Bentall Kennedy and HPA are doing 2 St. Thomas. Given this combo and the location, I'm guessing we'll see decent materials here.

The city has been friendly to infill on towers in a park templates. With its location on subway line, hard to see the city doing much beyond tweaks.
 
The project was submitted to the City in November, 2016. It's far past when the City should have rendered a decision, so there's that aspect… but yes, it's also a case of developers wanting to be able to appeal under the system that was in place when they submitted the proposal. This does not mean that they won't still talk with the City in advance of the OMB date. They can seek to settle with the City, and will have the option of OMB-led mediation if they cannot hammer out a settlement with the City, or they can fall back on a full hearing if they feel that'll best get them what they want.

The fastest route, at this point, (for any of these developments now appealed to the OMB—this note is not specific to this site) is to continue to talk with the City and attempt to hammer out a settlement in advance of the pre-hearing. If they can do that, all they'll need to schedule afterwards is a one-day settlement hearing at the OMB. If the City, however, is not prepared to accept a developer's final offer, and they feel they would win at the OMB, the City can quit the negotiations and wait it out until a full hearing, which at this point, might take a couple of years to get to.

Developers have to weigh the length of time it will take to get to a full hearing (which they might lose) as part of their redevelopment strategy. Can they afford the wait? If yes, it could be a few years before there's a final decision.

42
 
I somehow read the previous dates as being only a couple of months ago, but now you're telling me 2016 was over a year ago? My how time flies.
I suppose it really is far past the City's deadline then.
 
New renders:
upload_2018-2-28_17-28-51.png


upload_2018-2-28_17-29-46.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-28_17-28-51.png
    upload_2018-2-28_17-28-51.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,551
  • upload_2018-2-28_17-29-46.png
    upload_2018-2-28_17-29-46.png
    894.1 KB · Views: 1,559
A new height (102.64m to the top of the elevator machine room/fins*) has been entered into the database file, along with 21 fewer suites (but presumably more larger ones: over 10% of the suites are 3-bedroom now, or 27 of 251).

42

* @DonValleyRainbow
 
Link: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-117272.pdf
On February 20, 2018, the applicant submitted a "With Prejudice" proposal offer, for a 29- storey (93 metres, including mechanical penthouse) rental infill apartment building at the northwest corner of the property municipally known as 44 Jackes Avenue and 33 Rosehill Avenue. The proposed building includes 251 rental dwelling units and 22,880 square metres of residential gross floor area, a 1-storey amenity building along the east lot line, and 761 square metres of parkland dedication along the south and east lot lines. The two existing rental apartment buildings on the site are to be retained: a 24-storey building at 44 Jackes Avenue, and a 28-storey building at 33 Rosehill Avenue. The applicant is proposing various upgrades to the existing buildings as part of this application.

The purpose of this report is to seek City Council's direction with respect to the City's position at the LPAT hearing. This report recommends that Council direct the City Solicitor, together with appropriate City staff, to support the application at the LPAT subject to the conditions in the report.

The owner has a site-specific appeal on the property, as it relates to Official Plan Amendment (OPA) No. 320. This report recommends that Council direct the City Solicitor, together with appropriate City staff, to support the proposal at the LPAT and settle the site-specific appeal for OPA No. 320.
Click to expand...
 
Design has been revised following LPAT approval. Curved balconies have been removed. "Multi-coloured, vertical metal panels span the height of the facade, with thick metal frames added for visual interest." The amenity pavilion is expected to be built first as per the Section 37 agreement with the City.

Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 8.57.20 AM.png

Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 8.59.12 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 8.59.23 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 8.57.43 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 8.57.51 AM.png
Screen Shot 2019-12-11 at 8.58.03 AM.png


app.toronto.ca

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. The Application Information Centre allows you to: Search by...
app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top