and I am the program lead of I'm the program lead of urban design at the city of Hamilton and coordinating this design review panel today. On our agenda today, we have a development proposal at one old Ancaster Road in Dundas. Today we have the applicant team, city staff, members of the public, and media also in in attendance. Members of the public are welcome here to observe the meeting. However, there is no commenting or questions from the public or media during the design review panel presentation. This meeting is being recorded and will be uploaded to the city's design review panel website. Chair of the design review panel, Jennifer Malard, will be leading the discussion this afternoon. Jennifer, you may begin the meeting. >> Thanks, Michael. Good afternoon, everyone. Um C, can you reconfirm that this session is being recorded? Yes, I confirm the session's being recorded. >> Okay. And are there any changes to the agenda today? >> No, there's no changes to the agenda. >> Okay. I'll ask the panel members in attendance if there's any conflicts of interest and I'll take silence as uh uh no conflicts. Okay. Thank you. Um, on the agenda today, as Michael mentioned, is the review of One Old Ancaster Road. The lead planner on the file is Abdullah Pasha, who is available to answer any policy questions. Um, Michael Vubra is the program lead of urban design at the City of Hamilton, and he'll make the brief presentation. Thanks, Michael. Uh, we're ready for your five minute presentation. Thank you, Jennifer. Just before we get going, can everyone see the design review uh staff presentation? >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Excellent. Okay. So I'm going to present to you the staff perspective um and context regarding one old Ancaster Road and aerial of the site. So the subject lands are represented in the middle uh where the yellow star is to the north of the site is Spencer's Creek, Spring Creek to the right. Um Ocer to the north, Governor's Road is also to the north. To the west of the site, uh there's a range of different apartment buildings, uh between three and up to, I believe, 14 stories. To the west of that is St. Joseph's Villa. At the very bottom, uh you can see University Plaza. And then predominantly between that and the site is a single family residential. And then at the north of this aerial photo is downtown Dundas. So, the proposed development includes one 12-story residential building with a total of 153 dwelling units, 1,052 square meters of amenity space, and 181 parking spaces with 116 bicycle parking spaces. Just a quick um kind of walk around the site of different street views of it. Um here the top is a site photo at the corner of Governor's Road and Olgav Street with the site on the right. The bottom is also at the same intersection looking to the south south towards the proposed site. The top image is uh along Olga Olgvie Street facing southeast. Site is on the left. The bottom photo is the corner of Governor's Road and Olgvie Street facing southwest. The image on the top is looking east down uh Governor's Road past the site east of Spencer Creek. And then the bottom image is along Olen Olga Street facing north with the site on the right. The top image is looking northwest down Oscar Drive towards and with the site to the left and the bottom photo is at the corner of Oser Drive in Old and Caster Road facing west. and the site is on the right. Here's a quick look at their conceptual site plan submitted with this design review panel uh submission. So, the main entrance is close to the intersection of Governor's Road and Olgo Street. There [snorts] is some proposed um trees in the boulevard and a driveway off of Olgo that brings you into the site uh with access into the parking podium. There's a five-story parking podium located to the south and to the north of the site is a 12story uh residential building with the 153 units. North [snorts] of that is Spencer's Creek and Spring Creek to the right. Here's a rendering uh that was submitted by the applicant. So, the staff had previously seen this um uh proposal at the formal consultation meeting held on July 17th. At that time, it was for a ninestory mixeduse building with 158 residential units and 895 square meters of commercial space, uh 204 vehicular parking spaces and 86 bicycle parking spaces. staff had concerns at that time of the original proposal considering um the natural topography and existing area as well. Hamilton conservation staff had indicated that the property is affected by flood and erosion hazards associated with Spencer's Creek and Spring Creek [snorts] and development of the subject's lands would uh will need to include placement and stabilization of fill to or above the regional flood plane elevation and a free board of.3 meters. Furthermore, the proposed de development would remove core areas and an appropriate vegetation protection zone um was not being applied. Development also uh put pressure on the existing site [snorts] uh evidenced by a number of retaining walls along the setback boundaries. [snorts] Staff also noted during the FC um safe pedestrian connection to the main entrance had not been provided. Um and it appeared to be