City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules

City of Toronto Council and Committees

All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 6

1Extension of Interim Control By-law Respecting Properties Abutting the Nordheimer Ravine (Midtown)

2Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Appeal -Roehampton Avenue, West Side, 6.5 Metres East of Yonge Street (North Toronto)

3Victoria Street, West Side, Between Dundas Street East and Gould Street - Prohibition of Stopping at Anytime(Downtown)

4Boulton Avenue, Between Queen Street East and Dundas Street East - Installation of Speed Humps (Don River)

5Vine Avenue, South Side, from Jackson Place to a Point 54.9 Metres East - Amendment to Parking Regulations (Don River)

6Cherry Street, West Side, from Polson Street to a Point 50 Metres South - Amendment to Parking Regulations(Don River)

7Strathearn Boulevard from Spadina Road to Glenayr Road andVesta Drive from Strathearn Boulevard to Millbank Avenue -Changes to Parking Regulations (Midtown)5754

8Glenholme Avenue, from Rosemount Avenue to the First Public Lane South of St. Clair Avenue West - Implementation of a One-Way Northbound Traffic Operation (Davenport)

9McCaul Street, East Side, from Elm Street to a Point 43.0 Metres North - Provision of Additional Parking Meters (Downtown)

10Installation of a Pedestrian Crossover -Coxwell Avenue Between Robbins Avenue and Gerrard Street East (East Toronto)

11Installation of Pedestrian Crossing Device -Queen Street East and Brookmount Road(East Toronto)

12Wanda Road and Dorval Road - Installation of Stop Sign(Davenport)

13Provision on On-Street Loading Zone for Disabled Persons - 85 Grenville Street(Downtown)

14Installation of Speed Bumps in Public Laneways (East Toronto)

15Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (Trinity-Niagara, Davenport)

16Davenport Road, from Bedford Road to Dupont Street and Bedford Road, from Davenport Road to Dupont Street- Adjustment of Parking Meter Maximum Time Limit (Midtown)

17Intersection of Rockwell and Rosethorn Avenues - Implementation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport)

18Kilbarry Road, South Side, Vicinity of 419 Russell Hill Road -Introduction of a Parking Prohibited at Anytime Area (Midtown)

19Request to Restrict Traffic Speeds - Lakeview Avenue, Harrison Street, from Ossington Avenue to Dovercourt Road (Trinity-Niagara)

20Request for Additional On-Street Parking -Grace Street and Manning Avenue(Trinity-Niagara)

21Hertle Avenue from Dundas Street East to Highfield Road Implementation of a 40 Kilometre per Hour Maximum Speed Limit (East Toronto)

22Parking Prohibition on Huron Street Between Harbord Street and Classic Avenue (Downtown)

23Partial Closing of Portion of Gerrard Street West(Downtown)

24McCormack Street - Request for All-Way "Stop" Sign at Maybank Avenue; and a "No Heavy Trucks" Prohibition7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Davenport)

25Refusal Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval - 14 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

26Urban Design Task Force Railway Lands Central and West (Downtown)

27Revised Application - Site Plan Approval and Ravine Control By-law - 8 South Kingsway (High Park)

28Park Drive Ravine - Ontario Municipal Board Decision(Midtown)

29Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code(North Toronto, Midtown, Downtown)

30Application for Consent - Chapter 276, Article I, Ravines of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -14 Riverside Crescent (High Park)

31Application for Consent under Chapter 276, Article I, Ravines, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -12 Riverside Crescent (High Park)

32Temporary Street Closure - Church Street, Alexander Street, Maitland Street and Wellesley Street East - Gay and Lesbian Pride Day(Downtown)

33Naming of Proposed Public Street -44 Norwood Terrace - Little york Road(East Toronto)

34Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route - Broadview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes - Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East (Don River and East Toronto)

35Interim Appointments to the Committee of Management of Applegrove Community Complex

36Interim Appointments to University Settlement Recreation Centre

37Interim Appointments to the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre

38Naming of New Park - East of Main Development(East Toronto)

39Lay-out and Dedication of Public Lane Purposes - North-South Portion of the Lane System South of Danforth Avenue, East of Luttrell Avenue (East Toronto)

40Licensed Boulevard Cafe Fences (Trinity-Niagara)

41Dogs Off-Leash in Vermont Square Park(Midtown)

42Use of Nathan Phillips Square -Philippine Independence Day - Friday, June 12, 1998

43Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

44Dellcrest Children's Centre - 182 Dowling Avenue (High Park)

45Commercial Boulevard Parking Appeal -Gladstone Avenue Flankage of 1137 Dupont Street (Davenport)

46Driveway Widening Appeal -263 Manor Road East (North Toronto)

47Adjustment to Traffic Calming on Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street, Both from College Street to Bloor Street West (Palmerston Area Traffic Calming) (Trinity-Niagara)

48Tree Removal - 271 Forest Hill Road (Midtown)

49Tree Removal - 451 Clendenan Avenue (High Park)

50Tree Removal - 204 Douglas Drive (Midtown)

51Commercial Boulevard Parking -Osler Avenue Flankage of 2 Cariboo Avenue (Davenport)

52Commercial Boulevard Parking -10 Cariboo Avenue (Davenport)

53Commercial Boulevard Parking -25 Cariboo Avenue (Davenport)

54Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing - 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and Denial of Boulevard Marketing - 1253 St. Clair Avenue West(Davenport)

55Residential Boulevard Parking - 71 Westlake Avenue(Convenience Address for 2408 Danforth Avenue)(East Toronto)

56Driveway Widening Appeal - 47 Cranbrooke Avenue(North Toronto)

57Front Yard Parking - 223 Waverley Road (East Toronto)

58Alex Wilson Community Garden -552 & 556 Richmond Street West (Downtown)

59Curb Realignment at the South-West Corner of Spring Road and Parkside Drive (High Park)

60Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 6

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on May 27, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998

Extension of Interim Control By-law Respecting Properties

Abutting the Nordheimer Ravine (Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May14,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that City Council request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue a study of policies appropriate for the lands abutting the Nordheimer Ravine, pursuant to Section 38 of the Planning Act. The report also recommends Council approve an extension of the Interim Control By-law (By-law 1997-0371, passed by the former City of Toronto Council on July 14, 1997) for lands within 10 metres of the Nordheimer Ravine, as shown on the attached map, and that this By-law be in force for a further period of one year.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no requirements for any municipal expenditure associated with this approval.

Recommendations:

(1)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be directed, pursuant to Section 38 of the Planning Act, to complete a review of the land use policies appropriate for the lands within 10 m of the Nordheimer Ravine.

(2)That, in connection with the review of the land use policies recommended above, Council pass a By-law extending the Interim Control By-law No. 1997-0371, for lands within the Nordheimer Ravine for a further period of one year.

(3)That the authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to implement Recommendation 2 above.

Background:

As I previously reported on July 14, 1997, the properties known as Nos. 11 and 15 Glen Edyth Drive were subject to building permit applications to allow the construction of new houses at these addresses. The proposed building sites were immediately adjacent to the designated ravine. The building permit application was sufficiently far advanced that despite the Interim Control By-law, permits were issued for three buildings on the lands currently known as Nos. 11, 17 and 19 Glen Edyth Drive. These properties consist of relatively large and heavily treed lots with a substantial slope across the 15.2 m (49.9 ft.) width of the property.

