2021

On this page

December 5, 2021

1987 Robertson Road | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment | Stillwater Station Ltd.; The Properties Group; rla / architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the submission package; the studies, iterations and montages showing the proposal in the greater context are appreciated.
  • The urban aspirations of the project are welcomed, given that the development has the potential of becoming a destination and could give back to the community by establishing a school or a community centre.

Context

  • The Panel believes a project of this scale should consider the adjacent lands, their relationship to the street and the future context of the area. The extension of Trim Road is specific to the development; therefore, more studies of the context east of the site and views of the proposal within the context are needed to understand the development’s impact, given the unsettling contrast between the mobile homes and the development.
  • There was a suggestion to have the development fronting both sides of Trim Road to improve the street treatment, create an entrance, and take advantage of the views facing the NCC lands.

Massing and Scale

  • The Panel has concerns with the street wall condition created by the uniform scale of the podiums. The proponent should consider a strategic approach to step the development down by locating the taller towers with higher podiums at the north end of the site and scaling down the buildings towards the south.
  • The Panel believes further studies of the relationship to the mobile home park are needed as some towers appear imposing and looming over the existing neighbourhood. It was suggested the towers, abutting the mobile homes, could be lined with townhouses, lowering the scale of the podiums to create a more compatible interface.
  • The Panel believes that subdivision guidelines would further advance the development process and strengthen the vision for the site. The guidelines can be used as a tool to design each block, tower, and public realm.

Site Plan

  • The Panel appreciates the details presented on the block plan but questions whether road functionality and traffic could interfere with the pedestrian connection.
  • The Panel notes that superblocks B and C have very little porosity and would benefit from a direct midblock connection aligning with the green spaces to provide a visual connection to this space.
  • The proponent should take special care to ensure a buffer is established between the development and the existing neighbourhood to the south.
  • The Panel suggests limiting the parking at grade on the main street and associating it with the proposed retail. Additionally, layby parking might not be appropriate for all streets and should be located on those with fronting commercial uses.
  • The Panel questions whether the retail as presented would be successful. The proponent should explore a retail massing that is not homogenous and located at the north end of the site to create a gateway.
  • There is an opportunity to design the retail to permit offices or hotels to be converted into temporary residences.

Public Realm

  • The Panel believes access to nature is essential given the proposed density. The pond provides an opportunity to become the focal point of the neighbourhood, but the hierarchy of towers currently limits it. The Panel encourages the proponent to naturalize the dry pond and make it accessible.
  • The proponent should continue refining the open space concept to connect the public realm across the site and take cues from the natural context to intertwine the green spaces with the existing river valley landscape. For instance, the open space on A2 could become a community gathering space and draw people to the creek.
  • There is an opportunity to develop a north/south linear park.

Sustainability

  • The Panel recognizes the development provides an opportunity to remediate the lands, which is beneficial, but the proponent is encouraged to integrate sustainability initiatives into the public realm treatment of the site. This should include integrating low-impact development treatments as both functional and aesthetic elements, such as the dry pond for stormwater management, and district energy system.

233 Argyle Avenue & 330 Mcleod Street | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment; Site Plan Control Application and Heritage Permit | Smart Living Properties; Open Plan Architects Inc.; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the aspirations and changes made, including the increased fenestration on 233 Argyle, and notes the additions do not overpower the existing heritage buildings.
  • The Panel thanked the proponent for providing the context block and replicability study. But the Panel remains concerned with unit livability present at 233 Argyle.

Site Circulation, Safety

  • The Panel appreciates the replicability study but concerns regarding the rear yard setback and reduced side yard setback remain, due to its effect on reducing the site's ability to be porous and provide safe access.
  • The Panel suggests implementing a direct pathway to maintain the porosity of both sites. Crime prevention through environmental design principles should be considered to ensure the safety of the residents.

Rear Yard and Landscape

  • The Panel believes the rear yard condition should be carefully thought through. The proponent should implement design strategies to minimize safety concerns and not impact the adjacent uses; consideration should be given to lighting, landscape treatment, privacy, access, and maintenance during winter.
  • The proposed trees could provide shade and privacy, and the use of gates at each property could provide safe access to the shared rear yard.
  • The courtyards on Lowertown are great examples of design elements that contribute to creating a shared space for the neighbourhood.

233 Argyle Addition

  • The Panel appreciates the architectural treatment of the addition, particularly the use of brick at the base and considers the patterning of the Juliette balconies thoughtful.
  • It was suggested to use clear glass on the balconies to introduce more natural light.
  • The Panel considers that the projected stairs do not improve the rear yard condition, and there are safety concerns due to the stairs being exterior to the building. Enclosing the stairs could provide an opportunity for safe amenity spaces.
  • The Panel recommends increasing the articulations on the east façade to allow more natural light to enter the units. The façade should be set back and considering adding windows facing north to increase the quality of life and provide privacy to the adjacent lot.
  • The proponent should consider two-storey suites to increase the number of bedrooms and use a single loaded corridor to provide various unit sizes.

330 McLeod Addition

  • The Panel recommends pulling back the railing on the rooftop to minimize its visibility at the ground level and impact on the building's façade.
  • The proponent should consider adding vegetation to make the rooftop amenity area more comfortable and to ensure the screen elements provide enough protection from a safety perspective.
  • The Panel appreciates the splash of colour on the addition but recommends toning it down and contrasting the colours with the existing materials, to respond to the character of the heritage district.
  • The Panel cautions that the success of the metal cladding will depend on how it ages.
  • There was a suggestion to introduce two-storey units with access to the rear yard to increase unit variety.

448 Bronson Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Figurr c/o iLiving Homes Corporation; Figurr Architects Collective

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the presentation, the material palette is appreciated, and there is general support for the architecture and massing as described.
  • The Panel believes further clarification of the ground floor layout is needed and that the rear and the outdoor amenity area could be improved.

Public Realm

  • The Panel is concerned with the location of the rear yard amenity area as it is situated in the shadow of the building. The proponent should relocate the amenity area and consider providing an internal amenity area that can be connected to the exterior space.
  • The hydro requirements and constraints are acknowledged, but the Panel believes there is an opportunity to introduce more greenery and create a landscape representative of the neighbourhood.
  • The Panel believes the corner is an important feature of the development that could help revitalize the area but cautions the proponent not to implement the corner wall feature, as the sidewalk is highly travelled and should open up at the corner.
  • The commercial entrance should be located at the corner to embrace the public realm.

Building

  • The Panel is concerned with the wall condition created on Gladstone Avenue due to the podium's height and recommends a podium of similar height to the adjacent buildings.
  • The Panel believes stepping back the building to align with the adjacent property on Gladstone Avenue will provide more significant space to introduce greenery and improve the relationship with the adjacent property. Additionally, introducing a step back at the third storey would extend the existing datum line and would provide the opportunity for a green roof.
  • The ground floor appears to be weighted down by the building; the proponent should increase the height of the ground floor and use colour to create a stronger contrast between the base and the upper floors.
  • The Panel is concerned with the building's transition to the low-rise residential neighbourhood on the east. The drawings should show the angular plane, and the proponent should demonstrate the measures taken to improve the building's transition. For instance, reconfiguring the stairs could reduce the building's mass.

Materiality

  • The reductive palette and the modern and contemporary materials are appreciated. The Panel cautions that the material change to concrete veneer and the white blending with the grey might not be a successful colour blocking treatment.
  • The Panel encourages the proponent to use lighter grey tones on the upper floors to brighten the back and top of the building, as they appear dull. The proponent should ensure the tonality of grey does not appear dull and the contrast with the white podium successfully achieves the desired aesthetic.
  • The use of solid panels on the façade is appreciated as they surround the residential window wall system and create a cleaner aesthetic.
  • The white glass with printed letters might be challenging to achieve; signage behind the glass might be more appropriate.

Sustainability

  • The proponent should consider how the development can support active transportation and implement green roofs to improve sustainability and liveability.

255 Richmond Road | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Fotenn Planning + Design; Vincent P. Colizza Architect Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the prosed scale and look and feel of the project as the building frames the site and the neighbourhood.
  • The Panel comments relate to the building’s transition to the west, design of awnings, colour palette, relationship to the public realm and rear terraces.

Massing and Architectural Expression

  • The Panel appreciates the vertical stepping of the building, but the Panel believes the north and west sides could have a better transition.
  • The Panel recommends setting back the upper two floors from the lot line to improve transition to the adjacent properties.
  • The thickness and height of the awnings on Richmond Road makes the ground floor appear out of scale with the public realm. The proponent should consider lowering the awnings to just above the entry doors to provide shelter and a better scale with the public realm. Using materials such as metal cladding and adding vertical seams to the façade treatment of podium would create a more nuanced appearance.
  • The Panel notes the cornice element should be simplified or removed to minimize its impact as it appears heavy and thick.

Materiality

  • The Panel believes the curtain wall expression on the corner would be strengthened by emphasizing the corner and extending it to connect with the upper element. Alternatively, the proponent could consider replacing the coloured panel treatment with masonry.
  • The Panel recommends exploring a different colour palette as the building across the street has a similar architectural expression and coloration.
  • The stone base on the façade on Tweedsmuir Street could be simplified to have a consistent relationship with the brick above.
  • It was suggested the proponent relocate the mechanical penthouse to the corner and treat it as a design element.

Public Realm and Amenity Area

  • A south-facing amenity area is welcomed, but the Panel believes there is an opportunity to increase the patio area within the building’s envelop without encumbering the public realm, to preserve the sidewalk width as Richmond Road is highly travelled.
  • The Panel appreciates the raised amenity terrace as it improves the existing condition, but there are concerns with overlook impacts. The Panel recommends the terraces be at the ground floor level to minimize overlooking issues.
  • The proponent should consider introducing trellises on the ground floor terrace as transitional spaces.

Sustainability

  • The Panel recommends introducing sustainability measures, such as using the roof for stormwater management and introducing measures that support transit.

Gladstone village phase 1 (933 Gladstone Avenue) | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Ottawa Community Housing; Propriétés ARRIV Properties; Diamond Schmitt Architects Inc.; KWC Architects Inc.; Lashley + Associates Corporation; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel expressed strong support for the passive housing initiative, social spaces and programming.
  • The project is well thought out and presented; the architecture parti, the concept of knitting as a design aesthetic at the larger scale, contextual fit associated with the materials at the pedestrian scale, is appreciated. The Panel also thanks the design team for preparing and presenting a video animation of the project.
  • The Panel believes there are a few refinements that need further consideration.

Building Design

  • The Panel urges the proponent to consider implementing operable windows such as horizontal balustrades or Juliette balconies to increase the liveability of units.
  • The Panel notes the facades appear identical; as part of the passive house initiative, each facade could have regard to the sun and shadow direction.
  • The building has an institutional feel; the proponent may consider a different treatment for the penthouse as well as introducing some operable windows to soften the elevations and minimize its institutional appearance.
  • The vertical white screens facing the courtyard appear too thin and should be reconsidered.

Public Realm

  • The Panel believes there is an opportunity to increase the greenery on the courtyard and improve pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The proponent should study further how people and cars will interact and explore a variety of approaches to clearly define pedestrian and vehicular areas.
  • The proponent should contemplate introducing evergreens and wood screens to soften the edge condition for the units at grade and screen the units facing the courtyard.
  • There is a concern that the building's proximity to the north and south property line places the burden of tree planting and sidewalks on the adjacent properties. The proponent should ensure enough space is provided for private and semiprivate functions to occur without encumbering in the public realm.

Materiality

  • The Panel appreciates the red brick palette and precast panel and bringing the white material down at grade at the building's entrance for wayfinding.
  • The material in some areas of the building appears coplanar. The 3-storey wall extending up to the 5-storey wall on Street A could benefit from a more significant step back above the third floor, to improve the transition between the two materials and strengthen the relationship with the buildings across the street.
  • The concept of knitting is appreciated, but the concept of "knitting" of the exterior cladding is not apparent in some views. The team should explore pronounced reveals to emphasize that the cladding shifts in a repeated pattern.

Sustainability

  • The Panel appreciates the sustainability goals and encourages the proponent to create a more comprehensive approach, such as implementing a rooftop amenity garden for seniors in addition to using roofs as insulators.
  • There is an opportunity to implement climbing vines for shading and to make the building greener.
  • The project needs to be well-executed and should not be valued engineered.

November 5, 2021

1983 Carling Avenue | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Keegan Gomes; Figurr architects collective; Stantec

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for bringing forward an infill project that is an example of the missing middle. The Panel supports the project given that this housing typology provides additional rental stock with a variety of unit layouts.
  • The contemporary design and subtle moves and colour changes on the façade are appreciated.

Materiality

  • The Panel requests the proponent consider an alternative to the wood patterned metal panel siding to better reflect the local context. If the wood patterned metal siding is maintained, it should have a horizontal rather than vertical orientation to reflect the typical residential cladding in the neighbourhood.
  • The corrugated metal should be reconsidered, as it appears quite dark in the renderings.
  • The Panel cautions that the installation details of the proposed metal panel are complex and the overall impression, illustrated in the rendering, might start to lose its impact if those details aren’t well resolved. The proponent should study the transitional details of the metal panel to ensure the aesthetic is clean and to avoid trim features around doors and windows.
  • The Panel appreciates the singular treatment and playfulness of the up and down pattern of window openings; however, the window treatments warrant further study.
  • The base of the building appears unresolved where the wood siding meets grade. The proponent should consider replacing the lighter coloured wood siding with the darker material where it meets the ground, to give the impression of a floating cube.

Massing and Architectural Expression

  • The Panel supports the building’s response to the angular plane and overall massing that transitions well to the neighbourhood to the north.
  • The proponent should consider revising the ground floor height, as it appears low due to the sunken basement.
  • The rooftop mechanical penthouse should be treated as a design element.

Landscape and Amenity Area

  • The Panel appreciates the integration of parking with the neighbouring property and the retention of trees; however, the landscape needs to evolve further.
  • The proponent should consider incorporating landscaping onto the rooftop, with planters and trellises for shading and for architectural interest.
  • The street front landscape should be designed to create an amenity space for residents, and to reinforce the pattern of gardens that separate buildings from the street in the neighbourhood.

6171 Hazeldean Road | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Plan of Subdivision | Latitude Homes; Pierre Martin & Associés Architectes; Lapalme+Rheault Architectes et Associés; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the aspirations of the project and the design moves presented. The project showcases the opportunities and challenges in a suburban context.
  • The Panel is supportive of the building’s mass and believes the development sets an important precedent for the evolution of the neighbourhood.
  • The Panel appreciates the park’s location and would have appreciated seeing views of the building from the park.

Massing

  • The corner on Hazeldean is the gateway entrance to the site and the Panel believes the ground floor expression should be enhanced to ground the building and anchor the site. The retail at the corner should be double height to attract a restaurant or an outdoor cafe to create a more urban experience.
  • There is an opportunity to continue sculpting the mass. The Panel suggests the proponent emphasize the 4-storey scale by introducing a step back on the front elevation, dropping two floors on the west corner and raising the east corner to improve the massing and reinforce the four-storey datum of the podium.
  • The Panel notes the reveal is more successful at breaking up the façade and recommends not wrapping the balconies on the front elevation. A less symmetrical approach will alleviate the grey frame from overpowering the north facade.
  • Consider breaking up the roofline to reduce the slab-like quality where the building meets the sky.
  • The projected balconies appear to be a singular moment, however if the same approach was applied in other areas of the façade, it would create a pinwheel effect that may be desirable.
  • The proposed loggia at one storey in height, is not strong enough and should be increased to two storeys with a cap to emphasize the height.

Site Plan and Public Realm

  • The Panel appreciates the amount of retail proposed and believes there is an opportunity to improve the retail presence by increasing the podium height to two or three storeys and introducing ground-oriented units at the rear.
  • An indoor/outdoor connection can be created by adding a landscape feature at the corner and allocating some of the ground floor retail for community space.
  • The Panel believes the streetscape could be improved by adding benches, bike storage, transit access, and street-oriented retail.
  • The proponent should consider widening the pedestrian access through the building and integrating the drop-off area with the lobby.
  • The turning radii and the extent of asphalt could be reduced by removing the two parking spaces east of the site to widen the pedestrian realm and improve pedestrian crossing.
  • Consider integrating the garbage enclosure within the building.

Floor Plans

  • The Panel suggests providing more natural light in the corridors by introducing a reveal in the elevator waiting areas or using the stairwells as a light source, similar to the condition present on the east hallways.
  • The Panel believes there is an opportunity to have a more significant link between the park and the rear entrance of the lobby. The lobby could provide direct access to the park and a stronger pedestrian connection between the two should be created.

1050 Canadian Shield Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | 1050 Canadian Shield Inc. (Lépine Corporation); NEUF Architect(e)s; NOVATECH

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for their presentation and for providing the future context of the area.
  • The Panel appreciates and supports the idea of a courtyard building where the parking has been moved underground, favouring a pedestrian space.
  • The Panel appreciates the European aspirations of the sketch but believes there is a gap between the sketch and the proposal, given the challenges presented in this suburban context.

