Razz
Senior Member
This wide angle view better illustrates the low to mid-rise built form of the St. Lawrence neighbourhood.
Last edited:
Toronto Time and Space Condos | 101.8m | 29s | Pemberton | Wallman Architects
- Thread starter M5A
- Start date
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,670
- Reaction score
- 25,493
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
The Staff Report is available and was accepted by Council on Thursday. No agreement was reached and it appears to be off to the OMB but a settlement still seems possible.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-84354.pdf
The City objections (generally shared by the Neighbourhood Association) are:
a) the reduction of the height of the northern towers to below 30 storeys and 95 metres, excluding mechanical penthouse and the reduction of height of the southern towers to below 20 storeys and 65 metres, excluding mechanical penthouse;
b) the increase of tower setback from The Esplanade to a minimum of 24 metres;
c) the reconfiguration of massing to accommodate the 24 metre tower setback from The Esplanade;
d) the increase of tower separation distance to 25 metres in the north-south alignment through recession of balconies on the associated building faces;
e) the revision of the unit mix to provide a minimum of 15% 2 bedroom units and a minimum of 10% 3 bedroom units;
f) the provision of two Type B loading spaces, one of which can be shared with a Type G loading space;
g) the submission of a parking utilization study to determine whether there is capacity in four Toronto Parking Authority lots in the area to accommodate the residential visitor requirement for 101 visitor spaces;
h) the provision and maintenance of a dedicated on-site "pet friendly" exercise and relief area with bag station and garbage disposal as well as a pet washing and grooming station, which is accessible to all future residents of the proposed development;
i) the provision and maintenance of both an indoor and outdoor amenity space that is designed to cater to families with children which is accessible to all future residents of the proposed development;
j) the requirement for an updated Pedestrian Wind Study in order to assess pedestrian level wind conditions with the proposed development, and determine what built form and other mitigative solution may be required; and
k) the owner addressing the outstanding comments outlined in the memorandum dated August 9, 2015 from the Manager, Engineering and Construction Services, Toronto and East York District.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-84354.pdf
The City objections (generally shared by the Neighbourhood Association) are:
a) the reduction of the height of the northern towers to below 30 storeys and 95 metres, excluding mechanical penthouse and the reduction of height of the southern towers to below 20 storeys and 65 metres, excluding mechanical penthouse;
b) the increase of tower setback from The Esplanade to a minimum of 24 metres;
c) the reconfiguration of massing to accommodate the 24 metre tower setback from The Esplanade;
d) the increase of tower separation distance to 25 metres in the north-south alignment through recession of balconies on the associated building faces;
e) the revision of the unit mix to provide a minimum of 15% 2 bedroom units and a minimum of 10% 3 bedroom units;
f) the provision of two Type B loading spaces, one of which can be shared with a Type G loading space;
g) the submission of a parking utilization study to determine whether there is capacity in four Toronto Parking Authority lots in the area to accommodate the residential visitor requirement for 101 visitor spaces;
h) the provision and maintenance of a dedicated on-site "pet friendly" exercise and relief area with bag station and garbage disposal as well as a pet washing and grooming station, which is accessible to all future residents of the proposed development;
i) the provision and maintenance of both an indoor and outdoor amenity space that is designed to cater to families with children which is accessible to all future residents of the proposed development;
j) the requirement for an updated Pedestrian Wind Study in order to assess pedestrian level wind conditions with the proposed development, and determine what built form and other mitigative solution may be required; and
k) the owner addressing the outstanding comments outlined in the memorandum dated August 9, 2015 from the Manager, Engineering and Construction Services, Toronto and East York District.
slicecom
Active Member
The Acura dealership on the site has finally moved to their new location. The only business left on site now is the parking lot.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,670
- Reaction score
- 25,493
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
The 2-week OMB hearing set to start on 1 February has now been postponed until 8 February because the City and the developer are close to agreement. From the last information I have the revisions look much better than any of the (many) previous iterations.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,670
- Reaction score
- 25,493
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
The OMB hearing that was originally going to start today (having been postponed from February 1) has been further postponed to this Thursday and Friday. The City and the developer are apparently going to present a settlement to the Board then.
slicecom
Active Member
Looking forward to seeing this settlement!
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,670
- Reaction score
- 25,493
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
There was, apparently, a settlement and a draft by-law is being worked on. I assume that it needs Board approval before it can all be publicised but I understand that the two towers on Front will be slightly "mis-aligned' so that the street- wall on Front is broken up and on the west side (along Lower Sherbourne) it will look more like several separate buildings. The large open POPS on the north-south axis with a smaller one east-west remains as previously discussed.
slicecom
Active Member
Thanks again for the update. Sounds promising! I was never going to love this project, but living so nearby, I'm glad that two of my three biggest complaints about the early proposals seem to have been taken care of. I wanted the "alley" network continue, so public could walk through mid block, which seems to have been taken care of with the POPS, and I wanted it to look like more than one building, rather than one massive block sized building. My third complaint was I wanted more retail, but I'll take what I can get!
