Toronto 500 Sheppard East | 142.4m | 41s | Sevoy Developments | Arcadis
- Thread starter yyzer
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
With Council mostly adjourned through last year's election.........only now is the Report requesting direction to oppose this at OLT coming to NYCC:
This report reads as a total thrashing.
I'm not sure I buy the height/density argument unto itself; but some of the criticism here of how curb cuts and driveways and setbacks are handled is entirely fair.
From the report:
***
Transportation
This report reads as a total thrashing.
I'm not sure I buy the height/density argument unto itself; but some of the criticism here of how curb cuts and driveways and setbacks are handled is entirely fair.
From the report:
***
Transportation
Jules
New Member
Northern Light
Superstar
This one was the subject of a confidential settlement offer at the July Council meeting.
That offer was subsequently adopted and the contents is now public.
Of note, this one increased in height in the sausage making process. (though a 'reduction' is stated below, the heights are above what this thread indicates)
***
Site Plan:
Upper Ground Floor Plan:
Comments: Haven't gone through this one closely yet, I see the City got its road widening on Sheppard; but over the TTC's objection, there is only a 3M setback from the current access; that will be moot if said access is integrated into this proposal;
which the applicant has agreed to work towards, but which has not been settled. I don't see why that bit isn't iron clad at this stage given the setback issue.
I hate the park, of course.
LOL
That offer was subsequently adopted and the contents is now public.
Of note, this one increased in height in the sausage making process. (though a 'reduction' is stated below, the heights are above what this thread indicates)
***
Site Plan:
Upper Ground Floor Plan:
Comments: Haven't gone through this one closely yet, I see the City got its road widening on Sheppard; but over the TTC's objection, there is only a 3M setback from the current access; that will be moot if said access is integrated into this proposal;
which the applicant has agreed to work towards, but which has not been settled. I don't see why that bit isn't iron clad at this stage given the setback issue.
I hate the park, of course.
LOL
ben.thebean1
Active Member
Although I really like the idea of having small open/green spaces at TTC station accesses, nobody is sitting at the corner of Sheppard and Bayview to relax and enjoy anything.
Northern Light
Superstar
Exactly. It's not just the park would be quite small, it's that its location is about as appealing as the smell of rotten eggs.
People in that area deserve a park too; but not one next to umpteen lanes of traffic.
Look at this area map:
Bayview Village Park would benefit from enlargement. Though a stream is shown on this map, it's buried, widening the park could allow for daylighting the stream and retaining all park amenities.
Sheppard East Park is quite narrow and not very functional from a layout point-of-view; meanwhile Glendora Park is sitting on top of Wilket Creek, and is also a less than ideal size/configuration.
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
But Bayview Village Park is on the other side of Bayview Ave,... and thus in another Ward. Rules for Section 37 Community Benefit and Section 42 Parkland Dedication is they can be on-site, off-site or cash-in-lieu,.. but can only be spent within the Ward where the Redevelopment happens.
NOTE: There are cases like for 4050 Yonge (northwest corner of Yonge and YorkMills/Wilson), where this site is also on Boundary where this west side belongs to one Ward but most local residents on East-side (Hoggs Hollow) successfully argued their area should be included in Section 37 Community Benefit,... their Councillor Jaye Robinson got involved and both Councillor agreed to share,... but Cllr Karen Stintz also managed to get some of the Section 37 Community Benefit diverted 3km away into her Bedford Park neighbourhood.
urbantoronto.ca
With Gupta changing that Development Proposal to something entirely different,... I'm hopping the Section 37 Community Benefit and Section 42 Parkland Dedications also changed,.... I know more has been dedicated to Multi-Use Trail.
Conveyance of frontage strip of land for Sheppard road widening is interesting,.. it's done on most major arterial roads - here, on Sheppard the Official Plan from Metro Toronto is to winden from 4 to 6-lanes,... but this stretch of Sheppard between Bayview to Bonnington Place / Doris Ave is subject to resurfacing starting next month with the addition of bike lanes instead of new traffic lanes,.. in fact many turn lanes will be eliminated,...