Site Plan and Landscape

  • The Panel supports the midblock connection but believes its access can be improved by moving the elevators closer to the lobby to improve accessibility. Consider also providing more natural light in the corridors.
  • The Panel suggests expanding the north opening of the courtyard to accommodate small vehicles and equipment for maintenance, which would also bring more porosity to the interior.
  • The parking access and grading might pose a challenge for the movement of garbage.

Building Design

  • The Panel suggests introducing a townhouse condition with gardens on Canadian Shield Avenue to animate the street and break down the façade.
  • The Panel believes the proposed development should have an elevated ground floor to improve the public realm and accessibility. The sunken retail entrance is not successful.
  • There was a suggestion to connect the corner commercial space with the interior courtyard to open up the building.
  • The public interface on Campeau would be improved by breaking up the façade on a similar scale seen in the area.

Materiality

  • The Panel appreciates the precedent images and encourages the proponent to explore some warmer materials to help tie the project into the surrounding context and to not emphasize the top two floors with dark materials.
  • The Panel notes that the materials and details shown in the precedents require a high level of craftsmanship which is difficult to attain today.

Sustainability

  • The proponent is advised to explore sustainability measures such as implementing green roofs, providing access to transit, and increasing energy efficiency.

180 Kanata Avenue | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Kanata Woods Inc. c/o Theberge Developments Ltd.; Progressive Architects, Ltd.; NOVATECH

Summary

  • The Panel considers this site to be both prominent and a good opportunity for development. The proposal requires a more disciplined approach to the street edge and coordination with the adjacent development to take advantage of a larger plan for the area.
  • The Panel believes the building should have a well-defined base, middle and top and a simplified façade.

Context

  • The Panel encourages the proponent to work with the adjacent site owners and the City to develop a more comprehensive neighbourhood amenity between the two sites and a connection to the neighbourhood park. The laneway and plaza at the corner could become the gateway into the park.

Architectural Expression

  • The Panel believes the proponent should reduce the variety of treatments on the façade, particularly the fenestration. There are two types of window treatments and the Panel recommends implementing one, but not both.
  • There is an opportunity to create breaks in the long façade to create a rhythm along the street. The proponent should consider introducing a one-storey base, a four-storey middle and a one-storey top, with one material palette for the middle portion.
  • A variation in the height of the building would also create more visual interest from the street. Consider increasing the height at the east end of the building. Also consider lowering the grade of the finished floor elevation to create a stronger relationship with the lane and shared courtyard. This will also improve site accessibility.
  • The curvature at the corner could be recessed further to increase the outdoor retail spill out space. The proponent should explore increasing the height of the corner to make it more prominent and to explore a five-storey architectural expression with a one-storey element at the top.

Materiality

  • The Panel notes that the material changes on the façade read as co-planar and the height changes of the red brick element appears erratic. The material palette should be more consistent and simplified. The proponent should consider the use warm earth tones to relate the building to the theme of "The Woods."
  • The rounded corner treatment would benefit from further studies to improve the legibility of its residential character. The current spandrel glass treatment makes it appear to be a commercial building.

Public Realm

  • The Panel appreciates the continuity of the at grade indoor and outdoor amenity areas and the terraces as they clearly define a leisure zone. The Panel recommends buffering the adjacent suites from the amenity space and the parking area.
  • The future park has the potential to be an extraordinary amenity for the City as the rock formation is reminiscent of Central Park, where people are invited to interact with it. The landscape and amenity area could be expanded by reducing the parking, moving the central wing, and taking advantage of the rock formation to integrate the building and site design with this extraordinary feature.

Site Plan

  • The Panel strongly believes the current accessibility plan is not acceptable. The entrance should be at grade to ensure access for everyone.
  • The Panel suggests providing on-street parking to improve the retail viability and serve as a drop-off area at the front of the building.
  • The laneway should be treated as a gateway. The courtyard should be reconfigured to make it less vehicular dominated by introducing pavers, bollards to control vehicular movement, and streetscape elements such as benches.

Sustainability

  • The Panel appreciates the proponent's efforts to implement solar panels on the roof and believes that in addition to sustainable energy ideas, the proponent should consider rainwater and stormwater management to increase the perviousness of the project.

The Ottawa Hospital Phase 1: parking garage (930, 850 Carling Avenue and 520 Preston Street) | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | The Ottawa Hospital; HDR; GBA Group; Parsons

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the high-quality package presented. The project’s challenges and difficulties are recognized, and the level of effort put into the vision of the parking garage is appreciated.
  • The Panel supports the sculpting of the edge on Prince of Wales to create a strong landscape vision for the street, as Prince of Wales holds an important role in the Capital Landscape. The Panel looks forward to the evolution of the scheme. The parking garage terracing and sculpting as a landform are appreciated.
  • The Panel continues to emphasize the importance of the Preston and Carling corner and is extremely concerned about the proposed placement of future buildings that will block the view of the landscape.
  • The Panel suggests a focused design review session be considered, as the details of the Preston and Prince of Wales treatments evolve.

Parking Garage Design

  • The Panel notes that the previous parking garage scheme included openings on the roof to provide additional daylight and fresh air, as well as serving as wayfinding. The proponent is encouraged to explore incorporating openings in the design.
  • The Panel believes the roofscape should have shade structures, such as trellises and trees, to provide breaks from the sun.
  • The proposed Highline will be an important landmark and structural element; therefore, its implementation should be further studied.

Landscape

  • The Panel notes the MUP on Preston Street appears to have several overlapping pathways; further clarification of the trail system is needed to understand the wayfinding of the site.
  • The proponent should consider climbing vines or hanging gardens, as these can also help screen the parking garage structure.
  • The Panel notes the importance of having a maintenance and management strategy for the landscape given that the landscape will mature and change over time.
  • The Panel questions the amount of soil proposed for the parking garage roof. Further studies of soil requirements should be undertaken for different conditions, such as extensive vs intensive, short vs long term and the potential of temporary landscapes.
  • The cladding materials will be more visible initially before the landscape has matured. The Panel suggests increasing soil depths to provide a long-term sustainable site ecology that will be robust and resilient, to ensure the landscape conceals the parking structure over time.
  • There was a suggestion to contact the Canadian War Museum, given their experience with soil depth.
  • The Panel believes it is essential for the project to weave in the cultural and natural heritage landscape typologies of the area.
  • The proponent should work closely with the Experimental Farm and arboretum to plant indigenous species and preserve the Preston Lilac and the rose collection for future generations.

Materials

  • The Panel supports the façade treatment and considers the vertical elements a positive design direction. The use of porcelain is supported as the material is low maintenance and will age well.
  • The ventilation requirements should be studied and understood, which is essential for the landscape strategy. It might not be possible to ventilate the garage naturally, particularly on the lower floors that rely on berms to conceal them.
  • The exterior materials are important for the screening of the parking garage, but more studies are needed to understand the ventilation requirements and their impact when creating a seamless transition to the roof.
  • Some of the materials, such as the vertical screens, will intersect with ramps and stairs and will interface with visitors to site and amplify the experience. Wood guards and handrails on the ramps for example will enhance the landscape experience. These material relationships should be carefully studied.
  • The proponent is encouraged to reconsider the material treatment for some of the building elements, such as the stairwells, that are physically separated from the evolving material selection of the wood screen but should have a strong material association.
  • The Panel notes further studies for wind mitigation to ensure that comfort of users year-round.

Views

  • The Panel has concerns with the views to the parking garage from the Capital landscape, especially at night. This includes spillover lights from vehicles and the garage lighting, that is typically very bright. The Panel recommends that the proponent prepare a series of eye-level views from Prince of Wales and illustrate other structural elements, such as stairwells, to understand the effect of the garage lighting behind the proposed landscape at night and in the winter months.

Programing

  • The Panel supports the direction of the project and proposed programming but cautions that private uses of the rooftop would limit access to the public. The Panel recommends the proponent limits the number of private activities and active programming to allow the public greater flexibility for play.
  • The Panel considers it beneficial to have input from the public regarding the programming of the park.
  • There is an opportunity to have water elements within the programming and to consider active programming during the winter months.

Carling and Preston Corner

  • The Panel continues to express their concern regarding the location of the innovation centre at the Preston and Carling intersection. The Panel recommends the innovation centre be set back to ensure the green aperture can be maintained as this is a critical view to the Capital landscape.

October 8, 2021

299 (291) Carling Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment | Canada Lands Company / Société immobilière du Canada; Algonquins of Ontario; McRobie Architects + Interior Designers Inc.; WSP

Summary

  • The Panel acknowledged the importance of the partnership with the Algonquins of Ontario and thanked the proponent for the presentation. The efforts of engaging the public in the development process are appreciated.
  • The Panel recognized the thorough site analysis and the recognition of the first nations' assets on-site, as illustrated on the seven touchstones presented.
  • Being mindful of the stage of the development process, the Panel anticipates that as the project progresses, future development on site will adhere to the city guidelines at the Site Plan Control stage.

Built Form

  • The Panel’s preference is for a single building facing Carling Avenue instead of two buildings, as it appears that there is not enough land area to accommodate two towers and four buildings.
  • The Panel expressed support for the June 2019 massing model, which provides enough breathing room between buildings.
  • The Panel recommends any future buildings on LeBreton Street South be parallel to the street to create an open space framed by the buildings and provide a 6-storey transition north of the site, to reduce overlook issues for the existing low-rise building.
  • Consideration should be given to the change in grade.

Circulation

  • The Panel believes the primary access to the site should be from LeBreton Street and the plan should not provide curb cut access on Carling Avenue. Carling Avenue should be cleared of any vehicular access and be for pedestrian access only. A layby on Carling Avenue could be acceptable, but the Panel cautions that the layby could misused.
  • There was a suggestion to create a road between buildings B2 and C2 on LeBreton Street to create a loop for fire truck access and the underground parking.

Public Realm and Landscape

  • The Panel strongly recommends the proponent continues to emphasize key elements of the site; consideration should be given to the natural features of the site and the heritage significance of the rock outcrop.
  • The Panel notes there are opportunities to have the rock outcrop as a feature given its importance; the Escarpment's unique feature in the neighbourhood should be publicly accessible.
  • The low stone wall on Bell Street should also be preserved as part of the site’s cultural heritage.

641 Rideau Street | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment | Theberge Homes; GBH Consulting; S. J. Lawrence Architect Incorporated; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the changes made and recognized the improvements to the building design, including reducing the podium's height.
  • The Panel expressed concerns with the site's civic relationship to the river and the views from the bridge, the location of the POPS and the slab-like perception of the tower.

Public Realm

  • The Panel strongly believes the POPS should be an integral part of the Rideau Street landscape. Moving the tower further north and setting back the podium further from the adjacent buildings would open up visibility from the river and create a greater area to relocate the POPS along the front instead of being tucked away on the side of the building.
  • With the POPS facing the street, there is an opportunity to have a double row of trees to create a boulevard feel on Rideau Street.
  • The Panel encourages the proponent to continue negotiating access from Wurtemburg Street to improve the site's porosity.

Massing

  • The Panel is concerned with the slab-like quality of the tower, which contributes to solid wall of buildings when viewed from the other side of the river.
  • The Panel believes the tower floorplate should be no more than 750 square metres. The proponent should consider slimming down the tower from the right-hand side to open the sky views between buildings.
  • The proponent should work with OCH to maintain the 23-metre separation distance, consider having a square floorplate, reduce the building's height, widen the building, and push the podium further north.
  • There was a suggestion to revise the ground floor plan as the proposed plan could have building code issues; the stairs should exit to the outside, where the dog washing station is.

19 Centrepointe Drive | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Richcraft Group of Companies; rla / architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design; NAK design strategies

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates and recognizes the advancement and the work done from previous iterations of the design. But the Panel believes there are a series of refinements and nuances that need further study.
  • The Panel notes that the site layout of two towers instead of three provides an opportunity to have a rooftop amenity space for residents to enjoy.

Architectural Expression

  • The north and south façades should have different treatments to greater visual interest when viewed from a distance.
  • The Panel recommends trimming the roofline projections on the townhouses as they draw attention away from the brick base.
  • Refinement of the rear façade facing the courtyard should be considered, as the Panel feels that the podium has a sheer expression, and the grid appears as an appliqué.
  • The proponent should increase the relief and add rhythm to the west façade. This could be achieved by staggering the elements of the podium, introducing colour, and siting the trees to create a dynamic streetscape.
  • The Panel notes that some units would seem dark due to the towers mirroring each other.
  • There was a suggestion to widen the corridors as they appear long and dark and provide seating areas for respite.

Landscape and Public Realm

  • The Panel recommends improving the courtyard by buffering it from its neighbours, introducing high quality paving materials, and creating a more unique forecourt and entry to the development, rather than simply treating it as a vehicular turning circle.
  • The proponent should consider relocating the surface parking spaces to align with the building edge to create a continuous landscape and pedestrian walkway connection along the north edge of the building. This will entail relocating the garbage access route, benches, and bike racks.
  • The Panel believes a layby on Centrepointe Drive is not suitable and encourages the proponent to widen the boulevard as much as possible.

Materiality

  • The Panel notes the balance of solids and voids, and the grid pattern successfully add depth to the façade and successfully capture the balconies in the façade composition.
  • The upper two floors of the east tower appear to have a significant amount of glass, which the Panel recommends requires further study to assess their functionality.
  • The Panel believes the towers should have a quieter material and colour palette given the suburban context. The towers should appear lighter when viewed from a distance in this context.

261, 269, 271 King Edward Avenue & 260 Murray Street | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Momentum Planning & Communications; Woodman Architect & Associates Ltd.; James B. Lennox & Associates Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel is generally supportive of the project; the articulation of the mass, the step backs and brick detailing, but The Panel has some concerns with the materials, primarily in areas where metal and brick meet.
  • The Panel believes there is an opportunity to step back the building further to improve the relationship with the adjacent house.

Building Articulation

  • The Panel appreciates the revision to the south elevation, the attention to detail and the additional studies on Clarence Street.
  • The Panel believes the step back on the east side has been reduced, not benefiting the project.
  • There was a suggestion to remove the two units on the fourth floor between the B and C gridlines and 1 to 6 gridlines to increase the space to the adjacent house on Murray Street. Consider also removing the fourth floor between the 13 and 15 gridlines to provide a greater distance for the adjoining house on Clarence Street.
  • The proponent should also increase the building set back at the seventh storey on the east edge and step back level 8, south of gridline 13, to improve the building’s relationship to the neighbourhood and the adjacent house on Clarence Street.
  • The Panel appreciates the receding of the garage and the insetting of the garage doors to showcase the adjacent house.

Materiality

  • The Panel notes the metal panel and red brick on the east elevation appear co-planar; the proponent should consider recessing the metal panels for a successful change in plane associated with a change in materials as seen in the parapet at the ground floor.
  • The Panel cautions using a white metal window wall system, especially at the corner, as the material will not age well. The use of a more traditional material such as stone or a more durable material is encouraged.

Public Realm

  • The Panel appreciates the ground floor layout. The retail space adjacent to the parkette adds life into the area with adequate space provided for an outdoor patio.

2046-2050 Scott Street & 295-301 Ashton Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Surface Developments; rla / architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the townhouse design as they fit with the rhythm of the street and the neighbourhood.
  • The proposal is well balanced with the use of glass for the tower, and the animation on Scott Street is appreciated.
  • The Panel’s comments relate to the improvement of the mid-block connection, architectural expression, and materiality.

Public Realm

  • The Panel supports the mid-block connection, but the W structural expression conflicts with the building’s design. The proponent should consider columns for a more elegant look and planting Boston Ivy or Virginia Creeper for a green wall effect to soften the hardscape.
  • Scott Street lacks greenery as there are few trees; the proponent should consider planting double rows of trees.
  • The Panel suggests removing one unit between gridline 6 and 8 and reducing the bike storage on the second floor to open the space under the building, which is partially blocked by bike storage.
  • The Panel believes the parking garage door could be improved upon; the proponent should consider an ornamental treatment that can be patterned to make a feature entrance.
  • At street level, the sidewall should continue and not break in order to prioritize pedestrians and to signal drivers that they are crossing a sidewalk.

Architectural Expression and Massing

  • The Panel supports the proposed townhouses, but their architectural expression requires further study; the Panel suggests brick cladding for the garden walls to enhance the residential frontage and better knit them with the neighbourhood.
  • The Panel appreciates the changes made to the massing and the increased separation distance to the west, but the Panel believes the space is still narrow. The proponent should consider shallow units facing west to improve that condition.
  • The proponent should be mindful of the condition that exists on the lower levels of the podium and enhance the amount of light for the existing units to the west.

Materiality

  • The Panel questions the use of curtain wall as bedrooms require operators, and the façade would not look as clean as the rendering shows. The Panel suggests using a glass that is slightly reflective to help screen the interiors from the street.
  • The Panel appreciates the idea of the building as a lantern expression at the top of the building and encourages the proponent to explore that idea.
  • The Panel notes that the soffits could become heavily stained, and therefore the proponent should consider a pre-cast rather than poured concrete.

2 Montreal Road & 3 Selkirk Street | Formal Review | Site Plan Application | Riverain Developments Inc.; Main + Main Developments; ML Devco Inc.; rla / architecture

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the advancement made; however, the Panel still struggles with the overall project, and further consideration is needed moving forward.
  • The Panel provided comments on the architectural expression, the tower's relationship with the river's views, and the overall site plan layout.

