Toronto 36 Birch | 17.37m | 4s | North Drive | Richard Wengle

Marcanadian

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
4,001
Reaction score
11,075
Site Plan Approval and Rezoning sought for another Summerhill infill development:

32rrr32www.JPG


26 BIRCH AVE
Ward 22 - Tor & E.York District


Proposed Site Plan Application to permit a 4-storey residential building containing 27 condominium dwelling units and 27 rental dwelling units with a total Gross Floor Area of 6894.45 m2. The proposed development provides 1 level of underground parking with 52 parking spaces for residents and 6 visitor parking spaces.

http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...icationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=4433708
 

Attachments

  • 32rrr32www.JPG
    32rrr32www.JPG
    254.8 KB · Views: 4,040
Architect is Richard Wengle:
upload_2018-8-22_20-16-4.png


upload_2018-8-22_20-16-25.png


upload_2018-8-22_20-16-45.png


upload_2018-8-22_20-17-4.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-8-22_20-16-4.png
    upload_2018-8-22_20-16-4.png
    613.9 KB · Views: 2,606
  • upload_2018-8-22_20-16-25.png
    upload_2018-8-22_20-16-25.png
    605.4 KB · Views: 2,612
  • upload_2018-8-22_20-16-45.png
    upload_2018-8-22_20-16-45.png
    551.2 KB · Views: 2,347
  • upload_2018-8-22_20-17-4.png
    upload_2018-8-22_20-17-4.png
    676.9 KB · Views: 2,343
I like the project.

I am extremely skeptical that the City will support the rear facing units proposed for this location. Facing into other people's backyards. For the record I think this is fine, but you know how the City is about the yellowbelt (Neighbourhoods land use designation). This is really an apartment building, not towns. See for example this ground floor plan.

1548164289102.png


The rear/north facing principal windows of the rear/north units are only 7.55m from the adjacent property line. EDIT: The Planning Rationale states "The second level projects over the ground level and provides a setback of 5.2m from the rear property line". Hmmmm.

Interestingly there are also gates proposed back there, one for each unit? Where do these go? I cannot see a City lane or anything between this and the adjacent north properties, so these gates are into/out of private property?

1548164406377.png


Here is a snip of the context map from the Planning Rationale (Goldberg Group):

1548164481890.png


Not sure I would have gone straight into SPA without doing a zoning round first. May end up being quite expensive if significant redesign is required. As I suspect it will be.

Here is the rear vie. These are principal windows.

1548164538850.png


I understand the proposed layout of the development site. It makes a lot of sense actually. I am just not sure it will get legs with City Planning due to the rear condition. The site is Designated Neighbourhoods and zoned R (d1.0) (x745).

EDIT: Planning Rationale states "In order to implement the proposal, amendments to both former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 and the new City of Toronto Zoning By-law 569-2013 are required. An Official Plan Amendment (OPA) is not required as the low-rise four storey apartment building type is recognized as a permitted use in the Neighbourhoods lands [sic] use designation of the City OP and within the existing Zoning By-laws governing the subject site."

Very curious to see what happens with this.

1548164649570.png
 
Last edited:
consent is a fancy term for splitting a lot into multiple lots. In this case, likely into 7 lots for the 7 units proposed here.

The proposal is for a 27-unit, four-storey apartment building. The consent is not for lot splitting in this case. See excerpt from cover letter from Consent Application. (Takes one click to look at this instead of guessing incorrectly!)

1548165235941.png


My guess is that some or all neighbours had informal / habitual access to and through the previous property, and want to preserve that as a condition of supporting or perhaps not opposing development.
 

Back
Top