overdevelopment of the site at the nine stories. Staff emphasized the requirement for new development to contribute to the creation of a vibrant pedestrianoriented public realm and as well to protect the existing natural heritage features. Um as well uh there's further comments. I'll try to abbreviate as much as I can because there's a couple other pages of this [snorts] um that the appropriate setback of natural core uh her natural heritage core areas be provided for [snorts] any additional development. Natural core areas be preserved and and any development or site alteration should not negatively impact the features. Um utilization of existing natural features of the property would be recommended and should be incorporated into the design of the site. Um also there was the the previous um plan was not leaving available space outside of the public rightway for landscaping. Uh the ground floor should be amended to support active streetscape and should include continuous pedestrian pathway and at that time they had a four-story podium design. Um and it was recommended to be amended because it included no active units. [snorts] Uh further comments were the orientation of the building should be reconfigured to address the street. The concept plan should illustrate improvements [snorts] outside of the property including uh streetscape and uh improvements to for the community. [snorts] Uh setting the level floor levels in order to minimize impact on unnatural landscape. Um and then it was not activating the ground level for pedestrians or providing a safe entrance at that time. So, and then there was one last comment to ensure the pedestrian scale is addressed. So, just uh for today's discussion, we're looking for feedback from the panelists on the following topics. [snorts] Does the proposed building massing and height minimize impacts on the surrounding buildings as well as public and private spaces by creating transitions and scale and respecting existing street proportions. [snorts] Does the proposed so create pedestrian oriented place that is human scale, comfortable and connected and easy to navigate for people in all buil with all abilities? [snorts] Does the proposal incorporate existing natural heritage features as part of the development and further enhance and protect the features within the surrounding area? Does the landscaping support the pedestrian realm sufficiently using landscaping features such as planters, furnitureures, canopies, and etc. So that concludes the staff presentation. >> Thank you, Michael. Uh we're now ready for the consultant to provide additional information. Please keep this presentation to 10 minutes. Thank you. >> Thank you and thank you Michael for that presentation. I'm Scott Bey. I'm a registered professional planner with Urban Solutions representing the owner for this application. I'm joined today by Wayne Harrison who is the architect for the project of K&MH Architects as well as Leanne White House of White House Urban Design. Um, I'm going to quickly pass it over to Wayne in a moment, but just to uh run through the applications at play here today, we have an official plan amendment and zoning bylaw amendment really just to establish the appropriate land use designations and zones to recognize the natural heritage features on site as well as the limits of the development. Um and I would like to just uh make clear that of the site itself 17% of the site is that development area with the balance of the site uh proposed to remain in its existing condition and or be enhanced um from a natural heritage perspective. Uh and with that I'll pass it over to Wayne. And just giving you a heads up that you're muted, Wayne. >> Beautiful. Uh, are people seeing the screen at all? >> Yes. Okay. Beautiful. Okay. So, as as you can see, oops, sorry. As you can see, our site is uh is only taking a small portion of the site right here, which is, as Scott has mentioned, is only about 13%. We've left about um sorry sorry we got 17% left about 83% you know to be maintained and and restored is that oh sorry can't look at the presentation share screen sharing screen it says I'm sharing screen two okay so it's this one okay so screen one screen one and share. There we go. Hopefully people can see the see this one here. So from this here uh we we're only using uh basically about 17% of the site. And so the other 83% is being left to be maintained, restored. Um whether it become becomes dedicated, we'll have to find out in the future. And so we're really we're just using this piece here which we're trying to use the sort of the eastern most part to keep us away from what is down there which basically if you're looking at the site we're sort of midrise sorry high-rise high-rise high-rise high-rise there's a mid-rise over here there's a used car dealership and a plaza so we're we're not really affecting housing things like that it's not exactly a single family housing area it's um and then we are basically our site is about here so we're not using any of the rest of what's going on in there. Um and uh so um then uh so what we've done is also to do all the connections out to the street. Um what we've we've put some sidewalks, things like that. Now