Arch Expression

  • The Panel continues to have concerns with the podium expression and height. The site is a gateway to Vanier. As such, the podium should have a stronger presence, increase in height as it approaches the tower, and different materials that reflect the rhythm of Montreal Road to create an urban design development of high quality for the community.
  • There is an opportunity to turn the enclosed parking and podium into an asset and make the flat roofs amenity spaces or green roofs.
  • The Panel expressed concern with the sameness of the towers' expression, which makes the development appear dense. The proponent should consider differentiating the towers' by deploying the same kit of parts in a variety of ways to create a dialogue and have a degree of simplicity and to read as a family.
  • The wrap-around balconies make the towers appear bulky at the corners. The corner treatment should be articulated to reduce the perceived bulk of the towers, as this is a key location for vistas across the bridge.

Site Plan

  • The Panel supports the mid-block connection as it is a fundamental move that will provide porosity to the site; however, the Panel believes that the midblock connection should be shifted northeast toward the intersection at Montreal Road to provide direct views towards the river.
  • The Panel remains concerned with the location of tower A as the tower appears to relate to the underground parking and does not address the site's geometry nor the views from the bridge. Turn tower A, so it is parallel to Montreal Road for a slimmer view from the bridge.
  • The Panel believes the development needs to knit better with the surrounding context; having street-oriented townhouses on the mid-block connection would improve this condition.
  • The Panel supports the public realm, the new park and the landscaped plaza as the project provides a high percentage of open space, but the POPS at the corner needs to be further refined to create an activated public plaza at this high-profile location.
  • It is unclear whether the development has ground-oriented units along North River Road.

Phasing

The Panel has concerns with the interim conditions during the phased construction of this large development. It is understood that there is a need to use the site for staging, however the Panel believes, instead of hoarding the entire site for a number of years, the proponent should consider other interim uses, such as creating a temporary landscape in some locations that can become part of the public r

September 10, 2021

283 Mcleod Street | Formal Review |Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment; and Heritage Permit | Zyer Developments Inc.; GRC Architects Inc.; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the spirit of the project, specifically the treatment of the heritage building that remains intact and the design of the new infill townhouses that resonates with the area's heritage character, in a contemporary manner.
  • The Panel expressed significant concerns with the proposed 9-storey building due to its expansion beyond the "blue box" boundary of the Secondary Plan, where a building of that height is permitted.
  • The Panel strongly believes the views of the museum should remain clear and prominent.

Massing and Context

  • The Panel is very concerned with the 9-storey massing that does not adhere to the zoning envelope and "sticks out" beyond the boundaries set out in the Secondary Plan. This will create an undesirable precedent on a heritage street that fronts on the Museum of Nature.
  • The Panel supports preserving the heritage building's base, but concerns were raised regarding the scale of the addition and the overall massing and the building's relationship to the side lot line. Lowering the height of the building and increasing the setback on the side yards to match the line of McLeod Street would help improve the relationship of the building above the 3-storey scale.
  • The proponent should reduce the building height to fit better within the context.
  • There is a strong consensus to have the views to the Museum of Nature read clearly within the urban context. The proponent should consider the future development of the block and use a sensitive approach to ensure the new building acts as a backdrop against the heritage building.

Heritage

  • The Panel appreciates the proponent's efforts to make the 9-storey building as distinct as possible from the heritage building. The articulation of the townhouses is a good example of contemporary infill.
  • The proponent should reconsider the relationship between the heritage building and the new building. The position of the columns and the presence of a dark soffit in close proximity to the heritage building gives the appearance of the new building looming over it.
  • The design of the entrance and garage could serve as a model for contributing to the Heritage Conservation District and the " landmark frontage" that preserves the quality and heritage character of the existing building.

Materiality

  • The Panel believes the proposed materials contrast too strongly, and the metal panel appears out of place. A material such as pre-cast terracotta or fibre C (with the same colour tone as is being proposed) would better suit the development and complement the neighbourhood character.
  • The Panel suggested stone or a material with greater durability for the areas of the building that meet the ground, in place of the metal panels that currently extend to grade at the west and north of the building.

Site Plan

  • There was a question regarding the overall parking proposal, especially the distance for a vehicle to back up. The proponent is encouraged to revise spaces 3, 4, and 10 as they appear challenging to maneuver.

971 Montreal Road | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Roberto Campos c/o Martin Sacksner; Figurr Architects Collective

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the presentation and commended the proponent for providing a good ratio of 2 and 2 + den units. The project's contemporary expression and scale, as well as the proponent's efforts to explore alternatives to the traditional podium-tower model, are appreciated.
  • There is overall support for the proposal and the Panel appreciates the design's subtleties, noting that the success of the proposal relies on the owner's commitment to build, operate, and maintain these high-quality materials.

Building Articulation and Massing

  • The Panel appreciates the overall massing but would like the proponent to further explore the piloti expression as it seems foreign to the remainder of the project. The dark columns could be carried across the entire façade along Montreal Road, for a more consistent treatment.
  • There is an opportunity to render the entrance and the columns with more solidity in a way that would provide continuity with the remainder of the building.
  • The Panel believes the Montreal façade is quite substantial and noted that there is an opportunity to continue to refine the angle of the splay relative to the orientation of Montreal Road.

Site Plan

  • The Panel has concerns with the proposed 3.5 metres setback to the existing retirement home and recommends the proponent double the distance to futureproof the potential redevelopment of the adjacent lot.
  • The proponent should revise the site access to make it more welcoming not only for cars, but also for pedestrians and cyclist and ensure the asphalt does not extend beyond the building itself.

Landscaping Treatment

  • The Panel recommends changing the fence material and detailing to better integrate it with the architecture.
  • The Panel has concerns with landscape treatment and how it contributes to the pedestrian experience along Montreal Road. The proponent should consider alternative landscape treatments such as low herbaceous and shrub plantings for the area between the curb and the building.

Materiality

  • The Panel appreciates the subtle architectural treatments such as the small balconies, minimal flashing details at the parapet, the brick selection and patterns, and the lighting and texture of the drive through, which all elevate the project.
  • The Panel supports the materiality and details proposed, especially the brick choice, and encourages the proponent to use high-quality materials to ensure the success of the building.

770-774 Bronson Avenue & 557 Cambridge Street S. | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Figurr Architects Collective; Fotenn Planning + Design; Katasa Groupe + Développement

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the revisions made since the last visit; the simplification of the mass, provision of a rooftop amenity area, increased setbacks, and the reduction of the tower plate has moved the project in the right direction. However, the Panel believes some refinements can be made to break down the mass further.
  • The Panel has significant concerns with the proposed density, the tower's proximity to the lot line, and whether the site can accommodate a tower. The Panel also expressed strong concerns with the building's relationship to Cambridge Street, due to the treatment of the underground parking, which creates a significant grade change.

Massing and Density

  • The Panel remains concerned with the proposed density on-site as evidences by the massing presented and the tower's proximity to the lot line as the tower appears to "rub shoulders" with the adjacent lot; a 6.8 metres setback on the west side is not adequate.
  • The Panel reiterates that the tower should be shifted away from the corner to achieve the required 10-12.5 metres separation distance outlined in the tall building design guidelines.
  • The Panel believes reducing the massing and refining the design would improve the building's relationship to the surrounding streets and public realm; given the context on Bronson Avenue and the building's location south of Carling, a mid-scale expression would be more appropriate.
  • The proponent should create a clear distinction between the tower and the mid-rise building. The proponent should also step back the long volume to break down the overall length, reduce the apparent mass, and introduce a compelling landscape.

Grading

  • The Panel has some concerns with the floor-to-ceiling heights and the building's interface between the apartment units and the student residence. The proponent should consider sloping the parking underground and increasing the floor-to-floor heights in the units above to improve their livability.
  • The Panel believes other solutions should be explored to address the grading and parking garage. The parking access could be redesigned using the land's natural slope. The proponent should consider stepping the ground floor slab to match the surrounding grades and improve the east-west relationship to Cambridge Street, instead of creating a garage that separates the ground floor from the surrounding public spaces.

Landscaping and Public Realm

  • The Panel notes there is an opportunity to widen the sidewalks and increase tree planting on-site should the mass of the building be reduced.
  • The proponent should consider reducing the service access route length and number and height of the surrounding retaining walls and introduce landscape buffers.

Materiality

  • The proponent should incorporate a reveal to separate interface of the two buildings and consider adding colour blocking tied in with façade plane changes, to break up the façade along Bronson Avenue.

Sustainability

  • Sustainability on-site should be explored. The proponent should consider increasing setbacks to provide more open space and vegetation, adding green roofs, and integrating stormwater management including permeable pavers.

112 Montreal Road & 314 Gardner Street | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment | Rod Lahey Architect c/o 2705460 Ontario Inc.; rla / architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel expressed support for the project. The consensus is that the project has taken a significant step forward. The Panel’s recommendations focused on the podium, amenity area and vehicular movement as the project progresses.
  • The Panel supported the height reduction of tower B3 as it provides a transition to the neighbourhood but, there were concerns with the height of tower B2.

Height Transition and Massing

  • The Panel believes there should be a better height transition for tower B2 as it appears to be too high for the corner and in proximity to the adjacent neighbourhood.
  • The Panel agrees that a tower height ratio of 30, 25 and 15 storeys provides better transition and that tower B3 should be 15 storeys high. The Panel believes a four-storey building on Montreal Road is better suited than a six-storey building.
  • The Panel strongly recommends the tower floorplates should be reduced to comply with the tall design guidelines. Floorplates of approximately 750 square metres will also improve the tower separation distance from 21 metres to 25 metres.

Building Articulation

  • The Panel believes the towers relationship to the courtyard could be improved, and the towers could have a cleaner expression if the podium treatments wrap around them.
  • The proponent should consider sliming the towers down to improve the corner views from the amenity space.
  • The proponent should consider shifting the ramp 1.5 metres to provide more soil volume for tree planting.

Public Realm and Circulation

  • The Panel noted the site plan demonstrates an opportunity to increase the landscape in the courtyard if the fire tuck access is re-oriented to make the courtyard a more significant open space.
  • Consider moving the access for towers B2 and B3 to the east, for building A to Montreal Road and for building B1 to Vanier Parkway.
  • The courtyard would then provide enough space to serve as a children's playground to alleviate concerns with its current proposed location in close proximity to the parkway.
  • The proponent should consider strengthening the pedestrian circulation by introducing trees on both sides of the south lane to treat it more like a street.
  • Consider re-orienting the tower B1 entrance to avoid a turnaround to create a succession of spaces.
  • The circulation plan should clearly define the woonerf and pedestrian paths.

Sustainability

  • The Panel recommends the proponent reduce the amount of asphalt and impervious surfaces to reduce the heat island effect.

1649 Montreal Road | Formal Review | Zoning B­­y-law Amendment | Bertone Development Corporation; rla / architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the presentation noting the building's elegant architectural expression and well articulated and proportioned base.
  • The Panel is of the opinion that the architecture of the site, in isolation, is skillful and the preservation of the existing trees and the addition of commercial uses at grade are an asset to the neighbourhood. However, the Panel struggled to understand the rationale for the proposed density and height on this site given the surrounding context.

Context

  • The Panel noted the project's aspirations are urban, however there are issues with the proposed built form, which is less urban, setting the development back from the street. The Panel is also concerned with the proposed height when the development is viewed within the surrounding suburban context, where there are no budlings of similar height in the neighbourhood.
  • The Panel noted that the parking lot south of Montreal Road has the potential for redevelopment, which could create a gateway into the neighbourhood. However, a more substantial planning rationale is needed to support the proposed tower form and height in this location.

Height and Massing

  • The Panel believes additional studies of built form approaches should be presented including those which better frame both streets. The panel also requested an analysis of the soft development sites in the area, in addition to the angular plane diagram, to understand the rationale behind the height increase.
  • The Panel does not support the proposed height at this location and believes the proponent should consider a mid-rise typology.

Public Realm and Site Circulation

  • The Panel supports Option 1 for the POPS. The efforts made by the proponent to address the grade changes, by proposing an amphitheatre and the generous amount of open space provided for the community's benefit, are commendable.
  • The Panel believes the drop-off area should be revisited. The proponent should consider internalizing the loading area and making the drop-off one-way to diminish the vehicular movement and create a more contiguous relationship between the indoor and outdoor amenity area.

1376 Carling Avenue |Formal Review | Site Plan Application | HL General Partner Inc.; GeigerHuot architectes

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the presentation and noted that the changes made to maintain the Japanese pavilion were very much appreciated as they positively contribute to the neighbourhood.
  • The Panel had some concerns with the architectural treatment, including the building frame around the Japanese garden, the parking garage and the soil volume required for tree planting, tower separation, and the number of staircases needed to access ground level entrances from an accessibility perspective.

Japanese Pavilion

  • The Panel very much appreciates the proponent's efforts to maintain the Japanese pavilion in its original. The Panel suggests however, that the architectural treatment of buildings framing the pavilion should be simplified, to serve as a backdrop to the pavilion.
  • The Panel believes the pavilion should be publicly accessible for the community's benefit. The proponent should consider moving any amenity space that would privatize the pavilion and require screening of the windows elsewhere and instead provide a use that would contribute to the urban life of the neighbourhood, such as a café.

Site Plan, Public Realm and Accessibility

  • The Panel believes the perpendicular parking along the north-south road could be realigned as parallel parking, creating a more urban condition and more space for landscaping. The proponent should also consider reducing the parking abutting the park.
  • The Panel expressed concerns with the depth of soil above the underground parking, given that the 600-millimetres provided is equivalent to a raised curb, which is inadequate for trees and shrubs.
  • The Panel noted the elevated terraces result in retaining walls that sever the street from the gardens and building entrances and preclude the opportunity to create a generous public realm.
  • The Panel encourages the proponent to increase accessibility in the public realm. Ramps should be paired with stairs for building access. Currently, there are numerous locations that are only accessible by stairs.

Massing and Scale

  • The Panel expressed concerns that the project appears very dense, although the towers comply with the height regimes. The provided 16-metre separation distance between tower A and tower B is inadequate. The Panel strongly advises the proponent to follow the tall building design guidelines and provides the required 23 metres separation distance.
  • The proponent is encouraged to re-examine tower D and lower it.

Tower Expression and Materiality

  • The Panel struggled to see the level of detail in some renderings. It was difficult to identify what elements of the tower were protruding, whether the proposed glazing treatment in some areas was curtain wall, and what the proposed brick colour was intended to be.
  • The Panel believes the towers appear "top-heavy," as the roof slab projections cast shadows on the building.
  • The Panel supports the idea of a heavier building base and the use of masonry, but the tower's architectural expression should be lighter and simplified. The proponent should consider reducing the number of shifts of elements to prevent the loss of the tower’s elegance.

Sustainability

  • The Panel strongly encourages the proponent to look at sustainability measures for the site and buildings.

July 8 and 9, 2021

715 Mikinak Road | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application and Minor Variance | Ottawa Community Housing; IBI Group

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponents for their submission and noted that the project is evolving in a positive direction. The Panel recommended continued refinement to create a precedent setting project.
  • The Panel supports the use of colour in the architectural expression. It is recommended however, that its deployment continue to be refined to emphasize the storyline that is beginning to emerge and the hierarchy of spaces.
  • The Panel believes that the landscape treatment should continue to be refined, with emphasis on the pedestrian experience. Vehicular functions should be contained to the greatest extent possible.
  • The project’s sustainability initiatives and social infrastructure are strongly supported.

Colour

  • The Panel recognizes that the colour and texture of the façade treatment are important to the project but is concerned that there is not enough discipline in the deployment of colour. The areas of quiet relief from the bright colours are appreciated, although the grey shown on the renderings appears very dark. The black parapet is also very strong and detracts from the overall façade treatment.
  • The Panel suggests focusing colour to the shutter and blinder elements, so that they’re treated more as “colour flashes” and that the design consider the use of colour to help support the hierarchy of the spaces, such as entrances and gathering areas.
  • The Panel recommends developing a stronger interpretive approach to the translation of the quilt storyline and potential Algonquin themes. The Panel cautions however, that an Indigenous designer should be consulted to ensure the authenticity of the approach.

Landscape Treatment

  • The Panel suggests that amenity areas be further buffered from the parking areas with planting.
  • The Panel recommends increasing the amount of publicly accessible open spaces and soft landscape areas. Pedestrian amenities should be integrated with the active entrance areas and places where residents and visitors will naturally meet and gather.
  • The proponent should consider reinforcing the relationship between interior and exterior spaces by connecting lobby spaces more directly with amenity areas.
  • It was suggested that the proposed open space should have a ‘heart’ that captures the spirit of the place.
  • The Panel strongly recommends moving the garbage storage areas and transformers away from key exterior amenity spaces. Garbage storage should be located within the buildings or located away from pedestrian priority spaces and appropriately screened.
  • The Panel is concerned with the proposed layout of the surface parking, that creates dead-end lanes. The Panel recommends creating a planting buffer to screen the parking lot from the proposed amenity area.
  • The Panel recommends that parking be reorganized by orienting the travel lanes parallel with the amenity area. This would also create a natural internal drop off along the edge of the amenity area. Opportunities to integrate underground parking should also be explored.

