (Residential Fifth Density subzone) Schedule 70 to R5F[***] (Residential Fifth Density Exception subzone) Schedule 70 revised.
2. A new exception, number [***], will be added to Section 239 including the following provisions.
i) Minimum east interior side yard – 3.6 m
ii) Minimum west interior side yard – 0.0 m
iii) Minimum front yard set back – 0.0 m
iv) Minimum rear yard set back – 7.5 m
v) The following permitted non-residential uses are limited to the ground floor of the building:
· Day Care
· Retail Store
· Personal Service Business
· Restaurant – Full Service
vi) For the portion of the building over 36.0 m the minimum yard setbacks are:
· Front yard – 1.5 m
· Side yard – 5.0 m
· Rear yard – 8.5 m
vii) Despite Section 85(3) sub (a) an outdoor commercial patio is permitted to face or abut a residential zone.
viii) Section 100(1) does not apply.
ix) Section 111(9)(10) and (11) do not apply.
3. Schedule 70 shall be replaced with the amended Schedule as shown below.
Proposed Changes to
former City of Ottawa By-law 93-98
1. The properties known municipally as 228-242 Besserer Street as shown on Document 1, are rezoned from R6M (High-rise Apartment subzone) Schedule 198 to R6M[***] (high-rise Apartment Exception subzone) Schedule 198 revised.
2. A new exception, number [***], will be added to Table XV including the following provisions.
i) Minimum east interior side yard – 3.6 m
ii) Minimum west interior side yard – 0.0 m
iii) Minimum front yard set back – 0.0 m
iv) Minimum rear yard set back – 7.5 m
v) The following permitted non-residential uses are limited to the ground floor of the building:
· Day Care
· Retail Store
· Personal Service Business
· Restaurant – Full Service
vi) For the portion of the building over 36.0 m the minimum yard setbacks are:
· Front yard – 1.5 m
· Side yard – 5.0 m
· Rear yard – 8.5 m
vii) Despite Section 29 sub(2) an outdoor patio is permitted.
viii) An outdoor patio must be screened by a structure or wall that is at least 2.0 m in height.
ix) Section 41 does not apply.
x) Section 51 does not apply.
xi) Sections 87, 88 and 90 do not apply.
xii) Section 102 does not apply.
3. Schedule 198 shall be replaced with the amended Schedule as shown below.
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS DOCUMENT 3
DESIGN REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS DOCUMENT
4
Review Framework and General Comments
This project has been reviewed against the objectives of the Downtown Ottawa Urban Design Strategy (DOUDS) and the Official Plan utilizing the Downtown Urban Design Pilot Project Design review Considerations endorsed by City Council on September 29, 2004.
In general the Peer Review Panel has determined, based on this review, that further design enhancements would provide for an improved response to the design objectives expressed in DOUDs including simple elements that could greatly improve the public realm of Besserer Street. The intent of the DOUDS is to raise the quality of urban design and the experience of the public realm and this design as developed to date from the panel’s perspective does not respond as well as it could to those expectations. The Peer Review Panel therefore cannot endorse the design as presented. .
The Panel also notes that the design submitted is for a proposal that requires a rezoning to allow for increased height. While it is acknowledged that Council will be required to make a decision on the required zoning change, the Panel does have a role in assessing the merits or lack thereof of the proposed increase in height in the context of whether this change will assist or support a development that achieves the city’s design objectives. In this regard, the Panel is of the view that there is a need for the proponent to demonstrate not only the planning merits of the increased height proposed, but also the design merits of the project that are being achieved as a result of the proposed height increase in addition to addressing the effects increased height on the adjacent properties to the south.
Panel Response to
Self-Assessment
Step One Review
- Has the proponent through their design brief located the project within one of the eight precincts identified in DOUDS?
A. The proponent has identified the site as being on the edge of the University precinct. While the panel agrees with this, the panel also considers the site to be on the edge of the Retail Arts and theatre precinct.
- Has the proponent through their design brief acknowledged the area wide strategies applicable to the downtown and has the proponent assessed the ability of the project to add or contribute to achieving any of the strategic objectives?