- here in front of 500 Sheppard Ave East, 3 westbound lanes were to be reduced to 2 westbound lanes,... but City seems to be delaying this part! Why? I suspect due to objection from MTO! While Bayview Ave and Sheppard Ave are City of Toronto municipal roads,.. the MTO has higher level of jurisdictional right over parts within 500m of 400-series interchange,... here that's Bayview-401 interchange,... so that applies to Bayview Ave since it's the intersecting arterial,... but does it applies to Sheppard,... here there's a double left turn lane from northbound Bayview to westbound Sheppard. Thus, to keep this section at 3 westbound lanes,... with addition of bike lane,... we'll need road widening here from land conveyance from this development
NOTE: There are cases like for 4050 Yonge (northwest corner of Yonge and YorkMills/Wilson), where this site is also on Boundary where this west side belongs to one Ward but most local residents on East-side (Hoggs Hollow) successfully argued their area should be included in Section 37 Community Benefit,... their Councillor Jaye Robinson got involved and both Councillor agreed to share,... but Cllr Karen Stintz also managed to get some of the Section 37 Community Benefit diverted 3km away into her Bedford Park neighbourhood.
Yonge City Square Residences | 117.09m | 32s | Gupta | Arcadis
You never cease to amaze me sunnyray, such doom and gloom from a local North York guy:confused: Not doom and gloom,.... it's reality. At this site developer know large format office will fail since office building at northeast corner of Yonge/YorkMills-Wilson has that large office space format...
Conveyance of frontage strip of land for Sheppard road widening is interesting,.. it's done on most major arterial roads - here, on Sheppard the Official Plan from Metro Toronto is to winden from 4 to 6-lanes,... but this stretch of Sheppard between Bayview to Bonnington Place / Doris Ave is subject to resurfacing starting next month with the addition of bike lanes instead of new traffic lanes,.. in fact many turn lanes will be eliminated,...
- here in front of 500 Sheppard Ave East, 3 westbound lanes were to be reduced to 2 westbound lanes,... but City seems to be delaying this part! Why? I suspect due to objection from MTO! While Bayview Ave and Sheppard Ave are City of Toronto municipal roads,.. the MTO has higher level of jurisdictional right over parts within 500m of 400-series interchange,... here that's Bayview-401 interchange,... so that applies to Bayview Ave since it's the intersecting arterial,... but does it applies to Sheppard,... here there's a double left turn lane from northbound Bayview to westbound Sheppard. Thus, to keep this section at 3 westbound lanes,... with addition of bike lane,... we'll need road widening here from land conveyance from this development
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
Also note, the proposed day-care facility would be private and small,... not a non-profit day-care via Section 37 Community Benefit,... it may not materialize at all
Northern Light
Superstar
Hmmm,
I just re-read S.42 at the provincial level; then I consulted the City's Park's Acquisition policies.
Neither reference parkland dedication as having to be within the Ward of a development.
The word used is 'proximity'.
S. 37 is a different matter.
IF you have a reference on Parks policy that says the money must stay in the Ward, I would be interested in seeing that.
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
Interesting,....
Section 37 Community Benefit must be spent within Ward where Development happens,... and since it *was* a negotiated process between Developer and the Ward Councillor (now fixed at 4%), Section 42 Parkland Dedication would also be negotiated between Developer and that same Ward Councillor,....
Personally, I'd rather see a restriction on both Section 37 Community Benefit and Section 42 Parkland Dedication such that they must be On-Site, Or if Off-Site or Cash-In-Lieu then they must be spent within 500m or 1km of development site (regardless of Ward boundaries),... so that they'll off-set the negative consequences for the local community most adversely impacted by the Development and also benefit the new Residents who are ultimately paying for them.
Section 37 Community Benefit must be spent within Ward where Development happens,... and since it *was* a negotiated process between Developer and the Ward Councillor (now fixed at 4%), Section 42 Parkland Dedication would also be negotiated between Developer and that same Ward Councillor,....
Personally, I'd rather see a restriction on both Section 37 Community Benefit and Section 42 Parkland Dedication such that they must be On-Site, Or if Off-Site or Cash-In-Lieu then they must be spent within 500m or 1km of development site (regardless of Ward boundaries),... so that they'll off-set the negative consequences for the local community most adversely impacted by the Development and also benefit the new Residents who are ultimately paying for them.
Northern Light
Superstar
I think the distance requirement, as I suggested above as well, is the correct one.
Residents on one side of a Ward Boundary will get to use a park, library or childcare centre across the street. Even if that street is a ward boundary.
There is no logical reason to tie a benefit to a ward boundary, unto itself.
Voters will be just as grateful to or pleased with a politician who achieves a benefit they enjoy that happens to be on the other side of an 'imaginary' line.
Last edited:
artyboy123
Senior Member
The database information is now updated. The total storey count changed from 39 and 35 storey to 41 & 37 storey. The height changed from 134.75m & 122.65m to 142.40m & 130.10m. The unit count changed from 1028 units to 1072 units. The total car parking space changed from 333 car parking to 216 car parking.