James at 452-458 Richmond Street West
The OMB decision for PL160081 is dated March 21, 2018. It is a 34-page report, accessible here. The OMB Member found for the appellant with some minor amendments:
Generally speaking there were four arguments against this development. The City challenged its height, arguing that a transition downwards in height is expected from Spadina westward into the interior of the neighbourhood. The Member felt that “the Official Plan does not require the immediacy of regimented transition downwards or upwards to what is adjacent, or nearby, to a proposed development but rather, requires transition that achieves the broader planning and design objectives of the Official Plan”. With that understanding, the Member recommended a reduction in height from 18 to 17 stories … a height equal to but not greater than that of the Fabrik condominium. The OMB decision for PL160081 is dated March 21, 2018. It is a 34-page report, accessible here. The OMB Member found for the appellant with some minor amendments:
Generally speaking there were four arguments against this development. The City challenged its height, arguing that a transition downwards in height is expected from Spadina westward into the interior of the neighbourhood. The Member felt that “the Official Plan does not require the immediacy of regimented transition downwards or upwards to what is adjacent, or nearby, to a proposed development but rather, requires transition that achieves the broader planning and design objectives of the Official Plan”. With that understanding, the Member recommended a reduction in height from 18 to 17 stories … a height equal to but not greater than that of the Fabrik condominium. The City also challenged its built-form, specifically the step-back above the 11 storey podium. The City argued that the step-back should be three, not two metres and that balconies on the south side would effectively obscure any step-back that was planned. The Member, in his report, agreed that “the balcony extensions above the eleventh floor … might be negating the visual form of the step-back and the podium by re-extending the built-form face of the Building facing Richmond back to the step-back depth”. Interestingly, the Member did not have to initiate a recommendation in this regard as the appellant, on the last day of the hearing, suddenly proposed to amend their design and remove the projecting balconies on the upper storeys. The GDNA, a party to the proceeding, brought two arguments to the hearing. One was that this site, being mid-block and fronted by a bike lane afforded no place for passenger or delivery vehicles to stop, that a drive-through from Richmond to Rush Lane would resolve that situation. The Member, in his report, obviously appreciated the issue but sided with the City and its position that curb cuts and traffic crossing through bike lanes represented the greater harm. A second GDNA issue related to the inadequacy of community services and facilities in the vicinity. The Member, though appreciative of the information presented, concluded in his report that “the Board is unable to conclude that the evidence supports any issue or concern as to the availability of community services and facilities that would prohibit the proposed Development”. The GDNA is understandably disappointed but felt the Member, to his credit, was attentive to and appreciated all the arguments. His report goes a good way to explaining why he found as he did.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|