310 Frances Avenue (Hamilton) | 180m | 49s | New Horizon | Graziani + Corazza

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,880
Reaction score
7,538
Location
Toronto
There is a point to be made here. It makes no sense that Hamilton limited development heights in the downtown core, meanwhile we're seeing skyscrapers proposed all the way out in Stoney Creek of all places. It really doesnt make much sense at all.

Next thing we know, we'll start seeing towers proposed at Eastgate Square that are taller than anything we see in Downtown Hamilton.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,705
Reaction score
17,845

Another article in the spectator today. Local councillor still doesn't love it but says this will be more common now that Hamilton has voted not to expand the urban boundary:

Coun. Maria Pearson says she expects the decision to freeze Hamilton’s urban boundary will see more controversial proposals in Stoney Creek like the one for three massive condominium towers near the lakeshore. A revised plan for the development at 310 Frances Ave. calls for buildings of 38, 44 and 33 storeys, down from an original 48, 54 and 59 three years ago. Pearson said she’s awaiting a staff report, but remains concerned by proponent New Horizon Development Group’s application for relief from city zoning standards on parking and amenity space.

The plan proposes 1.25 parking spaces for the towers’ 1,346 dwelling units, or 336 fewer spots than required by the standard of 1.5 spaces. It also only allots 8.8 square metres of indoor amenity space per unit, rather than the required 18 square metres each for the 1,208 one-bedroom units and 53 square metres for the 138 two-bedroom units, a shortfall of 17,214 square metres. Outdoors, the plan seeks to cut the two-hectare property’s minimum landscaped area to 36 per cent from the required 50 per cent. If there’s anything COVID has taught me, there’s not enough green space out there,” Pearson said, citing nearby condominium developments whose outdoor areas were “jam-packed all summer.” “It was horrible, the complaints I was getting about litter and people walking dogs and not picking up after the dogs, and people going and bringing firewood and having bonfires on the beach,” she said.

“I don’t know how I’m going to put another how many residents from 1,346 more units into this space. That’s what’s a little bit frustrating and that’s why their requirement is to have amenity space in their own facility.” But Pearson said she questions how calls to downsize proposals like the one on Frances Avenue will be balanced against the urban boundary freeze, which she opposed but passed by a 13-3 council vote. The move will require more housing in existing urban areas to meet population growth, straining water and sewer capacities, apart from riling neighbours, she said. “Now more than anything, this is what is going to be pushed,” Pearson said. “I can’t upsize the size of a pipe on King Street when the capacity downstream for that flow isn’t there to take it. Tell me how we do that without blasting out half the city.”
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,880
Reaction score
7,538
Location
Toronto

Another article in the spectator today. Local councillor still doesn't love it but says this will be more common now that Hamilton has voted not to expand the urban boundary:
I dont even know why the proposal to expand Hamilton's urban boundary was even floated. The current city limits are already massively large, and already has literally thousands of lots that are prime for development. This is all about councillors (those in the Mountain, Stoney Creek, and Dundas) opposing any densification in their wards so home owners can enjoy their pristine peace and quiet, and only bringing density via additional SFH's only. The best way they could do this of course? Expand the city limits so there's urban sprawl and no major development impacts their ward.

The antics that go on over at Hamilton City Council is just mind-numbingly stupid. And even more stupid is the Minister of Housing's response in supporting this idiotic proposal in the first place. Goes to show the PC's are really in the pocket of developers and couldnt care less to increasing housing supply.
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,346
Reaction score
3,572
Location
Cambridge Ontario
People need to realise these towers wont be replicated. They're a result of oversight in city planning, where there are no zoning limits for this lot.

I did want to see 60s here, just cuz of how insane it would look but I'll admit that doesnt make much sense in reality. That said there's no reason the developer couldn't have stuck with the original proposal. There was no need for them to scale this back but they listened to community feedback and did.

There's no other lot in the city that can be zoned like this without requiring council approval. More tall buildings may be coming but these will most certainly remain outliers nonetheless.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,705
Reaction score
17,845
https://pub-hamilton.escribemeetings.com/filestream.ashx?DocumentId=306825

The drama continues here. Seems like the city is trying everything they can to deny this one.

Following the denial of the minor variance a month ago or so, the city has now denied the SPA application for lack of zoning compliance (as the zoning variance was also denied).

These modifications did not address the previous concerns from staff regarding meeting
the intent of the Stoney Creek Zoning By-law No. 3692-92. Staff denied the Site Plan
Control application on December 21, 2021 (see Appendix “I” attached to Report
PED19115(a)). As per Sections 41(12) and (12.01) of the Planning Act, an appeal to
the OLT may only be submitted if the municipality fails to approve the plans and drawings within 30 days after they are submitted or if the owner is not satisfied with the
requested conditions.

So it looks like New Horizon is off to appealing both their CoA decision and their site plan application... Not typical to see a site plan application appealed.

