This building is going to get quite a bit smaller.
"Based on the differing locational attributes of the Subject Lands versus the lands on the north side of The Queensway, the Tribunal finds that a development proposal based on the L shaped design in Exhibit 11, of up and including 12 storeys in height, with an increased rear yard setback from the south property line of about 7.5 m, with a south elevation step-back of 2.5 m above the 4th floor, and the application of the angular plane to the Plastics Avenue frontage would satisfy the policy regime, provided of course that it achieves the angular plane to The Queensway and minimizes shadowing."
My assumption is that they applied for demo, shoring, excavation, and below-grade structure permits based on the original concept (rolling each from the one before it). They received those permits (completely legal as permits for commercial demo, etc, are all stand alone) and started building based on a concept that could be easily-changed if the decision didn't come down in their favour. They then likely rolled their below-grade into a conditional above-grade with the understanding that the decision would come down before they got to a floor that mattered (eg. was different than the original concept).
It's very unique, and was a huge gamble on Latch's part, but not dumb either. They lost two of the smallest floors at the top but, if they withheld those units, they wouldn't have had to cancel any contracts. Floors 12-14 would have just been the cherry on top, so to speak (higher psf due to a later sales date and 'premium' units). If you look at the render or the drawings, you could pretty easily shave off the top and not have it affect the floors below. Unsure about how the 7.5m rear setback increase changes things (an increase of 1.5m over the submitted design), but again, they clearly thought of that too.
At the end of the day, things stop getting uploaded to the AIC once it gets appealed, so it's likely that other things changed after we stopped seeing them (last AIC uploads for this are Sept. 2017).
Thanks for posting that link. When I was photographing this, I was thinking "I'm sure this still isn't approved yet!!!!" and that link goes a good deal of the way to explaining what's going on. One further link needs to be clicked and read to get it all, but it comes down to this: it looks like this will be approved at 12 storeys at Council later this month. In the meantime though, if you search the Building Permits, I'm just not sure that what we're seeing under construction is actually allowed to be built. The New Building permit status is "Refused" with a Stop Work Order noted (see below), while two partial permit applications are noted as being "Not Started." If anyone more familiar with the system can explain this to me, I would appreciate it… It appears though, that what's happening here isn't actually allowed, so it's amazing that Latch/First Avenue are pushing this so quickly if that actually is the case.This is on the Council agenda for next week. Sounds like they are finalizing a revised design with the City based on the parameters set out in the LPAT decision. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.CC31.15
Confidential attachments are typically released when the minutes from the Council meeting are posted. The minutes are not yet available. It is taking longer than usual.The item above was adopted by City Council on April 7, and following the adoption most of the confidential attachments were to be made public, but they have not been posted as such on the City's website yet.