At-grade Units

  • The Panel recommends further study of the at-grade units and their relationship to the street. They should provide for an outdoor space that is appropriately screened from the street.

Sustainability and Social Inclusion

  • The Panel commends the sustainability initiatives of the project and suggests that reorienting surface parking as discussed could provide an additional opportunity to integrate bioswales.
  • The Panel recognizes that the involvement of Indigenous communities in this project is important and recommends that the design process include Indigenous representation.

Montreal – Blair Road transit priority corridor environmental assessment study | Formal Review | Environmental Assessment Study | City of Ottawa; Parsons

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for their presentation and recognized the challenges and variables needed to be considered when undertaking a street redevelopment.
  • The Panel noted some inconsistencies between the proposed cross-sections and the renderings that could be improved upon. The placemaking toolkit is supported, but the Panel believes the toolkit could be expanded and considered early in the design process.

Cross-section Design

  • The Panel notes that the cross-sections appear too suburban; four lanes of traffic, a median and two turning lanes at an intersection are not characteristic of an urban street. In particular, the section east of St-Laurent up to the Aviation Parkway intersection might have a denser street fabric than what the renderings show.
  • A streetscape treatment is needed to define the curb, cycle track, street, and sidewalk. The Panel believes a 2.5-meter boulevard on Montreal Road is too wide, unless it includes street tree planting, and recommends resizing the curb to 1 meter, which is sufficient to accommodate streetlights.
  • Consider removing the 2-metre shoulder on Blair Road and relocate the streetlights to that location. Consider having a separate trench for utilities to not interfere with tree roots and have the utility trench next to the property line.
  • The Panel notes that the cycle track's adjacency to the sidewalk might create a conflict between cyclists and pedestrians. Ensure that there is an adequate buffer to prevent pedestrians and cyclists from crossing each other's paths. The buffer could accommodate benches and provide enough soil volume for trees.
  • Consider having the sidewalk as close as possible to the property line.

Placemaking Toolkit

  • The Panel appreciates the placemaking toolkit and encourages the proponent to expand the design elements to reflect site specific characteristics at the urban nodes and gateways.
  • Use a contemporary language and palette and consider expanding the toolkit to include design elements such as bicycle racks and bus shelters to foster placemaking.
  • There is an opportunity for public art; the Panel recommends that the proponent integrate public art in the planning of the street design such that there is a dedicated area where it can be easily viewed and celebrated, rather than coming in as an after thought.
  • Public art should reflect the history and context of the neighbourhood. It should speak to the local context to foster a sense of community pride and ownership. The community's involvement will be paramount for the success of the public art program for the corridor.

Landscape Design

  • The Panel notes the relationship between pedestrians and cyclists should be further studied as the proposed seating areas at intersections may be difficult and dangerous to access due to pedestrians needing to cross the cycle track. The inclusion of indicators to slow down cyclists at these crossings is recommended.
  • Commercial and residential areas should have different landscape design treatments. Consider incorporating hard landscaping for commercial areas with structure cells for street trees.
  • Study the evolution of this stretch of Montreal Road to reveal opportunities to tell the stories about the history of the community.
  • Bury the hydro lines where possible and consider the location of utility transformers within the design of the street.
  • The Panel recommends retaining a landscape architect or an arborist to ensure the survival of trees and design excellence.

Sustainability

  • The Panel encourages the proponent to continue exploring sustainability and resilience ideas; the integration of LIDS and street trees is appreciated.

100 Bayshore Drive | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | KS Bayshore Inc; Hobin Architecture; Kingsett Capital; Lashley + Associates Corporation; WSP

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for their presentation and for addressing the previous recommendations.
  • The Panel recommended continuing to evolve the mechanical penthouses to integrate them into the towers and to lighten the tower expression, potentially by removing colour and/or simplifying materials.
  • The Panel generally supported the base expression, especially the materiality, but expressed some concerns with its south edge treatment and the openness of the parking garage.
  • The Panel recommended considering more active programming around the base of the building, with less emphasis placed on the functionality of the space and more greening of the site, as well as the reduction of surface parking.

Top

  • The Panel expressed concerns with the roof trellises and their legibility from the street. It is felt that the steel trellises make the building appear top-heavy and would be better “tucked in” to reduce their prominence where the building meets the sky.
  • The Panel recommended improving the integration of the mechanical penthouses by strengthening the design.

Middle

  • The Panel noted that the architecture of the tower could have a quieter expression. There was a preference for vertical openings instead of both vertical and square openings.
  • The Panel recommended integrating the pillar articulations to break up the length of the south façade.
  • Concerns were expressed regarding the darkness of materials. It is recommended that the proponent consider lightening the overall tower expression.

Base

  • The Panel noted that there is a greater opportunity to have a more pedestrian-friendly space around the base, especially along Woodridge Crescent. More public programming and retail could be considered by relocating the bike room to the south side of the building.
  • The Panel favours the use of terracotta and Corten steel and suggests that those materials be contained to the base expression.

Parking Garage

  • The Panel cautioned that an open-air parking garage creates a strong requirement for direct air ventilation and will be highly visible. It is recommended that a more closed façade be considered for garage screening to reduce the impact of headlights and taillights as cars manoeuvre. Similar treatment should be used all around.
  • There was also a suggestion to consider mechanically venting the parking garage to achieve the objectives mentioned above.

Landscape Public Realm

  • The Panel recommended reducing or eliminating the at-grade parking and introducing more greenery at the plaza to soften its edges. There was a suggestion to introduce more seating areas and areas of respite around the building.
  • The proponents should consider reducing the number of entrances by combining the service entrances and relocating the east tower entrance to expand the tree canopy at the plaza. It was also suggested that at-grade parking be shifted to the west so that cars do not dominate the core area and it remains a plaza.
  • The Panel suggested reducing the use of asphalt on the driveway to ensure the continuity of the sidewalk.
  • There was a suggestion to introduce more public uses, such as a café, at the north-east corner to improve the building’s relationship to the street.
  • The multi-use pathway has been well-integrated, but the Panel noted that there are further opportunities for greenery along the path. The proponent should consider a lush landscape treatment within the site that could bleed across the edge.
  • The Panel noted the open space south of the site should incorporate CPTED principles, including adequate lighting, to ensure the space is safe and welcoming and there are no dark entrances.

Sustainability

  • The sustainability elements are appreciated, but the proponents are encouraged to look beyond building features, for example, by considering terraces, permeable pavers, etc.

108 Nepean Street & 257 Lisgar Street | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment | rla / architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design; Taggart Reality Management; Glenview Homes

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the presentation; the design approach and parti concept are appreciated.
  • The Panel expressed support for the proposed massing and the tower and podium expression, but the Panel notes some issues remain and need to be addressed.
  • The Panel also expressed concerns with the landscape and the activation of the public realm. The Panel noted the proponent should re-examine the landscape plan to improve and increase activity level in the public realm.
  • The Panel supported the activation of the edge adjacent to the existing Taggart property.

Massing and Articulation

  • The Panel appreciated the tower and podium typology and the relationship of the tower form to the public realm that gives the impression that the tower is “reaching out its elbows”. The Panel suggested reducing the floor plate slightly so as not to overwhelm the public realm below.
  • The 6-storey podium on Nepean Street is appreciated. However, the Panel recommended lowering the podium to 2 – 3 storeys on the south side and bringing the tower down to provide more separation distance between the lots.
  • It is understood that the banding approach on the balconies resonates with the building to the south, but the Panel cautioned that this approach might diminish the corner. Wrapping the treatment on that corner around the edge would prevent the south elevation from appearing like a back alley.
  • There was a suggestion to move the mechanical penthouse east on the building to align with the corner edge to create a feature.

Public Realm

  • The Panel recommended the public realm treatment be simplified and urbanized. The proponent should consider the Right of Way on Nepean Street and design a public realm that is welcoming to pedestrians; a 1.8-metre clearway does not provide sufficient width for a sidewalk, especially if light poles, planters, and snow storage are to be considered within that dimension.
  • The Panel cautioned that planters and trees would have difficulty flourishing as they appear to be too close to the building. There was a suggestion to provide greater setback along Nepean Street and O’Connor Street to provide more room for trees to grow.
  • There was a suggestion to use soil cells to ensure trees thrive in an area with limited greenery.
  • The Panel believes that retaining the existing trees would be beneficial and should be considered.
  • The site provides a great opportunity to create a POPS at the corner that would enhance urban life. The corner at King and Charlotte in Toronto, and the POPS outside of Farm Boy on Metcalfe Street, were cited as precedents. These spaces are well used and contribute to a successful public realm.
  • The POPS space should have a two-storey height and include the mezzanine as part of the commercial space.
  • Consider removing the diagonal sidewalk patterning at the corner as it appears out of place. Maintain the public sidewalk adjacent to the site as a clear and legible thoroughfare rather than expressing it as an extension of the site’s design.
  • The Panel suggests using a vertical screen for greening the ramp access to mitigate its presence and to give the appearance that the building is sitting in a landscape.

Materiality

  • The Panel appreciated the rich red brick material, but the predominant grey tones in the palette appear to flatten the tower's massing.
  • The Panel recommended the use of a curtain wall treatment to finesse the patterned glass in the panelling and the use of a window wall treatment behind the balconies.
  • The Panel believes the glass element would be a stronger design expression if it were on the northwest corner.

Sustainability

  • The Panel commended the proponent for burying the hydro lines, and support was expressed for the bicycle approach.
  • There is an opportunity to implement sustainability measures on rooftops and terraces.
  • From a safety perspective, consider adding more lighting on the street and on the side and back of the building.

1330 to 1346 Bank Street | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control Application | Cushman & Wakefield; Hobin Architecture

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for the changes made to date, and support was expressed for this project.
  • The Panel recommended simplifying some of the articulation and the overall tower expression. It is recommended that one element of the façade expression be chosen and applied to all sides to create continuity.
  • The Panel noted that the courtyard should emphasize the pedestrian experience, by creating spaces that pedestrians and vehicles can share.
  • The Panel recommended removing parking from the Bank Street edge and exploring the potential for retail uses at the corner.

Tower Expression

  • The Panel appreciates the tower sculpting and noted it is an improvement to the previous design iteration. It was suggested that one design aesthetic be chosen and applied to both towers to emphasize the sculpting, terracing, and the buildings’ 3-dimensional quality and to distinguish them from the proposed tower across the street. It was also suggested that the amount of dark material be reduced.
  • The Panel expressed some concern for the stepping of the plate sizes and the overall effect of potentially making the towers appear bulkier. A slenderer tower-to-podium relationship was suggested.

Plaza

  • The Panel noted that the plaza is an important pedestrian space and recommended a uniform treatment that is not asphalt, so that it appears less vehicular oriented.
  • There was a suggestion to remove the turning circle and allow movement to occur through the site instead.
  • The proponent should incorporate a vehicular drop-off integrated with a landscape that creates a comprehensive design approach. Explore additional programming opportunities to animate the area fronting on the plaza with retail that can spill into the space and relocate the garbage and recycling areas.
  • If a bus stop exists or is planned next to the site, it should be integrated into the proposal.

Parking

  • The Panel recommended increasing the landscape area at the entrance on Bank Street by removing parking spaces on the south side of the north building, to create a more pedestrian-friendly treatment of the public realm.

Sustainability

  • The Panel suggests enhancing sustainability, introducing more trees and white or green roofs, reducing asphalt, and considering stormwater management techniques.

June 4, 2021

1098 Ogilvie Road & 1178 Cummings Avenue | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | PMA Architects; Lapalme Rheault Architectes + Associés

Summary

  • The Panel is generally supportive of the proposal; the massing of the buildings, and materiality are working well, and the Panel is pleased with the proponent's willingness to work with them.
  • The Panel notes that a few nuances remain and need to be addressed.

Architectural Expression

  • The Panel notes the proximity of the tower to the hotel creates issues of privacy and visibility for some units; for example, unit 209 faces a party wall. Consider reviewing the unit disposition and tweak the tower to provide better views.
  • The hotel podium appears more prominent compared to the tower podium. There is a preference for the previous iteration of the hotel podium as the upper storey was recessed, more broken down and contextually appropriate.
  • The Panel notes that some modifications such as introducing the step backs in the previous submission, would be worth reconsidering.
  • The Panel notes that adding balconies on the ninth storey is beneficial.
  • The proponent should revise the balcony dividers and windows in the hotel to ensure privacy for the corner rooms is not compromised, as the balcony dividers do not align properly on the floor plans.

Treatment of the Façade

  • The Panel believes that a podium with a darker material would better define the base of the residential expression and the middle and top be combined into a single composition.
  • The bronze L at the top of the tower appears out of place; consider making the tower lighter and its expression quieter.
  • Consider extending the lighter cladding material down through the tower instead of restricting its use to the top ten floors to strengthen its expression.
  • The Panel appreciates the lit lantern on the top and urges the proponent to ensure a maintenance program and clear access to the LED lights are in place for its upkeep

Public Realm

  • The Panel believes further studies are necessary for the development of the park. Involvement from the community and the City’s Parks Department would be beneficial as the park should become the heart of the community.
  • Consider introducing trees along the south edge to provide shade.
  • The Panel supports the courtyard approach.

1200 Maritime Way | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Claridge Homes; NEUF Architect(e)s; NOVATECH; James B. Lennox & Associates Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel is supportive of the podium and tower model, the building’s orientation and relationship with Kanata Avenue are appreciated.
  • The height and density proposed are generally supported, but the Panel would not support a “tower in the park” approach, or a development surrounded by parking.
  • The Panel believes the proposal would have benefitted from an informal pre-consultation and expressed concerns regarding the tower separation between the two buildings, floor plate size, façade treatment, pedestrian experience, the relationship to Maritime Way and the proximity to the adjacent lot.

Context and Site Plan

  • The Panel suggested that an informal and more comprehensive discussion should have taken place to examine the context and development implications prior to a Formal UDRP Review. The Panel recommends the proponent returns to the UDRP for a second Formal Review.
  • The Panel considers the proposal a "tower in the park” approach. Further thought should be given to the proposal's contribution to the vision of Kanata and its surrounding context.
  • The Panel appreciates the presence of the podium on Kanata Way as it reinforces the street. However, the proponent should consider the area's future context, including the evolution of the street and how the development would provide access to exterior amenities, schools, recreation, future LRT and how the frontage along the highway would evolve.
  • Provide a landscape treatment that connects the Kanata Way path to the development and further explore the relationship to Maritime Way, as the building is perpendicular to the street.
  • The Panel expressed concerns with the adjacency of the northeast tower to the property line and the lack of setback that will compromise the potential development on the adjacent lot. Explore alternative tower placements and consider the potential of future development on the adjoining lot to ensure proper separation distance is maintained.
  • Further understanding of the proposed massing and the tower placement is needed. Given the scale of development, the Panel believes more emphasis on the pedestrian realm and exterior amenity area is required.

Massing, Articulation and Tower Orientation

  • The separation distance between the towers and the floorplate size is a concern. The Panel believes the separation distance between the towers is insufficient and will affect liveability of the units.
  • Viewed from a distance the towers also appear to merge together, creating a solid wall. Explore tower placement options, such as situating the towers at opposite ends of the podiums, to improve sky views and access to daylight and consider a floorplate size closer to 750 square metres.
  • Consider aligning the towers orthogonally to improve highway and Maritime Way views between them. Currently the towers will appear at odd angles from each other when viewed from a distance.
  • The Panel recommends further exploration of the façade treatment to differentiate the podium and tower. Consider a base-middle-top approach with a more sculpted top and step back from the podium and create a strong distinction between the base and tower articulation.
  • The buildings will be prominent markers on the skyline for quite some time. Consider defining a skyline element to create a dramatic effect to improve the view from the highway.
  • There is an opportunity to have a better treatment of the top by integrating the mechanical penthouse.
  • Examine a 2 to 5 or 2 to 6 proportion of podium.

Materiality

  • The proponent should continue exploring how to achieve a greater degree of definition and clarity. Currently, there are two to three different palettes that create a "patchwork" aesthetic.
  • The podium needs a stronger presence. Use noble materials to ground the podium and consider how the two-storey units relate to the street and public realm.
  • Eliminate the dark tops on the towers as they draw attention to their height instead of creating the illusion that the towers are disappearing into the sky.
  • Reconsider the dark horizontal brick in the towers as it creates compatibility issues in a tall tower context. Consider having brick only at the podium level.

Landscape Design and Public Realm

  • The Panel's primary concern with the public realm approach is the courtyard's functionality. The courtyard typology is supported; however, its current primary function is to move cars through the development rather than providing a pedestrian experience. Explore the courtyard typology as a landscape treatment for pedestrian use.
    • Create a mre active amenity space between the towers and use the towers to frame the courtyard.
    • Consider tucking the ramp under the building to minimize parking and paving surrounding the courtyard.
  • The proposed landscape is undefined, limiting what can be offered as exterior amenities to the remnant areas of the site. The proponent should provide a landscaping treatment at the base and edge of the building and explore a more deliberate approach for the programming of exterior amenities.