at a previous project last week I met with urban design public works engineering to figure you know how did they want the sidewalks how many sidewalks uh but to me that is almost uh in the future since site plan approval how we how many connections how many we do but the answer is yes we've right we've got this uh coming up to the uh to the northeast we could connect over to uh to uh governor's road if it's desired [snorts] uh but that to we need a meeting with the city to go over, you know, details such as that. Uh what we've also done is on the ground floor, we've now put sort of the amenity areas, the lobby, the vestibule, sort of a outdoor courtyard along Oglev Street here to sort of and to put and to bring the entrance, the secondary entrance from here. So this whole end has become sort of activated and more public along with the sidewalks and the connections. Um, it also what we've done is we've created sort of a a drop off here covered so that for things like accessibility, you know, it works at a nice 2% grade with covered to protect people from rain. It should be a nice experience for them coming uh to to within the podium. Uh, the podium itself uh what we've done it's it's four-story podium is we've also on the fourth floor we're now introducing suites on the on the fourth floor. One of the reasons why there is a podium is this is a natural heritage type type of of project here. So we're not doing an underground parking is that there would help to reduce any of the uh the the the water you know concerns with water by doing underground parking. So we've we've basically apart from a storm water tank we've kept everything above grade and that way we're not we're not really involved with the grade. Um there's a line of development. It's uh we've got Ava Lee who's our natural heritage consultant is sort of working along to make sure this is a good area that we're staying within the red line. Um and then what we have is we're introducing a rooftop terrace for for the private but that's just for the building obviously for the public. We've done enough parts. The now the podium itself is four stories. We've got sort of a pedestrian interface level here and then we've got the the upper podium and this sort of breaking the the massing down just to break the scale down. This separates it from sort of the middle of the building and then we've created like a top like a capital uh which you can sort of see here how it sort of with all the glass or the here the masonic podium and then the upper level and then a bit of a top. Um now we have done a shadow study visual impact assessment. Um I believe we've also managed to resolve the hydraulic assessment. Um but I can answer those if there's any questions on those or or show them if needed. But I think really at that point um the end. Do you want to speak about the landscape? >> Yes. Thank you. I have three slides here. One is a preliminary plan you're looking at. The other is the rooftop amenity and then take uh taking a look at the tree preservation on site. So I'll go back Wayne to the whoever's whoever's driving the >> the the concept there. So at this stage it's ZBA. So we do consider it to be conceptual. The plan will develop as uh you know as things are confirmed with how we're moving forward. Um, but what we're showing right now is connections out to the streetscape and uh street trees that will be required for the development and the potential for restoration around any disturbed areas on the north and the and the east side. And as noted of course uh once more detail is known and developed on how things are progressing then this will be further developed and of course with comments from staff too. The next slide shows the uh rooftop amenity space that Wayne kind of introduced already and this expresses design intent. It's on the uh it's on top of the podium currently. The design intent for this is to provide for opportunities for lounging, barbecuing, sitting, dining, um shade, and potentially a designated pet area and uh potentially child's play. This also will be developed further as the building details are uh designed out, but the intention for the space is as represented here. And then lastly, we have the tree preservation plan. You can see here. And this addresses both private and public trees. And currently, right now, from the private tree perspective on the topo survey that was done, there was 103 trees that were surveyed. And of those, 35 are being preserved. Um, and 68 are proposed for removal. Of those 68, 16 are dead. Three of those are below the threshold that 10 cm DBH. So the target that we would have for um compensation planting on the site is 49. Um some of these species that are here are considered invasive such as Norway maple and Siberian elm and so on. They're not necessarily a preferred species to have adjacent to a natural heritage um feature. And so in in the edges, the restoration areas that we would do around there, we're hoping to be able to do some preferred material, native material that's more conducive to the environment. In the public space, uh there are 20 trees of that 10 cm or greater threshold and uh those are uh proposed for removal due to sight servicing. You might recall on I believe it was slide five, you could see a visual of the um of the mound that's currently in the boulevard there. So in order to service the site and provide uh a better streetscape experience, visibility into the site and so on, those trees would come out and forestry staff of course would calculate fees that are appropriate for loss of canopy. And um another thing that we've noted from the environmental consultant is that a lot of the understory here on site is considered invasive and is probably preferable to remove. And then of course in the boulevard those trees would be replaced with suitable street trees in consultation with the forestry staff. And uh that's it for my information. Of course happy to answer any questions that people may have. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are are have you finished your presentation? >> Yeah. I just wonder should I close down the share or >> uh um it might be handy to have the drawings uh um up on the screen so when we ask our questions there are things to refer to. >> Yes. >> Um so at this time we provide an opportunity for each of the panel members to seek clarifications on any points that might require explanation. Um panelists will hold their comments for now. Uh this is the time for questions only. Um uh and we'll start with Eric. >> I have no questions or clarification. >> Okay. Olga. >> Uh yes. I I'm I'm a little confused about the extentive site. So when you refer to 103 trees, is that the full site or is it just this yellow section? >> You're muted, Leah. Sorry. Uh just the area that's proposed for development. >> Okay. So, it's just the yellow, but there's a lot more trees on the on the rest of the site. And then the second question is the full property has Spencer both sides of Spencer Creek. So, back to the property. I'm trying to also understand what is the boundaries of the full property. >> Yeah, >> you have both both sides of Spencer. If you go to that, there you go. So, Spencer Creek is running east to west there, uh, along with that cursor. And then Spring Creek sort of bisects the middle of the site, meeting up with, uh, Spencer Creek where that cursor is showing, if you can see that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, Graham, do you have any questions? >> No, no questions for me. Thank you, >> Sharon. >> Yeah, just a couple questions. Um, one, the zone that you're proposing, I know we don't have the specific zone, but is it purely residential you're asking for because I saw a documentation of a bit of retail before in some of the documents, but also the plans only show residential. So, can you just confirm which one it is? >> Yeah, no problem. So that previous iteration of the plan that went through formal consultation was mixed use. So it had that commercial component. Now it's just a residential building being proposed. And so the zone would really follow that development line to make that a residential zone, specifically a uh medium density multiple dwelling RM2 zone. And then all the area seen in green would be placed into an appropriate open space zone so that that all stays in a conservation sort of context. >> Okay. And the other one's just a bit more a little more specific. Um can you just confirm there's aing wall that's not actually shown on the landscape plan but uh that has a hydro box at the rear of it. Um is that a 5 m retaining wall? >> Uh Where are we talking, Scott? >> Just at the uh corner of the site between the two springs. Yep. Right there. >> Oh, right there. Right there. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh >> so you're filling and adding a retaining wall. Is that correct? >> That piece right there. Yep. >> Yeah. >> There's no building there. That's just for ashvault and uh a transformer >> and the transformer. Now, whether the transformer could in fact be lower, I don't know. I don't see a reason why it's up so high. I'd have to ask you. >> It's wasn't shown on the landscape plan. So, I just wanted to clarify that that was the intention. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh, thanks Sharon. Uh, Shotti, do you have any questions? >> Hi. Yeah, just um a question about the parking. Um can you um just clarify I know you touched base on the underground but um can you confirm the reason for not going underground and also the second part of the question is um the number of parking provided um what is the basis for it? Thank you. >> Uh do you want me to to do that one? Uh why don't you start Wayne and then I can jump in at the end. >> Okay. Sure thing. Um I believe part of it is that uh we wanted to reduce impact on the water table. So by not going down obviously you're doing that. Um there's also if we do start going down, what's going to happen is being that there's water there for sure, there could be quite a lot of um what do you call it? Water forces upon the building, but unknown as to what would actually occur. Um, and I know that there was one at 50 Kryon Road that was going down three stories and that that caused quite a bit of a city was that appreciative of doing underground like that because that was next to uh um the creek as well. So really to keep it up out