03-09-2025, 05:17 PM
(03-09-2025, 02:22 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(03-09-2025, 06:02 AM)ZEBuilder Wrote: Those ammendments are only for the now approved 44 floor building, the eventual 55 floor building will in no way be set back 32 meters from King. The only reason Vive needed those ammendments is the zoning bylaw is not designed around phased developments. If Vive were to have done the King building first they wouldn't have needed any of the setback ammendments.
And because there are apparently maximum as well as minimum setbacks. I’m having trouble understanding this. So if I want to put up a tall building with a parklike area next to it, I need a zoning amendment, but if I just want to put in two towers I don’t?
Bizarre. This is another reminder to everybody that most of the best parts of the best cities were built prior to the existence of modern planning.
You in most cases won't require a ZBA in order to produce a building with a park like area, the intent of the maximum in MU-3 zoning is to limit the sort of design that has limited interaction with the street, it still allows for a patio to be in front of the building 7.5 -10m worth (24-33 ft). It's a method to reduce your "Tower in the park" kind of development.
The entire frontage does not need to be building, it just requires that whatever building is built has proper interaction with the street, so in this case it forces the hand of the developer to have interaction with King and Pine, it doesn't prevent the developer from having a parkland area on the site it just limits where it can be put.