TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 2

1Stopping Up, Closing and Conveyancing -Portions of Public Highways Adjoining the Eaton Centre (Downtown)

2Draft Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment -1101 Dupont Street (Davenport)

3Appointment to Board of Management of the Roncesvalles Village Business Improvement Area (High Park)

4Appointments to Board of Management of Bloor West Village Business Improvement Area (High Park

5Appeal of Boulevard Cafe Privileges -Sullivan Street Flankage of 221 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

6Application for Curblane Vending Privileges -Cherry Street, East Side, 44.5 metres South of Commissioners Street (Don River)

7St. Andrews Street, North Side, between Spadina Avenue and Kensington Avenue Fronting Premises Nos. 6 to 14 -Prohibition of Parking at Anytime (Downtown)

8Maintenance of a Wooden Fence - 745 Markham Street(Midtown)

9Minor Changes to Permit Parking Hours of Operation on Manning Avenue (From Harbord Street to Ulster Street)(Trinity-Niagara)

10Removal of City-owned Tree -100 Close Avenue (High Park)

11Removal of City-owned Tree -170 Gough Avenue (Don River)

12Tree Removal - 83 Lavinia Avenue (High Park)

13Tree Removal - 450 Jones Avenue (Don River)

14Tree Removal - 487 Soudan Avenue (North Toronto)

15Tree Removal - 37 McNairn Avenue (North Toronto)

16Tree Removal - 149 Lascelles Blvd. (North Toronto)

17Tree Removal - 222 Barton Avenue (Davenport)

18Tree Removal - 203 Geoffrey Street (High Park)

19Tree Removal - 8 Ladysmith Avenue (East Toronto)

20Tree Removal - 13 and 15 Pine Crescent (East Toronto)

21Tree Removal - 49 Hillholm Road (Midtown)

22Tree Removal - 8 Indian Grove (High Park)

23Removal of City-owned Tree - 206 Caledonia Road (Davenport)

24Property Assessment

25Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 93 Balsam Avenue(East Toronto)

26Beaches International Jazz Festival -Request for Refund of Financial Penalty (East Toronto

27Introduction of Bills Respecting Permit Parking(Trinity-Niagara, Davenport, Midtown, Downtown and Don River)

28Intersection of Hudson Drive and Heath Street East -Roadway Alterations (Midtown)

29Lloyd Avenue, from Keele Street to Cawthra Avenue -Reduction of Speed Limit (Davenport)

30Installation of Three Disabled Persons Parking Spaces in Front of 140 Merton Street (North Toronto)

31Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (Trinity-Niagara, Davenport and Don River)

32Maintenance of Angled Brackets and Wire on Existing Fence - 14 Pembroke Street (Downtown)

33Front Premises Nos. 670 and 676 Richmond Street West -Rescindment of "No Parking Anytime" Regulation (Trinity-Niagara)

34Weybourne Crescent and St. Leonard's Avenue -Parking Regulations (North Toronto)

35Traffic Regulations - McCall Street from College Street to Dundas Street West (Downtown)

36Prescott Avenue, east side, from St. Clair Avenue West to East Avenue - Introduction of One Hour Parking Limit (Davenport)

37Intersections of Recoil and Blackthorn Avenues and Silverthorn and Pryor Avenues - All-Way Stop Sign Control(Davenport)

38Naming of Public Lane south of Danforth Avenue between Craven Road and Rhodes Avenue (East Toronto)

39Naming of Street - East of Leslie Street between Memory Lane and Sears Street(East Toronto

40Naming of Lane, North of Queen Street East, Westerly from Kent Road (East Toronto

41Boulevard Cafe Appeal - Major Street Flankage of 119 Harbord Street (Downtown)

42Narrowing of Pavement - Gould and Dalhousie Streets(Downtown)

43Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes -The Tranzac Club (Downtown)

44Permit Parking Proposal - Spadina Avenue (Bloor Street West to Dupont Street) East Side (Midtown)

45Curb Cut - 53 Walmer Road(Midtown)

46Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval - 14 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

47Expropriation of the Private Lane which Extends Northerly from Humberside Avenue, between High Park and Pacific Avenue, for Public Lane Purposes (High Park)

48Settlement Report: Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on Zoning By-law No. 1997-0175 -Yonge Street between Soudan and Davisville Avenue (North Toronto)

49Approval of Benefitting Assessment By-law -Parking Facility at 266, 268 and 272 Rhodes Avenue and475, 481 and 487 Craven Road (East Toronto)

50Committee of Adjustment Appeal -550 Queens Quay West (Downtown

51Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code -794 Bathurst Street (Midtown)

52Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code -647 Gerrard Street East (Don River)

53Ontario Municipal Board Hearing -8 South Kingsway (High Park)

54Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code -(Downtown, East Toronto) 1494

55Provision of a "School Bus Loading Zone" and "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" In Front of Huron Street, No. 541 Huron Street (Midtown)

56Queen Street East at Woodfield Road -Prohibition of Stopping in the Vicinity of the Pedestrian Crossover (East Toronto)

57Front Yard Parking - Requests for Exemption -151, 153 and 155 Bowood Avenue (North Toronto

5816 Braeside Road - Ontario Municipal Board Hearing(North Toronto)

59Parking at 189 Soudan Avenue (North Toronto)

6033 Balmoral Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal(Midtown)

61Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on February 18 and 19, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998

1

Stopping Up, Closing and Conveyancing -

Portions of Public Highways Adjoining the Eaton Centre (Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that, subject to compliance with the conditions imposed by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997, a by-law in the form of the draft by-law and a by-law to amend Schedule "A" of the former City of Toronto By-law No. 1995-0194 be enacted:

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 9 of Report No. 7 of the City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, titled, "Closing and Conveyancing - Lane East of Yonge Street, Extending Southerly from Wood Street," which was adopted by City Council at is meeting on March 23, 1989, notice of its hearing on February 18, 1998, with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on January 30, February 2, February 9 and February 16, 1998 , and no one appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

________

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To stop up and close the public highway known as Salvation Square and to authorize

the conveyance of part thereof to Cadillac Fairview Corporation.

WHEREAS by Clause ____ of Toronto Community Council Report No. ____, adopted by Council at its meeting held on ___________, 1998, it is recommended that the public highway known as Salvation Square be stopped up and closed as a public highway and that part of the public highway so stopped up and closed be conveyed to Cadillac Fairview Corporation upon the terms and conditions contained in Clause 8 of Executive Committee Report No. 23, adopted, as amended, by the Council of The Corporation of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997.

AND WHEREAS notice of Council's intention to stop up and close the said public lane and to convey part thereof as aforesaid was advertised in a daily newspaper on ______________, 1998.

THEREFORE the Council of City of Toronto enacts as follows:

- The public highway known as Salvation Square, described by W. Kowalenko, O.L.S., City Surveyor, as follows, namely:

[Parts A, B and C on attached sketch]

is hereby stopped up and closed as a public highway.

- The soil and freehold of a portion of the public highway stopped up and closed by Section 1 of this By-law and described by W. Kowalenko, O.L.S., City Surveyor, as follows, namely:

[The subsurface of Part A and all of Parts B and C on the attached sketch]

shall be sold to Cadillac Fairview Corporation, subject to and upon the terms and conditions contained in Clause 8 of Executive Committee Report No. 23, adopted, as amended, by Council of The Corporation of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997.

- The Mayor and ____________________ are authorized to execute and deliver, and the City Clerk ___________________ is authorized to affix the seal of the City to any documents required to effect the conveyance authorized by Section 2 of this By-law.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , 1998, A.D.

Mayor City Clerk

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Salvation Square

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 8, contained in Report No.23 of the Executive Committee of the former City of Toronto, titled "Stopping Up, Closing and Conveyancing - Portions of Public Highways Adjoining the Eaton Centre (Ward 6)"; which was adopted, as amended by City Council at its meeting on October 6 and 7, 1997:

The Executive Committee recommends:

1. That the report (September 29, 1997) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services be adopted; and

2. That a by-law in the form of the draft by-law, as amended by the report (September 29,1997) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, be enacted.

The Executive Committee advises that pursuant to Clause 35 of Report No. 19 of the Executive Committee, titled "Proposed Closing and Conveyancing of Portions of the Public Highways Abutting the Toronto Eaton Centre (Ward 6)", which was adopted by City Council on August 21, 1997, notice of its hearing on September 15, 1997, with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-laws was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 23, 30, September 6, and 13, 1997, and no one addressed the Committee.

The Executive Committee submits the draft by-law:

Bill No.

NO. A BY-LAW

To stop up and close portions of the public highways abutting the Toronto Eaton Centre

and to authorize the conveyance thereof to Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd.

(Passed , 1997)

WHEREAS by Clause __ of Executive Committee Report No. ___, adopted by Council at its meeting held on _______________, it is recommended that portions of the public highways abutting the Toronto Eaton Centre be stopped up and closed as public highways and that the portions of the public highways so stopped up and closed be conveyed to Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd. upon the terms and conditions contained in Clause 35 of Executive Committee Report No. 19, adopted by Council at its meeting held on August 21, 1997 and Clause _____ of Executive Committee Report No. _____, adopted by Council at its meeting held on ________________.

AND WHEREAS notice of Council's intention to stop up and close the said public highways and to convey the same as aforesaid was advertised in a daily newspaper on ________________.

THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. The portions of the public highways abutting the Toronto Eaton Centre, described by W. Kowalenko, O.L.S., City Surveyor, as follows, namely:

In the City of Toronto, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of:

FIRSTLY: (Land Titles Office)

Part of Parcel 1-6 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being parts of Lots 1 and 2 on the west side of Yonge Street, according to Plan 2-A and that part of Lot 1 according to Plan 45, both the said Plans being registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PART 97 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

SECONDLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 6-4 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being parts of Lots 1 and 2 according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PART 79 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

THIRDLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 1-5 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being part of Lot 2 according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PART 48 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

FOURTHLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 1-4 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being parts of Lots 63, 67 and 68 according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PARTS 42 and 44 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

FIFTHLY: (Registry Office)

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (CA314066) being part of Lot 63 according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PART 20 on Plan 63R-417.

SIXTHLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 6-3 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being parts of Lots 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 according to Plan 45, registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PARTS 73, 91 and 93 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

SEVENTHLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 6-2 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being parts of Lots 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110 according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PARTS 67 and 69 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

EIGHTHLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 1-3 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being parts of Lots 107, 110, 111, 112 and 113, according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PARTS 39 and 40 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

NINTHLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 1-2 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being parts of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 according to Plan 169-D; and those parts of Lots 116, 117, 118, 138 and 139 according to Plan 45 both the said Plans being registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PART 7 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

TENTHLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 7-4 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being parts of Lots 1, 2, 3 and A according to Plan 6-A registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PART 5 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

ELEVENTHLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 4-2 in the Register for Section A-6-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being part of Lot 4 according to Plan 6-A, registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PART 2 on Plan 66R-8770 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

TWELFTHLY: (Land Titles Office)

All of Parcel 7-2 in the Register for Section A-2-A.

Part of the Public Highway dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 1994-0565 (C920780) being part of Lot 4 according to Plan 6-A, registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as PART 1 on Plan 66R-6830 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66).

THIRTEENTHLY: (Land Registry Office)

That part of the Public Highway Teraulay Street, formerly Alice Street, according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No.64), lying between the west limit of Yonge Street and the easterly limit of Teraulay Street as closed by City of Toronto By-law 299-72 (Section 1, FIRSTLY) registered as Instrument 153444E.P.

FOURTEENTHLY: (Land Registry Office)

That part of the Public Highway Trinity Street, according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64) lying between the west limit of Yonge Street and the most easterly limit of Trinity Square as closed by City of Toronto By-law 299-72 (Section 1, SECONDLY) registered as Instrument 153444E.P.

FIFTEENTHLY: (Land Registry Office)

That part of the Public Highway Louisa Street, according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64) lying between the west limit of Yonge Street and the most easterly limit of Louisa Street as closed by City of Toronto By-law 299-72 (Section 1, THIRDLY) registered as Instrument 153444E.P.

SIXTEENTHLY: (Land Registry Office)

That part of the Public Highway Albert Street, according to Plan 45 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64) lying between the west limit of Yonge Street and the most easterly limit of Albert Street as closed by City of Toronto By-law 299-72 (Section 1, FOURTHLY) registered as Instrument 153444E.P.

are hereby stopped up and closed as public highways.

2. The soil and freehold of the portions of the public highways stopped up and closed by Section1 of this By-law shall be conveyed to Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd., upon the terms and conditions contained in Clause 35 of Executive Committee Report No. 19, adopted by Council at its meeting held on August 21, 1997 and Clause _____ of Executive Committee Report No. _____, adopted by Council at its meeting held on ____________.

3. The Mayor, any other member of the Executive Committee or a Commissioner and the City Clerk, the Acting City Clerk or the Assistant City Clerk are authorized to execute and deliver, and the City Clerk, the Acting City Clerk or the Assistant City Clerk is authorized to affix the seal of the Corporation to any documents required to effect the conveyance authorized by Section 2 of this By-law.

The Executive Committee also submits the report (September 29, 1997) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Origin: Executive Committee Report No. 19, Clause 35, adopted by City Council on August 21, 1997 (p:\1997\ug\cps\prp\ex970140.prp)

Recommendations:

That City Council set the price for the public highways adjoining the Toronto Eaton Centre to be stopped up, closed and conveyed to Cadillac Fairview Corporation whereby the City is to receive compensation as follows:

A. Yonge Street

1. i) compensation for the lands to be based on a rate of $2,760.00. per square metre; and

ii) total estimated compensation to the City is $2,108,640.00. based on an estimated site area of 764 square metres and to be adjusted when actual area is established by survey.

2. That Clause 35 of Executive Committee Report No. 19, adopted by Council at its meeting held on August 21, 1997 be amended by replacing the lands to be closed and conveyed to Cadillac Fairview Corporation pursuant to Recommendations 4 and 5 thereof (Parcels B, C, D, E, F, 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the sketch attached thereto) with Parcels 3, 4, E, F and that part of Parcel D from the south limit of the Parcel to the north limit, more or less, of the Eaton Tower identified on Appendix "A" attached hereto.

3. That the draft by-law approved by the Executive Committee at its meeting held on September15, 1997 be amended to reflect the revised lands to be conveyed to the Cadillac Fairview Corporation.

B. Salvation Square

i) the compensation for the lands to be based on a rate of $2,760.00. per square metre with adjustments to reflect those interests being retained, the interests being conveyed to the City and the maintenance obligation for the passive open space parkland; and

ii) the total estimated compensation to the City is $647,273.00. which has been based on estimated areas of each of Parts A, B, C and D and which is to be adjusted when the actual areas are established by survey.

Background: On September 15, 1997, the Executive Committee conducted a hearing in connection with the stopping up and closing of portions of Yonge Street on the east side of the Toronto Eaton Centre and to authorize the conveyance thereof to Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd.

In this connection, the Executive Committee had before it the following:

a. Clause 35 of Executive Committee Report No. 19, titled "Proposed Closing and Conveyancing of portions of the Public Highways abutting the Toronto Eaton Centre (Ward6)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting on August 21, 1997.

b. A report dated September 12, 1997, from the Commissioner, Corporate Services, titled "Proposal to stop up, close and convey portions public highways adjoining the Eaton Centre (Ward 6)".

As the matter of compensation will be considered on September 29, 1997, the recommendation of the Executive Committee that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law submitted by the City Solicitor be enacted, will be sent to City Council on October 6, 1997.

As recommended by the Commissioner, Corporate Services in the above-noted report (September12,1997), the Executive Committee authorized the Commissioner, Corporate Services, in consultation with the Commissioners of City Works Services and of Urban Development Services, to continue discussions with representatives of Cadillac Fairview Corporation to reach an overall agreement on the compensation for the proposal to stop up, close and convey portions of public highways adjoining the Toronto Eaton Centre, Yonge Street and Salvation Square, and requested a report to the Executive Committee in Camera on September 29, 1997, on the results of these discussions.

Discussions have continued with representatives of Cadillac Fairview Corporation and an agreement has now been reached on the matter of compensation for the public highways to be closed and conveyed. Set out below is a summary of the agreement reached with Cadillac Fairview Corporation on the matter of compensation the City is to receive for public highways adjoining the Toronto Eaton Centre, including Salvation Square and portions of Yonge Street (see attached Appendix "A").

Salvation Square

The Commissioner, City Works Services will be reporting to City Council on October 6, 1997 on the application to stop up, close and convey Salvation Square and the main terms and conditions and agreed to compensation elements are set out below:

- a frontage of 65.95 feet and a depth of 100.35 feet;

- a total site area of 6,614.8 square feet;

- City to convey Parts A, B and C on attached Appendix "B" save and except the surface and air rights in Part A;

- existing below grade tunnel connecting Toronto Eaton Centre to the Bell building in Parts A and C to be maintained and the conveyance of the above described lands is to be conditional on Cadillac Fairview Corporation maintaining the tunnel between the Bell building and the Toronto Eaton Centre as provided for in the current Tunnel Agreement.

- Cadillac Fairview Corporation is to be required to provide public pedestrian access over PartB;

- Cadillac Fairview Corporation to convey the surface and air rights in Part D to the City;

- Cadillac Fairview Corporation to improve at their costs Parts A and D as part of the construction program for use as public open space;

- the surface and air rights in Parts A and D to be under the City's jurisdiction but to be maintained in perpetuity by and at Cadillac Fairview's cost;

- Cadillac Fairview to prepare at their costs a survey reference plan;

- the compensation for the lands to be based on a rate of $2,760.00. per square metre with adjustments to reflect those interests being retained, the interests being conveyed to the City and the maintenance obligation for the passive open space parkland; and

- the total estimated compensation to the City is $647,273.00. which has been based on estimated areas of each of Parts A, B, C and D and which is to be adjusted when the actual areas are established by survey.

Yonge Street:

The main terms and conditions and agreed to compensation elements are set out below:

- City to convey Parcels 3, 4, E, F and that part of Parcel D from the south limit of the Parcel to the north limit, more or less, of the Eaton Tower identified on Appendix "A" attached;

- compensation for the lands to be based on a rate of $2,760.00. per square metre; and

- total estimated compensation to the City is $2,108,640.00. based on an estimated site area of 764 square metres and to be adjusted when actual area is established by survey.

Mr. David Hamilton, Development Executive of the Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited, has advised as follows in a letter dated September 24, 1997 on the Toronto Eaton Centre - Salvation Square and Yonge Street Facade land acquisition proposal:

"The owners of the Toronto Eaton Centre support the initiatives of the City of Toronto to regenerate Yonge Street principally through the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project. We understand that this project has recently been expedited in the approval process. In response to the City initiative, the Eaton Centre co-owners are now planning two significant development projects located immediately adjacent to the Toronto Eaton Centre. As you are aware, site plan applications have been made for both the Yonge Street Facade project and the Salvation Square project. Both projects require the closure and conveyance of a portion of the City's public roads. The attached sketches illustrate the lands under consideration. In summary, the Eaton Centre co-owners proposes to purchase a fee simple interest, including density, of The Yonge Street Facade Lands for approximately $2,109,115.00, and the Salvation Square Lands for approximately $647,273.00. Our proposal is conditional upon The Eaton Centre Co-owners and the City Solicitor reaching mutual agreement on the terms and conditions of all agreements related to this proposal.

Conclusion: I am of the opinion that the price set for the public highways adjoining the Toronto Eaton Centre to be stopped up, closed and conveyed to Cadillac Fairview Corporation is fair and reasonable. The City will receive as compensation for the public highways the approximate sum of $2,755,913.00. from the proceeds of the sale.

(Appendices "A" and "B" are on file with the City Clerk.)

The Executive Committee also submits the report (September 12, 1997) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Subject: Proposal to stop up, close and convey portions of public highways adjoining the Eaton Centre (Ward 6)

Origin: Executive Committee Report No. 19, Clause 35, adopted by City Council on August 21, 1997 (p:\1997\ug\cps\prp\ex970114.prp)

Recommendation:

That the Commissioner, Corporate Services, in consultation with the Commissioners, City Works Services and Urban Development Services, be authorized to continue discussions with representatives of Cadillac Fairview Corporation, to reach an overall agreement on the compensation for the proposal to stop up, close and convey portions of public highways adjoining the Toronto Eaton Centre, Yonge Street and Salvation Square, and to report to the Executive Committee, in Camera, for the meeting of September 29, 1997, on the results of these negotiations.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting held on August 21, 1997, adopted Executive Committee Report No. 19, Clause 35, with respect to a request from Cadillac Fairview Corporation to stop up, close and convey portions of Yonge Street required for the proposal from Cadillac Fairview Corporation to renovate the Yonge Street frontage and constructing thereon a series of 2 to 3 storey structures attached to the front wall and illuminate/animate signage along portions of the Yonge Street facade. City Council directed the Commissioner, Corporate Services, to report to Executive Committee at its meeting of September 15, 1997 with respect to the matter of compensation for the lands to be closed and conveyed.

Subsequent to the application for the Yonge Street lands, Cadillac Fairview Corporation made a further application to stop, close and convey Salvation Square to form part of a proposed enhanced entrance to the Eaton Centre which includes the development of 20 Salvation Square, the former Salvation Army office building. The Commissioner of City Works Services has advised he is planning to report to the Executive Committee on September 29, 1997/ City Council on October 6, 1997, seeking approval to stop up, close and convey the relevant portions of Salvation Square.

Comments:

Discussions have been conducted on the matter of an overall agreement with Cadillac Fairview Corporation relative to appropriate compensation for t-he Yonge Street frontage and the various interests to be conveyed in Salvation Square. I am not yet in a position to report to the Executive Committee on these matters. Discussions will be finalized and I will be reporting to the Executive Committee in Camera meeting of September 29, 1997 on each of these matters. Representatives of Cadillac Fairview Corporation concur with the contents of this report.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

existing city public highway lands

The Executive Committee also had before it Clause 35 of Executive Committee Report No. 19 titled, "Proposed Closing and Conveyancing of Portions of the Public Highways Abutting the Toronto Eaton Centre (Ward 6)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting on August 21, 1997, which is included in the additional material and is on file with the City Clerk.

COUNCIL ACTION - OCTOBER 6 AND 7, 1997

Councillor Rae moved that the Clause be amended by adding:

That the report from the Commissioner of City Works Services (October 3,1997) be adopted.

which Council adopted.

________

Council adopted the Clause, as amended.

2

Draft Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment -

1101 Dupont Street (Davenport)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the Report (February 4, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2) the report (January 23, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on February19, 1998 and Mr. Adam Brown, Toronto, Ontario, addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This Report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit the conversion of a three storey industrial building to 37units and the construction of 4townhouses, all for live-work purposes at 1101Dupont Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications or impact for the Corporation. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

(1) That the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend:

(2) That the Draft By-laws attached to the Report (February4, 1998) of the Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the Report of Urban Development Services (January23, 1998) concerning the above-noted subject. This Report recommends the amendment of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto, together with an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment which will permit the conversion of the existing industrial building to live-work units and the construction of 4new townhouses on the subject site.

Comments:

This Report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7225

Fax: (416) 392-0024

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

No. A BY-LAW

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto

respecting lands known as 1101Dupont Street.

(Passed , 1998.)

WHEREAS Council, at its meeting held on the day of , 1998, adopted Clause of Toronto Community Council Report No. ;

THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. The text and map annexed hereto as Schedule"A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto.

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No.119.

________

SCHEDULE "A"

Section18 of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto is amended by adding a new Section18.426 as follows:

"18.426 Lands known as 1101Dupont Street.

(1) Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass By-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map18.426 to permit the use of the existing building for not more than 37live-work units and the erection and use of 4row houses for the purpose of live-work units.

(2) For the purposes of this amendment:

(i) "live-work unit" means a dwelling unit that is also used for work purposes, provided only the resident or residents of that accommodation work in the dwelling unit and provided that the work component is restricted to the uses of office, custom workshop, studio, personal grooming establishment, tailoring shop and in the instance of a live-work unit with direct grade access to Dupont Street, a retail store; and

(ii) the terms "custom workshop", "dwelling unit", "grade", "personal grooming establishment", "tailoring shop", "retail store" and "row house" shall have the same meaning as those terms have for the purposes of By-law No.438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended.

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

No. A BY-LAW

To amend the General Zoning By-law No.438-86 with respect to lands known as 1101Dupont Street.

(Passed , 1998.)

WHEREAS Council, at its meeting held on the day of , 1998, adopted Clause of Toronto Community Council Report No. ;

THEREFORE the Council of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. None of the provisions of Section2(1) with respect to the definition of "lot" and Sections4(12) and 9(1)(f) of By-law No.438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the use of the existing building located on the lot and municipally known in the year 1997 as 1101Dupont Street for not more than 37live-work units and the erection and use of 4row houses on the lot for the purpose of live-work units provided:

(1) the lot consists of at least the lands shown within the heavy lines on the attached Map1;

(2) the residential gross floor area of all buildings and structures located on the lot does not exceed 6300square metres;

(3) any lighting to illuminate the lot is designed to divert light away from adjacent premises;

(4) not less than 25bicycle parking spaces - occupant and not less than 6bicycle parking spaces - visitor are provided and maintained on the lot;

(5) a fence of opaque construction having a height above grade of between 1.68 and 2metres is erected and maintained along the westerly limit of the lot;

2. For the purposes of this By-law:

(i) "live-work unit" means a dwelling unit that is also used for work purposes, provided only the resident or residents of that accommodation work in the dwelling unit and provided that the work component is restricted to the uses of office, custom workshop, studio, personal grooming establishment, tailoring shop and in the instance of a live-work unit with direct grade access to Dupont Street, a retail store.

(ii) each other italicized word or expression shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression as defined in By-law No.438-86, as amended.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 23, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends amendments to the Part II Official Plan and Zoning By-law, to permit the residential conversion of a 3-storey industrial building and the construction of four townhouses, all for live-work purposes, at this site near Dupont and Dufferin Streets

Funding Sources; Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) The Official Plan for the area known as the City of Toronto prior to January 1, 1998 be amended by adding to Section 18 a clause permitting the use of the lands at 1101 Dupont Street, shown on Map 1, for the purpose of 37 units in the existing building and the construction of four new townhouses, all for live-work purposes, despite the provisions of Section 19.20(5.2)(i).

(2) Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be further amended as it affects the lands at 1101 Dupont Street, shown on Map 1, to permit, despite the provisions of Sections 4(12) and9(1)(f), the use of the existing building for not more than 37 live-work units and the erection and maintenance of four townhouses for the purpose of live-work units provided that:

(a) a fence of opaque construction having a height of between 1.68 and 2 metres is erected along the westerly property line of the lot;

(b) at least 25 enclosed bicycle parking spaces are provided for the occupants of the building and 6 secure bicycle parking spaces are provided for visitors;

(c) any lighting to illuminate the lands will be designed to divert light away from adjacent premises;

(d) the residential gross floor area of all development does not exceed 6300 square metres; and

(e) for the purposes of this by-law, a live-work unit is defined as "a dwelling unit that is also used for work purposes provided only the resident or residents of such accommodation work in the dwelling unit and provided that the work component is restricted to the uses or classifications of office, custom workshops, studios, personal grooming establishments, and tailoring shop, and, in the instance of a live-work unit with direct grade access to Dupont Street, a retail store".

(3) The owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the issuance of building permits.

(4) The owner be required to:

(a) Provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of City Works Services, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(c) Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of City Works Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services;

(d) Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services;

(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 42 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(f) Provide and maintain private refuse collection services for this project;

(g) Obtain, in the event that the 4 townhouses fronting on Bartlett Avenue are severed from the balance of premises at 1101 Dupont Street, the necessary rights-of-way in favour of the future owners of each of the two inner townhouses over the portions of the private driveway required to access the respective parking spaces;

(h) Prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this Plan to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permits;

(i) Implement the recommendations contained in the Shaheen & Peaker Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments dated September 22 and 25, 1997, and the additional recommendations contained in the letter of the Medical Officer of Health dated January 8, 1998; and

(j) Submit to the Medical Officer of Health soil sample results verifying that the site has been remediated and complies with MOEE residential land use criteria prior to the issuance of permits for above-grade construction.

(5) The owner be advised:

(a) That the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of City Works Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm run-off;

(b) Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance; and

(c) Of the need to file an application for an Encroachment Agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the existing encroachments on Bartlett Avenue.

Council Reference/Background/History:

(1) Site and Surrounding Area

This .34 ha. (.85 acre) site is located at the south-west corner of Dupont Street and Bartlett Avenue in the Dovercourt Park neighbourhood. It contains an attractive 3-storey brick building that houses several small woodworking companies, with a one-storey annex building adjacent to Bartlett Street. The lands to the east and west of the site, on Bartlett and Gladstone Avenues, are occupied by low-rise semi-detached dwellings. Immediately to the south of the site is the teacher's parking lot for Dovercourt Public school. On the north side of Dupont Street opposite the site are motor vehicle repair shops, a U-haul depot and a former union complex that is being converted to a Portuguese community centre.

(2) Proposal

The applicants are proposing to convert the existing 3-storey industrial building to 37 live-work condominium units, and to replace the dilapidated one-storey addition adjacent to Bartlett Avenue with four 3-storey townhouse units. There are 38 surface parking spaces, accessible only from Dupont Street, to serve the live-work units in the converted building, and one parking space for each of the four townhouses, two of which are accessed from Dupont Street and two of which have driveways leading to Bartlett Avenue. The development proposal includes 100 square metres of common indoor amenity space, in a large basement common room, 137 square metres of common outdoor amenity space, predominantly in the form of a garden court, and most units have private outdoor recreation space in the form of a roof deck or a small garden court. The main pedestrian entry to the converted main building, as well as to the new townhouses, is from Bartlett Avenue.

(3) Background

Issues identified in the Preliminary Report, including environmental remediation, retention of the building in industrial use, and compatibility with adjacent residential areas, have been addressed.

On September 4, 1997 a public meeting was held at the Wallace-Emerson Community Centre to discuss the proposal. Approximately 30 persons were in attendance, who were generally supportive of the development proposal. Among specific concerns raised by community members were: screening the rear yards of the Gladstone Avenue residences from the proposed parking lot; the adequacy of the 42 parking spaces proposed; and, the arrangements for garbage pick-up. Several residents from the east side of Bartlett Street opposite the proposal wanted to see the existing building demolished and replaced by detached and semi-detached dwellings.

Comments/Discussion/Justification:

(1) Current Planning Regulations

(a) Official Plan

The site is designated as a Mixed Industrial-Residential Area in both the Part I Official Plan and Section 19.20 of the Dovercourt Park Part II Plan. Section 9.40 of the Part I Official Plan permits residential buildings in these areas to have a gross floor area of up to 2 times, which would permit the proposed development. However, the Part II Plan reduces the permitted density for residential buildings to 1 times. The proposed total density of 1.8 times requires an amendment to the Part II Plan.

Section 19.20.5 states that any new residential buildings and uses should front only onto streets extending south from Dupont Street and that Council will ensure mutual compatibility between uses in the Mixed Industrial-Residential Area and the adjacent Low Density Residence Area. Section 9.41 of the Part I Plan and 19.20.5.3 of the Part II Plan require Council, when considering a change in use from industrial to residential, to have regard for the advisability of retaining existing industrial buildings or uses in terms of retention of industrial jobs and the retention of industrial buildings in good structural condition or which may have architectural or historical merit. The consistency of the current residential proposal with these Official Plan policies will be reviewed in the discussion of planning considerations in a further section of this report.

(b) Zoning By-law

The subject property is zoned I1D2 with a maximum height limit of 18 metres. A building containing live-work uses is not permitted in this light industrial zone district and a zoning by-law amendment is, therefore, required. The proposed development would have a density of 1.8 times which is below the density limit of 2 times in the Zoning By-law. The converted 3-storey building would have a height of 14.3 metres to the top of the roof, and the townhouses would have a height of 8 metres to the top of the roof, both of which are considerably below the maximum by-law height limit of 18 metres.

The by-law also requires that at least 40 square metres of outdoor residential amenity space be provided adjacent to, or directly accessible from, the indoor residential amenity space. The proposal includes 136 square metres of outdoor amenity space, predominantly in the form of a grade-level garden courtyard. The 100 square metre indoor recreation room at the lower lobby level is not directly adjacent to the outdoor courtyard, but is nearby and indirectly accessible by a set of stairs or an elevator.

