Dan Harris 74 Church Street Weston ON M9N 1N3

Transcription

1 Dan Harris 74 Church Street Weston ON M9N 1N3 Jennifer Keesmaat Chief Planner & Executive Director City of Toronto 100 Queen Street West, 12 th Floor East Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2 Dear Ms. Keesmaat: Re: An Open Letter regarding the Proposed Redevelopment of 22 John Street and 33/35 King Street in Weston I have given some consideration to this proposed development and am writing to express the concerns I have been able to identify to date. I may have further and other questions, and I will endeavor to get them to you promptly. I am asking that you have your staff review these concerns and suggestions as part of the Community Consultation and ensure that this letter forms part of the record. I look forward to receiving a response from your office to the specific concerns identified. Thank you in advance for your kind consideration of these submissions. The developer proposes to construct a 30 story residential building at 22 John St. in Weston. This height exceeds the height limits as set out in the Official Plan, which currently limits construction on that site to eight stories. That eight story limit is set out in 1 Site and Area Specific Policy 45. In addition, the Urban Design Guidelines of June 2004 provide guidelines with which development in the Weston area is required to comply. This current proposal does not meet or address the standards and limits set out in these planning guidelines. These detailed planning documents appear to have been cast to the wind without explanation. As you are aware, Weston has been designated one of Toronto s 31 Neighbourhood Improvement Areas. Over the last few decades, many manufacturing jobs have been lost and the socio economic fabric of our immediate community has undergone significant challenges. Crime and safety concerns burble just beneath the surface. Our main street, Weston Road, struggles to maintain its retail health. In addition, in the last five years, Weston has also experienced significant dislocation and adjustment in accommodating the construction of the air rail link to service the needs of our city as a whole. It is 1

2 2 within this climate of need and dislocation that the specifics of this proposal need to be evaluated. We are currently experiencing a degree of community fatigue but are looking to redevelopment opportunities as a way to enhance the economic, cultural and neighbourhood centric integrity of our community. We are looking to protect, and in some cases enhance the linkages, the walkability, the vitality and beauty of Weston. We also wish to maintain features which are integral to Weston: our historic residential roots, the retail viability of our main streets, our Farmers Market, our access to parkland and our access to public transit TTC, GO and now the UP Express. I believe that the good people in our Residents' Association have supported this development with these goals of maintaining and improving our community. However, the development process for this project has come quickly and has been thrust on a community sidelined with the challenges of dealing with the air rail link project and its significant impact, both in the short and long term, on Weston. We have had many, many community meetings and been consulted often. However, it is not always clear where our ideas and concerns have taken root and what ideas, when they have been expressed through the consultation processes, have actually been implemented. We have taken part in general neighbourhood design charrettes, design meetings for the John Street pedestrian bridge, the Lawrence Ave. pedestrian bridge, the train tunnel and resulting green space, the move and redesign of our train station etc. During this time we have had multiple road closures, increased construction traffic and air, noise and light pollution to contend with. We do support development in our community. However, new development needs to support, not erode, quality of life in our neigbourhood. With this in mind we propose the following changes to the development proposal as presented. 1) The deviation from planning principles as set out in the Official Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines must be a one off. City Hall needs to reassert the 8 storey limit for the rest of our downtown pursuant to Area Specific Policy 45. Specifically, all of the streets available for mixed use development within that area should be designated as "Avenues", pursuant to the city's guidelines for mid rise buildings along designated arterial roads. 2) The 40,000 sq. ft. of storage lockers should never have been considered and must be eliminated. This is not the highest and best use of currently zoned retail space. The space must remain retail; 3) Retail frontage must be maintained at ground level on John Street and Pantelis Kalamaris Lane. There is no rationale advanced for not having retail use at ground level on the John St. and Pantelis Kalamaris Lane frontages. Solely residential uses are not the highest and best use of these lands. Instead of townhouses at grade, retail frontages should be incorporated into this development; 4) The laneway between the east side of 35 King and the train tunnel needs to be

3 3 properly finished as a pedestrian walkway/woonerf. This laneway does appear to be wide enough to accommodate the farmers trucks on market day. This would add to the overall market space and keep the farmers who need access to their trucks coming to the Weston Market in the future. To the extent that creating this usage includes Metrolinx lands, they should also be invited to participate in the design and upkeep of this space. Specific Concerns 1) Applying Existing Planning Guidelines for Height and Density The Urban Design Guidelines of June 2004 remain a powerful roadmap for what can and should be foundation principles for (re)development in what is the center of the historic Town of Weston. One need only refer to Figure B in the document (set out on the next page) to appreciate the extent to which those guidelines have been ignored in the current proposal. In the Urban Design Guidelines the height of buildings is to be limited to a maximum of 24 m with the following exceptions: Buildings fronting on to Weston Road and/or John Street will be limited to a maximum height of three stories or 9 m for all portions of the buildings located within 6 m of the street line. Any additional height above the third story will be set back a minimum of 3 m from the face of the base building to a maximum height of eight stories (24 m). The John Street parking lot was brought into the City of Toronto s assets with the former Town of Weston. It was part of the commonweal of Weston and has now been sold as a chattel by the City of Toronto. Figure B from the Urban Design Guidelines illustrates how different the vision of the Guidelines is from what is proposed. Figure B is set out on the following page:

4 4

5 5 At the Community Consultation Meeting held on June 2, 2015, when I asked you about height and density issues you did not appear at all troubled that this development might be used as a precedent for future developments in Weston. You asked me rhetorically why we would be afraid of height when we had so many tall buildings already. Again, I must stress that the increased density and height in this proposed development is contrary to the City s former plan for the site, and the downtown Weston area as a midrise neighborhood. In the current official plan, Weston Road is designated as an "Avenue". The criteria for development of an Avenue are remarkably similar to the limitations set out in Site and Area Specific Policy 45: 45. Lands Located within Weston Village a) New buildings within Weston Village will have a maximum height of eight stories and 24 m. They should be sited at the front lot line and oriented to the adjacent street, similar to existing lowrise buildings along Weston Road. On Weston Road or John Street, building height will be limited to three stories or 9 m at the street frontage, to correspond to historic Heights in Weston Village but may step back to the eight story (24 m) maximum. No planning policy rationale has been advanced to justify reducing the area of coverage of Site & Area Specific Policy Number 45. It is important to the residents of the former Town of Weston that the historic center of the Town be visibly maintained. This sentiment is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), 2014, which "recognizes that local context and character is important. (Staff Report of August 18, 2015 at page 6). The residents of the former Town of Weston have not opposed density increases within the precincts of the former Town boundaries knowing that the integrity of the central commercial district would be protected. This project fails to protect the central commercial district of our neighbourhood, contrary to the promises of Site and Area Specific Policy 45. Interestingly, the first proposal presented to the community at the Community Consultation held on March 19, 2014 came closer to compliance with Site and Area Specific Policy 45. However, it was also far too high at 18 stories. However, it had stepped back features etc. The Planning Staff Report dated August 18, 2015 presented to Etobicoke York Community Council indicates in part as follows: Pre Application Consultation Over the last two and a half years, several pre application meetings have been held with various City divisions and the applicant (Rockport Group) to discuss the development proposal, complete application submission requirements, and the status of the proposal relative to the City's Official Plan, applicable Zoning Bylaws And Urban Design Guidelines. Additional pre application consultation

6 6 meetings and discussions were held with the applicant and City Planning staff throughout the period of May 2014 to May At the June 2, 2015 Community Consultation a 30 story rabbit was pulled out of the Planning Department s magic hat and presented to the residents of the former Town of Weston. We were told that the first proposal did not comply with the City s Tall Building Guidelines so that the density represented in the first 18 story proposal would result in a 30 story tower. Essentially, if you squeeze the base of the development, it has to go up. I respectfully submit that a tall building does not belong on that site because it is a crude and unfair abrogation of the promise of Site and Area Specific Policy 45. According to the City s website, On May 8, 2013, City Council adopted the updated city wide Tall Building Design Guidelines. The Guidelines integrate and build upon previous Counsel Adopted tall building guidelines and establish a unified set of performance measures for the evaluation of all tall building development applications city wide. The website page "Urban Design Tall Building Design Guidelines" concludes with the following:... These citywide Guidelines do not address where tall building should be located or how tall they should be on a specific site. Instead, when it is determined that a tall building is supportable and represents "good planning," the Guidelines will then apply to inform the site and building design. First, the tall building guidelines were known to the City Planning Department when the 18 story proposal was presented to the community on March 19, The generous conclusion is that Staff recognized that the site was not appropriate for a tall building, so allowed the building s siting as proposed, notwithstanding its excessive density/height, which was contrary to Site and Area Specific Policy 45. Second, and alternatively, the planning process applied to the site got it exactly backwards. Rather than first determine that a tall building is supportable and represented good planning, Staff maximized the density on the site, presented it as an 18 story building at a public meeting and subsequently squeezed it into a tall building. We know from Site and Area Specific Policy 45 that a tall building is not supportable on this site and represents "bad planning". Staff must be taken to have known at the March 19, 2014 meeting that the proposed development did not meet the Tall Building Design Guidelines, but allowed the proposal to be put out at a purported Community Consultation. We were then told at the June 2, 2015 meeting that the surprise application of the Tall Building Design Guidelines resulted in a thirty story tower. The preponderance of the probabilities favors the second, alternative, conclusion. In the near future, our community will have a number of potential development sites

7 7 coming forward including but not limited to: Weston Rd and Lawrence (Metrolinx lands), the Cruikshank lot, Humber River Hospital Church Street site and Wilby Crescent, to name a few. If the integrity of the planning process is applied and intact, we should not have to entertain additional rounds of fighting height and density concerns with these development opportunities. 2) The Inclusion of 40,000 sq. ft. of Self Storage Lockers is Not Appropriate. In articulating this request, a brief history of the development at 33/35 King St. is in order. The parcel was originally owned and developed by Lionstar Developments. The staff report is quite correct when it states that 33 King St. is subject to a Site Specific Zoning By Law. Lionstar went to the City of York to be relieved of the obligation to build the commercial space. It proposed the tower and retail space. At that time, the same developer owned a parcel near Dufferin and Bloor in the City of Toronto. As a result of community pressure, the City of Toronto revoked the building permit for that project. The Weston community made the same request of the City of York, which was not acceded to. It was apparent that there would be strong opposition to permitting any change to the development that did not radically reduce the height of the tower. Accordingly the developer built what he was entitled to build, which is what is on the site today. The building at 33/35 King St. is an early example of a mixed use development. It includes office space, residences, and retail areas. In virtually every other large new development in the City of Toronto, commercial uses, including retail, are prevalent. Retail at ground level is all but universal. There is no planning rationale advanced here to justify changing currently built out retail space in a mixed use building into the dead use of storage. It is remarkable that the Planning Department would entertain the decommissioning of a mixed use building. That is particularly so when the building is located in the commercial/retail center of the former Town of Weston at a time when higher order transit is integrating into the area. It is particularly galling that employment opportunities in one of the City s 31 Neighborhood Improvement Areas are being decommissioned in favor of storage lockers. The staff report of August 18, 2015 opines that, "The proposed development, along with local expansion of public transit by Metrolinx and GO transit, will contribute to an area wide social and economic revitalization." The conversion of 40,000 sq., ft. of retail space into storage lockers will have no such effect. The retail space at 33/35 King Street that is not being given over to the artists live work space should be maintained as retail space. Further, in the build out of the artists premises it would be a simple matter to attach a small retail outlet to each unit fronting into the interior mall. To do so would further the commercial success of the artists and present a beachhead for the renting of the remaining retail space. Access to this interior retail space could be integrated into the Community Hub providing a stronger linkage between this retail space, natural pedestrian traffic patterns and the Weston Farmers

8 8 Market. Under no circumstances should the City of Toronto agree to the conversion of the retail space into storage lockers. Finally, such storage space use is automobile centric. It will generate traffic that the area cannot sustain. This brings me to the traffic study, dated June 2015, as part of this development proposal, which is entirely unreliable for two reasons. First, the traffic counts relied upon were taken on June 14, 2014 (Report at page 30), a time when St. John the Evangelist school was closed. It closed effective September No allowance has been made for the traffic that will result with the rebuilding of the school. Second, the study proceeds on the assumption that King Street should be considered a collector road when it is actually now a local road. Indeed the fact that the study recognizes that the traffic loads on King Street are approaching the redefining of the street as a collector road is reason enough to reduce the scale of the development. 3) The Development at 22 John St. Should have a Retail Component. There is no rationale advanced for not having mixed use at ground level on the frontages of John St. and Pantelis Kalamaris Lane. Again, residential only use is not the highest and best use for those lands. This building is in the commercial center of our community in what was the Town of Weston. It is poor planning to not enhance the retail nature of this area. The proposed development consists of a five story building, fronting on John St., which steps up to seven stories and steps up further to a 30 story tower. Purportedly, the Tall Building Design Guidelines, adopted May 2013 by the City of Toronto, (hereafter TBDG) have been applied to this development. In essence, this proposal would plunk a residential apartment building into a commercial area. Contrary to TBDG 1.1, there does not appear to have been an evaluation of the existing context or any demonstration of how the proposed tall building responds to the patterns, opportunities, and challenges within the surrounding area. The existing context is a commercial/retail context. The base building. The Tall Building Design Guidelines have this to say about base buildings: The lower stories of a tall building are referred to as the base building. The role of the base building is to frame the public realm, articulate entrances, and assist in the creation of an attractive and animated public realm, which provides a safe, interesting, and comfortable pedestrian experience. The base building should define and support adjacent streets, parks, and open space at an appropriate scale, integrated with adjacent street wall buildings, assist to achieve transition down to lower scale buildings and minimize the impact of parking and servicing on the public realm.

9 9 The base building in the current proposal does not provide flexible interior spaces to accommodate changing uses, including the transition from residential to commercial uses (page 7). It does not ensure that the primary building entrances front on the public streets, are well defined, clearly visible, and universally accessible from the adjacent public sidewalk. (TBDG 2.2). At five stories it is too high for the Avenue" designations on Weston Road (TBDG 3.1.1) and the existing retail on John Street. It provides no street animation (3.1.2) other than the entrances to the townhouses. It is not an appropriate scale to integrate with the adjacent street wall buildings. Each of these points is a requirement of the TBDG, and none of those requirements are met by this proposal. In particular, the John Street residents entrance and the entrance from the new TPA lot will be, as a matter of fact, primary entrances for residents coming from Weston Road and the TPA lot. Their design is entirely contrary to the TBDG. These are the entrances that are best coordinated with public transit and the retail area of our neighborhood. They only consist of a single width door, which will likely be a steel fire door. Further, these are the only universally accessible entrances on the same level as the 252 bicycle storage spaces for the use of the project s residents. These are primary entrances and must comply with the TBDG. In addition, the width and volume of these interior doorways, vestibules and passageways should be enhanced and enlarged to ensure that they function effectively and are not simply the back door they appear to be in this plan. The base building currently in this proposal is faced away from John Street, which is clearly contrary to the intent of the TBDG: 2.2 BUILDING ADDRESS AND ENTRANCES Organize tall buildings to use existing or new public streets for address and building entrances. Ensure primary building entrances front onto public streets, are well defined, clearly visible, and universally accessible from the adjacent public sidewalk. The two story townhouses in the present proposal are not universally accessible from John Street and the new TPA parking lot. The architectural drawings show steps up to each front door. Residents of those units will not be able to have mobility challenged visitors. The base building, on its West elevation, is particularly problematic. The West elevation will have a monolithic presentation. It will be a seven story wall fronting onto the new parking lot. The solution to this, according to the TBDG would be to continue the base building along the entire west elevation at the height presenting to John Street. In a properly designed building, according to Policy 45, this would be three stories and would also include retail uses along the west elevation at grade, in order to be consistent with the commercial nature of the area. Further, people who attended the Design Charrette may remember that one of the well received proposals was encouraging commercial uses

10 10 along the east side of the lane, now Pantelis Kalamaris Lane, named in honour of Peter the Barber, who cut hair on John Street for decades. With the relocation of the TPA lot along the west elevation of the development, a mews effect could be attained which would further soften the West elevation with attractive retail uses. The townhouses at grade on those frontages should instead be designated as retail space to contribute to and promote the revitalization of Weston's commercial core. This retail space should be literally at grade to ensure accessibility for all. In addition, the location of a garbage collection facility and loading dock accessed from the new TPA lot, which in this proposal is located directly beside residential usages is completely inappropriate. Siting housing on a parking lot beside garbage is not enhancing the neighborhood. The TPA lot has a two way driveway. TBDG 2.3 requires the following: Locate back of house activities, such as loading, servicing, utilities, and vehicle parking, underground or within the building mass, away from public realm and public view. If the garbage collection facility and loading dock must remain where they are located in the present proposal, they must be entirely within the building mass, behind attractive doors. Further, service traffic should only be allowed to access that facility from Elsmere Avenue. Another potential problem in this proposal is shown on drawing Building Section N S This appears to show housing units and lockers on the same floor in the base building. If that is so, such a back of house use as lockers should all be put on one floor, not mixed in with housing units. 4) A New Laneway Although this is a proposal that involves both 22 John St. and 33 King St., the current property at 33 King St. is not contributing very much to the public realm in the proposed design. An important aspect of TBDG number 2.6 "Pedestrian and Cycling Connections" requires developers to: Provide comfortable, safe, and accessible pedestrian and cycling routes through and around the tall building site to connect with adjacent routes, streets, parks, open space, and other priority destinations, such as transit and underground concourses. The original Town of Weston was, and largely remains, very walkable. However, the GO Transit Georgetown South Project has had a negative impact on walkability. The

11 11 relocation of the station to south of Lawrence Avenue and the requirement of a pedestrian bridge over John Street have extended walking times. During the period of construction of the tunnel and the pedestrian bridge, walkability has been significantly improved by the removal of the locked vehicle gate at the King Street end of the existing Service Drive for 33/35 King St. and by the hole cut in the chain link fence at the south end of that Drive by the construction workers. This has opened up a very direct, if informal, route from the intersection of Rosemount Avenue and King Street to the intersection of Weston Road and John Street. Now that construction is complete on the tunnel, the construction hoardings have been removed along the west side of the tunnel down the length of the Service Drive. The distance between the west wall of the train tunnel and the east wall of 35 King St. is substantial. If it is left open, and accessibility is ensured through agreements with the owners of 33/35 King St., it would provide direct pedestrian access from King Street to the proposed Community Hub and the public open space where it is proposed that the Farmers Market be located. It appears that the new lane would be wide enough that the trucks used by many of the farmers who come to our market could be accommodated in the laneway on market days. Further, it would be a simple matter to continue the path northward along the Metrolinx tunnel roof to create an easy and direct route from Church Street to John Street, serving the pedestrians and cyclists who live in the currently designated Heritage Conservation District. It would be appropriate to apply TBDG 2.6 to the existing Service Drive as part of the design requirement of on site pedestrian and cycling routes. Given the significant concessions being given to 33/35 King St., it is reasonable to require public access to a new lane. The lane is direct, logical, and continuous, thereby limiting the need for added way finding measures. It should include landscaping, pedestrian scale lighting, and other amenities to enhance safety, comfort, and four season use. Its design should exceed design standards for universal accessibility and safety in the public realm. These are all requirements of the TBDG. Conversion of this private service lane would encourage walking and cycling as viable transportation choices for the building occupants as well as the current residents of our neighbourhood. In particular, many of the students who attend H. J. Alexander School, and those who will attend St. John the Evangelist school, when it is rebuilt, currently walk through the John Street parking lot, then through the Shoppers Drug Mart parking lot, and then through the seniors residence parking lot in order to get to those schools. Providing a safe and attractive walkway from the John Street pedestrian bridge through the public open space and then along the enhanced service lane would increase the attractiveness of walking and cycling. (Parents might be more inclined to permit their children to walk to school unaccompanied if they didn't have to walk through three parking lots to get there.) Many students also walk from north of King Street, on the Weston Road side of the rail corridor, to get to C.R.Marchant Middle School and Weston Collegiate. They too would benefit from this additional pedestrian and cycling route.

12 12 Given that the north end of the lane will still be required to function as a shipping entrance for 33/35 King, particularly when the retail space is maintained, consideration should be given to designing the enhanced passageway in the nature of a woonerf. Conclusions 1) The deviation from planning principles as set out in the Official Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines must be a one off. City Hall needs to reassert the 8 storey limit for the rest of our downtown pursuant to Area Specific Policy 45. Specifically, all of the streets available for mixed use development within that area should be designated as "Avenues", pursuant to the city's guidelines for mid rise buildings along designated arterial roads. 2) The 40,000 sq. ft. of storage lockers should never have been considered and must be eliminated. This is not the highest and best use of currently zoned retail space. The space must remain retail; 3) Retail frontage must be maintained at ground level on John Street and Pantelis Kalamaris Lane. There is no rationale advanced for not having retail use at ground level on the John St. and Pantelis Kalamaris Lane frontages. Solely residential uses are not the highest and best use of these lands. Instead of townhouses at grade, retail frontages should be incorporated into this development; 4) The laneway between the east side of 35 King and the train tunnel needs to be properly finished as a pedestrian walkway/woonerf. This laneway does appear to be wide enough to accommodate the farmers trucks on market day. This would add to the overall market space and keep the farmers who need access to their trucks coming to the Weston Market in the future. To the extent that creating this usage includes Metrolinx lands, they should also be invited to participate in the design and upkeep of this space. I understand that development requires balancing a diverse group of interests. The community of Weston is open to development but smart development that will make our neighborhood more vibrant. The conclusions above are my suggestions to ensure this happens. I look forward to discussing these with you and your office. All of which is respectfully submitted. Sincerely yours, Dan Harris

13 Copy Weston Business Improvement Area Weston Heritage Conservation District. Weston Historical Society Weston Residents Association WestonWeb Mayor John Tory Councillor Frances Nunziata Laura Albanese M.P.P. Mike Sullivan M.P. 13