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