1327 Queen St E Working Group Meeting #1 - July 30, 2014

The first working group meeting was held at S.H. Armstrong Recreation Centre - in the basement room.

Before the meeting Rockport Group representative finds a seat as City Planners wait to greet more folks at the door - 6:31pm

About 40 representatives from the community attended - along with Ward 32 Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon; Ward 30 Councillor Paula Fletcher's Executive Assistant Susan Serran; City of Toronto Planning, Central Section, Senior Planner, Kathryn Thom - who facilitated the meeting; East Section Manager Kyle Knoeck, East Section Senior Planner Leontine Major, and City of Toronto Planner Shawna Bowen, who presented an overview of the various Mid-rise Design Guidelines.

The Agenda:

• Introductions
• Terms of Reference
• Establish Working Group
• Summary of issues heard at the community consultation meeting
• Presentation: Leslieville, Beach and Mid-rise Design Guidelines
• Next meeting date

City of Toronto Senior Planner Kathryn Thom facilitating the meeting - 8:49pm

With the aid of notes prepared by Leontine Major - with the assistance of Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahone, we fleshed out the issues raised at the last community meeting as best we could.

From my memory - and my notes, and the audio I was able to capture of that meeting - I think we did a very good job of representing all the points that came up at the first¹ City organized - and very well attended - Public Meeting.

We completed the agenda on time. The next working group meeting is set for September 9, 2014.

Planner, Kathryn Thom's proposed 3 meeting process was expanded to a 4 meeting process and, as we as a group comported ourselves adroitly, with civility and aplomb - all those in attendance were included on the working group - as the meeting requested.

Meeting #2 will talk about the Transportation and Infrastructure issues; Meeting #3 will focus on the Built Form issues with the development proposal; and Meeting #4 will allow the developer team to present changes that address the concerns we raised and will dive deep into over the first three meetings.

Transportation and Infrastructure

(click on images for full size)




(both images taken at the end of the meeting, at 8:56pm - bottom 2 are close-ups of top-right image)


We requested expertise from Transportation specialists with the City to address congestion at Greenwood/Queen/Knox that this development makes worse.

I requested that a Transportation Cycling Infrastructure Unit expert also be tapped to help us understand possible impacts on the Contra-flow lane on Knox in particular - and in a more general frame - how making room for more efficient trip-making modes can help solve the increasing traffic congestion issue that this development - and higher density along our Avenues in general - brings to the fore (I phrased it, 'The transportation choices we made post WWII').

I also asked that hydrology specialist be tapped to help us understand how this development proposed massive, and deep, footprint may effect underground water flows; and the height of ground water under properties near the development.

We also asked for an explanation about how the development would address the storm water run-off issue - how the project intends to deal with the run-off that is currently subsumed in a natural and beneficial way by the green, deep set-back that the existing property features.

Built Form

(image taken at the end of the meeting - 8:55pm)

We asked how the Avenue Studies to the East and to the West of this section of Queen would inform the decision making process. Many talked about how the frontage in the side elevation drawings had absolutely nothing to do with the existing built form of this section, or any section of Queen Street East.

Many talked about how the development's proposed height surpassed every set of guild lines that planners use to evaluate a development proposal: the Provincial 25-year doubling of density policy; the City of Toronto Official Plan; the Cities Avenue Guidelines; and the specific nearby Avenue Section study guideline results.

Servicing off Memory Lane was also talked about - the impact on Memory Lane as the lane becomes a route for large garbage bin lifting trucks; how does that effect proximate residential properties? I added that Memory Lane a unique existing form that includes a Park along it's route and that is a popular cyclist and pedestrian route being used by those trying to avoid the frenetic, inhuman and dangerous Queen Street East - which is a rush-hour commute corridor for many hours a day most days.

Several asked how diversity would be maintained in our neighbourhood when the massive property would include no affordable housing units - while flattening many affordable units in it's construction.

Neighbours on either side (West & East) worried about sight-lines and shadowing; and a planner noted the absence of any step-backs at the rear of the property - on it's southwest corner - where no step-backs on the drawings are imagined as the new building's West wall passes south of the existing property on the southeast corner of Queen & Laing, and proceeds along the back of residential properties fronting on Laing.