Sustainability

  • Further thought should be given to sustainability measures. The proponent should consider a broader site integration of stormwater management features, such as parkettes.

126 York Street and 151 George Street | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Control Application and Heritage Permit |RIMAP Development; Le Groupe Architex; Fotenn Planning + Design; James B. Lennox & Associates Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel believes that this project will be important and precedent setting for the ByWard Market.
  • The Panel is supportive of this project in terms of its heritage responses, including the treatment of the sides of the building and the adaptation of the heritage building for contemporary uses.
  • The Panel appreciates the changes to the massing and stepping of the new building since the previous submission, as well as the changes made to the George Street entrance and edges.
  • The Panel feels that the laneway is moving in the right direction with a stronger mid-block connection and pedestrian clearway.
  • The Panel expressed some concerns with the “slabbiness” of the tower component and its framing, especially when viewed from George Street.

Relationship to the Heritage Building

  • The Panel feels that the integration of new and old is good but that the framing elements of the stepped floors overshadow and loom over the heritage building.
  • The Panel recommends that the stepped floors receive a lighter and different compositional treatment and not be framed by precast elements to accentuate the heritage building more from the York Street perspective.
  • The Panel appreciates the colouration proposed on the sides of the heritage building and the introduction of precast framing.
  • The Panel recommends that care be taken when selecting the shade of precast elements to find the right balance with the tone of the new brick. It is important to be mindful of the heritage building and create a distinction between new and old.
  • The Panel recommends aligning the pattern of the precast frame with the windows on the sides of the heritage building.

Massing and Building Design

  • The Panel feels that the tower floor plates are a little large and look quite slab-like. It is recommended that they be tapered and fine-tuned to achieve a smaller floor plate of 750m2.
  • The Panel was supportive of the previous glass tower proposal, as it gave the impression that the tower was “disappearing into the sky”. It is suggested that the heavy precast frame on George Street and side façade could be reduced, perhaps by introducing metal panel or a curtain wall.
  • The integration of the penthouse may also make the building more dynamic.
  • The Panel acknowledges the improvements to the George Street façade but still has some reservations about its treatment. It is suggested that a similar strategy be used on George as on York, with a banding treatment at the base.
  • The Panel feels that the placement of the balconies on the side façade appear somewhat random and that it would be beneficial for them to be vertically aligned.

Balconies and Amenity Area

  • The Panel suggests that the same level of sensitivity be used for the amenity area to ensure that the interior and exterior spaces area aligned and do not create an awkward relationship with abutting suites.

Laneway and Landscaping

  • The Panel understands and agrees with the proposal to create one wider pedestrian walkway on one side of the mid block connection. It is recommended that the development potential of the site next door be considered, as future development may change edge condition of this space.
  • The Panel supports softening the edges of this space. It is recommended that treatments such as plantings, trellises, or vines be considered. It should be ensured that there is enough soil to plant trees.
  • The Panel appreciates the overall landscape approach and treatment of drop-off area and laneway. It is a sensitive response to the Market context. The laneway could be treated as a woonerf and feature bollards to control vehicular movement.
  • Light will be an important consideration in this space.

The Ottawa Hospital | Formal Review | Master Plan, Lifting of Holding Zone; and Site Plan Control Application | The Ottawa Hospital; Parsons; HDR; GBA Group

Summary

  • The Panel commended the proponent for their presentation; the submitted package shows a well-thought-out response to a project of this importance.
  • The Panel is pleased to see visuals that show the advancements made and the evolution of the proposal integrating the Panel’s previous recommendations.
  • The Panel expressed concerns with the proposed built form at the corner of Preston Street and Carling Avenue and the concerns regarding the treatment of the parking garage along Prince of Wales Drive remain.

Master Plan

  • The Panel is pleased to see the evolution of the design in terms of the Master Plan from both built form and public realm perspectives.

Context and views

  • The Winter scene and eye-level views are appreciated. The renderings depicting people give a sense of scale to the proposed public spaces within the site.
  • The Panel recommends continuing to study key views at eye level, with emphasis on Prince of Wales Drive and the Carling Preston intersection. These are high-priority views that provide key Capital experiences, as residents and visitors enter the UNESCO World Heritage site from Preston Street and from Prince of Wales Drive, and conversely view the hospital site from Dow’s Lake and the Drive.

Main Entrance

  • The main access road to the hospital entrance should be integrated with the site landscape as much as possible.
  • Consider a more rural aesthetic by reducing the extent of asphalt where possible, providing landscaped slopes instead of retaining walls and introducing swales to integrate stormwater management.

Preston and Carling intersection

  • The Panel appreciates the liner buildings along the parkade, particularly on Carling Avenue, as they demonstrate the future potential of the integration with the street.
  • The renderings of Preston Street provide a convincing view of its animation.
  • The Panel is concerned however, that the proposed built form massing at the corner of Preston and Carling will obstruct views to the UNESCO World Heritage landscape of Dow’s Lake. The Panel strongly recommends a landscape forward approach to this gateway to the Capital landscape.
  • The Panel recommends shifting the proposed tower at that intersection west along Carling and creating a wider setback to the proposed edge of the built form to increase the aperture at Preston and Carling intersection. This would improve the visibility of the Capital landscape. Consider additional structural elements to completely screen the parking garage.
  • The proposed interim solution for the Carling Preston intersection is appreciated as a landscape forward approach. It demonstrates how a landscape treatment opens views from the intersection.
  • The Panel recommends that views of the Dow’s Lake landscape should be the first impression given the importance of this intersection.
  • The proposed ramp along the edge of the garage is supported, however the proposed Tower C limits its functionality. The Panel appreciates that Tower C would screen the parking garage, however the consensus is that the tower should be pulled back closer to the LRT station.

Hospital Buildings

  • The hospital wings appear quite prominent, as seen from certain views.
  • The Panel encourages the applicant to think about the rhythm and articulation of the façade treatment, and the potential use of colour to add some rhythm and articulation of the wings.
  • There is a suggestion to align the two wings of the building.

Public realm and Landscape

  • The Panel recommends integrating characteristics of the Farm landscape into the site and applying principles of the 19th-century picturesque design movement to create an enriched pedestrian experience throughout the site.
  • The Panel emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the parking garage and other service-related buildings and areas of the site are entirely screened throughout the year from the UNESCO World Heritage site and from Prince of Wales Drive.
  • The Panel encourages the proponent to integrate eco-design and low-impact development techniques for the parking areas within the site, including integrating permeable pavers and other storm water management approaches.
  • The Panel supports the preservation of the mature trees stands and urges the proponent to retain as many existing mature trees as possible.
  • The urban plaza on Carling Avenue could be a very successful and attractive space and should be programmed to ensure its activation.
  • Currently the plaza is disconnected from the LRT station. That relationship should be studied and strengthened.
  • The Prince of Wales Drive treatment requires further study and development to ensure that the scenic attributes of the Capital landscape are not compromised by the development of the above grade parking. A robust landscape screening approach that includes both vegetation and landform is required.
  • Consider a more integrated approach for the pathway and landscape treatment along Prince of Wales Drive to enhance the user experience and fully screen the parking garage.

Servicing entrance and the alleyway

  • The Panel has concerns regarding how the servicing area is concealed on Prince of Wales Drive and recommends further studies of views to calibrate the height and location of screening, both vegetation and landform.
  • The Panel notes that the service area will be visible from Prince of Wales Drive when the trees lose their leaves, without a landform screen.
  • It is important to resolve how the pedestrian overpass connects to the LRT station. Sections of the connection between the parking garage and towers should be provided.

Parking Garage

  • The Panel is supportive of the folding landscape approach on Preston and the gardenesque approach for the roof of the parking garage.
  • The variety of spaces and activities illustrated in the open space renderings are supported and should be further developed and secured through detailed plans and programming.
  • The Panel cautions that the success of the landscape will depend on its four-season attractiveness. Consider the winter aesthetic including the use of evergreens for climate amelioration and visual screening.
  • Ensure four season visual screening of the parking garage from Prince of Wales Drive and the UNESCO Heritage site.
  • Consider locating solar panels in areas where vegetation cannot be accommodated.
  • Consider integrating a medicine garden with herbs to emphasize the wellness concept.
  • Consider a similar approach to the Prince of Wales Drive landscape treatment to what is being proposed on Preston and create a continuous sloped landscape to screen the entire parking garage structure from the Drive.
  • The Panel has concerns with the functionality of the parking garage entrance on Prince of Wales, particularly during festival season when there is high traffic and pedestrian volumes at the intersection of Preston and Prince of Wales Drive.
  • As the project moves along, the proponent should ensure the positive design elements are not eliminated as part of value engineering.

May 6 and 7, 2021

458 Montreal Road | Formal Review | Site Plan Control, Consent and Minor Variance Application | Stantec; CSW Landscape Architects Ltd; IBI Group; Brian K. Clark Architect; Q9 Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the changes made in response to the previous session’s comments and recognizes advances to the architectural expression.
  • The Panel continues to have concerns with the rhythm and articulation of the façade along Montreal Road. The Panel also expressed concerns regarding the proposed plaza and landscape treatment on Montreal Road, and the materials and architectural finishes of south-east building elevations.

Public Realm and Corner Plaza Treatment

  • The Panel appreciates the revisions made to the landscape and site plan. The entrance is sleeker and the corner shows some dynamism, but the public plaza could have a more engaging aesthetic and function. The proponent should study the design of the building for cues to integrate into the plaza design.
    • Consider creating a sawtooth pattern for the landscape design and ground plane treatment that plays off the building's diagonal axial orientation, to provide an opportunity to make the corner plaza and entrance more dynamic.
    • Carry the building's red lighting in the planters or use spotlighting in the pavement to showcase the vehicles in the evening.
    • Showcase the cars by raising the display vehicles for people to view them from a variety of perspectives.
    • Introduce planters and low walls to screen the hardscape edges at the corner.
  • The integration of the bicycle lane on Montreal Road is appreciated but the Panel believes a landscaping interface is needed. Consider reducing the driveway isle paving to 3 or 3.5 metres to improve the landscape relationship along the street and provide space for trees. Strata or Silva cells could be used to provide the required soil volumes to support street trees on Montreal Road.
  • Introduce trees in the parking area to create a different character and make the parking lot more of a destination.

Building Articulation

  • The Panel understands that the building’s design is the result of the brand; however, the proposal focuses heavily on the corner entrance and does not adequately recognize the façade on Montreal Road. The Panel would like to see some break in the façade and a landscape / planting treatment extended down Montreal Road.
    • The proponent should work with the brand to introduce vertical elements and rhythm for the façade on Montreal Road.
    • The existing repair shop on St. Laurent Boulevard could offer clues on how to break up the building mass; the building is proposed to be retained and re-clad. Similar approaches can be used on the Montreal Road elevation.
  • The Panel believes the south-east façade cladding treatment is very dark and the architecture would benefit from a lighter treatment of the entrance, to improve the street presence of the building for those approaching it from the south-east.

Materiality

  • The Panel appreciates the changes made to the skylight.
  • The extension of the glass panel to screen the undercarriage of the service entrance is appreciated.
  • The Panel has concerns with the black cladding material used on the back of the building as it creates a very dark volume. The proponent should consider using a backlit perforated material or a similar sandwich panel to the one on the front of façade to reduce the perceived darkness and make the back of the building more visually interesting.

Sustainability

  • The Panel appreciates the sustainability efforts and believes adding trees into the parking lot could also boost the sustainability image and branding. Consider other sustainable elements such as permeable pavers for the parking lot and stormwater management.  Also consider sustainability measures in the architectural design to complement the brand's high-tech sustainability features.

1335 & 1339 Bank Street | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Lofty Riverside GP Inc.; Hobin Architecture; CSW Landscape Architects Ltd.

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for making changes to the street frontage at grade since the last iteration but felt that in general the response to the previous recommendations was not sufficient and many of the more substantive concerns still remain unresolved.
  • The Panel reiterated its reservations regarding the appropriateness of the site for a tower form, without securing a limiting distance, air rights or other type of legal agreement with the neighbouring landowner. This is to ensure that the quality of life for those that live in the proposed development can be maintained should the neighbouring site redevelop. The height of the tower and lack of separation distance remains the primary concern and the proposal cannot be supported as currently proposed.
  • The podium of the project is overwhelming in scale. The volume should be reduced, and its expression further broken down.
  • The proposal gives too little back in terms of its public realm contribution.

Massing

  • While the Panel supports the single tower concept in principle, the primary concern with the proposal remains the lack of separation distance to the property to the east, which will have implications for livability of the units and will have costly technical implications (requirement for sprinklers). In the Panel’s view, a limiting distance agreement is absolutely needed with the neighbouring landowner.
  • The Panel feels that too much density has been packed onto this small site and having the building envelope fill the site from corner to corner places too much pressure on the surrounding public lands. The proposed density should be reduced and more should be given back in terms of public realm treatment.
  • The Panel suggests that further coordination with the proposed development across the street would be beneficial. Its podium is lower, its tower is lighter, and the building mass is staggered.
  • If built as proposed, the two projects will combine to create more of a bottleneck than a gateway.
  • One Panel member suggested that shifting the tower to the south end of the site may help to improve potential proximity issues with the neighbouring site.

Podium

  • The Panel strongly recommends reducing the scale of the eight-storey podium and further breaking down its expression. As proposed, it is overwhelming and will not have a comfortable relationship with the street.
    • Lower the height of the entire podium. Three or four storeys was suggested as an appropriate height.
    • Greater articulation is recommended for the tripartite division of the podium to have it read more as three separate buildings. Vary the heights of the volumetric expressions and enhance the reveals.
    • While the red brick portion of the base has clearer definition, the façade treatment of the two other portions of the podium look too much like superficial façade treatments.
  • The Panel suggests that the solidity of the red brick portion of the podium is too eroded at the northwest corner. It would be preferable to have a solid corner in this location.

Tower

  • While the Panel appreciates that the tower has a different architectural expression than the podium, the dark aesthetic is too strong and creates too bold a silhouette against the sky. The dark materials may also result in excessive heat gain.
  • The Panel strongly recommends lightening the expression of the tower.
  • The large reveal below the tower is appreciated.

Ground Floor and Public Realm

  • The Panel thanks the proponent for the changes that have been made to the frontages at grade. The animation of the ground floor has improved.
  • It was suggested that the garbage room should be further internalized so that it is not adjacent to the public realm.
  • The Panel appreciates the efforts to negotiate an open space at the corner, but strongly encourages the exploration of additional means of giving more back to the public realm.
  • The proponent is encouraged to introduce more trees into the public realm.

Sustainability

The tightness of the site may make many sustainability measures difficult, but the proponent is encouraged to explore the integration of sustainable building technologies such as LEDs, etc.

2 Robinson Avenue | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment | 2 Robinson Property Partnership; rla / architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel commended the proponent for working with the City to create two options for the site. Although both options presented warrant consideration, the Panel prefers Option 2. This proposal opens up the park allowing for more sunlight and connectivity, provides regular street conditions with buildings lining the streets, and has publicly accessible courtyards that give the development an urban feel.
  • The tower placement on the site is generally good, but the Panel has some concerns with the location of tower D and its podium, as it appears the building turns its “back” to the landscape.

Context and Site Plan

  • Option 2 would benefit from an analysis of the surrounding streets to understand how to knit the development to the immediate context and beyond, to create a strong relationship with the adjacent neighbourhood and the community.
  • Urban design features such as stairs and ramps would help mitigate the drop in grading between towers C and D.

Podium and Tower Design

  • The Panel is concerned that the podiums are too tall, closing the site in and creating a solid wall along Lees Avenue. As the site plan evolves, the proponent should consider breaking up the podiums and differentiating their height to create a better pedestrian experience.
  • The Panel appreciates the staggering of towers A, B and C, in Option 2, as this takes advantage of the skyscape. Varying the building heights and moving tower A, so it does not align with tower B and C, were suggested and should be further studied to assess the impact of tower locations and the tower height composition.
  • The Panel felt that the podiums were overscaled on both options, especially the podium on tower D of Option 2. The proponent should consider reducing the mass and height of the podium, removing it, or providing townhouses facing the greenspace to create a better relationship with the landscape north of the site and allow the site to breathe.
  • The Panel also believes moving tower D slightly to align with the Lees Avenue axis will create a strong focal point at the end of the street.

Relationship to Adjacent Green Space

  • The Panel appreciates the semi-private courtyard and open spaces proposed, but Option 2 has some remnants of green spaces that have not been defined and require further design consideration. The Panel believes providing a lower scale podium could improve those spaces.
    • Further studies n tower heights are required to determine the shadow impacts on green spaces.
  • The Panel appreciates the activated public realm edge ideas; the proponent should continue to explore grocery type uses and consider having a coffee shop in the building base to create a synergy with the park.

Circulation and Road Network

  • The Panel suggests the proponent continue studying the street organization. Consider providing laybys instead of perpendicular parking on the street parallel to Lees Avenue to increase the sidewalk widths and provide more space for trees.
  • The Panel provided the following options to connect Chapel Street.
    • A second-tier street would reduce the number of loops and add porosity and connectivity to the site, but it would cut through the green space.
    • The connection to Chapel Street could be pedestrian-only.