(2) Environmental Remediation

This building has been used for furniture manufacturing for 100 years. A Phase II environmental remediation report has been submitted by the applicant outlining all of the necessary aspects of building clean-up and soil clean-up and disposal necessary to meet provincial standards for residential use. The Medical Officer of Health has reviewed and concurred with the applicant's environmental reports, and has added several further conditions in a letter dated January 8^th, 1998. The Medical Officer of Health has requested that a minimum of 2 soil samples be taken from within the building footprint and submitted for analysis and that a verification sampling program be instituted once soils containing elevated contaminant levels have been removed. The Medical Officer of Health has asked that an above grade construction permit be granted only upon his receipt of soil sample results verifying that the site has been remediated and complies with provincial residential land use criteria.

(3) The Need to Retain Existing Industrial Buildings and Industrial Jobs

Several small-scale woodworking companies with a total of 24 employees currently, occupy the building, and will be relocating elsewhere in the G.T.A.. As there are 4 live-work units proposed in the new development, it is possible that the number of persons working in the building may actually increase as a result of the conversion.

There is currently a stock of vacant industrially-zoned properties and/or buildings for sale or lease in the Wallace-Emerson, Dovercourt Park and Junction Triangle neighbourhoods of west-end Toronto. To date, market interest in these properties has been for conversion to residential or institutional, not industrial, use. The conversion of this industrial building to live-work units would not create a shortage of available industrial space in the west end of Toronto.

The existing building is in good structural condition and is a handsome building with considerable architectural merit. The retention of this building for another more marketable use provides a sense of physical and architectural continuity in this community.

(4) Compatibility with Adjacent Low Density Residence Areas

The main entrance to the 3-storey building will front onto Bartlett Avenue south of Dupont, in accordance with the Part II Plan policies.

I consider the proposal to be compatible with the adjacent Low Density Residence Areas to the south, east and west in terms of use, height, massing, servicing and parking arrangements, and public safety concerns. The proposed residential use is consistent with residential areas to the east, west and south and the public schools to the immediate south. The new residential uses will provide eyes on the street that could create a greater sense of public safety on Bartlett Avenue, Dupont Street, and the school parking lot to the south. The area is well-served in terms of community services, and the addition of 41 live-work units would not overburden the existing facilities. There is a major park and two public schools to the south on Bartlett Avenue, the Galleria Shopping Centre two blocks to the east, and the Wallace Emerson Community Centre within 3 blocks. There is excess capacity in local Separate Schools according to the Metropolitan Separate School Board.

The existing 3-storey building is less than 15 metres in height, a good scale for a wider arterial road such as Dupont Street, and well below the 18 metre height limit. The four 3-storey townhouses to be constructed on the west side of Bartlett Street are sympathetic in scale to the low scale residences on the east side of Bartlett Avenue.

The entrance and exit for all servicing and parking is from Dupont Street, with the exception of two of the townhouses having parking garage access from Bartlett Avenue. The limiting of vehicular access to Dupont Street should ensure that the development will have little traffic impact on the residential streets south of Dupont Street. An opaque fence will be provided along the westerly property line to ensure that the headlights of parking vehicles do not shine into the rear yards of residences on the east side of Gladstone Avenue, and lighting in the parking area will be designed to divert illumination away from adjacent properties.

At the public meeting, several area residents questioned whether the provision of 42 parking spaces was sufficient for a 41-unit development. The 42 parking spaces meet the zoning by-law requirements, and should be sufficient given that many households in the City of Toronto do not own a car. The Commissioner of City Works Services has estimated that the parking demand generated by this project would be 32 spaces, 28 spaces for residents and 4 visitor parking spaces. The applicant has also undertaken to provide 25 enclosed bicycle parking spaces for residents and 6 secure bicycle parking spaces for residents. The site is well-served by frequent bus service along both Dupont and Dufferin Streets.

At the public meeting, some area residents were concerned about potential garbage pickup for this development taking place on Bartlett Avenue. In response, the applicant and civic staff have agreed that the owners must provide and maintain private refuse collection for the 37 units in the main building. The Commissioner of City Works Services noted that garbage must not be stored within the Bartlett Avenue road allowance. Garbage must be stored within an enclosed garbage room, with the private hauler having access to the room to remove garbage and recyclable material. The City will provide regular curbside pickup for the four townhouses fronting onto Bartlett Avenue.

(5) Defining Live-Work Uses

In the City Zoning By-law the term 'live-work unit" is defined as a dwelling unit that is also used for work purposes, provided only the resident or residents of such accommodation work in the dwelling unit. Under this definition, residents of the live-work units would be able to have industrial or other uses in their unit that might create noise, odours or other impacts on adjacent units, or create a visitor parking demand that could not be accommodated. The vast majority of home occupation uses entail home offices, custom workshops, arts studios or grooming establishments, or dressmakers/tailors which do not generally have an impact on adjacent live-work units. I am recommending that the live-work units permitted in the proposed development be limited to these uses. Retail uses are not generally viable in a limited access building with no public entrance from the street. However, there are 3 proposed units that would have a direct entrance at-grade from Dupont Street, and retail use permissions are proposed to be permitted in these units.

(6) Location of the Common Amenity Spaces

The proposed site-specific zoning by-law for this site gives an exception to the requirement that at least 40 square metres of outdoor residential amenity space be adjacent or directly accessible from the indoor residential amenity space. The applicant is proposing to provide a 100 square metre common indoor recreation space for the 37 units in the existing 3-storey building, which is considerably more than the 74 square metre space required in the Zoning By-law. While the indoor recreation space is in the basement level, there is a vaulted open ceiling to the ground floor level on the westerly part of the room that will give a sense of spaciousness and a window onto Bartlett Avenue that will provide natural light.

The applicant is proposing to provide 136 square metres of outdoor common amenity space, primarily in the form of a garden courtyard at grade level. This considerably exceeds the by-law requirement to provide 74 square metres of common outdoor recreation space for the residents of the 37 units in the existing building. In addition, the applicant is proposing to create another 663 square metres of 'private' personal recreation space in the form of garden courts and roof decks for the residents of a majority of the units. The provision of outdoor amenity space, both common and private, is unusually generous for a conversion development. Although the garden courtyard is not directly adjacent to the indoor residential amenity space, it is nearby and easily accessible by elevator or a staircase. The quantity and location of the outdoor common space is supportable and the necessary by-law exception is proposed in the recommendations of this report.

Conclusions:

I am recommending approval of this application for the conversion of an industrial building to 37 live-work units and the construction of 4 new townhouses at 1101 Dupont Street. The proposal is entirely compatible with the low density residence areas to the east, west and south from the standpoint of use, scale, traffic and parking, public safety, and availability of community services. There are many vacant industrially zoned sites in Ward 21 and the use of the existing building for residential uses will not significantly affect the availability of land and buildings for industrial purposes, but will provide a new use capable of supporting the conservation of an attractive building.

Contact Name:

Paul Bain

Phone: 392-7622

Fax: 392-1330

E-Mail: pbain@city.toronto.on.ca

________

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Confirmed Municipal Address: 1101 Dupont Street.

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

________

APPENDIX A - Comments of Civic Officials

(1) City Works Services (November 26, 1997)

1. That the owner be required to:

(a) Provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of City Works Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(c) Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of City Works Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services;

(d) Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services;

(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 32 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(f) Provide and maintain private refuse collection services for this project;

(g) Submit to the Commissioner of City Works Services dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of a bill in Council;

2. That in the event the 4 townhouses fronting onto Bartlett Avenue are severed from the balance of Premises No. 1101 Dupont Street, the owner be required to obtain the necessary rights-of-way in favour of the future owners of each of the two inner townhouses over the portions of the private driveway required to access the respective parking spaces;

3. That the owner be advised:

(a) That the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of City Works Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm run-off;

(b) Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance; and

4. That the owner be requested to file an application for an Encroachment Agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the existing encroachments on Bartlett Avenue.

Comments:

Location

South-west corner of Dupont Street and Bartlett Avenue.

Proposal

Demolition of a portion of the existing industrial building and renovation and conversion of the remaining portion of the building into a residential condominium building containing 37 live/work units and construction of 4 townhouses fronting onto Bartlett Avenue.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated August 19, 1997. The above recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The provision of 42 parking spaces including 38 surface spaces located on the west and south portions of the site and 4 spaces to serve each townhouse in integral garages satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project, consisting of 28 residential spaces and 4 visitor spaces and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for 41 spaces to serve the residential units. The general parking layout and dimensions of the parking spaces, with dimensions of 2.75 m by 6.0 m are satisfactory.

Access to the parking spaces, with the exception of the northerly and southerly integral garages, is provided via a 6.0 m driveway from Dupont Street. This is acceptable. The above-noted integral garages are accessed directly from Bartlett Avenue. While this access is acceptable, you may wish to comment on the appropriateness of integral garages for this project in light of the recent study completed by your staff in this respect.

In the event that the townhouses fronting onto Bartlett Avenue are severed from the balance of the site or are freehold units, rights-of-way in favour of the owners of the 2 interior townhouses must be granted over the portions of the driveway required to access the respective parking spaces.

Refuse Collection

Residential developments of this size are typically serviced by the bulk lift method of refuse handling and disposal, which requires, among other things, the provision of a Type G loading space and sufficient manoeuvring area for trucks to safely enter and exit the site. A Type G loading space is proposed at the southwest corner of the building, however, a front end bulk lift garbage truck would be unable to access the loading space due to insufficient turning radii. Furthermore, the owner indicated in an October 14, 1997 meeting with our staffs, that he is unwilling to provide adequate facilities for garbage and recyclable material collection and, under these circumstances, the City is unable to provide any collection service to this building. As a result, there appears to be no other alternative but to have the garbage generated by the building collected by a private hauler. The owner indicated that he is willing to provide this project with private garbage collection. I note that garbage must not be stored within the Bartlett Avenue road allowance. Garbage must be stored within the garbage room with the private hauler having access to the room in order to remove garbage and recyclable material.

In the event that the owner wishes to receive City refuse collection service for the project, the owner would be required to provide a Type G loading space with adequate ingress/egress, a 20m² garbage room with a stationary compactor, a 5m² recycling room, a concrete pad adjacent to the front of the loading space and the construction of the loading space to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code.

With respect to the 4 townhouses fronting onto Bartlett Avenue, the City will provide regular curbside collection along Bartlett Avenue in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a rodent proof storage area for each unit on private property to separately store garbage and recyclable materials generated between collections.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development. It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787).

Encroachment

Five existing light wells and a concrete stairwell encroach onto the Bartlett Avenue road allowance. These encroachments, if retained, will require the submission of a separate application to this Department.

(2) Medical Officer of Health (January 8, 1998)

Further to our letter dated August 25, 1997 our Department has received additional information in support of the above referenced application. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (September22, 1997) and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (September 25, 1997) have been reviewed by Environmental Health Services (EHS) staff who offer the following comments.

Phase I ESA:

The subject site has been used for furniture manufacturing for the last 100 years and is currently surrounded by both residential and commercial properties. The L-shaped building occupies two thirds of the site and has a basement below the three-storey portion of the building. General groundwater flow in the area is expected to be from north to south, hence land uses to the north are critical in terms of assessing risk from contaminant migration. The 1907 fire insurance plan indicates that the main three-storey and one-storey additions to the south already existed. The plan also shows a large underground storage tank (UST) located near the southern boundary. The 1914 plan indicates more extensive occupancy of the property with lumber storage areas near the western boundary. The areas to the west were utilized for similar operations to those taking place on the site. The 1943 fire insurance plan indicated similar building configuration as seen on the 1914 plan. By 1965, two small structures near the southern boundary described as a "dust room and lacquer storage room" are indicated on this plan, as well as 2 above ground storage tanks that existed outside the western wall of the main building. This plan also shows two auto service stations located on the north side of Dupont Street. One of the tanks was directly up gradient from the main building on the site. Occupants of the building have included Gold Medal Furniture Company in 1907, however, by the 1950's the site was used by McMurtry C.A. Furniture Ltd, Premier Upholstery Co. And Motorola TV Service Department.

Building Audit:

Vent and fill pipes were observed outside the west wall of the one-storey building, and a small heating above ground oil tank is situated near the same wall inside the building. This Department recommends that all above and/or below grade storage tanks, their contents, associated piping and any contaminated soil resulting rom tank leakage be removed in accordance with the policies and procedures described in the Gasoline Handling Act and Fuel Oil Code, under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Light fixtures were present on all floors, however, inspection of the ballasts did not confirm or deny the presence of PCB's. Given the age of the building, it is highly likely that ballasts will contain PCB's. Since the building will be undergoing renovations, a full PCB survey must be conducted prior to and demolition/renovation activities, and that all positively identified ballasts be handled, removed, stored and/or disposed of in accordance with Ministry of Labour (MOL) and Ministry of Environment (MOEE) Guidelines.

In addition, 2 samples of plaster like material and felt-like paper were collected from the outside wall of the washroom and 2 samples of vinyl floor tile from the second floor were also collected. All results were negative for asbestos content. However, based on the age of the building, it is expected that refractory brick walls inside the steel oven's may contain friable asbestos. Non-friable asbestos is expected to be in the oven's gaskets. A full asbestos survey must also be conducted with appropriate destructive sampling to positively identify asbestos containing materials. They will also require removal prior to the start of any demolition/renovation activities, and handled, stored and/or disposed of in accordance with MOL and MOEE Guidelines. Other potential designated substances that were surveyed included the following:

acrylonitrile: potential not observed; arsenic: potential not observed; benzene: potential not observed; coke oven emissions: potential not observed; ethylene oxide: potential not observed; isocyanates: probability low; lead: in soldering joints, low levels observed in paint samples; mercury: potential not observed; silica: any cementitious building materials; vinyl chloride: potential not observed

In conclusion, the consultant states that historical land use on the subject site and surrounding lands warrants further investigation, and that a Phase II ESA will be required.

Phase II ESA:

A total of 5 boreholes (BH1-BH5) were advanced onto the site, with 4 samples being submitted for MOEE residential land use compliance; 1 sample for MOEE Regulation 347 analysis; 1 sample for BTEX/TPH analysis; and 1 sample for PAH/heavy oils analysis. Boreholes 1 and 2 were drilled along the eastern boundary with BH1 being down gradient from the service stations. Borehole 5 was near the northwestern boundary, while BH3 and BH4 were drilled with in the backyard area, with BH3 being located in the area of the former storage tank. Borehole 3 was also equipped with a groundwater monitoring well. Natural groundwater levels occur deeper than 8.1m and the well was placed in the area where visual/olfactory inspection of the fill material suggested the presence of hydrocarbons. In general, the soils consist of a 0.2m-1.2m layer of granular fill underlain by silt, clayey silt and silty clay of lacustrine origin. The fill generally is composed of silt, sand, gravel, red brick pieces, wood and asphalt fragments. The fill in BH3 consisted of a soft, organic matter, oily black and saturated with hydrocarbon-like odours. A review of the certificates of analysis has indicated the following exceedances of the MOEE Table B residential land use criteria:

BH3-SS3: lead (281ppm); BH1-GS1: beryllium (1.8ppm); BH4-SS1: arsenic (39ppm), copper (1195ppm), lead (344ppm)

The report goes on to state that fill material of approximately 1.2m thickness at BH4 may be completely impacted, however the horizontal limits were not identified and that additional testing is required to accurately delineate the area. Preliminary estimates suggest a total volume of 930 cubic metres. The soil containing the beryllium exceedance suggests a localized condition and that additional sampling is required as well. The consultant did not discuss the lead exceedance observed in BH3, which may also represent a localized condition. It as well should be further investigated. The native material underlying the fill appeared to be visually clean, however, additional testing is required to confirm this assumption. The fill sample for PAH analysis indicated trace levels, however, there were no exceedances of the Table B criteria of 1000ppm. The consultant states that most of the organic fill material in the vicinity of BH3 is impacted with heavy oils and will require removal. Estimates on the volume of soil to be removed from the former UST location are approximately 546 cubic metres. Ontario Regulation 347 results have indicated that the soil would be classified as non-hazardous non-registerable. The report concludes by stating that since the site is scheduled for residential development, the majority of the surficial soils will require removal in order to accommodate basement construction. The fill which is impacted with heavy oils will require disposal at a sanitary landfill site and those soils which contain heavy metals can be disposed of at a commercial/industrial fill site.

Department Conclusions:

Based on the information provided to this Department, I would draw your attention to the following issues that need to be addressed. First, the consultant did not retrieve any soil samples from within the building footprint to verify that these soils are in compliance with the Table B residential land use criteria. Therefore, I request that a minimum of 2 samples be taken from within the building footprint and submitted for analysis. Second, since some soils have been identified as containing elevated contaminant levels, and will require removal off site, that a verification sampling program be instituted once these soil have been removed.

Finally, the report did not provide details on measures that would be implemented during site activities to control the generation of dust. This Department will require strict adherence to the following measures that will also be incorporated as a condition or permit issuance:

- The daily, or more frequently if required, wetting of all soft and hard surfaces and any excavation face on the site, with the addition of calcium chloride or other recognized dust suppressant;

- The daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25m from the property line;

- The designation of truck loading points to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimize tracking of soil onto the sidewalk and street. If the loading becomes contaminated, it should be cleaned or replaced;

- All trucks and vans leaving the site should be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors and tailgates by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the developer noting when each truck was washed and by whom;

- Tarping all trucks leaving the site which may have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris;

- The supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified Environmental Consultant.

Therefore, I would indicate to you that I have no objection to the issuance of a below grade permit in order to carry out the necessary remedial work. The applicant has provided written confirmation that they will adopt the recommendations stipulated in the Shaheen & Peaker Limited Phase I and II Environmental Sites Assessments dated September 22 and 25, 1997, as well as the requirements described in this letter. Approval for an above grade construction permit will be granted upon this Department receiving the soil sample results verifying that the site has been remediated and complies with the MOEE residential land use criteria. By copy of this letter I have advised the owner/applicant accordingly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 392-7685.

(3) Metropolitan Separate School Board (November 19, 1997)

Further to your request for comments, please be advised that the following schools could accommodate students in the permanent facilities:

St. Anthony Catholic School (JK-8)

Ecole elementaire catholique Georges-Etienne-Cartier

Ecole secondaire catholique Mgr-de-Charbonnel

In addition, we wish to advise you that although both St. Mary and Loretto College Catholic Secondary Schools are over subscribed at this time, it is not anticipated that this proposed development will generate students at the secondary level.

If further information is required regarding this proposal, please contact the Planning and Facilities Department at 222-8282, extension 2278.

(4) Urban Development Services (December 1, 1997)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Make alterations to existing furniture factory building for 41 live-work units

Zoning Designation: I1 D2.0Map:49J 311

Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended

Plans prepared by: ZONE ArchitectPlans dated:June 19, 1997 and October 20, 1997

Zoning Review:

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1101 Dupont Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1101 Dupont Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1101 Dupont Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1101 Dupont Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

1101 Dupont Street

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (February 19, 1998) from A.A. Kurtesi, Toronto, commenting on the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law pertaining to 1101 Dupont Street.)

3

Appointment to Board of Management of the Roncesvalles

Village Business Improvement Area (High Park)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Councillor Miller be appointed to the Roncesvalles Village BIA for a term of office expiring on May 31, 1999 and/or until his successor is appointed; and

(2) Schedule A of Chapter 20 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended accordingly.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 10, 1998) from Mr. Andrew Musial, Secretary, Roncesvalles Village Business Improvement Area, addressed to the City Clerk:

Please be advised that the Roncesvalles Village BIA is requesting the appointment of Councillor Miller to the Board of BIA.

4

Appointments to Board of Management of Bloor West Village

Business Improvement Area (High Park)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Councillors Miller and Korwin-Kuczynski be appointed to the Bloor West Village BIA for a term of office expiring on May 31, 1999 and/or until theirs successors are appointed; and

(2) Schedule A of Chapter 20 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended accordingly.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 6, 1998) from Mr. Alex Ling, Chairman, Bloor West Village, Business Improvement Area, addressed to the City Clerk:

Please be advised that we wish to have both of the Councillors of Ward 19, David Miller and ChrisKorwin-Kuczynski, appointed to the Board of Management of Bloor West Village Business Improvement Area. Thank You.

5

Appeal of Boulevard Cafe Privileges -

Sullivan Street Flankage of 221 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Sullivan Street flankage of 221 Spadina Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested appropriate officials to provide information to the Community Council on the polling process.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 27, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's request to appeal staff's decision to refuse an application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Sullivan Street flankage of 221 Spadina Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council approve the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Sullivan Street flankage of 221 Spadina Avenue, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in §313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;

OR

(2) City Council deny the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Sullivan Street flankage of 221 Spadina Avenue.

Background:

The City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of September 3, 1997, in considering a communication (August 19, 1997) from Mr. Le Hue of Dai Nam Vietnamese Restaurant, asked me to report on his appeal, as a deputation item.

Comments:

Mr. Le Hue, owner of Dai Nam Vietnamese Restaurant, 221 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5T2E2, submitted an application on May 6, 1997 (as amended), requesting a licence for boulevard cafe privileges on the Sullivan Street flankage.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 49.3 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix'A'). It can accommodate 11 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 44 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.

As the proposed cafe is within 25 m of a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated June 11 to July 11, 1997 was conducted on the north side of Sullivan Street between Nos. 44 and 78 Sullivan Street and on the south side of Sullivan Street between Nos. 53 and 83Sullivan Street to determine neighbourhood support, as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Hue was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued.

Mr. Hue is concerned that the polling process was flawed. The standard ballot for boulevard cafes (Appendix 'B') clearly explains the reasons for the poll and how the results will be used. In this particular case, the poll was conducted in English, French and Chinese as requested by the former Councillor (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 3 languages).

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Le Hue a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Sullivan Street flankage because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied the poll was conducted properly, and ballots were available in Chinese, as well as the two official languages.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7768

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Anh Mai, Dai Nam Restaurant

- Ms. Trudy Kearns, Toronto, Ontario

________

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- Appendix B - Poll Regarding Application for Boulevard Cafe;

- (February 17, 1998) from G.& I Kearns; and

- (undated) from Mr. Anthony Mancini and Ms. Cairine Wilson.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Spadina Avenue

6

Application for Curblane Vending Privileges -

Cherry Street, East Side, 44.5 metres South of

Commissioners Street (Don River)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a permit be issued to Mr. Vassil Pachov for curblane vending privileges on Cherry Street, east side, 44.5 metres south of Commissioners Street, notwithstanding the objections received by the adjoining property owners.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(1) to report to the Community Council on the possibility of installing traffic signals at the corner of Cherry and Commissioners Streets; and

(2) to expedite the previously requested general traffic study for the area.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 28, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of a curblane vending application, as requested by the City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a permit be issued to Mr. Vassil Pachov for curblane vending privileges on Cherry Street, east side, 44.5 metres south of Commissioners Street, notwithstanding the objections received by the adjoining property owners.

Background:

The City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of September 3, 1997, had before it a communication (August 18, 1997) from Mr. Vassil Pachov, regarding an appeal of his application for curblane vending privileges on Cherry Street, east side, 44.5 metres south of Commissioners Street. The Committee requested me to report on this matter for consideration as a deputation item.

Comments:

Mr. Vassil Pachov, 16 Westwood Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 3Z5, applied on July 8, 1997 for curblane vending privileges on Cherry Street, east side, 44.5 metres south of Commissioners Street, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). Mr. Pachov proposes to vend sausages, hot dogs, french fries and drinks.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owners for their comments, if any. Mr. Robert Howald, Executive Vice President, Tedco, 133 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M5E 1S9, and Mr. Nicolas Macos, Solicitor, 130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 2500, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2M2, acting on behalf of The Docks Entertainment Complex, have both submitted letters of objection dated July 24 and 25, 1997 (Appendixes 'B' & 'C') regarding this location.

Under the procedural rules of the Municipal Code, where a written objection to the issuance of a vending permit has been received in my office, I am required to refuse the application. The applicant then has 30 days from receipt of our notice to request an appeal to the Toronto Community Council.

Staff have met with Mr. Pachov and advised him that we cannot issue a vending permit under Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, because we have received letters of objection.

In order to assist your Committee with the evaluation of Mr. Howald's and Mr. Macos's concerns, they are summarized below along with the staff response.

Adjoining owners' concerns:

No. 1: The proposed vending location will adversely affect existing businesses in the immediate vicinity

Staff response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, requires a minimum separation of 25 metres between a vending location and a business selling similar products.

The proposed vending location is 61 metres from Cherry Street Restaurant, 141 metres from Knob Hill Farms Cafe and 319 metres from the Cherry Street entrance to The Docks Restaurant.

No. 2: The proposed vending location is a safety concern given the considerable industrial/commercial traffic along Cherry Street

Staff response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, requires a minimum separation of 30.5 metres from a vending location and a signalized intersection.

The proposed location is 31.0 metres from the pedestrian crosswalk at Commissioners Street.

No. 3: The proposed vending location is a safety concern given the considerable recreational traffic along the Martin Goodman Trail

Staff response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, requires 3.66 metres of paved passable space to be maintained for pedestrians.

A minimum of 4.4 metres of paved passable space will be maintained at the requested location. Staff have inspected the area in the vicinity of the proposed vending location and found curblane vending at this location would not adversely affect the safety of pedestrians using the Martin Goodman Trail.

Conclusions:

As this application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal Code, and does not pose a safety concern for pedestrians, the application should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

________

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had a communication (February 17, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas T. Macos, Barrister and Solicitor, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Curblane Vending

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (February 18, 1998) from Mr. N. T. Macos, Barrister and Solicitor, on behalf of 1227803 Ontario Limited, providing additional information regarding his client's application for curb lane vending zone privileges on Cherry Street, 44.5 metres south of Commissioners Street.)

7

St. Andrews Street, North Side, between Spadina Avenue

and Kensington Avenue Fronting Premises Nos. 6 to 14 -

Prohibition of Parking at Anytime (Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the stopping prohibition at anytime on the north side of St. Andrews Street, from Spadina Avenue to Kensington Avenue, be rescinded;

(2) stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of St. Andrews Street, from Spadina Avenue to a point 42.0 metres west;

(3) stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of St. Andrews Street from a point 70.0 metres west of Spadina Avenue to a point 30.0 metres further west;

(4) parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of St. Andrews Street from a point 42.0 metres west of Spadina Avenue to a point 28.0 metres further west; and

(5) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to enhance loading/unloading operations for businesses on this street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the stopping prohibition at anytime on the north side of St. Andrews Street, from Spadina Avenue to Kensington Avenue, be rescinded;

(2) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of St. Andrews Street, from SpadinaAvenue to a point 42.0 metres west;

(3) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of St. Andrews Street from a point 70.0 metres west of Spadina Avenue to a point 30.0 metres further west;

(4) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of St. Andrews Street from a point 42.0 metres west of Spadina Avenue to a point 28.0 metres further west; and

(5) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of the business proprietors of Premises Nos. 6 to 14 St. Andrews Street and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, I have investigated prohibiting parking at anytime in front of these premises to allow for curb-side loading and unloading of merchandise.

St. Andrews Street, from Spadina Avenue to Kensington Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 9.0 metres. Stopping is prohibited at anytime on both sides of the street from SpadinaAvenue to a point 100.0 metres west. Elsewhere, parking is prohibited at anytime.

A vehicle while actually engaged in loading/unloading merchandise or passengers may legally do so in an area where parking is prohibited. However, the stopping prohibition on much of St. Andrews Street precludes delivery vehicles from legally halting on either side of the street to load or unload. Consequently, businesses (Premises Nos. 6 to 14 St. Andrews Street) experience some inconvenience.

Based on our staff assessment of traffic operation, the stopping prohibition on the north side of St.Andrews Street from a point 42.0 metres west of Spadina Avenue to a point 28.0 metres further west (frontage of Premises Nos. 6 to 14) should be rescinded and in place thereof, parking should be prohibited at anytime. This adjustment would allow vehicles to legally stop while making a delivery. In conjunction therewith, the signage should be enhanced by affixing "loading only" tabs to the regulatory "No Parking" signs to discourage illegal parking.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771

8

Maintenance of a Wooden Fence - 745 Markham Street

(Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the maintenance of the wooden fence within the City boulevard fronting 745 Markham Street, provided that the height of the fence is reduced so as not to exceed 1.0 meter and subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested appropriate officials to report to the Toronto Community Council, for its meeting to be held on April1, 1998 on:

(1) whether the issue of the fence by-law can be delegated to a fence by-law process or to the Committee of Adjustment;

(2) how to achieve this;

(3) the desirability of doing so; and

(4) by-law amendments required to prohibit privacy fences or screening fences on corner properties over and above a height of 42 inches.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 9, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowners' request to maintain a fence which exceeds the maximum height permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a public hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the maintenance of the wooden fence within the City boulevard fronting 745 Markham Street, provided that the height of the fence is reduced so as not to exceed 1.0 m and subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Councillor Adams has asked me to report on the application for a fence which exceeds the height permitted in the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.

Comments:

Mr. Daryl Christoff and Ms. Lori Christoff, owners/occupants of 745 Markham Street, Toronto, Ontario M6G 2M4, submitted an application June 2, 1997, requesting permission to maintain a wooden fence which they constructed within the City boulevard running perpendicular to the City sidewalk between 745 and 747 Markham Street.

The fence they built is 1.86 m high rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed for in Chapter313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code. The owners have asked for an exemption to this by-law in order to provide a separation from their neighbour and to increase the privacy of the entrance to their property.

We have received two letters and a petition signed by 18 area residents opposing the fence at its current height.

Staff have also inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property. To be consistent with the openness of the streetscape, the wooden fence should be reduced to a maximum height of 1.0 m, per the by-law.

Details of this fence and copies of correspondence and the petition are on file with my Department.

Conclusions:

As the fence is not consistent with other installations in the area and it exceeds the maximum height permitted in the Municipal Code, the fence should be reduced in height so as not exceed 1.0 m.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

________

Mr. George Prokos, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 16, 1998) from Ms. Maria Rodriques; and

- (February 11, 1998) from Mr. Daryl Christoff.

Councillor Adams declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to Part (4) of the action of the Toronto Community Council, in that he and his spouse own a corner property and have an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto regarding a fence on the municipal boulevard.

(Councillor Adams, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, insofar as it pertains to Part (4) of the Recommendation of the Toronto Community Council, in that he and his spouse have an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto regarding the height of the fence on their corner property.)

9

Minor Changes to Permit Parking Hours of Operation on

Manning Avenue (From Harbord Street to Ulster Street)

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that, in the event no objections are received by March 2, 1998:

(1) the permit parking hours on Manning Avenue from Harbord Street to Ulster Street be changed from the current hours of 12:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Sunday, to the proposed hours of 12:00 a.m. to 9:45 a.m., Monday to Sunday; and

(2) authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint communication (undated) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Recommendations:

(1) That this item be introduced at the Toronto Community Council meeting of January 21, 1998;

(2) That the requirement for advertisement and subsequent possible hearing in the reduction of permit parking hours for 15 minutes (from 12 midnight to 10 a.m. to 12 midnight to 9:45a.m.) be waived in this circumstance;

(3) That the Permit Parking hours by-law for Manning Avenue (from Harbord Street to UlsterStreet) be adjusted by the afore-mentioned 15 minutes;

(4) That the City Solicitor introduce the necessary amending bill at the City Council meeting of February 4, 1998; and

(5) That officials give effect thereto.

Discussion:

St. Mary Magdalene Church attendees have been greatly inconvenienced by ticketing as a result of the existing parking permit regulations on a small stretch of Manning Avenue (from Harbord St. to Ulster St.) where the church is located.

Meetings with Parking Enforcement staff, church officials, the local residents association (Palmerston Area Residents' Association) indicate that the problem can be solved to everybody's satisfaction by slightly adjusting the parking permit hours by 15 minutes every day (12 midnight - 9:45 A.M.) This will help the church since attendees of its 10 A.M. mass will no longer be infringing the by-law. At the same time, the objective of the by-law, which protects residents, will not be significantly affected.

Based on the minor character of the change, the unanimity of the suggested approach, and the urgency of relieving the problem, it would be a waste of funds and effort by all involved to go through the normal process. Therefore we are respectfully asking that this item be dealt with as we recommend.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

10

Removal of City-owned Tree -

100 Close Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the applicant submit payment in the amount of $1,786.68, for the value of the tree, removal costs and replacement costs to remove the City-owned tree at 100 Close Avenue; and

(2) the applicant plant in accordance with Landscape Plan L1 prepared by the Board of Education, Design Services, date stamped August 11, 1997 by Urban Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

City Council approval is required respecting staff decisions on applications for removal of trees on municipal property pursuant to: Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article I; authority delegated to City staff to plant, maintain or remove trees; and approved criteria.