The development of these lots has had a significant impact on the existing natural character of the ravine slope adjacent to the new houses and its appearance when viewed from adjacent open space. The review of the planning controls which should apply to the lands within 10 metres of the designated ravine still needs to be undertaken so as to limit the possibility of other development in areas which might impact negatively on the adjacent ravine.

Comments:

I am recommending that the Interim Control By-law, applying to the lands within 10 metres of the Nordheimer Ravine be extended for a further period of one year to prohibit all uses of the lands during this period.

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone (416)392-0425

Fax: (416-392-7536)

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Nordheimer Ravine

Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Appeal -

Roehampton Avenue, West Side, 6.5 Metres East of

Yonge Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending location in a residential zone on the Roehampton Street flankage, west side, 6.5 metres east of Yonge Street, be approved and that the City Solicitor introduce the necessary Bill in Council to amend Schedule "G", Chapter 315, Streets Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, so that a license can be issued for this specific location on Roehampton Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 21, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard vending application, which was denied because the proposed location is zoned "residential" and is not listed within Schedule B or F as required by Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That, should City Council wish to permit Mr. Mustafa Khazabi to vend on the sidewalk/boulevard in a residential zone, on the Roehampton Street flank, west side, 6.5 metres east of Yonge Street, which is not presently permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 315, it is recommended that the Commissioner conduct a poll, at the applicant's expense, of all owners and tenants within 120 metres of the property, as required for proposed boulevard cafes on residential flankages per Chapter 90, Polling Notification and Procedures; and if the poll result is positive, that the City Solicitor introduce the necessary bill in Council to amend Schedule G, Chapter 315, Street Vending, accordingly so that a licence may be issued for this location.

Background:

Mr. Mustafa Khazabi, in his letter of March 25, 1998 (Appendix 'A') has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Roehampton Avenue, west side, 6.5 metres east of Yonge Street. The vendor proposes to sell jewellery.

Comments:

Mr. Mustafa Khazabi, 45 Oakmount Road, Apt. 1412, Toronto, Ontario M6P 2M4, applied on March 18, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Roehampton Avenue, west side, 6.5metres east of Yonge Street (Appendix 'B').

Before Mr. Mustafa Khazabi applied and paid the necessary fee, staff cautioned him that the application would be automatically rejected because it did not comply with Municipal Code Chapter315, Street Vending. The proposed location is zoned "residential" and is therefore not included in the list of designated streets where vending is permitted, as set out in Schedule B of Chapter 315. All locations in Schedule "B" are in commercial/industrial zoned areas.

Permitting vending in a residential location would set a precedent in the City of Toronto. Currently, street vending is prohibited entirely in the communities of Etobicoke, Scarborough and York, and permitted, with various limitations, in North York, East York, Toronto and on some Metro roads. None of these communities permit vending in residential areas.

Conclusions:

Approving this request would set a precedent. However, if this is a request which Council wishes to support in principle, I recommend that the local residents' views are also considered, through a confidential poll, as required in Municipal Code Chapter 90, Polling Notification and Procedures, for boulevard cafes on residential flankages. If the poll result is positive, then the City Solicitor would introduce the necessary bill to amend Schedule G. Staff could then issue a permit. I suggest the cost of such a poll which is not covered by the $220.98 application fee, be borne by the applicant.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

--------

Mr. Mustafa Khazabi, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Street Vending No. 1166

Victoria Street, West Side, Between Dundas Street East

and Gould Street - Prohibition of Stopping at Anytime

(Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May7,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to deter illegal parking and to enhance safety for motorists and pedestrians on the street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the west side of Victoria Street, between Dundas Street East and Gould Street, be rescinded;

(2)That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Victoria Street, between Dundas Street East and Gould Street; 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 a representative of Ryerson University and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Kyle Rae, I have investigated prohibiting stopping at anytime on the west side of Victoria Street, between Dundas Street East and Gould Street to deter illegal parking and to improve sight lines for motorists and pedestrians.

Victoria Street, between Dundas Street East and Gould Street operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on both sides of this street. This section of Victoria Street provides vehicular access to Ryerson University's parking garage on the west side of the street, facilitates curbside delivery to street level businesses on the east side of the street and, in conjunction with Gould Street, forms a link between Dundas Street East and Yonge Street for motorists circumventing turn prohibitions at the Dundas/Yonge intersection.

A site inspection has revealed that vehicles use the street generally for the above-noted purposes. However, along with delivery vehicles that appeared to be parked (as opposed to making a delivery), several vehicles, some displaying valid Disabled Person Parking Permits (DPPP) in the windshield, were parked randomly on both sides of this street, many for extended periods of time. Although vehicles with a DPPP were considered to be legally parked under the parking exemptions afforded persons with disability permits, parking along both sides of this street obstructed vehicular passage and reduced advance sightlines between pedestrians crossing Victoria Street and vehicles travelling on the street.

Based on our assessment, stopping should be prohibited at anytime on the west side of the street. This would potentially improve advance sightlines between motorists and pedestrians and, assuming there is general compliance with the prohibition, reduce traffic congestion and enhance traffic flow on this section of Victoria Street. Inconvenience for nearby business proprietors would be negligible. Stopping might also be prohibited on the east side of Victoria Street. However, this would significantly inconvenience business proprietors requiring curbside deliveries at Premises Nos. 277-285 Victoria Street and motorists who normally stop momentarily to pick-up or drop-off persons at the Ryerson University campus buildings.

Although alternative off-street parking facilities are available, disabled persons might also experience some inconvenience if stopping were prohibited on the east side of the street. Therefore, the parking prohibition on the east side of the street should be retained but to enhance motorists' awareness of the provisions associated with the parking prohibition, Works staff will augment the current No Parking Anytime signs with Loading Only tabs to discourage would-be illegal parkers.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771

Boulton Avenue, Between Queen Street East and

Dundas Street East - Installation of Speed Humps (Don River)

(City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce speed and volume of traffic on Boulton Avenue and to safeguard school children travelling to three area public schools.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $3,000.00 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Boulton Avenue, from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5175, dated May 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East, coincident with the implementation of traffic calming; and

(3) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997 in considering Clause 61 in City Services Committee Report No. 11 entitled, Adjustment to Parking Regulations - Boulton Avenue (Ward 8), adopted a number of parking regulation changes which resulted in the implementation of a staggered parking arrangement on Boulton Avenue. In the departmental report contained in the Clause, it was noted that Works staff would examine the feasibility of implementing traffic calming measures on Boulton Avenue.

Comments:

In consideration of the above noted Clause and at the request of Councillor Jack Layton and area residents, a staff investigation has been conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East to reduce the number of speeding motorists on this street.

Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East operates one-way southbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and has a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A recent twenty-four hour speed and volume survey conducted on Boulton Avenue from Clark Street to Cummings Avenue has provided the speed data shown in the following table.

Boulton Avenue from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East

Summary of Speed and Volume Count

Direction of

Travel

Total Vehicles

40 km/hour or less

41 - 50 km/hour

51 km/hour or more

Southbound

1029

(100%)

612

(59.5%)

340

(33.0%)

(7.5%)

The incidence of speeding in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit is approximately 40%; however, the percentage of vehicles recorded at a rate of speed in excess of fifty kilometres per hour (generally where Police enforcement would be provided) is 7.5%. This speed profile, although typical of many residential streets in the city, is of concern given the proximity of the adjacent schools along Boulton Avenue.

