Toronto 21-35 Henning | 119m | 34s | Madison Group | Turner Fleischer

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
33,169
Reaction score
94,485
Location
Toronto/EY
New to the AIC is this application from Madison.

Its for a 34s building to replace single family homes, on a side street, just north of Eglinton West, not far from Yonge.

This assembly is behind (north of) another Madison owned property at 90 Eglinton West.

Site as it is, per streetview:

1690549238711.png


The App:

1690549296981.png


www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca


From the above:

1690549369287.png


That is the only good render.

Material Board:

1690549439819.png


1690549469380.png


Grade Level - Detail:

1690549575405.png



Site Plan:

1690549634433.png



Ground Floor Plan:

1690549706581.png



1690549736630.png


Parking Ratio: 0.12

Elevator Ratio: 1.02 elevators per 100 units (4 / 390 units)

Comments: Reasonable height/massing in the context of area proposals, so long as they (or others) have assembled/optioned the remain adjacent SFH, this thing should sail.

Good elevator and parking ratios.

Aesthetically, not a stunner, but for Madison/TF, could be worse.

Only thing, I would like to see an off-site parkland dedication here, preferably one which expands Eglinton Park.
 
Last edited:
That looks too good to be Madison or a Turner Fleischer. >.<
 
So what's going to happen to 19 Henning? Are we going to have a single family detached home right between a residential high rise and a commercial building forever now?
 
welkie said:
So what's going to happen to 19 Henning? Are we going to have a single family detached home right between a residential high rise and a commercial building forever now?
Click to expand...

19 is part of the proposal for 50-90 Eglinton West, by the same developer.

So, no, there will not be a stranded house.
 
toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com


17-41 Henning Avenue - Virtual Community Consultation Meeting​


Tuesday, September 12, 2023 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
(UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Agenda​

Proposal
The City of Toronto Planning Division has received an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. The applicant proposes to amend the Official Plan to redesignate the lands known as 17-41 Henning Avenue from Neighbourhoods to Mixed Use Areas. The application also seeks to introduce a Site and Area Specific Policy for the lands known as 21 to 35 Henning Avenue to permit a 34-storey residential building which would be 25,490.3 square metres and contain 390 dwelling units, and 45 vehicular parking space would be provided in a 1.5 level below-grade parking structure.

Join us at the Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to participate, which will include:
• A description of the proposed development;
• opportunities for local residents, employees, businesses and landowners to provide feedback; and
• next steps for the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications.

For further information on 17 – 41 Henning Avenue, please visit the application information centre to review the material before the meeting at: www.toronto.ca/21HenningAve.
 
Wow, this one made it through..............to a Refusal Report in record time!

Said report is heading to the next meeting of NYCC:


From the above:

1696427699535.png


I don't like the line of reasoning I see unfolding in this report.

Let's take this objection:

1696427961745.png


In one portion of the report, staff essentially argues for keeping Henning in 'Neighbourhoods'; but above, they take issue that the residual 3 homes to the north of this proposal may have their development potential frustrated.

Either argument may have a place .........but the two are in contradiction with one another.

Moving along:

1696428090747.png

Uhh....wait a minute........are we opposed to towers entirely, or would this be just fine at 29s? Again, I'm open to an argument to keep this pocket somewhat lower density (though inclined to disagree); but if you're going to make that argument, you can't in the next breath argue, but this is just a bit too tall.

***

1696428215528.png


Why would I want a tower to follow the set backs of a SFH neighbourhood which the proponent is arguing should be 'towered'? I'm open to this argument but it reads as 'just cause' without any particular reason to it.

****

On Shadowing of Eglinton Park:

1696428343221.png


This is a better argument, but not one, as written that justifies a Refusal, this is fixable with some minor tweaks. The better argument here, is the applicant's vision for further towers, closer to Eglinton Park, and the shadows they would cast.

***

Inadequate soil volumes are proposed according to staff; this is a legitimate issue if one wants healthy trees/landscaping; that said, this should be addressable.

Finally..........

1696428518369.png



Say what? We're demanding more parking on a site that is walking distance to both Line 1 and Eglinton Crosstown?

****

Comments, some legitimate concerns are in this report, but I've seen much worse recommended for approval; I think Madison has grounds for appeal.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Wow, this one made it through..............to a Refusal Report in record time!

Said report is heading to the next meeting of NYCC:


From the above:

View attachment 510973

I don't like the line of reasoning I see unfolding in this report.

Let's take this objection:

View attachment 510974

In one portion of the report, staff essentially argues for keeping Henning in 'Neighbourhoods'; but above, they take issue that the residual 3 homes to the north of this proposal may have their development potential frustrated.

Either argument may have a place .........but the two are in contradiction with one another.

Moving along:

View attachment 510975
Uhh....wait a minute........are we opposed towers entirely, or would this be just fine at 29s? Again, I'm open to an argument to keep this pocket somewhat lower density (though inclined to disagree); but if you're going to make that argument, you can't in the next breath argue, but this is just a bit too tall.

***

View attachment 510976

Why would I want a tower to follow the set backs of a SFH neighbourhood which the proponent is argument should be 'towered'? I'm open to this argument but it reads as 'just cause' without any particular reason to it.

****

On Shadowing of Eglinton Park:

View attachment 510977

This is a better argument, but not one, as written that justifies a Refusal, this is fixable with some minor tweaks. The better argument here, is the applicant's vision for further towers, closer to Eglinton Park, and the shadows they would cast.

***

Inadequate soil volumes are proposed according to staff; this is a legitimate issue if one wants healthy trees/landscaping; that said, this should be addressable.

Finally..........

View attachment 510978


Say what? We're demanding more parking on a site that is walking distance to both Line 1 and Eglinton Crosstown?

****

Comments, some legitimate concerns are in this report, but I've seen much worse recommended for approval; I think Madison has grounds for appeal.
Click to expand...

I am not surprised by the neighbourhood objection to this proposal as pretty much one side of Henning Avenue would have a problem having a major tall tower across from one's home.

I agree with @Northern Light the reasoning in the report is just something ridiculous.

Madison has a good ground for winning the appeal!
 
Last edited:
They're not going to appeal (unless they decide they can't get there in time). This is all the result of the new Doug Ford regime where the City has to issue an approval or a refusal or refund the application fees. We'll continue to see more and more initial refusal reports which essentially just represent what we used to know as Preliminary Reports (those were also eliminated). Nothing to fear here.
 
ProjectEnd said:
They're not going to appeal (unless they decide they can't get there in time). This is all the result of the new Doug Ford regime where the City has to issue an approval or a refusal or refund the application fees. We'll continue to see more and more initial refusal reports which essentially just represent what we used to know as Preliminary Reports (those were also eliminated). Nothing to fear here.
Click to expand...

More refusal reports I guess take it up any complain straight to the Council Meeting or else OLT it comes! 🤷‍♀️
 
ProjectEnd said:
They're not going to appeal (unless they decide they can't get there in time). This is all the result of the new Doug Ford regime where the City has to issue an approval or a refusal or refund the application fees. We'll continue to see more and more initial refusal reports which essentially just represent what we used to know as Preliminary Reports (those were also eliminated). Nothing to fear here.
Click to expand...

A Refusal Report, appealed, used to more or less stop an application.

I take it you're suggesting this is no longer the case?

Could you elaborate on how this plays out now?

Thanks.

****

Also, what do you think of the substance here? You know I tend to be a more sympathetic to Planning than some here; but I must admit, I thought this read rather incoherently.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top