The Toronto Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the Procedural By-law has been authorized to hear deputations, if any, and make recommendations to City Council respecting staff decisions, on among other things requests to remove trees located on City street allowance.

An application has been received from the Toronto Board of Education for the removal of a City owned tree in order to facilitate a proposed new loading/delivery zone.

Recommendation:

That City Council approves the following staff decision:

(1) the applicant submit payment in the amount of $1,786.68, for the value of the tree, removal costs and replacement costs; and

(2) the applicant plant in accordance with Landscape Plan L1 prepared by the Board of Education, Design Services, date stamped August 11, 1997 by Urban Development Services.

Comments:

I have received a request from Mr. Michael Jones, Toronto Board of Education, 155 College Street, Toronto, M5T 1P6, that City Council consider removal of a City owned green ash located on the Jameson Avenue flank of the above noted address. Mr. Jones reports that the tree is in direct conflict with a proposed new loading/delivery zone. The request forms part of a Site Plan Approval application filed with Urban Development Services for the purpose of replacing the existing school.

The tree in question is a 16 cm diameter green ash. The tree stands in good condition and is valued at $218.27.00. Due to the size of the tree, it cannot be relocated to be used at another location. The cost to remove the tree and container is $194.97.00. The cost to plant a replacement tree in sidewalk elsewhere in this area is $1,373.44.00. Total costs are therefore $1,786.68.00.

The proposed landscape plan which is part of the school redevelopment plan, contemplates various native tree species such as black ash, serviceberry, red maple and ironwood which range in size from 60 to 100 mm diameter. Since this work cannot be accomplished without removing the tree, and the new plantings on the school property will be a substantial improvement over existing conditions with use of native plant material indigenous to this area, I therefore recommend approval for removal of this tree subject to conditions set out in this report.

11

Removal of City-owned Tree -

170 Gough Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Council instruct staff to advise the neighbouring residents and Community Councils of the former area municipalities when reporting on matters relating to properties which are adjacent to the boundaries of the former municipalities.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the property owner submit payment in the amount of $1,605.08, for the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement cost to remove the City owned trees at 170 Gough Avenue; and

(2) the property owner plant a new large growing shade tree of a species satisfactory to the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, and having a minimum caliper of 80 millimetres; such tree to be planted in turf on the Gough Avenue City street allowance adjacent to this property.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation Department:

Purpose:

City Council approval is required respecting staff decisions on applications for removal of trees on municipal property pursuant to: Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article I; authority delegated to City staff to plant, maintain or remove trees; and approved criteria.

The Toronto Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the Procedural Bylaw has been authorized to hear deputations, if any, and make recommendations to City Council respecting staff decisions, on among other things requests to remove trees located on City street allowance.

An application has been received from Mr. Christos Soulios for the removal of two City owned trees in order to facilitate a proposed new dwelling and driveway.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the following staff decision:

(1) the property owner submit payment in the amount of $1,605.08, for the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement cost; and

(2) the property owner plant a new large growing shade tree of a species satisfactory to the Director of Development and Support and having a minimum caliper of 80 mm; such tree to be planted in turf on the Gough Avenue City street allowance adjacent to this property.

Comments:

I have received a request from Mr. Christos Soulios, 170 Gough Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K1N2, that City Council consider removal of two City owned trees at the above noted address. Mr. Soulios reports that the trees are in direct conflict with a proposed driveway which must be built in conjunction with a home demolition and reconstruction project. The two spruce trees were originally planted too close to each other by the previous property owner. My staff would not have planted the two trees in this location because the lot size is relatively small.

The trees in question are a Norway spruce and a Colorado blue spruce which have diameters of 23cm and 19 cm respectively. These trees are in fair condition with a combined valued of $811.39. Removal costs are $318.07 and replacement costs are $475.62 for a total of $1,605.08.

The proposed plan indicates a replacement tree to be planted in turf. Since the proposed tree planting location is an improvement over existing conditions and a large shade tree can be planted here which will ultimately contribute more to the streetscape, I therefore recommend approval for removal of these trees subject to conditions set out in this report.

________

Dr. Christos Soulios, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

12

Tree Removal - 83 Lavinia Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a permit be issued for injury of the two trees located at 83 Lavinia Avenue conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on his property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation Department:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to injure two trees on private property to facilitate the construction of a three storey rear addition has been filed by Mr. Troy Wong, 83 Lavinia Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6S 3H9, owner of 83 Lavinia Avenue.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to injure the two trees, requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign his plans for an addition; and

(B) Issue a permit for injury of the two trees conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on his property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The trees in question are thirty-three and thirty-four centimetre diameter Norway spruce in fair condition. A private arborist report prepared by Al Miley & Associates, that accompanies this application states that the two trees are in the immediate proximity of a proposed extension to be constructed at the rear of the existing building. The site plan that accompanies the application, prepared by Ellard-Willson Engineering Limited, dated April 24, 1997, indicates that the excavation for the rear addition will come within one metre from the base of both spruce trees. In the opinion of Urban Forestry staff, the construction activity will result in the removal of a substantial portion of the trees root systems and the likelihood of the trees survival will be minimal.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to injure the trees in question.

13

Tree Removal - 450 Jones Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a permit be issued for tree removal at 450Jones Avenue conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on her property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation Department:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for landscaping with slower growing trees that produce less shade in the garden has been filed by Ms. Jennifer A. Pfuetzner, 450 Jones Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 3G3, owner of 450 Jones Avenue.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to explore alternative landscaping designs.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on her property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-six centimetre diameter Siberian elm in fair condition. The arborist report, prepared by Michael McIsaac of Mount Pleasant Tree Service that accompanies this application states that the overall health of the tree is good. The report also states that the tree is infested with elm leaf beetle, a common insect problem affecting elm trees. The property in question is well treed and there is a young red oak tree growing near the subject elm tree that will become a significant shade tree in the neighbourhood. The removal of the elm tree would not have a substantial impact on the tree cover in the Don River neighbourhood.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

14

Tree Removal - 487 Soudan Avenue

(North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree located at 487 Soudan Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation Department:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that has caused property damage and frustration between neighbours due to falling fruit has been filed by Mr. James A. Dick, 487 Soudan Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4S 1X1, owner of 487 Soudan Avenue.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

(B) Issue a permit for removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on his property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-nine centimetre diameter black walnut in good condition. The tree is located at the rear of the garage for 487 Soudan Avenue and the branches overhang the garages and driveways for both 483 and 487 Soudan Avenue. The black walnut tree is native to Southern Ontario and a significant species in Toronto's urban forest. The species can tolerate a variety of soil conditions and is an excellent shade tree. The fruit of the black walnut can reach the size of a tennis ball and may be an inconvenience when it falls from the branches in the autumn.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

15

Tree Removal - 37 McNairn Avenue

(North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree located at 37 McNairn Avenue, requiring the applicant to prune branches away from the house at 34 Yonge Boulevard.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation Department:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that has caused concern due to falling fruit has been filed by Dr. Bob Watson, 37 McNairn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5M 2H4, owner of 37 McNairn Avenue.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to prune branches away from the house at 34 Yonge Boulevard.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on his property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-one centimetre diameter black walnut in good condition. The arborist report prepared by Al Miley that accompanies this application states that the black walnut tree is in good condition and that the reason for requesting removal is the location of the tree with respect to the houses. The black walnut tree is quite young at present and will grow to reach an approximate height of 50 feet with a spread of 30 to 40 feet. It will always overhang the properties of 37 and 39McNairn and 34 Yonge Boulevard as the rear yards of these properties are very small.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. One letter was received that requested the removal of the walnut tree be conditional on the planting of a replacement tree, a copy of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (January 12, 1998) from Ms. Lisa Fung, and a copy which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

16

Tree Removal - 149 Lascelles Blvd.

(North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a permit be issued for tree removal at 149Lascelles Boulevard conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on her property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation Department:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that has caused damage to a garage has been filed by Ms. Susan Wain, 149 Lascelles Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, M5P2E7, owner of 149 Lascelles Boulevard.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to explore alternative solutions with respect to the garage.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on her property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy-eight centimetre diameter silver maple in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Michael McIsaac that accompanies this application states that the overall health of the tree is good, but that it is growing into the roof and wall on the north side of the garage causing damage. The silver maple is a common tree in Toronto's urban forest. This particular specimen will grow approximately twenty to forty centimetres more in diameter which would result in further damage to the existing garage. There is sufficient space in the rear yard for the planting of a large growing replacement tree.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

________

Mr. Will Giffen, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

17

Tree Removal - 222 Barton Avenue

(Davenport)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree located at 222 Barton Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation Department:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that the applicant feels may cause damage to sewer and water lines has been filed by Mr. Valdemar Craveiro, 222 Barton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6G 1R3, owner of 222 Barton Avenue.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on his property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a sixty centimetre diameter blue spruce in good condition. The arborist report prepared by Ontario Tree Experts that accompanies this application states that the tree is in good condition and that the homeowner is willing to replace the tree with two new large growing shade trees. The blue spruce is a common tree species in Toronto's urban forest. The specimen in question is quite significant in the neighbourhood due to its size and condition and serious consideration should be given to retaining it.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

18

Tree Removal - 203 Geoffrey Street

(High Park)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree located at 203 Geoffrey Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that the owner of 205 Geoffrey Street claims has damaged a concrete driveway has been filed by Mr. Charles Granato, 2 Hambleton Court, Scarborough, Ontario, M1V 4T5, owner of 203 Geoffrey Street.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on his property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy centimetre diameter black walnut in good condition. The concrete driveway at 205 Geoffrey Street does show some signs of heaving but whether this is a result of the black walnut trees root system cannot be determined without removing the concrete. If the concrete were to be removed and any surface roots were exposed, these could be pruned professionally by a qualified arborist and a new driveway could then be installed. This option would allow for a significant shade tree to remain in Toronto's urban forest.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

________

Ms. Vera Kondrachuk, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

19

Tree Removal - 8 Ladysmith Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a permit be issued for tree removal at 8Ladysmith Avenue conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on her property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property growing close to the house that has lifted the cement walkway has been filed by Ms. Eva Gloustianos, 8 Ladysmith Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 4H7, owner of 8 Ladysmith Avenue.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on her property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy centimetre diameter silver maple in fair condition. The tree is located on a small front lawn approximately 1.5 metres from the front foundation of the house. At this point in time the owner of the property has not provided this Department with any evidence indicating that the tree is causing structural damage to a load bearing structure and therefore the tree does not meet the criteria for an exemption under Chapter 331, Article III, Trees.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

20

Tree Removal - 13 and 15 Pine Crescent

(East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree located at 13 Pine Crescent, requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign his plans for the proposed development.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to consult with the applicant to determine whether there are other alternatives available for the proposed development of the property.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property in order to sever the two parcels of land, with the western portion to be used for the construction thereon of a detached house has been filed by Mr.Martin Stevenson, c\o O & Y Properties, Real Estate Management Services, 2FirstCanadianPlace, Ste. 2900, Toronto, Ontario, M5X 1B5, owner of 13 & 15 Pine Crescent.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign his plans for the proposed development.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on

(i) the applicant receiving approval for the redevelopment of the property.

(ii) the applicant planting two 80 millimetre diameter red oak trees as replacement.

Comments:

The tree in question is an eighty-seven centimetre diameter red oak in good condition. The arborist report prepared by Lewis Arnold of Shady Lane Expert Tree Care Inc., states that the red oak tree is in good health. The red oak is native to Toronto's urban forest and this particular specimen is located adjacent to the designated Glen Stewart ravine and therefore is an important native seed source. The applicant has indicated in a January 28, 1998, letter to Urban Forestry that he will plant two 80 millimetre diameter red oak trees as replacement if permission is granted for the removal of the tree in question.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. Thirteen written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (February 14, 1998) from Dr. Jeremy Williams;

- (January 26, 1998) from Dr. Jeremy Williams and Ms. Susan Morrison;

- (December 18, 1997) from Mr. Lewis Arnold, Shady Lane Expert Tree Care Inc.; and

- (February 16, 1998) from Mr. Dennis Casaccio nd Ms. Cassandra King.

Mr. Marty Stevenson, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Copies of the following communications referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 18, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 23, 1998) from Mr. Ken McKay and Ms. Sophie McKay, Sim, Hughes, Ashton & McKay, Barristers and Solicitors;

- (January 23, 1998) from Mr. Dennis Casaccio and Ms. Cassandra King;

- (January 22, 1998) from Mr. Frank Pasquill;

- (January 23, 1998) from Ms. Jeanne K. Service;

- (January 24, 1998) from Ms. Joan Brent;

- (January 26, 1998) from Dr. Jeremy Williams and Ms. Susan Morrison;

- (January 26, 1998) from Mr. Douglas Gilbert;

- (January 26, 1998) from resident of Pine Crescent;

- (January 25, 1998) from Mr. Raymond de Boer;

- (undated) from Ms. Sally Robinson and Mr. Wayne Robinson;

- (January 22, 1998) from Ms. Phebe Langdon and Mr. Wayne Langdon;

- (January 22, 1998) from Mr. Fred Cotthans;

- (January 22, 1998) from resident of Maclean Avenue.

21

Tree Removal - 49 Hillholm Road

(Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof the following:

"It is recommended that City Council issue a permit for tree removal, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support; and the City Arborist be requested to communicate with the objectors about the 1988policy of removal of healthy crabapple trees on City property.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree located at 49 Hillholm Road, requiring the applicant to incorporate the private tree into the proposed new landscaping.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property for the purpose of constructing new landscaping in the front yard has been filed by Mr. Glenn Herman of Janet Rosenberg & Associates, 148KenwoodAvenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6C 2S3, agent for the owner of 49 Hillholm Road.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to incorporate the private tree into the proposed new landscaping.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-six centimetre diameter crabapple in fair condition. The report prepared by Bostock Tree Service states that the two main stems of the crabapple tree have started to separate and that both stems have significant cavities. The report then states that the tree could be stabilised by cabling and might come back nicely if fertilized and pruned. The crabapple tree is reaching maturity, however, the structural problems indicated in Bostock's report do not render the tree unsafe and the tree remains viable to maintain. The applicant has indicated in a January 20, 1998, letter to Urban Forestry that he will plant one 70 millimetre diameter Japanese Tree Lilac as replacement if permission is granted for the removal of the tree in question.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. Three written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, an appraisal (December 10, 1997) from Bostock Tree Service, addressed to JanetRosenberg&Associates, and a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Bruce Bostock, Bostock Tree Service;

- Mr. David Grant, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Stephen Stark, Toronto, Ontario.

Copies of the communications, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 18, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 20, 1998) from Mr. David Grant and Ms. Betty Grant;

- (January 21, 1998) from Mr. J. Roy Weir; and

- (January 20, 1998) from Mrs. Peter Robinson.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i) (March 3, 1998) from Mr. Steven Stark, Toronto, Ontario, requesting Council to refer this matter back to staff to discuss alternatives that would allow the crabapple tree to be replaced with a mature tree, with staff to report back to the Toronto Community Council; and attaching a communication dated March 3, 1998, from the City Arborist, addressed to homeowners, outlining the policy and cost for the removal of crabapple trees on City street allowances; and

(ii) (undated) excerpt from subsection 5.2 of the Municipal Code respecting the City's policy on the removal of crabapple trees on City property, submitted by Councillor Adams.)

22

Tree Removal - 8 Indian Grove

(High Park)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree located at 8 Indian Grove, requiring the applicant to redesign his plans for a new garage.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property in order to construct a new garage has been filed by Mr. Paul Nunes, 217 Rusholme Road, Toronto, Ontario, M6H 2Y9, agent for the owner of 8IndianGrove.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council adopt either A or B below.

(A) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to redesign his plans for a new garage.

(B) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy-five centimetre diameter red oak in fair condition. The red oak tree is a native tree species and due to the trees long life span and large size it is an important component of Toronto's urban forest. An alternative method of garage construction should be considered that would incorporate the red oak tree into the plans.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

23

Removal of City-owned Tree - 206 Caledonia Road

(Davenport)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for removal of a City-owned tree at 206 Caledonia Road be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 15, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

This report is before Toronto Community Council because Giovanni and Lena Marotta are requesting the removal of a City-owned tree due to problems with the drains and branches and leaves falling on the roof.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the tree removal be denied.

Comments:

I have received a request from Giovanni and Lena Marotta, 206 Caledonia Road, Toronto, M6E 4S7, that the Toronto Community Council consider removal of a City owned white elm tree. Mr.andMrs. Marotta wish to have this tree removed as they are concerned about the tree roots clogging their drains and leaves falling on the roof in the fall.

The tree in question is a 90 cm diameter white elm which is in fair condition and is valued at $9,208.00. My staff inspected this tree on January 12, 1998 and found that the tree is well pruned and the branches are clear from the house.

With respect to drain problems experienced at this address, I advise that if drains leak, they will attract tree roots which may result in clogged drains. Without an alternate water source, tree roots grow in the uppermost 60 cm of soil where moisture, nutrients and oxygen are available. The only solution to this problem is to replace old, deteriorating drains with new drains which do not leak and attract roots.

With respect to leaves falling on the roof, removal of the tree will not guarantee elimination of leaves on the roof, as many are windblown from trees in the area, and could originate from trees on City or private property.

Removal of City trees for reasons outlined in this report is not advisable as it would set an undesirable precedent for removing many City trees.

However, should the Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, I recommend that the applicant pay all costs involved, this includes the tree value of $9,208.00, the removal costs of $909.76, and the cost to plant a replacement tree, $475.62, for a total of $10,593.38.

Contact Name:

Paulette Mullings

Telephone: (416) 392-6640

Fax: (416) 392-6657

E-Mail: pmulling @ city.tor.on.ca

24

Property Assessment

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following motions by Councillor Miller:

"It is recommended that:

(1) the Property Assessment Division of the Ministry of Finance be requested to make public the valuation models used, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, to value residential properties in the City of Toronto, including any statistical regression equations that were used; further, that the Property Assessment Division make public the quality control studies used to evaluate the accuracy of these valuation models, including assessment-to-sale ratios, co-efficients of variation and dispersion, and full listing of property characteristics for properties in the ratio studies (including addresses and roll numbers); and

(2) the Property Assessment Division of the Ministry of Finance be requested to provide, in as much detail as possible, information on the valuation models used to assess properties in the other property classes (multi-residential, commercial and industrial), along with the results of assessment accuracy tests used for these property classes."

25

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of

Heritage Properties - 93 Balsam Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council include the property at 93 Balsam Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties; and

(2) the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested Heritage Toronto to examine the possibility of designating the property at 93 Balsam Avenue under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 3, 1998) from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 93 Balsam Avenue be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council include the property at 93 Balsam Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

(2) That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

In November, 1997, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 93 Balsam Avenue for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property is for sale, and there is neighbourhood concern for the future of the site.

As outlined in the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (dated November 26, 1997), Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

Comments:

Representatives of the property owners appeared at the January 14, 1998 meeting of HeritageToronto to object to the proposed listing primarily on economic grounds. Area residents spoke in support of listing. Following the deputations, the Board recommended that the property be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties.

As a result of the meeting, the Property Research Summary was revised to clarify that the interior and the series of rear (east) additions to the original house are not included in the proposed listing.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 93 Balsam Avenue on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

(Report dated November 26, 1997, from the Acting Manager, Heritage Toronto, addressed to the Chair and Members of the Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendation:

That the property at 93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner) be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments:

1. Background:

In a letter dated November 12, 1997, the Board of Heritage Toronto is requested to consider the property at 93 Balsam Road for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The ward councillor has also written a letter of support. The owner of the property has recently died, and there is concern for the future of the site.

Staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties under Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

2. Discussion:

A Property Research Summary for the property at 93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) is attached.

________

Heritage Toronto

Property Research Summary

Basic Building Data:

Address: 93 Balsam Avenue (east side of Balsam Avenue, north of Queen Street East)

Ward: 10

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: William J. Gardiner House

Construction Date: 1899

Architect: none found

Contractor/Builder: none found

Additions/

Alterations: three rear (east) additions, dates unknown

Original Owner: William J. Gardiner

Original Use: Residential

Current Use*: Residential

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: November 1997; revised January 1998

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

Property Research Summary

Description:

The property at 93 Balsam Avenue is identified for architectural and historical reasons. Following the extension of the electric street railway along Queen Street East to Balsam Avenue in 1893, part of the latter street was registered in a plan of subdivision in 1895. The house at 93 Balsam Avenue was completed in 1899 for William J. Gardiner, a jeweller who resided on the property until 1906. The house remained vacant until 1910, when William Pepper began a 30-year tenancy. In 1940, Edward M. Caudie, a toolmaker, acquired the property. His daughter, artist Nancy Caudie Wright, resided in the house until her death in 1997.

The William J. Gardiner House is a single-storey bungalow constructed of wood frame and clad in shiplap siding. The hip roof has a brick chimney on the north slope. The roof extends over the open, raised verandah that wraps around the front (west) and side (north and south) walls of the building. The verandah has a moulded wood base and wood columns and railings. The principal (west) facade is organized symmetrically with three bays. The entrance with a panelled wood door is centred between two extended windows. The windows, flanked by shutters and containing multi-paned diamond-patterned windows, are repeated on the side walls. The south facade has a projecting bay window, and the north wall displays diminutive rectangular window openings. The interiors and the rear (east) additions to the original house are not included as significant elements.

The William J. Gardiner House is located on the east side of Balsam Avenue in the first block north of Queen Street East. With its setback on an elevated lot, modest form and wood cladding, the building stands out from its neighbours. It is indicative of the modest wood frame houses constructed when East Toronto developed as a seasonal community east of Toronto. Predating the annexation of the area by the City of Toronto in 1908, the William J. Gardiner House is an important surviving example of the early development of the Balmy Beach neighbourhood.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (February 9, 1998) from seven residents of Balsam Avenue, submitted by Ms. Jane Campbell;

- (February 9, 1998) from four area residents, submitted by Mr. Oliver Manton;

- (February 16, 1998) from Ms. Mary Campbell;

- (February 17, 1998) from Ms. Andrea L. Burke, Davies, Ward and Beck, Barristers and Solicitors.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Oliver Manton, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Ms. Andrea Burke, Davies, Ward & Beck.

26

Beaches International Jazz Festival -

Request for Refund of Financial Penalty (East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the financial penalty of $500.00 levied against the applicant for the band which played beyond 11:00 p.m. in front of 2298 Queen Street East (Fitzgerald's) during the 1997Beaches International Jazz Festival not be refunded;

(2) the financial penalty of $500.00 levied against the applicant for the band which played beyond 11:00 p.m. in front of 1971 Queen Street East (Lido's on the Beach) during the 1997 Beaches International Jazz Festival not be refunded;

(3) a penalty of $500.00 per occurrence for bands which play beyond the curfew be included again in the permits issued for the Jazz Festival in 1998;

(4) a penalty of $500.00 per occurrence for bands which play at volumes in excess of the specified decibel level be included in the permits issued for the Jazz Festival in 1998, subject to any band first receiving a verbal request to turn down the volume by a by-law officer;

(5) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto; and

(6) staff report back to the Toronto Community Council on a method by which any future penalties collected for violations of the event curfew at the Beaches International Jazz Festival be made available to the East Toronto charitable organization Calvary Baptist Church Food Bank, and that this policy be put in place in time for the 1998 Jazz Festival, subject to the City of Toronto grants process.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request from Rob Tallis, Director of Operations, Beaches International Jazz Festival, to refund the $1,000 financial penalty levied in connection with two bands which played beyond the 11:00 p.m. curfew set for the 1997 festival.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

If City Council were to support this request for a refund, it would need to allocate funds in the 1998 operating budget, as this is an unbudgeted item.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the financial penalty of $1,000.00 levied against the applicant for two bands which played beyond 11:00 p.m. during the 1997 Beaches International Jazz Festival not be refunded;

(2) a penalty of $500.00 per occurrence for bands which play beyond the curfew be included again in the permits issued for the Jazz Festival in 1998;

(3) a penalty of $500.00 per occurrence for bands which play at volumes in excess of the specified decibel level be included in the permits issued for the Jazz Festival in 1998, subject to any band first receiving a verbal request to turn down the volume by a by-law officer; and

(4) that the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Background:

Councillor Jakobek has asked me to report on a request from the International Beaches Jazz Festival to refund the penalty levied in connection with two bands which played beyond 11:00 p.m. at the Festival in 1997.

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of June 2 and 3, 1997, considered Clause 12 of Report No. 7 of the City Services Committee, titled "Beaches International Jazz Festival". City Council approved a temporary street closure of a portion of Queen Street, to permit 43 bands to play within the City road allowance. The street closure was subject to certain conditions, including two conditions included to address community concerns about noise during the event. These were:

(1) that the applicant deposit a $2,000.00 cheque with the City toward any possible infractions by street bands playing beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing limit; and that a fine of $500.00 per infraction be levied "to ensure that this deadline is respected and honoured" (emphasis added); and

(2) that a noise level restriction be incorporated into the permits issued to the bands to facilitate enforcement of the permitted noise level.

Comments:

The Beaches International Jazz Festival has been held for the past nine years and each year draws an increasingly large and appreciative audience. As it has become more successful in attracting both good musicians and large crowds of festival-goers, it has also created a certain amount of friction in the neighbourhood.

Prior to and during the planning of the 1997 event, City staff heard from a number of Beaches area residents who were concerned about the negative side effects on their community from the festival. This included the level and duration of noise generated by the bands and the crowds themselves; residents' difficulties trying to drive to and from their own homes during the event; and the general level of disruption to the community during the 3-day event.

Staff from the Police, T.T.C., Fire, Ambulance, and By-law Enforcement had a series of meetings to develop a plan which would address these concerns, while still allowing the event to proceed in a safe and orderly manner.

This plan was presented to City Services Committee on May 14, 1997. The Committee also received 21 written submissions, and 17 people came to speak to the Committee on the item.

The resulting conditions recommended by the Committee and approved by City Council (i.e. a curfew for the bands with a penalty for any band that broke the curfew; and noise levels to be specified in the permits themselves) were well-received by staff and the community. Staff were confident that their ability to levy a penalty in the event a band played beyond 11:00 p.m. would help them gain compliance with the requirement.

The location-specific permits issued to each band included these conditions. (A copy of the event permit and a sample of a band location permit are included as Appendices 'A' and 'B' respectively).

Experience of By-law Enforcement Staff During the 1997 Event:

Bands were permitted to play from 7:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 24, Friday, July 25, and Saturday, July 26th. No more than 15 bands had permits to play at any one time.

City by-law officers were on duty throughout the event to monitor the activity in the street, assist the police as necessary, and ensure that the bands remained within the designated permit locations, subject to the playing time and noise level restrictions in their permits.

Noise control staff indicated that while noise levels in general were acceptable, a number of bands played above the recommended noise level of 85 decibels, in spite of repeated requests to lower the volume. One band in particular had to be warned five times to lower the volume.

By-law officers confirmed that two bands did not stop playing at 11:00 p.m., although they were advised to do so by staff at 11:00 p.m. These were the band playing in front of Fitzgerald's at 2298Queen Street East, which played until 11:07 p.m. on July 25th, and the band playing in front of Lido's on the Beach, at 1971 Queen Street East, which was finally shut down by staff at 11:10 p.m. on July 26th. City staff did not observe any other bands playing beyond the 11:00 p.m. curfew.

Therefore, in accordance with the conditions set by City Council, which specified a forfeit of $500.00 per infraction, we deducted $1,000.00 from the applicant's deposit with the City.

Following a staff debriefing after the event, we wrote to the Festival sponsor, Mr. Lido Chilelli, President, Beaches International Jazz Festival, to review what we thought went well and how we might improve the organization of the event in 1998. We explained why the $1,000.00 was deducted from the deposit, and returned the balance of $1,000.00. Because of the unacceptably high decibel levels of a number of bands, we also said we would be recommending similar penalties in 1998 for bands playing above the permitted decibel levels after a band has been approached by an officer to turn down the volume.

Conclusions:

The $1,000.00 penalty levied in connection with the two bands which played beyond 11:00 p.m. has been applied according to City Council's instructions. These financial penalties were an effective mechanism to ensure co-operation from the festival sponsor and bands vis-a-vis the 11:00 p.m. curfew on playing music. Returning the penalty monies at this point would undermine the effectiveness of this approach to obtaining compliance which we had expected to use again in 1998.

These penalties were initially suggested by Councillor Jakobek, the Ward Councillor at the time, in order to satisfy the community's concerns that some restrictions be put on the event to deal with the noise in particular and the disruption to the neighbourhood more generally.

Therefore, I am recommending that the $1,000.00 penalty not be refunded; and in addition, that the same process be applied in 1998 both in relation to bands which play beyond the specified curfew, but also for those bands which play above the specified decibel level, once they have been approached by a by-law officer to turn down the volume.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lesley Watson, 392-1525

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (February 12, 1998) from Mr. Barry A. Smith;

- (February 16, 1998) from H. R. Merrens;

- (February 15, 1998) from Mr. Frank Loritz;

- (February 15, 1998) from Mr. Ronald Gold;

- (February 17, 1998) from Mr. Walter Hucker;

- (February 17, 1998) from Mr. John L. Chamberlin;

- (February 16, 1998) from W.T. Clayton; and

- (February 18, 1998) from Mr. Lorne Strachan.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Ms. Gay Claitman, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Walter Hucker, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Lido Chilelli, Toronto, Ontario.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Street Occupation Permit (Appendices A and B)

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Street Occupation Permit (Appendices A and B)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (February 15, 1998) from Mr. R. Gold, Toronto expressing opposition to the requests for refund made by the organizers of the Beaches Jazz Festival.)

27

Introduction of Bills Respecting Permit Parking

(Trinity-Niagara, Davenport, Midtown, Downtown and Don River)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that staff be authorized to introduce the Bills attached to the report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of City Works Services respecting permit parking.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner of City Works Services:

Purpose:

To get Council's authority as required under new procedural by-law to introduce Bills in Council respecting changes to permit parking schedules.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that staff be authorized to introduce the attached Bills respecting permit parking to City Council at its meeting of March 4 and 5, 1998.

Comments:

A number of routine requests have been received from members of Council to implement permit parking or extend the operating hours of permit parking on various streets, as listed below.

Under the procedural rules of the former City of Toronto City Council, requests by a Councillor to introduce permit parking or extend the hours of permit parking were reviewed by staff of City Works Services and, if feasible, the necessary Bills to amend Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking of the Municipal Code were introduced directly to Council.

Under the new procedural by-law, these matters must now be brought to Council through a Standing Committee.

I am attaching Bills respecting changes to permit parking regulations on City streets as follows:

Street Requested by Details

Jean Street Councillor John Adams Extension of hours of permit parking from

(Ward 23) 12:01 a.m. - 7:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. - 10:00a.m.

Awde Street Councillor Mario Silva Introduction of permit parking to operate from

(Ward 20) 12:01 a.m. - 7:00 a.m.

Linden Street Councillor Kyle Rae Extension of hours of permit parking from

(Ward 24) 12:01 a.m. - 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. -10:00a.m.

Bowden Street Former Councillor Peter Extension of hours of permit parking from

Tabuns (Ward 25) 1201 a.m. - 9:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. - 10:00a.m.

Lloyd Avenue Councillor Betty Disero Extension of hours of permit parking from

(Ward 21) 12:01 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. - 6:00p.m.

Ascot Avenue Councillor Betty Disero Introduction of permit parking to operate from

(Ward 21) 12:01 a.m. - 7:00 a.m.

Conclusion:

The introduction of these Bills is a routine matter and therefore I am recommending that leave be granted to introduce them directly to Council at its meeting of March 4 and 5, 1998.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7873

________

Copies of the bills, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda, for the meeting held on February 18, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.

