URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL MINUTES

Transcription

1 MINUTES PRESENT: UDPRP Members Steven Cooper Matter Architectural Studio Inc., Architect Jordan Kemp Bousfield Inc., Urban Designer John Nicholson Nicholson Sheffield Architects Inc., Architect Janine Oosterveld City of Kitchener, Urban Designer Heather Price (nee Holbrook) GSP Group, Urban Designer McMichael Ruth architects Tillmann Ruth Robinson, Architect City of London Staff Jerzy Smolarek, Urban Designer (absent) Britt O Hagan, Urban Designer Sonia Wise, Senior Planner (absent) Amanda Lockwood, Site Development Planner Panel Review Application # 1 Time: 12:30pm Address: 356 Oxford Street West & Beaverbrook Avenue Conflict of Interest: McMichael Ruth Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: McMichael Ruth & Casey Kulchyalia The City has provided no formal comments as of yet, as this is at the preapplication stage. The existing office on the site is to remain current tenant is in lease agreement until at least of 5

2 Panel Review: Have consideration for the proximity of the apartment building to the existing single-storey office building there may be concerns regarding the future development of that space. The townhouse elevations need massaging they should follow the same theme as the rest of the development but read as a separate element. Consider the re-organization if building heights so no two towers are the same a better height ratio would be storeys of 18:16:10 as opposed to 16:16:8 Consider moving the 8-storey building to front Beaverbrook and replace it with the 16-storey building. Further study the relationship of the balconies to the overall massing. Provide a greater setback from Beaverbrook if the 16-storey building is to remain there. Further breakdown the massing by providing further articulation and step-backs at various heights. Provide a more clear pedestrian thoroughfare to the site from the Oxford Street entrance. Provide an additional pedestrian access to the main lobby. Consider eliminating one of the vehicular entrances from Beaverbrook and abolishing the proposed loop there is concern that the vehicular movement through the site is convoluted. Ensure there is consideration for potential wind and shadow impacts on the proposed amenity space/terrace. Consider how cyclists will use the space and provide ample bike parking. The panel was favourable of the green roof on the 8-storey building. The panel felt the layout of the buildings is generally favourable. Chair ends meeting at: 1:25pm 2 of 5

3 Panel Review Application # 2 Time: 1:40pm Address: 5250 Wellington Road South Conflict of Interest: John Nicholson Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Jim Sheffield Existing gymnasium built in the 1980 s is to remain. Panel Review: The panel felt the retention of a ring road around the school was logical from a circulation standpoint due to the large amount of busses. The panel was supportive of the proposal from a CPTED perspective. Consider opportunities to further refine the pedestrian circulation around the school pay attention to desire lines and potential cut-through areas. Seek opportunities to increase the size of the front-yard plaza and repeat the same language used in the rear plaza. Look at traffic-calming measures, especially on the straight portion of the driveway as one enters the site. Expand the drop-off area near the front entrance to allow for more space for landscaping, barrier-free space and pedestrians. Consider spreading the barrier-free spaces so they are close to both the front and rear entrances. Chair ends meeting at: 2:00pm 3 of 5

4 Panel Review Application # 3 Time: 2:15pm Address: 3080 Bostwick Road Conflict of Interest: None Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: David Yuhasz / Scott Allen The proposal is a subdivision The developer doesn t see the full project building out for another years This submission will be considered from a high-level zoning stage as opposed to a site plan level. Site 3 is to be designed by a different group from the other sites. Site 5 is the most imminent the applicant hopes to set the stage with this development design-wise and the rest will follow. The UDPRP will ask the individual sites to return to the panel at the site plan stage. The Panel has broken up most comments into 3 categories: Public Realm, Built Form and Other. Panel Review: Public Realm: o Consider fronting residential units to the proposed park. o Reduce the amount of surface parking surrounding the park frame the park with buildings. o The panel supports the use of Thorncroft Drain as a central naturalized feature. o Pedestrian connections need to be refined on the east side of the Community Centre, especially on the north-south street. o Provide more pedestrian connections throughout the site, similar to what is seen in the hardscape treatment for the Community Centre. o More consideration needs to be given to how cyclists are going to use and access the site. o Ensure there is room on some streets for street trees, on-street parking and sidewalks. o Use the existing Community Centre as a basis for the design of the rest of the buildings to ensure commonality throughout the neighbourhood. Built Form: o Consider a more mid-rise approach to building heights o Shorten the podium of the towers to less than 5-storeys 4 of 5

5 o Re-orient the buildings so surface parking lots are not fronting public streets or the park. o Further refine the building materials to provide more step-backs and articulation. o Consider providing a mixed-use form of development, especially in the high-rise buildings. o Move more toward point-tower forms, especially in the sites on the east side of the Community Centre. o On Site 6, consider moving the high-rise buildings further away from each other so they do not come across as one large mass. o Seek opportunities to move the buildings on Site 2 so they are closer to the park. o Have consideration for how this development is creating a mini-skyline this development will be visible from a vast surrounding area. Ensure there is cohesion of roofs and the tops of buildings. o Make allowances for softscape treatment along Bostwick. Other Design Components: o Create a further variance in height between all tall buildings on the site they are currently too similar. o Provide shadow studies for the early morning hours current submitted studies only show 11am and later. o The panel suggests the applicant develop Urban Design Guidelines for the area to ensure a cohesion in site design. o Ensure the developers of the retirement home property follow the design considerations being given to the other buildings on the site. Chair ends meeting at: 4:30pm File location - Y:\Shared\implemen\URBAN DESIGN\Urban Design Peer Review Panel\UDPRP Meetings\2018 Meetings\(10) October 17\Minutes_.docx 5 of 5