So they threw the dart at the dart board, and it landed on an even number, so they recommend rejection.
Or it was because:
The proposal represents an inappropriate development for reasons including:
- The proposal does not have adequate regard to certain matters of Provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act for reasons discussed in this report;
- The proposal is not consistent with the PPS and does not conform with the Growth Plan for reasons discussed in this report;
- The proposal does not conform with nor maintain the intent of the Official Plan policies, including policies related to built form, or tall buildings, with respect to an appropriate relationship with its context;
- The proposal does not conform with nor maintain the intent of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, including the objectives of ensuring new development is compatible with the built form context of the adjacent buildings, and ensuring that massing provides appropriate proportional relationships;
- The proposal could set a negative precedent that could encourage demolition or significant changes to properties within King-Spadina to achieve significant height increases and/or high densities that bear no resemblance to the in-force planning regime;
- The tower portion of the proposal does not provide appropriate separation from adjacent sites, as required by the City's Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals. The approval of this proposal could compromise the application of the Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals to other sites;
- The proposal provides insufficient or no setback from the side lot lines, which can compromise quality of life for future residents, and the development rights of adjacent landowners; and
- The lack of appropriate yard setbacks or stepbacks compromises Council-approved OPA 2 by exporting facing distance constraints onto adjacent sites;
There is no question that appropriate intensification and development are planning goals in King-Spadina. City Planning staff are prepared to consider development on the site but only in a manner that is respectful of the existing planning policy framework. The proposed massing overwhelm the streetscape and are detrimental to the character of this portion of King Street West. The proposal is inappropriate and unsupportable and does not represent good planning.
- - -
That's the conclusion to the report, and it seems more substantive than your assessment, but you are welcome to try to convince me otherwise.
42