WislaHD
Superstar
Based on the architectural plans, this has increased from 324 units to 533 units while maintaining the same building envelope?
Toronto 5400 Yonge | 106.82m | 32s | Fieldgate | Kirkor Architects
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
AlbertC
Superstar
New UT article by i42 summarizes the changes made in this latest revision:
urbantoronto.ca
Proposal Revised at 5400 Yonge in North York City Centre | UrbanToronto
Major revisions have been made to a redevelopment proposal from Fieldgate Urban for 5400 Yonge Street in North York, a block south of Finch subway station, seeking an Official Plan Amendment and rezoning from the City of Toronto for a 32-storey Kirkor Architects-designed mixed-use complex.
Torontovibe
Senior Member
Another retail strip with a generic wall of glass, which I hate.
Msleylar
Active Member
Apparently approved by OLT, no decision online yet.
Msleylar
Active Member
Findings
[57] The Tribunal finds that there is a circular argument taking place within the City’s evidence to justify the outcome. The Tribunal also sees a divergence between height and density within the NYCSP as it relates to the CTOP and the provincial policy documents. Simply put, if the NYCSP is meeting its goals and objectives with respect to the PPS and Growth Plan then the Tribunal must accept, given the density limits including the bonusing, that roughly a six-storey podium is all that is required to satisfy the direction in PPS and Growth Plan with respect to the level of intensification on the subject property. This is a massive underutilization of this site.
[58] The concern of the City is that by approving this development it would be setting a precedent by approving a density very large in comparison to the NYCSP policies. On this point the Tribunal disagrees. The subject property is located in a very unique location within the NYCSP. When looking at the block structure within the boundaries of the secondary plan, the existing block together with the block directly to the south of Churchill Avenue are unique to the area. This is the only location within the secondary plan area where the area for intensification within the secondary plan boundary is broken by a public north/south road, being Canterbury Place. The secondary plan boundary, west of Yonge Street, lies between Yonge Street and Beecroft Road to the west. The existence of Canterbury Place, running north/south, between Ellerslie Avenue and Horsham Avenue creates two city blocks with considerably less depth from Yonge Street than anything within the whole of the NYCSP area. These two narrow depth blocks do not allow for the accumulation or combining of properties moving Westerly away from Yonge Street to the westerly limit of the NYCSP area, due to the break created by Canterbury Place. This eliminates the opportunity to “spread” the FSI in a stepdown fashion as one moves away from the center corridor.
[59] The Tall Building Design Guidelines came into effect in 2013. One of the issues the Tribunal faces is whether the proposed development on the subject property fulfills the requirements of the Tall Building Design Guidelines. The only minor exception is a small increase in tower floor plate. In all other respects the proposed development meets these suggested guidelines. This minor increase in floorplate will not be noticeable especially given the close proximity to other towers with much larger tower floorplates in the immediate neighbourhood.
[60] An urban growth centre is where high rise and high density-mixed use developments are promoted and coexist with lower forms of development. The two small remaining properties, along Yonge Street, form the overall character of not only this block but the surrounding neighbourhood.
[61] A block assessment was not done for the approval, by the City, of the 30-story apartment complex, under construction, directly south of the subject lands fronting on Canterbury Place. At that time access to Canterbury Place, for these two remaining properties, may have been suggested through these lands. At that time the two properties on the subject site were separate parcels of land. The two properties have now merged for the current proposal on the subject property. Without this merger and development proposal would there be a demand now for a block assessment? What would have resulted from a block assessment at the time the development proposal for the 30-storey residential building to the south was working its way through the planning process? The answers to these questions will never be tested.
[62] The Tribunal finds there is no compelling reason for an overall block assessment with regard to access to the two remaining parcels directly south of the subject lands. The negotiation of any access, through the subject property, will be by way of private negotiation between the parties with no involvement from the Tribunal. The property at 5374 and 5376 Yonge Street are separately conveyable parcels and a planning assessment on the joint properties is, at best, unhelpful speculation. No feasibility or costing has been completed and the Tribunal will not impose a condition based on the unknown. Also, given the direction to a more transit supportable community, the future timing of any development will have an effect on the outcome.
[63] The Tribunal does find that the subject proposal requires further alteration to be sensitive to the property at 5376 Yonge Street, in a fashion that will all allow this property to see its full, albeit, limited potential and represent good planning. The potential solutions were discussed within the context of this hearing and the Tribunal is satisfied that the plans will be amended to remove the balconies along the south wall of the six-storey podium. This section of podium is proposed to be 1.5 m north of the common property line. Any design elements in the proposed podium will accommodate the potential construction of a building at 5376 Yonge Street along the common property line.