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting on August 21, 1997 adopted, as amended, Clause28 in City Services Committee Report No. 10 entitled Installation of Speed Humps on City Streets which sets out five primary criteria that must be satisfied when evaluating requests for speed humps (as opposed to speed bumps). Specifically, to warrant speed hump installation, one of the criteria stipulates that the street should carry a volume of between 1,000 and 8,000 vehicles per day. As noted above, Boulton Avenue carries a total of 1,029 vehicles per day and accordingly, the installation of speed humps is technically warranted.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street, and households on side streets whose only access is from the affected street. Given the relatively profound impact that such an initiative may have on a street, it is recommended that the high level of acceptance, namely 60% of those responding, be achieved in order to authorize the installation.

The changes proposed to the Boulton Avenue roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

As Community Council may know, pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Act, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Acting Traffic Investigator, Tel. No. 392-7771.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Proposed Speed Humps - Boulton Avenue

Vine Avenue, South Side, from Jackson Place to a

Point 54.9 metres East - Amendment to Parking Regulations

(High Park)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To rescind the parking prohibition from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of Vine Avenue from Jackson Place to a point 54.9 metres east and to implement a one hour maximum parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday between the same limits.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of Vine Avenue from Jackson Place to a point 54.9 metres east be rescinded;

(2) That parking be permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of Vine Avenue from Jackson Place to a point 54.9 metres 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:

At the request of an area resident , in consultation with High Park Councillors David Miller and Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of rescinding the no parking regulation from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of Vine Avenue from Jackson Place to a point 54.9 metres east and introducing a one hour maximum parking regulation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday between the same limits.

Vine Avenue from Keele Street to McMurray Avenue, operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.6 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. The following parking regulations are in effect on Vine Avenue between Keele Street and Pacific Avenue:

North side

-Parking is prohibited at anytime.

South side

-Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday from Keele Street to Pacific Avenue, except from Jackson Place to a point 54.9 metres east where parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

-The permit parking system is in effect on this street from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Works staff have conducted several site inspections which revealed that when vehicles are parked on the south side of Vine Avenue, there is still sufficient turning radius for large trucks to enter and exit the loading area of the building located at Premises No. 96 Vine Avenue.

In view of the foregoing, and to provide additional parking spaces for the residents of Vine Avenue, the parking regulations on this street should be amended as noted in Recommendations Nos. 1 and2, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Cherry Street, West Side, from Polson Street to a

Point 50 Metres South - Amendment to Parking Regulations

(Don River)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May14,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To amend the existing parking regulations on the west side of Cherry Street from Polson Street to a point 50 metres south.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Cherry Street from Polson Street to a point 50 metres south; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a local business owner, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of prohibiting parking on the west side of Cherry Street from Polson Street to a point 50 metres south as vehicles parked at this location interfere with other vehicles attempting to access the driveway to his property.

Cherry Street in the vicinity of Polson Street operates two-way on a pavement width of approximately 18.3 metres. Parking is currently prohibited on the west side of Cherry Street from 8:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. daily, south of Polson Street to the Ship Channel and permitted to a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on both sides of Cherry Street from the Ship Channel to Villiers Street.

Site observations conducted by Works staff have confirmed that during the weekday, daytime hours, there is little demand for on-street parking at this location. Accordingly, the above noted request to prohibit parking on the west side of Cherry Street, south of Polson Street (which would result in the loss of approximately 6 on-street parking spaces during the daytime hours) would have a negligible impact on surrounding businesses.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin, Manager of Transportation Operations, 392-7773

Strathearn Boulevard from Spadina Road to Glenayr Road and

Vesta Drive from Strathearn Boulevard to Millbank Avenue -

Changes to Parking Regulations (Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May14,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To introduce a 2 hour maximum parking limit from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday and to prohibit parking from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the south side of Strathearn Boulevard from Spadina Road to Glenayr Road and on both sides of Vesta Drive from Strathearn Boulevard to Millbank Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That a 2 hour maximum parking limit from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday be implemented, and that parking be prohibited from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., on the south side of Strathearn Boulevard from Spadina Road to Glenayr Road and on both sides of Vesta Drive from Strathearn Boulevard to Millbank 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 may be required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor John Adams on behalf of area residents, an investigation was undertaken to address the issue of long term transient parking on the subject streets. Residents indicated in a petition that Strathearn Boulevard and Vesta Drive are being used for parking by employees of the Forest Hill Village commercial area, local apartment dwellers and a limousine service. The petition was in favour of implementing the regulation changes, noted in Recommendation No. 1, to ameliorate this situation.

Strathearn Boulevard from Spadina Road to the west end of Strathearn Boulevard is a two way residential street with a pavement width which varies from 6.7 to 7.2 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Strathearn Boulevard and is allowed on the south side for a maximum period of 3 hours.

Vesta Drive between Strathearn Boulevard and Millbank Avenue operates two way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking on both sides is currently permitted for a maximum period of 3 hours.

Observations conducted by Works staff have confirmed the presence of a transient parking problem on the above streets. In fact, similar parking regulations were implemented last year on Millbank Avenue to address the same problem.

In light of the above, I would concur with the residents' request.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl (392-7892), Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations Section.

Glenholme Avenue, from Rosemount Avenue to the First

Public Lane South of St. Clair Avenue West - Implementation

of a One-Way Northbound Traffic Operation (Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May12,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reinstate a one-way northbound traffic operation on the subject section of Glenholme Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That a one-way northbound traffic operation be implemented on Glenholme Avenue, from Rosemount Avenue to the first public lane south of St. Clair Avenue West; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Dennis Fotinos, on behalf of area residents, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of reinstating the one-way northbound traffic operation on Glenholme Avenue from Rosemount Avenue to the first lane south of St. Clair Avenue West, that had existed prior to February, 1994. Glenholme Avenue north of the lane currently operates one-way northbound.

The former Toronto City Council at its meeting of February 28, 1994, adopted Clause 41 in City Services Committee Report No. 2, which authorized the implementation of a two-way traffic operation on the subject section of Glenholme Avenue. The purpose of the two-way provision was to minimize circuitous travel by residents, brought about by the construction of a pedestrian refuge island within the intersection of St. Clair Avenue West and Glenholme Avenue, which physically prevented northbound motorists on Glenholme Avenue from executing westbound left turns. The pedestrian refuge island was subsequently removed in 1995.

Since the pedestrian refuge island was removed, northbound motorists on Glenholme Avenue have been permitted to make westbound left turns at this intersection which is regulated by traffic control signals. Accordingly, the reason the two way section was installed is no longer applicable.

Reinstatement of the one-way northbound traffic operation, as noted in Recommendation No. 1 above, should not negatively impact on residential streets in close proximity to Glenholme Avenue, as the daily displacement of southbound traffic would average less than 50 vehicles per day. The proposed reinstatement of the one-way northbound operation will also result in consistent operations with the remaining section of Glenholme Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to the laneway first south.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth, 392-7771

Senior Traffic Investigator

McCaul Street, East Side, from Elm Street to a Point 43.0 Metres

North - Provision of Additional Parking Meters (Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May4,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

The intent of this proposal is to increase parking opportunity on McCaul Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost of purchasing and installing the additional parking meters is $6,000.00 which can be accommodated in The Parking Authority of Toronto's 1998 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the east side of McCaul Street, from Elm Street to a point 134.0 metres north, be rescinded;

(2) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of McCaul Street from a point 43.0 meters north of Elm Street to a point 91.0 metres further north;

(3) That parking meters be installed on the east side of McCaul Street, from Elm Street to a point 43.0 metres north to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, for a maximum period of one hour, at a rate of $1.00 per hour;

(4) That the parking meter operational hours on McCaul Street, from College Street to Dundas Street West be adjusted:

a) on the east side from 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, to apply from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday;

b) on the west side from 9:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, to apply from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday; 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 area business proprietors and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, Works staff have reviewed installing additional parking meters on the east side of McCaul Street from Elm Street to Baldwin Street to increase parking opportunity in this neighbourhood for patrons of nearby businesses and residential permit parkers.

