Are they truly concerned about increased density or are they simply more concerned about slightly lower income individuals moving into the neighborhood? To me, it sounds like the latter, but to be politically correct, it has to be re-branded as a genuine concern for "privacy, traffic and an influx of transient people".
To be fair, out of the 80 units, only a handful were around 500k or less. 80% of the units were at least 770K with the most expensive going for 1.5 I believe.
Parking spot and locker were not included. A parking spot costs around 47k. That said, I wish I got in on this. If I didn't buy a previous pre construction, I definitely would have gotten in on this. Perfect area for my wife and I.
Issues identified to date in the review of this application include:
â€¢ Compliance with the Official Plan and Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan;
â€¢ The appropriateness of stacked townhouses in this Neighbourhood and the review of the application against the Neighbourhoods policies respecting infill development;
â€¢ Appropriateness of introducing stacked townhouses given the existing context;
â€¢ Appropriateness of the onsite building relationships and orientation of the blocks;
â€¢ Appropriateness of the proposed height, density and number of storeys;
â€¢ Relationship to neighbouring properties, including setbacks; separation distances; landscaped open space; tree preservation, and building length and massing;
â€¢ The location and function of the private driveway and its relationship to the townhouses;
â€¢ Appropriate treatment of the building facades, building entrances, landscaping and public realm, including sunken courtyard entrances adjacent to the public sidewalk;
â€¢ Review of traffic impacts, loading area, vehicular and bicycle parking, and access including access to 216 Keewatin Avenue;
â€¢ Pedestrian connections, circulation and linkages through the site and to the public sidewalk;
â€¢ Review of storage and waste pick-up;
â€¢ Review of any potential existing rental properties/units;
â€¢ Assessment of site servicing including stormwater management;
â€¢ Appropriateness of indoor and outdoor amenity areas; and
â€¢ Conformity with the environmental performance measures of the Toronto Green Standard.
IIRC pressure from these NIMBYs is the reason why none of the new condos lining Mount Pleasant have any retail. While Mount Pleasant is an ideal street for building urban, mixed-used development, the locals seem to be set on trying to preserve some kind of residential-only, low-density suburban dreamland.
In other words, they don't want retail or vibrancy. It's a huge shame and a lost opportunity. They won't stop the density, but if they're more successful in opposing retail and other amenities, this neighbourhood will be much less desirable than it could be.
The application proposes to amend the official plan to permit two 4-storey stacked townhouse blocks, plus rooftop amenity area, comprised of 80 residential units with a residential gross floor area of 8,604 square metres. Parking is proposed within a one level shared underground garage providing a total of 85 parking spaces, which includes 8 parking spaces dedicated for visitors. Driveway access is located at the west end of the site.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units --- Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
OPA 15 180825 NNY 25 OZ Jun 25, 2015 Under Review