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,670
- Reaction score
- 25,493
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
The OMB decision on this (Case PL140323 ) is now online. I assume the fin(er) details will be in the Zoning by-law.
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER ON FEBRUARY 11, 2016
[1] Sentinel (Sherbourne) Land Corporation (“Sentinel”) wishes to develop a site on the east side of Lower Sherbourne Street between Front Street East and The Esplanade.
[2] This matter now comes to the Board on consent between Sentinel and the City of Toronto (“City”).
[3] The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association (“SLNA”) was added as a participant at a prehearing in this matter.
[4] SLNA was in attendance at the hearing but did not address the Board in this matter.
[5] The Board heard from Paul Stagl, a Registered Professional Planner in Ontario.
[6] The proposed development is for a mixed use, residential and commercial development. The proposal has undergone a number of modifications in response to comments and concerns from the City and from the SLNA. The subject site is within the King-Parliament Regeneration Area. The City’s objectives in this area are to encourage investment and improve the built form and streetscape. The site is currently a surface parking lot.
[7] The proposal places the highest structures at the Front Street East end of the site. The proposal then steps down significantly to The Esplanade. The south side of The Esplanade is a linear park.
[8] Parking is enclosed and not visible from the street.
[9] The site now has considerable permeability with east/west connections at approximately the mid-point.
[10] The north/south permeability is created in large measure by a substantial green space that penetrates the site and provides a strong visual connection to the park on the south side of The Esplanade. In total, about 40% of the site is devoted to privately-owned, publicly-accessible open space.
[11] Sidewalks have been widened and the buildings stepped back to enhance the pedestrian realm.
[12] The number of residential units has been reduced and the mix of unit sizes has changed. Now, 10% of the units will be three-bedroom units, responding to the desire to provide additional options for families.
[13] The indoor and outdoor amenity space meets or exceeds the City standards. There will be specific child-friendly indoor and outdoor amenity space that is adjacent to the residential amenity space.
[14] The proposal includes an on-site animal-friendly exercise and relief room that is accessible at grade and includes a washing and grooming station, a poop-bag station and garbage disposal for filled poop-bags.
[15] Servicing will be accessed from a side street and in an enclosed, interior area. Automotive and bicycle parking requirements are met.
[16] The Board finds that the proposal has had appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13 (“Act”), is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and conforms to the City official plan.
[17] Exhibit 4, as filed in these proceedings, contains the visual evidence in this matter. Pages A01 through A17 contain the plans and drawings for the proposed development.
[18] Exhibit 5, as filed in these proceedings, is the revised proposed draft zoning by-law amendment (“ZBLA”). The ZBLA includes section 37 provisions. These provisions include a financial contribution of $2.5 million with identified items on which the monies may be spent. The clause also includes the following:
…with the provision that in the event any of the above required Section 37 cash contributions have not been used for the intended purpose within three years of the by-law coming into full force and effect, the cash contribution may be redirected for another purpose, at the discretion of the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning, in consultation with the local Councillor, provided that the purpose is identified in the Toronto Official Plan and will benefit the community in the vicinity of the subject site….
[19] Vicinity is not identified or defined.
[20] The Board was advised that the ZBLA must still go through a final review to be certain that all elements have been captured and described properly and to ensure that the ZBLA is formatted in accordance with the City’s usual formatting requirements.
[21] Updated engineering reports must still be submitted, reviewed and approved. A functional servicing report is the primary report required. In answer to a question from the Board, there is no issue of allocation. The issue is primarily a technical question of servicing alternatives.
[22] In accordance with s. 2.1 of the Act, the Board has had regard to the decision of the City to appear in support of the proposed development as set out in pages A01 through A17 of Exhibit 4 and the proposed ZBLA as set out in Exhibit 5.
[23] The Board allows the appeal in part but withholds its order until the Board is advised by the City Solicitor that:
1. The ZBLA includes a definition of “vicinity” for the alternate expenditure of section 37 monies, which definition is to be acceptable to Sentinel and to the SLNA.
2. The ZBLA is in a final form and formatted in accordance with standard City practice.
3. The updated engineering reports have been submitted, reviewed and approved by the appropriate City officials.
[24] If difficulties arise, the Board may be spoken to.
MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY SUSAN de AVELLAR SCHILLER ON FEBRUARY 11, 2016
[1] Sentinel (Sherbourne) Land Corporation (“Sentinel”) wishes to develop a site on the east side of Lower Sherbourne Street between Front Street East and The Esplanade.
[2] This matter now comes to the Board on consent between Sentinel and the City of Toronto (“City”).
[3] The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association (“SLNA”) was added as a participant at a prehearing in this matter.
[4] SLNA was in attendance at the hearing but did not address the Board in this matter.
[5] The Board heard from Paul Stagl, a Registered Professional Planner in Ontario.
