Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
33,435
Reaction score
95,519
The Lobbyist Registry seems to suggest the about properties have been assembled and are in play with Osmington involved.

1692710032172.png


Aerial View:

1692710177068.png


Streetview:

1692710283777.png


Site size:

~3800m2/40,000ft2

Site Description:

One property removed from Benner Park, and just west of Allen Road and Glencairn Station. (~100M)
Site runs almost as far as Marlee in the west.

Comments:

Site is theoretically large enough for two towers, alternatively a substantial, chonky midrise could work; however, given the presence of the station and the very nearby proposal for 33s across the street and at Marley, I would assume this will be play for height.

Located immediately west of an existing park, shadowing may be a minor concern, though the park has unobstructed eastern sun (protected by Allen Road) and southern sun for the foreseeable future. I don't think this need be a material issue here.

The site does, however, back into a row of SFH on Romar Cres. Currently these don't appear to have good intensification potential, but I think that's deceiving, also being next to Benner Park (but currently without access to same), a punched through access off the end of this street would put its homes within 150M of Glencairn Station making them a potential target as well.

@innsertnamehere will tell us about the existing zoning. I assume yellowbelt, unless an MTSA here has changed that.

But this is a spot ripe for conversion.

Potential considerations:

- Parkland acquisition. Growing the park to which this site is nearly adjacent is an obvious choice. But would require an off-site acquisition; other area parks have been identified as desirable for expansion in the alternative.

- Viewmount may be a sensible location for Cycle Tracks as room exists for these on the bridge over the Allen. This may be require an ROW widening here.
 
There was a meeting w/the Councillor on this one yesterday.
 
It appears that 16-18 Romar Crescent and 255 Viewmount Avenue have transacted per Altus

255 would be within the assembly I indicated above, 16-18 Romar, however would be new, assuming they are joining this project.

Those 2 would make a fairly sensible parkland acquisition for this one. Add in 249 Viewmount along with 17, 19 and 20 Romar and that would would complete a very substantial and usable park.

(clearly all that is not happening on the back of this one development, just saying)

That would be a ~0.5ha / 1.25ac addition to the existing park and create a 1.5ha/ 3.75ac park overall.
 
255 would be within the assembly I indicated above, 16-18 Romar, however would be new, assuming they are joining this project.

Those 2 would make a fairly sensible parkland acquisition for this one. Add in 249 Viewmount along with 17, 19 and 20 Romar and that would would complete a very substantial and usable park.

(clearly all that is not happening on the back of this one development, just saying)

That would be a ~0.5ha / 1.25ac addition to the existing park and create a 1.5ha/ 3.75ac park overall.
What would be the purpose of such a big parkland acquisition? Is it required for high rise developments?
 
What would be the purpose of such a big parkland acquisition? Is it required for high rise developments?

IF the acquisitions on Romar are parkland they aren't huge, but would probably be an over dedication (I'd have to to check, but in general, acquisitions are capped at 10% of site area, or the market value thereof).

But it wouldn't be out of the question as reasonable to meet obligations and a modest over dedication could be addressed in a number of ways.

****

My larger suggestion represents good Parks planning and not something that can be forced on a proponent. But it makes life easier for Parks if the proponent does the leg work.

This too can be offset.

Options include:

1) The developer being able to use any over-dedication (excess land beyond what they are obliged to buy) to offset their obligations at any other nearby proposal they have.

2) They could work out a deal with another area developer, of which there are many, to either carry this out on their behalf, and/or the other developer could carry out purchases here.

3) The City could reimburse the proponent from established parkland acquisition funds, for any excess purchase.

****

The point is to achieve a more functional park space one that allows a greater range of uses (playground, tennis, sports field, skating rink, natural area, picnic space etc etc.)

Tiny parks are expensive to operate, and rarely represent more than a treed space to sit with a drinking fountain. Not a bad thing, but not very cost effective in terms of delivering amenity to the community.
 
Last edited:
Soil sampling has been happening across from the original site. Not sure if this is part of the same development or a different one is being proposed. Anybody have any insights?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9588.jpeg
    IMG_9588.jpeg
    269.1 KB · Views: 13
  • IMG_9571.jpeg
    IMG_9571.jpeg
    272.9 KB · Views: 15
  • IMG_9269.jpeg
    IMG_9269.jpeg
    235.4 KB · Views: 6

Back
Top