of the water just seems to make a lot of sense in this case. And just to add on to that, yeah, um didn't want to impact the water table being so close to two creeks as well as the knowledge that there is flood planes that are in that area as well. So ensuring that with the site as proposed right now where the building is and with the proposed grading um we did have the hydraulic assessment confirm that we would avoid the 100red-year storm flood plane, regional storm flood plane as well as that 15 meter erosion setback on site. So really just trying to ensure we're staying above ground for all of those reasons. In terms of the parking being provided, um it is really in the context of Dundas. Uh Dundas does have transit for sure and transit is on the frontage. Um but it's also acknowledged that a lot of residents within Dundas still do use an automobile to do their daily tasks and that sort of thing. So wanted to have an appropriate level of parking to meet the needs of future residents on the site. >> Yep. And that would provide one parking space per with about 28 visitors. >> Okay. Thank you. Um Dennis, do you have any questions? >> Yeah, thank you. Um just a quick question. Could you just confirm what determines your limit of proposed development area? Um what factors you've taken into consideration to set the uh set the red line? Yeah. So, it was a combination of those regional uh and 100red-year storm flood plane limits as well as the results of the environmental impact study that was completed by our consultant GEI. So they went out on site and went out on site with the city of Hamilton natural heritage staff to stake out all those features and the limits of the top of bank for the creeks and then from there created that buffer from Spencer Creek and Spring Creek. Uh it's a 10 meter variable buffer. So in some areas it well exceeds 10 meters. In some areas you're getting slightly crossing 10 mters. Um, but largely it's 10 or more meters of buffer area being provided between those natural heritage features and that's what really was dictating that line. >> Yep. Well, there was two two lines, Scott. There was an eight and a 10 and has to stay sort of between the two. So, this one here on the outside is the eight and you can see the other one here which is the 10. And we've tried to stay pretty much within those two lines. So, sorry, just to clarify, uh, the top of bank is which one on that? >> The top of bank can't be seen because it's off, but so the lines you're looking at are, you know, between call it 15 and 8 mters away from the top of bank. >> Uh, I'll see if I can bring up the survey that actually shows the top of bank. It's quite far away. We're restricted more by the what do you call them these buffers than we were from Tapa Bank Sandy correspondence surveyor received uh 26 survey. Okay. So the top of bank was actually quite far uh away because basically it was where was it? Right here. Top of bank is way over here. Whereas our two lines are about here. So it was the it was more of the eight and 10 that that was was a uh restrictor than the top of bank away from top of bank. >> Thank you. Okay. Um Tyler, do you have any questions? >> Uh no, not for me. Thanks. >> Okay. Thanks. Uh so we'll now close the Q&A session and we'll uh proceed to uh hearing u from each panelist with commentary. Um and we'll start with you Eric. >> Thank thanks Jennifer. Uh, thanks Scott, Wayne, and Leanne for the presentation. That actually did provide a little more info. So, uh, definitely appreciate that. Um, coming from my background, I'm a little worried and want to understand planning justification for developing in this kind of area. And I know that's not really on the design panel. So, I'm not going to spend time on there, but I'm a little worried about spending too much time uh composing design thoughts when you're dealing with an area that, you know, has an OS zoning and and it also falls within what I would consider the natural feature for for development. So that's ultimately going to be up to Scott to uh to present his case to the municipality. Um something I definitely have a concern about. Uh little concerned about infilling a valley feature and I you know I'm hearing a little about the flood plane and that today. So maybe it's not actually going to displace potential uh flooding. So maybe that's not as much of an issue here. But I'd want to understand that. And when it comes to a to a building, uh the ex what looks to be almost like a 100% use of the site does concern me a little. Um built form seems to I don't know what your your number is for for the percentage of the uh the actual site being used at least within the development area. I know you're referencing the larger area also including the you know the the natural area feature but uh it seems like the any potential development area is completely being uh maximized and it doesn't look like it necessarily will integrate as well. Uh concern generally about things like uh natural heritage loss. Uh appreciate hearing about the different species and that a number of them might not be uh that important to the municipality. So, it's good to hear you're considering uh replacements. Uh replacements