The proponent has, via the design brief, acknowledged the applicable area wide strategies. The proponent has assessed the project as having limited opportunity of contributing to most area wide strategies. Of the four area wide strategies the proponent identifies as applicable, one is not addressed and the remaining three are weakly addressed. We believe the proponent has greater opportunity to contribute to an increased number of area wide strategies in a meaningful manner. Below are suggestions that the panel feels should be further explored and addressed by this proposal
A. Streetscape infrastructure program: No street trees, lights or benches are proposed along Besserer. It is felt that such elements could add in a positive way to improving the streetscape along Besserer and provide for human/pedestrian amenities that also support the functional elements of the project (ie. Outdoor seating entry court for the residential and animated open areas for the commercial).
B. Open Spaces and Urban Forest Program: The panel notes that private amenity areas located on site to the rear and sides of the project are proposed to include significant plantings including an array of trees and shrubs, but that no soft landscaping is proposed along the street frontage – only hard landscaping treatments will be provided along Besserer Street. The panel is of the view and would suggest that soft landscaping elements be integrated into an overall streetscaping strategy to improve the human scale and provide for pedestrian comfort along Besserer. It is felt that soft landscaping is also required to soften the building edge which is proposed to present a blank façade for much of its length at grade.
C. Public Art: It is noted that Public art is not currently proposed as part of this project. The panel feels that opportunities do exist to provide some public art element possibly incorporated into a parkette feature for the residential entry from Besserer.
D. Winter City: It is noted that no specific design features are proposed to address strategic Winter City directives of DOUDS. Elements such as canopies at entrances to provide weather protection and that can also improve pedestrian scale are considered by the panel to be simple design features that can be incorporated into the project design.
- Has the proponent through the design brief demonstrated a self assessment of the project against the four levels of design considerations set out for the precinct wherein the project is located and specifically, has the proponent demonstrated how the project will advance design objectives drawn from the four levels of design considerations that have particular relevance to the site and/or to the project giving consideration to location and use?
The proponent has identified, within the University Precinct, general description and character, the Key Strategic Directions, General Precinct Strategies and Targeted Precinct Strategies. The proponent has selected some design elements and has provided commentary and responses. However, as noted, the panel considers the site to also be part of the Retail, Arts and theatre precinct and would suggest that the proponent also provide a self assessment of how the proposal responds to the general description, key strategic directions, general precinct strategies and targeted precinct strategies for this precinct in addition to the university precinct.
The panel in reviewing the descriptions, strategic directions, targeted strategies etc for the two precincts, is of the view that the proponent has not designed the project to fully respond to the underlying spirit of the design objectives for this part of the downtown. In this regard, the panel is of the view that greater attention in developing the project design to truly contribute to improving the quality of the public realm and the architectural fit of the project into the area which is undergoing a significant revitalization is required. Also, given the change that is occurring in the area, the panel feels that this project, both functionally and from a design perspective has the potential to set a new standard or benchmark for how development can contribute to re-imaging the area. The panel feels that the proponent has not designed the project to fully capitalize on these opportunities.
A. Level
One: General Description and Character of the Precinct
Is the project in the general intent of the
area?
The focus of the comment provided is that the project enhances the residential liveability of Sandy Hill West by adding density. The panel aggress with this but also would see this project as presenting an opportunity to add vitality to the area, which as designed, the panel feels is not being achieved.
B. Level
Two: The key Strategic Directions for the Precinct
How does the project help achieve the
strategic directions outlined that are aimed at improving the general quality of
the urban environment?
The focus of the project’s response to the key strategic directions seems to be that the project provides a transition from a busy node, Rideau Street to the University, an established residential area, that the architecture and landscaping will enrich the public realm and that the project will improve the street environment. While the panel does not disagree with these statements in a general sense, the panel is of the view that more can be achieved as discussed throughout our comments.
C. Level
Three: The General Precinct Strategies
How does the project add to the precinct’s
general goals for urban design?
