TO: Members
of Development Services Committee
FROM: Jim
Baird, Commissioner of Development Services
PREPARED
BY: Ron
Blake, Development Manager West District
DATE: September
29, 2009
Re: Further
information on LEED Silver and Gold Standards and further information on
building elevations, application by 1691126 Ontario Inc. (Liberty Development)
for site plan approval of high density mixed use development at 7171 and 7161
Yonge Street,
File SC 08
106782
RECOMMENDATION:
1) That the memorandum entitled “Further
information on LEED Silver and Gold Standards and further information on
building elevations, application by 1691126 Ontario Inc. (Liberty Development)
for site plan approval of high density mixed use development at 7171 and 7161
Yonge Street, File SC 08 106782”, be received for information;
On September 22, 2009, Development
Services Committee endorsed in principle the application by 1691126 Ontario
Inc. for high density mixed use residential, retail, office and hotel uses at
7171 and 7161 Yonge Street, subject to
conditions. At this meeting, the
Committee also adopted an additional recommendation, as follows:
The purpose of this memo is to
provide additional information to Development Services Committee on these
matters.
Differences between LEED Silver and LEED Gold
standards, and implications for proposed development
The Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System is a third-party certification
system that provides a benchmark for evaluating the design, construction and
operation of green buildings. LEED is
based on a credit or point system. It
provides for four classifications, as follows, in ascending order:
LEED provides for up to 70 credits
from 5 different categories (sustainable site development, water efficiency,
energy efficiency, materials selection, indoor environmental quality). Developers considering LEED certification are
free to choose the credits on which to base their desired certification, but
they must choose a certain minimum number of credits from each of the five
different categories. For example, if a
developer is seeking LEED Silver certification (33 credits), but none of the
credits were selected from the “water efficiency” category, the project would
not qualify for LEED Silver certification.
As set out above, the difference
between LEED Silver and LEED Gold is 6 credits.
However, because a developer has significant leeway in choosing the
specific credits on which to base his certification, there is no single formula
for achieving a specific certification level, or for moving from Silver to
Gold, and the costs associated with moving from one level to another could vary
significantly, depending on the specific credits selected.
Further to
the discussion at Development Services Committee on September 22, 2009, Staff have invited Liberty Development Inc. to provide a more
detailed technical submission on the costs associated with LEED Silver and LEED
Gold specific to their project, but have yet to receive a submission.
In the
absence of specific cost estimates for the Liberty project, staff have referred to a presentation by Tom Emodi of Young
Wright Architects to Development Services Committee in November 2007, regarding
linkages between Markham Centre Performance Measure and LEED Criteria, which
identified average cost premiums for the four levels of LEED
Certification. Mr. Emodi is a LEED
accredited consultant who was commissioned by the Town.
As noted in a
staff report to Development Services Committee on March 18, 2008 (“Sustainable
Development Standards and Guidelines: Request for Proposals; Interim
Sustainability Measures”), which references back to the November 2008
presentation, the following was stated by the consultant during this
presentation:
“Mr. Emodi also
explained the approximate average capital cost for a certified green building
is around a 2% - 4% cost premium for LEED certified and Silver, which is
typically $3.00 - $5.00 per square foot, and around a 10% cost premium for LEED
Gold.” He also pointed out that there
may also be financial benefits or savings of green design.
The cost
premiums quoted above are intended to provide only an “order of magnitude”
indication of potential cost differentials between LEED standards. They are not specific to the Liberty
Development proposal at Yonge and Meadowview.
As previously noted, Liberty has been
requested to provide information specific to their project to Development
Services Committee on September
29, 2009.
Applicant agreed to LEED Silver certification for
full development as part of the OMB settlement of the applications for Official
Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments
On May 25, 2009, the draft official plan and zoning
by-law amendments to permit the proposed development went before the Ontario
Municipal Board on consent, and were approved by the Board on June 8, 2009. The terms of the settlement between the Town
and the Ontario Municipal Board were set out in a letter dated March 11, 2009. With regard to LEED certification, the letter
states that:
“…Markham Council will provide
servicing allocation for the tower component of Building A1 and the podium
components of Buildings A1 and A2 in 2012, and for the tower component of
building A2 in 2013 to enable these buildings to proceed as part of Phase 1 of
the project provided that:
While the settlement at the OMB
established a baseline of LEED Silver for the development, the applicant has
agreed to provide sustainable measures beyond the standard Town requirements
for LEED Silver certification, including:
The
conditions of site plan approval require the owner to agree to attain LEED
Silver certification for the proposed development.
Meeting between Liberty Development,
Council Members and Town Staff held
A meeting was held between the
applicant, Councillors Burke and Shapero, Town staff
from Planning and Urban Design, and a representative from FLAP (Fatal Light Awareness
Program) on September
24, 2009. Three
design-related items were discussed:
The applicant’s architect presented
an overview of the elevations in question, and presented their proposed design
solution. With regard to Building B3,
the key design matter in debate is the width and design of the protective
canopy. The Councillors
are of the opinion that the canopy should be of a similar width and design as
the proposed canopy on the Yonge
Street frontages of Buildings A1, A2 and C
(office/hotel tower). The applicant is
of the opinion that the “Yonge
Street” solution would not be appropriate
for the internal building, due to differences in detailing and character of the
building facade, and reduced widths of the internal sidewalks. The applicant agreed to consider
incorporating some of the Yonge
Street design elements into the elevation
of this building, and to increase the canopy width from the currently-proposed 1.5
m to a minimum canopy width of 1.8 metres at building entrances, for the
Building B3 canopies fronting the internal square.
With regard to the Yonge
Street frontages of the Building A1/A2
podium, the key matter discussed was the width of the canopies and their
continuity across the front of the building.
The objective is to ensure appropriate weather protection for shoppers
and pedestrians. To further this goal, the
applicant has agreed to provide increased canopy width from the
currently-proposed 1.5 metres to a minimum canopy width of 2.25 metres to allow
for the easy passage of 2-3 people. In
addition, there will be no more than 1.4 metre wide
separations between canopies, where the canopies are interrupted by building
support columns.
Issues related to bird-friendly
design were also discussed. The FLAP
representative advised that bird-friendly buildings must provide extensive
“visual noise” to ensure that birds see large windowed areas as a solid
barrier. To this end, solid design
elements that break up window surfaces, such as pillars and canopies, are
helpful. Opaque glass,
or glass with markings on it (such as bars, film, bird decals etc) is better,
however, to be effective at least 70% of the glass surface must be
covered. The applicant is of the opinion
that this amount of reduced glass transparency is not feasible for store
fronts, as proposed along Yonge
Street and around the internal square of Building B3. They agreed
to continue working with FLAP on detailed window design, including the
provision of film on the second floor retail windows along Yonge
Street and the internal square.
In addition, information to retail
tenants about measures that can be taken regarding internal and external lighting
and window treatment design to reduce impacts on birds can also have an
important role to play. Liberty offered to
have an educational and operations package available for residents and retail
tenants, discussing ways that they can help, discussing items such as lights
out during migratory periods, drawing curtains and blinds. The applicant has
agreed to continue working with FLAP to determine these information guidelines
and to work with their future tenants to implement these guidelines. The conditions of site plan approval require
the applicant to agree to implement bird-friendly measures to the Town’s
satisfaction.