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 & Associates42 Balsam Street NorthUxbridge 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 & Associates42 Balsam Street NorthUxbridge 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 & Associates42 Balsam Street NorthUxbridge 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 & Associates42 Balsam Street NorthUxbridge 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 & Associates42 Balsam Street NorthUxbridge 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 & Associates42 Balsam Street NorthUxbridge ON L9P 1B3
mh
No comments:
Post a Comment