URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL MINUTES

Transcription

1 MINUTES PRESENT: UDPRP Members Adrian Dyer Studiodyer, Architect Jason McIntyre Cornerstone Architecture, Architect John Nicholson Nicholson Sheffield Architects Inc., Architect Jordan Kemp Bousfield Inc., Urban Designer City of London Staff Melissa Campbell, Planner II Robert Patterson, Landscape Planner Lou Pompilii, Manager, Development Planning Britt O Hagan, Urban Designer Lauren Sooley, Urban Design Technician Jerzy Smolarek, Urban Designer Sonia Wise, Planner II REGRETS: Janine Oosterveld City of Kitchener, Urban Designer Sung Ae Sim terraplan landscape architects, Landscape Architect 1 of 7

2 Panel Review Application # 1 Time: 1:00 pm Address: 27 Centre Street Conflict of Interest: John Nicholson Urban Designer Presentation by: Jerzy Smolarek Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Barb Rosser Construction has commenced on Building A The panel is only commenting on Phase 2 at this meeting Building A is affordable housing There is no arrangement for affordable housing for Building B o It will have one and two-bedroom market rent units The Site Plan Control By-law determines the number of accessible parking spaces The parking requirement for the site is based on the total number of units, not the total number of bedrooms There is currently no programming for the amenity space, but could be a candidate area for a playground space Building B is setback further than Building A because it is taller and had to comply with zoning The applicant is seeking a Minor Variance for parking, long term bike storage and height The stairs to the rooftop align with the rest of the stairs in the. Consideration was given to move the stairs to the roof to provide direct access to the mechanical penthouse o It would be difficult for emergency personnel to reach the roof if the stairs were moved The area for the storm water storage has to be located where it is currently on the plan There was a concern raised about the ratio of parking spaces to the number of bedrooms Well-designed landscaping is key to making this site a welcoming space There needs to be a better buffer zone between the patio areas on the ground floor and the spaces designated for the movement of people The barrier free parking spaces are well-situated The east and west elevations need some attention o Consider wrapping the materials from the north elevation 2 of 7

3 All elevations should be designed with higher quality materiality and definition The use of two-toned grey concrete is not considered high-quality materiality Explore alternative forms and massing Both entryways should be enhanced Consider the use of tiers to help break up the mass The entrance of Building B need to be better defined Explore opportunities to move the garbage away from the amenity space There should be more thought given towards the design of the amenity area Consider incorporating outdoor amenity spaces higher up on the Additional articulation can help to break up the facade There needs to be more of a distinction between the base, middle and top There needs to be a higher standard of design for this because it is market rent housing A Minor Variance should be sought to bring Building B closer to the street, to align with Building A o This can help provide more space at the rear of the Building B for a buffer between the ground floor units and the parking lot Explore opportunities for indoor long-term bicycle storage, not just outdoor bicycle racks It is not recommended that the applicant seek a Minor Variance to reduce the bicycle parking Consolidate the mechanical penthouse and the stairs to the roof in one structure Chair ends meeting at: 2:00 p.m. Panel Review Application # 2 Time: 2:00 pm Address: 603 &609 Wharncliffe Road South Conflict of Interest: None Urban Designer Presentation by: Jerzy Smolarek Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Jason De Brum The applicant is seeking a Minor Variance to bring the closer to the street The pathways around the site are not gated Patients in the memory care unit will not have direct access to the pathway The setback is measured to the wall, not the enclosed patio space The first floor podium is single-storied, double-height with a 2-story built form on the exterior, but not the interior 3 of 7

