328 & 330 Mill St | 20fl | Proposed

[ac3r]

I'm recommending we catapult city staff into a volcano.

[bravado]

I'm recommending we catapult city staff into a volcano.

how much is Big Shadow™ paying you?!?

[Bjays93]

I don't know about you guys, but I don't feel so great about losing housing because of things that nobody actually likes: setbacks and "stepbacks"

I mean on one hand sure… I guess. Though I actually do think setbacks are important. 

But I think the real question should be, why is the ZBA necessary for this development when the developer could easily build within the existing regulations and even build a bigger building. I see no good reason for needing an amendment here and it impetus is on the developer to demonstrate why it’s necessary in a situation like this where height isn’t the issue.

[bravado]

The best evidence against setbacks is the obvious fact that all the desirable and high-value areas of the city, old downtowns, have none and people love it there.

[ijmorlan]

The best evidence against setbacks is the obvious fact that all the desirable and high-value areas of the city, old downtowns, have none and people love it there.

Indeed, almost all of the most popular places, both for residents and visitors, around the world, were built before modern zoning. Something all planners should (but obviously do not) keep in mind at all times as they do their work.

[tomh009]

I don't know about you guys, but I don't feel so great about losing housing because of things that nobody actually likes: setbacks and "stepbacks"

I mean on one hand sure… I guess. Though I actually do think setbacks are important. 

But I think the real question should be, why is the ZBA necessary for this development when the developer could easily build within the existing regulations and even build a bigger building. I see no good reason for needing an amendment here and it impetus is on the developer to demonstrate why it’s necessary in a situation like this where height isn’t the issue.

I expect that a taller tower on a podium (which would provide the step-back and allow the required setbacks) would cost more to build than a lower straight-sided slab. Otherwise the developer surely wouldn't be bothering with the amendment request.

[nms]

Reducing setbacks squeeze any street furniture or plantings into the sidewalk, reducing space for pedestrians (this include utility poles, boxes, bike racks etc. Removing setbacks also eliminates the options for street facing patios or casual gathering space that don't cover sidewalks and/or parking spots.

[tomh009]

Reducing setbacks squeeze any street furniture or plantings into the sidewalk, reducing space for pedestrians (this include utility poles, boxes, bike racks etc.  Removing setbacks also eliminates the options for street facing patios or casual gathering space that don't cover sidewalks and/or parking spots.

The change to the front yard setback is minimal, only 0.5m, so that would not enable any patios or gathering space. The big difference is the requested setback reduction in the back.

From the planning report:

 A reduction in the minimum front yard setback from 1.5 metres to 1.0 metre.
 A reduction in the minimum rear yard setback from 14 metres to 1.0 metre.
 A reduction to the minimum ground floor façade width as a percent of the width of the abutting street line from 50% to 29.9%.

[nms]

The rear setbacks are often in place to allow space between buildings, whether for fire prevention, or access to the rear of the property. If this building goes back to 1.0m and a new building behind it also goes to 1.0, what happens with the 2.0m laneway, as opposed to a 28m laneway? Does it just become dead, useless space as opposed to green space for the building occupants on either lot?