Panel Questions of Staff:

Heather: Wondering about the proposed park locations, why stray from original Central Park idea, and what about shadowing on the parks.

Staff: Shifting the parks to Danforth was the Councillor's idea, that's his prerogative.
 
Northern Light said:
Also, there is currently a ramp to GO Danforth station from Main Street that partially crosses the applicant's lands, they want to replace the ramp with stairs. I'm going to flag that one to @smably in light of discussions in another thread. The City obviously has accessibility concerns. Here, I would oppose the ramp being removed in favour of stairs, even if an elevator were added, which I assume is proposed, there are capacity constraints and concerns with what happens when that one elevator isn't working.
Click to expand...
Wow, thanks for flagging this. That sounds like a major downgrade from both an accessibility and functionality perspective. I hope the city pushes back hard.
 
smably said:
Wow, thanks for flagging this. That sounds like a major downgrade from both an accessibility and functionality perspective. I hope the city pushes back hard.
Click to expand...

You're welcome. Listened to the Architect's presentation. As it stands, the access is proposed as stairs, they actually haven't shown an elevator, but Metrolinx has raised the need for one if there are stairs.

The architect just went back to 'under discussion'.
 
Panel comments on overall planning:

- Insufficient improvement for public transit. Main Station has only one entrance (implicit, a second entrance would be desirable); Main and Danforth GO both need improvements

- More attention required to Main/Danforth intersection. Insufficient sidewalk width on Main (Danforth to the station) ; (I agree 100%)

- Insufficient E-W connectivity though the different sites.

- Two small parks on Danforth is not as strong a concept a single, larger central park.

- Community Center must be sited prior to approving the rest of the community; leading to a 'cart before the horse' form of planning here.

- The level of attention given to creating a coherent public realm appears to have been minimal, this is alarming.

- Public Road network layout needs reconsideration

- Access to transit is 'Resolutely Inadequate' - Meg

- No coherent vision between the various proposals, no coherence of architectural expression.

- No vote on overall Planning, only on ZBAs
 
Last edited:
Comments on this particular ZBA:

(I won't repeat, but note novel items)

Impenetrable block

Lacks appeal to pedestrians/cyclists

Too much hard surface area.

Not sure whether to take 'Arcades' seriously, seem likely to be the first thing to be VE'd out.

Some towers appear to be too close together, not enough light, too little privacy.

Corner of Main/Danforth should be a plaza./pops, not a park.

My comment: I agree with the panel's comments, but would then add I think there are really too many players you have 4 diff. arch. firms and more than one planning firm; there really seems to be no evidence at all of coordination.

Panel Vote - Unanimous Non-Support
 
Northern Light said:
Panel comments on overall planning:

- Insufficient improvement for public transit. Main Station has only one entrance (implicit, a second entrance would be desirable); Main and Danforth GO both need improvements

- More attention required to Main/Danforth intersection. Insufficient sidewalk width on Main (Danforth to the station) ; (I agree 100%)

- Insufficient E-W connectivity though the different sites.

- Two small parks on Danforth is not as strong a concept a single, larger central park.

- Community Center must be site prior to approving the rest of the community; leading to a 'cart before the horse' form of planning here.

- The level of attention given to creating a coherent public realm appears to have been minimal, this is alarming.

- Public Road network layout needs reconsideration

- Access to transit is 'Resolutely Inadequate' - Meg

- No coherent vision between the various proposals, no coherence of architectural expression.

- No vote on overall Planning, only on ZBAs
Click to expand...
I agree with all of these.
 
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of TEYCC.

Applicant has appealed to OLT and City staff will seek to oppose this.


The reasons are many and varied:

- No on-site park dedication
- Demolition of existing recreation centre, with no provision for a replacement facility.
- Massing issues
- Shadowing/Wind issues
- Additional road dedication required, including for Main and Danforth
- Raised Cycle Tracks required on Danforth

And much more.
 
beachmetro.com

Proposal to add five new buildings to Main Square site headed to Ontario Land Tribunal – Beach Metro Community News

By AMARACHI AMADIKE, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter An Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) hearing for a development proposal at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Ave., which is the site of Main Square, is set for Feb. 16 at 10 a.m. The applicant, Jacob’s Tent Inc., filed for the needed zoning bylaw...
beachmetro.com beachmetro.com


An Ontario Land Tribunal (OLT) hearing for a development proposal at 2575 and 2625 Danforth Ave., which is the site of Main Square, is set for Feb. 16 at 10 a.m.

The applicant, Jacob’s Tent Inc., filed for the needed zoning bylaw amendments on Aug. 25, 2022 with aims of redeveloping “underutilized portions of the site” with five new mixed use buildings ranging from 15 to 55 storeys. The Main Square site is currently occupied by four residential apartment buildings which range from nine to 29 storeys. It holds a dual frontage with the north side facing Danforth Avenue while the west side fronts Main Street.

Jacob’s Tent has opted to take the zoning bylaw amendment application to the OLT following what it said was Toronto Council’s failure to make a decision on the proposal.

Although reasons for council’s failure to make a decision on the application are unclear, according to the office of Beaches-East York Councillor Brad Bradford, “this is similar to a lot of sites across the city where the developer chooses to appeal it to the tribunal (OLT) for any number of reasons.”

With just over three weeks to go before the hearing, it is believed that the City of Toronto and Jacob’s Tent Inc. could still settle the matter before the OLT hearing as that often is the case.

“In [other cases], a hearing ends up occurring because the city and developer are unable to reach an agreement based on good planning principles, community benefits, density, etc…” said a representative for Bradford in an email statement to Beach Metro Community News.

If the zoning bylaw amendment is approved by the OLT, the new buildings at Main Square will create 1,543 new residential units comprising both rental units and condos.

There will be a total Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 117,128 square metres with 4,980 square metres reserved for retail and another 1,094 square metres for a proposed daycare.

The Feb. 16 hearing will be available by video conference. Anyone who would like to participate can do so by logging in at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/638422541

Interested parties are also advised to contact Michael Cara (mcara@overlandllp.ca) no later than Monday, Feb. 5, in order to provide information on the role they intend to play during the OLT proceeding.
 
The article above conflated the Case Management Conference w/the hearing. Feb 16/24 was the first CMC.

The Merit Hearing for the above proposal is scheduled for February 3rd, 2025.
 
2575danforth-001.jpg


2575danforth-002.jpg
 
A Request for Direction Report with many confidential amendments is on the agenda for next week's Council Meeting.

Agenda Item History 2024.CC19.16

Agenda Item History 2024.CC19.16
secure.toronto.ca

This report addresses this proposal as well as those at 2681 and 2721 Danforth (The Canadian Tire lands).

It would appear a negotiated settlement is on the table involving all 3 proponents.

As I'm not sure I have time to update the other threads currently I will flag @Paclo
 
Twas a series of settlement offers, they were adopted at Council.

This is the high level link for all the offers:

Agenda Item History 2024.CC19.16

Agenda Item History 2024.CC19.16
secure.toronto.ca

From the above:

1720204821829.png

1720204902317.png

1720204939229.png

1720204976967.png

1720204989352.png



No new renders as such........

This is the overall Site Plan for all 3:

1720205058149.png


Max height is unchanged, but a great deal else has....

I would like to say.....you may see some of my finger prints in the changes here........ its not as good as I was hoping for..........the two eastern owners really needed to consolidate to get something more logical together, and the City should have been a buyer of some parkland here, ah well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top