4 The applicant considered moving the memory care unit to the second floor, but determined that it was not as successful The applicant does not want to lose the functionality of the interior courtyard space The design of the penthouse on the existing was not used for this new The design language of the existing was adapted for this, but not the massing There is access from the new to the old through the Bistro space The massing of the original is much softer than the massing of the proposed o The massing of the new should reflect the massing of the existing The colour palette and materials of the new should match the existing The s need to directly mirror each other at the swimming pool connection Improve the visual connection between the memory care courtyard and the exterior space along Wharncliffe Road South Ensure that the labelling of materials on the elevations are correct Stepbacks help reduce the scale of the Consider the use of the one-storey rooftop space to provide outdoor memory care spaces Explore ways to better integrate the seniors into the neighbourhood o Consider the use of terraces to integrate with the public realm o Consider relocating communal programming areas on the ground floor to face Wharncliffe Road Incorporate a low-landscape wall along Wharncliffe Road to help delineate the public and private realm Consider lightening the colour or changing the type of materials on the 7 th floor There is an odd unit location above the memory care courtyard that needs to be addressed Consider programming uses for roof space The 45 degree cut corner is not preferred Chair ends meeting at: 2:55 p.m. 4 of 7

5 Panel Review Application # 3 Time: 3:00 Address: 3460 Morgan Avenue Conflict of Interest: None Urban Designer Presentation by: Britt O Hagan Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Dwight Lander A conceptual plan is provided showing joint access to the facility and the future build out of the commercial lands Preference for only one access to the site was requested at the Site Plan Consultation stage The second access will be through a shared access with the future site to the north Loading vehicle access will be separate from visitor access Common areas are located in the front door area Off of the front door area there are elevators and doors going to each home area There are doors in each wing off the courtyards The parking areas follow the contours of the site, they are not raised The site layout does not create a high quality built environment Explore other built form/footprint options that can achieve the same efficiencies as the proposed This site is a very important corner and visual terminus for those travelling on Morgan Avenue o Consider moving the parking lot out of the view terminus, if not then reduce the amount of paved surface A paved roundabout is not appropriate on this site o Consider the use of soft landscaping to break up the amount of paving The focus of this site should be to create a distinct place, not replicate the design of other sites High quality landscaping should be incorporated There is an opportunity to incorporate landscaping along the shared drive Improve the cohesion between the shared driveway and the visitor entrance Enhance the current landscaping treatment along Morgan Avenue Chair ends meeting at: 3:45 p.m. 5 of 7

6 Panel Review Application # 4 Time: 4:00 Address: 420 Fanshawe Park Road East Conflict of Interest: None Urban Designer Presentation by: Britt O Hagan Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Andrea Sinclair There is an indoor amenity space proposed on the ground floor facing the street There is nothing to prevent the public from moving through the site The intent is to provide a gateway feature at the entrance to the pathway area that would indicate that it is private space There are extended clerestory windows on the corners of the There are no code differences between 4 and 5 storeys There was a discussion about wood frame construction and long term durability The underground parking is more or less located underneath the proposed The windows of the end units facing the neighbourhood are bedroom windows instead of living room windows, in order in increase privacy for the single-family lots There is a glazing wall on the end elevations There will be heating and cooling unit on the roof of the, not shown in the elevations Overall, this is an attractive response to the site context The applicant is commended for preserving the trees Clear site lines should be created from Fanshawe Park Road East, though the site to Donnybrook Road Explore opportunities to move the amenity area to the southern portion of the parking lot o Alternatively, permeable paving should be extended to the plaza so it reads as a continuous space rather than an area in the middle of a parking lot Explore opportunities to change the shape of the to avoid having vehicle traffic in line with the back yards of the single-family houses on Donnybrook Road o Removing the last end units can achieve this The articulation addresses the massing better in the 6-storey version of the 6 of 7

7 o Incorporate the articulation from the 6-story into the 4-storey The use of the site as a shortcut to Fanshawe Park Road East, by neighbourhood residents should be addressed o Provide a pedestrian path on the east side of the driveway to allow for the installation of street lighting It is better to locate the street lighting on the east side of the driveway, so that it is not right outside the units of the Explore opportunities to relocate the garbage area The accent used on the entrances to the should be unique and not used elsewhere on the Renderings without the trees would help to facilitate a comprehensive review Reconsider the functionality of pathway locations and where they lead the user The use of the spaces between the pathways needs to be addressed Chair ends meeting at: 4:35 p.m. File location - Y:\Shared\implemen\URBAN DESIGN\Urban Design Peer Review Panel\UDPRP Meetings\2017 Meetings\(3) March 15\Minutes_ template.docx 7 of 7