Toronto 1414 Bayview | 30.85m | 8s | Gairloch | a—A

[interchange42]

View attachment 175204

View attachment 175205

The design suggests two-storey townhomes throughout… (they aren't two-storey units, other than for 3 that face the back) but for me, that two-storey grouping on the exterior is that residential suggestion, a modern nod to the houses in the area. It has a dignified look. One retail unit facing Bayview. All good!

42

 

[Ward14-Danforth]

Bayview should have retail extending from Merton to Eglinton.

The stretch of 4 plexes just south of eglinton to Parkhust should have been rezoned with the OPA to allow for 8 storeys or should be mixed use.

 

[WislaHD]

The stretch of 4 plexes just south of eglinton to Parkhust should have been rezoned with the OPA to allow for 8 storeys or should be mixed use.

But then City Planning won't receive development application fees from the prospective developer.

It is all about the money.

 

[.dwg]

Yes, God forbid we want the public sector to be able to generate revenue!

 

[PMT]

Preliminary Report: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-131684.pdf

 

[WislaHD]

Yes, God forbid we want the public sector to be able to generate revenue!

Well, one person's revenue is another person's expense.

In this case, the cost is downloaded to the homebuyer.

 

[Marcanadian]

 

[Tim1234]

It's going to be pretty tough for City Planning not to support this application. Seems 100% consistent w the Official Plan Amendment they just passed for this area

 

[Msleylar]

Yes, God forbid we want the public sector to be able to generate revenue!

Doesn't city planning operate on a full cost recovery basis? More revenue in application fees doesn't mean more money for the City, it's just spent directly on application processing.

 

[ADRM]

Doesn't city planning operate on a full cost recovery basis? More revenue in application fees doesn't mean more money for the City, it's just spent directly on application processing.

The city reaps revenues from development well above and beyond just the application fees.

 

[Msleylar]

The city reaps revenues from development well above and beyond just the application fees.

Thats true, but the amount of DC's wouldn't be affected by whether a project required a ZBA application or not no?

They would however lose out on the ability to pursue Section 37 contributions/agreements.

 

[interchange42]

Thats true, but the amount of DC's wouldn't be affected by whether a project required a ZBA application or not no?

They would however lose out on the ability to pursue Section 37 contributions/agreements.

If the City reformed its zoning, which it absolutely should, they would also have to rework their Section 37 contribution system. The City would still have to raise those funds.

42

 

[AlbertC]

http://www.gairloch.ca/1408bayview

 

[Shazzy2]

Gairloch Developments has assembled properties at 1408 through 1420 Bayview Avenue between Merton and Balliol, and are going to be submitting an application to the City in February. The project will be proposed as an 8 storey condo with street retail and will again be an architectsAlliance design. (aA created the gorgeous 383 Sorauren for Gairloch.) They are targeting a sales launch for the end of the year.

42

and the question still is? Where is the parking for the retail level? How are you going to dig underneath for 47 spots, when you have proposed 64 units? Most ppl have two cars??? Laneway is only access.. and city owns that.

 

[innsertnamehere]

and the question still is? Where is the parking for the retail level? How are you going to dig underneath for 47 spots, when you have proposed 64 units? Most ppl have two cars??? Laneway is only access.. and city owns that.

Parking is not required for retail under a certain square footage under the zoning by-law. So none. Any customers would presumably be walk in or park on street. The retail is only about 1,000sf anyway - it's very small and barely usable for much more than a coffee shop or a convenience store.

Most people do not in fact have 2 cars. Especially in smaller units here which will be considerably more affordable than adjacent single family homes. Even the depths of Mississauga do not provide for 2 vehicles per unit in apartment buildings.. yet alone here, which is about a brisk 10 minute walk from a subway stop with half decent bus service directly outside the building's door.

The laneway is not the only access proposed - they are proposing an additional access off of Bayview. And in what world would city ownership of a laneway prevent its use by the development? That's the literal purpose of city laneways. In this case the only reason it isn't proposed as the only vehicular access is because it's too narrow to accommodate garbage collection.