ideally should be as part of the site itself and not just always pushed off onto other lands. Um so ultimately uh with respect to things like addressing the street, I think there's the opportunity to provide some ground level town homes maybe instead of parking that will actually give a little more of a street frontage and ultimately that that's up to you. I think it's a better way to integrate particularly given that you're not now talking about no retail element. Uh I understand that you know you don't want retail necessarily everywhere but maybe there's a way to integrate uh some of the town homes as opposed to whether it's lobby space or parking spaces and just reallo reallocate it um to accommodate the loss obviously in parking facility. Um, I'd say you could look at there may be an opportunity if you look at the intersection of Governor's Road and Oglevie, there might be excess municipal lands that you could potentially look at and maybe do a land swap to sort of change the form or shape of the of your site and maybe there'd be a benefit where you could look at transferring value feature to the municipality and possibly get a little more developable land if if that works out. Um, let's see. And yeah, and one thing with respect to the design of the rear of the building, uh, considering that some of that land could end up in public ownership and maybe potentially have trails through it, I think the design should also reflect, uh, looking to that space. I'll wrap up there and pass it on to my colleagues. Thank you. >> Thanks, Eric. Uh, Olga. >> Yes, thank you. Um, and thank you for the presentation. I I have found the overall presentation really um difficult to engage in, especially on this um site that has a creek running through it. And I don't see any relationship or how the building addresses that creek. It feels like you've just taken a flat elevation and set your building down, but you're on a creek uh and you're building a terrace, a naturalized terrace on the south side and the potential of connecting to the beautiful natural heritage features on the site is a missed opportunity. I think this should be really thought uh a little bit more carefully and I do appreciate invasive species and that you know justifies removal a lot of trees at at some level but um I would take a a little more more careful look at what is that building footprint to try and save what you can save as a starting point in this whole submission I don't see any topographical or sectional information that takes a section of the grade of oglev or governor ers or how that stretches down to the creek. I don't I don't have a understanding or maybe it's too preliminary for us to even review that because I it's a 5 m tall retaining wall is what I'm hearing. Um you have but you've got a natural heritage feature. You've got a creek. I'd like to see this development respond to it um a little bit more sensitively. Thank you, Olga. Uh, Gran, your comments. >> Thank you. Uh, thank you for the presentation. Um, I I'm just want to say I'm happy with the amount of amenity space on the roof. Um, it'd be nice to have a little bit more on the ground floor, but I see where the swap is and it gives them lots of lots of area up there and lots of activities. Um the main point that that I wanted to talk about and and you've already sort of mentioned that the streetscape and that corner is will be you know um redesigned as you go along the process but I just want to I think that needs to be looked at. Um you know there's lots of opportunity with so much municipal land on that side to um pull the sidewalk away, get a boulevard, get streets next to the um next to trees next to the street. Um and then that corner too. Um I don't think there's any city policy in place, but whether you know you talk with the city as you go through the process about um whether it becomes a pop space. I think um the connections as you mentioned to Governor Road is really important. Um so definitely I think it's important to keep on looking at that and getting those pedestrian connections and maybe making that a public space out there for um for everyone because I know there's a lot of pedestrians around that area. So that's everything for me. Thank you. Thank you, Graham. Sharon, >> sure. Thanks for your presentation. Um, I I really want to reiterate what my previous panel colleague said um in regards to the interface with the um the ravine or the river on the side. Uh I really don't think the building's taken advantage of that and I do feel it is a bit of overdevelopment for the site. Um, and I would have really loved to see a planning just to see what your thought process was um, for putting this on the site. Um, and uh, understand what the um, I am concerned about that barricade yourself from one of the wonderful features on the site. and future take that into consider and also the ele built form. Um it is a four-sided building. Uh it will probably be as Eric said a future um walkway uh through the park in the back. Um and it will be visible through um all four sides. So I'd like to see a little more attention paid to it. Um, not saying there shouldn't be any development because I certainly do think this is