28

Intersection of Hudson Drive and Heath Street East -

Roadway Alterations (Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the existing legal description, as noted below be deleted:

"the narrowing of the roadway from a width of 8.57 metres to a width varying from 6.0 metres to 8.57 metres on the east side of HUDSON DRIVE from a point 5.1 metres north of Heath Street East to a point 5.15 metres further north of Heath Street East, by the installation of precast curbing and/or a planter box, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-4945, dated April 8, 1997",

and be replaced by the following:

"the narrowing of the roadway from a width of 8.57 metres to a width varying from 6.0 metres to 8.57 metres on the west side of HUDSON DRIVE from a point 6.5 metres north of Heath Street East to a point 5.15 metres further north of Heath Street East, by the installation of precast curbing and/or a planter box, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5058, dated June 13, 1997" be approved; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 28, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement a technical amendment to By-law No. 602-89, to reflect the recent installation of a traffic calming island on the west side of Hudson Drive, immediately north of Heath Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing legal description, as noted below be deleted:

"the narrowing of the roadway from a width of 8.57 metres to a width varying from 6.0 metres to 8.57 metres on the east side of HUDSON DRIVE from a point 5.1metres north of Heath Street East to a point 5.15 metres further north of HeathStreetEast, by the installation of precast curbing and/or a planter box, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-4945, dated April 8, 1997",

and be replaced by the following:

"the narrowing of the roadway from a width of 8.57 metres to a width varying from 6.0 metres to 8.57 metres on the west side of HUDSON DRIVE from a point 6.5metres north of Heath Street East to a point 5.15 metres further north of HeathStreet East, by the installation of precast curbing and/or a planter box, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5058, dated June 13, 1997" be approved; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, gave final approval for the installation of a precast concrete island, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-4945, on the east side of Hudson Drive, north of Heath Street East (Clause 7 in City of Toronto Executive Committee Report No. 23).

During the installation of this device by City Works staff, residents of Hudson Drive contacted former Councillor Howard Joy and requested that this device be relocated to the west side of the street as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5058. The request to relocate could be accommodated and the island was installed on the west side of the street. A technical amendment to By-law No. 602-89, to authorize relocating the concrete island from the east side to the west side of Hudson Drive, is now required.

Contact Name and Telephone Number;

Tom McCulloch, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Hudson Drive and Heath Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Hudson Drive and Heath Street East

29

Lloyd Avenue, from Keele Street to Cawthra Avenue -

Reduction of Speed Limit (Davenport)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the speed limit be reduced from fifty kilometres per hour to forty kilometres per hour on Lloyd Avenue, from Keele Street to Cawthra Avenue; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 29, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed limit on Lloyd Avenue from fifty kilometres per hour to forty kilometres per hour.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the speed limit be reduced from fifty kilometres per hour to forty kilometres per hour on Lloyd Avenue, from Keele Street to Cawthra Avenue; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero on behalf of area residents, City Works Services staff have investigated lowering the speed limit on Lloyd Avenue, from Keele Street to Cawthra Avenue. LloydAvenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 9.75 metres and has a maximum speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour.

Keele - Mulock Parkette is located on the north side of Lloyd Avenue extending between KeeleStreet and Mulock Avenue. In order to provide a safeguard for children proceeding to and from the parkette, the speed limit should be lowered to forty kilometres per hour. This reduction is consistent with the policy adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting of February25 and 26, 1991 to designate streets in residential areas as forty kilometre per hour speed zones (Clause 28 of City Services Committee Report No. 3, contained in Executive Committee Report No. 5).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771.

30

Installation of Three Disabled Persons Parking Spaces

in Front of 140 Merton Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) two parking meter spaces be removed on the north side of Merton Street from a point 361 metres east of Yonge Street (parking meter numbers 28025 and 28026) to a point 13.8 metres further east;

(2) three on-street disabled persons parking spaces be installed on the north side of Merton Street, commencing at a point 361 metres east of Yonge Street and extending to a point 16 metres further east; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To remove two on-street metered parking spaces in order to provide three on-street disabled parking spaces for members of SPRINT (Senior Persons Resources in North Toronto) on the north side of Merton Street in front of Premises No. 140.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That two parking meter spaces be removed on the north side of Merton Street from a point 361 metres east of Yonge Street (parking meter numbers 28025 and 28026) to a point 13.8metres further east;

(2) That three on-street disabled persons parking spaces be installed on the north side of Merton Street, commencing at a point 361 metres east of Yonge Street and extending to a point 16metres further east; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

City Works Services has investigated the feasibility of installing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces on the north side of Merton Street, in front of Premises No. 140, to enhance accessibility for members of SPRINT (Senior Persons Resources in North Toronto).

In order to provide a parking area for any associate of SPRINT in possession of a valid disabled persons parking permit, a disabled persons' parking area (sufficient for three vehicles) should be established on the north side of Merton Street, from a point 361 metres east of Yonge Street to a point 16 metres further east. I note that Wheel Trans vehicles and any vehicle bearing a valid disabled persons parking permit issued by the Ministry of Transportation would be entitled to use these parking spaces.

The establishment of these on-street disabled parking spaces would result in the removal of two parking meter spaces (parking meter nos. 28025 and 28026) and the relocation of two other parking meters.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator.

31

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons

Parking Spaces (Trinity-Niagara, Davenport and Don River)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the installation/removal of disabled on-street parking spaces as noted in Table "A" of the report (January 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of City Works Services be approved; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council, for its meeting to be held on April 1, 1998, on:

(1) how long disabled parking permits are valid;

(2) discussions to date with the province on the problems arising because of the process of issuance of disabled parking permits;

(3) the legality of connecting the medical approvals required and the issuance of disabled parking permits to the ownership and registration of the vehicle; and

(4) the disabled and related permit parking programs in the Greater Miami area.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 29, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on requests for the installation/removal of a number of disabled on-street parking spaces.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the installation/removal of disabled on-street parking spaces as noted in Table "A" of this report be approved; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

City Works Services has investigated the feasibility of installing/removing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.

All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits as issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space. Locations where on-street disabled persons parking spaces are to be removed result from applicants moving, holding expired permits or no longer requiring these on-street parking privileges.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, 392-7878, Administrator

TABLE "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

Ward Location

20 College Street, south side, from a point 25.5 metres east of Margueretta Street to a point 5.5metres further east.

(Source: Mr. L. Darmiento, a resident of Premises No. 1229 College Street).

20 Grace Street, west side, from a point 194.5 metres north of College Street to a point 5.5metres further north.

(Source: Mr. V. Policaro, a resident of Premises No. 205 Grace Street).

Removal of disabled on-street parking space

Ward Location

21 Pelham Avenue, north side, from a point 53 metres west of Uxbridge Avenue to a point 5.5metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Ferguson the original applicant at Premises No. 54 Pelham Avenue has moved).

21 Salem Avenue, east side, from a point 24.4 metres north of Shanly Street to a point 5.5metres further north.

(Source: Mr. A. Goydas, the original applicant at Premises No. 124 Salem Avenue has moved).

25 Riverdale Avenue, south side, from a point 104.5 metres west of Logan Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Warren the original applicant at Premises No. 129 Riverdale Avenue no longer requires space).

32

Maintenance of Angled Brackets and Wire on

Existing Fence - 14 Pembroke Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the maintenance of angled brackets and wire on an existing fence within the City boulevard fronting 14 Pembroke Street and on George Street at the rear, provided that the wire used between the brackets is not barbed or otherwise hazardous and that the owner enters into a new agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 28, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request to maintain angled brackets and wire on an existing fence around EcolePublique Gabrielle-Roy to enhance site security. The addition of the brackets will increase the overall height of the fence by 0.46 m. The original fence is covered under a fence agreement but the addition of the brackets is not permitted without Council approval.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the maintenance of angled brackets and wire on an existing fence within the City boulevard fronting 14 Pembroke Street and on George Street at the rear, provided that the wire used between the brackets is not barbed or otherwise hazardous and that the owner enters into a new agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background/History:

On June 8, 1977, the City approved the construction of a 2.42 m high chain-link fence at 14Pembroke Street and on George Street at the rear to enclose the playground at EcolePubliqueGabrielle-Roy. The fence was brought under a fence agreement, as required. At that time, Streets By-law No. 12519 governed the installation and maintenance of fences within the City boulevard. The by-law did not contain a height restriction, but required fences in excess of 0.91 m in height to be brought under an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Comments:

Mr. Enide Emond, Principal, on behalf of the owner, The Toronto Board of Education, EcolePublique Gabrielle-Roy, 14 Pembroke Street, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2N7, submitted a request on December 15, 1997, for permission to install 0.46 m long brackets and wire along the top of the existing fence within the City boulevard. The brackets would prevent someone from climbing over the fence to enter or leave the school yard.

In his supporting letter, Mr. Emond described an ongoing safety and security concern for the students, daycare children, staff and the school property, because of drug use, drug dealing and other illegal and dangerous activity taking place on and near the school grounds. The installation of the brackets and wire was to be done in conjunction with a number of other security measures that are being implemented on private property to deter unauthorized entry to the property and enhance safety. The Ward Councillors have been contacted and are in full support of this request.

A permit has been issued for the installation of the bracket and wire as the school was anxious to proceed with the work. The permit has been granted on the condition that the work is subject to City Council's final approval.

In the immediate vicinity of this property there are two adjacent properties which have similar fencing on private property.

Details of the fence and brackets and wire and a copy of the December 15, 1997 letter are on file with my Department.

Conclusions:

The increase in the height of the existing fence from 2.42 m to 2.88 m is minor and will not have a significant impact on the streetscape. The installation of the angled brackets and wire will make the fence difficult to climb and thereby act as a deterrent to unauthorised entry and activity. Under these circumstances, the angled brackets and wire should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

33

Front Premises Nos. 670 and 676 Richmond Street West -

Rescindment of "No Parking Anytime" Regulation

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Richmond Street West from a point 38.1 metres east of Tecumseth Street to a point 33.5 metres further east, be rescinded; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 21, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to increase parking availability for residents.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Richmond Street West from a point 38.1 metres east of Tecumseth Street to a point 33.5 metres further east, be rescinded; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of former Ward 4 City of Toronto Councillor Martin Silva on behalf of local residents, staff have investigated the feasibility of rescinding the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Richmond Street West from a point 38.1 metres east of Tecumseth Street to a point 33.5 metres further east.

This regulation was implemented in 1976 at the request of a business owner at the rear of Premises No. 129 Tecumseth Street. As this business no longer operates at this address, there is no longer a need for the parking prohibition at this location.

Parking demand by local residents has increased in the past three years due to the conversion of Premises Nos. 670 and 676 Richmond Street West from commercial to residential use. Rescinding the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Richmond Street West from a point 38.1metres east of Tecumseth Street to a point 33.5 metres further east will create nine additional parking spaces for residents (and parking permit holders in area 4I), enhancing parking opportunity on this street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, 392-7771, Traffic Investigator

34

Weybourne Crescent and St. Leonard's Avenue -

Parking Regulations (North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of Weybourne Crescent from a point 38.1 metres southeast of St. Edmund's Drive to St. Leonard's Avenue;

(2) parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of St. Leonard's Avenue from Weybourne Crescent to Pote Avenue;

(3) parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of St. Leonard's Avenue from Weybourne Crescent to a point 75 metres west of Mt. Pleasant Road; and

(4) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 29, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To introduce a daytime parking restriction on Weybourne Crescent and on St. Leonard's Avenue in order to reduce long term non-resident parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of Weybourne Crescent from a point 38.1 metres southeast of St. Edmund's Drive to St.Leonard's Avenue;

(2) That parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of St. Leonard's Avenue from Weybourne Crescent to Pote Avenue;

(3) That parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of St. Leonard's Avenue from Weybourne Crescent to a point 75 metres west of Mt.PleasantRoad; and

(4) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

In response to complaints from residents and in consultation with Councillor Michael Walker, CityWorks Services has investigated the incidence of long term non-resident parking on WeybourneCrescent in the vicinity of Premises No. 18 Weybourne Crescent and on the section of St. Leonard's Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Weybourne Crescent.

The following parking regulations are in effect on Weybourne Crescent from St. Edmund's Drive to Lawrence Avenue East:

South and east sides:

(a) Parking is prohibited at anytime from St. Edmund's Drive to a point 30.5 metres south;

(b) Parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, from a point 30.5metres south of St. Edmund's Drive to a point 30.5 metres west of Dawlish Avenue;

(c) Parking is prohibited at anytime from a point 30.5 metres west of Dawlish Avenue to Lawrence Avenue East;

(d) Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from a point 30.5 metres south of St. Edmund's Drive to a point 30.5metres west of Dawlish Avenue; and

(e) Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

North and west sides:

(a) Parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, from a point opposite St.Edmund'sDrive to a point 38.1 metres south;

(b) Parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday from St.Leonard'sAvenue to Lawrence Avenue East; and

(c) Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

The intersection of St. Leonard's Avenue and Mt. Pleasant Road is controlled by traffic control signals. Signs posted in the field indicate that parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of St. Leonard's Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Pote Avenue and on the south side from Mt.Pleasant Road to a point approximately 75 metres west of Mt. Pleasant Road. Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours on both sides of the subject section of St.Leonard's Avenue.

Site investigation has confirmed that most of the streets in the vicinity of the subject sections of Weybourne Crescent and St. Leonard's Avenue are governed by weekday, daytime parking regulations which were implemented to control long term non-resident parking, generated in part, by commuters using the nearby Lawrence Station of the Yonge subway line. The sections of Weybourne Crescent and St. Leonard's Avenue noted above are currently governed by the statutory three hour maximum parking limit, which has resulted in numerous vehicles parking on these streets for extended periods of time.

Accordingly, to be consistent with the other parking regulations in force on other sections of Weybourne Crescent and to resolve residents' concerns, parking should be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday as noted in Recommendation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator.

35

Traffic Regulations - McCall Street

from College Street to Dundas Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the stopping prohibition from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Monday to Friday on the west side of McCall Street from Dundas Street West to College Street, be rescinded;

(2) the stopping prohibition from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday on the east side of McCall Street from Dundas Street West to College Street, be rescinded; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 21, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

The intent of this proposal is to enhance parking opportunity on McCall Street during the rush hour periods from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday for permit parkers and patrons of nearby businesses.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the stopping prohibition from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Monday to Friday on the west side of McCall Street from Dundas Street West to College Street, be rescinded;

(2) That the stopping prohibition from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday on the east side of McCall Street from Dundas Street West to College Street, be rescinded; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required..

Comments:

Business proprietors on Baldwin Street, in consultation with Councillor Olivia Chow have asked staff to investigate and report on rescinding the rush hour stopping prohibitions where applicable on McCall Street between Dundas Street West and College Street.

McCall Street, from Dundas Street West to College Street operates two-way on a pavement width of about 11.0 metres. Stopping is prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday (excluding Public Holidays) on the east side of the street and from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Monday to Friday (excluding Public Holidays) on the west side of the street. Parking is allowed under certain temporal restrictions at parking meters on both sides of McCall Street (20 meters, east side and 30 meters, west side) and permit parking regulations apply from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.

An 8-hour traffic survey conducted on McCall Street, which included the morning and afternoon peak and off peak periods, recorded a total of 3,714 vehicles, of which 278 vehicles (about 35% of roadway capacity) travelled southbound during the morning peak hour when stopping is prohibited on the west side of the street and 344 vehicles (about 43% of roadway capacity) travelled northbound during the afternoon peak hour when stopping is prohibited on the east side of the street.

There is significant roadway capacity to maintain safe and efficient traffic operation if the stopping prohibitions on both sides of McCall Street between Dundas Street West and College Street were rescinded during the morning and afternoon peak periods.

Implementation of this suggestion would enhance parking opportunity on McCall Street for business proprietors in the area and their customers by providing 30 additional parking spaces during the morning peak period and 20 additional parking spaces during the afternoon peak period (a total of 120 additional space hours daily, Monday to Friday).

However, street cleaning and snow ploughing operations would be less effective as mechanical sweepers and ploughs would be unable to directly provide service in the curb lane along most of the street.

Given the favourable community support for this proposal, the increased number of parking spaces that would be provided for use by residents and business patrons during both rush hour periods and the anticipated negligible impact on traffic operation, the stopping prohibition on McCall Street from Dundas Street West to College Street should be rescinded.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. Ron Hamilton,

Transportation Operations Coordinator

392-1806

36

Prescott Avenue, East Side, from St. Clair Avenue West

to East Avenue - Introduction of One Hour Parking Limit

(Davenport)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" prohibition on the east side of Prescott Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and East Avenue, be rescinded;

(2) parking be permitted to a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on the east side of Prescott Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and East Avenue; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 29, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To rescind the existing 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, parking prohibition on the east side of Prescott Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and East Avenue and to introduce a one hour maximum parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" prohibition on the east side of Prescott Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and East Avenue, be rescinded;

(2) That parking be permitted to a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on the east side of Prescott Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and East Avenue; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, City Works Services investigated adjusting the existing parking regulations on Prescott Avenue, between St. Clair Avenue West and East Avenue to allow parking during daytime hours.

Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to East Avenue, operates two-way on a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side and is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday, on the east side of the subject section of Prescott Avenue. Parking is otherwise permitted on the east side of Prescott Avenue to a maximum limit of three hours outside the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

Removal of the 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. parking prohibition would provide additional daytime parking on Prescott Avenue. However, given the close proximity of the St. Clair Avenue West commercial strip, I anticipate that the additional parking would be used by non-residents for long-term parking.

Accordingly, to address this concern a one hour maximum parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, should be implemented on this section of Prescott Avenue. It should be noted that residents with valid on-street parking permits would be exempt from the one hour parking limit.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch,

Traffic Investigator

392-7771

37

Intersections of Recoil and Blackthorn Avenues and

Silverthorn and Pryor Avenues - All-Way Stop Sign Control

(Davenport)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) "Stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Recoil Avenue at the western branch of Blackthorn Avenue;

(2) a "Stop" sign be installed for southbound traffic on Silverthorn Avenue at Pryor Avenue; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 29, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement all-way "Stop" sign controls at the intersections of Recoil Avenue/Blackthorn Avenue and Silverthorn Avenue/Pryor Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That "Stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Recoil Avenue at the western branch of Blackthorn Avenue;

(2) That a "Stop" sign be installed for southbound traffic on Silverthorn Avenue at Pryor Avenue; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, City Works Services staff have investigated traffic conditions at the intersections of Recoil Avenue/Blackthorn Avenue and Silverthorn/Pryor Avenue.

Recoil Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40kilometres per hour. Blackthorn Avenue operates one-way northbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Blackthorn Avenue jogs to the west at Recoil Avenue to form an offset intersection with right-of-way controlled by a "Stop" sign for northbound traffic on the eastern branch of Blackthorn Avenue.

Silverthorn Avenue at its intersection with Pryor Avenue operates one-way southbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Pryor Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and terminates at Silverthorn Avenue to form a "T" type intersection. Right-of-way is controlled by a "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on Pryor Avenue.

City Works Services has evaluated the above noted intersections against the technical criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs, which encompasses such things as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and has determined that these intersections meet the criteria for the installation of all-way "Stop" sign controls.

In particular, given that three out of five intersections on Recoil Avenue from Prescott Avenue to Chambers Avenue, and four out of five intersections on Silverthorn Avenue from Rowntree Avenue to Pryor Avenue, are currently regulated by all-way "Stop" sign controls, there is a reasonable expectation on the part of motorists that such a control be present to regulate the flow of traffic at the intersections of Recoil Avenue/Blackthorn Avenue and Silverthorn Avenue/Pryor Avenue.

Accordingly, to improve the regulation of traffic and to enhance pedestrian safety, I am of the opinion that an all-way "Stop" sign control should be installed on Recoil Avenue at the western branch of Blackthorn Avenue and on Silverthorn Avenue at Pryor Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator

392-7771

38

Naming of Public Lane south of Danforth Avenue between

Craven Road and Rhodes Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the public lane 17.2 metres south of Danforth Avenue between Craven Road and Rhodes Avenue, illustrated on the "Map A" attached to the report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services, be named "Azzarello Lane";and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the public lane 17.2 metres south of Danforth Avenue between Craven Road and Rhodes Avenue be named "Azzarello Lane". The lane is being named to facilitate numbering of the entrances fronting thereon.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the public lane 17.2 metres south of Danforth Avenue between Craven Road and Rhodes Avenue, illustrated on the enclosed "Map A", be named "Azzarello Lane";and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Background:

I have a request from Cynthia Murphy of The Goldman Group to name the public lane, 17.2 metres south of Danforth Avenue between Craven Road and Rhodes Avenue, to identify the residential entrances fronting the public lane. The proposed name is taken from the Azzarello family who were merchants in the area beginning in the late 1920's, according to the John E. Zucci book "Italians in Toronto". The family continues to operate the business in the east end of Toronto, as they have for four generations.

Comments:

The proposed name "Azzarello Lane" has been circulated for comment to Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin and has the support of Metro Planning, Heritage Toronto, Toronto Fire Services and the Beach and East Toronto Historical Society.

Conclusions:

The proposed name "Azzarello Lane" is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by City Council on July 11, 1988 ( Clause 4, Executive Report No. 22 ).

Contact Name:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416) 392-1831; Fax: (416) 392-0081

E-Mail: dchristo@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Map "A"

39

Naming of Street - East of Leslie Street

between Memory Lane and Sears Street

(East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends:

(1) the proposed public street located 63.6 metres east of Leslie Street between Memory Lane and Sears Street, illustrated on the "Map A" attached to the report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services, be named "Brick Court"; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the proposed public street, 63.6 metres east of Leslie Street between Memory Lane and Sears Street, be named "Brick Court". The street is being named to facilitate numbering of the entrances to the proposed row house units fronting thereon.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the proposed public street located 63.6 metres east of Leslie Street between MemoryLane and Sears Street, illustrated on the enclosed "Map A", be named "BrickCourt"; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Background:

I have a request from Harry Kohn of SKMV Architects to name the proposed public street at the new housing development located at 61 Leslie Street, "Brick Court". The proposed name is to acknowledge that nine brickyards, with significant deposits of clay, existed in the area around the 1850's.

Comments:

The proposed name "Brick Court" has been circulated for comment to Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin and has the support of Metro Planning, Heritage Toronto, Toronto Fire Services and the Beach and East Toronto Historical Society.

Conclusions:

The proposed name "Brick Court" is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by City Council on July 11, 1988 ( Clause 4, Executive Report No. 22 ).

Contact Name:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416) 392-1831

Fax: (416) 392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Map A - Leslie/Sears/Memory

40

Naming of Lane, North of Queen Street East, Westerly

from Kent Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the proposed private lane, 14.1 metres north of Queen Street East, extending westerly from Kent Road, illustrated on the "Map A" attached to the report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services; be named "Dorothy Bullen Place";

(2) Universe Investments pay the cost in the approximate amount of $300.00 for the fabrication and installation of the appropriate signage; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the proposed private lane, 14.1 metres north of Queen Street East, extending westerly from Kent Road, be named "Dorothy Bullen Place". The private lane is being named to facilitate numbering of the entrances to the proposed row house units fronting thereon.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Financial Implications are addressed in Recommendation (2) below.

Recommendations:

(1) That the proposed private lane, 14.1 metres north of Queen Street East, extending westerly from Kent Road, illustrated on the enclosed "Map A", be named "Dorothy Bullen Place";

(2) That Universe Investments pay the cost in the approximate amount of $300.00 for the fabrication and installation of the appropriate signage; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Background:

I have a request from Allen Rae Architect Incorporated on behalf of Universe Investments, to name the proposed private lane, 14.1 metres north of Queen Street East extending westerly from KentRoad, "Dorothy Bullen Place". The proposed name is to commemorate Dorothy Bullen, the great, great grand-daughter of Sarah Ashbridge. Dorothy Bullen lived at the Ashbridge home, located nearby at 1444 Queen Street East, which was built by her grandfather Jesse in 1854. Sarah Ashbridge brought her family from Pennsylvania to settle in York in 1793.

Comments:

The proposed name "Dorothy Bullen Place" has been circulated for comment to Councillors TomJakobek and Sandra Bussin and has the support of Metro Planning, Heritage Toronto, Toronto Fire Services and the Beach and East Toronto Historical Society.

Conclusions:

The proposed name "Dorothy Bullen Place" is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by City Council on July 11, 1988 ( Clause 4, Executive Report No. 22 ).

Contact Name:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416) 392-1831

Fax: (416) 392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Map A - Queen Street East/Kent

41

Boulevard Cafe Appeal - Major Street Flankage of

119 Harbord Street (Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 28, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's request to appeal staff's decision to refuse an application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the application for boulevard cafe privileges on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street be denied, as the conditions of the premises licence from the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario stipulates that the applicant agrees not to seek permission for additional facilities "by way of a patio licence".

Background:

The City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting on September 3, 1997, had before it a communication (August 8, 1997) from Mr. Sheldon N. Silverman, solicitor for Mr.Bernie Dunford of Idefix Bistro, requesting an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a boulevard cafe on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street. The Committee requested me to report on the matter as a communication item.

Comments:

Mr. Bernie Dunford, owner of Idefix Bistro, 119 Harbord Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1G7, submitted an application on April 29, 1997, requesting a licence for boulevard cafe privileges on the Major Street flankage of 119 Harbord Street. The proposed cafe area is approximately 37.0sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 8 tables with a potential seating capacity of 32 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes as set out in §313-36 of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.

As the proposed cafe is within 25 m of a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated June 5 to July 7, 1997 was conducted on the east side of Major Street between Nos.133and 177 and on the west side of Major Street between Nos. 98 and 162, including 121Harbord Street to determine neighbourhood support, as follows:

Polling Summary

Mr. Dunford was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued.

Mr. Silverman, solicitor for Mr. Dunford, then wrote to complain that the polling process was flawed because his client did not learn of the poll until after the ballots were issued, and because he believed the polling list was out-of-date.

However, when members of the community became aware of the cafe request, by way of the poll, they brought it to their Councillor's attention (then Dan Leckie) that the liquor licence for 119Harbord Street prohibited an application for an outdoor patio or cafe. The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario confirmed that the previous owner had been granted a licence, subject to a number of conditions which were to be binding on any subsequent license holders. In a signed "Consent and Undertaking" he agreed, among other things:

(a) not to make an "application for additional facilities by way of a patio licence"; and

(b) that any application for the transfer of the licence would be on notice to the community.

These requirements are included in the licence issued to the new operator, Mr. Dunford, in May 1997.

In effect, Mr. Dunford should not have applied for cafe privileges, because of his agreement not to do so with the LLBO. If staff had been aware of this separate agreement, we would not have processed the application or conducted the poll.

Mr. Silverman's comments on the inadequacy of the polling process are therefore somewhat moot, although I will address them in order to clarify the process. Mr. Dunford was sent a letter advising of the poll on June 5, 1997, the same day the ballots were issued.

Only 7 ballots of a total of 163 (i.e. 4%) were returned "undeliverable" by the post office. This indicates that the polling list was, although not 100% up-to-date, relatively accurate by Toronto standards (given that we experienced a 25% turnover in property owners on the tax assessment records in 1997). If a ballot is delivered but the property ownership or occupancy has changed, the current resident may return the ballot and have it tabulated in the poll results if they can prove their current residency with proper identification.

Conclusions:

This application for a boulevard cafe is in conflict with the Mr. Dunford's undertaking not to apply for a cafe licence, as a condition of his liquor licence. Further, the result of the public poll was negative. Although the poll would not have been conducted had we known of this condition, the negative result reflects the community's wishes with respect to a cafe.

If Mr. Dunford is able to get the terms of his LLBO licence changed to exclude the reference to the patio licence, we could reconsider the matter two years from the date the poll closed, or in July 1999. In the meantime, the application for a cafe licence should be denied.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

_______

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (February 12, 1998) from Ms. Susan J. Potts; and

- (April 10, 1995) from Mr. Paul Robert Chambers and Mr. Robert John Hinton, addressed to the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Harbord Street Cafe

42

Narrowing of Pavement - Gould and Dalhousie Streets

(Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) approval be given to narrow the pavements on Gould Street and Dalhousie Street, described as follows:

(a) "the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 14 metres to a width of 10.5 metres along the south side of GOULD STREET from Mutual Street to Dalhousie Street, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2180, dated January 29, 1998"; and

(b) "the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 8.8 metres to a width of 8.0 metres along the east side of DALHOUSIE STREET between Gould Street and Dundas Street East, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2180, dated January 29, 1998"; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 30, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the existing pavements on Gould Street and Dalhousie Street to provide improved pedestrian amenity and enhanced landscaping treatments in conjunction with the development of the adjoining property.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the Gould Street pavement narrowing are to be borne by the developer of the abutting property. Funds to cover the cost of the work on Dalhousie Street have been included in the 1998 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavements on Gould Street and Dalhousie Street, described as follows:

(a) "the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 14 metres to a width of 10.5 metres along the south side of GOULD STREET from Mutual Street to Dalhousie Street, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2180, dated January 29, 1998"; and

(b) "the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 8.8 metres to a width of 8.0 metres along the east side of DALHOUSIE STREET between Gould Street and DundasStreet East, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2180, dated January 29, 1998"; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

The Statement of Approval in respect of the phased conversion of the former Sears Warehouse building at Premises No. 108 Mutual Street for residential use, issued on April 14, 1997 provides, among other things, that the owner shall pay for improvements to the public sidewalk/boulevard surrounding the site and pay for all costs associated with a contemplated sidewalk widening/pavement narrowing on the south side of Gould Street between Mutual Street and Dalhousie Street.

The existing pavement on Gould Street has a width of 14 metres within a right-of-way of 20 metres. The street functions as a two-way collector and has parking restrictions on both sides. The generous pavement width was required to facilitate truck manoeuvring to and from the loading dock of the former Sears Warehouse and is now redundant. The narrowing of the pavement as described in Recommendation No. 1(a) and shown on the attached print of sketch No. SK-2180, will not adversely affect the functioning of the street and will result in a corresponding widening of the sidewalk which will provide for increased space for pedestrian needs and the planting of trees.

Dalhousie Street has an existing pavement width of 8.8 metres within a right-of-way of 12.2 metres and operates as a two-way local street with parking restrictions on both sides. The narrowing of the pavement as described in Recommendation No. 2(a) and shown on the attached print of sketch No.SK-2180 will permit the corresponding widening of the existing sidewalk along the east side of Dalhousie Street from Gould Street to Dundas Street East.

In accordance with the obligations set out in the Statement of Approval/Undertaking, the developer is responsible for all costs associated with the Gould Street pavement narrowing as well as all streetscape improvements on Dalhousie Street, Gould Street and Mutual Street abutting the site. The Dalhousie Street pavement narrowing can be implemented in connection with the planned asphaltic overlay of the pavement this year, funds for which have been included in the 1998 Maintenance Programme.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environment Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

The narrowing of the pavements on Gould Street and Dalhousie Street constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The statutory requirements of the Municipal Act provide that notice of the intent to enact a by-law in respect of the work shall be published once a week for 4 successive weeks and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. Accordingly, it is recommended that this matter be advertised during the weeks of February 16, February 23, March 2 and March 9, 1988 and be scheduled as a deputation item for the April 1, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, 392-7711, Manager of Programmes.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Gould Street & Dalhousie Street

43

Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes -

The Tranzac Club (Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council advise the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario that it is aware of the following events taking place at the TRANZAC Club, 292 Brunswick Avenue, and has no objection to their taking place; nor to an extension of liquor licence #40010 to cover an outdoor marquee area and the front lobby during such events:

(1) Caravan - The Sydney-Auckland Pavilion - June 12 to 20, 1998, inclusive; and

(2) The Fringe of Toronto Festival - July 2 to 12, 1998, inclusive.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 4, 1998) from Jim Cook, President, Board of Directors, Toronto Australia New Zealand Club:

I am writing on behalf of the Toronto Australia New Zealand Club (The Tranzac) to request a notice of Municipal Clerk/Non Objection in writing. This is required in order for us to apply to the LLBO for an extension to our existing liquor licence no. 40010, to cover an outdoor marquee area and the front lobby.

The extension will be to cover the complete duration of two consecutive events. These events are as follows:

(1) Caravan - The Australian Pavilion - June 12 - 20, 1998 inclusive.

Contact: Jim Cook, President, Board of Directors, Tranzac at (416) 691-7108.

The Tranzac Club sponsors the Sydney-Auckland Pavilion which has proved to be one of the popular pavilions during Toronto's Multi-Cultural Festival. The pavilion has won a number of awards since Caravan started and features a unique blend of "Down Under" culture, entertainment and food: a traditional highlight is the performance by the Tranzac Maori Concert Party.

(2) The Fringe of Toronto Festival - July 2-12, 1998 inclusive.

Contact: Linda Keyworth - General Manager at (416) 534-5919.

The Fringe of Toronto Festival was established in 1989 and is dedicated to the promotion and prosperity of the independent theatre community. Since its founding, The Festival has demonstrated unprecedented growth. Attendance has increased by 40% in the last 3 years and this year, our Tenth Anniversary, The Fringe expects to attract 50,000 people to over 600 theatrical performances over an eleven day run. Over 90 companies from Ontario, across Canada and around the world are featured in noon to midnight programming at eight venues. Last year, The Fringe returned over $160,000 in box office revenue to the artists.