So much more ... Did I miss anything?


Michael Holloway
ETCC member,
Livable Cities Advocate,
Neighbourhood Tenant.


¹ ETCC - June 25, 2014 | Audio & Images - 1327 Queen St E Community Consultation meeting at 56 Woodfield Rd - June 24, 2014 | http://easttorontocommunity.blogspot.ca/2014/06/audio-images-1327-queen-st-e-community.html

(For full size images: right-click, then left-click on, "Copy Image Location", open new tab, paste link into address bar, press Enter.)



mh

First Working Group Meeting is on Wednesday evening at SH Armstrong

Correction - Saturday, July 26, 2014: According to ETCC contacts with Planning, and my understanding of these things, the public response has been so overwhelming that the process will need to be drawn out slightly - so in that light this up-coming meeting is better understood as the *2nd Community Consultation Meeting* - at which the working group will likely be formed. Below is a reprint of the July 25, 2014 Word Document from Senior Planner Leontine Major - which includes the meeting agenda:

1329 to 1337 Queen Street East Working Group

Agenda

Meeting #1: Working Group Organization, Overview

Date: July 30, 2014
Time: 6:30 pm
Location: SH Armstrong community Centre, 56 Woodfield Road

Agenda:
- Introductions
- Terms of Reference
- Establish Working Group
- Summary of issues heard at the community consultation meeting
- Presentation: Leslieville, Beach and Mid-rise Design Guidelines
- Next meeting date

Friday, July 25, 2014

In my email inbox today (July 25, 2014), at 4:11 pm I received a note from Senior Planner Leontine Major. Apparently the first Working Group meeting will be on Wednesday, July 30th, 6:30 pm, at SH Armstrong Community Centre - 56 Woodfield Road.

This will be the first meeting of the working group, so I thought I'd post this so anyone who's interested and isn't aware that this is going forward - can attend, at least as an observer.

The idea is to have a functional number of folks on the working group - so you may be included - or if there are too many people you may have to settle for observer status - which means you may not talk to the meeting. The number of observers is only limited by space.

Talk to your Councillor if you want to attend but haven't gotten on the group list yet. If your on the list you'll have got the email from Planning today.


Michael Holloway
ETCC
Ward 30 Bikes
Tenant, Jones & Dundas

mh

Victoria Dinnick's Cover Letter - and Kennedy Self's Planning Report 1327-1339 Queen Street East

Victoria Dinnick's Covering Letter:

Kyle Knoeck
Manager, Community Planning
East Section
Toronto and East York District
City Planning Division
City Hall, 18 East

June 24, 2014

Dear Mr. Knoeck,

Attached you will find a Planning Report written by Kennedy Self of Kennedy Self & Associates. I engaged Mr. Self on my behalf to examine the Development Application for 1327 Queen St. East for a Zoning By-law Amendment application to construct an 8 storey, mid-rise building with commercial at grade and 110 residential units including 14 townhomes onto Memory Lane. I believe that his examination of the application is a thorough evaluation of the development proposal and would like Planning to consider it while conducting their own evaluation of the file.

Kennedy Self has worked in the planning profession for over 43 years. Experienced has been gained in both the public and private sectors. Member of the Canadian Institute of Planner, the Ontario Professional Planners Institute and a Registered Professional Planner.Most recently he was with the Regional Municipality of Peel as the Manager of Development Planning responsible for ensuring the regional interest were met in the Town of Caledon development approval process.


I am fighting for good development. I know that whatever building goes in will be setting a precedent for the future. I want to see something that isn't 8-storeys or 30metres high,that has a bit of a setback from Queen so that a sidewalk cafe or restaurant with an outdoor patio could be a possibility in the new retail environment. I want to see a development that respects the Official Plan and creates a balance of high quality commercial, residential, institutional and open space uses that meets the needs of the local community; that locates and masses new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, through means such as providing appropriate setbacks and/or stepping down heights, particularly towards lower scale Neighbourhoods;

I want to see a development that instead of going against the plan and allowing for laneway housing on Memory Lane, adds green space for both the condominium tenants and the neighbouring residential area -- a visible breathing space that connects the condo development with Memory Lane rather than creating a barrier wall. I don’t want to see Memory Lane used as the only access for servicing and access to residential units. I want to see a development that has enough room that pedestrians aren’t threatened by the newly increased traffic, that has enough space for a pull off or over so that cars aren’t double parked blocking Memory Lane, a laneway less than 6 meters wide.

