Tuesday, January 5, 2016

How to Interpret the Spin

There has been a certain amount of spin surrounding City Council's vote to not proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board to oppose Rockport's development application for 1327-1339 Queen St. East.  The facts minus the spin are as follows:



On May 5, 2015, City Council adopted Item TE5.12 Request for Directions report Request for Direction and directed the City Solicitor and appropriate staff to oppose Rockport’s Zoning By-law Amendment application in its present form.

The City Solicitor felt that there were were three issues that were of primary importance
 a. reducing the proposed height, massing and density so as not to overdevelop the site; 
 b. setting the building back to achieve a 4.8 metres sidewalk width, measured from the existing curb; and 
c. reorienting the rear units so they do not gain access from the Memory

So what happened? 

 

 On December 10th 2015, at City Council meeting there was a Motion Without Notice where Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon, seconded by Councillor Mike Layton, recommended that City Council adopt the recommendations contained in the report (December 9, 2015) from the City Solicitor: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-86619.pdf


 In that report, City Planning said that with regard to Height and Massing, the overall height of the proposal has been reduced to 25.8 metres from 30.15 metres.

It’s not literal, you have to interpret


In actual fact, on the Data Sheet submitted by the developer in August 2014, the building height is listed as 26.35 metres plus mechanical. The Developer’s Data sheet revised as of December 2015, shows that the actual building been reduced by less than 1 metre to 25.8 which includes a wrapped mechanical. The entire mass of the building above 20 metres is, in fact, occupied. 

It would seem that reducing the proposed height, massing and density which was deemed an important issue by City Council in May 2015, was not important enough for City Planning to want to fight it at the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Leslieville Community Coalition thinks it is important. 

The Maximum Allowable Height: 

If the Mid-Rise guidelines were applicable in this situation (which they are not), the building exceeds the overall maximum height by 5.8 metres. The City Planners said the revised massing presents as a six storey massing from Queen Street East because of the deep step back of the upper two storeys.

Whether it presents as six storeys or eight storeys is irrelevant, it is 5.8 metres higher and 2.6 times denser than allowed in the Mid-Rise Guidelines and 13.8 metres higher than what is actually allowed under the current zoning.

Sidewalk Width


The drawings have been revised to include a 4.8 metre wide sidewalk.  The Mid-Rise Guidelines (Beaches, Leslieville) is 4.8 metres, This is the minimum set back required by the City. This is great, they're following the guidelines.

Orientation of Rear Units


 On May 5, 2014 City Council requested that the Town house units on Memory Lane not have access from Memory Lane. Now City Planning is positioning the fact that these units do not have front doors opening on to Memory Lane – a public space – as a win. Not only do they have direct access via integral garages that were not envisaged in the original drawings but they no longer are connected to the building by the underground parking garage.

Reduction in square footage 


Once again, it’s not literal – you have to interpret.   We have read that the development is more than 1,000 sq. meters smaller than the original proposal.

 – Hmmm, the original proposal was for 9222 sq m residential, the present proposal is for 8883 sq m residential, a difference of 339 sq. metres. The retail component was originally 660 sq. metres, the current version has 455 sq. metres of retail, a difference of 205 sq. metres. The total change is 544. These figures are taken directly from Rockport’s project data sheets.

The rest of the square footage shrinkage might be made up from the fact that the City is allowing the developer to reduce the amount of parking significantly resulting in one less floor of parking. A win for the developer.

No matter what spin the City tries to put on this one, this is not a win for the community. This development will set a precedent and we would like the precedent to be driven by good planning and vision. That’s why we’re going to the OMB.  We think that a 20 metre height on a 20 metre right-of-way is the right way to go.

If you can or would like to help us fight for good planning, please donate.

Save the date : Tuesday Jan 19 10:00 a.m. City Hall Committee Rm 1 Last chance to be heard on area guidelines

Happy New Year to all and here’s hoping that it will be healthy for everyone and that we’ll make some headway at the OMB appeal on January 25th. The next important event is the public meeting on January 19th at City Hall Committee Room 1 for the proposed guidelines for the area from Leslie to Coxwell on Queen East. The proposal is available via Report from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District - Queen Street East/Ashbridge Precinct Planning Study - City-Initiated Official Plan Amendment and Urban Design Guidelines - Final Report. They are being considered on Jan 19 at Toronto and East York Community Council (TEYCC). The link to the agenda item is here. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.TE13.8 ? These are the guidelines that will shape the future development of the area. This meeting is your last chance to be heard regarding this very important issue. You may also submit written comments.

If you wish to address the Toronto and East York Community Council in person or in writing contact : City Clerk, Attention Rosalind Dyers, Administrator, Toronto and East York Community Council, 100 Queen St. West, 2nd floor, Toronto M5H 2N2 email teycc@toronto.ca fax 416 397-0111 – If you plan to make comments at the meeting please call the City Clerks office by 12 noon on Jan 18th. 416-392-7033 Subsequent to this meeting It will be considered by City Council on February 3, 2016, subject to the actions of the Toronto and East York Community Council.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Update re 1327 Queen East development Planning ok with 8 storeys- December 13, 2015

Hi everyone – just before you all sink into holiday madness here’s the latest as to where we’re at :
LCC update re 1327-1339 Queen east application –

Rockport submitted yet one more set of drawings to the city which can be seen at http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=3515067 in the section marked Supporting Documentation.

Looking southeast from Alton Ave, architects' perspective drawing of the proposed development - via City of Toronto, Development Applications, 1327-1339 Queen St E Linked Document Nov 26, 2015 page 5 of 8

The new elements are dated November 26, 2015.   From that area (on the city website) you should access the PDF for the “linked technical report”Supporting documentation Linked technical report. It shows the new design. If you go to the architectural rendering document and open it you will see that they call it seven-storeys plus penthouse.

Sadly, the height has not changed and the Mechanical Penthouse is wrapped at 100% which literally provides a two-storey penthouse level above the 20m mark. The townhouse units have garages with Memory Lane access but no connection to the now one-level parking garage and so although they continue to be represented as one development, it looks more and more like two separate pieces, one being a townhouse development on Memory Lane.

City Planning: has capitulated. Leontine Major, the Planner on this file provided the links to the information featured below Thursday December 10th

Below is the link to the report that is on the City Council agenda:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-86619.pdf

and the Motion to introduce it:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/mm/bgrd/backgroundfile-86618.pdf

The Motion to approve this 25.8m high development that is completely occupied above the 20m level was moved by Councillor Mary-Margaret McMahon and seconded by Councillor Mike Layton.  This motion was without notice and did not appear on the City Council agenda of December 9, 2015 

If you don’t have time to download it, the basic problem is that City Planning presented a nine-storey building which includes a two-storey wrapped mechanical above the 20m mark to City Council for a vote. Although Planning states that the building height has been lowered it was not – the developer merely dropped the mechanical into the top two storeys. They argued that it presents as six-storey massing from Queen Street East because of deep step back of upper two-storeys.

No matter how they present it, it’s still 5.8 meters higher than the Mid-Rise Guidelines and 5.8 metres higher than any developments found on Queen East. It’s our belief that the mechanical penthouse should be just that, a mechanical penthouse and that no additional housing units should be permitted around the mechanical penthouse.


Leslieville Community Coalition: We’re moving toward the OMB hearing with the LCC’s lawyer and expert witnesses, gathering all the necessary components, information and documentation. The hearing is scheduled for January 25th.


Our fundraising efforts continue so if you can help please do by going to the website and contributing via the PAYPAL button or email us and we’ll advise other methods of payment. http://www.leslievillecommunity.ca/2014/09/etcc-steering-committee-summary.html Any amount can help because this precedent setting development will be fought at the OMB only by the LCC.

In this instance, the City Planners have recommended a development that goes against the guidelines, goes against the community’s wishes and goes against the 20m building height, a height which has been almost uniformly respected from one end of Queen East to the other.

We have lawn signs available for free – please come and pick one up with a frame from GADABOUT 1300 Queen St. East. It’s great way to show Community support and gather momentum for the run up to the hearing after Christmas.

In a short while we’ll let you know how you can help us get ready for the OMB hearing. Below is an list of sites identified by Rockport for future projects. Two of them are listed at 8 and 7 storeys which probably means higher than that. This is why the LCC is continuing to oppose the height. Right now there is nothing to the east nor to the west of this proposal that will match it. If it goes through unchanged there soon will be.


Thank you again for your support!
Victoria Dinnick for the LCC





Soft sites identified by Rockport and proposed heights. Extract from the:

FUNCTIONAL SERVICING & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT IN SUPPORT OF RE-ZONING AND SITE PLAN APPLICATION 1327 - 1339 Queen Street East - dated Oct 16th, 2015

A total of 4 candidate sites (’soft sites’) were identified, as follows:
Soft Site 1 (1285-1305 Queen):
158 units, 119 stalls, 8 storeys, 13,300 square metres of GFA

Soft Site 2 (1341-1347 Queen):
56 units, 42 stalls, 7 storeys, 4,650 square metres of GFA
Project No.: 13042
October 2015 Page 15
Rockport (Queen & Leslie) Inc.
1327 – 1339 Queen Street East

Soft Site 3 (1270-1286 Queen):
35 units, 27 stalls, 6 storeys, 2,900 square metres of GFA

Soft Site 4 (1249-1251 Queen):
20 units, 18 stalls, 6 storeys, 3,319.3 square metres of GFA (proposed application,
Neilas Developments)

There is existing municipal infrastructure consisting of storm sewers, sanitary sewers, combined sewers, watermains, and various utilities adjacent to the four future development soft sites on Queen Street East, Refer to Figure 6 for the segment plan. This existing municipal infrastructure can be extended to service the development of the soft sites.




vd/mh