Damn, pretty bare bones submission. Not a heck of a lot to delve into there. Full loss of office isn't good, I hope the City doesn't accept that (correspondence between Goldberg and Planning seems to suggest they're at least struggling with it).
 
Northern Light said:
The previous version of this submission, above, was appealed to OLT in October '23.

First CMC was conducted in February, next one is scheduled for Sept 16th, 2024, no Merit Hearing is yet scheduled.

While we wait:

Resubmission here w/the office component gone, its now 100% residential except for the retail at-grade.

@Paclo is flagged.

@HousingNowTO may wish to make note of this one, removal of office, close to transit, high density residential, certainly looks like an affordable housing ask to me.

Revised Site Plan:

View attachment 546704

Renders in the new submission:

View attachment 546705

View attachment 546706

View attachment 546707
Click to expand...

Although we really need all of the housing and the current office space environment, I would be surprised if they will approve this with zero office. It is in the core and a major workplace area, so it would be a shame to lose it fully as a place for office space in the future.
 
If they’re going all residential, this should be a conversion, not a teardown.

But yes, this is an affordable housing play.

888E2CB6-7BCD-4B29-BB53-A840C024785F.jpeg
DDEAC7D2-6429-4E26-9A9F-A299DA456248.jpeg
 
Northern Light said:
The OPA here (to remove the office replacement) is the subject of a Refusal Report to the next meeting of TEYCC:


The original ZBA was appealed to the OLT last October. In respect of that process, one CMC has been held, another is scheduled for Sept. 16th, 2024, no Merit Hearing has been calendared.
Click to expand...
At the risk of bothering you, may I ask if you know what has become of the building proposal or the proposal to designate the existing structure at 505 University as a heritage building?
 
Builder: 1st Do No Harm said:
At the risk of bothering you, may I ask if you know what has become of the building proposal or the proposal to designate the existing structure at 505 University as a heritage building?
Click to expand...

You may ask, and I am not bothered, since you asked nicely! :)

The heritage designation was adopted at Council on June 26th, 2024.

That designation, along with the Refusal Report at Council are under appeal to the OLT.

The next Case Management Conference is scheduled for February 28th, 2025.

The last one just occurred on Sept 16th; and the result from that published Sept 27th, 2024.

You can catch up on that here:


@Paclo
 
They need to preserve the entire 20s height of the existing building to maintain its sense of verticality. That's how it was always intended, even if it was built in two phases.
 
Northern Light said:
You may ask, and I am not bothered, since you asked nicely! :)

The heritage designation was adopted at Council on June 26th, 2024.

That designation, along with the Refusal Report at Council are under appeal to the OLT.

The next Case Management Conference is scheduled for February 28th, 2025.

The last one just occurred on Sept 16th; and the result from that published Sept 27th, 2024.

You can catch up on that here:


@Paclo
Click to expand...
I'm so relieved to hear that. The appeal worries me somewhat, but I'm going to take solace for now in the hope that appeals are not commonly upheld. Thanks.
 
Builder: 1st Do No Harm said:
I'm so relieved to hear that. The appeal worries me somewhat, but I'm going to take solace for now in the hope that appeals are not commonly upheld. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I will need to partially correct you.......

By default, an appeal of a standard non-report or refusal (zoning) will generally get a developer some type of approval, or, more likely, a settlement with the City, who might fear something worse gets approved.

Now, that is not always the case, once in a while a developer gets handed a complete and total loss.

****

That said, the one that should give you greater confidence is the heritage designation, those are usually upheld.

The question then is likely what the City feels must be preserved under that designation, and to the extent the Tribunal agrees, is there an economically viable development left on the table?
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I'm afraid I will need to partially correct you.......

By default, an appeal of a standard non-report or refusal (zoning) will generally get a developer some type of approval, or, more likely, a settlement with the City, who might fear something worse gets approved.

Now, that is not always the case, once in a while developer gets handed a complete and total loss.

****

That said, the one that should give you greater confidence is the heritage designation, those are usually upheld.

The question then is likely what the City feels must be preserved under that designation, and to the extent the Tribunal agrees, is there an economically viable development left on the table?
Click to expand...
Thanks for your reply. What's your gut feeling on it? Will the City grant a permit for some sort of Franken-condo?

I don't see how a facade preservation approach could be possible, so I'm finding a compromise hard to imagine.

I seem to recall that the lot is large enough for adding another tower, but I'd certainly hope that such an addition would leave airspace between it and the present building.

I'm very interested in your opinion, so please let me know.
 
Last edited:
Builder: 1st Do No Harm said:
Thanks for your reply. What's your gut feeling on it? Will the City grant a permit for a some sort of Franken-condo?

I don't see how a facade preservation approach could be possible, so I'm finding a compromise hard to imagine.

I seem to recall that the lot is large enough for adding another tower, but I'd certainly hope that such an addition would leave airspace between it and the present building.

I'm very interested in your opinion, so please let me know.
Click to expand...

I'd have to rack my brain to think of the last time the City ardently demanded an entire building be preserved. They've agreed to more than few 'franken condos' over the years.

@ProjectEnd would probably know.

My instinct here is:

Heritage Designation upheld.

That probably: Results in a demand to either retain in-situ, or carefully dismantle and rebuild the existing facade. The key point of contention would be to the original height, or the current height. The City's designation suggests the act of adding the additional floors was a technological achievement for its time, and that would therefore demand full-height preservation.

I think there's a reasonable chance the OLT upholds that.

But I also expect, there's a reasonable chance that the City will agree to the tower concept above that height.

If so, the question is whether or not that's economically viable.

In the short-term, I imagine the answer is 'no'. But that doesn't mean the owners won't accept the entitlement, even if they can't use it for the foreseeable future.

Again, I would defer to PE whose got more expertise on this than I..........

But in the end, I think there is probably something agreed to here..........but it probably won't be built anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top