I thank you for your consideration,


Victoria Dinnick
65, 67, 67 rear Laing St.
Co-Chair East Toronto Community Coalition

cc: Leontine Major
Senior Planner
Councillor Mary Margaret McMahon
Councillor Paula Fletcher

Planning Report by Registered Professional Planner, Kennedy Self - Kennedy Self & Associates

1

PLANNING REPORT

1327 – 1339 QUEEN STREET EAST

Kennedy Self & Associates have been engaged by Ms. Victoria Dinnick to provide an expert planning opinion with respect to the proposed intensification for 1327 – 1339 Queen Street East (subject site). Ms. Dinnick owns the properties at 65, 67 Laing Street and 67 Laing Street Rear which are immediately to the rear of the proposed intensification proposal along Memory Lane. The objective is to determine if the proposed intensification provides a good fit for the surrounding area.

1.0 Proposal

Bousfields INC. has submitted a Planning and Urban Design Rationale dated February 2014 for a proposed 8-storey mixed-use building comprising 96 residential units and an additional row of 14 stacked townhouses with direct access to Memory Lane. Access to the proposed intensification will be from Memory Lane including all deliveries as well as access to an underground parking garage. In their opinion the proposal is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the City of Toronto Official Plan. With respect to the City of Toronto Official Plan, Bousfields INC. focus their opinion on the fact that the policies and provisions for the designated Avenues such as Queen Street East encourage intensification in such built-up areas.

2.0 Planning Comment

I do share the general comments with respect to the general planning context for this area of Queen Street East. The subject site is designated as part of an Avenues designation and the provisions of the Mixed Use Areas designation do apply. The Development Criteria for Mixed Use Areas are set out in Policy 4.5(2) of the City of Toronto Official Plan and are noted in the Bousfield’s INC. report.


Policy 2.3.1(2) provides that developments within Mixed Use Areas adjacent to
Neighbourhoods will:

a. Be compatible with those Neighbourhoods;
b. Provide a gradual transition of scale and density, as necessary to achieve the objectives of this Plan through the stepping down of buildings towards and setbacks from those Neighbourhoods;
c. Maintain adequate light and privacy for residents in those Neighbourhoods; and
d. Attenuate resulting traffic and parking impacts on adjacent neighbourhood streets so as not to significantly diminish the residential amenity of those Neighbourhoods.

Kennedy Self & Associates

42 Balsam Street North

Uxbridge ON L9P 1B3

2

Finally, I am greatly concerned with the sections “4.6 Mid-Rise Guidelines, 5.1
Intensification, 5.3 Height, Built form and Massing and 5.5 Urban Design” of the Bousfield INC. report. It would appear that they feel that the Mid-Rise Guidelines provide the best policy direction in establishing the performance standards that they feel are the most appropriate to establish good urban design criteria for the successful integration of their proposal with the abutting properties and in particular the adjacent Neighbourhoods designation.

In my opinion what is lost with this approach is the very thrust of the City’s Official Plan. Very much is said in the Official Plan with respect to the Existing and Planned Contexts. In fact, to quote the Official Plan:

“The existing context of any given area refers to what is there now. The planned context refers to what is intended in the future. In the stable areas, such as Neighbourhoods . . . the planned context typically reinforces the existing context. . . . Height and density aspects of the planned context of new development will be assessed on the basis of the Plan’s policies, including  Secondary Plans and site and area specific policies. . . . Where there are no height and density limits in the Plan and no area zoning implementing the Plan, height and density aspects of the planned context will be determined on the basis of an area review. . . . In this case . . . Council will have due regard for the existing and planned contexts.”

