Willowdale Public Meeting #1

The Neighbourhood Urban Design Guidelines (NUDG) project is being conducted by SvN Planners + Architects in
consultation with City of Toronto staff to produce a template and “how to” manual for the development of urban
design guidelines in Neighbhourhood areas in the City of Toronto. The project also includes the delivery of urban
design guidelines for two pilot projects for the communities of Willowdale and Long Branch.

Public Meeting #1 for the Willowdale community was held on the evening of Monday, May 2nd, 2016 at St. Edward
Catholic School and included various interactive activities set up in the school’s gymnasium. Panels were
displayed at ‘work stations’ which described the background, context, goals and elements of an urban design
guidelines template. Prior to the presentation (jointly presented by James Parakh of the City of Toronto and
Shonda Wang of SvN), members of the public were invited to read and discuss the material with staff/ consultant
team facilitators found at these display panels as well as to provide comments through provided workbooks.

Following a plenary presentation, the City staff, Councillor Filion and the consultant team answered any questions
of clarification. Members of the public were then invited to take part in the various planned engagement activities.
Activities included: personal workbooks to be filled out, a dot-preference exercise and open discussion with the
consulting team and City staff at panels/ work stations. The following provides a summary on the main themes
identified during Willowdale Public Meeting #1 through submitted work books, work station panels and comments
received through general conversation with the public. The dot exercise has been summarized qualitatively as
most preferences were augmented with verbal comments. The culmination of the dot exercise been assessed
based on a qualitative spectrum determining whether elements are: Compatible, Not Compatible or Mixed
Preference. Photos of the panels from the session can be found in Appendix A.

Neighbourhood and Existing Conditions

 Layout of Streets & Views:
o Existing skyline is generally considered not compatible
o Existing large lots with large front yard setbacks are considered compatible with existing
community layout
o Existing small lots – or those lots that have been subdivided are considered not compatible.
Important to discuss the location of these smaller lots and why they may appropriate in certain
areas.
o Existing layout of lots adjacent to natural heritage is considered compatible

 Building Typologies:

o Existing detached housing typology is considered compatible compared to walk-up apartments

and townhouses
o Mixed preference for twin houses and bungalows

 Landscape Features:

o Existing Street trees, parkettes and woodlots are considered compatible

o Existing hydro poles are considered not compatible
Streetscape
 Front Entrance Design & Scale:
o Recessed porches and dwelling entrances with columns and balustrades are considered
compatible
o Mixed preference for projected porches, however it was indicated that setbacks matter in these
instances
o Clarification required around entry staircase and precedent image used and whether or not this
was a positive or negative example
o Basement entrances are generally considered not compatible; however well designed basement
entrances such as those in the precedent image are preferred

 Parking and Driveways:

 o Based on overwhelming negative feedback through dot exercise on a number of parking options–
the question was posed by one participant: “how and where do people want to park?”
o Front garages are considered compatible
o Basement parking, shared drives between houses and front parking and wide driveways are
considered not compatible
o On-street parking not considered compatible unless on designated streets

 Landscaping and Front Yards:

o Landscaped screening (not fencing), open lawns and gardens are considered compatible
o Retaining walls are not considered compatible however a clarification on height of these is
required. The precedent shown was not considered to be a retaining wall by participants.
o Inclusion of stormwater management design principles as part of streetscape design guidelines to
promote infiltration
o Increased lot coverage leading to a lack of trees along the street as there is no room for them to
thrive or cannot be planted
Building Elements
 Materiality:
o Brick, a mix of materials, stone and artificial stone are considered compatible
o Mixed preference for plaster and vinyl siding

 Façade Elements:

o Pitched roofs that are human-scaled and ornamental railings and columns are considered
compatible
o Mansard and flat roofs are not considered compatible

 Architectural Styles:

o Victorian and 1950s modern styles are considered compatible; however one comment outlines
that the Victoria style is not the character of Willowdale neighbourhood
o Mixed preference for porch and dormer and contemporary styles; contemporary styles not in
character with Willowdale neighbourhood however could be designed and reviewed at CofA
o Romanesque revival style is considered not compatible
Built Form
 Setbacks:
o Large setbacks and side yards as presented on panels are considered compatible
o Minimized setbacks and protruding garages considered not compatible
o Comment regarding newly built homes that should have a consistent front yard setback to have a
uniform look vs. the current by-law of having a front yard setback halfway between the homes on
opposite sides as these homes often get developed
o Comment regarding the consideration for the protection of rear yard views and prescribed
setbacks to ensure consistency

 Solid & Void:

o Integration with Context, Separation between Buildings and Symmetry are considered
compatible. Participants clarified that reduced separations should not be permitted.
o Bulky buildings, Asymmetry and Relative Building Length are considered not compatible. Issues
arise from varying building lengths with respect to windows overlooking back yards
o Comment regarding how most infill development is currently exceeding lot coverage regulations
found in the zoning by-law (30% vs 32%) – approvals are coming through the Committee of
Adjustment
 Building Heights:
o Low decks considered compatible
o Perceived vs Physical heights, Ground Floor Heights (as they are defined in this neighbourhood
through current infill development), height of porches and raised decks are not considered
compatible
o Issues surrounding raised new infill developments with a raised first floor contributing to a
perceived 3-storey dwelling
 o Zoning does not preclude for 2-storeys above garage
Strengths and Weaknesses of Neighbourhood
 Favourite Areas within Neighbourhood:
o All open spaces including: York Cemetery and Dempsey Park
o Albert Standing Parkette considered a “nice break out space for residential and office space”
o Mature street trees located towards the south end of the neighbourhood

 Areas Representative of Neighbourhood:

o Townhouses north of Dempsey Park (location identified on panel)

o Few apartments located south of Sheppard Ave W (location identified on panel)

 Areas of Concern:

o No reduced setbacks
Neighbourhood Character
 Promote the inclusion of different character areas, considered separately, within the guidelines
 Allow secondary suites
 Grade-level parking
 Maintain green space on front yard
 Keep heights reasonable
 Foster walkable neighbourhoods by supporting local businesses and services
 Landscape character and mature trees contribute to neighbourhood’s character
 Percentage of open space and character of open space
 Provide affordable housing options for young families
 Reduce heat island effect, reduce hard surface paving and roof areas
 Environmental issues are key in determining quality of life in a neighbourhood (e.g. heat island effect,
flooding). We need: permeable surfaces (driveways), stormwater management and protection of existing
trees with proper growing area
Other
 Comment: The presentation is focused on visual aspects but will this study also be looking into other City
plans? E.g. intensification, links to transportation, pedestrianization, etc.
 Comment: While promoting and preserving a human residential scale, guidelines should allow for a
progressive approach in developing the aesthetic of the neighbourhood
 Comment: Do not introduce new sidewalks where they don't exist, it changes the green character of the
street
 Review the following documents as precedents for the development of the template and “how to” manual:
o Residential Character Preservation Guidelines for House Renovations, Additions & In-Fill
Development in the Community of Leaside: http://www.bonniebyford.com/leaside_guide.pdf
o Urban Design Direction for Oakville:
http://www.oakville.ca/assets/2011%20planning/LBDMPartAFinalMay23.pdf