Hamilton's Design Review Panel Examines 29-Storey Mixed-Use Tower at 96 Main Street East

Hamilton's Design Review Panel reviewed a proposal to replace the commercial plaza at 96 Main Street East with a 29-storey mixed-use tower containing 370 residential units and approximately 309 square metres of ground-floor commercial space.

The proposal includes one level of underground parking and two levels of above-grade parking in the podium, for a total of 121 spaces, according to the project description presented by City urban designer Edward Winter. Discussion focused on parking, traffic and servicing, pedestrian access, wind and shadow impacts, family-sized housing, building materials and the project's relationship to nearby heritage buildings and Princess Square. The panel did not approve or reject the proposal.

Topics Discussed

DEVELOPMENT SCALE, PARKING AND TRANSIT

The proposed tower would be approximately 93.8 metres high—0.8 metres above the permitted 93-metre limit—and would require a minor variance. The project would include 370 residential units, about 309 square metres of ground-floor commercial space and 259 long-term bicycle parking spaces.

The project description stated: "The proposed development would include the construction of a 29 story multiple dwelling with 370 residential units and 309 square meters of ground floor commercial space on Main Street East. The proposal would include one level of underground parking and two levels of above grade parking uh provided in the podium for a total of 121 parking spaces."

Panelist Eric questioned the amount of parking because of the site's proximity to transit, asking, "given the proximity to the LRT, why so much parking? Um, and that might just come down to zoning and minor variance needs or otherwise, but um, given where this is, I think you could probably get more built form or more housing. So even in that case, consideration could be given to a long-term transition of some of that parking to residential use."

The panel also reviewed the unit mix. Approximately 3 per cent of the units would have three bedrooms, while more than one-third would have two bedrooms.

TRAFFIC, SERVICING AND STREET ACCESS

Vehicle and service access is proposed from Bowen and Catharine streets rather than Main Street. The plan would use those streets for garbage collection, loading and resident traffic.

The residential lobby would be located on Bowen Street, with commercial entrances along Main Street and the other frontages. Panel members questioned whether Bowen Street, described during the discussion as an alleyway that was not upgraded to urban standards, could accommodate the proposed traffic and pedestrian activity.

The panel also discussed possible future changes to Main Street and Catharine Street, including a potential conversion of Main Street from four lanes to a two-way configuration with one lane in each direction.

Panel members supported keeping vehicle access off Main Street but questioned the decision to locate the residential entrance in a service lane. Panelist Sharon said, "I always like to see eyes on the street when you do an entrance way. And a laneway is never really an eyes on the street area."

SHADOW, WIND AND BUILDING MASSING

The panel reviewed shadow and wind impacts on 50 Main Street East, Princess Square and the building's shared amenity terrace.

The applicant's shadow study stated that the proposal would not create additional shadow on Princess Square during the cited March 21 morning period because the proposed shadow would fall within the shadow of an approved 18-storey building at 64 Main Street.

Wind studies identified uncomfortable conditions in some amenity areas, including an unsafe condition on part of the lower terrace. Panel members discussed windscreens and other mitigation measures. The panel also considered reducing the tower's approximately 850-square-metre floor plate to between 700 and 750 square metres.

Further sun-shadow information and additional details about street-level and amenity-terrace mitigation were requested.

HERITAGE RELATIONSHIP AND MATERIALS

The proposed development would be adjacent to the designated heritage building at 33 Bowen Street, identified as a former hotel horse stable, and north of another historic stone building.

Panel members discussed the podium's proximity to the heritage property. The discussion identified a gap of approximately 2 feet 9 inches in one location and a tower setback of about 11.6 metres at the closest point.

Panelist Olga questioned the use of EIFS panels, glass and aluminum instead of more durable materials at grade, asking: "I was wondering if there has been any sort of thinking about the fact that Hamilton has such a rich industrial heritage fabric and your selection of materials which I see as different variations of ephus up this very tall building. If there's been any connection to looking at the heritage context of this area and given that you're adjacent to an important heritage little building, what was your rationale for material selection and the second question I have is sustainability."

The architect said the lower levels' simplified stone treatment was intended to "pay some homage" to the neighbouring building. The panel also discussed whether the proposed setback could affect future development options on the heritage property.

PEDESTRIAN REALM, RETAIL AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The proposal includes retail space extending from Main Street onto Bowen and Catharine streets. Panel members asked for more active frontage on the side streets and questioned the design of the Main Street retail entrance.

Panelist Sharon said that adding density downtown was positive but called for "a little bit more emphasis put around the pedestrian realm, around the building."

The panel also reviewed stormwater management and sustainability measures. Civil plans were still being prepared to meet city requirements. The exterior panel system was presented as a method of improving the building envelope and thermal insulation.

Motions

• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned after the panel completed its discussion.
• No motion to approve, reject or defer the development was recorded in the provided material.

Attendees

No councillors were identified as present.

Named participants included:

• Ryan Ferrari, applicant planner
• Edward Winter, City urban designer
• Michael Fiorino, lead city planner for policy questions
• John Chamberlain, project architect
• Panelists Eric, Jen, Olga, Sharon and Tyler
• Representatives of Agent Clark and Associates and Chamberlain Architects