Of particular relevance in determining the appropriateness of the current proposal are the following Policies in Chapter 2 of the Official Plan:

“b) Development in Mixed Use Areas on Avenues, prior to an Avenue Study has the potential to set a precedent for the form and scale of reurbanization along the Avenue. In addition to the policies of the Plan for Mixed Use Areas, proponents of such proposals will also address the larger context and examine the implications for the segment of the Avenue in which the proposed development is located. This Review will:

i) include an assessment of the impacts of the incremental development of the entire Avenue segment at a similar form, scale and intensity, appropriately allowing for distinguishing circumstances;
ii) consider whether incremental development of the entire Avenue segment as identified in the above assessment would adversely impact any adjacent Neighbourhoods or Apartment Neighbourhoods;
iii) consider whether the proposed development is supportable by available infrastructure; and
iv) be considered together with any amendment to the Official Plan or Zoning By-law at the statutory public meeting for the proposed development. Development requiring a rezoning will not be allowed to proceed prior to completion of an Avenue Study unless the review demonstrates to Council’s satisfaction that subsequent development of the entire Avenue segment will have no adverse impacts within the context and parameters of the review.

Kennedy Self & Associates

42 Balsam Street North

Uxbridge ON L9P 1B3

3

c) In addition to satisfying all other policies of this Plan, including in particular the neighbourhood protection policies, development in Mixed Use Areas on an Avenue that precedes the completion of an Avenue Study will:

i) support and promote the use of transit;
ii) contribute to the creation of a range of housing options in the community;
iii) contribute to an attractive, safe and comfortable pedestrian environment that encourages walking and strengthens local retailing;
iv) provide universal physical access to all publicly accessible spaces and buildings;
v) conserve heritage properties;
vi) be served by adequate parks, community services, water and sewers, and transportation facilities;
vii) be encouraged to incorporate environmentally sustainable building design and construction practices that: . . .

(1)
(2)
. . .
(5) create innovative green spaces such as green roofs and designs that reduce the urban heat island effect.

It is my opinion that the submitted “Avenue Segment Study” does not adequately address or assess the significance of the appropriate policies of the Official Plan dealing with the existing and planned contexts. As well, nothing is provided within the “Avenue Segment Study” that touches on the overall provisions for the conservation of the designated Potential Heritage Conservation District (Area # 72 – Leslieville).

The overall impact of the architectural style and urban design elements of the proposal and those anticipated in the “Avenue Segment Study” are not at all sympathetic to the Potential Heritage Conservation District (Area # 72 – Leslieville). In my opinion the massing and design elements do not respect the form, scale, proportion, pattern and materials with a view to influence the character, scale and appearance of the development with the surrounding neighbourhood.

The proposed intensification does not in my opinion adequately address the following Criteria of Policy 4.5(2):

a. Create a balance of high quality commercial, residential, institutional and open space uses that reduces automobile dependency and meets the needs of the local community;
c. locate and mass new buildings to provide a transition between areas of different development intensity and scale, as necessary to achieve the objectives of this Plan, through means such as providing appropriate setbacks and/or stepping down heights, particularly towards lower scale Neighbourhoods;

Kennedy Self & Associates

42 Balsam Street North

Uxbridge ON L9P 1B3

4

i. provide good site access and circulation and an adequate supply of parking for residents and visitors;
j. locate and screen service areas, ramps and garbage storage to minimize the impact on adjacent streets and residences; and
k. provide indoor and outdoor recreation space for building residents in every significant multi-unit residential development.

Memory Lane is not a local street but rather a laneway that provides the opportunity for area residents in the neighbourhood to gain access to Laing Street and ultimately Queen Street. There is little or no residential character on this section of Memory Lane to encourage the entire access and servicing for the proposed intensification to use Memory Lane. In addition the proposal is anticipating that the lane be used as the main access and frontage for the proposed 14 stacked townhouse units. In our opinion this is not in keeping with the character of the lane and is not an appropriate or safe environment for proposed families or residents.

The proposal completely ignores the very essence of a memo sent to the Works Committee in June 2006, from William G. Crowther, Executive Director, Technical Services with respect to Construction of Housing in Laneways. This memo was completed with the support of Staff of Planning, Transportation, Toronto Water, and Solid Waste Management Services.

The Conclusions of that memo would appear to sum up the issues:

“Construction of housing on laneways is not anticipated in the new Toronto Official Plan and it would not be supportable as good planning. Laneways are primarily constructed to provide vehicular access to parking garages for houses which already have public street frontage.

