Toronto 1 Eglinton Square | 158.8m | 46s | KingSett Capital | BDP Quadrangle

Request for Interim Directions Report: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-115365.pdf
This Report responds to an application where staff are currently not in a position to provide a Final Report to Council, but which could be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal due to a lack of decision during the break in Council's meeting schedule (July to December 2018).

The application is premature and should not be considered until the Golden Mile Secondary Plan (GMSP) Study is completed. The proposed development is not supportable in its current form and has not demonstrated how it will fit in with a future vision for the Golden Mile Study Area. The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, in its current form is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014), does not conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), and does not conform to the City's Official Plan.
Click to expand...

Planning recommends that Council send staff to oppose this development at the LPAT. A second pre-hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2018.
 
"Conclusion

The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application has been reviewed against the policies of the PPS (2014), the Growth Plan (2017) and the Official Plan. Staff are of the opinion that the Zoning By-law amendment is premature in the context of the on- going Golden Mile Secondary Plan Study, and in its current form, is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS 2014), does not conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2017), and does not conform to the City's Official Plan.

Staff recommend that City Council direct City Staff to continue to negotiate with the applicant to try to resolve the outstanding issues detailed in this report in the context of the ongoing GMSP Study. City Council direct the City Solicitor, and appropriate City Staff, to attend and oppose the application in its current form should the application be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (the "LPAT") on the basis of Council's failure to make a decision on the application within the statutory timeframe."
 
Staff are correct to try to stifle this one.

This site needs a very different treatment from what is currently envisioned.

The City is seriously examining creating a new E-W street parallel to Eglinton on the south side which would be between Comstock and Eglinton, and ideally run through to, just through, the Eglinton Square lands.

There is a strong desire to break up the super blocks along Eglinton to create connectivity, along the south side, between Eglinton and the 'new street' in particular.

Creating a finer, more urban grid, that promotes walkability is a key goal for the area.

Moreover, the proposal to retain the existing mall treatment and simply build around it, without logical land assembly completion (the n/e corner is not owned by the mall), the proposed build out feels
awkward and imposed on an existing, constrained sight.

The developer, if serious, and not just engaged in a upzoning exercise, should come back with a staged redevelopment that creates animated street retail along Eglinton, divides the site into 6 blocks w/the high density north of the new E-W street, and could incorporate a mall, or preferably and outdoor mews in sections w/retail also animating the north side of the new E-W street.

Redevelop the supermarket, create a free-standing and/or outward facing pubic library, all parking underground, not sure about keeping 'The Bay' I find it quite convenient, but I think at its current size/draw it may be questionable. However, a 3-storey version as part of massive new density may work.

This site has a great deal of potential, none of it realized by the proposal that is under consideration.
 
I'm not disputing the merits of your other points, but finer grain is good while at the same time it's bad that the northeast corner of the block is not owned by KingSett? I'd say some assembly not required in this case.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I'm not disputing the merits of your other points, but finer grain is good while at the same time it's bad that the northeast corner of the block is not owned by KingSett? I'd say some assembly not required in this case.

42
Click to expand...
ggJnXNV8iXR2

data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVrCArSAOLG1_6G8xFBPDtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d4cddd940c7fe3:0x25bdd211edbc0e7!8m2!3d43.7255738!4d-79.2974833


The missing corner is currently an ugly 2 unit plaza (former gas station) w/an optical place and a also-ran (even for) Burger King location.

To grid the site requires shifting density to its most logical locations, and that corner would be one.

Besides, getting rid of that crap is a priority!

**The non-showing images were google-streetview. Got the sharable link, still doesn't work.
 
Northern Light said:
ggJnXNV8iXR2

data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sVrCArSAOLG1_6G8xFBPDtw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d4cddd940c7fe3:0x25bdd211edbc0e7!8m2!3d43.7255738!4d-79.2974833


The missing corner is currently an ugly 2 unit plaza (former gas station) w/an optical place and a also-ran (even for) Burger King location.

To grid the site requires shifting density to its most logical locations, and that corner would be one.

Besides, getting rid of that crap is a priority!

**The non-showing images were google-streetview. Got the sharable link, still doesn't work.
Click to expand...
A priority for whom? Not the owners of those properties, apparently. Not yet anyway. They can get in on the redevelopment of the area when they want. When KingSett redevelops should have no direct bearing on that, and I don't see where a third party (the City) should be trying to force anything.

Creating a plan for the area that introduces a finer grain, however, is worthwhile.

42
 
interchange42 said:
A priority for whom? Not the owners of those properties, apparently. Not yet anyway. They can get in on the redevelopment of the area when they want. When KingSett redevelops should have no direct bearing on that, and I don't see where a third party (the City) should be trying to force anything.

Creating a plan for the area that introduces a finer grain, however, is worthwhile.

42
Click to expand...

I was never suggesting the City buy the land on behalf of Kingsett.

Merely that it should be redeveloped, and that development site should be considered with the remaining lands to create a cohesive whole. That should be true whether Kingsett buys it or not.

The idea of working around that site, and ignoring it does not strike me as sound planning.

Let me add, that so far as I understand, that corner site has been the subject of previous buy out offers dating back to the development of the mall when that was a holdout parcel.

So far as I can discern, making money isn't even a priority of that ownership group, who have shown no interest in development despite owned an underutilized anti-urban, unrepentantly ugly site.

I still don't think the City should buy it though.
 
You're right, it shouldn't. The City should just plan for the area in a way that when the property owners there are eventually ready to redevelop, there's zoning and a plan for new streets in place.

What should not have to suffer, in the meantime, is having the KingSett site get redeveloped. It'll need a plan that works both before and after the corner site gets revitalized. That cannot be an impossible task.

42
 
PMT said:
A third LPAT pre-hearing is scheduled for July 9, 2019: https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL171216
Click to expand...

The Golden Mile Plan that was featured in a front page story this week outlines 3 options for a new layout for the area.

Two of three proposed putting an extension of O'Connor right through the Eglinton Square site. I happen to like this idea.

Needless to say, if the City was backing such a plan, then this application has to be null and void.

Of course it's very much in question whether the City is prepared to find resources to implement this vision.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top