McCaul Street, from College Street to Dundas Street West operates two-way on a pavement width of about 11.0 metres. Parking is currently allowed at metered parking spaces for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on both sides of the street. Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours, except from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily when permit parking regulations apply.

A recent site investigation by staff of City Works Services has revealed that vehicles frequently park on the east side of McCaul Street, from Elm Street to a point 134.0 metres north (where parking is currently prohibited at anytime), often occupying most of the available curb area. This situation does not adversely affect traffic operation on McCaul Street between Elm Street and Baldwin Street (43 metres north of Elm Street) but does have an adverse impact on delivery operations at Silverstein's Bakery (Premises No. 193 McCaul Street), from a point 43.0 metres north of Elm Street to a point 91 metres further north, where vans often stop to load/off-load merchandise or enter off-street loading bays at the bakery.

Based on this assessment, parking could be permitted on the east side of McCaul Street between Elm Street and a point 43.0 metres north and in combination therewith, six parking meters should be installed to operate in conjunction with the parking meters currently installed elsewhere on McCaul Street from Dundas Street West to College Street.

It was noted during our review that the current parking meter operational hours indicated in Chapter400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code do not reflect the actual hours of parking meter operation on McCaul Street. To rectify this situation, the recommendations above include a "housekeeping" amendment to the operational hours of the parking meters to include the rush hour periods from Monday to Friday, which should have been amended when the stopping prohibitions during the morning and afternoon rush hour periods were rescinded earlier this year on McCaul Street from Dundas Street West to College Street (Clause No. 35 in Toronto Community Council Report No.2, By-law No. 105-1998, City Council meeting of March 6, 1998).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771

Installation of a Pedestrian Crossover -

Coxwell Avenue Between Robbins Avenue and

Gerrard Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by striking out from the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council the words "subject to funds being provided over and above the funds already allocated in the 1998 Capital Budget for crosswalks in the Toronto Community Council area", and inserting in lieu thereof the words "and that the matter of funding be referred to the Budget Committee for its consideration and identification of a funding source", so that the recommendation of Toronto Community Council shall now read as follows:

"The Toronto Community Council recommends that a pedestrian crossover be installed at Coxwell Avenue between Robbins Avenue and Gerrard Street East, and that the matter of funding be referred to the Budget Committee for its consideration and identification of a funding source.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a pedestrian crossover be installed at Coxwell Avenue between Robbins Avenue and Gerrard Street East, subject to funds being provided over and above the funds already allocated in the 1998 Capital Budget for crosswalks in the Toronto Community Council area.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 12, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To respond to the request of the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 6, 1998, to report on the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossover on Coxwell Avenue in the vicinity of Moncur Playground.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

In the event that Council were to authorize the installation of the pedestrian crossover, the cost would be $15,000.00. Funds would have to be accommodated within the 1998 Operating Budget for this purpose.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of May 6, 1998, in considering a request from East Toronto Councillor Tom Jakobek (Item 61) requested that Works staff report on the feasibility of installing a pedestrian crossover on Coxwell Avenue in the vicinity of Moncur Playground.

Comments:

Works staff have investigated the request for the installation of a pedestrian crossover (PXO) on Coxwell Avenue at a point approximately 85.0 metres north of Robbins Avenue in the vicinity of Moncur Playground.

Coxwell Avenue from Robbins Avenue to Gerrard Street East is a four-lane arterial roadway which operates two-way with a pavement width of 12.8 metres and a posted maximum 40 kilometre per hour speed limit.

Stopping on this section of Coxwell Avenue is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the east side and from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on the west side of the street. Parking is allowed at other times, subject to temporal restrictions, on both sides of the street. Permit parking regulations are not in effect on this section of Coxwell Avenue.

Works staff conducted an eight-hour PXO warrant study on May 4, 1998 on Coxwell Avenue between Robbins Avenue and the north end of Moncur Playground. A total of 13 pedestrians crossed Coxwell Avenue in the immediate vicinity of Moncur Playground with only two being delayed more than 10 seconds. The study area was enlarged to cover three times the usual limits (a distance of 50 metres north and south of the playground). A total of 53 pedestrians were observed crossing the street within this expanded area with only 5 of them being delayed longer than 10 seconds. The installation warrants for a PXO require a minimum of 200 pedestrians crossing the street near the proposed crossover site within an 8-hour period and a minimum of 75 pedestrians experiencing delays of greater than 10 seconds before being able to cross. Special consideration is given to children and disabled persons in calculating the installation warrant.

It should also be noted that the installation of a PXO at this location would result in the loss of six parking spaces on Coxwell Avenue to ensure that suitable advance sight lines would be maintained at this mid-block location. If Community Council were to recommend the installation of a PXO on Coxwell Avenue at a point 85.0 metres north of the north curb of Robbins Avenue, it should be noted that the expenditure of $15,000 to facilitate this installation will reduce limited financial resources for PXO installations elsewhere, at locations where the technical warrants for a PXO are satisfied and such a measure would improve safety.

In light of the above, the installation of a PXO on Coxwell Avenue opposite Moncur Playground is not justified.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

392-7771

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 1, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from Toronto Community Council to report directly to City Council on traffic control signals versus pedestrian crossovers as they relate to safety issues and whether traffic control signals or pedestrian crossovers are more appropriate at two specific locations.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of May 27, 1998 in considering requests for the installation of pedestrian crossovers on Coxwell Avenue between Gerrard Street East and Robbins Avenue and on Queen Street East at Brookmount Road, recommended the installation of these devices subject to funds being provided over and above the funds already allocated in the 1998 Capital Budget for pedestrian crossovers in the Toronto Community Council area and requested staff to report directly to City Council at its meeting of June 3, 1998 comparing the operational safety impact of pedestrian crossovers versus traffic control signals at these locations.

Discussion:

Once a decision has been made that some type of traffic control device should be installed to assist pedestrians to cross a roadway, there are a number of factors to consider when determining which type of device is most appropriate. These factors include the visibility of pedestrians and motorists, roadway width, traffic volumes, and operating speed of vehicles on the roadway; the level of activity at the intersection in terms of turning movements, loading, and driveways; and the proximity to other traffic control devices.

On many major arterial roads within the City of Toronto, pedestrian crossovers are not appropriate because of one or more of these "environmental" factors. Most notably, vehicle speeds and volumes are too high, and the roadway is more than four lanes wide. The trend has been to install traffic control signals on major arterial roads rather than pedestrian crossovers.

However, pedestrian crossovers are still a useful traffic control device where conditions are appropriate. On minor arterials, collector roadways and local streets with lower traffic volumes and operating speeds, four lanes wide or less, they are an effective means to assist pedestrians to safely cross the roadway without causing undue impact to traffic movements. Also, the cost of installation of a pedestrian crossover is significantly less than the cost of installing traffic control signals.

Coxwell Avenue, between Gerrard Street East and Robbin Avenue, and Queen Street East at Brook mount Road, are roadways which could support the safe operation of a pedestrian crossover.