[64] Official Plan Amendment 231 was discussed at this hearing event. This OPA gives direction to the increase of office space where a minimum of 1000 sq m of office space currently exists. This OPA is under appeal in this regard therefore the Tribunal will not impose office replacement.
[65] With the modifications now proposed by the Applicant there was no substantial dispute over built form or urban design matters remaining and there is minimal and acceptable impact from shadowing. The proposed development will fit harmoniously with the existing context.
[66] The Tribunal was led through a series of development proposals that were either approved by the City or by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, or one of its predecessors. Given the age of the NYCSP these approvals spanned many years and have contributed the ever-evolving change with the planned context. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Goldberg and finds that a liberal interpretation of section 1.14 of the NYCSP is required to ensure meaningful intensification takes place considering the policy direction from the PPS and Growth Plan.
[67] The review of the various development proposals also illustrated some inconsistencies with respect to what facilities, services or matters that have been accepted as contributions as part of the Section 37 Agreement. The Tribunal has been asked to leave matters dealing with the Section 37 Agreement to the parties. The parties will inform the Tribunal, through the Case Coordinator, if any issues arise.
[68] The Tribunal agrees with the opinion evidence of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kotsopoulos. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed amendments are consistent with the PPS and conform with the policies of the Growth Plan. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments conform with objectives and policies of the CTOP, as the NYCSP will be amended. The Tribunal has also reviewed its decision in light of the 2021 PPS and finds consistency with this latest version of the PPS.
[69] The Tribunal approves, in principle, the plans and drawings as illustrated in Exhibit 6 with further amendments for the removal of the protruding balconies along Yonge Street, within 10 m of the curb and the removal of the balconies along the south wall of the eastern podium section that abuts 5376 Yonge Street and incorporated design elements along this wall so as to allow this property, to the immediate south, to be able to build a blank wall along the common property line.
[70] The Tribunal will allow the appeals, in part, to direct amendment of the NYCSP and amendment of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, to accommodate the proposed development but will withhold its final order until the Tribunal has received a written notice from counsel that the identified matters have been addressed. The Tribunal has not been provided with draft instruments for consideration at this time and accordingly it will remain for the Tribunal to review and approve the final form of the amendments once they have been provided in accordance with the Interim Order.
[57] The Tribunal finds that there is a circular argument taking place within the City’s evidence to justify the outcome. The Tribunal also sees a divergence between height and density within the NYCSP as it relates to the CTOP and the provincial policy documents. Simply put, if the NYCSP is meeting its goals and objectives with respect to the PPS and Growth Plan then the Tribunal must accept, given the density limits including the bonusing, that roughly a six-storey podium is all that is required to satisfy the direction in PPS and Growth Plan with respect to the level of intensification on the subject property. This is a massive underutilization of this site.
[58] The concern of the City is that by approving this development it would be setting a precedent by approving a density very large in comparison to the NYCSP policies. On this point the Tribunal disagrees. The subject property is located in a very unique location within the NYCSP. When looking at the block structure within the boundaries of the secondary plan, the existing block together with the block directly to the south of Churchill Avenue are unique to the area. This is the only location within the secondary plan area where the area for intensification within the secondary plan boundary is broken by a public north/south road, being Canterbury Place. The secondary plan boundary, west of Yonge Street, lies between Yonge Street and Beecroft Road to the west. The existence of Canterbury Place, running north/south, between Ellerslie Avenue and Horsham Avenue creates two city blocks with considerably less depth from Yonge Street than anything within the whole of the NYCSP area. These two narrow depth blocks do not allow for the accumulation or combining of properties moving Westerly away from Yonge Street to the westerly limit of the NYCSP area, due to the break created by Canterbury Place. This eliminates the opportunity to “spread” the FSI in a stepdown fashion as one moves away from the center corridor.
[59] The Tall Building Design Guidelines came into effect in 2013. One of the issues the Tribunal faces is whether the proposed development on the subject property fulfills the requirements of the Tall Building Design Guidelines. The only minor exception is a small increase in tower floor plate. In all other respects the proposed development meets these suggested guidelines. This minor increase in floorplate will not be noticeable especially given the close proximity to other towers with much larger tower floorplates in the immediate neighbourhood.
[60] An urban growth centre is where high rise and high density-mixed use developments are promoted and coexist with lower forms of development. The two small remaining properties, along Yonge Street, form the overall character of not only this block but the surrounding neighbourhood.