For the purpose of installing and maintaining both public and private utilities, laneways do not provide adequate space and therefore, compromise safety, result in extremely high costs, and increased disruption for residents.

Garbage and recycling collection, emergency vehicle access and snow clearing are all problematic operations in laneways, especially if the laneway is not a through laneway.

Construction of houses on lanes can be considered only in special circumstances when there are no privacy, overlook, shadowing and engineering servicing implications. One example would be a house having frontage onto a public park, but serviced from a lane in the rear.

Approval of housing in laneways would incur additional costs with respect to delivering, operating and maintaining City services such as snow removal, garbage collection, water and sewer infrastructure with specialized, non-standard equipment and techniques.”

Kennedy Self & Associates

42 Balsam Street North

Uxbridge ON L9P 1B3

5

The memo concluded with the following recommendations:

“Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the City not permit construction of housing on existing laneways, except in special
circumstances where there are no adverse privacy, overlook, shadowing and engineering
servicing implications; and
(2) the City not permit construction of housing on proposed/future laneways.”

3.0 Conclusion

In my opinion the proposal as presented falls far short of the basic principles and directions of the City of Toronto Official Plan that would constitute this as good planning for this area of Queen Street East. The density and height are not consistent with the Mixed Use Areas and Avenues policies of the Official Plan. I do accept that intensification is an acceptable concept for the subject site but considerable focus is needed on those aspects that severely impact the overall architectural design, particularly with respect to materials and height as well as the density of the proposal. In my opinion the proposed 14 stacked townhouse element should be removed.

The proposal should consider the opportunities anticipated for the Potential Heritage Conservation District (Area # 72 – Leslieville). The stacked townhouse element does little to promote the character of this area as depicted by the Official Plan for Leslieville and it will most certainly impact the function and role of Memory Lane. Memory Lane does not function as a normal City street and as such should not be promoted as the main access and service corridor for this from of intensification. Since it is not a normal City street comprising the normal public functions such as a sidewalk it is very difficult to imagine that this laneway will function as the front yard and access for 14 stacked townhouse units. On top of that the proposal calls for it also to function as the main point of vehicular and service access for the proposal. This is not consistent with the general thrust and content of the provisions and policies of the Official Plan dealing with the existing and planned contexts. The Official Plan calls for the creation of pedestrian and vehicular environments that are complementary to each other. There are no sidewalks on Memory Lane so how can it possibly function as a normal street providing pedestrian access and vehicular access on a less than adequate right of way? In my opinion this is not the character of the area nor does it promote good neighbourhood practices to encourage its use as such.

The exterior design, character and appearance of this proposal does not reflect the principles and policies embodied in the Official Plan with respect to the existing and planned context. The “Avenue Segment Study” does little to augment these principles and does nothing more than to suggest that overbuilding of development opportunities should define the new development

Kennedy Self & Associates

42 Balsam Street North

Uxbridge ON L9P 1B3

6

criteria and principles for this section of Queen Street East. In my opinion, given the historical nature of Leslieville this development should not proceed until at minimum a study has been commissioned by the City of the Avenues designation for Queen Street East that would provide the opportunity for the partnerships that are necessary as part of true City building.

In short I accept that there is an opportunity for a quality intensification for this portion of Queen Street East but it is premature until the appropriate parameters are established through a working charrette to establish the development framework and design parameters that are necessary to reflect the character of the neighbourhood and its residents.




Kennedy Self RPP

Kennedy Self & Associates

42 Balsam Street North

Uxbridge ON L9P 1B3

mh

Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon Community Consultation Follow-up

Received July 8, 2014 - from Councillor McMahon`s Office

Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon
Ward 32 Beaches-East York
www.CouncillorMcMahon.com

Community Consultation Report

A public meeting was held on Tuesday June 24th, 2014, at S.H. Armstrong Community Centre where residents of the Leslieville area provided comments on the proposed development at 1327-1339 Queen St. E.

