02-28-2025, 10:16 PM
This is certainly a development where it wouldn't be surprising if the city were to completely oppose this however the one complicating factor is that the amendments are to a specific block of the subdivision but the overall subdivision isn't requiring any OPA/ZBA amendments. The amendments that the developer is looking to get aren't all that arduous all things considered the only thing is it isn't in a MTSA which will be half of plannings issue with it.
For the OPA the developer is requesting an amendment to the existing Specific Policy Area 23 to allow for a max FSR of 5.21 on Block 9 of the Victoria Commons development instead of the the as of right (AOR) FSR of 4.0, the developer is also requesting an increase in the maximum height in Specific Policy Area 23 to 110m instead of the AOR 36m.
For the ZBA the developer is requesting an amendment to Site Specific Provision 323 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to allow a maximum FSR of 5.21, A maximum building height of 102m and 33 storeys for Building C, 66m and 21 storeys for Building D and 110m and 35 storeys for building E, allowing a lot without frontage on a public street, and a parking rate of 0.66 spaces per unit with a visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces per unit.
The Victoria Commons subdivision as a whole allows for a maximum FSR of 2.0 on the entire site (this will be useful for later).
The proposal calls for 1151 total units, 33 of which are studio, 198 1bdrm, 588 1bdrm+den, 284 2bdrm and 48 3bdrm units. 1747 sqm of indoor amenity space will be provided as well as 1737 sqm of outdoor amenity space (through a sizeable pops), there will also be 879 vehicle spaces and 588 bike spaces. All the parking will be underground in a 4 floor underground parking garage.
The proposal does do a surprisingly good job at conforming to and using the AOR restrictions to their advantage so there's certainly a decent justification to be made for the additional height. The first justification for the additional height (and by virtue additional FSR) is that the maximum FSR allowed on the entire site is 2.0, since these are the last developable lands on the site they are using all of the FSR that is still available, effectively leaving nothing on the table. In order to do this they require the particular amendments to Block 9 for a FSR of 5.21 instead of 4.0 which isn't anything insane. The next justification which certainly works in their favor is the existing AOR zoning for Block 9 allows for a rather steep angular plane, which the taller buildings take full advantage of. By having the taller buildings it allows for smaller floor plates than the contemplated midrises in 2012, which means the shadow impacts are dispersed more equitably over the surroundings. With the midrises the shadows move significantly slower which means more shadowing impacts for longer periods of times when compared to the current proposal.
The only department who I could see having an issue with it is planning, obviously the public will but that's a different matter. Transportation should be satisfied with the TIS, there's no real issues made worse by this development itself. The locations which did have adverse LOS (level of service) had signal warrants conducted as per OTM book 12 but the results didn't show a signal being required. Engineering won't have any issues either since the buildings can be serviced off of the previously installed services during the construction of the rest of the subdivision. So overall the only people who will have an issue is planning unless something changes.
For the OPA the developer is requesting an amendment to the existing Specific Policy Area 23 to allow for a max FSR of 5.21 on Block 9 of the Victoria Commons development instead of the the as of right (AOR) FSR of 4.0, the developer is also requesting an increase in the maximum height in Specific Policy Area 23 to 110m instead of the AOR 36m.
For the ZBA the developer is requesting an amendment to Site Specific Provision 323 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to allow a maximum FSR of 5.21, A maximum building height of 102m and 33 storeys for Building C, 66m and 21 storeys for Building D and 110m and 35 storeys for building E, allowing a lot without frontage on a public street, and a parking rate of 0.66 spaces per unit with a visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces per unit.
The Victoria Commons subdivision as a whole allows for a maximum FSR of 2.0 on the entire site (this will be useful for later).
The proposal calls for 1151 total units, 33 of which are studio, 198 1bdrm, 588 1bdrm+den, 284 2bdrm and 48 3bdrm units. 1747 sqm of indoor amenity space will be provided as well as 1737 sqm of outdoor amenity space (through a sizeable pops), there will also be 879 vehicle spaces and 588 bike spaces. All the parking will be underground in a 4 floor underground parking garage.
The proposal does do a surprisingly good job at conforming to and using the AOR restrictions to their advantage so there's certainly a decent justification to be made for the additional height. The first justification for the additional height (and by virtue additional FSR) is that the maximum FSR allowed on the entire site is 2.0, since these are the last developable lands on the site they are using all of the FSR that is still available, effectively leaving nothing on the table. In order to do this they require the particular amendments to Block 9 for a FSR of 5.21 instead of 4.0 which isn't anything insane. The next justification which certainly works in their favor is the existing AOR zoning for Block 9 allows for a rather steep angular plane, which the taller buildings take full advantage of. By having the taller buildings it allows for smaller floor plates than the contemplated midrises in 2012, which means the shadow impacts are dispersed more equitably over the surroundings. With the midrises the shadows move significantly slower which means more shadowing impacts for longer periods of times when compared to the current proposal.
The only department who I could see having an issue with it is planning, obviously the public will but that's a different matter. Transportation should be satisfied with the TIS, there's no real issues made worse by this development itself. The locations which did have adverse LOS (level of service) had signal warrants conducted as per OTM book 12 but the results didn't show a signal being required. Engineering won't have any issues either since the buildings can be serviced off of the previously installed services during the construction of the rest of the subdivision. So overall the only people who will have an issue is planning unless something changes.