Sustainability

  • The Panel appreciates the sustainability efforts, but given the grading challenges, the proponent should explore opportunities for stormwater management to be integrated with the landscape. The Simon Fraser University, Burnaby Campus, was cited as an example of hilly terrain where stormwater features were incorporated into the landscape.

93 Norman Street | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Tamarack Homes; rla / architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design; Lashley + Associates.

Summary

  • The Panel generally supported the proposal and felt that it would fit well on the street. Recommendations were focused primarily on detailing and refinement. Suggestions were made to refine the clarity of the architectural expression and to improve the interface with the public realm.

Architectural Expression and Materiality

  • The materials proposed were generally supported (particularly the clay masonry and curtain wall), but how they are deployed should be studied further. Currently, the materials chosen contrast too strongly and their disposition gives a “patchwork” aesthetic. The Panel recommends achieving a greater degree of definition and clarity by:
    • More clearly articulating the “base, middle, top” expression. Consider a single material for the base, and a lighter material above the third storey;
    • Consider an entirely masonry podium, perhaps interrupted only by a different material at the main entrance under the tower;
    • Using a finer grain detail t establish texture and rhythm, such as brick patterning or reveals (the rainwater reveals may be a natural break);
    • Limiting changes in materials t plane changes; and/or
    • Limiting the colour palette primarily to one colour with another used as an accent.
  • The Panel recommends reconsidering the projecting balconies on the upper level of the podium (fourth floor), as they take away from the stepback.
  • Consider using picket railings in the proposal.
  • Study cladding the planters with red brick at the base of the building on Norman Street. The planters currently appear to be part of the building foundation treatment.

Landscape Design and public interface

  • The Panel recommends re-evaluating the interface between the building and the Trillium Multi-Use Path to the west. There is a missed opportunity to reorient some of the stoops and front doors towards it.
  • More landscaping is recommended on the south side of the development to soften the public interface and mediate the grade difference.
    • often the tall wall using a combination of plantings and climbing vines.
    • Consider complementing the stairs with trellises.
    • Integrate lights in the wall to help improve pedestrian safety.
  • The Panel recommends integrating more landscaping, such as trees, on the north side of the development for better integration into the neighbourhood. This would benefit both tenants and neighbours.
  • Explore the possibility of incorporating green roof elements into the project.
  • The tree species selection is generally supported.

Circulation

Explore the possibility of integrating a drop off for better turning on the dead-end street.

989 Somerset Street West | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Taggart Reality Management; Hobin Architecture; Fotenn Planning + Design; GJA Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel believes the public realm has a lot of potential; the site's unique grade change creates a natural interruption between Chinatown and Hintonburg. and provides an opportunity to connect the site to its industrial past and the history of the area. The Panel appreciates the stair as a means to link these two neighbourhoods.
  • The Panel considers the large building's footprint one of the biggest challenges as a slab or L shape massing is typically not supported. Recommendations were made to address concerns regarding massing, architectural expression, materiality and public realm.

Massing

  • The Panel believes the building's shape creates a challenging footprint. It is unclear whether the building has two podiums or if the building is a slab or L shape. The proponent should break up the volume and clearly define the massing through materials and architectural expression.
    • One Panel member suggested that the development could be treated as two separate buildings, one tower and one 7-storey building, to improve the scale and pedestrian experience along the street.
  • The project demonstrates a strong masonry base at three storeys and the industrial expression is generally supported, but the Panel feels the window treatment and the detailing on masonry can be developed further. The proponent should explore increasing the masonry base expression up to the 6th storey and pushing back the tower to strengthen the base expression along Somerset Street.
  • The Panel feels that the balconies on Somerset Street are somewhat distracting. The proponent should explore design solutions such as removing or recessing the balconies to integrate them into the building to make the façade less busy.
  • The proponent should review code requirements for the interior corner as the east-facing balconies are too close to the north-facing balconies causing privacy issues. Shifting the north-facing balconies and grouping them in pairs would reduce privacy concerns.
  • The two small overhang soffits on the roof above the balconies interrupt the line created where the building meets the sky. The proponent should re-consider the overhang soffits as they make the building feel bulky instead of giving the impression the building disappearing into the sky.
  • Further clarity is needed, at the site plan level, to understand the movement of garbage, moving trucks and drop-off location.

Architectural Expression

  • The building currently has a 1960s slab aesthetic and should have a stronger base, middle, and top expression, with a more sculpted top. Instead of relying on architectural treatment to visually breakdown the expansive façade, the top should be set back 7.5 metres to create a more contemporary expression.
  • The base of the building reads heavy due to the use of the dark brick cladding and the black panel treatment above. Given the context, the development should capture the vernacular architecture of the neighbourhood to create a stronger industrial aesthetic to fit with the surrounding context.
    • The adjacent building n Spruce Street provides an example of industrial vocabulary and the sensitive use of brick and colour.
  • The underside of the balconies appears dark. The proponent should consider how the balconies read from the tenants' perspective below, to avoid creating an oppressive environment. 
  • The treatment of the blank beige wall could be improved by setting back the balconies or having a wrap-around window treatment to avoid a blank wall condition.
  • The proponent should consider a lighter colour treatment for the top floors of building and potentially add trellises to provide some greenery for the amenity area.

Public Realm

  • There are some concerns with the proposed landscaping on Somerset Street, as the change in grade presents a challenge. The planters appear very high and should be reduced in height to respond to the grading of the street, creating a stepped planter condition that feels less oppressive.
  • The Panel believes the building should have a strong façade on Somerset Street The proponent should consider introducing commercial uses at grade to expand the existing pattern along the street or adding live/work units.
  • The Panel supports and appreciates the treatment of the stair connection between Somerset and City Centre. It is a great public space feature that captures the area's spirit, with the use of colour and public art. Consideration should be given to the architectural treatment to further enhance the experience of the change of levels.
    • Consider opening the piers or using round columns to introduce more natural light.
    • Integrate a canopy or signage above the staircase to break up the flatness of the façade from Somerset Street.
  • Soundproofing the suites closest to the public realm should be considered to mitigate any potential echo chamber noise effect created by people using the stairs 24 /7.
  • A lighting treatment to further emphasize the main street should be considered.

Materiality

  • The Panel feels that the brick in the upper portion of the tower does not translate well as it appears applied, and the corner window treatment does not work well as it creates an incongruous wrap-around condition. The building should be stripped down, and the materials simplified. Any material changes should be coupled with plane changes to improve the building's integration into the street.
    • Use brick for the fourth, fifth and sixth storeys to provide a better transition to the tower.

311 Somerset Street w. & 234 - 236 O’connor Street | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment | Gemstone; Figure Architects; Fotenn Planning + Design; GJA Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel has very strong concerns with the proposed mass, the adjacency issues that it causes, and the disregard for the area plans, Community Design Plan and High-Rise Guidelines. The Panel questioned the tripartite expression with particular concerns expressed on the massing of floors 4 to 9. It was recommended that a high-rise building is not an appropriate built form for this site.
  • The base of the building and the evolution of the proposed public realm were generally supported.

Massing

  • The Panel expressed very strong concerns with the proposed mass, specifically the portion above the base, due to adjacency issues and in terms of not meeting the intent of policy or guidelines.
  • The proposed density is a concern and the tower typology is not supported on this site. This should be a mid-rise transition site.
  • If the tower typology is deemed appropriate by City Staff, significant changes should be made to reduce the mass and design of middle portion and the tower, as the current composition is overwhelming.
    • The density should be reduced.
    • The tripartite division should be reconsidered. Eliminate the middle portion (floors 4-9) and have a low podium and a more slender tower.
    • Greater tower setbacks from property lines are needed on all sides. As proposed, the middle portion is looming too closely over Somerset Street. A 10-metre tower separation distance is strongly recommended from the north property line.
    • The tower should be designed to be made as invisible as possible by using lighter, less imposing materials.
    • The mechanical penthouse is reading as too large and overwhelming, as designed.

Base of Building

  • The Panel generally offered support for the treatment of the base (the bottom three storeys) of the building and the ties to the heritage context. The use of brick and wood are particularly successful.

Heritage

  • The Panel expressed appreciation for the analysis of the delicate heritage fabric and the contemporary response in terms of the design of the building base. One member encouraged the proponent to continue to refine the expression to more closely replicate the rhythm of the street.
  • Using a textured concrete rather than an aluminum panel and toning down the nuances of the dark grey banding in the base of the building would be more sensitive to the neighbourhood context.

Public Realm

  • The Panel felt that the design of the public realm is moving forward in a positive way.

861 Clyde Avenue | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment | Claridge Homes; Urban Strategies Inc.; EVOQ Architecture Inc.; NOVATECH; James B. Lennox & Associates Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for their presentation; this is an exciting project with lots of opportunities and the Panel is supportive of this initiative. However, the project would benefit from further studies and a collaborative focus design review session to understand the thought process and generate several concepts that would address the current challenges and concerns.
  • The Panel has significant concerns including the location of the neighbourhood park, shadowing impacts, the proposed agora and open space on the podium, issues of noise and air pollution due to proximity to Highway 417, and views and relationship to the Highway.
  • The Panel provided comments on the overall site plan and surrounding context, the public realm, and tower disposition.

Context

  • The Panel appreciates the contextual analysis presented. As the proposal continues to move forward, developing a context plan would be helpful to understand how the development fits in the neighbourhood.
    • Study hw the buildings integrate with the Carling Avenue streetscape and how Clyde Avenue and other streets can be upgraded and linked to create a positive urban environment.
    • Think big picture and consider how the development will evolve as a mixed-use area and where residential and employment areas will go.
  • The lack of specific policy guidelines for this area creates some challenges moving forward. The proposal will be a landmark project and potentially set a precedent for more intense development in the area.
    • The proponent should consider whether the development is compatible with the City’s growth management plan in an area where the proposed density is not anticipated.

Site Plan

  • The disposition of the towers creates a site condition that feels very dense in relation to the existing context. The Panel would appreciate seeing alternate plans that illustrate potential road networks, parks and open spaces, and different tower locations and tower separation.
  • Consider how the site connects to the surrounding street network. Introducing some public streets would be beneficial and add continuity.
    • Create three pints of access instead of two.
    • Consider connecting the North and South spurs with a street running East-West instead of making them cul-de-sacs.

Public Realm

  • The Panel recommends undertaking a sun/shadow study with the future planned context of the area, to study the shadow effects of the massing and specifically to determine the number of hours of sun on the park.
  • Towers A and B do not allow enough sunlight into the neighbourhood park. Increase the separation of the two central towers to open the aperture between them and relocate the neighbourhood park to the centre of the site. This will ensure sunlight in the park especially mid-day in the shoulder seasons.
  • The Panel appreciates the linear park as an idea to create a usable and exciting space along the Highway and the possibility of setting a precedent, but there are some concerns that the proximity to the Highway would not create a good environment.
    • Study hw the landscape elements fit in.
    • Consider consolidating all the park’s social elements into one large amenity space.
    • Consider shifting the park to make it more of a landmark and public space.
    • Further studies f noise mitigation measures are needed given that there are reservations regarding the effectiveness of the sound barrier.
  • The Panel has some reservations regarding the accessibility of the suspended garden and agora; the ramps and elevators provided are not enough. Further studies are required to create a more inviting public realm.

Tower Placement

  • The Panel believes the proposed floor plate size is too large for a 30 Storey tower. A 900 square metres floor plate might be more appropriate for a building of 50 storeys or higher. The towers should adhere to the design guidelines for a 750 square metres floor plate.
    • The 15-metre tower separation distance between building C and G appears too tight. Tower separation should exceed the required 25-metre setback.
    • Further study the tower offset and tower orientation to minimize wind tunnel issues.
  • The Panel notes the south elevations show a solid wall of buildings facing the Highway, which lacks porosity. The proponent should carefully study the density of towers to understand their visual impact on the Highway.
    • Liberty Village in Tronto, and developments along Highway 427, in North York, were mentioned as examples of tower configurations that have created a wall of buildings along highways that should not be replicated here. The proponent should consider meeting the guidelines for high-rise buildings to successfully create a built form composition that does not read as a solid wall along the 417, when viewed entering the City from the west.
    • There was a suggestion to break up the curvilinear podium for towers A and B to improve porosity.

April 8 and 9, 2021

294 & 300 Tremblay Road | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | TC United; Project1 Studio; Fotenn Planning + Design

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for their efforts in addressing the Panel’s previous recommendations. The choice of materials and the building’s elegance achieved by the subtle plane changes are appreciated, and the proposed massing is supported.
  • The Panel considers the proposal will be a catalyst for the area but is primarily concerned with the window well’s lack of access, usability and size, as well as the proposed retail space’s size, lack of street presence and feasibility.
  • The Panel had several recommendations to improve the window well and retail condition.

Building Design

  • The Panel considers Tremblay Road as the frontage of the site and notes that the guardrail prevents the building from interacting with its neighbours. Moving the main entrance from L Street to Tremblay Road would improve the building’s presence and increase accessibility.
  • The Panel appreciates the proponent’s attention to the unit layout, which addresses the previous concerns regarding the proposed south yard setback. With these new changes, fewer units will be impacted by the potential redevelopment of the adjacent property.

Window Well Treatment

  • Considering the current window well design, the challenge to provide liveable basement units is still present. The Panel suggests the proponent should explore other means to improve this condition.
    • Create a Piloti expression by recessing the glazing and including pilasters to ground the tower and strengthen the base datum line and bring more light to the basement units.
    • Allow tenants to access the exterior space and consider providing an amenity area by introducing greenery. Instead of poured concrete, consider stepping and raising a portion of the window well by a foot. Include planters that could also be utilized for seating, which would improve and soften the blank wall condition and add value to the units.

    • The Panel believes the City and the proponent should explore the possibility of permitting the window well to be part of the landscaping buffer requirements in order to expand its depth by a couple of feet.

Proposed Retail and Usage

  • The Panel struggles to understand the purpose of proposing a small retail space that lacks direct access to the street in an area where other commercial uses exist.
  • The Panel has several recommendations that could improve the retail condition.
    • The retail's architectural expression and fenestration lacks a commercial "feel" given that the building has a strong residential presence. The use of signage, better street access and lighting will improve its readability as retail.
    • The proponent should consider relocating the retail space next to the amenity area at the corner of Tremblay Road and Belfast Road to make the retail more active, sustainable and strengthen the corner treatment.
    • The Panel suggests the proponent should review the proforma as an opportunity to remove a basement unit so that direct retail access from the street can be provided. The Panels believes re-purposing the space for other uses such as amenity area for residents could be an alternative.

Materiality

  • The Panel considers the building elegant and appreciates the brick and fibre material chosen. However, lighter materials for the mechanical penthouse should be reconsidered.
  • The proponent should consider a metal railing instead of glass to better compliment the streetscape conditions of both Tremblay and Belfast.

Landscaping

  • The Panel suggests using native species instead of perennials for the landscape buffer. The proponent should consider any impact trees would have on the hydro lines.

Sustainability

  • The Panel appreciates that the proponent has incorporated sustainability in the building materials and encourages the proponent to consider a sustainable roof treatment.

176 Nepean Street & 293-307 Lisgar Avenue | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Richcraft Group; Graziani and Corazza Architects; Fotenn Planning + Design

John Stewart has declared a conflict of interest and has recused himself from commenting on this file.

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for incorporating many of the recommendations made by the Panel during the previous review. The Panel also commended the proponent for a high-quality design and noted that the materiality on the podium and tower works well. The increased height of the mid-block connection is a grand urban gesture.

Architectural Expression

  • The Panel appreciates the changes made to the tower façades, which are elegant and straightforward. The current proposal, however, does create the illusion of a broad façade. Maintaining some structured rhythm of the current proposal on one half of each tower and introducing some playfulness of the previous proposal on the other half could mitigate their perceived broadness.
  • An alternative option could take the form of interruptions to the balcony lines by creating breaks at 4-5 storey increments bringing a subtle articulation.
  • The Panel believes that the gradient of the opaque vertical elements on the side elevations works well. The Panel suggests exploring a simplified option of strong clean vertical bands rather than ones that jog. This could be achieved through the use of continuous pre-cast and spandrel panels.
  • The Panel appreciates the simple fold expression but recommends further exploration of the top of each tower to create a distinct expression for each.
  • Using dark brick on the podium creates a strong contextual expression. The Panel suggests exploring a red-coloured brick to relate to the neighbourhood context.

Public Realm

  • The Panel appreciates the woonerf as it blends nicely with the streetscape, and the integration of colourful bollards, floor patterns and planters is considered a positive gesture.
  • The Panel cautions that there is a risk of cars taking over and utilizing the woonerf as parking spaces. The proponent should explore subtle moves to "armour" the area to prevent cars from claiming the space.
  • Explore how to maximize access to natural light into the woonerf for periods of time where there is less access to natural light.
  • The proponent should consult with the City to determine the viability of removing the parking north of the site to expand the public realm.

Sustainability

  • Consider integrating sustainability into the development to improve the liveability of units by introducing green roofs, green walls and treatment of planters.