King Edward and Cumberland Streets are targets for streetscape improvements. The Proponent states that the landscaping and public realm improvements will serve to bridge the improvements between these areas. In this regard, the panel is not clear on how this is being achieved as the panels feels that the project lacks an interesting streetscape design. As noted previously, the landscaped amenity area is not for public use and therefore does not contribute to the greening of the public environment. Further, while DOUD’s does support infill that is larger and more urban in character for sites closer to Rideau, there remains a principle for development to also transition to the lower profile Sandy Hill community (not just the heritage district to the south but also the community to the east of King Edward. In this regard, the building rises above 200 Besserer towards King Edward. The Panel requires some understanding of the rationale and the basis for this in the context of DOUD’s and from a design and urban image perspective. Finally, the panel feels that the building’s north elevation lacks feature and ‘human scale’ at grade.
D. Level
Four: Targeted Strategies
■ Is there a specific project targeted for
the site under the targeted strategies?
The proponent correctly notes that no specific targeted precinct strategy in identified for the site.
■ Can the proposed development add or contribute to a specific project targeted for the precinct under the targeted strategies?
The proponent
notes that the building itself will contribute to the beautification of King
Edward with streetscape improvement that will improve the Besserer link between
King Edward and Cumberland. The panel
however feels that more can be done to add to public realm improvements, and in
particular to greening and animating Besserer so as to become a more pedestrian
friendly street recognizing its east-west linkage function.
Step Two Review
- Has the proponent through the design brief demonstrated responses to the key questions set out for each of the following four broad categories of specific design considerations:
The proponent has provided responses for the four broad categories of specific design considerations. The panel however feels that the project design has potential to be much more responsive to many of these over what is reflected in the proposal submitted. .
A. Open Space and landscape
■ While the site has not been specifically identified as a candidate for urban open space, there is clear overall direction in DOUD’s to maximize opportunities for greening the downtown environment through the introduction of on-site soft landscaping and through street trees. The site’s amenity area while making some contribution to the greening of the area as a whole, does not contribute to greening of the public environment.
■ Not enough attention as been paid to landscaping the street edge of the building. Unit pavers alone do not create an interesting or inviting streetscape treatment. Street trees, plantings, lighting, canopies, etc, should be considered along the Besserer Street frontage.
■ Public art is not currently part of this proposal and as previously noted should be considered.
■ No trees on site are to be protected.
B. Site Plan Features
■ The key area of concern from the Panel’s perspective related to site plan considerations relates to the relationship of the project to the public realm and the proposed treatment along Besserer. These the panel feels need to be designed to be more responsive to some of the key directions of DOUD’s for good relationships to be provided between buildings and their activities and the public realm and for public realm/streetscape improvements/enhancements.
C. Building Design
■ In general the panel finds the architectural expression of the building to be responsive to some of the key elements highlighted in the design review considerations. Notably, the building does incorporate distinct elements including a base, middle and top with the upper element providing with step backs and a treatment that appears is intended to enclose the roof top mechanical elements. It is also noted that the proposal is to be part of the building under construction at 200 Besserer with a connecting overpass being provided. . The panel acknowledges that this presents a challenge with respect to architectural integration between the two buildings, however, the key area of concern relates to the treatment of the base. In this regard, the panel feels that the stone base does not contribute in a positive way to defining an engaging streetscape environment. If for internal functional reasons, a stone base is required as proposed, the panel feels much stronger emphasis and design attention needs to be given to other streetscape interventions to ensure a pedestrian friendly street environment will be provided for the project.
D. Environmental considerations
■ Wind analysis states that no mitigation is required, but no study is provided. The panel therefore is not able to provide any commentary on issues related to potential micro-climate wind issues especially for the public realm
■ How will the drop off and pedestrian entrances along Besserer Street be weather protected?
- Has the proponent through the design drawings and through the design brief demonstrated how the project design would advance and achieve the overall design objectives reflected and/or articulated through the specific design considerations noted above?
The proponent has provided a variety of documentation. The Design Brief contains most essential information, however, the panel based on its review is not sure if the project design has not been informed by the design objectives expressed in DOUD’s or if the design brief was prepared after the project design was developed. The panel would however note that the intent of the design review pilot project is to have the project designers utilize DOUD’s as a key element in determining a project design with the design brief highlighting how this was accomplished. It is not clear if this was the case given the panel’s sense that significant relatively straightforward design features could be included that would make for a much improved design and much improved response to DOUD’s.