Conclusions:

Pedestrian crossovers and traffic control signals are both effective means of providing pedestrian crossing protection given the appropriate conditions at a particular location. If approved, the pedestrian crossovers proposed for Cowell Avenue, between Gerrard Street East and Robbin Avenue, and Queen Street East at Brook mount Road would be more appropriate for the local conditions than traffic control signals.

Contact Name:

Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region

(416) 397-5021.)

Installation of Pedestrian Crossing Device -

Queen Street East and Brookmount Road

(East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a pedestrian crossing device be installed at Queen Street East and Brookmount Road, subject to funds being provided over and above the funds already allocated in the 1998 Capital Budget for crosswalks in the Toronto Community Council area.

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

(1)to report directly to Council on traffic lights versus crossing devices as they relate to safety issues, and whether traffic lights or pedestrian crossing devices are more appropriate at this location;

(2)to report to the Toronto Community Council on how to process requests for crosswalks, how such requests can be prioritized in view of the budget for crosswalks determined by Council, in order that funds can be expended in order of priority; and

(3)to re-examine the current budget for installation of pedestrian crossovers and report to the Budget Committee regarding the possibility of expanding the budget, if necessary, or finding the money within the existing budget to cover the costs.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (May 11, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

I have enclosed herewith a copy of a letter from Ms. Jacqueline White, Acting Manager-Central Traffic Region, regarding the above noted matter.

I would kindly request that the Toronto Community Council approve the installation of a crossing walk at Queen Street and Brookmount Road.

Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (April 29, 1998) from Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region addressed to Ms. Addy Gallop:

In response to your enquiry of March 24, 1998, we have completed an assessment of the intersection of Queen Street and Brookmount Road.

The current pedestrian and vehicular volumes at this intersection are insufficient to meet the technical warrants for the installation of a pedestrian crossover or traffic control signals. The traffic impact study associated with the redevelopment of the Greenwood Race Track did not identify a need for a pedestrian crossing device at the subject intersection. Also, we have some concern with the close spacing between this location and the signalized intersection of Queen Street and Woodbine Avenue.

However, we will monitor traffic conditions at this intersection, as the new residential and commercial establishments are occupied, to determine the need for a pedestrian crossing device.

If you have any additional concerns in this regard, please contact Vince Suppa, Supervisor-Investigations, at 397-5436.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 1, 1998) from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation:

Purpose:

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

Discussion:

Coxwell Avenue, between Gerrard Street East and Robbin Avenue, and Queen Street East at Brook mount Road, are roadways which could support the safe operation of a pedestrian crossover.

Conclusions:

Contact Name:

Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region

(416) 397-5021.)

Wanda Road and Dorval Road - Installation of Stop Sign

(Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To install a "Stop" sign for eastbound traffic on Wanda Road at its intersection with Dorval Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That a "Stop" sign be installed for eastbound traffic on Wanda Road at its intersection with Dorval Road; 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 an area resident, Works staff have investigated installing a "Stop" sign for eastbound traffic on Wanda Road at its intersection with Dorval Road.

Wanda Road intersects with Dorval Road to form a T- type intersection with Dorval Road being the through street. There is currently no "Stop" sign control at this intersection. As a means of establishing right-of-way at this intersection, I am of the opinion that a "Stop" sign should be posted for eastbound traffic on Wanda Road at its intersection with Dorval Road.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Provision on On-Street Loading Zone

for Disabled Persons - 85 Grenville Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to keep the area fronting Premises No. 85 clear of vehicles and to enhance pick-up/drop-off opportunity for disabled persons.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That a disabled persons loading zone be established on the south side of Grenville Street, from a point 9.0 metres east of Elizabeth Street to a point 10.0 metres further east; 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 a representative of The Ontario Nurses Association and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, I have investigated providing an on-street disabled persons loading zone on the south side of Grenville Street, just east of Elizabeth Street fronting Premises No.85 (The Ontario Nurses Association) to facilitate Wheeltrans pick-up/drop-off of disabled passengers.

Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of Grenville Street, from Elizabeth Street to Bay Street, specifically in front of Premises No. 85 and parking is permitted at parking meters for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday and for a maximum period of three hours at other times on the north side of the street.

Our site inspection has revealed that delivery vehicles stop and vehicles displaying a disabled persons parking permit park on the south side of Grenville Street in the vicinity of the main doors at Premises No. 85 Grenville Street under exemptions afforded them within "No Parking" areas. Wheeltrans buses must often stop to pick-up/drop-off disabled persons in front of this premises but frequently cannot gain access to the curb. As a result, they must double-park, at times creating potentially hazardous conditions for moving traffic and embarking/disembarking Wheeltrans passengers.

This situation should be resolved by designating an on-street loading zone for disabled persons on the south side of Grenville Street, from a point 9.0 metres east of Elizabeth Street to a point 10.0 metres further east. Implementation of this suggestion would keep the area fronting Premises No. 85 clear of vehicles and enhance passenger pick-up/drop-off operations while having a negligible impact on delivery operations and on-street parking by disabled persons.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771.

Installation of Speed Bumps in Public Laneways (East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May12,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on requests for the installation of speed bumps in various public laneways.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This work is an element of an ongoing annual programme and the cost is accommodated in the 1998 Capital Programme for Public Laneway improvements.

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation of speed bumps of the type and design noted herein and at locations shown 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 received a number of requests regarding the feasibility of installing speed bumps in various public lanes. The attached Table "A" and associated drawings detail the public lane locations which meet the criteria for the installation of speed bumps.

The type and design of the speed bumps to be installed are shown on attached drawing No. 421F-5210.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, 392-7878

--------

TABLE "A"

Installation

WardLocation

26Lane at rear of Ravina Crescent between Baird Avenue and Chatham Avenue (Ward26), as shown on Drawing No. 421F-5210.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Ravina Crescent

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons

Parking Spaces (Trinity-Niagara, Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May12,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, 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

--------

TABLE "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

20Margueretta Street, west side, from a point 50 metres north of Dundas Street West to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. G. Pascucci, a resident of Premises No. 16 Margueretta Street).

20Shaw Street, east side, from a point 69 metres north of Lobb Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north. (Source: Mr. A. Boskovic, a resident of Premises No. 207 Shaw Street).

21Osler Street, east side, from a point 48 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 5.5 metres further south. (Source: Mr. A. Borges, a resident of Premises No. 231 Osler Street).

Davenport Road, from Bedford Road to Dupont Street

and Bedford Road, from Davenport Road to Dupont Street

- Adjustment of Parking Meter Maximum Time Limit (Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To extend the allowable daytime parking duration for patrons of local commercial establishments.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost of purchasing and installing/adjusting these meters is $15,000.00 which should be accommodated in The Parking Authority of Toronto's 1998 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing parking meter hours of operation on the north side of Davenport Road from Bedford Road to Dupont Street be adjusted to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, for a maximum time period of two hours, at a rate of $1.00 per hour;

(2)That the existing parking meter hours of operation on the west side of Bedford Road, from a point 44.0 metres north of Davenport Road to Dupont Street, be adjusted to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday for a maximum time period of two hours, and for a maximum period of three hours from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, at a rate of $1.00 per hour; 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 John Adams on behalf of area businesses, Works staff have investigated extending the allowable daytime maximum parking limit from one hour to two hours on the north side of Davenport Road, from Bedford Road to Dupont Street and on the west side of Bedford Road, from a point 44.0 metres north of Davenport Road to Dupont Street in order to provide patrons of the nearby commercial establishments additional time to conduct their daily business. The following parking regulations are in effect on the subject street sections:

Davenport Road, from Bedford Road to Dupont Street.