Proposed Development:
1327-1339
Height: 8 Storeys
Units: 110
Parking Spaces: 106

Planner in attendance:
Leontine Major
lmajor@toronto.ca

Councillor in attendance:
Mary-Margaret McMahon
councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca
Paula Fletcher
councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca

Preliminary Report:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-69671.pdf

Major themes:

Residents:
• Some residents were concerned that building was too tall and large and that it was out of keeping for the area;
• The façade of the building and its overall design were criticized by several residents that attended the meeting;
• Concerns were also raised about increased traffic particularly on Memory Lane, Knox Ave. and in the surrounding area;
• Danger to pedestrians that use Memory Lane was cited as a concern;
• Placing units that face onto the laneway worried several local residents particularly those who live immediately adjacent to Memory Lane;
• The underground water courses, high water table in the area and the impact that the development could have on basement flooding was expressed by several local residents;
• Dealing with soil contamination rather than brining people to the area was suggested as a smarter strategic move for the City;
• Some expressed concern the developer has not yet changed their plan despite vocal opposition;
• The loss of trees in the back yards of the two purchased properties was a concern for many;
• Shadow impacts and loss of light were raised;
• Garbage pick-up and the logistics was discussed;
• A mix of units (size) and ownership (affordable) were proposed by residents at the meeting;
• The impact this building will have on parking availability in the area is a concern and bike or car-share spaces were presented as an alternative.

Planning Department:
• The Toronto Official Plan identifies Queen Street East as an 'Avenue' where some increased density is expected;
• The proposed development would require the site to be rezoned, planning staff will investigate if the proposal meets the applicable sections of the Official Plan and Provincial Policies;
• The proposal will be circulated to various City Divisions for feedback ;
• An acceptable transition to the houses behind the building will need to be made.

Next Steps:

• A working group with interested local residents will be created to help resolve issues with the proposal.


Thank you,
Mary-Margaret McMahon
Councillor Ward 32
Beaches-East York

mh

Could 1333 - 1339 Queen St E buildings be Price Brothers fourplexes? - Possible Heritage buildings?

By Laura Marks
ETCC

One of the surprising things about the June 24th Community Consultation meeting on the 1327 Queen St E development proposal was that the heritage aspect of the site wasn't discussed, especially in light of the fact that one of the conclusions of Toronto and East York Community Council's preliminary study was that a heritage review of the site was in order. The buildings at 1327 -1339 Queen Street East are in the middle of a pink area that denotes an archeologically sensitive "hot spot" on Toronto Heritage's map of the city.

Toronto Heritage Service City Map

The first buildings on the site, semi-detached 1327 and 1329 Queen Street East, were built some time before 1907 by John Coatsworth Graham, born in Caledonia, Grand River, Upper Canada in the year 1847. His parents were English emigrants Francis and Jane Graham. He became the biggest ice-dealer in Toronto, gathering tons of ice from Ashbridges Bay and Lake Simcoe, and storing the ice in several vast warehouses. One of these ice houses: 110 X 50 feet wide and 18 feet high, holding two thousand, two hundred tons of ice was located at the bottom of Lake Street, now Knox Avenue, where Lake Street met Ashbridges Bay. John C. Graham was an athlete of note who won the Championship of America in rowing. As a track star he won numerous medals and prizes including several Mayors' Cups. He ran for city alderman in 1907, nominated by Daniel Lamb. One of his sons, Emerson was elected and served as a city alderman. The Graham family owned and occupied 1327 and 1329 Queen Street East until 1953.

One of John C. Graham's daughters, Ella Maud, was married to John Raphael Price in 1911. During that same year the four-plexes on Queen Street were in the process of being built. Ella Maud and John Price lived at 240 Greenwood Avenue. The majestic house at 100 Greenwood Avenue also belonged to the Price family. The Price family were brickyard owners and Price Brothers were house builders.

Price Bros. built the Heritage Listed fourplexes at 18 - 36 Wineva Avenue in the 1920s for which the fourplexes at 1333 - 1339 Queen Street East are likely a much earlier prototype.

Discovering the history of these centenarian buildings at 1327 - 1329 Queen Street East and the story of the early inhabitants of Leslieville opens up a many-layered appreciation of the place where we live. If we're to be enriched by our collective experience, it's important to protect these valuable and fragile architectural testaments to the origin of our city and especially of Leslieville for future generations.

2014/07/02


mh