City of Hamilton Design Review Panel Examines Upper James Street Development

The City of Hamilton Design Review Panel reviewed plans for an eight-storey, purpose-built rental building at 1452 Upper James Street. The proposal includes 252 residential units, 822 square metres of ground-floor retail space, approximately 3,000 square feet of amenity space and 285 parking spaces.

Panel members asked the applicant to reduce the building's visual mass, improve pedestrian connections and retail access, address parking and traffic issues, strengthen landscaping and screening for neighbouring homes, and provide more detail about sustainability measures.

Topics Discussed

DEVELOPMENT SCALE AND HOUSING

The proposed 26.6-metre building would be located on a two-acre site between Stone Church Road and Rymal Road. The current permitted height is 22 metres, or six storeys. Planning consultant Andrea Kamina said the applicable policies could permit a building of up to 12 storeys without an Official Plan amendment if specified criteria are met.

The project would include 252 rental units. The proposed unit mix is approximately 56 per cent one-bedroom, 7 per cent one-bedroom-plus-den, 30 per cent two-bedroom, 1 per cent two-bedroom-plus-den and 7 per cent three-bedroom units.

The project team described the proposal as a purpose built rental. John, a project representative, said the building would contain "252 units," 822 square metres of retail space, 285 parking spaces and more than 3,000 square feet of amenity space.

Panel members requested additional stepbacks and stronger articulation to reduce the building's visual mass. One panelist described it as "a very big building on Upper James that exceeds the six-story rise" and asked the design team to explore ways to "bring back down the mass of the building."

PARKING, TRAFFIC AND ACCESS

The site is in parking rate area one, where no minimum parking standard applies. The applicant nevertheless proposes 285 spaces in underground and above-grade facilities. City transportation staff said the proposal exceeds parking maximums and recommended further review. The project team said it had submitted a revised traffic impact study and planned to seek a minor variance for the additional parking.

Vehicles would enter through one access point at the south end of the site, with internal circulation along the west side. Loading and servicing areas would be located at the rear.

Panel members asked how access to properties south of the site would be maintained and suggested formalizing access agreements. Pedestrian connections to neighbourhoods west of the property were removed following discussions with transportation staff. The applicant said, "at this point there is not a connection."

PEDESTRIAN REALM AND RETAIL

Reviewers asked the applicant to redesign the sidewalk and landscaping along Upper James Street. Specific suggestions included moving the pedestrian path closer to the building, creating a tree-planted buffer between pedestrians and traffic, and limiting planters near storefront entrances.

The panel also discussed a two-metre-wide walkway on the south side of the property connecting rear parking to the retail frontage. Members asked that the walkway be made more pedestrian-friendly.

Panel members emphasized that the ground-floor retail should be visible and accessible. During the discussion, a panel member said, "we've all seen residential projects that are built out and occupied but there's no retail activity at grade," and said retail should be "as welcoming and accessible as possible."

BUILDING MASSING, SHADOWS AND NEIGHBOURING HOMES

The property backs onto lower-density residential homes and two proposed townhouse developments to the west, which would contain a combined 140 units.

The applicant proposed a stepped and terraced rear design to reduce shadow impacts on the potential residential properties to the west. Panel members requested stronger screening, greater setbacks and additional upper-level stepbacks to address privacy, shadowing, pedestrian wind and the building's impact on nearby homes.

Urban designer Edward Winter said the project team was "looking at the building podium and how it could be strengthened to give more presence in the pedestrian realm and the streetscape if the upper [levels were] stepped back."

The panel also discussed a nearly two-metre barrier required around amenity spaces because of local noise and vibration levels.

MATERIALS, LANDSCAPING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

Panel members questioned the proposed use of exterior insulation and finish systems, or EIFS, on the sides and rear of the building. The project team said the ground floor facing Upper James Street would use dark brick, while EIFS would be used on the sides and rear. Reviewers requested higher-quality materials at street level.

The panel also asked the applicant to preserve existing greenery where possible and add mature canopy trees. Members questioned the proposed placement of a gas meter and hydro transformer within the setback area. One panelist suggested enclosing the transformer rather than leaving "a big transformer sitting out front."

Panelist Olga asked whether the project had sustainability goals or environmental measures, saying, "I didn't hear anything mentioned in the report or the presentation."

Motions

• No formal motions or decisions were identified in the provided meeting material.

Attendees

• City urban designer Edward Winter
• Lead planner Chris Hamson Curtis
• Planning consultant Andrea Kamina
• Representatives of Armstrong Planning and Project Management
• Representatives of Chamberlains Architects
• Representatives of Elite Developments
• Panel participants identified as Olga, Shotti, Sharon and Eric
• Chair not identified in the provided material