North Side

- Parking (controlled by 15 parking meters) is permitted for a maximum period of one hour, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday; and

- At other times, parking is allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

South Side

- Parking (controlled by 8 parking meters) is permitted for a maximum period of one hour, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday; and

- At other times, parking is allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

Bedford Road, from Davenport Road to Dupont Street.

West Side

- Parking is prohibited at anytime, from Davenport Road to a point 44.0 metres further north;

- From a point 44.0 metres north of Davenport Road to Dupont Street, parking (controlled by 14 parking meters) is permitted for a maximum period of one hour, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and for a maximum period of three hours from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. On Saturdays and Sundays, meter parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours, from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.; and

- At other times, parking is allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

East Side

- Parking is prohibited at anytime

Permit parking is not in effect on the above-noted portions of Davenport Road and Bedford Road.

Given the nature of the local commercial establishments in the vicinity of the subject sections of both Davenport Road and Bedford Road, the existing daytime parking limit does not appear to address the needs of patrons of the nearby commercial establishments. In this regard, the adjustment of the existing daytime parking maximum from one hour to two hours (as noted in Recommendations 1 and2 of this report), will accommodate business patrons while maintaining regular parking turnover.

In addition, given that the parking demands in this area are different during the evening and on weekends, the existing three hour maximum time limit on Bedford Road, north of Davenport Road, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays, should remain unchanged.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Gary O'Neil, 392-7771

Intersection of Rockwell and Rosethorn Avenues -

Implementation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control (Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Rockwell Avenue and Rosethorn Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That "Stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Rockwell Avenue at its intersection with Rosethorn 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, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Rockwell Avenue and Rosethorn Avenue.

Both Rockwell Avenue and Rosethorn Avenue operate two-way and intersect to form a "T" type intersection with Rockwell Avenue being the through street. Right-of-way is controlled by a "Stop" sign for southbound traffic on Rosethorn Avenue.

A check of Toronto Police Service accident records from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 (the most recent data available) revealed one reported accident at the subject intersection which may have been prevented by the presence of an all-way "Stop" sign control.

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the technical criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs, which encompass 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 have determined that this intersection meets the criteria for the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control.

In particular, as 4 out of 5 intersections on Rockwell Avenue from Chambers Avenue to the west branch of Prescott Avenue are currently regulated by all-way "Stop" sign control, there is a reasonable expectation on the part of motorists that such a control would be present at this intersection to regulate the flow of eastbound and westbound traffic.

Accordingly, to improve the regulation of traffic and to enhance pedestrian safety, "Stop" signs should be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Rockwell Avenue at Rosethorn Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Kilbarry Road, South Side, Vicinity of 419 Russell Hill Road -

Introduction of a Parking Prohibited at Anytime Area (Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To consider a request to prohibit parking at anytime on the south side of Kilbarry Road in the vicinity of Premises No. 419 Russell Hill Road in order to improve visibility of approaching traffic.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

3. That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Kilbarry Road from Russell Hill Road to a point 55 metres east; 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 may be required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor John Adams, on behalf of the owner of Premises No. 419 Russell Hill Road, Works staff investigated concerns regarding problems being experienced by motorists exiting the driveways of this property. Premises No. 419 Russell Hill Road is situated on the southeast corner of Russell Hill Road and Kilbarry Road and the driveways which service this property are on Kilbarry Road.

Kilbarry Road is a two-way collector street and has a pavement width which varies between 7.3 and 8.5 metres. Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours on both sides of Kilbarry Road from Russell Hill Road to Warren Road.

Concerns have been expressed respecting the visibility of approaching traffic and sufficient road space for manoeuvring when vehicles exit the driveways onto Kilbarry Road, caused, in part, by vehicles being parked on both sides of the street, traffic volume and the pavement width.

A review of Departmental files has revealed that there is no record of any accidents at this location, however, the potential for sideswipe collisions is present.

Accordingly, in order to provide increased visibility of oncoming traffic and to facilitate access to/from the driveways, parking should be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Kilbarry Road as described in Recommendation No. 1, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Request to Restrict Traffic Speeds - Lakeview Avenue,

Harrison Street, from Ossington Avenue to

Dovercourt Road (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May22,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to encourage a reduction in vehicle operating speeds on these streets and to bring the speed limit into line with other local/residential streets in the area.

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:

(a) Harrison Street from Ossington Avenue to Dovercourt Road;

(b) Lakeview Avenue from Dundas Street West to Churchill 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 Trinity-Niagara Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva, Works staff have investigated lowering the speed limit on Harrison Street, west of Ossington Avenue and on Lakeview Avenue in its entirety to enhance operational safety on these streets. Harrison Street operates one-way westbound from Ossington Avenue to Lakeview Avenue and two way from Lakeview Avenue to Dovercourt Road with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Lakeview Avenue operates two way from Dundas Street West to Churchill Avenue with a pavement width of 6.4 metres. The current maximum speed limit on both streets is fifty kilometres per hour.

Both Harrison Street and Lakeview Avenue are primarily residential in character. To provide a safeguard for pedestrians and to bring these streets into line with other local streets in the neighbourhood, the maximum speed limit should be reduced from fifty kilometres per hour to forty kilometres per hour.

This reduction is consistent with the policy adopted by a previous City of Toronto Council at its meeting of February 25 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, in Executive Committee Report No. 5).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton

Transportation Operations Coordinator

392-1806

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following joint communication (May 13, 1998) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Lakeview Avenue and Harrison Street are predominantly residential streets where traffic speeds are of justifiable concern to local residents. Given that the speed limit on adjacent Churchill Avenue and on Harrison Street, east of Ossington Avenue, is already 40 kilometers an hour, the current limit of 50 kilometers an hour on Lakeview Avenue and Harrison Street, west of Ossington Avenue, is excessive.

Recommendations:

(1)City of Toronto by-laws be amended to restrict traffic speeds to a maximum of 40 kilometers an hour on Lakeview Avenue, in its entirety, and on Harrison Street, from Ossington Avenue to Dovercourt Road;

(2)Proper signage be installed as soon as possible; and

(3)City officials give effect thereto.

Request for Additional On-Street Parking -

Grace Street and Manning Avenue

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the "No Parking" zone on Grace Street, south of Harbord Street be reduced to 15metres so as to permit parking;

(2)the "No Parking" zone on Manning Avenue, north of Harbord Street, be reduced to 15metres so as to permit parking; and

(3)City Officials take appropriate action to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint communication (May 14, 1998) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Recommendations:

(1)That the "No Parking" zone on Grace Street, south of Harbord Street be reduced to 15 meters so as to permit parking;

(2)That the "No Parking" zone on Manning Avenue, north of Harbord Street, be reduced to 15 meters, so as to permit parking; and

(3)That City officers give effect thereto.

Discussion:

The City of Toronto in 1997 introduced bicycle lanes on Harbord Street, east of Grace Street. This improvement to the transportation needs of our citizens led to the loss of on-street parking spaces (parking spaces that were used by local merchants and residents).

Due to the 40-km/h speed limit, low traffic volumes and single lane discharge on Grace Street, south of Harbord Street, a reduction in the length of the "No Parking" zone could occur without compromising safety or intersection capacity. It will, however, provide 3 additional, and much-needed, on-street parking spaces on Grace Street.

Manning Avenue is also one-way southbound and would also accommodate 2 additional parking spaces by reducing the "No parking" zone north of the intersection.

In conclusion, these changes will not affect the safety and/or capacity of the intersection while providing 5 much needed parking spaces.