Also, New Horizon's has predictably appealed the CoA application. They've got David Bronskill managing the appeal, probably one of the best planning lawyers in the province for a variance appeal that is actually a pretty straightforward open and shut case. It's like bringing a nuclear weapon to a knife fight. The variance will likely get approved at the OLT, and now the site plan will as well, with the city losing control of actually influencing the design of the building.
 
Last edited:

Paclo

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
548
Reaction score
1,702
Some updates on this proposal:

On December 9th, 2021 the City of Hamilton Committee of Adjustment denied all variances of the Minor Variance (application SC/A-21:346), details can be read here.

On December 16th, 2021, a third resubmission of the SPA with a notable height reduction to 44, 38 & 33-storeys. Architectural plans and elevations produced by KNYMH for this submission, can be found here.

On December 20th, 2021, Goodmans LLP acting as solicitors for NHDG filed to appeal the December 9th COA decision to the OLT, details here.

On December 21st, 2021, the City of Hamilton Planning Committee denied the December 16th Site Plan Application (DA-19-020), details can be read here.

On June 15, 2022, a Case Management Conference was held at the OLT regarding the appeal, at which the Tribunal scheduled a 5-day hearing starting on January 30, 2023 at 1PM, details here.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,705
Reaction score
17,845
Just wonderful looking. This is going to be such an odd area once this is done. A random outcropping of very high densities in some random spot on Lake Ontario for no apparent reason. This will also be the tallest building in Ontario west of Mississauga. Fun!


310 frances.png
 

jta5

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 20, 2020
Messages
78
Reaction score
384
100+ added units and a big design change, thanks to a swapping of architecture consultants. Apparently NH ditched KNYMH but not sure who the new architect here is. We can change the thread title to reflect the new max. height of 49 floors.

Stoney Creek lakeshore skyscraper bid gets taller, cuts parking​


1662997345756.png


"New Horizon Development Group’s latest plan calls for condominium towers of 40, 44 and 49 storeys and 1,492 residential units on a two-hectare vacant property at 310 Frances Ave.
That’s up from 33, 38 and 44 storeys and 1,346 units in the plan rejected by the city in December, and that is the subject of the appeal, scheduled to be heard by the OLT in early January.

While the new plan increases the height of one of the parking podiums, or garages, to eight storeys from five, it proposes fewer parking spaces per unit — 1.15, down from 1.25 and below the city’s required 1.5 — for a total shortfall of 522 spaces.
The proposed amenity space per unit is still less than half of city requirements, despite being boosted by a square metre to 9.8.
New Horizon president Jeff Paikin said the latest plan is still more modest than the original December 2018 proposal, which called for towers of 48, 54 and 59 storeys and 1,836 units.........."
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,705
Reaction score
17,845
Revised again to 40, 44, and 49 storeys. New architect as well, though no word on who it is. Parking ratio has also been dropped to 1.15 spaces per unit from 1.25. I have to say that the new plan looks a lot better.

The developer hoping to build three skyscrapers near Stoney Creek’s lakeshore is changing the plan for a third time ahead of an Ontario Land Tribunal hearing on its appeal of the city’s rejection of the third proposal.

New Horizon Development Group’s latest plan calls for condominium towers of 40, 44 and 49 storeys and 1,492 residential units on a two-hectare vacant property at 310 Frances Ave.

That’s up from 33, 38 and 44 storeys and 1,346 units in the plan rejected by the city in December, and that is the subject of the appeal, scheduled to be heard by the OLT in early January.

While the new plan increases the height of one of the parking podiums, or garages, to eight storeys from five, it proposes fewer parking spaces per unit — 1.15, down from 1.25 and below the city’s required 1.5 — for a total shortfall of 522 spaces.

The proposed amenity space per unit is still less than half of city requirements, despite being boosted by a square metre to 9.8.

New Horizon president Jeff Paikin said the latest plan is still more modest than the original December 2018 proposal, which called for towers of 48, 54 and 59 storeys and 1,836 units.

He said his company didn’t like the third plan and decided to hire another architect to come up with a new one.

“We just loved it so much we didn’t want to change anything. It’s got a significant number of terraces that overlook the water, that have amenity space within the unit that doesn’t count because it’s a balcony, which is a dumb rule,” Paikin said.
 

Paclo

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
548
Reaction score
1,702
The new rendering has been updated in the database as well as the new storey counts (49, 44 & 40s) and unit count (1492).

KNYMH has been removed as the architect as we await information on the new architect.

The posts from the duplicate thread have been moved into this thread.
 

Branden Simon

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
152
Reaction score
398
Some little update on 310 Francis Ave

Hamilton City Staff and New Horizon Development Group have reached a settlement agreement.
The Ontario Land Tribunal hearings are canceled.
OLT will hear from city and NH on Friday.
New details being released.
 

Top