[6] The proposed development is for a mixed use, residential and commercial development. The proposal has undergone a number of modifications in response to comments and concerns from the City and from the SLNA. The subject site is within the King-Parliament Regeneration Area. The City’s objectives in this area are to encourage investment and improve the built form and streetscape. The site is currently a surface parking lot.
[7] The proposal places the highest structures at the Front Street East end of the site. The proposal then steps down significantly to The Esplanade. The south side of The Esplanade is a linear park.
[8] Parking is enclosed and not visible from the street.
[9] The site now has considerable permeability with east/west connections at approximately the mid-point.
[10] The north/south permeability is created in large measure by a substantial green space that penetrates the site and provides a strong visual connection to the park on the south side of The Esplanade. In total, about 40% of the site is devoted to privately-owned, publicly-accessible open space.
[11] Sidewalks have been widened and the buildings stepped back to enhance the pedestrian realm.
[12] The number of residential units has been reduced and the mix of unit sizes has changed. Now, 10% of the units will be three-bedroom units, responding to the desire to provide additional options for families.
[13] The indoor and outdoor amenity space meets or exceeds the City standards. There will be specific child-friendly indoor and outdoor amenity space that is adjacent to the residential amenity space.
[14] The proposal includes an on-site animal-friendly exercise and relief room that is accessible at grade and includes a washing and grooming station, a poop-bag station and garbage disposal for filled poop-bags.
[15] Servicing will be accessed from a side street and in an enclosed, interior area. Automotive and bicycle parking requirements are met.
[16] The Board finds that the proposal has had appropriate regard for the matters of Provincial interest, as set out in s. 2 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. P. 13 (“Act”), is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and conforms to the City official plan.
[17] Exhibit 4, as filed in these proceedings, contains the visual evidence in this matter. Pages A01 through A17 contain the plans and drawings for the proposed development.
[18] Exhibit 5, as filed in these proceedings, is the revised proposed draft zoning by-law amendment (“ZBLA”). The ZBLA includes section 37 provisions. These provisions include a financial contribution of $2.5 million with identified items on which the monies may be spent. The clause also includes the following:
…with the provision that in the event any of the above required Section 37 cash contributions have not been used for the intended purpose within three years of the by-law coming into full force and effect, the cash contribution may be redirected for another purpose, at the discretion of the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning, in consultation with the local Councillor, provided that the purpose is identified in the Toronto Official Plan and will benefit the community in the vicinity of the subject site….
[19] Vicinity is not identified or defined.
[20] The Board was advised that the ZBLA must still go through a final review to be certain that all elements have been captured and described properly and to ensure that the ZBLA is formatted in accordance with the City’s usual formatting requirements.
[21] Updated engineering reports must still be submitted, reviewed and approved. A functional servicing report is the primary report required. In answer to a question from the Board, there is no issue of allocation. The issue is primarily a technical question of servicing alternatives.
[22] In accordance with s. 2.1 of the Act, the Board has had regard to the decision of the City to appear in support of the proposed development as set out in pages A01 through A17 of Exhibit 4 and the proposed ZBLA as set out in Exhibit 5.
[23] The Board allows the appeal in part but withholds its order until the Board is advised by the City Solicitor that:
1. The ZBLA includes a definition of “vicinity” for the alternate expenditure of section 37 monies, which definition is to be acceptable to Sentinel and to the SLNA.
2. The ZBLA is in a final form and formatted in accordance with standard City practice.
3. The updated engineering reports have been submitted, reviewed and approved by the appropriate City officials.
[24] If difficulties arise, the Board may be spoken to.
Gotzvon
Active Member
40% of the site will be POPS that sounds promising! I look forward to the site plans /renderings.
Gphorce
Active Member
Sounds like a potentially acceptable development. I'll reserve judgement until I see the renders though. They've been really pushing for a large floor plate here and I'll be surprised if they've compromised on that end.
CityPainter
Active Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2010
- Messages
- 444
- Reaction score
- 300
- Location
- SLM/Old Town/Distillery/Corktown
This signage appeared today on the former Acura lot. "Free Parking, Limited Time Only, 647-717-5424" The gate is open and some cars are parked in there. Very odd. I heard this property had not been approved for use as surface parking, has that changed? Also, the phone number on the sign apparently belongs to a business called H & Y Car Detailing located at Steeles and Warden. http://hycardetailing.ca/contact.html
maestro
Senior Member
The city can stop a business from charging for parking but, I don't think they can prevent cars from parking on an existing parking lot.
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,670
- Reaction score
- 25,493
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
It was formerly a lot for a car dealer, it was not a "parking lot" so they do need to get permission. The same thing happened with the former Greyhound parking at Front and Frederick. The city refused to grant a public surface parking lot permit but the OMB over-turned that. That may happen here, we shall see!
maestro
Senior Member
They charge on the Greyhound lot. Doesn't really answer whether the city is within their rights to barricade the gate preventing people from parking freely on the Acura site.