URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL MINUTES - 2016-06-15 PRESENT: UDPRP Members - City of London

URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL MINUTES
2016-06-15

PRESENT:
UDPRP Members
       Julie Bogdanowicz – City of Toronto, Architect
       Adrian Dyer –Studiodyer, Architect
       Jason McIntyre – Cornerstone Architecture, Architect
       Blair Scorgie – Brook McIlroy Inc., Planner and Urban Designer
       Sung Ae Sim – Ron Koudys Landscape Architects Inc., Landscape Architect
       David Yuhasz – Zedd Architecture, Architect

City of London Staff
       Eric Conway, Landscape Planner
       Mike Corby, Planner II
       Mike Davis, Planner II
       Ryan Nemis, Urban Design Technician
       Britt O’Hagan, Urban Designer
       Jerzy Smolarek, Urban Designer
       Michael Tomazincic, Manager, Planning Review
       Brian Turcotte, Senior Planner

REGRETS:
       None

Panel Review Application # 1
Time: 12:35pm
Address: 66 Byron Ave
Conflict of Interest: None

Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer Presentation by: Brian Turcotte (absent)
Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: William Pol

                            URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL
                                       2016-06-15
                                         1 of 6

Clarification:
    • Kenneth Ave development was not within HCD
    • Cedar “look” will likely be aluminium painted panels
    • 1.2m setback similar to neighbours

Panel Review:
   • Consider raising building to accommodate 5-7 steps to FFE above grade
   • New design presented at Panel Meeting looks like a cookie cutter development
           o Roof line does not work
           o Kenneth Ave design works better
           o New design is moving in wrong direction
   • Driveway appears too short
   • Flat roof is preferred
   • Porch should be expanded/widened
   • Ensure that the windows are not too dark
   • Consider front walkway direct from sidewalk to porch in order to reflect
       neighbouring properties
   • Contemporary building in heritage area should not be considered bad
   • Consider minimizing width of garage in proportion to house
   • Reduce width of driveway in order to increase landscaped area

Chair ends meeting at: 1:05pm

Panel Review Application # 2
Time: 1:15pm
Address: 100 Fullarton St
Conflict of Interest: None

Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer Presentation by: Mike Davis
Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Melissa Campbell

Clarification:
    • “high quality materials” include glass, precast concrete, spandrel glass
    • There is on-street parking on the east side of Talbot St and on the south side of
        Fullarton St
    • Utility poles will remain until decision is made during the Talbot St redevelopment
    • 4th and 10th floors are available for amenity space
    • Neighbouring Tricar building will be 30 storeys with a 5 storey podium and built to
        property line
    • Proposed 4 levels below grade for parking (approximately 40’)

                           URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL
                                      2016-06-15
                                        2 of 6

•   Bonusing criteria includes: high level of design, amenity open space, parking,
       retention of heritage, commemoration to row houses, public art, window wall,
       rooftop amenity and base, middle, top design to building
   •   Row houses on Talbot are listed as heritage, applicants were asked to recreate
       heritage façade
   •   Yellow brick may not be able to be reused

Panel Review:
   • Consider smaller vignettes of elevations for drawings to show materiality
   • Integration of heritage is not well incorporated into new design
   • Consider incorporating the yellow bricks into the design differently than what is
       proposed, for example as panels
   • Consider softening the glazing and reducing the pre-cast concrete
   • Public art needs to be incorporated into the design
   • The heritage structures should be retained in their entirety
   • Podium needs to be brought down and tower setback needs to be increased
   • Dufferin Street heritage structure should be respected by eliminating or moving
       the curb cuts
   • Retaining the row housing on Talbot Street would provide a great entrance to the
       new development
   • If entire row housing can’t be retained, consider retaining portions
   • Need to find a balance between concrete and glass
   • Ensure that there is at least 20m between towers (Rygar and Tricar)
   • Ensure that the sightline to St. Paul’s Cathedral is retained
   • Consider creating street plazas
   • Consider an internal shared space for vehicles and pedestrians
   • Consider incorporating a lay-by zone
   • Amenity space is required at Fullarton and Talbot, consider using yellow brick in
       this space
   • Phase 1 of development needs to be able to stand on its own due to phasing
   • Heritage on Talbot Street needs to be preserved, it is a reflection of Yorkville in
       Toronto