216 Murray Street | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Shepherds of Good Hope; CSV Architects; James B. Lennox & Associates Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel offered general support for the initiative including the massing, the architectural expression, the provision of a courtyard space, and the move to consolidate the soup kitchen on the same side of the street as the neighbouring Shepherds of Good Hope building.
  • Suggestions were offered to improve potential future adjacency issues, expand and soften the courtyard space, and finesse the architectural expression.

Massing

  • The Panel generally supports the proposed massing of the building.
  • The windows on the west façade are quite close to the property line, which could potentially cause proximity issues with future adjacent development. It is suggested that the proponent explore means of improving this relationship. Potential solutions may include recessing the windows or incorporating lightwells or alcoves into the west façade.

Architectural Expression and Materiality

  • The Panel generally supports the architectural composition, the layering aesthetic, and the proposed palette of materials. Specific support was offered for the proposed location of the white element and the balcony, which face onto the gathering space, and the use of red brick, which will help integrate the building in to the neighbourhood.
  • There was some concern expressed with the amount of black materials proposed, which have a high heat gain and will darken the overall visual expression of the project. Consider reducing the extent of the black exterior finishes, and instead using lighter colour finishes or incorporating more colourful accents.
  • If yellow materials were incorporated in the proposed exterior colour palette, it would complete the four colours of the indigenous medicine wheel (black, red, white and yellow). This could potentially be a good way of tying the colour scheme to one of the target groups that the project aims to support.

Stairwell

  • The Panel recognizes the proponent’s rationale for the proposed location and design of the stairwell to minimize safety concerns.
  • The highly transparent stairwell will function well at night as a beacon to help residents find their way home, especially in darker months, but consider the interior lighting carefully. A harsh utilitarian colour of fluorescent lighting may spill out into the public realm in an undesirable way.
  • Consider making yellow the dominant colour in the stairwell mural to tie the development to the four colours of the indigenous medicine wheel.
  • The Panel expressed support for the concept of introducing indigenous design elements into the fritting on the glass.

Gathering Space

  • The Panel understands the need for the rear space to function for delivery truck movement and waste collection, but strongly encourages the proponent to explore a modified garbage and delivery strategy so as to expand the gathering space, which will be important for users to be able to use and benefit from.
  • The Panel recommends incorporating additional greening, natural materials, and a general softening of the courtyard space where possible. Consider additional plantings next to the barrier, a trellis or canopy with climbing vines for shade, wood soffits, or stone pavers, or rock seating. The West Neighbourhood House in Toronto (588 Queen St. West) was referenced as good precedent.
  • The Panel supports the proponent on their decision to avoid the use of black rod iron to enclose the gathering space.

397 & 399 Winston Avenue | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Jianbin (Jimmy) Wang, DOLYN Construction Ltd., GRC Architects; NOVATECH; GJA Inc.

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for their presentation and appreciated the context renderings showing how the area might develop in the future.
  • The Panel believes the development will set a precedent and should be an example of design excellence for secondary streets zoned Traditional Mainstreet.
  • The Panel expressed concerns with the architectural expression facing Richmond Road, the podium treatment, the building's relationship with the adjacent residential dwellings, and the liveability of units. Recommendations were made to address these concerns.

Context

  • The site's location provides a great opportunity to create a project that is an intimate scale and sensitive to the adjacent residential zone. The proponent should balance the existing and planned function of the area and provide a transition to the surrounding residential area, as it might take time before the surrounding lots develop.

Massing and Building Design

  • Further studies of the podium are necessary as the building's 3:4 ratio is not ideal. A two-storey podium and a setback of 6 metres from the lot line, at the third storey and above, will improve the building's proportions and its compatibility with the existing residential context across the street.
  • The balconies add bulk to the building's mass. The Panel believes that removing the folded box expression and simplifying the balcony treatment will reduce its impact on the public realm and improve the massing.
  • The vertical "zippers" on both the north and south elevations make the building appear heavy. The Panel recommends removing the vertical balcony folds to lighten the overall expression. The yellow façade treatment at the balcony corners could be redesigned as a window treatment to soften the building's corner expression and provide a neighbourhood view from the units.
  • The Panel believes the lightwell and stairwell conditions can be improved by increasing the side yard setback, recessing the corridor and re-orienting the bedroom windows to expand the lightwell's depth.
  • The Panel has concerns with the blank sidewall treatment of the building, given the long views to it from the surrounding neighbourhood and main street. One option to consider would be a public art treatment that speaks to the neighbourhood character and context.

Site Plan

  • The Panel considers the proposed 3-metre setback appropriate, should the adjacent lot also provide a similar setback. However, the Panel cautions this assumption and encourages the proponent to provide a greater setback and increase the glazing to futureproof the units.
  • The Panel suggests stepping back the upper floors by an additional three metres to provide more liveability for the rear units, to improve the quality of the rear yard and to reduce the shadow impacts on adjacent properties.
  • The commercial unit at the rear might not be viable. The proponent should consider removing the rear commercial unit, expanding the residential lobby into the rear commercial unit and providing one commercial unit facing the street with appropriate size. The Panel suggests using landscaping and signage to make the commercial unit more welcoming and attractive.

Materiality

  • The Panel appreciates the efforts to articulate the podium; however, the treatment does not have a consistent rhythm. The proponent should carefully study how the proposed materials can unify the building's design to distinguish between residential and commercial uses.
  • Warmer tones of brick for the lower levels and lighter colour materials for the upper levels will better integrate the building into the neighbourhood context.
  • Carefully consider the brick and cement panel interface treatment.

Public Realm

  • The Panel appreciates the extension of the Winston Square materials and suggests the proponent incorporate some of the existing streetscape elements as well, for example, the vertical steel frames and vines.

March 4 and 5, 2021

Heron gate master plan | Formal Review | Master Plan, Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application | Hazelview Investments; DIALOG; The Stirling Group

Summary

  • The Panel recognized the site's complexity and appreciates that the applicant is working with the existing street pattern and its associated below grade servicing infrastructure. The Panel looks forward to seeing the Master Plan advance and acknowledges the aspirations to transition this site from a towers in the park model to a more urban setting.

Block Design

  • The Panel appreciates the built form and public realm vision presented, including the small parks, the larger central park and the podiums and townhouses that frame the streets. However, the site still reads like a hybrid between urban and suburban. A continuous more robust street wall defining the urban spaces throughout the site would create a more urban condition.
  • The block adjacent to the "greenway gardens" could support a tower on the southeast corner. This would reduce the number of towers on the north side of Sandalwood Drive and improve the relationship between the proposed towers by creating more space between them.
  • The Panel notes the blocks facing Walkley appear to be overbuilt. The Panel questions the concentration of high-rise buildings and the continuous parallel bar configuration in that location.
  • The blocks along Walkley Road require further definition in order for the proposed lanes to read as courtyards. Consider modifying the built form of those blocks, including potentially lowering the podium heights and creating courtyards, similar to the Heron Road model. Shadow impacts on the public spaces should also be considered.
  • The proposal has a suburban quality due to the lack of street wall definition in some areas, notably the stretch of Sandalwood between Baycrest and Sandalwood Park. Consider introducing a street wall to contain and frame the streets, creating a more urban edge.
  • The Panel acknowledges the proposal includes a mix of existing and proposed public streets, complemented with private streets. The proponent should study the street layout closely to ensure there are through block connections throughout the site.

Building Location and Mass

  • The corners of the proposed central park should be free of any buildings that obstruct visibility. The Panel suggests moving the proposed building on the park, located at the southeast corner, further north, as it obstructs the visibility to the park from the major streets. If a building is located within the park the Panel suggests that it should be a civic building such as a library, recreational centre or school.
  • Explore a variety of heights to reduce the number of towers proposed by moving the density to other buildings. Consider relocating the tower at Cedarwood and Walkley and separating the towers between the park and the community centre.

Public Realm and Connectivity

  • There are a number of residual open spaces that result from the irregular block configurations and existing building locations. These areas will create ambiguity between the public and private realms and may not function as intended.
  • The green space in the block between Sandalwood and Baycrest south of Heron Road is strongly supported by the Panel.
  • The Panel supports the strong open space connection (greenway gardens) between Sandalwood Park and the proposed central park, however, questions the current street and park configuration. Consider realigning Sandalwood Drive to run parallel with the proposed buildings on Walkley Road and shifting the open space to the north side of the Sandalwood Drive. Alternatively create a formal green link with an allée of trees and walkways on both sides of the street.
  • The Panel supports the parkette south of Heron Road. Consider a similar open space configuration for the central block on Walkley Road. Explore similar treatment for the open space at the corner of Baycrest and Sandalwood east of the existing high-rise building.
  • The Hydro corridor provides an excellent opportunity to create a link between the institutional facilities west of the site and the proposed open space. The Panel recommends strengthening connections to the Hydro corridor and creating a positive relationship to it by introducing townhouses along the edge of the corridor.
  • The Panel appreciates the changes made to Sandalwood Plaza (number 7 on master plan), and the widening of the connection to Walkley Road; however, the Panel recommends increasing the width of green space connection even further to create an open view to the park.
  • The Panel questions the courtyard relationship of the triangular-shaped building, with the proposed central park. Study the possibility of creating a stronger park edge to the built form with active uses at grade, including live-work units and / or other public amenities to improve the building's relationship to the park.

Sustainability

  • The Panel believes the Master Plan provides an excellent opportunity to implement sustainable features such as stormwater ponds, district energy, vegetation, green roofs, which comprise an essential aspect of sustainability.

20 Mountain Crescent | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Surface Developments; RLA Architecture; Fotenn Planning & Design; Lashley + Associates Corporation

Summary

  • The Panel recognizes the development challenges posed by an area in transition and appreciates the design's evolution and the future context shown. The Panel is supportive of the massing, architectural expression and the proposed 12-storey height.
  • The Panel's comments relate to the building's architectural expression, materiality, and strengthening the landscape's relationship to the ground-oriented units.
  • The Panel would have liked seeing a unit layout to better understand the disposition as the suites appear long and narrow.

Massing and Building Design

  • The Panel encourages the proponent to provide a step back of 5.5 metres (to the lot line) at the fourth storey and above to preserve the proposed window openings should the adjacent lots develop in a similar manner.
  • The Panel notes the building, including the ground-oriented units, has a commercial feel; raising the ground floor could improve the architectural expression and establish a more residential feel.
  • Increasing the floor-to-ceiling height would also give more breathing room to the ground floor and establish a distinctive presence on the street.

Materiality

  • The Panel appreciates the building’s architectural expression and considers the combination of grounded and floating elements successful.
  • The proposed metal may have some durability issues; the proponent should consider other options that will be more durable.

Landscaping

  • The current surrounding landscape is not welcoming for pedestrians, and it favours cars. The proponent is encouraged to examine landscape treatments in the short and long term to improve the landscape's relationship to the ground-oriented units.

374 McArthur Avenue | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Castle Heights Development Inc.; P H Robinson Consulting; Rossmann Architecture; James B. Lennox & Associates Inc. Landscape Architects

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the evolution of the architectural expression and the proposed materiality, however expressed concern with the base, middle, top legibility of the building.
  • The Panel is very concerned with the building's mass and scale, primarily the lack of distance separation to the adjacent properties and liveability of units.
  • The Panel feels that it cannot support the building's mass as presented.

Massing and Scale

  • The Panel is aware the proposal complies with the Zoning By-law requirements but is still concerned with the orientation of units adjacent to property lines. The proposed massing could create a situation where there is little consideration for the neighbours.
  • The Panel considers that the proposal does not meet the “three infill tests.”
    • It is in keeping with the neighbourhood.
    • It can be appropriately replicated elsewhere, and
    • It is an improvement on the existing conditions.
  • The Panel strongly encourages the proponent to examine the current unit layout to improve tenants’ liveability.
  • The 1.5-metre window setback is of concern for the Panel, given that the setback would prevent the adjacent lots from being developed to their full potential or would compromise the quality of life for the proposed residences should the neighbouring lot redevelop in a similar manner.
  • Should the proposal move forward, as presented, the Panel strongly suggests providing generous balconies on the sidewalls to offer some degree of relief for the tenants.

Amenity Space

  • The Panel encourages the proponent to consider the importance of open space as the proposed rear amenity area is insufficient and lacks accessibility.
  • The proponent should reconsider the indoor amenity area provided as it appears small and would not provide proper usability. The lobby should not be considered part of the required amenity space.

Materiality

  • The Panel appreciates the building's material palette and the spirit of warm colours. However, the materials are used in a collage manner and do not successfully define the building's base, middle and top sections. The proponent should explore how to use the materials to better define the building.
  • Consider coordinating the change in materials with the volumetric shift of the building.

211 Centrum Boulevard | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control Application | Le Groupe Maurice; Hobin Architecture; Fotenn Planning & Design

Summary

  • The Panel is supportive of the project and appreciates the massing changes, the evolution of landscape design, and the proponent's efforts to address the Panel's previous recommendations.
  • The Panel appreciates seeing a well-done project with great outdoor amenity spaces where liveability is put forward.
  • The Panel provided several suggestions to strengthen the buildings' architectural expression, increase civic presence on-site, and improve parking and landscaping treatment.

Public Realm and Public Interface

  • The Panel expressed concern about the lack of civic presence on Centrum Blvd. The proponent should explore implementing retail uses facing Centrum and widening the sidewalks to create a walking experience.
  • The Shenkman Art Centre's entrance and seating area was designed as an urban plaza. The Panel believes this treatment should be extended onto the 211 site and suggests continuing the same boulevard treatment, including extending the paving, to knit the existing public realm with the proposed, to create a sense of unity between the sites.

Landscaping

  • The Panel has a general appreciation for the courtyard located northwest of the site but suggests there may be opportunities to improve its relationship to the buildings. The proponent should explore the impacts of the sun in the summer and wind in the winter.
  • The proposed birch grove on Centrum is a good selection as a strong identifiable entrance feature, but the Panel cautions that birch borer could wipe out the grove.
  • The Panel believes the southwest corner could benefit from having a civic presence and strongly encourages the proponent to convert the triangular terrace into a green roof, as units are looking out onto it.

On-site Parking

  • The Panel expressed some concerns regarding the size and accessibility of the parking lot. The proponent should consider how senior residents would access the parking spots. The driveway between the entrance and the parking lot could be more pedestrian-friendly.
  • The proponent should consider expanding the landscape and introducing trees to provide some relief from the heat during the summer months.

Massing and Architectural Expression

  • The Panel appreciates the new massing and reduction in the height of one of the towers, as it establishes a better transition to the street.
  • The Panel considers the curvature of the tower an important gesture that mimics the landscape and strengthens its relationship to the Queensway; however, the gesture could be bolder by creating a distinct building top.
  • The Panel notes the framing elements generally function well at a small scale, but the grey frame does not translate as well at a large scale.
  • The tower's façade treatment contains several patterns, which are visually overwhelming. The Panel suggests the proponent explore options to make the façade less busy.

Materiality

  • The Panel believes there could be an introduction of warm materials, such as the longboard, rather than spandrel panels, could add distinct character to the exterior spaces and could be incorporated in terraces and balconies.
  • The mid- and high-rise buildings should have a distinct architectural expression to ensure the tower stands out. Consider different materiality, tonality and colouration.

Sustainability

  • The Panel believes sustainability can be integrated into the architecture and the landscape. The proponent should consider including sustainable materials at the site plan level, green roofs to control runoff water and mitigate the heat island effect, and possibly implement a garden to improve ecolo

February 5, 2021

6301 Campeau Drive | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment, and Site Plan Control Application | Bayview Hospitality Group; API Development Consultants; Fabiani Architect; Momentum Planning & Communications

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the favourable changes made since the last iteration, especially the proponent’s efforts to retain the landscape outcrop, which improves the integration of natural environment by bringing nature into the site.
  • The Panel made recommendations to improve the proposed second row of townhouses, the overall massing and volume of the high-rise building in Parcel 2, the scale, setback, and articulation of the townhouses facing Campeau, and the landscape treatment at the corner of the townhouses.

Site Plan

  • As its current state, Cordillera Street is not inviting. The Panel suggest improving its condition given that Cordillera Street could become the entrance point to Parcel 2 since vehicular access and movement can be controlled better than Canadian Shield Drive.
  • Greater discussion is needed to address the Panel’s grading questions and concerns.
  • For large sites such as this, it is beneficial to study the relationship between street versus driveway and consider a road hierarchy.
  • Consider options for a plaza, corner store, and places where people can gather.
  • UniverCity, Burnaby in British Columbia and Scandinavian examples were cited as precedents that establish a good relationship between buildings and nature.
  • Eliminate or consolidate parking on one side of the townhomes in Parcel 1 to improve the landscape treatment.
  • Provide more detailed cross-sections of the site and include a diagram showing on-site amenities and access to outside amenities, shopping, recreation and schools to create a complete community.
  • Consider integrating a drop-off area for the high-rise building in Parcel 2.