The Fringe continues to remain accessible to its audiences as well. All of its venues are within walking distance of each other in the Annex neighbourhood. The maximum ticket price is $8.00. The Ten by Ten Cabaret Series was a huge success in 1997 and will again present ten different cabarets over the run of The Festival, free of charge to the public. These cabaret performances are featured at The Toronto Australia New Zealand Club.

Should you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (416) 691-7108. Thank you for your assistance.

44

Permit Parking Proposal - Spadina Road

(Bloor Street West to Dupont Street) East Side (Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the parking meter hours of operation on the west side of Spadina Road, from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street be adjusted, and parking meters be installed on the east side of Spadina Road, from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street to operate as follows:

(a) the hours of operation of the existing parking meters on the west side of Spadina Road from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street be adjusted to operate from 9:30a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, for a maximum period of two hours and from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., from Monday to Saturday, for a maximum period of three hours at a rate of $1.00 per hour; and

(b) parking meters be installed on the east side of Spadina Road to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, for a maximum period of two hours, from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday for a maximum period of two and one/half hours and from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday, for a maximum period of three hours at a rate of $1.00per hour.

(2) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required; and

(3) a permit parking poll be conducted to propose the introduction of permit parking on Spadina Road (between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street), in accordance with the former City of Toronto by-law procedure.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 3, 1998) from Councillor Adams:

I am writing to request that the Toronto Community Council instruct transportation staff to report back to it on the above matter.

During the last council term, Metro Transportation proposed that the City of Toronto take over the control of a number of its roads, including Spadina Road from Bloor Street West to St. Clair Avenue West. However, the old City of Toronto did not have an opportunity to facilitate this transfer of responsibility before January 1, 1998. Regardless, it is important that this matter be understood as a local parking and transportation matter, within the appropriate jurisdiction of the Community Council.

At present there is no parking allowed on the east side of Spadina Road. Traffic volumes do not warrant this condition, and I would request that consideration of parking be reviewed.

Furthermore, this area is in need of additional permit parking. Should parking be introduced to the east side of Spadina Road. I would ask that the transportation staff conduct a residents poll with the proposal to introduce permit parking following the established by-law procedures of the old City of Toronto.

My recommendations to the Community Council, therefore are:

(1) That Spadina Road (from Bloor Street to St. Clair Avenue) be established as a local road.

(2) That parking be introduced on the east side of Spadina Road (from Bloor Street to Dupont Street).

(3) That a permit parking poll be conducted to propose the introduction of permit parking on Spadina Road (between Bloor Street and Dupont Street), in accordance with the old City of Toronto by-law procedure.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause 39, contained in Report No. 9 of the City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, titled "Parking Meters - Spadina Road between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street (Ward13)", which was adopted, as amended by City Council at its meeting on July 14, 1997, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

45

Curb Cut - 53 Walmer Road

(Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a curb cut be approved at 53 Walmer Road, notwithstanding the negative poll, and that appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (January 26, 1998) from Mark S. Fox:

I am formally requesting that the result of the polling for a curb cut at 53 Walmer Road be appealed at the next Community Council meeting. I would appreciate it if you could schedule it for the 18th of February as I have to be out of town the remainder of the week.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (February 16, 1998) from Mr. Douglas Underhill; and

- (February 17, 1998) letter of support containing 3 signatures.

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (February 16, 1998) From Mr. D. Underhill, et al, expressing support for the approval of a curb cut for 53 Walmer Road.)

46

Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Zoning

By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval -

14 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1) the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the Committee of Adjustment appeal scheduled for April 14, 1998, in respect of 14Prince Arthur Avenue in opposition to such appeal, on the grounds that the application is not appropriately dealt with as a minor variance; and

(2) the supplementary report dated February 17, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, as embodied in the foregoing Clause be adopted.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the report (January 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be adopted;

(2) (a) in the event that the applicant appeals Application No. 197033 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and requests that such an appeal be consolidated with the Committee of Adjustment appeal scheduled for April 14, 1998, the City Solicitor request the Ontario Municipal Board to adjourn the hearing;

(b) in the event that the Board does not agree to adjourn the hearing as per Recommendation No. (2)(a) above, the City Solicitor and appropriate civic staff be instructed to attend the hearing in opposition, on the grounds that the planning issues set out in the Preliminary Report have not been resolved;

(c) in the event that outside consultants are required, the City Solicitor be authorized to retain them; and

(d) if it is necessary, the City Solicitor and/or the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report directly to the Toronto Community Council for further instructions.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following preliminary report (January 30, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

To introduce a proposal to add two office floors to an existing commercial-office building at 14Prince Arthur Avenue and seek Community Council endorsement to hold a public meeting.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application, and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors; and

(2) That the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval, an owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement and a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan in accordance with Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of City Works Services.

Background:

No. 14 Prince Arthur Avenue is located in the Annex on the north side of Prince Arthur Avenue, west of Avenue Road. The property contains a 2.2 times coverage, three-storey commercial-office building constructed in 1956 which contains a restaurant, located partially below-grade and in the basement area, and 15 underground parking spaces.

The site is designated a Special Commerce Area and is located within the Prince Arthur Area of Special Identity in the Annex Part II Plan, which permits a maximum non-residential density of 2.0 times the area of the lot. The site is zoned CR T2.0 C2.0 R1.0, with a 12 metre height limit.

The applicant proposes to add two floors for office uses, each having 506 m2 of gross floor area. The proposed 4th and 5th floors are smaller in size than the floors of the existing building. The addition is set back 8.0 and 10.3 metres from the rear elevation of the existing building. The addition results in a building which is 3.0 times density and 18 metres in height.

Last summer, the applicant sought minor variances from the Committee of Adjustment to permit a similar but slightly larger two-storey addition to the existing building. The Committee of Adjustment refused that application. The applicant's solicitor appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board. A hearing has been scheduled for April 14, 1998. In the interim, the applicant filed the subject application for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Comments:

The application has been circulated to other civic officials for comments. It should also be the subject of a public meeting within the community.

The following planning issues will require review and resolution prior to final reporting:

(A) Height, massing and shadow impacts: The extra height and massing of the proposal must be assessed against the surrounding context. Also, the shadows created by the addition and their impact on the rear yards of the houses located to the north must be evaluated. I will require that the applicant submit a shadow impact study.

(B) Design elements: The submitted plans do not indicate the nature of the exterior wall materials or clearly show window locations. Design and materials should complement and be compatible with the existing context.

(C) Parking and loading: No extra parking spaces or servicing arrangements are being proposed. The plans have been circulated to City Works Services for an assessment of the acceptability of the existing parking and loading arrangements.

(D) Landscaping: No changes to the existing landscaping has been contemplated with this application. However, the Arborist Report submitted with the application indicates that none of the existing trees on-site are in good condition. In addition, a large portion of the ground area of the rear of the site contains exposed mechanical equipment which services the building. Landscaping improvements to the property are necessary.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi, City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-1324; Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: mmizzi@city.toronto.on.ca

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Confirmed Municipal Address: 14 Prince Arthur Avenue

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

Insert Table/Map No. 1

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 17, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

This report provides additional relevant information pertaining to the application and its relationship to an up-coming Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Recommendations:

(1) That the Recommendations of my Preliminary Report (January 30, 1998) be adopted, and

(2) (a) That, in the event that the applicant appeals Application No. 197033 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and requests that such an appeal be consolidated with the Committee of Adjustment appeal scheduled for April 14, 1998, the City Solicitor request the Ontario Municipal Board to adjourn the hearing.

(b) That, in the event that the Board does not agree to adjourn the hearing as per Recommendation (2) a) above, the City Solicitor and appropriate civic staff be instructed to attend the hearing in opposition, on the grounds that the planning issues set out in the Preliminary Report have not been resolved.

(c) That, in the event that outside consultants are required, the City Solicitor be authorized to retain them.

(d) That, if it is necessary, the City Solicitor and/or the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report directly to the Toronto Community Council for further instructions.

Background:

On February 19, 1998, the Toronto Community Council will give consideration to Item 61, my Department's Preliminary Report respecting 14 Prince Arthur Avenue. The Preliminary Report introduces an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and Site Plan Approval to permit a two-storey addition to an existing commercial-office building. The Preliminary Report recommends that a City-sponsored public meeting be held.

In the Preliminary Report, I commented that: a Shadow Impact Study be submitted; more information pertaining to exterior wall materials and window locations is required; a review of the parking and loading arrangements will be undertaken by the Commissioner of City Works Services; and improvements to the existing landscaping are necessary.

In the Preliminary Report, I also advise the Community Council that the applicant had previously sought minor variances from the Committee of Adjustment to permit a similar but slightly larger two-storey addition. The Committee of Adjustment refused that application and an Ontario Municipal Board hearing is scheduled for April 14, 1998 to hear the matter. In the interim, the applicant filed the subject application for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

Comments:

Subsequent to the submission of the Preliminary Report, I have been advised by the City Solicitor's office that it is possible that the applicant will appeal the subject application and request the Ontario Municipal Board to consolidate the appeal with the Committee of Adjustment hearing scheduled for April 14, 1998. Under this scenario, it might be difficult or impossible to obtain Council instructions, because of the timing of meeting dates of Community Council and City Council.

At this stage in the planning process, I am not in a position to comment on the planning merits of the application. As discussed above, I require information and possible plan revisions from the applicant. In addition, I have not obtained the direct input of the community respecting this application.

Accordingly, the City Solicitor's office advises me it would be prudent to add Recommendation (2) of this report before your Committee.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-1324; Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: mmizzi@city.toronto.on.ca

47

Expropriation of the Private Lane which Extends Northerly

from Humberside Avenue, between High Park and

Pacific Avenue, for Public Lane Purposes (High Park)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve the proposed expropriation of the private lane which extends northerly from Humberside Avenue, between High Park Avenue and Pacific Avenue, for public lane purpose, as the expropriation of the lands is required for public lane purposes. It is believed that the safety and utility of the laneway will, after acquisition, be improved through the installation of paving, drainage and lighting;

(2) City Council authorize, as recommended by the Inquiry Officer, the payment of $200.00 in costs to the solicitor for the objector;

(3) the City Clerk be directed to cause the decision of City Council, and reasons to be served upon Mr. Timothy P. Czajkowski, c/o Serge Jusyp, Suite 112, 100 Wellesley Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 1H5, party to the inquiry, and to the Chief Inquiry Officer, Ministry of the Attorney General, Crown Law Office - Civil Law, 8th floor - 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K1, within 90 days after the date of the receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer in accordance with the Expropriations Act; and

(4) (a) the City Clerk or designate and City Treasurer or designate be authorized and directed to execute a Certificate of Approval in the form prescribed in the Expropriations Act;

(b) leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto;

(c) offers of compensation, in compliance with the requirements of the Expropriations Act, to the registered owners, and/or whomever may be entitled to be served, be approved up to the amount of the appraisal reports obtained by the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and that the appropriate City Officials be authorized to offer immediate payment of 100% of the offers of compensation and to settle the compensation claims within the limits of their authority and further be authorized to complete these transactions; prepare the necessary documents releasing the City from any claims arising from the expropriation of land; pay any interest charges or expenses incurred by the City; and pay any reasonable legal and appraisal fees associated therewith;

(d) the lands be placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corporate Services until required for public lane purposes; and

(e) that the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take such action as may be necessary to complete these transactions and/or take possession of the lands involved, including the preparation and registration of the Expropriation Plan and service of the required documents such as Notice of Expropriation, Notice of Possession, Notice of Election, Without Prejudice Offers, Appraisal Reports, etc.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 5, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor:

Purpose:

To request that City Council, as the Approving Authority under the Expropriations Act, consider the report of the Inquiry Office and decide whether to approve the application to expropriate the private lane described above for public lane purposes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding for the payment of fair market value and damages claimed in connection with the expropriation of the private lane at this location is to be provided from Capital Account No. 296-601.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council consider the report of the Inquiry Officer attached as Schedule "A" to this report.

(2) If City Council decides to approve the proposed expropriation, it do so for the following reasons:

The expropriation of the lands is required for public lane purposes. It is believed that the safety and utility of the laneway will, after acquisition, be improved through the installation of paving, drainage and lighting.

(3) City Council authorize, as recommended by the Inquiry Officer, the payment of $200 in costs to the solicitor for the objector.

(4) The City Clerk be directed to cause the decision of City Council, and reasons to be served upon Mr. Timothy P. Czajkowski, c/o Serge Jusyp, Suite 112, 100 Wellesley Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 1H5, party to the inquiry, and to the Chief Inquiry Officer, Ministry of the Attorney General, Crown Law Office - Civil Law, 8th floor - 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2K1, within 90 days after the date of the receipt of the report of the Inquiry Officer in accordance with the Expropriations Act.

(5) If City Council decides to approve the expropriation, it direct that:

(a) The City Clerk or designate and City Treasurer or designate be authorized and directed to execute a Certificate of Approval in the form prescribed in the Expropriations Act.

(b) Leave be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto.

(c) Offers of compensation, in compliance with the requirements of the Expropriations Act, to the registered owners, and/or whomever may be entitled to be served, be approved up to the amount of the appraisal reports obtained by the Commissioner of Corporate Services, and that the appropriate City Officials be authorized to offer immediate payment of 100% of the offers of compensation and to settle the compensation claims within the limits of their authority and further be authorized to complete these transactions; prepare the necessary documents releasing the City from any claims arising from the expropriation of land; pay any interest charges or expenses incurred by the City; and pay any reasonable legal and appraisal fees associated therewith.

(d) The lands be placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corporate Services until required for public lane purposes.

(e) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take such action as may be necessary to complete these transactions and/or take possession of the lands involved, including the preparation and registration of the Expropriation Plan and service of the required documents such as Notice of Expropriation, Notice of Possession, Notice of Election, Without Prejudice Offers, Appraisal Reports, etc.

Council Reference/Background/History:

As appears from Clause 19, City Services Committee Report No. 10, adopted at its meeting held on July 24 and 25, 1995, City Council authorized, among other things, an application to City Council for approval of the expropriation of all rights, title and interests for public lane purposes of certain lands described as follows:

________

Schedule "A"

In the City of Toronto, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of those lands designated as PARTS on a Reference Plan deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), all as set out in the following Schedule:

Part(s) Reference Plan Lot/Block Registered Plan

1 64R-14136 Part of Lot 13 in Block 16 553-York

2 64R-14136 Parts of Lots 12 and 13 in Block 16 553-York

3, 4 64R-14136 Part of Lot 12 in Block 16 553-York

5 64R-14136 Part of Lot 11 in Block 16 553-York

6 64R-14136 Part of Lots 10 and 11 in Block 16 553-York

7, 8 64R-14136 Part of Lot 10 in Block 16 553-York

12, 22 64R-14136 Part of Lot 8 in Block 16 553-York

13 64R-14136 Parts of Lots 7 and 8 in Block 16 553-York

14, 15 64R-14136 Part of Lot 7 in Block 16 553-York

16 64R-14136 One Foot Reserved 741-York

17, 18 64R-14136 Part of Lot 30 in Block 16 553-York

19, 20 64R-14136 Part of Lot 9 in Block 16 553-York

21 64R-14136 Parts of Lots 8 and 9 in Block 16 553-York

Council also approved the following:

(2) The service and publication of the Notice of such application required by the Expropriations Act;

(3) The appropriate Officials to forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the said Act, any requests for hearings that are received;

(4) The Acting Commissioner of City Property to obtain any appraisal reports required to comply with The Expropriations Act;

(5) The City Solicitor to make any necessary applications to a Judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario to appoint the Public Trustee to represent the interests of any owners served pursuant to subsection 1 of Section 5 of The City of Toronto Act, 1981;

(6) The appropriate City Officials to report further to Council as the occasion may require;

(7) A by-law to lay out the lands to form the new lane as described in Schedule `A' above, including the parcels identified as Parts 9, 10 and 11 on Plan 64R-14136, and thereafter dedicate the lands for public lane purposes; and

(8) The appropriate City Officials to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The service and publication of the Notice of Application for Approval to Expropriate Land was duly effected and a request for an inquiry hearing was received from Mr. Timothy P. Czajkowski, the owner of the property at 217 High Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.

An Inquiry Officer was appointed and on January 13, 1998 an inquiry was held into the question of whether the proposed expropriation was fair, sound and reasonably necessary in the achievement of the objectives of the City. The report of the Inquiry Officer was received on January 15, 1998, a copy of which is attached as Schedule "A" to this report.

The objections of Mr. Timothy P. Czajkowski centred around his belief that:

(a) there were no issues of safety or utility with respect to the lane;

(b) that the question of paving, drainage and lighting was not a concern; and

(c) any improvements to the laneway would lead to increased traffic.

After consideration of the evidence, the Inquiry Officer recommended that:

(1) The Expropriating Authority complete expropriation of Parts 1 to 8 and 12 to 22 inclusive, on Plan 64R-14136, as the taking of these parts is required for public lane purposes and such taking is fair, just and reasonably necessary for the purpose of the Expropriating Authority.

(2) The solicitor representing the party to the inquiry receive the sum of $200.00 for costs.

A sketch showing the lands proposed to be expropriated is attached as Schedule "B".

Conclusions:

City Council, as the Approving Authority under the Expropriations Act, must consider the report of the Inquiry Officer and decide whether to approve the application as requested, including the granting of costs.

Contact Name:

Edward A. Earle, Legal Services

Tel: 392-7226

________

A copy of Schedule "A" referred to in the report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 18 and 19, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

48

Settlement Report: Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

on Zoning By-law No. 1997-0175 -

Yonge Street between Soudan and Davisville Avenue

(North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council instruct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing to settle the appeals respecting By-law No.1997-0175, based on the following terms:

(a) the appeal of By-law No.1997-0175 be dismissed;

(b) the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be authorized to present to the Ontario Municipal Board a settlement involving amendments to By-law No. 1997-0175 as it applies to 1910 Yonge Street, 1920 Yonge Street and 1962-66 Yonge Street to provide as follows:

- No building or portion thereof on lands known as 1910, 1920 and 1962-66 Yonge Street may be used for the purpose of a place of amusement;

- On lands known as 1910 Yonge Street, a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake shop, or place of assembly is a permitted use provided:

- such uses are not located above the first storey above grade;

- the non-residential gross floor area of any individual use or combination of those uses does not exceed 375 m2;

- the total non-residential gross floor area of any and all of those uses does not exceed 1,125 m2; and

- at least one parking space is provided for each 100 m2 of total floor area or fraction thereof in excess of the first 700 m2 used for restaurants and take-out restaurants.

- On lands known as 1920 Yonge Street, a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake shop, or place of assembly is a permitted use provided:

- such uses are not located above the first storey above grade;

- the non-residential gross floor area of any individual use or combination of those uses does not exceed 375 m2;

- the total non-residential gross floor area of any and all of those uses does not exceed 700 m2; and

- at least one parking space is provided for each 100 m2 of total floor area or fraction thereof in excess of the first 500 m2 used for restaurants and take-out restaurants.

- On lands known as 1962-1966 Yonge Street, a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake shop, or place of assembly is a permitted use provided:

- such uses are not located above the first storey above grade;

- the non-residential gross floor area of any individual use or combination of those uses does not exceed 300m2; and

- the total non-residential gross floor area of any and all of those uses does not exceed 400 m2; and

(c) the Ontario Municipal Board dispose of the Zoning appeal on the foregoing basis.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 3, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

To obtain direction with respect to a settlement of the appeal of By-law No. 1997-0175 which is to be heard by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council instruct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing to settle the appeals respecting By-law No.1997-0175, based on the following terms:

(a) the appeal of By-law No.1997-0175 be dismissed;

(b) the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be authorized to present to the Ontario Municipal Board a settlement involving amendments to By-law No.1997-0175 as it applies to 1910 Yonge Street, 1920 Yonge Street and 1962-66YongeStreet to provide as follows:

- No building or portion thereof on lands known as 1910, 1920 and 1962-66YongeStreet may be used for the purpose of a place of amusement;

- On lands known as 1910 Yonge Street, a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake shop, or place of assembly is a permitted use provided:

- such uses are not located above the first storey above grade;

- the non-residential gross floor area of any individual use or combination of those uses does not exceed 375 m2;

- the total non-residential gross floor area of any and all of those uses does not exceed 1,125 m2; and

- at least one parking space is provided for each 100 m2 of total floor area or fraction thereof in excess of the first 700 m2 used for restaurants and take-out restaurants.

- On lands known as 1920 Yonge Street, a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake shop, or place of assembly is a permitted use provided:

- such uses are not located above the first storey above grade;

- the non-residential gross floor area of any individual use or combination of those uses does not exceed 375 m2;

- the total non-residential gross floor area of any and all of those uses does not exceed 700 m2; and

- at least one parking space is provided for each 100 m2 of total floor area or fraction thereof in excess of the first 500 m2 used for restaurants and take-out restaurants.

- On lands known as 1962-1966 Yonge Street, a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake shop, or place of assembly is a permitted use provided:

- such uses are not located above the first storey above grade;

- the non-residential gross floor area of any individual use or combination of those uses does not exceed 300m2; and

- the total non-residential gross floor area of any and all of those uses does not exceed 400 m2.

(c) the Ontario Municipal Board dispose of the Zoning appeal on the foregoing basis.

Background:

On April 14, 1997, City Council approved By-law No. 1997-0175 which applies to both sides of Yonge Street between Soudan and Davisville Avenues as shown on the attached Map. By-law 1997-0175 has the effect of limiting to a maximum 300m2 the size of restaurants, places of amusement and similar businesses, either alone or in combination on any one lot, both above and below grade. Furthermore, By-law 1997-0175 prohibits the use of exterior areas for entertainment purposes and limits accessory uses to the lesser of 6 percent or 47 m2.

By-law 1997-0175 is intended :

- to protect the current small scale, neighbourhood oriented character of eating establishments on this strip while providing a sufficient margin for their growth;

- to protect the low density residential neighbourhoods immediately to the east and west of Yonge Street between Davisville and Soudan Avenues from the potential negative noise and parking impacts commonly associated with large eating establishments and places of amusement as well as any concentrations of a large number of smaller eating establishments in one building;

- to reduce noise impacts by prohibiting outdoor entertainment facilities; and

- to limit accessory entertainment uses and other accessory uses so that they remain incidental to the main use.

By-law 1997-0175 has been appealed by the owners of 1910, 1920 and 1962-66 Yonge Street on the following basis:

(A) Flexibility and growth margin: The three subject lots currently accommodate buildings which are significantly larger than other buildings within the study area. As such, the total non-residential floor area, available at and below grade for retail and service commercial uses is also larger than the norm, i.e. total non-residential floor area at and below grade in 1910Yonge Street equals 2,300 m2, in 1020 Yonge Street 1,400 m2, and in 1962-66YongeStreet 500m2. Existing restaurant facilities in 1910 Yonge Street already occupy about 590 m2, in 1920 Yonge Street 205m2 and in 1962-66 Yonge Street about 200m2. It is the appellants' position that the 300m2 maximum gross floor area restriction of By-law 1997-0175 does not provide for a sufficient degree of flexibility or growth margin where it concerns eating establishments on these three premises.

(B) Noise and parking impacts: 1910 and 1920 Yonge Street are located in the north-west corner of the Yonge-Davisville intersection, immediately across from the TTC subway station. 1962-66 Yonge Street is located in the northerly end of the same City block. As such, more patrons may be expected to use public transportation and are less likely to require parking which may spill over into near-by residential areas. Furthermore, all three properties are separated from residential uses to the west by the open subway cut as well as Duplex Avenue, thereby providing a significant distance and use buffer.

The appellants recognize, however, that noise and parking are issues in this neighbourhood and have offered, as elaborated below, additional measures to deal with these.

Comments and Basis of Settlement:

In order to address their concerns, and after discussion with City Staff, the appellants' have requested that their three properties be exempted from the provisions of By-law 1997-0175 with respect to the following:

(A) Maximum GFA for Eating Establishments: In order to account for the unusual amount of gross floor area available for non-residential purposes at grade or below, in 1910 and 1920Yonge Street, it is requested that approximately half of the available floor area be permitted for restaurant and similar uses. This would mean that restaurant and similar uses may occupy no more than 1,125m2 of the total 2,300 m2 available in 1910 Yonge Street, and no more than 700 m2 of the total 1,400 m2 available in 1920 Yonge Street. In the case of 1962-66 Yonge Street, permission is sought to use up to 400m2 of the total 500 m2 available, for restaurant and similar uses. It should be noted, that elsewhere in the City a maximum 400m2 restaurant size applies for lots abutting a residential district.

(B) Size Restrictions for Individual Establishments: In recognition of existing structural characteristics and current restaurant sizes (e.g. the Golden Griddle with about 360m2 in 1910 Yonge Street), a maximum establishment size of 375m2 is proposed for 1910 as well as 1920 Yonge Street. For 1962-66 Yonge Street the 300m2 size restriction of By-law 1997-0175 would continue to apply.

(C) Parking: In response to concerns related to parking, it is proposed that a parking requirement be imposed where restaurant and similar uses exceed a certain maximum gross floor area within the two largest buildings, i.e. 1910 and 1920 Yonge Street. Accordingly, one parking space will be required for each 100m2 of restaurant space in excess of the first 700 m2 which are used for such purpose in 1910 Yonge Street. For 1920 Yonge Street, this requirement applies after the first 500m2.

(D) Use Restrictions: The appellants are proposing that places of amusement be no longer a permitted use on their three properties in order to avoid a concentration of evening entertainment uses.

Conclusions:

I am recommending adoption of the proposed settlement as it is in keeping with the general intent of By-law 1997-0175 while recognizing the particular characteristics of the three properties which are the subject of the appeal.

Contact Name:

Feodora Steppat

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-7740

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: fsteppat@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Yonge/Soudan/Davisville

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 5, contained in ReportNo.6 of the Land Use Committee, of the former City of Toronto, titled "Draft Zoning By-law - Yonge Street between Soudan Avenue and Davisville Avenue (Wards 15 and 16)", which was adopted at its meeting of April 14, 1997:

________

The Committee recommends:

(1) That the Draft By-law substantially in the form attached to the Report (March25,1997) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

(2) That the recommendations contained in the Final Report (March 13, 1997) of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, be adopted.

Notice of a public meeting in respect of the proposed by-law was given as required by the Planning Act. The public meeting was held by the Land Use Committee on March 27, 1997. No one addressed the Committee.

The Committee submits the report (March 25, 1997) from the City Solicitor:

Subject: Draft Zoning By-law respecting Restaurants, Places of Amusement and Related Uses on Yonge Street between Soudan Avenue and Davisville Avenue - (Wards 15 and 16)

Origin: City Solicitor (p:\1997\ug\cps\leg\LU970029.leg)-SY

Recommendations:

(1) That your Committee hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-law in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event your Committee wishes to approve the Draft By-law, it could recommend:

(2) That the Draft By-law substantially in the form attached to the Report (March 25, 1997) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

(3) That the recommendations contained in the Final Report (March 13, 1997) of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, be adopted.

Comments:

Your Committee will have before it the Final Report (March 13, 1997) of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services recommending that amendments to the Zoning By-law be effected to limit the size of restaurants, places of amusement and similar uses along both sides of Yonge Street from Davisville Avenue to Soudan Avenue, the extent of accessory uses and the use of exterior areas.

The draft by-law necessary to implement the Commissioner's proposal is attached.

________

DRAFT BY-LAW No.

No. A BY-LAW

To amend the Zoning By-law respecting Restaurants, Places of Amusement and Related Uses on Yonge Street between Soudan Avenue and Davisville Avenue.

(Passed , 1997)

WHEREAS Council, at its meeting held on the day of , 1997, adopted Clause of Land Use Committee Report No. ;

THEREFORE the Council of The Corporation of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by adding to Section 12(2) as exception81 the following text and map:

"81. No person shall, within the area shown within the heavy lines on the map at the end of this exception, erect or use any building or structure for the purpose of a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake-shop, place of assembly or place of amusement, unless:

(i) the total non-residential gross floor area used for one or a combination of two or more of those purposes in a building or structure does not exceed 300 square metres;

(ii) no exterior area is used for the purpose of a dance floor, stage, teletheatre gambling, disc jockey, sound room, pinball or other mechanical or electronic game machine, area dedicated to recreational activities or other entertainment area; and

(iii) the floor area above or below grade used for any one or combination of two or more of the uses in clause (ii) in a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake-shop, place of assembly or place of amusement does not exceed the lesser of six per cent of the non-residential gross floor area or 47 square metres.

For the purposes of this exception, the non-residential gross floor area of a restaurant, take-out restaurant, club, bake-shop, place of assembly or place of amusement means the aggregate of the areas of each floor and the spaces occupied by walls and stairs, above or below grade, measured between the exterior faces of the exterior walls of the building or structure at the level of each floor, exclusive of only a room or enclosed area, including its enclosing walls, that is used exclusively for the accommodation of heating, cooling, ventilating, electrical, mechanical (other than escalators) or telecommunications equipment that services the building, storage or washrooms."

(map to be inserted)

The Committee also submits the report (March 13, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Subject: Final Report on Interim Control By-law 1995-0636 respecting Restaurants and Places of Amusement over 400 square metres in size on Yonge Street between Soudan Avenue and Davisville Avenue. (Ward 15 and 16)

Origin: City Council meeting October 17, 1995. (p:\1997\ug\uds\pln\lu971032.pln) - st

Recommendations:

(1) That the City Solicitor be requested to prepare in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, amendments to the Zoning By-law to effect the following:

(i) That the general provisions of Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended by 1996-0028 apply to the study area shown on Map 2, as it regards the definition of restaurants and take-out restaurants;

(ii) That for the properties located within the study area identified on Map 2, a size limit of 300 m2 be imposed for restaurants, take-out restaurants, clubs, bake-shops, places of assembly and places of amusement, alone or in combination on one lot;

(iii) That entertainment uses accessory to take-out restaurants, clubs, bake-shops, places of amusement and places of assembly be limited to the lesser of 6 of the non-residential gross floor area or 47 m2, and that exterior areas be prohibited for entertainment purposes;

iv) That any space, including below grade space, which is used for a restaurant, a take-out restaurant, a bake-shop, club, place of amusement or place of assembly is regarded as non-residential gross floor area for purposes of determining compliance with the 300 m2 size restriction, excluding mechanical space, storage, washrooms and accessory laundry and office facilities.

(2) That City Council request the Parking Authority to initiate a parking demand study as a basis for exploring opportunities to secure a parking lot to serve this portion of Yonge Street.

(3) That the Commissioner of City Works Services be requested to review opportunities for metered commercial parking on that portion of flanking residential streets zoned MCR near Yonge Street between Eglinton and Davisville Avenues.

Summary: In recent years, Yonge Street between Davisville and Soudan Avenues has become a favoured location for a variety of eating establishments. Most of these (86 percent) are small neighbourhood-type operations less than 300m2 in floor area with very limited if any regional appeal. However, recent trends in the restaurant industry have been to provide large entertainment components in conjunction with serving food, thereby appealing to a larger, regional clientele. Consequently, two potentially conflicting issues have emerged, namely:

- encouraging variety and growth for eating establishments at a neighbourhood scale, thereby enhancing the Main Streets character of this portion of Yonge Street, while

- protecting adjacent residential neighbourhoods from potential negative impacts, particularly in terms of parking and noise.

I have examined these issues on a City-wide basis resulting in City Council's adoption of By-law 1996-0028 which limits restaurant size to 400 m2 throughout the City including the east side of Yonge Street within the study area. The west side is not affected because By-law 1996-0028 only applies to lots abutting a Residential Zone which is not the case for parcels fronting on the west side of Yonge Street abutting the Gtr Zone of the open subway cut. Furthermore, By-law 1996-0028 prohibits entertainment facilities in areas such as the study area which are next to residential neighbourhoods, and also restricts the size of accessory entertainment uses so that the provision of food can no longer become a subordinate function to such entertainment uses. In an attempt to address potential noise problems, By-law 1996-0028 prohibits the use of exterior areas for entertainment purposes. I believe, that with the exception of the 400m2 size restriction, these City-wide provisions are appropriate for the study area. However, I am recommending that, within the study area, the maximum size be reduced to 300 m2 and apply not only to restaurants and take-out restaurants but also to clubs, bake-shops, places of assembly and places of amusement. To ensure that entertainment uses remain incidental to the main use, I am proposing to restrict accessory entertainment uses to 6 percent or 47 m2, whichever is the lesser.

