URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL MINUTES

Transcription

1 MINUTES PRESENT: UDPRP Members John Nicholson Nicholson Sheffield Architects Inc., Architect Steve Ries Fanshawe College, Professor, Architect Blair Scorgie Brook McIlroy Inc., Planner and Urban Designer Andrew Wilson Fanshawe College, Professor, Landscape Architect David Yuhasz Zedd Architecture, Architect City of London Staff Eric Conway, Landscape Planner Tom Karidas, Site Plan Approval Officer Britt O Hagan, Urban Designer Jerzy Smolarek, Urban Designer Lauren Sooley, Urban Design Technician REGRETS: Julie Bogdanowicz City of Toronto, Architect Panel Review Application # 1 Time: 1:30 Address: 1600 & 1622 Hyde Park Road Conflict of Interest: None Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer: Tom Karidas Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Michelle Doornbosch The current zoning on the property would not allow a drive-thru facility None of the submissions ever included the existing building 1 of 5

2 Parking requirements on site are approximately 320 spots Phasing of the site is identified, however the applicant may bring the entire site through the site plan process at one time Design of Hyde Park Road is anticipated to be urban, with hardscape up to the building entrances Design along Gainsborough Road is sidewalk and grass Current location of pedestrian linkage is a result of the location and size of drive aisles Screening proposed along loading area for trucks There are units on the back of the existing building, as well as the front There are larger areas of retail anticipated for existing buildings The ground floor of new buildings may be a mix of spandrel and glass o The details will be addressed once the tenants are finalised The panel is generally in favour of the development, as proposed There is concern with the design of the space between the roadway and the property line Consider pushing the building back to add plantings between the sidewalk and the building along N. Routledge Park Consider rethinking the design of the capping of the entrance on Building A Hammer heads at the end of parking rows are required Consider shifting the placements of entrances towards Hyde Park Road Consider shifting the south entrance on Building B further east Increase the level of landscape detail around Building C o Provide similar quality landscaping as around Building A The applicant is applauded for including pedestrian pathways The connection to the west end of the site should be improved Active frontage is successful along Hyde Park Road The design of Building C was more successful in the previous version with the walkthrough at the corner The applicant is encouraged to have a restaurant patio on the corner of Hyde Park Road and Gainsborough Road Break up the architecture of Building C facade to look like 2 buildings Articulate the short end of the facade of Building A to address Hyde Park Road Articulate the long end of the facade of Building A to address Gainsborough Road o Consider increasing entrances along Gainsborough Road on Building A The second floor of the building should be articulated in the same way as the ground floor o The expression of materials should be brought up to the second storey Trees and landscaping should be continued along the entire front of the site Street trees should follow the line of the road, not the property line 2 of 5

3 Consider spacing of street trees in relation to building entrances Chair ends meeting at: 2:30 Panel Review Application # 2 Time: 2:30 Address: 1705 Wharncliffe Road S Conflict of Interest: None Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer: Tom Karidas Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Kevin McIlmurray The corner of the site could work as a display area The original building is being reclad The Southwest Area Secondary Plan (SWASP) says parking shall not be located between the building and the street The policies in SWASP are focused on the addition, not the whole site Building entrances cannot be projected beyond the height of the roof because of support/reinforcement issues There are no accessibility issues with entrances Consider using the corner area for display area Consider moving display signs down to the first floor to act as windows Consider the opportunity to break up building architecture with massing or material changes Consider including display windows Consider incorporating recesses and projections to break up the facade Explore opportunities to use other material than painted metal to show the brand Consider incorporating glazing on 2 nd storey Bring branding on 2 nd floor down to first floor so it is at eye level. Consider including different colours on entrances Include shade trees along Wharncliffe Road Consider relocating parking to the north part of the site to bring the addition closer to the street Chair ends meeting at: 3:15 Panel Review Application # 3 3 of 5

4 Time: 3:15 Address: 545 Fanshawe Park Road W Conflict of Interest: David Yuhasz Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer: TBA Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Carol Wiebe and Andrea Sinclair Front yard setback changed to 12.5m to tower o Originally, the setback was 7.5m to the townhouses and 10m to the tower There are 250 units (143 in one tower and 107 in the other) The amount of amenity space in front of the building has increased From the greenspace/open space, the underground parking will be visible on the east side The Open Space zone is not planned for extensive planting Landscape plans for submission will show connections to the path East and west elevations are mirrored on each building In front of the ground floor units will be individual patio spaces Programming sitting, meeting areas are planned for amenity space along Fanshawe Park Road All units have a balcony By-law requires min 5m setback from property line Underground parking permitted at property line as long as it is fully underground The facade is clad in glazing and paneled with painted concrete Tower A is planned to be rental, Tower B is planned to be condo Front yard setback of the tower is fairly consistent with the existing adjacent Amica building. Explore opportunities to reduce the floor plate of the tower to 1000 m2 or less Consider orienting the long facade of the buildings north-south Bring townhouse components closer to the street The more desirable location of amenity space would be in the rear, near the ravine The panel prefers the treatment of the mechanical penthouse in the original submission Consider the use of alternative materials than painted concrete The panel prefers the massing of the building above the 2 nd floor in the original submission There was more articulation and expression on the facades of the buildings in the original submission Increase the expression of entryways 4 of 5

5 Emphasise the design of the top of the building, as it will be seen from far away Increase way finding to lobbies, including a sidewalk connecting to the back of the towers A trellised roof design is recommended over a solid design Enliven the north facade by reflecting glazing on south facade to provide better views onto open space The perspective and elevation designs do not match On the north elevation, there is no relief between the ground floor patios and the drive aisle Redesign the vehicle area as a courtyard space where pedestrians are a priority Increase the quality of access to amenity space. Chair ends meeting at: 4:30 File location - Y:\Shared\implemen\URBAN DESIGN\Urban Design Peer Review Panel\UDPRP Meetings\2015 Meetings\(9) September 16, 2015\Minutes_ docx 5 of 5