Northern Light
Superstar
New to the AIC is an application for this property at 321-355 Symington and 350 Campbell.
This is Symington just north of Dupont, excluding the BMO on the corner, all the way up the the rail corridor, with that parcel running east to and addressed as Campbell.
The proposed site here is adjacent to the Marlin Spring development 316 Junction at 26s.
The thread for which can be found here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...spring-giannone-petricone.31745/#post-1614840
urbantoronto.ca
On the first page of the above thread, @AlbertC made the following observation:
While @Kenojuak chimed in to note:
Which brings us the the picture of the site, as is:
With that, The App: Read this one closely, and no, not for the typo:
In case you missed it:
- Designated Core Employment Area; no No OPA filed, No Conversion Request Filed. (* The Arch. Plans have a render which references being for an OPA)
Uhhhh, ok then.
I'm thinking @ProjectEnd or @innsertnamehere might have some thoughts on that.
Now, From the Docs:
Oh, I get it now, LOL, the client couldn't afford the OPA after blowing the budget on the renders.
Site Plan:
Not clear in the above, but the northern edge of this site, is an above-grade parking garage, doubling as the crash-wall against the rail corridor.
Ground Floor Plan:
FSI: 9.92, per the cover letter
Document Notes:
The Cover Letter refers to their being, as one would expect, a Planning Rationale Report; the upload in the AIC does not feature one. Err, well, it shows one, but the link is in fact to a 1-page letter from former Councillor Palacio and not the report from Bousfields that was done in service of the application.
There is one 'Linked Document'......in the list, but as it turns out, that's the elevation drawings, in case you were looking for those. LOL
****
Application comments.
Given what's gone on around this application (adjacent sites), I don't see any difficulty getting an OPA/Employment Conversion here; though the applicant is going to need to file those.
The height is quite the ask. It follows the PE rule of check what your neighbour got and tack on some height, but a 50% premium in storey count to the adjacent site is.........ambitious.
In respect of shadowing, it does have the virtue of the rail corridor to the north to eat the worst of it. But it will cast nearly full shadow over the Park on the west side of Symington for about 2 hours each morning in spring and fall.
Worth saying, however, looking at the shadow, one can ascertain, a meaningful height reduction would not reduce that impact:
On the landscape plans........
This level of detail, LOL, will not pass TGS (the Toronto Green Standard)
Otherwise, its mostly fine, soil volume is a bit light on the 'small' tree at only 13m3, err, that might support a shrub, or dwarf tree, maybe.
This is Symington just north of Dupont, excluding the BMO on the corner, all the way up the the rail corridor, with that parcel running east to and addressed as Campbell.
The proposed site here is adjacent to the Marlin Spring development 316 Junction at 26s.
The thread for which can be found here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...spring-giannone-petricone.31745/#post-1614840
316 Junction Condos | 88.4m | 26s | Marlin Spring | Giannone Petricone
Lobbying underway for this assembly
On the first page of the above thread, @AlbertC made the following observation:
While @Kenojuak chimed in to note:
Which brings us the the picture of the site, as is:
With that, The App: Read this one closely, and no, not for the typo:
In case you missed it:
- Designated Core Employment Area; no No OPA filed, No Conversion Request Filed. (* The Arch. Plans have a render which references being for an OPA)
Uhhhh, ok then.
I'm thinking @ProjectEnd or @innsertnamehere might have some thoughts on that.
Now, From the Docs:
Oh, I get it now, LOL, the client couldn't afford the OPA after blowing the budget on the renders.
Site Plan:
Not clear in the above, but the northern edge of this site, is an above-grade parking garage, doubling as the crash-wall against the rail corridor.
Ground Floor Plan:
FSI: 9.92, per the cover letter
Document Notes:
The Cover Letter refers to their being, as one would expect, a Planning Rationale Report; the upload in the AIC does not feature one. Err, well, it shows one, but the link is in fact to a 1-page letter from former Councillor Palacio and not the report from Bousfields that was done in service of the application.
There is one 'Linked Document'......in the list, but as it turns out, that's the elevation drawings, in case you were looking for those. LOL
****
Application comments.
Given what's gone on around this application (adjacent sites), I don't see any difficulty getting an OPA/Employment Conversion here; though the applicant is going to need to file those.
The height is quite the ask. It follows the PE rule of check what your neighbour got and tack on some height, but a 50% premium in storey count to the adjacent site is.........ambitious.
In respect of shadowing, it does have the virtue of the rail corridor to the north to eat the worst of it. But it will cast nearly full shadow over the Park on the west side of Symington for about 2 hours each morning in spring and fall.
Worth saying, however, looking at the shadow, one can ascertain, a meaningful height reduction would not reduce that impact:
On the landscape plans........
This level of detail, LOL, will not pass TGS (the Toronto Green Standard)
Otherwise, its mostly fine, soil volume is a bit light on the 'small' tree at only 13m3, err, that might support a shrub, or dwarf tree, maybe.