Reducing the maximum permitted floor area from 400 to 300 m2 allows a sufficient margin for the growth of most of the existing establishments. At the same time, the 300 m2 limit will protect the neighbourhood scale of this portion of Yonge Street. Any proposals for establishments larger than 300m2 will require a variance or Zoning By-law amendment, thereby affording site-specific evaluation regarding potential negative impacts areas such as parking, traffic and noise on abutting residential areas.

In addition, I am recommending that the Parking Authority be requested to look toward establishing a parking lot in the study area, and that the City Works Department review opportunities for providing additional metered commercial parking on those portions of residential side streets which are in the MCR zone near Yonge Street.

Comments:

1. Background:

On October 17, 1995, City Council passed Interim Control By-law 1995-0636 to prohibit large scale restaurants and places of amusement over 400 m2 in the MCR district along Yonge Street between Soudan Avenue and Davisville Avenue for a period of one year. No objections were filed to By-law 1995-0636.

On December 18, 1995, City Council passed By-law 1996-0028 to permit entertainment facilities in a larger portion of the Central Area than previously permitted, and on a City-wide basis, limit restaurants and take-out restaurants adjacent to residential districts to a maximum gross floor area of 400 square metres. This By-law distinguishes clearly between a restaurant, take-out restaurant and entertainment facility, and limits the size of accessory uses. This By-law has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board with a hearing date set for the end of April 1997.

Following a court case in March 1996, a building permit was issued for a large restaurant combined with a place of amusement at 2063 Yonge Street (Za Za's), occupying a total of 672 m2 of which 272m2 are located below grade.

On April 1, 1996, City Council amended Interim Control By-law 1995-0636 respecting the definition of non-residential gross floor area and added bake shop, club and place of assembly to the list of prohibited uses if exceeding 400 square metres in gross floor area.

A public meeting was held on June 25, 1996. At the time, concerns were raise regarding the shortage of commercial parking and noise.

On October 7, 1996, Interim Control By-law 1995-0636 was extended for an additional 6 months.

This report examines the impact of large scale eating establishments on Yonge Street between Soudan and Davisville Avenues and on the adjacent residential neighbourhoods, and recommends size restrictions to protect the Main Streets character of Yonge Street and to mitigate negative impacts on surrounding neighbourhoods.

2. The Study Area:

The study area shown on Map 2 includes 100 properties in twelve blocks fronting on Yonge Street between Soudan and Berwick Avenues on the north, and Chaplin Crescent and Davisville Avenue to the south. Together, these properties form a typical Main Street strip with most buildings no higher than 3 storeys, accommodating retail or service uses at grade and offices or residential apartments above.

The adjacent areas to the east and west are low-density, low-rise residential districts, with predominantly single family dwellings to the west and a mix of house-form buildings to the east of Yonge Street.

The commercial properties on the west side of Yonge Street are well served by rear lanes and physically separated from the residential area by the open subway cut. In two locations, GlebeRoadWest and Manor Road West, side streets do not extend from Yonge Street into the neighbourhood but dead-end at the subway cut.

The east side of Yonge Street differs from the west side in that it has fewer rear lanes and no subway cut providing physical separation between the commercial strip and the low density residential area. Where Tullis Drive joins Yonge Street at an angle, the commercial properties become "through-lots" having frontage on both Yonge and the local residential street to the east. This situation has been cause for area residents' concern, particularly as the largest of these through-lots currently accommodates a restaurant and bar facility which occupies the greatest amount of gross floor area of any of the 37 establishments which are the focus of this study (ie. Za Za Restaurant and Bar at 2063 Yonge Street with an above grade restaurant portion of 400m2 and a below grade place of amusement of an additional 272 m2).

3. Existing Planning Controls:

3.1 Applicable Official Plan Policies:

Both the Part I and Part II of the Official Plan designate this portion of Yonge Street as "Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area" where a mix of residential and non-residential uses is permitted at densities not exceeding 3 times the lot area. Both parts of the Plan envision Yonge Street as one of the City's Main Streets with street related retail and service uses and residential uses above. The Yonge Eglinton Part II Official Plan quite specifically encourages residential uses by permitting up to 2.5 times residential density but limiting any non-residential component to 2 times the lot area.

3.2 Applicable Zoning Provisions:

As Map 1 indicates, the zoning designation for this portion of Yonge Street is MCR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5 which permits commercial and residential uses, be that alone or in combination, including restaurants, take-out restaurants, clubs, bake shops, places of assembly and places of amusement. Aggregate density per lot is limited to three times provided the commercial density does not exceed 2.0 times the lot area and the residential density does not exceed 2.5 times the lot area. A 16 metre building height limit applies to this strip. The zoning for the adjacent residential neighbourhoods is R1 Z0.6 to the west and R2 Z0.6 to the east which permits residential uses at densities not exceeding 60percent of the lot area. However, the neighbourhood to the west is separated from the Yonge Street commercial strip by the open subway cut which is zoned Gtr, permitting only the existing transportation uses.

Section 12 (2) 269 exempts a variety of commercial uses fronting onto Yonge Street from the usual parking requirements if they occupy less than 550 m2. This includes the uses which are the subject of this study, namely restaurants, take out restaurants, bake shops and places of amusement. However, if such uses occupy 550m2 or more, 1 parking space per each 30m2 of non-residential gross floor area must be provided.

The Zoning By-law's general parking standards apply to places of assembly or clubs, requiring that 1 parking space per 10 patrons be provided. By-law 1994-0601, which is under appeal, also applies this parking standard to places of amusement.

3.3 Site Plan Control:

This part of Yonge Street is subject to the Site Plan Review Process pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act.

3.4 Interim Control By-law:

Yonge Street between Soudan and Davisville Avenues is subject to Interim Control By-law 1995-0636 as amended by By-laws 1996-0169 and 1996-0482, limiting restaurants and take-out restaurants, places of amusement, bake shops, clubs and places of assembly to a maximum 400 m2 gross floor area. The Interim Control By-law will be in effect until April 17, 1997 to allow for the completion of my planning study.

3.5 Current City-wide Restrictions for Restaurants:

On December 18, 1995 City Council passed By-law 1996-0028. This by-law is to:

- clarify the current definitions of"restaurant", "take-out restaurant", "caterer's shop" and "entertainment facility";

- expand the area where entertainment facilities may locate in the downtown area south of Carlton/College;

- limit the size of restaurants and take-out restaurants adjacent to residential districts throughout the city to 400 square metres;

- clarify the term "accessory" as it relates to a main use such as a restaurant use;

- limit accessory uses to the lesser of 6 percent of the permitted non-residential gross floor area or 47 m2; and

- prohibit the use of exterior areas for entertainment purposes.

By-law 1996-0028 has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and will be the subject of a Hearing in late April 1997.

4. Public Review:

The issues related to restaurant size and associated entertainment uses in the study area were discussed at a public meeting in June 1996, notes of which are attached as Appendix A. Concerns centred around inadequate parking for commercial uses in the area and noise from some of the eating establishments.

5. Planning Review:

5.1 Land Use Analysis:

Review of property data (see Appendices B(1) and B(2)) and site visits have confirmed that one third of the 100 properties in the study area accommodate some kind of eating establishment.

Over the past 10 years, this use has become more dominant along this portion of Yonge Street as the number of eating establishments has steadily increased from 24 in 1987 to 27 in 1993 and 37 in 1997. However, the great majority are small scale local restaurants, pubs or take-outs; ie. 92 percent occupy less than 400m2 and 86 percent are smaller than 300m2. The average establishment size is 160 m2.

Only three establishments exceed the 400m2 size limit imposed by Interim Control By-law 1995-0636 for the study area, namely the Limelight Supper Club, Za Za's Restaurant and Grill, and Cheaters. It would, however, be inaccurate to describe any of these three establishments as restaurants.

The Limelight Supper Club at 2026 Yonge St. is located on the west side of the street and accommodates a total gross floor area of about 459 m2. It is a dinner theatre and as such, does not fall within the By-law's restaurant definition but is regarded as an entertainment facility. This together with the fact that the west side of Yonge Street abuts a Gtr Zone means that the Limelight Supper Club is not affected by the size restrictions of City-wide By-law 1996-0028 for restaurants and take-out restaurants which abut a residential zone.

The other two establishments are located on the east side of Yonge Street immediately adjacent to a residential district, and would be subject to the size restrictions of By-law 1996-0028 if they were indeed to fall within the definition of a restaurant or take-out restaurant.

Za Za's Restaurant and Bar consists of two uses: a 400m2 restaurant at grade and a 272 m2 area below grade which is used as a place of amusement in conjunction with the restaurant use above. Due to an older provision of the Zoning By-law, the below grade commercial gross floor area could not be included in the calculation of the size of the restaurant facility, although the 400 m2 size restriction of the Interim Control By-law was already in effect.

Cheaters has a 451 m2 gross floor area and fits the definition of an adult entertainment parlour, a use which is not permitted in the study area. It should be noted that currently an application for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law is being processed to permit a Main Streets type redevelopment of almost the entire block within which Cheaters is located.

In other words, these three establishments are not only significantly larger than the vast majority of restaurants on this strip, they also have a decidedly regional appeal, mainly because they combine the restaurant function with other activities, be that supper club theatre/cabaret, billiard, adult entertainment or other amusement. Indeed, these three establishments respond to a current trend toward providing large entertainment components in conjunction with serving food. As such, they may be regarded as quasi entertainment facilities for which a downtown location away from low density residential areas would be more suitable.

The next largest restaurants, namely the Bow and Arrow at 1956 Yonge Street with 378 m2 and the St. Louis Bar and Grill at 2050 Yonge Street with 326 m2, are significantly smaller than the three previously discussed establishments and are the only other two establishments on the strip occupying more than 300m2. The remaining establishments occupy on average 122 m2 with the two largest among them being the Souvlaki Express at 2066 Yonge Street with 298 m2, and Grano's at 2035 Yonge Street with 265 m2.

5.2 Issues and Concerns:

5.2.1 Establishment Size and Scope of Activities:

As the foregoing data confirms, only 5 restaurants in the study area are larger than 300 m2, whereas the great majority (86 percent) are small scale restaurants less than 300m2, catering to the local neighbourhood while enjoying some regional clientele as well. It may be argued that these uses have been an integral part of the successful economic life of this part of Yonge Street and that any restriction in terms of their number or size must be flexible enough to allow for growth and expansion of existing businesses while maintaining and enhancing the small-scale Main Streets character of this part of Yonge Street as well as protecting the adjacent residential neighbourhoods from negative impacts such as traffic and noise.

With these objectives in mind, I am recommending that:

- a 300m2 size limit be imposed for restaurants, take-out restaurants, bake-shops, clubs, places of amusement and places of assembly, alone or in combination, on any one lot;

- any space, above or below grade, be regarded as non-residential floor space when determining compliance with this 300m2 limit; and

- accessory entertainment uses be limited to the lesser of 6 percent or 47 m2 of non-residential floor area, and exterior areas not be used for entertainment purposes.

As noted earlier in this report, City-wide By-law 1996-0028 already imposes a 400 m2 limit on restaurant and take-out restaurants adjacent to residential areas, and prohibits entertainment facilities from locating north of Carlton/College Streets within the Central Area. Three of the five largest establishments in the study area exceed the 400 m2 limit of By-law 1996-0028. A further size reduction to 300m2 would affect only an additional two restaurants, namely the Bow and Arrow and the St. Louis Bar and Grill. With the exception of the Souvlaki Express with 298m2, all other establishments on this strip are considerably smaller than 300m2, leaving ample room for their as-of-right expansion.

The proposed 300 m2 limit does not only permit a sufficient growth margin for the vast majority of existing establishments, it also protects the current small scale, neighbourhood-oriented character of eating establishments on the strip, and affords site-specific evaluation and control of proposals for uncharacteristically large facilities since these will be subject to public review as part of the required variances or Zoning By-law amendment processes. It is through such review that potential negative impacts on adjacent neighbourhoods may best be dealt with, including matters related to parking, traffic and noise.

I believe market forces to be the appropriate regulator of the number and variety of establishments this part of Yonge Street can successfully accommodate. However, to avoid the negative impacts resulting from a concentration of a large number of small eating establishments or places of amusement/assembly in one building, I am recommending that the maximum permitted gross floor area of these use on any one lot may not exceed 300m2.

My recommendation to include above as well as below grade space in determining compliance with the 300 m2 limit, is to ensure that the proposed limit is meaningful and effective by including the entire building in the calculation.

My recommendation to limit accessory entertainment uses to the lesser of 6 percent or 47 m2, is to ensure that entertainment uses remain incidental to the permitted main use. This is to prevent establishments on the strip to follow current trends in the industry, described earlier in this report, to provide relatively large entertainment components in conjunction with serving food in the hopes of attracting a regional clientele. This standard is consistent with that included in By-law 1996-0028.

5.2.2 Noise:

The hours of operation for licensed establishments fall under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government and not the municipality. However, complaints from residents to the City often concern exterior noise from Main Street strips reaching the neighbourhood. Just leaving a door open at the back of an establishment is enough to generate a complaint. Enforcement of the Noise By-law has proven difficult if not ineffective in these cases. It is for this reason, that By-law 1996-0028, the City-wide By-law dealing with eating establishments on Main Streets, prohibits any exterior area to be used for any entertainment purposes. I am recommending that this prohibition be confirmed for the study area.

5.2.3 Parking:

There are currently 54 parking meters on Yonge Street between Soudan Avenue and Davisville. I am recommending that City Works Services be requested to review the potential of additional commercial spaces by installing parking meters on flanking residential side streets in the MCR zone near Yonge.

There is no Toronto Parking Authority lot in the study area. There are a number of parking lots/garages to the north and south of the study area (e.g. Canada Square, Holly-Dunfield Garage, Merton Street). Not all of the study area is within convenient walking distance of these facilities. It is for this reason, that the Parking Authority should be requested to review the demand for parking in this area and explore opportunities for establishing a parking lot on Yonge Street in future.

The study area is flanked by the Davisville and the Eglinton subway stations, and Yonge Street as well as Eglinton Avenue have frequent and regular bus service. As such, public transit is conveniently available and may be expected to reduce the need for car use and parking by visitors to this area.

Appendices A and B are included in the additional material and are on file with the City Clerk.

Applicant's reduced plans included in the additional material and are on file with the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Merton Street

49

Approval of Benefitting Assessment By-law -

Parking Facility at 266, 268 and 272 Rhodes Avenue and

475, 481 and 487 Craven Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council pass a by-law in substantially the form attached as Schedule "B" to the report (February 5, 1998) from the City Solicitor to authorize the levy against lands in defined areas with respect to a portion of the capital costs for the development of a 40-space surface parking lot at 266, 268 and 272 Rhodes Avenue and 475, 481 and 487Craven Road in the City of Toronto; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 5, 1998) from the Council Solicitor:

Purpose:

To seek Council approval for the passage of a by-law as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board to levy a portion of the capital costs for the development by the Parking Authority of Toronto of a 40-space surface parking lot at 266, 268 and 272 Rhodes Avenue and 475, 481 and 487 Craven Road against certain lands in defined areas as permitted under section 4 of the City of Toronto Act, 1960-61.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Approval of this by-law will permit the City of Toronto to recover from the owners of commercial properties within the benefitting area a portion of the capital costs associated with the land acquisition and construction of this parking facility. The principle amount recovered shall be $300,000.00, together with interest at a rate of 6.73 percent amortized over 20 years, for a total amount of $550,220.00.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council pass a by-law in substantially the form attached as Schedule "B" to this report to authorize the levy against lands in defined areas with respect to a portion of the capital costs for the development of a 40-space surface parking lot at 266, 268 and 272 Rhodes Avenue and 475, 481 and 487 Craven Road in the City of Toronto; and

(2) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1996, the Council of the old City of Toronto adopted Clause 50 of Report No. 10 of The Executive Committee containing a report (March 18, 1996) from the General Manager of the Parking Authority of Toronto recommending that a 40-space surface parking lot be developed at 266, 268 and 272 Rhodes Avenue and 475, 481 and 487 Craven Road. The report also recommended the implementation by by-law of a benefiting assessment under section 4 of the City of Toronto Act, 1960-61 in respect of the facility to recover a portion of the total capital cost ($1,040,000.00) of the proposed facility.

This facility was constructed by the Parking Authority and began operation in January, 1997.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Under the City of Toronto Act, 1960-61, Council must obtain the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board prior to the by-law coming into force. Attached to this report as Schedule "A" is the decision (issued January 5, 1998), as amended (amendment issued January 30, 1998), of the Board with respect to this matter approving the by-law in the form attached as Schedule "B" to this report.

When passed, the by-law will impose a levy against commercial properties in the benefitting areas. The amount collected from each property shall vary according to the extent to which the properties in a particular area are expected to benefit from the construction and operation of the parking facility.

Conclusions:

I am therefore recommending that Council pass a by-law in substantially the form attached as Schedule "B" to implement the levy as approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

Contact Name:

Edward Earle, Legal Services, 392-7226

Solicitor

SCHEDULE "B"

DRAFT BY-LAW

No. . A BY-LAW

To authorize the levy against lands in defined areas with respect to a portion of the capital costs for the development of a 40-space surface parking lot at 266, 268 and 272 Rhodes Avenue and 475, 481 and 487 Craven Road.

(Passed , 1997)

Whereas by Clause 50 of Report No. 10 of the Executive Committee adopted by the City of Toronto Council at its meeting held on April 1 and 2, 1996, it was recommended that a 40-space surface parking lot be developed at 266, 268 and 272 Rhodes Avenue and 475, 481 and 487 Craven Road and the implementation of a benefiting assessment in respect thereof, subject to Ontario Municipal Board approval being obtained; and

Whereas the total amount required to pay the principal sum of $300,000.00, together with interest upon the funds to be amortized over a period of 20 years for the purpose of providing the sum required for that portion of the work to be charged against the properties receiving a special benefit from the facility is $550,220.00 and the total amount payable in each year in respect of these properties is $27,511.00; and

Whereas the Ontario Municipal Board, by its Order No. 1934 issued on the 5th day of January, 1998 (as amended by decision dated January 30, 1998) has approved the passing of this by-law;

The Council of the City of Toronto enacts as follows:

1. In this By-law, "work" shall mean the development of a 40-space surface parking lot on the lands described in Schedule "A" to this by-law.

2. The following portions of the lands described in Schedule "B" to this by-law are respectively defined as areas which, in the opinion of the City Council, derive special benefit from the work, and each area so defined is deemed to include any portion of a public highway or highways abutting on the area measured to the middle line of the public highway or highways:

Area #1

The portion lying on the south side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1399 Gerrard Street East to and including the easterly limit of premises 1415 Gerrard Street East (the westerly limit of Hiawatha Road).

Area #2

The portion lying on the south side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1417 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Hiawatha Road) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1439 Gerrard Street East (the westerly limit of Ashdale Avenue).

Area #3

PART 1

The portion lying on the south side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1443 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Ashdale Avenue) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1455 Gerrard Street East (the westerly limit of Craven Road).

PART 2

The portion lying on the south side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1465 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Craven Road) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1481 Gerrard Street East (the westerly limit of Rhodes Avenue).

PART 3

The portion lying on the south side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1483 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Rhodes Avenue) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1499 Gerrard Street East.

Area #4

The portion lying on the south side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1505 Gerrard Street East to and including the easterly limit of premises 1515 Gerrard Street East (the westerly limit of Coxwell Avenue).

Area #5

PART 1

The portion lying on the north side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1390 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Woodfield Road) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1414 Gerrard Street East (the westerly limit of Hiawatha Road).

PART 2

The portion lying on the north side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1416 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Hiawatha Road) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1430 Gerrard Street East.

Area #6

PART 1

The portion lying on the north side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1438 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Ashdale Avenue) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1450 Gerrard Street East.

PART 2

The portion lying on the north side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1460 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Craven Road) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1460 Gerrard Street East.

PART 3

The portion lying on the north side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1600 Gerrard Street East (the easterly limit of Rhodes Avenue) to and including the easterly limit of premises 1614 Gerrard Street East.

Area #7

PART 1

The portion lying on the north side of Gerrard Street East, between the westerly limit of premises 1616 Gerrard Street East to and including the easterly limit of premises 1618 Gerrard Street East (the westerly limit of Coxwell Avenue).

PART 2

The portion lying on the west side of Coxwell Avenue, between the southerly limit of premises 270 Coxwell Avenue to and including the northerly limit of premises 280 Coxwell Avenue.

Area #8

Part 1

The portion lying on the west side of Coxwell Avenue, between the southerly limit of premises 230 Coxwell Avenue to and including the northerly limit of premises 230 Coxwell Avenue.

Part 2

The portions lying on the west side of Coxwell Avenue, between the southerly limit of premises 242 Coxwell Avenue to and including the northerly limit of premises 242 Coxwell Avenue.

Area #9

PART 1

The portion lying on the east side of Coxwell Avenue, between the southerly limit of premises 245 Coxwell Avenue to and including the northerly limit of premises 253 Coxwell Avenue (the southerly limit of Gerrard Street East).

PART 2

The portion lying on the east side of Coxwell Avenue, between the southerly limit of premises 255 Coxwell Avenue (the northerly limit of Gerrard Street East) to and including the northerly limit of premises 263 Coxwell Avenue.

3. The portion of the sum of $300,000.00 to be charged against the lands set out in each of the nine areas referred to in Section 2 and set out in Column 1 of Schedule "C" shall be the amount respectively set out in Column 2 of Schedule 2 and the amount of the costs to be levied against each parcel of land in each of the areas shall be the amount which bears the same ratio to the amount set out in Column 2 as the frontage of each such parcel bears to the frontages respectively set out in Column 3, which indicates the total of the frontages of all parcels within each such area to be specially charged for a portion of the work.

4. The portions of the cost of the work set out in Column 2 of Schedule "C" for which each parcel of land within each of the areas is to be charged under Section 3 shall be charged and levied at a special annual rate per metre of frontage against each of the parcels, exclusive of flankages, in the amounts per metre of frontage set out in Column 4 of Schedule "C" and shall be paid, collected and recovered in twenty equal annual instalments in the same manner as real property taxes and shall, until payment, form a charge or lien upon the respective parcels to which the charges apply.

5. If at any time the owner of any of the properties specially charged, or of any part of a property specially charged, desires to commute the charge or levy imposed under this by-law upon the property by the payment of a principal sum, the owner may do so prior to the date of the first instalment of the first year's rates, by paying an amount which shall be the rate per metre of frontage applicable to his or her property less any portion of the rate composed of interest or other financing charges on the funds and the owner may commute in any subsequent year the special rates then remaining by paying the present value of the remaining special rates authorized under this by-law to be levied in respect of the property calculated on an interest basis of ten percent per annum.

SCHEDULE "A"

In the City of Toronto, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of:

FIRSTLY:

The northerly 6.71 metres from front to rear of Lot 123 according to Plan 1301 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64).

SECONDLY:

The southerly 7.62 metres from front to rear of Lot 123 according to Plan 1301 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64).

THIRDLY:

The northerly half of Lot 122 according to Plan 1301 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64).

FOURTHLY:

Part of Township Lot 8 in Concession 1 From the Bay, in the original Township of York, and being part of the land marked Reserve on Plan 1301 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), the boundaries of the land being described as follows:

Commencing at the north-westerly angle of Lot 122 according to the said Plan 1301;

Thence westerly along the production of the northerly limit of said Lot, 22.25 metres more or less to the easterly limit of Craven Road;

Thence southerly along the said easterly limit of Craven Road, 7.62 metres;

Thence easterly in a straight line 22.25 metres to a point in the westerly limit of said Lot 122 distant 7.62 metres southerly from the north-westerly angle of said Lot;

Thence northerly along the westerly limit of said Lot 122, 7.62 metres more or less to the point of commencement.

FIFTHLY:

Part of Township Lot 8 in Concession 1 From the Bay, in the original Township of York, and being part of the land marked Reserve on Plan 1301 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), the boundaries of the land being described as follows:

Commencing at the south-westerly angle of Lot 123 according to said Plan 1301;

Thence westerly along the production of the southerly limit of the said Lot, 22.25 metres;

Thence northerly and parallel with the westerly limit of the said Lot, 7.16 metres to the southerly limit of the lands lying immediately to the north hereof;

Thence easterly parallel to the westerly production of the southerly limit of the said Lot, 22.25 metres more or less to the westerly limit of the said Lot;

Thence southerly along the westerly limit of the said Lot, 7.16 metres more or less to the point of commencement.

Together with a Right-of-way at all times in common with others entitled thereto, over, along and upon a strip of land 4.57 metres in width immediately adjoining the westerly limit of the hereinbefore described land and extending from the northerly limit of Queen Street to the southerly limit of Gerrard Street and being part of the said Township Lot 8.

SIXTHLY:

Part of Township Lot 8 in Concession 1 From the Bay in the original Township of York, and being part of the land marked Reserve on Plan 1301 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), the boundaries of the land being described as follows:

Commencing at the north-westerly angle of Lot 123, according to said Plan 1301;

Thence westerly along the production of the northerly limit of the said Lot, 22.25 metres;

Thence southerly and parallel with the westerly limit of the said Lot, 7.16 metres;

Thence easterly parallel to the westerly production of the northerly limit of the said Lot, 22.25 metres more or less, to the westerly limit of the said Lot;

Thence northerly along the westerly limit of the said Lot, 7.16 metres more or less, to the point of commencement.

Together with a Right-of-way at all times in common with others entitled thereto, over, along, and upon a strip of land 4.57 metres in width, immediately adjoining the westerly limit of the hereinbefore described land and extending from the northerly limit of Queen Street to the southerly limit of Gerrard Street, and being part of the said Township Lot 8.

SCHEDULE "B"

In the City of Toronto, in the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of:

FIRSTLY:

Lots 7, 8 and 9 and part of Lot 6 on the south side of Gerrard Street East according to Plan 1357 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1399, 1401, 1403, 1405, 1407, 1409, 1411, 1413 and 1415 Gerrard Street East.

SECONDLY:

Lot 5 and parts of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 on the south side of Gerrard Street East according to Plan 1357 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1417, 1419, 1421, 1423, 1425, 1427, 1429, 1431, 1433, 1435, 1437 and 1439 Gerrard Street East.

THIRDLY:

Parts of Lots 43, 44 and 45 according to Plan 1327 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), and part of Township Lot 8 in Concession 1 From the Bay in the original Township of York comprising premises 1443, 1445, 1447, 1449, 1451, 1453 and 1455 Gerrard Street East.

FOURTHLY:

Block B according to Plan 1301 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64) and part of Township Lot 8 in Concession 1 from the Bay in the original Township of York comprising premises 1465, 1469, 1471, 1475, 1477, 1479 and 1481 Gerrard Street East.

FIFTHLY:

Block D according to Plan 1301 and parts of Lots 47, 48 and 49 according to Plan 655, both Plans being registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1483, 1485, 1487, 1489, 1493 and 1499 Gerrard Street East.

SIXTHLY:

Parts of Lots 47, 48 and 49 according to Plan 655 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1505, 1505R, 1507, 1511 and 1515 Gerrard Street East.

SEVENTHLY:

Lots 38, 39, 40 and parts of Lots 37 and 41 according to Plan 1357 and part of Lot 67 according to Plan 409E both Plans being registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1390, 1392, 1394, 1396, 1400, 1404, 1406, 1408, 1410, 1412 and 1414 Gerrard Street East.

EIGHTHLY:

Parts of Lots 42 and 43 and part of Block A according to Plan 1357 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1416, 1418, 1420, 1422, 1424, 1426, 1428 and 1430 Gerrard Street East.

NINETHLY:

Parts of Lots 47 and 48 according to Plan 1345 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1438, 1440, 1442, 1444, 1446, 1448 and 1450 Gerrard Street East.

TENTHLY:

Block A according to Plan 1301 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), and part of Lot 8 in Concession 1 From the Bay in the original Township of York comprising premises 1460 Gerrard Street East.

ELEVENTHLY:

Part of Block C according to Plan 1301 and parts of Lots 50, 51 and 52 according to Plan 655 both Plans being registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1600, 1602, 1606, 1612 and 1614 Gerrard Street East.

TWELFTHLY:

Parts of Lots 50, 51 and 52 according to Plan 655 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 1616 and 1618 Gerrard Street East.

THIRTEENTHLY

Lot 44 and part of Lot 47 according to Plan 655 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 230 and 242 Coxwell Avenue.

FOURTEENTHLY

Lot 53 and parts of Lots 51, 52 and 54 according to Plan 655 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 270, 272, 272A, 274 and 280 Coxwell Avenue.

FIFTEENTHLY

Lots 21 and 22 and part of Lot 20 according to Plan 528E registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 245, 247, 249, 251 and 253 Coxwell Avenue.

SIXTEENTHLY

Lots 27 and 28 and part of Lot 29 according Plan 528E registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), comprising premises 255, 257, 259, 261 and 263 Coxwell Avenue.

SCHEDULE "C"

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Portions to Frontages to

Defined Area be charged be specially Rates per

Under Section 2 against area charged in metres metres frontage

No. 1 0.50 55.32 $ 29.64

No. 2 0.75 70.20 44.47

No. 3 1.00 135.04 59.29

No. 4 0.75 41.15 44.47

No. 5 0.50 128.40 29.64

Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4

Portions to Frontages to

Defined Area be charged be specially Rates per

Under Section 2 against area charged in metres metres frontage

No. 6 0.75 106.00 44.47

No. 7 0.50 63.08 29.64

No. 8 0.50 22.16 29.64

No. 9 0.50 68.04 29.64

________

A Copy of Schedule "A" referred to in the report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 18 and 19, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

50

Committee of Adjustment Appeal -

550 Queens Quay West (Downtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be authorized to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the appeal of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment by the Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association respecting 550 Queens Quay West.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (January 26, 1998) from John Bessai, Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association:

At the request of Sylvia Pellman our President, I am writing about the attached letter which was forwarded to Marilyn Stuart of the Committee of Adjustment. The Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association is appealing the City of Toronto Decision Number A-1058097 with regards to 550Queens Quay W.

The BQNA is requesting your support in this matter and is hopeful of securing legal support from the City. It is our understanding that at a Community Council meeting this February the opportunity will arise for you to request the support of other Councillors for our efforts. We ask that you please bring this matter to Council and get its approval.

Thank you for attention to this matter, and we look forward to working with you on this and other important issues in the months to come.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (February 12, 1998) from Councillor Rae, and a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

________

Copies of the following communications, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 18 and19,1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 13, 1998) from Ms. Brynne Teall, Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association addressed to the Committee of Adjustment; and

- (December 5, 1997) from Mr. Paul Bedford, Urban Development Services forwarding the Committee of Adjustment Decision (December 17, 1997.

51

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -

794 Bathurst Street (Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Application No. 997100 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain seven illuminated fascia signs at 794 Bathurst Street be refused, because the extensive encroachment on to the second floor level has resulted in unnecessarily prominent signage which also sets an undesirable precedent for other properties along this section of Bloor Street West.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 6, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services:

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council approve Application No. 997100 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain seven illuminated fascia signs.

(2) That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997100, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-west corner of Bathurst Street and Bloor Street West, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building.

The applicant is requesting permission to maintain five illuminated fascia signs on the Bathurst Street elevation and two illuminated fascia signs on the Bloor Street elevation of the building (seeFigures1and 2). The signs have dimensions as follows:

2 @ 4.2 metres length and 1.8 metres height, each having an area of 7.8 m²;

1 @ 3.4 metres length and 1.8 metres height, with an area of 6.1 m²;

4 @ 3.5 metres length and 1.8 metres height, each having an area of 6.4 m² .

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the signs do not comply with the definition of "fascia sign" in that they exceed the maximum projection of 0.45 metres from the wall of the building; and

2. the signs are not located entirely within the tenant's commercial unit frontage.

The first variance results from the extent of projection of the signs from the building face. The signs exceed the permitted maximum projection of 0.45 metres by 0.16 metres. In this instance, however, the signs are located 2.53 metres above grade and would not endanger nor inconvenience pedestrians.