[61] A block assessment was not done for the approval, by the City, of the 30-story apartment complex, under construction, directly south of the subject lands fronting on Canterbury Place. At that time access to Canterbury Place, for these two remaining properties, may have been suggested through these lands. At that time the two properties on the subject site were separate parcels of land. The two properties have now merged for the current proposal on the subject property. Without this merger and development proposal would there be a demand now for a block assessment? What would have resulted from a block assessment at the time the development proposal for the 30-storey residential building to the south was working its way through the planning process? The answers to these questions will never be tested.
[62] The Tribunal finds there is no compelling reason for an overall block assessment with regard to access to the two remaining parcels directly south of the subject lands. The negotiation of any access, through the subject property, will be by way of private negotiation between the parties with no involvement from the Tribunal. The property at 5374 and 5376 Yonge Street are separately conveyable parcels and a planning assessment on the joint properties is, at best, unhelpful speculation. No feasibility or costing has been completed and the Tribunal will not impose a condition based on the unknown. Also, given the direction to a more transit supportable community, the future timing of any development will have an effect on the outcome.
[63] The Tribunal does find that the subject proposal requires further alteration to be sensitive to the property at 5376 Yonge Street, in a fashion that will all allow this property to see its full, albeit, limited potential and represent good planning. The potential solutions were discussed within the context of this hearing and the Tribunal is satisfied that the plans will be amended to remove the balconies along the south wall of the six-storey podium. This section of podium is proposed to be 1.5 m north of the common property line. Any design elements in the proposed podium will accommodate the potential construction of a building at 5376 Yonge Street along the common property line.
[64] Official Plan Amendment 231 was discussed at this hearing event. This OPA gives direction to the increase of office space where a minimum of 1000 sq m of office space currently exists. This OPA is under appeal in this regard therefore the Tribunal will not impose office replacement.
[65] With the modifications now proposed by the Applicant there was no substantial dispute over built form or urban design matters remaining and there is minimal and acceptable impact from shadowing. The proposed development will fit harmoniously with the existing context.
[66] The Tribunal was led through a series of development proposals that were either approved by the City or by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal, or one of its predecessors. Given the age of the NYCSP these approvals spanned many years and have contributed the ever-evolving change with the planned context. The Tribunal agrees with Mr. Goldberg and finds that a liberal interpretation of section 1.14 of the NYCSP is required to ensure meaningful intensification takes place considering the policy direction from the PPS and Growth Plan.
[67] The review of the various development proposals also illustrated some inconsistencies with respect to what facilities, services or matters that have been accepted as contributions as part of the Section 37 Agreement. The Tribunal has been asked to leave matters dealing with the Section 37 Agreement to the parties. The parties will inform the Tribunal, through the Case Coordinator, if any issues arise.
[68] The Tribunal agrees with the opinion evidence of Mr. Goldberg and Mr. Kotsopoulos. The Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed amendments are consistent with the PPS and conform with the policies of the Growth Plan. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the proposed official plan and zoning by-law amendments conform with objectives and policies of the CTOP, as the NYCSP will be amended. The Tribunal has also reviewed its decision in light of the 2021 PPS and finds consistency with this latest version of the PPS.
[69] The Tribunal approves, in principle, the plans and drawings as illustrated in Exhibit 6 with further amendments for the removal of the protruding balconies along Yonge Street, within 10 m of the curb and the removal of the balconies along the south wall of the eastern podium section that abuts 5376 Yonge Street and incorporated design elements along this wall so as to allow this property, to the immediate south, to be able to build a blank wall along the common property line.
[70] The Tribunal will allow the appeals, in part, to direct amendment of the NYCSP and amendment of North York Zoning By-law No. 7625, as amended, to accommodate the proposed development but will withhold its final order until the Tribunal has received a written notice from counsel that the identified matters have been addressed. The Tribunal has not been provided with draft instruments for consideration at this time and accordingly it will remain for the Tribunal to review and approve the final form of the amendments once they have been provided in accordance with the Interim Order.
artyboy123
Senior Member
New renderings are updated in the database. The storey count still remains the same at 32-storey. The total unit count also remains the same at 533 units. The parking count increased from 180 to 212 spaces. The rezoning application is now changed to "OMB Approved" and the Site Plan Approval is now "Under Review".
The renderings are taken from the architectural plan via Site Plan Approval:
The renderings are taken from the architectural plan via Site Plan Approval: