Page 1 of 4

Mirvish Village Development:

Minutes of March 30, 2015

Item/Description
1. / Numbers below refer to the agenda items circulated at the meeting. Following each agenda item is a summary of the discussion that ensued. Present were:
Paul MacLean – PARA / Susan Dexter – HVRA / Ian Duke – Westbank
Ian Scott – PARA / Carol Orme – HVRA / Gregory Herniquez - Westbank
Donna MacFarlane – PARA / Jennifer Hunter – SVRA / Peter Ventes - Westbank
Ken Balderson - PARA / Doug Rawlett - SVRA / Sean Lapointe - Westbank
Emerich Kaspar – PARA / Ted Montbomery – ARA
Alex Speigel – ARA
Angela Surdi
– for Councillor Layton / Lia Brewer
- for Councillor Cressy
2. a) / Traffic: goal is "not one more vehicle on residential streets (passing through or parking)": what is the anticipated pattern and where are increases once the project is completed? Where will truck traffic for servicing the development be routed?
  • A traffic study has been commissioned to BA Group consultants – this is in the “early stages”.
  • Most of the truck traffic serving the retail areas will be off Lennox Street down the ramp to the underground loading area. This is as is the case with loading into Honest Ed’s and the shops on the east side of Markham Street now.
  • Some loading for the building on the N-W corner of Markham and Bloor will be down a ramp on the new E-W lane just sound the building off Markham Street – not up the lane between Mark and Palmerston.

2. b) / Parking: How many spaces for residents (spaces per unit)? For residents' visitors? For commercial visitors? Offices? Retail?
  • Present planning:
  • Spaces for 30% of residential units, i.e. 300
  • Similar amount for visitor/retail parking, i.e. total 600 (current thinking – preliminary)
  • Also space for Zip or AutoShare for people who choose not to own cars.
  • Market is planned to serve “local” market so parking requirement should be minimal.
  • W are getting a “shared use study” done to anticipate timing of use of parking spaces – not yet available.

3. a) / Green space: Any addition to public green space?
  • No.

3. b) / Public open space: is there any? (Other than if Markham Street is closed)
  • W referred to the strip of green along the lane between Markham and Palmerston – although this is designated “urban farm”
  • W confirmed that the roof-top green spaces would be private for building residents only. (And for the daycare mandated outdoor space.)
  • W has looked for local land to acquire toe create open space as a consideration. (MVTG note: likely only under section 37 funding envelope. Need to press local Councillor. Meeting next week!)

4. / Is there a plan for noise abatement during “events”?
  • MVTG requested establishment of a liaison group be formed to deal with event related issues (as is done ad hoc now with the Mirvish people and CSI) – e.g. amplified music ban after 7pm. W expressed willingness.

5. /
  • Density/Infrastructure: What additional infrastructure is needed to serve this larger addition to the community? Is consideration being given to the eventual expansion of population once all 4 corners are developed?schools
  • transit
  • daycare (number of spaces – where is the outdoor open space – where is the indoor space)

  • Studies will be prepared and presented as part of the Zoning Change Application process – not yet started. (Note: Planner for local area is Liora Freedman:. Issue is to come before the Toronto Community Council for our area April 14th.)
  • MVTG raised concern about the density of the project, i.e. the number of new residents it will introduce into the area and the number of additional visitors it will generate.
  • W countered that they are “building for the next 100 years”.
  • W observed that in anticipation of greater numbers of people in the vicinity all sidewalks around their development will be increased to a 6 m width.
  • Study must be made and consideration given to effects of TTC loading, particularly at rush hour when boarding of eastbound trains is already a problem.

6. / Market: What type?
  • Farmers’ market?
  • St. Lawrence Market model?
  • Traditional grocery store “+”?
  • Logistics for deliveries (see above)

  • W advised that they were looking at the St. Lawrence Market and Grennville Island as models; would have smaller stalls than say at St. Lawrence and would include crafts and non-food stalls as well.

7. / Height issues:
  • General opinion that the heights are too high - do they impinge on the 45º angle from adjacent private property line?
  • Shadowing: how many residential properties are shadowed around the winter solstice?

  • MVTG expressed concern that the proposed heights were too great. Specific concern with “breaking” the 45° plane from adjacent private property was raised. W has not studied this but will be doing so as part of their application; MVTG should press the city to ensure this restriction as a minimum.
  • (Note: mechanical apparatus will be on building roofs, i.e. 1 or 2 “extra” stories (?))
  • W indicated that shadowing when gauged by city standards did not impact anyone’s private residence. MVTG pointed out concern that this would not be true at the time around the winter solstice (not the equinox as shown in the W drawings).
  • W pointed out building “step–backs” so streetwall does not appear too high.
  • Although the presentation refers to 40+ “building identities” in fact per building code there will only be 6 building cores (with many different towers in each).

8. / How is affordable housing being addressed?
  • Provision of “affordable” housing is a political issue and will be determined in negotiation with the City (i.e. our Councillor) as part of Section 37 consideration.
  • W pointed out that the smaller retail areas all for lower rents for start-ups, i.e. they are nto required to rent more space than they need.
  • Noted that under new legislation, 15% of each type of accommodation is required.

9. / How is the aesthetic to be addressed relative to the adjacent neighborhood: contrast? "blend in"? How can the community contribute ideas?
  • MVTG expressed concern that the plan had too much “hard surface” coverage.
  • W pointed out:
  • that the space was designed so there would be no “big box” retail, matching the existing smaller scale retail.
  • that there would be a variety of “looks” on the scale of the existing neighbourhood.
  • that the scale of the development was lowest adjacent to the residential areas so the interface would be smooth.
  • MVTG expressed concern about the apparent “busyness” of the singage as illustrated; W advised that signage would be governed by a “by-law” so this could be adjusted to suit local taste/conditions.
  • W advised that the public art would be “curated”, hopefully by the AGO, and designed to suit the area – graffiti (?!). It would (perhaps) tell the story of the site.
  • (After the formal part of the meeting, more discussion of the look and fitting in was held on the sideline – see below.)

10. / When can we see a Construction Plan - how can we comment on local traffic and other concerns during construction?
  • This will evolve as W prepares is “management plan” as part of the Building Permit Zoning Change process; they (Peter) undertook to share it with residents when available.
  • MVTG expressed concern about excessive noise, particularly early in the morning, siting idling trucks even before the 7 am start time. W indicated that they would have virtually no control over this as it is contractor activity outside the job site.

11. / Planning impacts; consideration of:
  • Bathurst Plan
  • Bloor Visioning
  • Four Corners

  • MVTG pointed out that there had been considerable work done by residents on considering how the areas described above should be developed. This provided participants with a sense of vested interest in the results. These results included much lower height limits and population density on the site. There is a feeling that W has not fully understood these findings as to appropriate density in the neighbourhood.
  • W pointed out that they must realize sufficient return to justify the cost of the site.

12. / On site power generation:
  • Describe approvals process.
  • What will local CO2 and other exhaust gas loadings do to the local environment/atmosphere? Who will monitor?

  • Capacity will only be 1 – 2 MW – just what can be generated based on the heat load to be served by the burning of natural gas.
  • Power will be supplementary to the on-site consumption and will provide sufficient power for emergency operation (e.g. elevators and safety systems) during power outages.

Some Post Meeting Discussion/Observations:
  • W has the strong impression that there is a community desire to remember the Honest Ed story and impact. Certain MVTG suggested such a feeling is not strong, perhps non-existant, amongst many local residents.
  • A note from a member:
Seemed to suggest in discussions afterwards that the community can pick and choose from the schmorgasbord that is on offer. He pointed out the huge cost of maintaining the Markham facades on the east side….
Heritage is giving Westbank the script on the significance of Honest Ed’s to the emotional well-being and stability of our neighbourhood psyches. In our group talking to him, there seemed rather less attachment to Ed than he had been told.
He told us the jam-packed nature of the development originated with Gillespie who is keen on leaving legacy projects….
In all, we had the impression that Westbank packed everything in, willing to negotiate and slenderize, without losing character….