Respecting the second variance, the Municipal Code allows signs to be erected on the first and second storeys of buildings, but requires signs to be located within the same unit frontage as the related business to ensure that each tenant has an opportunity to display adequate signage. The intent of these provisions is to prevent oversignage and limit the possible negative impact of signage on the streetscape and on the appearance of buildings. In this instance, the signs are located immediately below the second floor windows while the retail business which the signs identify is located on the ground floor. The extensive encroachment of the signs onto the second floor level has resulted in unnecessarily prominent signage which, in my opinion, sets an undesirable precedent for other properties along this section of Bloor Street. Although I would have requested modifications to reduce the amount of encroachment onto the second storey, in this instance the signs have already been installed, and for this reason, I am prepared to recommend approval.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (February 2, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, and a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Ms. Louise Talbot, President, Public Optical appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

794 Bathurst

Insert Table/Map No. 2

794 Bathurst

Insert Table/Map No. 3

794 Bathurst

Insert Table/Map No. 4

794 Bathurst

52

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the City of Toronto Municipal Code -

647 Gerrard Street East (Don River)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve Application No.997103 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated projecting sign at 647 Gerrard Street East, on condition that the sign only be illuminated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., and that this be achieved through an automatic timing device.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 6, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services:

Recommendation:

That City Council refuse Application No. 997103 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated projecting sign.

Comments:

The property is located on the south side of Gerrard Street East, east of Broadview Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a three storey mixed-use building with residential units on the upper storey and retail uses at grade.

The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated projecting sign on the north elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 0.7 metres and a height of 2.2 metres, with an area of 1.5 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the area of the projecting sign (1.7 m²) exceeds the maximum area permitted of 0.4 m² by 1.3 m²; and

(2) the sign will be located within 10 metres from a residential window.

The variances relate to the size and location of the proposed sign. The maximum area for a projecting sign is based upon the amount of frontage the unit has on the street. In this instance, a fascia sign identifying the ground floor retail use already exists and the applicant proposes to install an additional sign on the second storey level of the building, which I consider excessive given the narrow frontage of this commercial unit. The sign would also be located within 1 metre of residential windows on either side. An illuminated projecting sign this close to a residential window will cast light into the residential unit and could adversely affect the tenant's enjoyment of the unit.

I am recommending that this application be refused, as I find the variances requested to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

647 Gerrard Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

647 Gerrard Street

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 11, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the recommendation outlined in my report dated January 6, 1998 be replaced as follows:

That City Council refuse Application No. 997103, as revised, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated projecting sign.

Comments:

At its meeting dated January 21, 1998, Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this matter until its next scheduled meeting in order that Councillors McConnell and Layton could discuss the matter with planning staff.

The previously proposed sign has since been installed, immediately east of its originally proposed location (see Figure 1 attached). The variances remain unchanged and, in my opinion, the sign could still adversely impact the neighbouring residential units. I am, therefore, recommending that City Council refuse this application as revised.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (February 13, 1998) from CouncillorLayton, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

647 Gerrard Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

647 Gerrard Street

53

Ontario Municipal Board Hearing -

8 South Kingsway (High Park)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

'WHEREAS the Toronto Community Council has recommended, inter alia, that Site Plan Approval Application No. 396100 and Application No. 096178 for consent under the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 276, Ravines, Article I, for a proposed Gas Bar, Car Wash and Retail Store to be located at 8 South Kingsway, be refused and that the City Solicitor be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing set for March 17, 1998, in opposition to the Committee of Adjustment Decision; and

WHEREAS the solicitor for the applicant, Petro Canada, has delivered a revised site plan to the City Solicitor under cover of letter dated March 2, 1998, as a possible alternative plan to be presented by Petro Canada at the March 17, 1998 hearing; and

WHEREAS City Council has not had adequate opportunity to consider the revised site plan;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1) the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council be amended by the addition of the following recommendation:

"(6) in the event Petro Canada requests the Ontario Municipal Board to consider, at the hearing set for March 17, 1998, the revised site plan delivered to the City Solicitor on March 2, 1998, and any associated variances, the City Solicitor advise the Board that the matter should be deferred to allow City Council adequate opportunity to consider the revised site plan and associated variances;"; and

(2) the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council, as contained in Clause No.53 of Report No. 2, be adopted, as so amended.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) Site Plan Approval Application No. 396100 and Application No. 096178 for consent under the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 276, Ravines, Article I, for a proposed Gas Bar, Car Wash and Retail Store to be located a 8 South Kingsway, within the Humber Valley Ravine, be refused;

(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing set for March 17, 1998, in opposition to the Committee of Adjustment Decision, and to retain outside planning advice; with funds to be payable from Account No. 76539;

(3) the City Solicitor be requested to emphasize the proposed hours of operation of the gas bar in his submission;

(4) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to provide a traffic safety study of the proposed development; and

(5) the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to the Corporate Services Committee, in Camera if necessary, on the financial and real estate aspects of acquiring the site for park land.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to consult with the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Heritage Toronto to examine ways to protect the heritage and conservation aspects of the site; and

(2) Heritage Toronto to report to the Toronto Community Council on the possibility of designating the site under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and on further actions the City could undertake to recognize the importance of this site.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

This report sets out options for City Council, in light of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing now scheduled for March 17, 1998 on this proposal to replace the existing gas station and car wash on a sensitive site in Swansea.

Source of Funds:

Legal Department budget, if outside consultants are required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Toronto Community Council recommend one or more of the following options (described in this report) for consideration by Toronto City Council at its meeting of March 4, 1998:

Option 1 Adopt the planners recommendations.

Option 2 Retain outside consultant to oppose applications at Ontario Municipal Board.

Option 3 Negotiate a settlement based on improved design and landscaping.

Option 4 Acquire the site for parkland.

(2) If Option 2 is selected, the City Solicitor be authorized to retain an outside planning consultant for the March 17^th Hearing.

(3) If Option 4 is to be pursued, the Commissioner of Corporate Services should report (in consultation with the City Solicitor) on real estate and financial implications.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The planning report recommending site plan and ravine control approval for this project to replace an existing Petro Canada gas station and car wash, and add a retail component, was deferred at the September 22 and 23, 1997 former City of Toronto City Council meeting. Planning staff had recommended approval, subject to several conditions, including a land exchange to obtain public ownership of a substantial portion of the Petro Canada site along the Humber River, which is in the process of being designated federally as a "Heritage River".

Zoning variances to permit the project, granted by the Committee of Adjustment on October 21, 1997 were appealed by area residents, and the consolidated hearing on these matters has recently been set for March 17, 1998.

Concerns about the traffic, heritage and other aspects of the proposal were raised at area public meetings held on the proposal in 1997. A further public meeting has been organized for February 26, 1998.

The street closing and land exchange process is on hold, and on January 21 the Toronto Community Council refused Petro Canada's application for variances to the sign by-law for the project.

Comments:

Because the Board hearing has now been scheduled, and to give City staff sufficient time to prepare for the hearing, City Council should take a position on the proposal at its meeting of March 4, 1998. I have set out a range of options reflecting the views both of planning staff and other, differing views.

Option 1: Adopt the Planning Report to Approve the Site Plan and Ravine Control Applications and Support Committee of Adjustment Approval of Variances

The advantage of this option is that planning staff could defend it at the Board as a good solution for the site. It achieves many planning, open space and environmental objectives, including public ownership of the river bank through a recommended land exchange, at no cost to the City. It would not be necessary to retain outside planning experts for the hearing.

The disadvantage of this Option is that many area residents, heritage and other groups do not support the planning recommendations. There is a strong local view that the site should be incorporated into parkland.

Option 2: Retain Outside Planning Consultants to Oppose the Applications and Committee of Adjustment Approval at the Ontario Municipal Board.

If the City is successful at the Board, a new gas station and car wash could not be built, and the existing facility would be allowed to remain. However, if Petro Canada is successful but the City does not agree to a land exchange, Petro Canada may be allowed to construct its new proposal without conveying land along the River to the City.

Option 3: Negotiate Improvements to the Gas Station Proposal

It may be possible to negotiate a settlement with Petro Canada that would have the City approve a new gas station and car wash on the site with enhanced landscaping and a gas station design that is more sensitive to the heritage and natural character of the site.

Option 4: Public Acquisition of the Site

The City could acquire all of the site from Petro Canada for public parkland. Total acquisition would be the best way to achieve heritage, environmental and open space objectives. However, since the City would have to pay market value for both the property and the business, this option could have significant financial implications to the City. To reduce these costs, it may be possible to acquire the 8 South Kingsway site in exchange for City owned lands which could be offered to Petro Canada as an alternate gas station site.

Any such exchange would have to comply with the Municipal Act, i.e. the City would have to review market value for its asset. The disadvantage of this option is that it may deny the City proceeds from the sale of its lands.

A final decision on this option would not be possible until after the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on Petro Canada's application. However, the Commissioner of Corporate Services could be requested now to report on the financial and real estate aspects of pursuing this option.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks

Telephone: (416) 392-0758

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: bbrooks@city.toronto.on.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 4, 1998) from the Director and Chief Planner, Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise Toronto Community Council of an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing date for 8 South Kingsway.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments:

The Ontario Municipal Board Hearing for this proposal to replace an existing gas station and car wash at 8 South Kingsway has been set for March 17, 1998. It is important for Council to take a position on this matter at its meeting of March 4, 1998. Accordingly, I am drafting a further supplementary report for consideration at the February 18, 1998 Toronto Community Council meeting, setting out options for City Council to consider.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks

Telephone: (416) 392-0758

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: bbrooks@city.toronto.on.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (August 18, 1997) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services:

Summary:

This report recommends approval of a new gas bar, car wash, and retail store to replace the existing service station and car wash on the west side of South Kingsway, north of The Queensway, adjacent to public open space and on an important heritage site.

The location of the proposal on the banks of the Humber River requires approval for construction on ravine lands; and site plan approval matters are also being reported on, at the request of the Ward Councillor, given special environmental and heritage concerns.

Expansion of the existing uses on the site is permitted by a special exemption in the Zoning By-law, but minor variances to this and other zoning provisions are being sought from the Committee of Adjustment.

The proposal, which also involves a land exchange with the City to provide public ownership of the river bank and important open space connections, has been reviewed by the City's Parks and Recreation Division, Heritage Toronto and the Conservation Authority, and is acceptable to these and other agencies. Issues raised at two area public meetings on this proposal have also been addressed.

Recommendations:

(1) That City Council consent to Applications No. 396100 and No. 096178 respecting 8 South Kingsway to permit the construction of a gas bar, car wash, and retail store, to be built on stable tableland within the Humber Valley Ravine on the condition the owner enter into a Ravine Control Agreement for 8 South Kingsway requiring:

(a) That the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping on-site substantially in accordance with Preliminary Plot Plan - Scheme 'A' , 8 South Kingsway, dated February 2, 1997 and Landscape Plan, 8 South Kingsway, dated March 25, 1997, both prepared by Petro-Canada, and dated stamped as received on May 2, 1997, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services;

(b) That the owner shall replace the one existing 43 cm elm tree to be removed from the site with 10 Freeman maple and 6 white spruce, and shrubs of serviceberry and snowberry; and

(c) That the owner shall reconnect and maintain the storm and sanitary sewer connections to the City's sewer system to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of City Works Services.

(2) That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement to implement Recommendation No. 1.

(3) That City Council approve the plans and drawing submitted with this application for 8 South Kingsway, namely the Preliminary Plot Plan - Scheme A, dated February 7, 1997, Site Services Plan, Grading Plan and Floor Plan dated March 24, 1997 and Exterior Elevations, Roof Plan and Details and Landscape Plan dated March 25, 1997 all date stamped as received May 2, 1997, all prepared by Petro-Canada, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

(4) That as a condition of City Council approval, the owner enter into an Undertaking Under Section 41 of the Planning Act requiring that;

(A) Develop and Maintain in Accordance with Plans

(1) the proposed development, including all landscaping related thereto, shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the drawings referred to above;

(B) Landscaping

(2) the owner shall submit an application for improvements to the public boulevard generally as shown on above referenced Landscaped Plan, to the Commissioner of City Works Services and carry out the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements within a reasonable period of time or at the request of the Commissioner of City Works Services make a cash contribution to the City equal to the value of the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part of a comprehensive program;

(C) Parking

(3) the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 6 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(D) Access

(4) the owner shall provide northerly access of 8.0 metres in width, and must provide 4.5 metre curb radii;

(5) the owner shall restrict the proposed southerly access to one-way operations outbound only, with the appropriate signage provided to clearly identify the distinct traffic operation of this access, while the existing northbound left turn restriction for the access at this location will continue to apply;

(6) the owner shall provide and maintain the proposed southerly access of 5.0 metres in width for one-way traffic operations and must provide a 1.0 metre north curb radius and a 7.5 metre south curb radius;

(7) the owner shall ensure all existing curb cuts must be closed and restored to Metropolitan standards;

(8) the owner shall ensure all the access work be at no cost to the Metropolitan Toronto Corporation;

(E) Top of Slope Stability

(9) the owner design and build the development in accordance with the Slope Stability Analysis, prepared by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited and approved by the Metropolitan Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority;

(F) Stormwater Management

(10) the owner submit a stormwater management report for the review and approval of the Metropolitan Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority and the City's Community Services (Parks and Recreation);

(G) Land Exchange

(11) the owner shall convey a 1,714 square metre parcel of land, which includes a 15 metre set back from the top of slope, and the valley lands down to the Humber River to the City of Toronto for public park purposes in exchange for a City owned 753.0 square metre portion of the northern road allowance of Queen Street West, west of South Kingsway for temporary parking in tandem, while waiting to enter the relocated car wash;

(12) the owner shall prior to the completion of the agreement to exchange the land, complete the soil toxicity test to meet the Ministry of Environment and Energy requirements, geotechnical, and stormwater management studies to meet the Metro Toronto Regional Conservation Authority standards and any necessary remediation work, including removal of the asphalt on lands to be exchanged with the City of Toronto, as requested by the Commissioner of Community Services;

(13) the owner shall pay all out of pocket expenses incurred by the City as a result of the closing and conveyance of the portion of Queen Street West, which is estimated to be $1,500;

(14) the owner shall provide a Reference Plan of Survey, integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, showing the portion of the highway to be closed and conveyed, and the land to be acquired by the City, as separate Parts thereon;

(15) the owner shall pay the applicable Land Transfer Tax for both Parcels of land, with the exact amount to be determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(16) the owner shall pay for the removal and disposal of the guard rail located along the north limit of the lands;

(17) the owner shall pay for the replacement of the existing ramp type curb and boulevard at the South Kingsway frontage with the City's standard curb and boulevard treatment, at an estimated cost of $3,700;

(H) Heritage Issues

(18) the owner shall ensure all excavation work related to the caissons should be monitored, on a full time basis, by a licensed archeologist for the duration of earth-moving activities;

(19) the owner shall ensure that the contractor protect any significant archaeological resources requiring mitigative documentation/excavation identified during the course of the monitoring, from further disturbance until such a time that a crew of experienced archaeologist can complete such work;

(20) the owner shall erect at his expense, a historic plaque and illustrated information board on proposed park lands on the table land trail at the rear of the site, to commemorate "The Toronto Carry Place" and the "Rousseau Trading Post", to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Community Services (Parks and Recreation) in consultation with the M.T.R.C.A. and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services;

(I) Hours of Operation

(21) the owner shall submit an application to the Commissioner of City Works Services for a permit to extend the replacement gas bar hours of operation for any period of time;

(J) Studies Required by Civic Officials

(22) the owner shall submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of City Works Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(23) the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services;

(24) the owner shall immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site. This report should be submitted for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(25) the owner shall conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site and/or in the existing buildings. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment and Energy Guidelines. A report on the site and building audit should be submitted for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(26) (i) the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a soil and groundwater management plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes remediation options, to be submitted for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(ii) the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the soil and groundwater management plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the soil and groundwater management plan;

(27) (i) the owner prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for the approval of the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit; and

(ii) the owner implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

(5) That the owner be advised:

(a) of the need for the approval by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(b) of the comments of the Chief Building Official respecting the Ontario Building Code;

(c) of the need to submit an application to the Committee of Adjustment for the required variances as listed in the zoning notice from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services;

(d) of the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits from the Metro Toronto Transportation Department, prior to the construction of this project;

(e) of the possible need to obtain other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, piling, shoring, etc.);

(f) of the need to contact Metro Toronto Road Allowance Control Section regarding the site-specific permit/licenses required; and

(g) the owner ensure the South Kingsway right-of-way meets the Metro Transportation Department's requirements for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics.

Comments:

(1) Project:

The development proposal is for a gas bar and car wash to replace the somewhat smaller existing facilities and to introduce a small retail store as part of the new gas bar.

(2) Location:

The 4,921 m2 site is located on the west side of South Kingsway, immediately north of Queen Street West on the banks of the Humber River and located wholly within the Humber Valley Ravine.

The first European settlement in what later became Toronto is located somewhere near, or on the site.

An unused public road allowance abuts the site to the south.

(3) Requirement of civic officials

(a) The Commissioner of City Works Services has set out requirements relating to parking, connection to the City's sewer system, work to be carried out in the street allowance, a material recovery and waste reduction plan.

(b) The Commissioner of Community Services (Parks and Recreation) consider the site plan and landscape plan to be acceptable based on the premise of the land exchange between Petro-Canada and the City of Toronto Parks Department.

(c) The Commissioner of Urban Development has set out various advisory comments respecting applicable legislation.

(d) The Medical Officer of Health has set out requirements relating to environmental studies.

(e) The Acting Manager, Historical Preservation of Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board), considers the recommendation of the Archeological consultant to be acceptable and the City should allow the work to proceed on that basis.

(4) Existing Planning Controls

(a) Official Plan Part I and II

The site is designated as Open Space under the new Official Plan Part I, as well as the current Swansea Area Part II Plan. This designation indicates the City's recognition of the Humber Valley Ravine System.

(b) Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended)

The site is currently zoned G. It was rezoned from AC (a now deleted designation that permitted an auto service station) during the Cityplan process. The agreement with Petro-Canada at the time was to allow the replacement and limited expansion of the existing use through a permissive exception. Section 12(1) 330 (ii) permits a retail store, incidental to the main use, up to a maximum floor area of 186 square metres and sets a height limit of 6 metres. Since the proposed retail uses is 216 m2 in area, a Committee of Adjustment application will be filed for a minor variance to this provision. Committee of Adjustment variances are also required because the proposed gas bar does not exactly meet the definition of an "automobile service station" as set out in the Zoning By-law because the canopy over the pumps exceeds the 6 m height limit by 0.55 m and because there will be more than one building on the lot. As well, the adjacent street allowance which is zoned G, has no special zoning provision that would permit the proposed uses to be expanded as contemplated by the land exchange described in Section 6 of this report.

These matters appear to be minor and appropriately dealt with by the Committee of Adjustment.

(5) Planning Considerations:

(a) Application for Consent under the Ravine Control By-law

The property is located entirely within the Humber Valley Ravine, and is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 276, Ravines, Article I.

The proposal replaces an existing facility, requires the removal of only one tree, offers benefits of increased public access to the river and merits approval on this basis.

The siting of the project is acceptable to the Metropolitan Toronto and Regional Conservation Authority (M.T.R.C.A.) based on the slope stability study and geotechnical soil core testing.

To prevent water, and possible fuel seepage directly into the Ravine Valley lands or the Humber River, City Works Services has agreed to allow reconnection with the sewer system. The M.T.R.C.A. and the City Parks and Recreation Division have also requested a Stormwater Management Report to further review the issue.

(b) Site Plan Approval

The proposal requires the approval of Site Plan Approval by the City.

Site Planning

The applicant has responded to concerns raised by City staff and local residents by reorienting building from the original proposal. The long canopy over the gas pumps (which is an integral part of Petro-Canada's new image for its gas bars) will be perpendicular to the street, reducing the visual impact and intrusion of the proposed development on the residential neighbourhood to the east. The car wash parking and "stacking" areas have been moved toward the rear of the site. These arrangements will allow for better visual monitoring of the site by Petro-Canada sales staff.

The height of the station and canopy meets the 6 metre height limit for the site. Only a minor (0.55m) height penetration is required for the maple leaf company logo sign. The lighting of site is designed not to extend beyond the property limits.

Landscaping

The landscape plans have been approved by both Parks and Recreation and Urban Design staff. Native trees and species are proposed to be planted with most emphasis placed on the west side of South Kingsway and the north end of the site, abutting the M.T.R.C.A. parklands.

Parking

The applicant has provided 8 customer parking spaces, including two spaces for people with disabilities. This slightly exceeds the minimum requirements of the Commissioner of City Works Services. In addition, 24 "stacking" spaces have been provided for the car wash to meet Metro Toronto by-law standards.

Vehicular Access to the Site

While local residents had some concerns about traffic volumes and site access, Metro Transportation Department has undertaken a full review and, subject to access and curb conditions, they have no objections to the proposed development. The new uses replace existing ones that currently generate traffic.

Environmental Issues

Consideration has been given to soil stability by the applicant at the request of the M.T.R.C.A. and the Parks and Recreation Division. Geotechnical studies have been undertaken and the stable top of bank has been established and approved by the M.T.R.C.A. The applicant has been requested to deal with concerns of stormwater run-off on the site by the M.T.R.C.A. and Parks and Recreation. The Commissioner of City Works Services has agreed to allow a reconnection to the City's sewer system.

Historical Aspects

It is thought that the first European settlement in the Toronto area was located on the Humber River at or near this site, in the form of a trading post established in the 18^th century by Jean Baptist Rousseau. A plaque exists on Metro lands south of the site. For this reason, considerable attention has been paid to heritage matters and an Archeological study was undertaken.

The study determined that the trading post site would now be buried under 9 m of land fill that has occurred in the area since the 18^th century, and that excavation required for the proposal would not be so deep as to either uncover or damage any archeology related to the historic site.

The Archeological Services Inc. have recommended "that all excavations work related to the caisson should be monitored, on a full-time basis by a licensed archeologist for the duration of earth-moving activities." The Toronto Historical Board concurs with this and it forms part of my reports recommendations. I am also recommending that Petro-Canada erect a historic plaque and an illustrated information board on the table lands trail at the rear of their site, on proposed parkland to both commemorate the history of the "Toronto Carry Place" and "Rousseau Trading Post", and inform hikers using the Humber Valley Ravine park system.

Hours of Operation

The current full service Petro-Canada gas bar currently operates on extended hours. However, Petro-Canada indicated at the community meetings they would like to extend those hours further to a 24 hour operation, on a six month trial basis. This review period would allow them an opportunity to determine the viability of 24 hour operation and the impact on the nearby residential community in terms of complaints. A smaller gas bar nearby currently operates on a 24 hour basis.

Concerns were raised about this extension of hours by some residential owners in the neighbourhood. A review was undertaken by the City Legal staff to determine the regulations governing gas bars adjacent to residential districts. My report recommends that Petro-Canada should submit an application to the City for extension of its hours of operation, as the City standard is 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and they currently operate beyond those hours.

(6) Land Exchange

The site abuts public open space to the north and south, but extends right to the Humber River waters edge where soil stability and environmental problems are key issues. Introducing public ownership at the rear of the site would allow for a pedestrian connection between the open space areas, completing a missing link in pedestrian access along the Humber. It would also be the most secure way to preclude development activity in a truly sensitive environment.

What this project proposes, therefore, is a land swap that would see the City acquiring the rear of the site now owned by Petro-Canada and the City convey to Petro-Canada half of the unused street allowance abutting the site to the south. The remaining half of the street allowance would remain open, permitting public right-of-way from South Kingsway to the water's edge.

This land exchange requires the stopping up and closing of half of the street allowance. This is subject to a separate application, and all costs of the lands transaction are to be borne by the applicant.

In addition to public access along the Humber this land exchange pulls the paved area further away from the river and creates better site planning opportunities for vehicular movements in and out of South Kingsway.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (February 18, 1998) from G.V. Martinsons, Swansea Area Ratepayers' Association;

- (February 18, 1998) from Ms. Victoria Masnyk; and

- (February 18, 1998) from Mr. William H. Roberts, Barrister and Solicitor.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Peter Chant, Toronto Ontario;

- Mr. William Roberts, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Jilian Saweczko, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Jane Beecroft, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Andrew Paton, Barrister & Solicitor, on behalf of the Applicant;

- Mr. Robert Miller, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Ron Braun, UP Sales & Mktg. PCL Plastics; and

- Ms. Victoria Masnyk, Toronto, Ontario.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

8 South Kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 2

8 South Kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 3

8 South Kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 4

8 South Kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 5

8 South Kingsway

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (March 2, 1998) from Miss J. Beecroft, President, The Rousseau Project, submitting background material regarding the Rousseau Project; its efforts to preserve the 8 South Kingsway (High Park) Site; and asking City Council for its fullest support in saving the Site of the City's founding, and to consider long-range planning for the future of the site as a millennium project.)

54

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Downtown, East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

(February 2, 1998)

Subject: 162 Queen's Quay East, Application No. 997107: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by North American Towel Corporation Attn. Eamonn O'Neill, 162 Queens Quay East, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 1B4, on behalf of Gemess Investment Ltd., 3 Highpoint Road, Don Mills, Ontario, M3B2A3. (Downtown)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated ground sign.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 997107 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated ground sign.

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997107, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north side of Queen's Quay East, east of Bay Street, in an industrial

(IC) district. The property accommodates a one storey industrial building.

The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated ground sign near the south-east corner of the property (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 2.7 metres and a height of 6.1 metres, with an area of 8.5 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it is located 1.16 metres from the streetline instead of 2.0 metres.

The setback requirements for ground and pedestal signs are aimed at ensuring that, where possible, commercial streetscapes and view corridors are preserved and enhanced and sightlines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved. In this instance, however, the sign is located within a fenced parking lot area and would not interfere with pedestrians or cyclists using the public sidewalk. Further, the sign is open to a height of 2.9 metres above grade and will not impair visibility of motorists entering and exiting the site.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

162 Queen's Quay

Insert Table/Map No. 2

162 Queen's Quay

Insert Table/Map No. 3

162 Queen's Quay

(February 2, 1998)

Subject: 400 University Avenue, Application No. 998003: Request for approval of variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Dominic Rotundo, 453 Chancellor Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 5E1, on behalf of Zurich Canadian Holdings Ltd., 400 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1S7. (Downtown)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations on an application for variances to permit two illuminated fascia signs.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 998003 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated fascia signs.

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998003, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of University Avenue, between Queen Street West and Dundas Street West, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 26 storey commercial building.

The applicant is requesting permission to install new corporate name and logo signs on the northeast and south elevations of the building in place of existing logo signs (see Figure 1). The sign on the north-east elevation has a length of 8.2 metres and a height of 6.0 metres, with an area of 49.2 m², and the sign on the south elevation has a length of 14.6 metres and a height of 6.0 metres, with an area of 87.6 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the height of the signs will exceed the maximum height permitted of 3.0 metres by 3.0 metres; and

(2) the area of the signs(49.2 m² and 87.6 m²) will exceed the maximum area of sign permitted of 25 m².

The property is also subject to University Avenue By-law No. 13409 which regulates signs along University Avenue between Front Street and College Street. Under By-law No. 13409, the proposed signs are not permitted and the applicant has applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a variance which will be considered on March 4, 1998.

The proposed signs consist of a company name below a logo which together constitute the company's new trademark. The variances occur because the height and area restrictions of the logo and name combined will be exceeded. The size of signs is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached.

The applicant's original submission proposed a substantially larger sign on the south elevation of the building having an area of 125 m². However, I was concerned about the potentially negative visual impact a sign of this size would have on the building and upon the view northward of the Ontario Legislature, and requested the applicant to make modifications to address this concern. In the revised proposal, the letter heights have been reduced from 2.3 metres to 1.6 metres and the logo component has been reduced from 4.5 metres to 3.2 metres and both the letter and logo would now be fully contained within the parapet wall of the building. The smaller north-facing sign raised no concerns.

In my opinion, the revised proposal represents a meaningful improvement over the initial submission, the proposed signs are comparable in size to those which they are intended to replace and are in keeping with other corporate logo signs along University Avenue.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

400 University Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

400 University Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

400 University Avenue

(February 2, 1998)

Subject: 220 Bay Street, Application No. 997109: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Entro Communications, 122 Parliament Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 2Y8, on behalf of Schumacher-Lichius Inge/220 Bay Management Inc., 220 Bay Street, Suite 201, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2W4. (Downtown)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated fascia sign.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 997109 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign on condition that the owner agree not to erect additional exterior signage or authorize an application for additional exterior signage on the 1^st and 2^nd floors of the building except to identify the future ground floor tenant; and

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997109, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-west corner of Bay Street and Wellington Street West, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 15 storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to install an illuminated fascia sign on the south-east corner of the building on the support column (see Figures 1-3). The sign consists of a bronze cast "dolphin", a stainless steel "globe" and a stainless steel sign band with backlit illuminated letters and will be used to identify the main tenant of the building. The sign has a total area of 4.96 m² and complies with the maximum permitted projection of 0.45 metres for fascia signs.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will not be located within the tenant's commercial unit frontage.

The Municipal Code requires signs to be erected on the first and second storeys of buildings, but also requires that signage be erected on the portion of the wall belonging to a particular commercial unit, so that each commercial unit is allowed to be identified. The intent of these provisions is to prevent oversignage and limit the possible negative impact of signage on the appearance of buildings. Originally, I was concerned about the potential negative impact that might result if signage for other tenants of the building were erected on each of the building's columns in the future. However, the owner has provided documentation in the form of a letter which indicates that the applicant is the main tenant of the building and has been granted exclusive rights to exterior signage.

On this basis I am recommending approval of this variance, on condition that no additional exterior signage be erected on the first and second floors of the building, except to identify the future ground floor tenant.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

220 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

220 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

220 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

220 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

220 Bay Street

(February 2, 1998)

Subject: 273 Bloor Street West, Application No. 997106: Request for approval of variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by KPMB Architects, 322 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 1J2, on behalf of The Royal Conservatory of Music c/o Colin Graham, 273 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1W2 (Downtown)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit two illuminated ground signs and two non-illuminated ground signs.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 997106 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated ground signs and two non-illuminated ground signs;

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997106, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services; and

(3) The applicant be advised of the comments of Heritage Toronto respecting the condition of the front porch entrance as outlined in this report.

Comments:

The property is located on the south side of Bloor Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) and institutional district. The property accommodates The Royal Conservatory of Music. The building is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect four ground signs within the Bloor Street frontage of the property (see Figure 3). The signs have dimensions as follows:

Signs Nos. 1 and 2 each have a length of 1.2 metres and a height of 1.5 metres, with an area of 1.8 m²;

Signs Nos. 3 and 4 each have a length of 0.8 metres and a height of 4.7 metres, with an area of 4.0 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the area of signs nos. 3 and 4 (4.0 m²) will each exceed the permitted area of 2.5 m² by 1.5 m²;

(2) the signs will have a height above grade of 2.1 metres and 7.4 metres instead of the permitted 2.0 metres; and

(3) only one sign is permitted within the Bloor Street frontage of the property.

The three variances occur because the signs are more numerous, larger and higher than permitted by the Municipal Code. The number of signs as well as their size and height above grade are regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. In this instance, the signs would be used to identify the building's Bloor Street entrance which is significantly set back from the property line. The signs have been designed for the purposes of building identification and as a directory for visitors to the building. The two building identification signs are located on either side of the building's main entrance and oriented north/south, while the two directory signs are located approximately 12 metres closer to the sidewalk and oriented east/west.

The positioning and orientation of the proposed signs reduces their visual impact on the streetscape and, in my opinion, the signs are appropriately sized for their intended functions.

Heritage Toronto has advised that they have no objections to this application. However, they have expressed concerns respecting the deterioration of the historical front porch entrance. The front porch entrance is in poor condition and individual pieces of brick appear to be in danger of falling off the wall. This is a potentially dangerous condition for anyone entering the Conservatory. Consequently, Heritage Toronto have suggested that a conservation architect be retained and that maintenance work including flashing and masonry repairs be accomplished as soon as possible.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

273 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

273 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

273 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 4

273 Bloor Street West

(February 2, 1998)

Subject: 175 Bloor Street East: Request for approval of variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Oxford Development Group Inc., 175 Bloor Street East, Suite 907, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3R8 on behalf of Crown Life Insurance Co., 1881 Scarth Street, Regina Saskatchewan, S4P 4K9. (Downtown)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated pedestal sign.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No. 997101, as revised, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated pedestal sign; and

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997101, as revised, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-east corner of Bloor Street East and Church Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates an 18 storey commercial building.

The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated pedestal sign on the north-west corner of the property (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 1.4 metres and a height of 1.8 metres, with an area of 2.5 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1) the sign will not be set back 2 metres from the streetline and 6 metres from the point of intersection of the 2 streets; and

(2) the sign will have a horizontal dimension greater than the maximum permitted of 2.3 metres.