We hope that the Community Council will support these recommendations.

Hertle Avenue from Dundas Street East to Highfield Road

Implementation of a 40 Kilometre per Hour

Maximum Speed Limit (East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May20,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to reduce the incidence of speeding on this street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the maximum speed limit on Hertle Avenue from Dundas Street East to Highfield Road be reduced from a maximum of 50 kilometres per hour to a maximum of 40 kilometres per hour; 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 residents of Hertle Avenue and in consultation with East Toronto Councillors Jakobek and Bussin, Works staff have investigated reducing the speed limit from a maximum of 50 kilometres per hour to a maximum of 40 kilometres per hour on Hertle Avenue from Dundas Street East to Highfield Road.

Hertle Avenue operates two way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres with a 50 kilometres per hour maximum speed limit.

Our investigation has determined that the daily traffic volume on Hertle Avenue is less than 400 vehicles. A recent 24-hour speed survey on this street recorded 334 vehicles traveling on the street of which 4.0% were recorded traveling at a rate of speed above the permissible 50 kilometre per hour maximum speed limit.

Although the traffic volume and incidence of speeding are low compared to most residential streets in the City, Hertle Avenue satisfies the criteria for introduction of a 40 kilometre per hour maximum speed limit. Implementing same would bring this street in line with the majority of surrounding streets in the neighborhood and could reduce the incidence of "top end" speeding over 50 kilometres per hour.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator

392-7771

Parking Prohibition on Huron Street

Between Harbord Street and Classic Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)parking be prohibited on the east side of Huron Street, from Harbord Street to Classic Avenue, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, from June 29, 1998 to August 7, 1998;

(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 communication (May 26, 1998) from Ms. Liz Hoffman, Assistant Dean, Programs, Faculty of Physical Education and Health, University of Toronto:

I am writing to request your assistance on behalf of the children's camp (CAMP U of T), of the Faculty of Physical Education and Health at the University of Toronto.

Acting on advice from Mr. Paul Bain and Mr. Steve Benjamin, we are seeking your assistance by way of a motion at the Toronto Community Council meeting tomorrow to mandate a parking prohibition on the east side of Huron Street, for the one block south from Harbord Street to Classic Avenue, between 3:30 pm and 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday, June 29 through August 7, 1998. There are approximately 8-9 parking spaces in this area along the east side of Huron Street, and there is currently a parking prohibition in this block from 7:30 am to 9:30 am, Monday to Friday.

The purpose of this request is to accommodate the parents in our community who will be picking up their children from the CAMP U of T program. Due to the recent commencement of construction in the former parking lot at the north-east corner of Harbord and Spadina, this parking area is no longer available for use by the parents. There are over 2,000 girls and boys participating from the community in our Camp program, with approximately 500 per day. We believe it is vital to maintain the safest and most orderly two-way traffic flow along Huron Street and feel this request would significantly enhance the traffic flow.

Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require any additional information.

Partial Closing of Portion of Gerrard Street West

(Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that permission be granted to temporarily close the eastbound lanes of Gerrard Street West from Bay to Yonge Streets from 6:00 a.m. to 5:00p.m. on Thursday, June 18, 1998 for the purposes of holding a series of stationary bike-a-thons as set out in the following communication (May 20, 1998) from the Regional Vice-President, Operations, Ontario, and Managing Director, Delta Chelsea Inn, addressed to Councillors Chow and Rae:

For almost 100 years, the Canadian Olympic Association (COA), has helped the Olympic spirit burn for all Canadians by encouraging the co-ordination, organization and development of sport through competition.

In June of this year, the Delta Chelsea Inn, along with our other hotels across Canada, will be participating with the Canadian Olympic Association to host a series of stationary bike-a-thons. These initiatives will raise money for our athletes through the tremendous community spirit of public and private organizations.

The date scheduled for our ride is June 18th and the request through the City Works Services to have a portion of Gerrard Street partially closed in front of our hotel has been denied. This type of event has transpired for the past nine years through the efforts of the Juvenile Diabetes Association and we were therefore not prepared for the amount of lead time required by the City of Toronto. We are asking, therefore, for your intervention to see if this is at all possible given our large involvement within the City and that of a supporter of the upcoming Olympic Bid.

I would appreciate you letting me know if there is anything you can do to ensure the success of this event, not for the hotel, but for our athletes. I can be reached at 585-4303. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

McCormack Street - Request for All-Way "Stop" Sign at

Maybank Avenue; and a "No Heavy Trucks" Prohibition

7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (May 11, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

Enclosed please find a copy of a report received by our office from Andrew Koropeski, Director of Infrastructure Planning and Transportation with respect to the above-noted.

I would like to request that this be considered at the next Toronto Community Council meeting.

_______

Communication dated April 22, 1998, from the

Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services,

addressed to Councillor Disero

I refer to your letters of October 7, 1997, and February 19, 1998, on behalf of Ms. Louise Wasniewski of Premises No. 407 Maybank Avenue and a telephone conversation on January 12, 1998, between Ms. Wasniewski and Mr. Brian Holditch of City Works Services, regarding the above. I apologize for any inconvenience caused by the delay in my response.

McCormack Street, from Weston Road to the former boundary between the City of Toronto and the City of York, operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Maybank Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and terminates at McCormack Street to form a "T" type intersection with right-of-way designated by a "Stop" sign for southbound traffic on Maybank Avenue. A private roadway accesses this intersection from the south.

1. Request for an all-way "Stop" sign control at McCormack Street and Maybank Avenue.

An 8-hour peak volume count conducted by City Works Services staff at the subject intersection, revealed that of the 1,143 vehicles entering the intersection from McCormack Street, 1,073 (94%) proceeded straight through the intersection. A total of 68 vehicles were recorded entering the intersection from Maybank Avenue, 32 of which made a left turn onto McCormack Street. A count of pedestrians crossing McCormack Street at Maybank Avenue recorded a total of 35, none of which were children.

A check of Toronto Police Service accident records from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996 (the most recent data available) revealed no reported accidents at the subject intersection.

City Works Services staff have evaluated this intersection against the technical criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs, which encompass 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 have determined that this intersection does not meet the criteria for the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control, in view of the low volume of traffic on Maybank Avenue and the low volume of pedestrians crossing McCormack Street.

2. Request for a "No Heavy Trucks" prohibition on McCormack Street, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.,daily.

McCormack Street is not prohibited to heavy trucks and Weston Road, at the east end terminus of McCormack Street, is the only access to McCormack Street that does not prohibit access to heavy trucks. The remaining streets intersecting with McCormack Street are residential streets and are prohibited to heavy trucks at all times.

Several commercial businesses, including autobody shops, are located on the south side of McCormack Street between Maybank Avenue and its west end terminus within the former City of York. Consequently, trucks attending these commercial premises must use McCormack Street from Weston Road and, under the provisions of the Municipal Code, would be exempt from any heavy truck prohibition, even if a temporal prohibition were to be implemented, as McCormack Street is the only route available to these trucks.

Accordingly, the introduction of a heavy truck prohibition from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, on McCormack Street is not recommended.

Refusal Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law

Amendments and Site Plan Approval -

14 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)Application 197033 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and Site Plan Approval for 14 Prince Arthur Avenue, as revised by plans dated stamped as received May 4, 1998, be refused; and

(2)subject to the adoption of Recommendation No. (1) above, City Council request the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and staff of Heritage Toronto to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend City Council's refusal of Application 197033, and to oppose the applicant's related appeal of the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend refusal of a proposal to add two office floors to an existing commercial-office building at 14 Prince Arthur Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That Application 197033 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and Site Plan Approval for 14 Prince Arthur Avenue, as revised by plans dated stamped as received May4,1998, be refused.