The Panel does appreciate the inclusion of the Planning Analysis Report in providing further planning context for the proposal, however, the planning analysis in and of itself does not provide the level of discussion necessary to clearly demonstrate how the project is responding to design objectives expressed in the official Plan, which is another element of what is expected to be addressed in the design brief.
The Existing Conditions Plan, Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and Site Servicing and Grading Plan provide essential information and were reviewed and provide the basis for some of the suggestions provided. Detailed information on the north elevation of the building and basement area was notably absent making it difficult for the panel to provide any informative comments in these elements other then to say that the ground floor front façade with it blank wall condition really in the panel’s view does little to enhance the pedestrian experience and that it presents a harsh street edge condition. If a better relationship between the ground floor and the street can not be achieved by opening the ground floor with at grade street related uses, it becomes that much more important from the Panel’s perspective to ensure a very high quality landscape treatment.
Finally, while the computer-massing model is informative, it did not provide for the panel adequate detailed information on context and neighbouring buildings; of particular interest is the relationship with St. Alban’s Church.
Project Elements Requiring
Further Design Development
In general, more detailed landscape and architectural design is required along the building frontage along Besserer Street to provide a more comfortable and interesting pedestrian environment. The building is very long, especially being connected to 200 Besserer Street. Street trees along the front would help to break up the building mass to bring it down to a more human scale. The greening of the street would greatly improve the streetscape and the urban environment. Canopies would provide shelter in the winter months. Lighting and the provision for seasonal lighting would improve the site and help to celebrate a winter city. The addition of public art should also be considered along the street frontage.
Specifically, the panel feels the design needs development and improvement in a number of areas to meet the intention and stated objectives of DOUDS. They are as follows:
Area Wide Strategies:
Streetscape Infrastructure Programme
Streetscape Matrix –Besserer Street is targeted as Street Type D which incorporates a narrow sidewalk and treed landscape zone. The design, devoid of any soft landscape between the building face and curb, in the panel’s view does not support the strategy.
Open spaces and urban forest
Additional Streetscaping and street tree planning – the goal is to reintroduce greenery even in Ottawa’s most urban settings. The design, devoid of any soft landscape between the building face and curb, does not support the strategy. The only greenery is restricted to the rear and side yards and is effectively outside of the public realm that is of most interest to DOUDS.
Public Art
The proponent acknowledges that the project does not include any public art. The proponent should contribute to art within the public realm.
Winter City
DOUDS makes a variety of recommendations in support of a Winter City. They include intensified mixed-use development, avoiding excess shading of streets and sidewalks by locating tall buildings on the north side of streets and by stepping down the massing, use of sheltering overhangs, suitable pedestrian lighting. Simply adding population into the area in the panel’s view is insufficient to support a Winter City. Physical and design elements are required.
The height of the building, essentially twice that permitted by the zoning by-law, will increase shadowing. To assist in assessing the relative differences between shadows that would result from building under the current height limits and proposed height would assist in assessing the extent or magnitude of potential shadow increases and potentially impacts on more sensitive areas. This has not been clearly communicated
Concluding Comment
In general, the panel feels that the site offers tremendous potential to accommodate a development that will make a truly positive contribution to the area and achieve many design objectives. However, the project design as developed to date in the panel’s view is not yet there. The streetscape treatment is a disappointment and contributes little to improving the urban design of the area. The addition of street trees, plantings, benches, canopies and lighting along the building street frontage would greatly improve the public experience.
The design would more significantly respect the DOUDS by:
a. creating a zone between the north face of the building and the street that contains greenery and trees
b. incorporate within the zone between the building and the street elements to serve pedestrians and bicyclists such as benches and bicycle ranks
c. incorporate lighting, suited to pedestrians, and augmenting the street lighting within the zone between the building and street
d. incorporate weather-sheltering elements, such as canopies and awnings, within the zone between the building and the street
e. improve the quality of the hard landscaping within the zone between the building and the street but the use of natural stone, patterning, colour and texture
f. demonstrate more fully the relationship between St. Alban’s Church in terms of the open space and role the new development plays as a visual backdrop for the church.