Massing and Scale

  • Explore different mechanical penthouse treatments for the high-rise buildings to minimize their visual impact, as they will be quite prominent.
  • The Panel recommends exploring the possibility of eliminating the middle row of townhomes to improve the site plan and add green space.
  • There are concerns with the long façade of the high-rise in Parcel 2 and the shadow impacts. Consider breaking up the high-rise building’s mass into two with a variation in height, similar to the buildings in Parcel 1, or have an L-shaped building wrap the southeast corner.
  • The interface between building and street at the southeast of Parcel 2 reads more as a private drive aisle treatment rather than that of a public street. Consider articulating the façade as it wraps around past the three trees to create a more urban condition.
  • The townhouses on Parcel 1 read and feel like a repetitive low wall; adding a setback to break up the mass or varying the roofline would help to build rhythm and improve this condition.
  • Improve the landscaping façade on the corner side of the townhouses to enhance its expression, look at the scale, setback, and articulation.
  • Enhance the articulation of the base of the high-rise building in Parcel 1 by having the concierge area protrude outward or by varying the colour of materials.

Public Realm and Landscape Design

  • The Panel commends the proponent on their careful study of the outcrops, how the forest has been drawn into the site, and how the parking lots next to the forest have been reduced.
  • The project could benefit from removing the townhomes on Parcel 2 and inviting the landscape by creating a gradual slope making the middle outcrop accessible at grade.
  • The middle row of townhouses in Parcel 2 feel like an island surrounded by parking. Enhance the landscaping treatment between the row houses by eliminating the middle row of asphalt.
  • Capitalize on the roof area of the parking garage, which could serve as a good amenity space.
  • The townhomes on Campeau Drive have a good rhythm but need a stronger transitional space. Improve the front yard design by planting trees on Campeau, including walkways and providing townhomes with pocket front yards to establish a stronger landscape treatment between the townhouses and the landscape on Campeau.
  • Explore the concept of a linear park or corridor on Campeau and look at the landscape character and take into consideration the buffer and rocky outcrop.

Sustainability

  • The integration of the outcrop into the middle of the site is supported by the Panel and shows consideration for sustainability. This revision is greatly appreciated.
  • It will be important to achieve a high level of sustainability in this development. Carefully study the possibility of additional stormwater management measures such as swales, low impact development techniques, and district energy.
  • Consider access to employment, 15-minute neighbourhood planning principles, sustainable mobility and access to transit, trails, recreational facilities, schools and open spaces to improve mental health and affordability.

163 Parkdale Avenue | Formal Review | Site Plan Control Application | Richcraft; TACT Architecture; Fotenn Planning & Design; Site/C Landscape

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the changes that have been made since the last iteration, especially in terms of the architectural expression and the proponent's efforts to bury the hydro lines. The Panel also acknowledges the level of detail in the townhouses and the introduction a buffer increasing the greenery on the site.

Site Plan

  • Relocate the six bicycle spaces as the current location is tight and obstructs pedestrian movement.
  • Explore moving the vent to the north side, west of the box between gridline A and the garage. Some parking spots may be lost, but they can be relocated where the vent was previously. Alternatively, explore a long and narrow vent between the ramp and the property line.
  • The corner and drop-off treatment are of concern given that it is perceived to be tight, and bulkier cars might not squeeze through. An alternative is to have a round column with right bollards or ideally to have roll curbs to make the corner read like a plaza.

Massing

  • The Panel appreciates relocating the glass corner to the south-west and the balconies, which permits a sleek corner.
  • The mechanical penthouse could be pulled back on the west side to reduce its impact.

Materiality

  • The penthouse reads heavy. Panel suggests further exploring to lighten its expression. Consider a fritted glass treatment similar to the balconies and offset the penthouse from the edges to make it less imposing.
  • The canopy has an industrial feel. Given that there is no industrial heritage in the area, more contemporary and modern materials, such as lighter aluminum may be studied.
  • The corner is more glazed; however, the use of a curtain wall instead of a window wall would be more appropriate and create more transparency. Additionally, the corner glass at the top should not be sandblasted or fritted glass; rather, study the use of clear glass at the top corner to change the building’s finishing.
  • The columns at the corner on the reveal floor above the podium seem prominent, in contrast to the demising walls between the balconies. Consider improving the consistency in the exposed structures and free columns to minimize their protrusion.

Landscape Design

  • The Panel generally supports the landscaping improvements at the base of the Parkdale façade, but expressed concern that the grass may not survive through winter months due to salt spray. A hardscape strip of minimum 200 mm may improve the condition.

403 Richmond Road & 389 Roosevelt Avenue | Formal Review | Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment | Starwood Mastercraft; RLA Architecture; Fotenn Planning & Design

Summary

  • The Panel appreciated the building's overall look and feel, the emerging tonality and palette of materials, and the inclusion of family-sized units.
  • The Panel recommends improving the landscape treatment on the north part of the property, reducing the visual prominence of the mechanical penthouse by stepping it back, and consider the relationship between the proposal and the adjacent site.

Massing

  • Cut back the amenity area from the edge of the building facing Roosevelt and setback about 3 metres, so the view from Richmond on the west is not as imposing.
  • The Panel notes the mezzanine's height reads too tall. However, at its current height, the mezzanine permits the creation of two-storey units facing the street. It provides an opportunity to promote family units, which the Panel considers an asset given that they work quite well along the mainstreet.
  • Changes to the mechanical penthouse, including a further setback on Richmond, would reduce its mass and visual prominence.
  • The current corner transition and massing are not clear; the taller volume could be squared off and stepped back, giving the podium a solid volume that might reduce the height and improve transition on Richmond Road.
  • Removing a floor off above the porte cochère at Roosevelt Avenue would soften the transition to the north.

Building Design

  • The canopies are a good architectural element; however, the proposal would benefit from larger canopies to distinguish the ground floor and increase level of transparency at grade.
  • Massing models are needed to demonstrate what can be developed on the adjacent site. Reconsider windows on this façade and re-think strategies to avoid a “blank wall”.
  • Screening the open area around parking would reduce traffic perception to the neighbours.

Landscape Design

  • The retention of trees is supported by the Panel. Consider extending the streetscape to the curb to create a POPS that reads like a public space and not a private patio.
  • The greenspace north of the porte cochère could be designed as a pedestrian-friendly parkette by incorporating street furniture and natural features such as rocks.
  • There is an opportunity to incorporate some green elements and design a green edge on the 4th floor north side.

Materiality

  • The panel finds the materials refreshing; the brick and stone materials and the monochromatic palette are good combinations creating an elegant design well suited for Westboro.
  • The glass corners on the upper level are appreciated and need to be secured during Site Plan Control process.
  • The proposed building has a 1960’s aesthetic, which was supported, however the Panel noted that the streamlined cornices may contradict this.
  • It will be important to handle the details of the proposal carefully to achieve the level of elegance proposed.

Sustainability

  • Summarize sustainable features at the Site Plan stage. Consider proximity to transit, green roofs, and energy efficiency.

78 – 88 Beechwood Avenue & 69 – 93 Barrette Street | Formal Review | Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Control Application | Minto Communities Canada; RAW Design, Fotenn Planning & Design

Summary

  • The Panel thanked the proponent for a fulsome and detailed presentation and for the changes that have been made since the previous iteration. The improvements to the portion of the building facing Barrette Street were particularly appreciated.
  • The Panel expressed concerns with the proposed mass of the development, which it felt was very dense for a mid-block site, particularly on the Beechwood and east facades. Recommendations were made to reduce the building’s volume to improve relationships, to adjust the architectural expression of the Beechwood façade to make it less imposing, and to tie the materiality more strongly to the context.

Massing and Building Design

  • Given that this is a mid-block site, it was suggested that a reduced massing would better help the project fit into the context. One Panel member suggested an eight-storey mass with a step back above the sixth floor would be a more appropriate massing for the Beechwood side of the development. Other Panel members expressed concern about the linking building.
  • The Panel appreciates the proponent’s efforts to break down the Beechwood façade and reflect the rhythm of the streetscape but felt that the red brick base appears too superficial and the variation complicates the base. Establishing a consistent three-storey datum would be a more robust treatment.
  • The Panel suggested that the floors above the base on the Beechwood façade read too strongly and are imposing on the streetscape. The vertical striation also has too commercial an expression. The proponent is encouraged to continue to explore means of recessing the mass above the base and minimize its imposing nature.
  • It was recommended that the proponent continue to explore opportunities to reduce the massing of the east façade. There have not been significant improvements since the last iteration. The mass currently reads as an L-shaped building, which makes it appear too dense. Though this would result in a loss in GFA, the mass should read as two bar buildings, one facing Barrette and one facing Beechwood, with a connecting link between them. Reduce the height of the connecting portion to six storeys and recess it further from the property line to help achieve this.
  • It was suggested that the passageway on the east side of the site should remain clear and the protrusion of the massing into the space on the Barrette side should be eliminated.
  • The Panel commended the proponent on making significant revisions to the massing facing Barrette; it relates better to the context than it did previously. It was suggested that recessing the balconies may further improve this and help to break down the facade.
  • Recess the corner of the L-shape linking the Beechwood and Barrette façades, above the third storey and have a different treatment to a slightly grey to emphasize volume and reduce the mass.

Materiality & Contextual Considerations

  • The contextual precedents provided by the proponent were appreciated, however, the Panel noted that the examples shown were all corner buildings, some of which have frontage on three streets. As the proposed site is not located at a corner, it was suggested that the capacity of the site may not be comparable.
  • The use of red brick is good, however, as proposed, it reads as being superficial, and the upper elements read too strongly. The vertical striation gives the proposal a commercial feeling, and the metal panel window system feels foreign to the neighbourhood and imposing. Consider alternative materials that pick up more closely on the texture of the materials in the context. The terracotta used in the St. Charles Church redevelopment, which enriches the neighbourhood and does not read as bright or prominently, was referenced as a good precedent to reference.

Sustainability

  • Continue to explore additional sustainability measures not only as they relate to the building and site but also in terms of promoting of social mix, affordable housing, and sustainable transportation. Sustainable roof, patio and terrace treatments, additional street trees, and terraces, planters, climbing vines, screens for shades were suggested.

January 8, 2021

70 Richmond Road | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment | Trinity Group; Hobin Arch

Summary

  • The Panel appreciates the complexity of the site and commended the proponent for their efforts to preserve the heritage building and provide a generous public realm treatment.
  • Strong concerns were expressed towards the proposed massing, particularly the poor transition that it produces towards the neighbourhood to the south and how it overwhelms the heritage building. Recommendations were primarily aimed at improving these two relationships.

Massing and Transition

  • The Panel had strong concerns with the proposed nine-storey massing, which it did not feel was appropriate for the site and context. It was suggested that a six-storey mass that dropped to four storeys on the south edge would be more of an appropriate height.
  • Improving the transition to the established neighbourhood to the south is strongly recommended. The nine-storey sheer wall in close proximity to the property line creates a poor relationship and not adhering to the 45-degree angular plane is problematic. Island Park Drive is an important historical street.
  • It was suggested that the nine-storey height was out of context for Wellington Street and the without stepbacks, it reads as a wall.

Relationship to Heritage

  • The Panel commended the proponent for their efforts to preserve the heritage building on the site, but felt that the proposed massing and building design are overwhelming the structure. The Panel suggested that the new building should read as a backdrop to the heritage component and strive to fade into the background as much as possible.
  • Continue to study how the new building sits on the site and transitions to the heritage building, given the scale of the two are so different.
    • Reducing the base f the building to one storey would help improve the relationship.
    • The Panel strongly recommends eliminating the projecting central glassy vertical element and avoiding pronouncing the middle.
    • Setting the new building back from Wellington Street (to the “B” gridline on pg. 35) would help improve the heritage building’s prominence and improve views towards it along Wellington.

Materiality

  • The Panel felt that, in general, the material palette of the proposal was appropriate for the context.
  • Study what effect a lighter brick would have on the building’s relationship to the context. It may strengthen the relationship with the building to the west.

Pedestrian Realm

  • The Panel commends the proponent on the treatment of the public realm. The proposed corner plaza, the setback on Wellington, and the expanded pedestrian clearway are supported.

979 Wellington Street West & 50 Armstrong Street | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment | ML Devco; RLA Architecture; Fotenn Planning & Design

Summary

  • The Panel supported some of the advancements to the project including the mid-block connection and podium development, but continues to have strong concerns with the overall proposed massing and especially the tower. A mid-rise building was recommended.
  • Recommendations were made in terms of materiality, realigning the mid-block connection, and exploring alternative mid-rise massing options.
  • The Panel suggested revisiting the previous UDRP recommendations, as there are a number of comments that have not been addressed.

Massing

  • The proponent’s analysis of the future context is appreciated, but the Panel believes that this site belongs to the mid-rise character of Wellington Street rather than the Bayview Station node. In terms of the overall scale of the project, the Panel does not support a tower as an appropriate built form for this context. A mid-rise building is strongly recommended.
  • The Panel recommends exploring the possibility of splitting the mass of the building into two separate, disconnected volumes to break up the long podium volume along Wellington Street. The north elevation of the proposal is the most successful because the podium is broken into two. If this approach is taken,
    • Consider lowering the scale of the western block to have a better transition to the mainstreet character to the west. Eight or nine storeys were suggested for the east building and no more than six for the west building.
    • Explore a different architectural expression and materiality for the two buildings.
    • The below-grade infrastructure could still span the entire site.
    • Reconsider the width of the east building and potentially narrow its footprint to widen the courtyard space.
    • If the two buildings are to be connected in any way, a raised glass corridor with no units would be the best option.

Building Design

  • The Panel recommends insetting the mechanical penthouse, to help diminish the perception of the height of the tower.
  • Reconsider the location of the elevator shaft at the ground floor or the tower, as there is a missed opportunity to have clear direct connection from Hilda Street to the courtyard.
  • The Panel commends the proponent on the degree of porosity that is achieved on the ground floor of the building. The retail components are well planned and the through-lobby for the residential component is a strong gesture. Consider relocating the elevator shaft to provide a clearer path through the lobby.
  • The “nested volumes” approach to the design of the podiums is successful.

Materiality

  • The notion of designing the building with an industrial texture is supported, as the neighbourhood does have this quality to it historically, but the four-storey portion of the base does read as being quite large. Consider a different colour palette for this portion that picks up on the strong textural quality of the neighbourhood. Changing the colour may also contribute to strengthening continuity along the mainstreet.
  • Should the tower element remain in the scheme, consider reversing the expression proposed and have the glassy expression face Wellington Street and the more solid expression face the established neighbourhood.

Mid-block Connection

  • The addition of the mid-block connection to the proposal and the degree of porosity it creates on the site is strongly supported.
  • The Panel suggests that it is important to realign the mid-block connection with the front entrance to the heritage building on Armstrong Street. This would create a stronger view terminus, be a better gesture urbanistically, and strengthen the justification for the connection.

Public Realm

  • The Panel expressed support for the improvements to the public realm on Wellington Street.

Sustainability

  • In the next phases of the development process, the proponent is encouraged to consider sustainability measures.

19 Centrepointe Drive | Formal Review | Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment | Richcraft; RLA Architecture; Fotenn Planning & Design

Summary

  • The Panel was pleased with the changes the proponent has made in terms of response to previous recommendations, especially in the reduction in the number of towers. Overall, the proposal has improved greatly.
  • The Panel’s recommendations primarily aimed at slimming the towers and enhancing their vertical articulation, and improving on-site circulation by eliminating the need for the traffic circle.

Tower Design

  • The Panel greatly appreciates the reduction from three to two towers, as was previously proposed.
  • The Panel encouraged the proponent to continue to explore opportunities to reduce the floor plates and slim the towers, as they are quite large. One member suggested that they would not be bothered by additional height, if it meant that the towers would be slimmed.
  • Given the scale of the project the Panel suggests that the small penetrations into the angular plane are not problematic.
  • The Panel recommends continuing to explore a different orientation for Tower B. Study how the tower may be reoriented to better relate to Centrepointe Drive, minimize its impact visually, and reduce the late afternoon shadows on the schoolyard.
  • The Panel recommends strengthening the vertical expression in the articulation and ornamentation of the towers. The architectural features and changes in materiality halfway up the tower makes the floor plate appear larger and the tower more squat.
  • Differentiating the two towers in terms of height is supported by the Panel.
  • Carefully study how the towers meet the podium, as this will be an important detail to be handled well.

Podium Design

  • The Panel commends the proponent on the improvements to the articulation of the townhouses from the previous iteration, which will relate well to the character of the built form across the street. The setbacks, pairing of front yards to the opposite side of the street, and outdoor porch-like elements are strong design moves.
  • Explore the possibility of having the built form of the podium follow the geometry of Centrepointe Drive more closely and curve similar to the street edge.
  • The Panel suggested exploring the possibility of screening the long glass wall at the top of the podium with plantings.
  • Given the scale of the development, explore the possibility of having a connecting public space extend through the base of the building to break it up and provide more porosity to the site.

Site Plan

  • The Panel recommends that the proponent continue to study the parking circle, as it is an inefficient solution to manage on-site circulation. The extent of paved surface is a concern.
    • Creating a right-in, right-out access point on Centrepointe Drive and a driveway that traverses the site would greatly improve on-site circulation and would be the preferred option.
    • Another potential solution would be to consider a drop-off on Centrepointe in lieu of the circle.
  • As the details of the traffic circle are refined, ensure that universal accessibility considerations are carefully studied.
  • The Panel reiterated its recommendation to adjust the location of the entry drive off Gemini Way to preserve as much of the vegetation along that edge as possible.