- Thread starter rdaner
- Start date
raptor
Senior Member
AHK
Senior Member
Yes - but I did not stay too long into the question period.
1. The room was very full, extra chairs had to be brought out, and there were still people standing at the back.
2. Very little information presented on the design of the proposed buildings. The City's planner spent much of his time on the area context, zoning history, in particular with respect to the changes resulting from the City's approval of the CIBC Square project, and associated impact on the massing options for the 1 Front Street project.
3. The preponderance of people commenting appeared to be from the L Tower - in addition to the individual owners, much of the Board, as well as the L Tower condominium corporation's lawyer were present
4. The majority of the comments (while I was there) pertained to the tower proposed for the south-east corner of the property, that it would have minimal setback from the property line, and the building would block the view, cut out light, from the L Tower's west facing units. A lot of people were hung up about the fact that the proposed tower would not have a 12.5 meter setback as recommended in the Tall Building Guidelines. The planner explained that the 12.5 meter requirement was really for situations where the lot line was between the subject and the abutting properties, in order to ensure a 25 meter separation between buildings - was not relevant for a lot line facing a street, as the typical width of the street and adjoining city allowance would result in a minimum separation at least 25 meters between buildings. The separation between the proposed building and L Tower would be over 25, closer to 30 meters.
5. Of course, no one commented on the fact that L Tower itself has minimal setback from its west property line - certainly not 12.5 meters. A little bit of 'I have my property and my view - I do not want you to have yours'.
6. In the time I was there, I did not hear any comments (other than from the initial presentations) on the design and architecture, or historical preservation issues associated with the project. All the comments pertained to its impact on the L Tower.
1. The room was very full, extra chairs had to be brought out, and there were still people standing at the back.
2. Very little information presented on the design of the proposed buildings. The City's planner spent much of his time on the area context, zoning history, in particular with respect to the changes resulting from the City's approval of the CIBC Square project, and associated impact on the massing options for the 1 Front Street project.
3. The preponderance of people commenting appeared to be from the L Tower - in addition to the individual owners, much of the Board, as well as the L Tower condominium corporation's lawyer were present
4. The majority of the comments (while I was there) pertained to the tower proposed for the south-east corner of the property, that it would have minimal setback from the property line, and the building would block the view, cut out light, from the L Tower's west facing units. A lot of people were hung up about the fact that the proposed tower would not have a 12.5 meter setback as recommended in the Tall Building Guidelines. The planner explained that the 12.5 meter requirement was really for situations where the lot line was between the subject and the abutting properties, in order to ensure a 25 meter separation between buildings - was not relevant for a lot line facing a street, as the typical width of the street and adjoining city allowance would result in a minimum separation at least 25 meters between buildings. The separation between the proposed building and L Tower would be over 25, closer to 30 meters.
5. Of course, no one commented on the fact that L Tower itself has minimal setback from its west property line - certainly not 12.5 meters. A little bit of 'I have my property and my view - I do not want you to have yours'.
6. In the time I was there, I did not hear any comments (other than from the initial presentations) on the design and architecture, or historical preservation issues associated with the project. All the comments pertained to its impact on the L Tower.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Refusal Report:
Reasons:
This report reviews and recommends refusal of the applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law as it does not support the role of the Financial District in maintaining office use on-site, does not provide minimum tall building setbacks, and does not conserve the scale, form and massing of the heritage Dominion Public Building. Specifically:
Reasons:
This report reviews and recommends refusal of the applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law as it does not support the role of the Financial District in maintaining office use on-site, does not provide minimum tall building setbacks, and does not conserve the scale, form and massing of the heritage Dominion Public Building. Specifically:
- The proposal is inconsistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2014), as it sets out inappropriate development standards including the absence of maximum building densities for the subject site; elimination of building setbacks from property lines and reduced tower setbacks between buildings; the inadequate mix of land uses to meet long term needs; and has not conserved the significant heritage values of the Dominion Public Building, Union Station and the Union Station Heritage Conservation District;
- The proposal fails to conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017). It does not: provide certainty on the scale and adequate transition to adjacent areas as it applies to the subject site; has not appropriately directed major office uses within the Downtown Urban Growth Centre; and does not conserve the significant heritage values of the Dominion Public Building, Union Station, and the Union Station Heritage Conservation District;
- The proposal is not consistent with the general intent of the Official Plan, as it does not focus office use in the Financial District, does not provide a built form parameter that fits within the existing and planned context, and does not conserve the significant heritage values of the Dominion Public Building, the adjacent Union Station, nor the Union Station Heritage Conservation District;
- The proposal does not maintain the intent and purpose of Official Plan Amendment 231, Official Plan Amendment 352 and Official Plan Amendment 406, particularly with respect to the elimination of existing office use on-site and the increase in residential uses beyond the as-of-right permission.
- The proposal does not address nor maintain the intent of the Council approved urban design guidelines, particularly with respect to the direction to provide a minimum 25 metres of separation distance between towers and a minimum 12.5 metre tower setback from the rear lot line; and
- The proposal does not conserve the significant heritage attributes of the Dominion Public Building as defined by the designating By-laws under Part IV and V the Ontario Heritage Act.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Basically it's getting refused since it's eliminating office space and increasing residential permissions above existing as of right, which is prohibited in TOCore.
ericmacm
Active Member
Good, I'm happy it was refused. I can't say that I was a fan of the design at all, the towers looked much too small for the scale of the podium. The towers were also way shorter and didn't fit with everything else around them. I was personally a huge fan of the original design which was office + hotel.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
. • Concerns were raised on the proposal for two towers as opposed to one tower.
Yeah the original concept was stunning, I think one taller tower makes more sense but then again there issues with shadowing that parkette across the street?
Yeah the original concept was stunning, I think one taller tower makes more sense but then again there issues with shadowing that parkette across the street?
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
That was never a serious design / proposal
ericmacm
Active Member
It may not have been serious, but it was still better than the Larco one, though.
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Well that lays a pretty good foundation for a sale to Ivanhoe Cambridge eh?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
But it wouldn't work due to the heritage long room. Hence the two-tower version that was submitted.
Capslock
Active Member
Here's hoping...
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Still in the incubator.
42
42
