No portico. Disappointing.
But there is a lot to like.
I'd say it's a definite improvement compared to the earlier renders.
(11-03-2021, 02:18 PM)cherrypark Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: pzKZ38C.png]](https://i.imgur.com/pzKZ38C.png)
(04-28-2023, 11:24 PM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ]It looks great, except the setbacks on the MU zoning drive me nuts. Why isn't it just continuing the street wall that the rest of the village has? What is with Kitchener planning's obsession with setbacks in MU zones.
Is it the city requiring the setback? Or the developer wanting to have space for outdoor patios?
(04-29-2023, 02:17 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ] (04-28-2023, 11:24 PM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ]It looks great, except the setbacks on the MU zoning drive me nuts. Why isn't it just continuing the street wall that the rest of the village has? What is with Kitchener planning's obsession with setbacks in MU zones.
Is it the city requiring the setback? Or the developer wanting to have space for outdoor patios?
From my past reading of the MU zoning most of it requires the setbacks. I can't say I've looked up this specific property, but I'd be surprised if it was the developer's idea.
We see the same pattern on much of King E, which is also MU zoning. The new B&T development is set back relative to the other building on the block, and I remember reading in the application that it was required by zoning.
Wow, huge improvement on the previous sketchup mockup of the building. I don't mind the set back. It will give the potential restaurants more space for a patio. I do think this would have been a perfect building for a portico.
(04-28-2023, 11:24 PM)taylortbb Wrote: [ -> ]It looks great, except the setbacks on the MU zoning drive me nuts. Why isn't it just continuing the street wall that the rest of the village has? What is with Kitchener planning's obsession with setbacks in MU zones.
Room for the food delivery people to park... /s