First resubmission here just to address a notice of incomplete application. I will add the massing perspectives to the thread:
PLN - Simplified Report Graphics - Binder1-5.jpg

PLN - Simplified Report Graphics - Binder1-1.jpg
 
It is interesting that, after an extraordinarily long pre-application consultation process, staff still deemed the application incomplete. And resolving that issue took six months.

When we hear that development applications are now 80% faster, apparently there are exceptions.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
It is interesting that, after an extraordinarily long pre-application consultation process, staff still deemed the application incomplete. And resolving that issue took six months.

When we hear that development applications are now 80% faster, apparently there are exceptions.
Click to expand...

Ok....so you got me wondering............


From the Cover Letter:

Since receiving the incomplete notice, Hullmark and
its consultant team have worked cooperatively with City Staff, including through various
workshops and discussions, to determine the extent of revisions necessary to facilitate City
Staff’s review of the above noted applications, and for the applications to be deemed complete.
The materials contained herein are the result of this cooperative process, and Hullmark is
confident that the applications are complete. Hullmark looks forward to continuing to work
cooperatively with City Staff to bring this worthwhile proposal to fruition.
Enclosed herewith are the following materials provided in support of the above noted
applications:
1. One digital copy of the Resubmission Form, associated Project Data Sheet, and
Resubmission Details;
2. One digital copy of the Boundary and Topographical Survey, prepared by KRCMAR,
dated January 5, 2023;
3. One digital copy of the Architectural Plans, including Cover Page, Statistics,
Perspective Views, Context Plan, GFA Diagrams, Shadow Study, Site Plan,
Underground Garage Plans, Floor Plans, Roof Plan, Building Elevations, and Building
Sections, prepared by Allies and Morrison LLP, dated October 25, 2024;
4. One digital copy of the Computer-Generated Building Mass Model, prepared by Allies
and Morrison LLP.;
5. One digital copy of the Simplified Report Graphics, prepared by Allies and Morrison
LLP;
6. One digital copy of the Landscape Plans, prepared by SvN, dated June 10, 2025;
1751687077015.png


So I note the above w/o judgement (yet)...........just so people know what was supposedly missing.........../incomplete and how we're here.

Note here, that all the revised docs are public facing as June 19th or June 20th.

So, completely apart from any substantive issues, what we have is that it took the applicant until then to file the missing/incomplete works.

Again, I'm not throwing anyone under the bus here, but outlining what has happened superficially.

I will take some time and deep dive the revisions over the next day or two and add my observations.........I may then dive deeper still if merited . Tat ths

At this point, I'm not faulting anyone, I'm just curious............I will sate my curiosity.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
It is interesting that, after an extraordinarily long pre-application consultation process, staff still deemed the application incomplete. And resolving that issue took six months.

When we hear that development applications are now 80% faster, apparently there are exceptions.
Click to expand...
Two-three years ago, fair, but...
Northern Light said:
Ok....so you got me wondering............


From the Cover Letter:

Since receiving the incomplete notice, Hullmark and
its consultant team have worked cooperatively with City Staff, including through various
workshops and discussions, to determine the extent of revisions necessary to facilitate City
Staff’s review of the above noted applications, and for the applications to be deemed complete.
The materials contained herein are the result of this cooperative process, and Hullmark is
confident that the applications are complete. Hullmark looks forward to continuing to work
cooperatively with City Staff to bring this worthwhile proposal to fruition.
Enclosed herewith are the following materials provided in support of the above noted
applications:
1. One digital copy of the Resubmission Form, associated Project Data Sheet, and
Resubmission Details;
2. One digital copy of the Boundary and Topographical Survey, prepared by KRCMAR,
dated January 5, 2023;
3. One digital copy of the Architectural Plans, including Cover Page, Statistics,
Perspective Views, Context Plan, GFA Diagrams, Shadow Study, Site Plan,
Underground Garage Plans, Floor Plans, Roof Plan, Building Elevations, and Building
Sections, prepared by Allies and Morrison LLP, dated October 25, 2024;
4. One digital copy of the Computer-Generated Building Mass Model, prepared by Allies
and Morrison LLP.;
5. One digital copy of the Simplified Report Graphics, prepared by Allies and Morrison
LLP;
6. One digital copy of the Landscape Plans, prepared by SvN, dated June 10, 2025;
View attachment 664093

So I note the above w/o judgement (yet)...........just so people know what was supposedly missing.........../incomplete and how we're here.

Note here, that all the revised docs are public facing as June 19th or June 20th.

So, completely apart from any substantive issues, what we have is that it took the applicant until then to file the missing/incomplete works.

Again, I'm not throwing anyone under the bus here, but outlining what has happened superficially.

I will take some time and deep dive the revisions over the next day or two and add my observations.........I may then dive deeper still if merited . Tat ths

At this point, I'm not faulting anyone, I'm just curious............I will sate my curiosity.
Click to expand...
This generally speaks to an ongoing dialog that we're rightly not privy to. Why would anyone rush this if the project won't be going ahead for years (it won't).

While the "City sucks and is slow" narrative is very often correct (especially in West and East districts), there is always nuance that isn't often well-captured on UT. This app is different. The team is different, the application is different, and, fundamentally, the market is different. Why would Hullmark rush an approval just to sit on it (and pay higher taxes)?

Let it be.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top