At its meeting of April 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council passed By-law No. 1996-0172 to amend Chapter 297, Signs of the Municipal Code to increase the separation and setback requirements for ground and pedestal signs in CR and MCR districts throughout the City. The regulations are aimed at ensuring that, where possible, commercial streetscapes and view corridors are preserved and enhanced and sight lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved.

In this instance, the applicant proposes to install identification signage onto an existing granite structure, thereby enlarging the structure. The granite structure is located approximately 1 metre from the north property line with concrete vent shafts located immediately to the south.

Originally the sign was proposed to be 1.9 m high for its entire 1.7 m width (Figure 2). However, I was concerned that a sign this high and wide might block the views of pedestrians resulting in potential conflicts between pedestrians entering and exiting the site in close proximity to the sign. Consequently, I requested, and the applicant agreed, to reduce the overall height of the sign and to reduce the length of the upper portion of the sign in order to ensure adequate sightlines as illustrated on Figure 3.

I am recommending approval of this application as revised, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

175 Bloor Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

175 Bloor Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

175 Bloor Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

175 Bloor Street East

(February 4, 1998)

Subject: 1884 Queen Street East, Application No. 998001: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Vincent Planning & Development Consultants Inc., 250 The Esplanade, Suite 302, Toronto, Ontario, M5A 1J2, on behalf of Shell Canada, 45 Vogell Road, Suite 700, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4B 3Y6. (East Toronto)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit four illuminated "outrigger" signs.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) City Council approve Application No.998001 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit four illuminated outrigger signs; and

(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998001, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-east corner of Woodbine Avenue and Queen Street East, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates an automotive service station.

The applicant is requesting permission to install four illuminated outrigger signs, in conjunction with a newly renovated gas bar (see Figure 1). The signs each have a length of 1.6 metres and a height of 0.5 metres, with an area of 0.85 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297, Signs, of the Municipal Code in that the outrigger signs are not a sign type defined under Municipal Code and therefore are not permitted.

At its meeting dated January 21, 1998, Toronto Community Council requested that I report back on design guidelines of gas stations and gas bars within the context of the urban environment. The report is currently being undertaken by staff. In this instance, the applicant has requested deferral of three of the proposed seven signs pending the outcome of this study. However, the applicant has requested that I report on the four illuminated outrigger signs that would be used to identify the existing gas pumps.

The signs would be suspended 0.9 metres below the underside of the service canopy and would be oriented north/south, parallel to the pump island. Illumination from these signs would be minimal given their small size and would be directed towards Woodbine Avenue and the gas station kiosk and not towards the residential uses located immediately north.

In my opinion, the signs are necessary to ensure the safety of vehicles manoeuvring within the gas pump area and will not prejudice the results of the study currently being undertaken by staff.

Given this reason, I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1884 Queen Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1884 Queen Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1884 Queen Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1884 Queen Street East

55

Provision of a "School Bus Loading Zone" and "Student

Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" In Front of Huron Street,

No. 541 Huron Street (Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the existing "No Parking 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the east side of Huron Street from Lowther Avenue to a point 240.8 metres north be changed to operate from Lowther Avenue to a point 95.5 metres north and from a point 118.5 metres north of Lowther Avenue to a point 122.3 metres further north;

(2) a "School Bus Loading Zone", operating between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, be implemented on the east side of Huron Street, from a point 67.5 metres north of Lowther Avenue, to a point 28.0 metres further north;

(3) parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m and from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of Huron Street, from a point 95.5 metres north of Lowther Avenue, to a point 23 metres further north;

(4) parking be prohibited from a point 95.5 metres north of Lowther Avenue to a point 23.0 metres further north from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

(5) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the possibility of developing a general policy for parking in school bus zones.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement a "School Bus Loading Zone" and "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" in front of HuronStreet Public School, No. 541 Huron Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the existing "No Parking 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the east side of Huron Street from Lowther Avenue to a point 240.8 metres north be changed to operate from Lowther Avenue to a point 95.5 metres north and from a point 118.5 metres north of Lowther Avenue to a point 122.3 metres further north;

(2) That a "School Bus Loading Zone", operating between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, be implemented on the east side of Huron Street, from a point 67.5 metres north of Lowther Avenue, to a point 28.0 metres further north;

(3) That parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m and from 3:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of Huron Street, from a point 95.5 metres north of Lowther Avenue, to a point 23 metres further north;

(4) That parking be prohibited from a point 95.5 metres north of Lowther Avenue to a point 23.0metres further north from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

(5) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

At the request of Ms. Carol Kinkead, Vice-principal of Huron Street Public School, an investigation was undertaken by City Works Services to determine the feasibility of implementing the above-noted zones in front of Huron Street Public School to enhance the safe arrival and departure of children attending the school.

On December 23, 1997, as an interim measure, City Works Services installed advisory signage to designate a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone". After further consultation with the Vice-principal on January 28, 1998, approval is being requested to designate permanent locations for both of the requested zones.

It should be noted that the hours of operation of both zones will not conflict with the hours of permit parking and as a result there will be no negative impact on the number of permit parking spaces on this section of Huron Street.

Huron Street from Lowther Avenue to Bernard Avenue operates two way on a pavement width of 9.75 metres with a forty kilometre per hour speed limit. The following parking regulations are currently in effect on the subject section of Huron Street.

West Side:

(a) Parking is prohibited at anytime.

East Side:

(a) Parking is prohibited from Lowther to a point 240.8 metres north, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00p.m., Monday to Friday;

(b) Parking is prohibited from a point 30.5 metres north of Bernard Avenue to a point 30.5metres south of Bernard Avenue;

(c) Parking is permitted from a point 240.8 metres north of Lowther Avenue and a point 30.5metres south of Bernard Avenue for a maximum period of two hours;

(d) Parking is allowed by parking permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily; and

(e) Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

A ten minute maximum time limit for the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" would allow parents to leave their vehicles unattended and accompany their children to/from the school building. The designation of a "School Bus Loading Zone" would allow school buses to park at the curb and allow children to load/disembark without the need to use flashers. This will eliminate delays currently experienced by vehicular traffic waiting for the bus, which now has to load/unload children directly onto the roadway because of cars parked at the curb. I advise that I concur with this request.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, 392-7892

Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations Section

56

Queen Street East at Woodfield Road -

Prohibition of Stopping in the Vicinity of the

Pedestrian Crossover (East Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Queen Street East from Woodfield Road to a point 15.0 metres east;

(2) stopping be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Queen Street East from Woodfield Road to a point 15.0 metres west; and

(3) the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 3, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to improve visibility as a means to increase safety in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossover located on Queen Street East at Woodfield Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Queen Street East from Woodfield Road to a point 15.0 metres east;

(2) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Queen Street East from Woodfield Road to a point 15.0 metres west; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

An investigation of potential traffic control measures at the Queen Street East/Woodfield Road intersection by staff has led to the conclusion that safety in the vicinity of the existing Pedestrian Crossover (PXO) on Queen Street East could be enhanced by extending the compulsory stopping prohibitions on both approaches in order to improve advance sight lines between motorists and pedestrians in the PXO.

Although stopping within 9.0 metres of a PXO is a compulsory prohibition, sight lines at this location would be sufficiently improved by extending the stopping prohibition on Queen Street East to apply on the north side from the PXO to a point 15.0 metres east and on the south side to a point 15.0metres west of Woodfield Road. Implementation of these regulations can be achieved without decreasing the number of on-street parking spaces.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David Dignard, 392-7771

57

Front Yard Parking - Requests for Exemption -

151, 153 and 155 Bowood Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to permit Front Yard Parking at 151 Bowood Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fees prescribed by the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) the request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to permit Front Yard Parking at 153 and 155 Bowood Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fees prescribed by the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 11, 1998) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to permit front yard parking. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a public hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit staff to accept and continue processing an application for front yard parking at 151 Bowood Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

This is one of two requests for exemptions to permit front yard parking on Bowood Avenue which will be before the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of February 18, 1998. (The other request is for 153 and 155 Bowood Avenue.)

Councillor Walker had asked me to report directly to the former Executive Committee on a request for a by-law exemption to permit front yard parking at 151 Bowood Avenue. Clause 27 of the report was adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting held on December 8, 1997, at which time Council requested me to report to the appropriate Committee of the new City Council.

Comments:

Mr. Stuart Wallace and Ms. Marie Wallace, owners of 151 Bowood Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N1Y3, submitted an application on January 12, 1998, requesting front yard parking for 1 motor vehicle fronting 151 Bowood Avenue.

The current front yard parking criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400 prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street.

In areas of the City without permit parking, the Commissioner may issue a licence for front yard parking subject to certain physical criteria being met, as long as a public poll has been conducted on the street, and the majority ballots cast are in favour of the request.

I note that no public poll has been conducted for this location as it did not pass the first criteria for accepting an application, i.e. no permit parking on the street.

Permit parking is authorized on both sides of this portion of Bowood Avenue on a street name basis. The installation of the curb ramp to service the proposed parking will result in the loss of an on-street permit parking space.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking, this location is not eligible for front yard parking. This request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 11, 1998) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to permit two (2) front yard parking spaces. The proposed parking spaces would serve two new semi-detached homes to be built on a lot which will be severed. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a public hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit staff to accept and continue processing an application for front yard parking at 153 and 155 Bowood Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

This is one of two requests for exemptions to permit front yard parking on Bowood Avenue which will be before the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of February 18, 1998. (The other request is for 151 Bowood Avenue.)

The Ontario Municipal Board has allowed an appeal from the applicant to sever the lot at 153 Bowood and convey the necessary easements for a mutual driveway, carriageway and rear yard parking and turn-around, as per submitted plans. This approval was subject to several conditions.

The Board granted a provisional consent and has withheld the Final Order in order to allow the owner time to submit applications to the new City of Toronto to permit integral garages in the front at grade or front yard parking pads, for each of the semi-detached houses. If the City does not deal with or grant the request for one of these two options by March 31, 1998, then this condition will be removed and the owner may seek the Final Order of the Board.

The applicant has been aware from the outset that front yard parking is not permitted on Bowood Avenue because it is licensed for permit parking.

Comments:

Mr. Ross Cammalleri, builder and agent for Mr. Vincenzo Cammalleri, owner of 153 Bowood Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4N 1Y3, came to the office on January 27, 1998, and wanted to submit applications, for front yard parking for 1 motor vehicle fronting each of the proposed new dwellings to be constructed on the severed lot at 153 Bowood Avenue.

Mr. Cammalleri was advised that the properties did not qualify for front yard parking because permit parking was authorized on the street. Although the Municipal Code was amended effective December 1, 1997 to permit joint applications where one ramp would provide access to two spaces on adjoining properties, this was only in cases where a waiting list had existed continuously for at least six months.

Permit parking is authorized on both sides of this portion of Bowood Avenue on a street name basis. This street has 110 spaces for which a total of 34 permits have issued, with 76 available spaces. There is no waiting list.

In areas of the City without permit parking, the Commissioner may issue a licence for front yard parking subject to certain physical criteria being met, as long as a public poll has been conducted on the street, and the majority ballots cast are in favour of the request.

I note that no public poll has been conducted for this location as it did not pass the first criteria for accepting an application, i.e. no permit parking on the street.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking, and there is no waiting list on the street, this location is not eligible for front yard parking. Since the proposed parking does not meet the current criteria, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it 16 letters in support of the application dated February 17, 1998, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk.

58

16 Braeside Road - Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

(North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board on March 12, 1998 to defend the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting 16 Braeside Road and to support the views of the area residents, and that he be authorized to retain outside planning advice, if necessary.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 10, 1998) from Councillor Walker:

The owners of 16 Braeside Road are proposing to sever their property and build a new house on the new severed parcel of land. On September 17, 1997, the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto refused the applications for permission to sever the property into two parcels of land and to construct a two-storey detached house, on the northern portion of the property of the lot fronting onto Kappele.

Numerous residents have strongly expressed their objections to this proposal and are anxious to have their concerns represented at the OMB hearing. These concerns stem form two main points. The first being that the front of the building will be located over 11 metres closer to the front lot line than is permitted. This will result in development completely out of character from the neighbouring housing on the west side of Kappele Avenue, opposite this development.

Secondly, in severing this current property which has a Braeside Avenue address and has similar front line setback as other properties on Braeside Avenue, the new separate lot with a Kappele address will have a building with rear lot setback of 6.0 metres. The impact on the residents at 18 Braeside most particularly, will be significant. They will be looking at the rear wall of this new house out their rear window where they used to look into a rear yard. It will have an effect on site lines and the privacy of the owner of 18 Braeside next door.

This application is not reasonable, minor in nature, nor in keeping with the scale of development in the neighbourhood and should be refused.

It is therefore requested that this Community Council instruct the Solicitor for the City of Toronto to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board on March 12, 1998, to represent and defend the decision of the Committee of Adjustment and support the views of the area residents. Furthermore, it is requested that the City Solicitor be authorized to retain planning advice, if necessary.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (February 17, 1998) from Michael B. Vaughan, Barrister and Solicitor, and a copy which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

59

Parking at 189 Soudan Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for front yard parking at 189Soudan Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fee prescribed by the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 11, 1998) from Councillor Walker:

The City of Toronto Permits Department denied front yard parking at the above address as they felt the owner has off street parking in the rear that they are able to access.

I acknowledge that the owners at the above location have a legal right of way off Redpath Avenue but this is the last house in furthest away from the street and there are continuous obstructions on the right of way that will not "go away". Currently, in order to use the right of way the owner must ask a neighbour(s) that vehicles be moved. This continuously takes time out the owner's schedule and some times she does not get relief and if there was an emergency she would be unable to get out of the parking space in the back yard.

The neighbouring residents have no problem with the owner having a front yard parking space. Residents further down the street at 193 Soudan Avenue already have front yard parking because they were suffering from the same predicament.

I would ask that Toronto Community Council approve the owner's request for front yard parking at this location. I feel that not only would it create additional stability in the community, it would also allow for one more off-road parking spot on the street.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it a communication (January 28, 1998) from Ms. Liz McAlpine addressed to Councillor Walker and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

60

33 Balmoral Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal

(Midtown)

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in defence of the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting 33 Balmoral Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 16, 1998) from Councillor Adams:

I am writing to ask that the Community Council consider a request to send a representative of City Legal and City Planning to the Ontario Municipal Board to represent the City in upholding its by-law, the decision of the committee of Adjustment, and the opinion of the Planning department.

I have attached a copy of a letter, addressed to me by Mr. Carlos Yep, 31 Balmoral Avenue. Mr. Yep has kindly attached the following supporting documentation, for your information:

(1) Decision of the Committee of Adjustment, dated December 10, 1997

(2) Memorandum from Beate Bowron, Director, Development Approval and Deputy CBO, dated June 16, 1997

(3) Ontario Municipal Board letter, dated January 21, 1998

I would ask that this matter be dealt with the February 18, 1998 Community Council Meeting.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (February 11, 1998) from Mr. Carlos Yep;

- (December 1997) Decision of the Committee of Adjustment - 33 Balmoral Avenue;

- (June 16, 1997) from Director, Development Approval and Deputy CBO; and

- (January 21, 1998) from Administrative Clerk, Ontario Municipal Board.

61

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a) Front Yard Parking - 95 Campbell Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report to a date to be determined by the City Clerk at the request of Councillor Disero:

(January 28, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services respecting Front Yard Parking - 95 Campbell Avenue (Davenport), and recommending that any application for a second parking space at 95 Campbell Avenue be denied by City Council, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

(b) Oakwood Avenue at its Intersection with Burlington Crescent - Installation of an All "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) deferred consideration of the following report;

(2) requested appropriate officials to report further on how to alleviate the speeding problems on Oakwood Avenue, including discussing the issue with York Community Council; and

(3) requested appropriate officials to investigate the possibility of installing traffic signals at Oakwood Avenue at its intersection with Burlington Crescent:

(August 27, 1997) from the Commissioner of City Works Services respecting Oakwood Avenue at its Intersection with Burlington Crescent - Installation of an All "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport), and recommending that the report be received for information.

(c) 192 Glencairn Avenue, Toronto - Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, Trees (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report, in order for staff to consult with the owners of 192 and 198 Glencairn Avenue to investigate the possibility that the proposed development at 198 Glencairn Avenue could take place without encroaching into the root zone of the red oak tree.

Mr. Keith Allin, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d) Status of Bill C-9, The Canada Marine Act - Implications for the Port of Toronto.

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following and having requested the Toronto Harbour Commission to present the process respecting its land use plan for the port lands to the Urban Environment and Development Committee for its information and input, at its meeting to be held on March 23, 1998 :

- (January 27, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council

- (January 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services

- (January 16, 1998) from Councillor Olivia Chow

- Clause Embodied in Report No. 1 of the Toronto Community Council, as considered by the Council of the City of Toronto at its Meeting held on February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, titled "Status Of Bill C-9, The Canada Marine Act - Implications for the Port of Toronto"

- (February 17, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Blair, on behalf of Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association

- (February 18, 1998) from Ms. Mary Hay, Vice Chair, Toronto Waterfront Coalition

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

- Mr. Dalton Shipway, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Margaret Blair/Elizabeth Borek, LANA, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

- Ms. Karen Buck, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. John Darling, Toronto Windsurfing Club

- Mr. Mac Makarchuk, Toronto, Ontario

- Ms. Viola Varga, Toronto, Ontario

(e) Application for Boulevard Cafe Privileges - Jackman Avenue Flankage of 320 Danforth Avenue (Convenience Address For 348 Danforth Avenue) (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following:

- Report (January 28, 1998) from the Commissioner, City Works Services respecting Application for Boulevard Cafe Privileges - Jackman Avenue Flankage of 320 Danforth Avenue (Convenience Address for 348 Danforth Avenue) (Don River), and recommending that the report be received for information;

- (February 13, 1998) from Ms. Joan Jung;

- (February 16, 1998) from Ms. Eunice E. Kim;

- (February 13, 1998) from Mr. Vincent and Ms. Mary Pagliaro;

- (February 17, 1998) from Mr. Rex Hagon, Playter Area Residents' Association;

- (February 17, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association (LANA);

- (February 17, 1998) from Mr. Richard W. and Ms Margaret A. Crawford;

- (February 17, 1998) from Mr. Charles and Ms. Mardi Noble;

- (February 17, 1998) from Richard W. And Margaret A. Crawford

- (February 17, 1998) from Geoff Miller.

(f) 69 Bloor Street East: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City Of Toronto Municipal Code to Permit One Undefined, Illuminated Non-Encroaching Sign on the North and West Elevations of the Third Storey, Containing Animated and Changeable Copy (Downtown).

The Community Council reports having received the following report, as the applicant advised that the application was withdrawn:

(September 4, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services respecting 69 Bloor Street East: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City Of Toronto Municipal Code to Permit One Undefined, Illuminated Non-Encroaching Sign on the North and West Elevations of the Third Storey, Containing Animated and Changeable Copy (Downtown), and recommending that the application be refused.

(g) Role of the Community Councils.

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested its Chair and Councillor McConnell to prepare detailed recommendations based on the following principles and to present those recommendations to the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team on behalf of the Toronto Community Council:

(1) The Appropriate Relationship between City Council and the Community Councils

(i) City Council should be responsible for establishing the broad policy and procedural framework in which the Community Councils act.

(ii) Providing the Community Councils act within the established policies and procedures of City Council, they can carry out their responsibilities as the implementation arm of the new City as they see fit. In cases where the City Council has not established applicable policies and procedures, Community Councils may act as they deem appropriate.

(iii) The City Solicitor is responsible for advising Community Councils when they are in breach of an established City Council policy, just as the Solicitor now advises City Council when a proposed course of action breaches provincial legislation.

(2) The Responsibilities of Community Councils and City Council

(i) As much as possible, implementation should happen at the Community Council level.

(ii) Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee.

(iii) Realistically, only City Council can manage sewage treatment, water filtration, regional transit, and regional arterial roads. But many things previously handled at the Metro level could and should be devolved to the Community Councils, including many former metro roads and all Metro parks. Council should continue to review all its functions to allow for the maximum local delivery of service.

(iv) By linking these functions into the existing community service infrastructure, citizens would enjoy cost savings and service integration.

(v) Community Council should retain responsibility for most of the areas they now oversee, including sewers, garbage, non-regional roads, parks, recreation centres, and planning matters other than regional planning and the Official Plan.

(3) The Powers of Community Councils

(i) In order to carry out these responsibilities, the Community Councils should have the freedom to establish sub-committees and other official bodies, and to pass by-laws. Enabling legislation should be sought to provide these powers.

(ii) Recorded votes should be permitted at all Standing Committee and Community Council meetings

(4) How Community Councils Set and Spend their budgets

(i) City Council should establish spending envelopes for each community council, based largely on the local council's own budget estimates.

(ii) Community Councils should have the power to spend, within their envelopes, in accordance with local priorities, provided they did not contravene a City Council policy, and they did not transfer funds between budget envelopes.

(iii) No final conclusion has been reached on the division of budgets into three categories, for equality of service, service equity and local preferences.

(5) Staffing Structures

(i) Policies and procedures for staffing should be centrally administered by City Council.

(ii) Commissioners should be hired by the City Council. Each Commissioner should be assigned to a Community Council to serve as a staff liaison.

(iii) All staff serving the functions managed by Community Council (that is to say, all staff not involved in broad policy issues) would report to the Community Council.

(iv) No CAO would be required at the Community Council level.

(6) Citizen Access to the Process of Government

(i) The Clerk should make all agendas and minutes available to the public via the Internet at the earliest opportunity

(ii) Copies of Council agendas and minutes should be made available to the public in libraries and community centres.

(iii) The Clerk should establish a group fax function to send Community Council Agendas to citizens who request it, free of charge.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (January 27, 1998) from City Clerk, Toronto Community Council;

- (January 20, 1998) from Mr. John Sewell;

- (January 15, 1998) from the City Clerk;

- (January 28, 1998) from the City Clerk;

- (February 17, 1998 from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

- (February 18, 1998 from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhood Association;

- (February 18, 1998) from Ms. Phyllis Creighton;

- (February 12, 1998) Report on the Working Group on Citizen Participation, submitted by Councillor McConnell;

- (February 19, 1998) from Ms. Liz Rykert;

- (undated) from Mr. David Vallance, CORRA;

- (February 13, 1998) from Lorna Marion and Janice Hillen;

- (February 18, 1998) from Jocelyn Stratton; and

- (February 18, 1998) from William Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers' Association.

(h) Preliminary Report for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 197025 to Permit the Conversion of the 10 Storey Industrial Building at 720 King Street West to Commercial, Light Industrial and Live/Work Units (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment No. 197025 to permit the Conversion of the 10 Storey Industrial Building at 720 King Street West to Commercial, Light Industrial and Live/Work Units (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that

(1) the Commissioner be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors; and

(2) the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of City Works Services.

(i) Preliminary Report - 50 Prince Arthur Avenue - Application No. 197026 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit Eight Townhouses Behind an Existing 19-storey Apartment Building (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) adopted the following preliminary report; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to advise the owner that the Toronto Community Council has serious concerns respecting the setbacks of the two most westerly townhouse units to the existing Lowther Mews, and the proximity and potential effects of the overall development on Taddle Creek Park:

(February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services on 50 Prince Arthur Avenue - Application No. 197026 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit Eight Townhouses Behind an Existing 19-storey Apartment Building (Midtown), and recommending that

(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application, and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(2) the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval, an owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of any requirements by the Commissioner of City Works Services.

The Toronto Community Council also reports having before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

- (September 7, 1997) from Councillor Adams;

- (September 29, 1997) from Mr. Mark McQueen;

- Committee of Adjustment Decision dated October 15, 1997; and

- (January 29, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council.

(j) Preliminary Report on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No.197031 - 8 York Street and 200 Queen's Quay West, Parcel YQ-4, Harbourfront (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(February 4, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 197031 - 8 York Street and 200 Queen's Quay West, Parcel YQ-4, Harbourfront (Downtown), and recommending that:

(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify tenants and owners within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(2) The owner submit to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services additional plans and information that address the outstanding issues identified in this report such as building orientation, building setbacks, built form, site access and parking.

(3) The owner submit to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services a Traffic Impact Study satisfactory to the Commissioner of City Works Services which addresses the impact of traffic during the peak traffic season (May to September) on the surrounding neighbourhood and takes into consideration site access and a mid-block street or driveway.

(4) The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of the project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of City Works Services.

(k) Preliminary Report - 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West - Application No.197027 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit Retail Uses, Nine Movie Theatres and a 143-Unit Residential Development (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) adopted the following preliminary report;

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to convene an informal meeting with the applicant, planning staff and representatives of the Bloor-Yorkville BIA, Yonge-Bay-Bloor Association, Greater Yorkville Residents' Association and the ABC Residents' Association in advance of the public meeting referred to in the preliminary report; and

(3) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on procedures that would be in place to ensure that new developments have the best possible energy efficiency, water efficiency, transit use plans and waste resource management plans:

(February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services on 86, 96 And 100 Bloor Street West - Application No.197027 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit Retail Uses, Nine Movie Theatres and a 143-unit Residential Development (Midtown), and recommending that:

(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application, and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(2) I be directed to pursue discussions with the applicant respecting public benefits as per Section 37 of the Planning Act.

(3) the owners be required to submit a Pedestrian Level Wind Study, acceptable to me.

(4) the owners be advised that, prior to final Council approval, an owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement and a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan in accordance with Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of City Works Services.

(l) Preliminary Report on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 197029 to Permit Three Residential Buildings with At-grade Commercial Uses on the Block Bounded by Bay Street, Dundas Street West, Elizabeth Street and Foster Place (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) adopted the following preliminary report; and

(2) requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting to be held on April 1, 1998 on how the proposed Civic Centre Complex may affect the development:

(February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 197029 to Permit Three Residential Buildings with at-grade Commercial Uses on the Block Bounded by Bay Street, Dundas Street West, Elizabeth Street and Foster Place (Downtown), and recommending that:

(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(2) The owner be advised to close the existing vehicular entrance to the parking lot on the south side of Dundas Street West, prior to any further reporting on this application.

(m) Proposals: Chinatown Initiative (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having amended the following report by inserting the words, "in consultation with the Ward Councillors" after the words, "Urban Development Services staff", in Recommendation No. (1), and adopting the report as amended:

(February 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Development Services respecting Proposals: Chinatown Initiative (Downtown), and recommending that:

(1) Urban Development Services staff hold a public meeting in the area to discuss proposals made in this report, and that the Ward Councillors, Business Associations, Residents Associations and area residents be invited to attend the public meeting.

(2) Following the public meeting referred to in Recommendation 1 above, Commissioner of Urban Development Services staff prepare a final report with appropriate recommendations to the Toronto Community Council.

(n) Expropriation of the Private Lane at the Rear of Premises No. 58 - 66 Williamson Road and 252 and 256 Glen Manor Drive West, for Public Lane Purposes (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on April 1, 1998:

(February 5, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting Expropriation of the Private Lane at the Rear of Premises No. 58 - 66 Williamson Road and 252 and 256 Glen Manor Drive West, for Public Lane Purposes (East Toronto), and requesting that City Council, as the Approving Authority under the Expropriations Act, consider the report of the Inquiry Office and decide whether to approve its application to expropriate the private lane described above for public lane purposes

(o) South Eglinton Area (East) Traffic Calming Project (Phase1) - Initial Monitoring (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(February 10, 1998) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services respecting South Eglinton Area (East) Traffic Calming Project (Phase1) - Initial Monitoring (North Toronto), and recommending that:

(1) consideration of this report by Toronto Community Council be deferred and the report be referred to the North Toronto Ward Councillors for the purpose of obtaining public input and feedback with respect to the South Eglinton Area (East) Traffic Calming Project, Phase I;

(2) as part of the public consultation, consideration be given to replacing the modular traffic calming islands on Davisville Avenue and its intersections with a permanent pavement narrowing/sidewalk widening treatment in conjunction with a planned asphaltic overlay of the pavement this year; and

(3) City staff, in consultation with the North Toronto Ward Councillors, report back to Toronto Community Council as soon as practicable on the outcome of the public consultation, as well as further detailed monitoring of the plan including assessment of collision data.

(p) 75 Howland Avenue - Minor Variance Appeals - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) received the following report for information; and

(2) referred the communication (February 17, 1998) from Mr. Roger Hall to the Chief Building Official, with the request that she give every consideration to the request contained therein:

(February 5, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting 75 Howland Avenue - Minor Variance Appeals - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Midtown), and recommending that the report be received for information.

(q) 121 Avenue Road - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(February 5, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting 121 Avenue Road - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Midtown), and recommending that the report be received for information.

(r) 111 Granby Street - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(January 27, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting 111 Granby Street - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Downtown), and recommending that the report be received.

(s) Status Report on a Mechanism to Provide Councillors with Timely Notification of Committee of Adjustment Appeals as Requested by Community Council at its Meeting of January 21, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following status report for information:

(February 3, 1998) from the Commissioner Of Urban Development Services on a Mechanism to Provide Councillors with Timely Notification of Committee of Adjustment Appeals as Requested by Community Council at its Meeting of January 21, 1998, and recommending that the report be received.

(t) Definition of Grade for the Purpose of Calculating Permissible Density for Properties Adjacent to a Ravine or on a Ravine.

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the Definition of Grade for the Purpose of Calculating Permissible Density - Properties Adjacent to a Ravine or on a Ravine:

(January27,1998) from Councillor Bossons, respecting the subject matter.

(u) 213 Pape Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(February 5, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting 213 Pape Avenue - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (Don River), and recommending that the report be received.

(v) Residential Front Yard Parking And Boulevard Parking - 272 Claremont Street (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Community Council, for its meeting to be held on April 1, 1998 on granting a variance to permit boulevard parking at 272 Claremont Street, and that this matter be a deputation item:

(February 9, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone, respecting front yard and boulevard parking.

(w) Premises No. 98 McRoberts Avenue - Request to Install a Disabled Person's On-Street Parking Space (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(February 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of City Works Services respecting Premises No. 98 McRoberts Avenue - Request to Install a Disabled Person's On-Street Parking Space (Davenport), and recommending that the report be received for information.

(x) 50 Roxborough Drive - Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III Trees (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(February , 1998) from the Director of Development and Support - Toronto Parks and Recreation respecting 50 Roxborough Drive - Municipal Code, Chapter 331 Article III, Trees (Midtown), and recommending that the report be received for information.

(y) Front Yard Parking By-Law.

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following motion by Councillor Pantalone, on behalf of Councillor Jakobek:

"WHEREAS the City of Toronto changed the Front Yard Parking By-law in an effort to preserve green space; and

WHEREAS parking problems are a major issue in the east end, leaving limited supply for the high demand of permit parking; and

WHEREAS the new Front Yard Parking By-law has created hardship for many residents who would otherwise qualify for Front Yard Parking;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that City Works' staff be requested to bring forward the former City of Toronto Front Yard Parking By-law and their original reports of May 7, 1996 and June 28, 1996 and any others considered by Council to amend the by-law on and after July 2 and 5, 1996, to the next Toronto Community Council for its consideration;

AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that public deputations be permitted, with notice of the deputation opportunity to be published in a daily newspaper of general circulation, at least 10 days prior to their meeting date."

(z) Public Meetings For The Capital And Operating Budgets.

The Toronto Community Council reports having expressed its dismay to the Budget Committee because of the frequent change of dates of meetings to hear public deputations on the Capital and Operating Budgets.

(aa) The Crisis In Youth Employment.

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1) referred the following recommendations to the Community and Neighbourhoods Services Committee:

(i) that the ideas and concept expressed in the communication (February 5, 1998) from Councillor Walker be endorsed in principle;

(ii) that the urgency to the matter of youth unemployment and underemployment in Toronto be recognized; and

(iii) that the concept of commencing a dialogue with Mayor Lastman, Councillor Walker, Councillor Chow and other interested councillors to discuss the idea of a summit meeting on jobs for youth be endorsed.

(2) referred the matter of the creation of Task Force to deal with youth unemployment under the leadership of Councillor Chow to her for her comments.

(February 5, 1998) from Councillor Walker addressed to the Toronto Community Council and the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee respecting The Crisis In Youth Employment:

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, declared his interest in Item(h), headed "Preliminary Report for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment No.197025 to Permit the Conversion of the 10 Storey Industrial Building at 720 King Street West to Commercial, Light Industrial and Live/Work Units (Trinity/Niagara)", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that his family owns property in the area.)

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, February 18 and 19, 1998

(Report No. 2 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.)