a a great development site. Um, I just I think a little more attention should be paid to the actual site itself. And those are my comments. Thank you. >> Thanks, Sharon. Uh, Shotti, >> thank you Jennifer. Um, so I u thanks for the presentation and answering our questions. Um the presentation and the conversation question and answer was helpful because there was a lot of like um information that was missing from the package that we couldn't figure out. So this was helpful. Um I agree with the overall um comments from my co-panelists. Um but I from my point of view and urban design specific uh I encourage the team to take a second look at the interface of the building on both sides um like at the uh corner and along the local street. Um maybe that will be tied into the overall uh like um size of the development and then reducing potentially the number of parking required so that the interface can be more active. Um [snorts] and also um the overall length of the building um it's a concern right now for me. I guess a second look at how it's designed and the size of it could help it to become less um um for the lack of better word like opposing like uh so so big and chunky. Um yeah, but I also agree that this is a great development uh location and hopefully something will um happen there. Thank you. Thanks Shotty Dennis. >> Thanks very much and and thanks for the presentation. Um yes, I'm not going to uh try to repeat too much of what's already been discussed, but this is a very complex site um for obvious reasons. It is at the intersection of two pretty, you know, wonderful natural um creek corridors. Um, so my first gut instinct is to say, well, could you have looked at a little bit step back and look at how this site and all the other sites that are around here uh work together to create um something bigger as far as aspirations. Um, and that might help you determine how to approach how to approach the massing and the site layout and and the relationships to the the natural environment. Um, I do think, you know, this is this is a great opportunity to develop something here. Um, but again the the issue of scale, proportion, transition are I do think a bit heavy-handed and and again that's why I think if you look at it in association with perhaps other sites along Olgav and Old Ancaster that you get a get a different picture about the role of the site uh within the uh within the town. Um and to that point I I agree the the length of the building is is is quite long at at the 87 m. Um, I think there has to be a look at the the distinct transitions to to both the the natural environment but also to the the urban intersection of Governor's Road and Elgivi. Um, I think I'm going to leave my comments at there. I think everything else has been uh discussed by the panelists. Thanks very much. >> Thanks, Dennis. Tyler, any comments? >> Uh, yes. Um, thanks for the presentation. I know this will be repetitive, but um uh maybe just I think the most important thing that we've heard multiple times is is an acknowledgement of the natural heritage system. It is a improving the marketability uh of the units uh that will be on this property as well. Um just recognizing it and trying to design amenity space that acknowledges it and connects with it uh really seems like it would be a strong foundation for this design um versus just kind of turning the back of the building towards it and ignoring it. So I know it has been said multiple times by other panelists and just want to stress that is very critical point here and maybe going back um rethinking planning from that perspective. Thank you. >> Thanks Tyler. Uh so I I will summarize I think some of the points we've heard and I agree with with all of the feedback here. I um number one I think yes this is a very complex site and and I think the panel struggled a little bit with what guidelines we should uh use to evaluate it given that the site is uh a natural heritage site. It's not zoned for multi-unit residential. So uh you know height, density uh etc etc. Um it it we were wondering where to start. Um and then to a certain point it's an engineering uh question. I I think this has to be reviewed by the conservation authority. So so some of those approvals are beyond our realm of commentary but complex site that that deserves uh more thorough planning to see if this is even feasible. Um uh I I like the comments that I hear about um addressing the site in a super positive way. I mean it's a beautiful site that adjacent to two creeks and it does seem to turn its back on that natural heritage. So um there are potent potential there that could be wonderful. Um, it I heard a comment from our panelists that this is a four-sided building and I share concerns about the the the side that's on the top of the top of the page of of what we're seeing here. Um, that will be viewed from the the corner of Governor's Road and um and Oller, I think, uh, beyond the Dollarama. Um, because that is a prominent elevation. Um uh I have concerns about the overall length of the building. As mentioned before, at 87 m long, it it uh exceeds the guidelines that tell us that it that a fabric building should be a maximum of 60 m without being