Finally,
given that a rezoning is required to allow for an increased height, the panel
is of the view that a much stronger design response than what is proposed is
required. This includes clear demonstration of the design merits of the project
that are being achieved with the proposed height increase in addition to
addressing the effects of the increased height including a more comprehensive
examination of shadowing and contextual relationships from a design
perspective. The panel feels that the
potential exists to achieve a very positive development that will be a very
significant element of defining or redefining the image and identify of this
sector of the downtown, however, the design as developed to date in the panel’s
view has not adequately responded to this potential.
Staff Response
Upon receipt of the comments from the Design Review Panel, revised drawings were prepared and submitted to the panel and Action Sandy Hill (ASH) for review. A follow-up meeting was help with the panel members and applicant on September 4, 2008 and with ASH on September 11, 2008.
The panel
members and ASH felt that the revised drawings prepared by the applicant have
started to appropriately address the closing recommendations made by the
panel. A reduction in the building
height, recessing of the upper levels, new landscaping along the frontage of Besserer
Street, decorative lighting fixtures and revised building materials were viewed
as positive changes in the overall design of the building. A further commitment has been made by the
applicant to revise the detailed design elements of the building will include
features such as canopies and decorative fencing and gate details to further
implement DOUDS. The members of the
panel and ASH consider the forthcoming revisions as positive changes towards
implementing the vision of DOUDS.
To ensure
the implementation of the revised building plans, the applicant will be
required to submit final drawings of the building for endorsement by the panel
which will then form part of the approval for the related application for Site
Plan Control.
CONSULTATION
DETAILS DOCUMENT
5
NOTIFICATION AND CONSULTATION PROCESS
Notification and public consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Public Notification and Public Consultation Policy approved by City Council for Zoning By-law amendments.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Six letters were received in opposition as a result of the public circulation and notification. The issues raised are summarized below along with a staff response.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT
1. Concerns were raised with respect to impacts on traffic and parking in the area as a result of the application.
Response:
A transportation brief was prepared in support of the application, which considered the impacts of a 16-storey building with 113 units. The height and number of units have been reduced to 14-storeys and 103 units respectively. As the proposed building is to share an access/egress point with the abutting building at 200 Besserer, the assessment considered the cumulative effect of both buildings. The assessment, which was reviewed by staff, concluded that the proposed development generates less than one additional vehicle per minute from the site during weakday morning and afternoon peak hours. As this assessment was conducted for a 113-unit development, it is reasonable to consider the impacts of a 103-unit development would be marginally less. The additional traffic generated through the proposed development would not change the traffic level of service on the adjacent roadway network. There were no recommendations with respect to site modifications that would need to be implemented through the application for Site Plan Control.
With respect to parking, required tenant and visitor parking will be provided in accordance with the by-law provisions. The application has not requested any reduction in the required parking standards.
2. Concerns were raised with respect to the proposed height of the building.
Response:
The application originally proposed to construct a 16-storey building on the subject lands. After additional consultation, the application has been revised to propose the development of a 14-storey building, with the upper two floors to be further recessed. As well, ground floor commercial/retail space has been introduced within the building. It is the Department’s opinion that the revised building height responds to the applicable Official Plan and Secondary Plan policies and criteria to ensure an appropriate height transition in the area and an overall compatible development.
COUNCILLOR’S COMMENTS
The Councillor is aware of the application.
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION COMMENTS
Comments from Action Sandy Hill (ASH) outlined concerns with the initial development proposal that did not include any significant landscaping along Besserer Street. There were also concerns over the height of the initial proposal and potential traffic impacts from the development.
A revised comment was received by ASH based on their review of the 14-storey building site plan. Concerns with respect to height, landscaping, amenity space and the treatment of the building have been addressed however ASH recommends that the design of the building take into consideration the recently drafted Guidelines for High Profile Buildings to better refine the storefronts and ground floor of the building.
Response:
Through the related application for Site Plan Control, the applicant has provided a landscaping plan, which includes hard and soft landscaping elements along the frontage of Besserer Street. As previously noted, the height of the building has been reduced from 16 to 14 storeys with the upper two levels recessed. Through the Site Plan Control process appropriate parking will be provided for the development, as well additional refinements may be made to the building design to implement the draft guidelines where both feasible and appropriate.