On September 22, 2014 the third working group meeting was held at S.H. Armstrong This meeting had been highly anticipated as it was the meeting where the Built Form was discussed and the group had the opportunity to see changes to the model submitted initially to the city.
The agenda included a policy context review which the Working Group had requested and which was provided to us on Friday and which is now posted here on the ETCC Blog (also in the green Tab labeled “Document II” - top, under the banner). Of interest in the Policy Summary Statements are those referencing the Official Plan (O.P.) which allows for a density of up to two times the lot area. It certainly is a necessary read for anyone interested in this development application.
Developer Changes Presented
The architect presented his changes to the group. The height was reduced from 30.15m to 25.8 metres which is still 5.8 metres above the maximum allowed height including the mechanical component. The number of units has not been reduced. It is still 110 units. The total retail spaces is 685 sq. metres. Peter Mullin stated that it was still a massive development. A copy of the architect’s presentation was requested by the working group and will be posted on the ETCC site once received.
Developer Slide Presentation Images (click on images for larger size)
(Images by Victoria Dinnick)
Opinionated Overview
Although the changes made to the Queen Street elevation drawings appear to improve the project, sadly these changes are only superficial and don’t address the core issues.
The changes are to the facade only. To add some “dimensional texture” to the front, the upper storeys of the building have been pushed back, the profile of lower units varied in an apparently irregular way and other colours of brick introduced. This is in an attempt to mimic the way the street is made up of little buildings of varying heights and setbacks. The plan hasn’t really changed, the building section hasn’t really changed. The number of units remains the same.
A floor of units (at the 8th floor level) now wraps the base of the mechanical penthouse. But this means that the proposal still has two storeys above what is allowed by the Midrise Guidelines, the Beaches and the Leslieville Guidelines. The maximum height for everything but the mechanical equipment spaces is 20m.
It appears that the upper units have been pushed southward as a block and now overhang an already narrow and dark courtyard. The effect on the courtyard is to allow even less light into this “green space”. Shadows cast by the stacked townhouses on the south side of the courtyard will likely mean that NO direct sunlight will land on vegetation planted there.
The overbearing mass of the stacked townhouses on Memory Lane and problems of overlook have not been addressed.
The drawings continue to omit a line indicating the 20 metre upper limit, or show what lies outside of the setbacks and angled planes.
~ ETCC Steering Committee
Also at the Meeting...
Tine Major provided updated the group on the various requests for information made by the ETCC/Working Group. The area planning study has not started but they hope to have it begin before the end of 2014. The Heritage Study requested by a Council motion at the June 17, 2014 meeting is apparently "on their list". It has not, at this time, been assigned to anyone. Apparently, they have a backlog of assessments and are dealing with those considered to be priorities. Laura Marks on the steering committee has been doing a huge amount of research in this area. We are hoping that by providing Planning with the research that Laura has undertaken we will be able to jump start the process.
The rental replacement policy was addressed and Tine stated that the city’s survey had revealed that there were only 5 rental units in total in the development site and therefore it did not require a decision by city council.
Michael Holloway requested that the archeology reports for stage 1 and 2 be provided to the group as soon as possible. Another working group member requested that the minutes from the previous meeting be amended to add his comments that he had emailed to the city regarding the state of traffic and speeding on Laing St..
A presentation was made to the group regarding soil assessment which was done via five bore holes covering a 250 metre radius of the site of which 3 were converted to monitoring sites. The Phase 2 site assessment revealed that groundwater meets the criteria and that the soil has minimal amounts of lead contamination. A caisson will be constructed that will create a bathtub effect providing for a stable building site but which will allow the water table to be unchanged.
Garth Norbraten addressed the Working Group on behalf of the committee members. He stated the Working Group was there to ensure that the city respected its own guidelines and that part of the application process was to actually listen to the feedback being given by the WG. He also stated that no design comments were provided by Planning to the WG and that they should be provided “as-of-right”.
The WG was then addressed by Shawna Bowen who provided the Urban Design comments. She spoke about the fit of the building: that the retail was not in keeping with the context of the street. She mentioned that the city had requested an increased setback to 4.8 metres to allow for more sidewalk.
The rear of the development on Memory Lane has changed the design to show the town houses now backing on to Memory Lane. They will not have front door access to Memory Lane and only their second floor balconies will overlook the laneway. She mentioned that the city wants to keep Memory lane as a “vehicular street”.
The shadow of the building was discussed and rated by the WG as too much. The north side of the street would be severely shadowed in the winter months. Michael Holloway requested that the Urban Design departments comments be provided to the WG and Shawna agreed.
The next WG meeting is scheduled for November 5, 2014. The application will not go before council until 2015. It will be early in the year but not at the first meeting.
ETCC Steering Committee
September 29, 2014
mh
No comments:
Post a Comment