broken. And I understand in your design rationale that you're you're adding a reveal there that would address that need for a break, but I think it's not a physical break. I'm sure it's a color and texture break, but I don't think it achieves the intent of that clause. Um, but again, we're, you know, in the absence of a of a policy for this site, uh, we can look at other guidelines for or guidance on that. Um and and in final comment that um goes back to a comment uh by the city at the beginning that they thought the previous proposal at at nine stories was overdevelopment of the site and now we're looking at a proposal for 12 stories. So I I do share the concern that um that there's just a little bit too much by being shoehorned into this this fabulous site. it could be a bit more sensitive to where it is. Um, uh, we now open the floor for, uh, the the proponents to, uh, provide any questions or comments back to the panelist or panel panelists. >> Wayne, maybe did you want to start with you if you had any comments? >> Well, I've got questions, but I don't know if they're for this group. It's almost a question of um like when I'm doing this here and this is sort of we made a development line which that's just a line we you know that was sort of made for the building but you know if we were to be showing paths and walkways does that is that a bad thing in this area or is that mean all of a sudden we're developing and then all of a sudden it >> Yeah, this is a natural heritage question. I don't think it's for this group, but >> sorry, what should there be a freaking pathway through here? Absolutely. >> But it's more a matter of >> can you legally call it a pathway in terms of development? And maybe we're sort of almost messing ourselves up by saying, you know, oh, we're we're filling our whole development area. Well, the only reason why we pick this line is that's the only area we need, right? You know, if we are putting a pathway out there, does that mean we I need to move my development line out? And no, you can't move a development line out even though it's a pathway and something that's good. So I I don't know if I can do that. I did hear sorry I know the client's going to kill me for even saying this, but whoever said why is the terrace here, not here. Yeah, kudos. Yeah, that would be sort of nice, wouldn't it? Um if the building was here, which would break the building up and it wouldn't look so long and the amenity was here. I but I shouldn't say that because the client will kill me because there's a whole process that goes with that. But yeah, sometimes people are right. Yeah. Um so I don't is there really a question? I did hear potentially picking up additional land because this is a strange condition here where where our property line is so far away from the sidewalk. it becomes almost strange like if it was part of the development it could be you know more under the control and we could do something really beautiful you know should we be looking at a potential of picking up this land obviously not for building but just to make a better land is is there a process for that that that you can direct us to as to uh to do that because obviously as you're saying pops area down here why not right incorporating this better within the project itself. Why not? Right? It's just we got this sort of you know it's a whose space is that type of thing at the end of the day is it because if it's kept under the the purvey of of the of the developer then it's all going to be cared for and maintained and everything else whereas right now this is little bit not. So those are just comments as much as questions. Sorry. I'll pass it to Leanne for any comments from her and then I'll wrap up. >> Uh, no. Other than to kind of continue Wayne's thought, you know, I think even though we see property lines on plan, um, they are invisible in real life. And I think that people will walk the trails. And I think that people will use the boulevard um for walking and you know, maybe a little um you know, place to hang out and um and watch life go by on the sidewalk whether or not we say that it's within or without the site. >> Yeah. And just to wrap up, I thought there was a lot of good comments and um opinions shared by the panel. I appreciate all your feedback. um as you're all, you know, in the industry, you can all appreciate there's always that balance of trying to provide um a great site from an urban design perspective, ensuring you're protecting natural heritage and then also unfortunately as all of these things are always tied to viability, financial viability of a pro project and how you can get a product out there that um doesn't end up losing money, but also So uh does maintain all those good policies and goals. Um so we will definitely take back this feedback to the client and see how we can uh uh improve upon the site as currently proposed. Um and yeah again appreciate all the feedback. >> Thank you for that at this point. Uh thank you for everyone in attendance and everyone who provided commentary and at this point we'll adjourn the meeting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you everyone. Bye. >> Thank you. >> Always the last to leave the party.