Chair ends meeting at: 2:15pm

Panel Review Application # 3
Time: 2:30pm
Address: 1731 Churchill Ave
Conflict of Interest: None

Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer Presentation by: Eric Conway
Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Ted Watson

                           URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL
                                      2016-06-15
                                        3 of 6

Clarification:
    • Public art is managed by the cultural office, considering public art for the corner of
        Edmonton and Churchill
    • There is a master plan for the entire park

Panel Review:
   • Increase landscaping in order to screen parking
   • Concerns with not using the materials as proposed due to budget restraints
   • Consider a courtyard area in proximity to the Wavell Street entrance
   • Consider a running track around the perimetre of site

Chair ends meeting at: 3:15pm

Panel Review Application # 4
Time: 3:20pm
Address: 1151 Richmond St
Conflict of Interest: Jason McIntyre

Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer Presentation by: Eric Conway
Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Glen Armstrong

Clarification:
    • Materials include local limestone, copper cladding, clear glass, photovoltaic glass
    • Intent to leave space between buildings as a walkway, courtyard, gardens
    • Future development along Western Road will depend on ultimate road widening

Panel Review:
   • Look for ways to protect courtyard at main entrance from Western Road traffic
   • Need landscape treatment along sidewalk to parking area
   • Look to improve pedestrian connections surrounding subject site
   • Consider copper panels on lower portion of cantilever

Chair ends meeting at: 4:00pm

Panel Review Application # 5
Time: 4:00pm
Address: 623-635 Welington Road South
Conflict of Interest: None

Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer Presentation by: Eric Conway

                            URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL
                                       2016-06-15
                                         4 of 6

Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Laverne Kirkness

Clarification:
    • Vacuum area is intended as card access only area

Panel Review:
   • Helpful to circulate ground plan with urban design brief in order to see circulation
   • Need to provide link from barrier-free parking to building
   • Northwest parking space creates a pinch point
   • Consider special paving treatment at front of building
   • Reduce widths of drive aisles to create more landscaping opportunities
   • Landscape island is needed on the east side of the barrier-free parking area
   • Consider enlarging corner element or moving entrance south in order to bring the
       corner element and the primary entrance together
   • Need increased landscaping along Wellington Road
   • Redesign parking area in order to increase landscaping

Chair ends meeting at: 4:35pm

Panel Review Application # 6
Time: 4:40pm
Address: 2825 Tokola Trail
Conflict of Interest: None

Planner/ Site Plan Approval Officer Presentation by: Mike Corby (absent)
Application presentation by Applicant/ Agent: Glenn Scheels / Brad Chase

Clarification:
    • 180 units is considered an ideal number for this development

Panel Review:
   • Street entrance needs to be improved
   • Consider shifting and widening building toward Dalmagarry in order to create
       increased opportunity for green space
   • Chess tables, raised gardens and other elements that promote interaction and
       interest are desirable
   • Site needs a larger courtyard
   • Ensure to break up the parking with landscaped islands
   • Consider shifting building north in order to increase green space
   • Consider the addition of pergolas, shelters, community gardens
   • Ensure there is a generous pedestrian circulation network throughout site
   • Consider increasing the height of the building in order to increase the green space

                           URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL
                                      2016-06-15
                                        5 of 6

•   Consider the addition of massing above the pool area
   •   Consider shifting the garbage collection space to the south
   •   Only meet the minimum parking requirements and consider a shared parking
       arrangement with the neighbouring school

Chair ends meeting at: 5:30pm

File location - Y:\Shared\implemen\URBAN DESIGN\Urban Design Peer Review
Panel\UDPRP Meetings\2016 Meetings\(6) June 15, 2016\Minutes_2016-06-15.docx

                          URBAN DESIGN PEER REVIEW PANEL
                                     2016-06-15
                                       6 of 6