I've taken a look at the plans that Vic posted. Thanks Vic. I'm less up in arms about this now. I was livid, but I'm much calmer now. Take a look at the 362 Wallace Ave Plans.pdf above. If I've read the drawing correctly the elevator is slightly higher than the rest of the building but it will be enclosed. The entrance to the elevator is located at the end of Ruskin just before the path. The parking looks to be only ONE level of 41 spots and NOT STACKED. There's also a wall for that roof parking that will hide most if not all of the visible car parts from the path if it is indeed just a single unstacked layer of cars.
They could have communicated this way better and saved us all the grief. Can someone else take a look at the plans and tell me if this looks less intrusive than we all thought?
The real people to suffer will be the people who bought the upper units that will now look down onto car roofs. If I was them I'd be upset.
Thanks for sending the docs, Sara. I have posted them all (linked above).
Further to Scott's post, I also spoke with Kyle Strik. He advised he had not yet had anyone ask for a deferral of the decision. He did not have any drawings of the proposed amendments. He did provide a few additional documents (some maps (including revised map), architecture firm cover letter, and a copy of the Notice). If anyone would like a copy just let me know. I'm not sure how to attach documents here.
Application Technician, Committee of Adjustment
City Planning Division
City of Toronto, 1st Floor, West Tower
100 Queen St. W, Toronto ON M5H 2N2
Kyle called me too. Nice guy.
First off not having documents online is an embarrassment in 2014.
2 questions that I have are I ssupect that many will not want to be bothered doing the elevator and will park on the street so how can we stop that. And I had hoped that the roof could be a green one to offset the increase of pavement in this development. Is this rooftop going to be a big holder of heat or is there some kind of surface that can be used to reduce heat.
I am sure there are other questions out there that people have. Did people get notices ?
I spoke to Kyle Strik, and what I understood is that the rooftop parking will be an open parking lot on the roof (which will be very ugly), and that the all detailed plans could be reviewed at the Committee of Adjustment Office.
Thats just it. There ARE plans but the public has not seen them. I called the C of A and Ana Bailao's office to ask how can we know about something nobody has seen. A 4o car rooftop is in my mind more than a "minor variance". I suggest you make some calls.
How the Committee of Adjustment can make a decision without the architectural 3D concept renderings of proposed changes and the detailed plans?
Is it going to be enclosed with the walls and roof or not. What is the exact location of parking stacker or stackers?
Is a new community center double smaller than in original plan? Shouldn’t community center’s rooftop belong to the community and be used as a green roof/garden/gathering community space?
I called Kyle Strik and left a message. Should we call Ana Bailao too?
The person to talk to is Kyle Strik 416-397-771 at the Committee of Adjustment. A citizen can ask for a deferral which the Committee deals with at the meeting itself so there is no way to know what will happen.
If people want to do that I would suggest that the lack of notice, lack of drawings easily available, and the fact that the project Planner is away would be good items to mention.
It seems odd that we are finding this out a week before the meeting. They must have known weeks ago. The planner, Sarah Phipps is away until August and Planning said somebody would call me back today. I am surprised that there is almost no information on this. Maybe it will look great but at this point we are in the dark.
Is there a contact name/number for the city for this zoning variance request? It seems ludicrous that so little information is being shared with the area.
Presumably a variation on
I believe they discovered a storm drain running down the middle of the property. It was probably the famous drain where chemicals were accidentally dumped in the late 70's. I would imagine that they did find the drain during remediation; they dug deep enough.
Interesting. If that's the case, it makes me wonder how well the on-site soil remediation was if they didn't even find some buried pipes. Also, I guess it depends on whether those pipes are still in use. If not, just dig 'em up?
I had heard that after digging they had discovered that there were pipes they did not know about. This may be the cause.
This is going to be ugly.
The walls - rail noise wall and taller building abutting the path - will make the existing open space feel like a canyon.
In an industrial area or downtown (like in NYC) no problem but, I think it's a bad idea in a residential setting. I think we have enough with ugliness with Diesel Trains and unpleasant Noise Walls.
The people who bought townhouses will still be parking underground. This new request to change is just for the commercial building(s) along the west side that aren't constructed yet. I'm not sure if anything has been pre-sold along there yet.
I wish there was more detail available online on how this would work, how it would look, etc.
If I had purchased there I would be really upset about this. The idea of having an underground spot is far different than expecting to have to park your care in a stacked type parking facility. I am sure this would be a deal breaker for some.
What do you think of this parking stacker idea? Sounds like it's basically replacing underground parking with an elevator to bring cars up on to the roof of the commercial buildings.
Frankly, an elevated parking lot on top of the roof next to the Railpath sounds kind of ugly to me.
Is this sort of arrangement cheaper than building an underground parking garage?
i will miss this place.
There will never be another place like Solway Metal. I enjoyed shopping and browsing around for over 30 years and always found treasures. Even my Wife enjoyed coming along.
i will miss this place in the future. It is a shame that most people have no interest and hobbies and need for Metal treasures.
Elsie Lane will be extended through the site creating a new road that will almost link up with the road through the Wallace development. Eventually when the land on the south side of Ernest gets developed the road will continue down to Randolf. The JT traffic committee has looked into this future and has suggested some ideas to keep traffic at a safe speed and to stop cut through traffic.
I would point out that the one house one car theory doesnt take into account visitors and the fact that sadly some people make many trips a day. The City of Toronto's traffic projections for new developments have proven to be inaccurate and based on the 1950's idea that people make only one trip out in the morning and one trip home in the evening. Looking out onto Perth I see the same cars and trucks sometimes 4 or 5 times a day.
Hopefully with Railpath expansion in 2016 and the mobility hub in 2015 at Dundas people will only drive when they have to.
There will have to be a traffic study done for this proposal before it gets approved.
I wouldn't expect the impact to be tooooo bad though. 72 units, 1 car each. And like many households around here, probably zero cars. And even those with cars would undoubtedly use transit, or walk/cycle frequently. ...And they all wouldn't be driving in/out at the same time. It's a pretty amazingly ideal location for bike/transit car-free living, especially once the Railpath expansion happens.
Building new residential units in places with poor bike/walk/transit options does far worse for traffic.
I can't even imagine what driving would be like in the J Triangle two years from now. Good luck to everyone living there - hope you never own a car!!