(2)That, subject to the adoption of Recommendation 1 above, City Council request the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and staff of Heritage Toronto to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend City Council's refusal of Application 197033, and to oppose the applicant's related appeal of the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances.

Background:

(1)Site and Surrounding Area:

No. 14 Prince Arthur Avenue is located in the East Annex on the north side of Prince Arthur Avenue, between Bedford Road and Avenue Road. The lot is 1291.5 m2 in size, with a street frontage of 18.6 metres and a depth of 70.4 metres. The property contains a 2.2 times density, 3.5-storey (11 metre) commercial-office building, which was originally constructed in 1956 as an apartment building. The existing building contains 1854.6 m2 of office uses, and a 996.3 m2 restaurant located partially below-grade and in the basement area. The building has 15 below-grade parking spaces.

The low-scale residences of the East Annex are located to the north of the site. Nos. 8 and 10 Prince Arthur Avenue, which are two historic house-form buildings, are situated immediately east of the subject property. No. 20 Prince Arthur Avenue, a 22-storey, 193-unit apartment building is located to the immediate west. Low-scale and historic house-form buildings, which are primarily in commercial use, are located to the south across the street and further west.

(2)Proposal:

The owner proposes to add two floors for office uses on top of the existing building, each floor having a gross floor area of 506 m2. 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 (see Maps 5 and 6). The addition results in a building which would be 3.0 times density, and would have a height of 17.8 metres, excluding a 1.8 metre tall mechanical equipment room on the roof.

The application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for the two-storey addition was received December 31, 1997. With the revised plans, received May 4, 1998, the applicant proposes to:

-relocate the windows in the proposed addition to align with the windows in the existing building;

-stucco the exterior of the building;

-relocate mechanical equipment, currently located at-grade at the rear of the property, to a mechanical equipment room on the roof; and

-improve the landscaping at the rear of the site.

(3)History:

Last summer, the owner applied to the Committee of Adjustment to permit a similar, but slightly larger, two-storey addition to the existing building. The Committee of Adjustment refused the application. I concur with the Committee's refusal. The applicant's solicitor appealed the Committee of Adjustment's refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board. An OMB hearing was scheduled to commence on April 14, 1998.

On December 31, 1997, the applicant filed the subject application for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The Department completed a Preliminary Report, dated January 30, 1998, which outlined the preliminary planning issues. A Supplementary Report, dated February 16, 1998, recommended that, in the event that the applicant appealed the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and requested that such appeals be consolidated with their hearing on the earlier refusal of the minor variances, then the City Solicitor request the Ontario Municipal Board to adjourn the hearing. If the Board did not agree to adjourn the hearing, then the City would appear in opposition, on the grounds that the planning issues set out in the Preliminary Report had not been resolved. Both reports were submitted to the February 18, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, and the recommendations were adopted.

A public meeting was held in the community to discuss the application on March 13, 1998. Approximately 20 people attended the meeting, including several residents of Lowther Avenue. The area residents in attendance did not support the proposal for several reasons, including the following:

.the building and addition will greatly exceed the density and height limits;

.loss of sky views from out of the back of existing houses on Lowther Avenue;

.increased shadow impacts; and

.worsened intrusion on adjacent properties.

On April 8, 1998, the applicant's solicitor appealed their application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and requested that the Board consider the appeals with the refusal of the minor variances. At the Board, on April 14th, the appellant advised that the plans which would be the subject of the hearing would include modifications to the then current plans on file with the City, dated December 27, 1997. The City's solicitor requested an adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that all appeal matters, including an appeal pursuant to Section 44 of the Ontario Heritage Act, should be consolidated and heard together at a date in the future to allow for the completion of the planning review process and to enable City Council to take a position. The OMB agreed, and adjourned the consolidated hearing to July 6, 1998.

Revised plans, together with the owner's application for alterations pursuant to Section 43 of the Ontario Heritage Act, were received May 4, 1998.

Comments:

(4)Planning Controls:

Applicable Official Plan policies:

No. 14 Prince Arthur Avenue 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 two times the area of the lot.

Applicable Zoning:

The City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) zones the site CR T2.0 C2.0 R1.0. This zoning permits a non-residential building with a maximum density of two times coverage. The governing Height Limit is 12 metres.

East Annex Heritage Conservation District:

The site is located within the East Annex Heritage Conservation District. The District was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1995, as required by the Ontario Heritage Act. The East Annex Heritage Conservation District is one of three such districts in the former City of Toronto, the others being Wychwood Park and Fort York. Pursuant to Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act, no person shall alter a building located in a Heritage Conservation District, unless the City issues a permit to allow such alteration. If the City refuses to issue a permit, an applicant may appeal the decision to the Ontario Municipal Board.

All buildings within the East Annex Heritage Conservation District have been added to the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties, and are subject to General Guidelines to ensure that any physical changes in the area contribute to and strengthen the character of the East Annex.

(5)Planning Considerations:

(5.1)Policy context:

The Special Commerce Area designation and the applicable zoning limit the density to two times coverage and the height to 12 metres. The existing building, at 2.2 times coverage, already exceeds the maximum density for the site. At 11 metres in height, the existing building is only one metre below the current height limit. The proposed addition will increase the density on this site by 40 percent and the height by 6.8 metres. These increases are significant, and not within the intent of the governing planning provisions.

In accordance with the Official Plan, Areas of Special Identity are intended to conserve and strengthen areas and streets with unique and significant built form or landscape qualities, and have regard for, among other things, consistent size, scale, massing, spacing and setbacks, and the presence of buildings of historic significance. All properties within the Prince Arthur Area of Special Identity, which includes all buildings facing Prince Arthur Avenue, between Bedford and Avenue Roads, exclusive of the apartment building at 20 Prince Arthur Avenue, are similar in scale and height. Most buildings in the Area are either 11 metres or 12 metres in height, and the street is characterized by generally consistent setbacks. The two-storey addition proposed for 14 Prince Arthur Avenue would not conserve or strengthen the qualities of the street.

While the data sheet in the Preliminary Report noted that the property is located within the East Annex Heritage Conservation District, the report did not discuss the relevance of the matter. I have since consulted with staff of Heritage Toronto and the City Solicitor respecting this issue. Also, with the revised plans, submitted May 4, 1998, the applicant has now formally applied to alter a building in a Heritage Conservation District, pursuant to the requirements of the Ontario Heritage Act.

The Guidelines for Additions and Alterations in the Final Report of the East Annex Heritage Conservation District states, among other things, that alterations or additions to the street facade should not be made, except where such alterations are intended to restore the original appearance of the building. Neighbouring buildings and the existing building on site should be used as guides, for employing similar scale, proportion and detail, including clay brick as the predominant exterior material. Further, additions should be made to the rear of properties and not exceed the existing ridge (or parapet) of the roof. The height of the proposal would exceed the heights of neighbouring properties within the Heritage Conservation District.

Heritage Toronto advises me that the proposal does not meet the Guidelines for the East Annex Heritage Conservation District.

(5.2)Physical context:

As mentioned earlier, the revised plans, dated May 4, 1998, realign the windows in the proposed addition, relocate mechanical equipment to the roof, and provide for new landscaping. These changes improve the proposal. However, the size and siting of the two-storey addition remains unchanged.

I have examined the Shadow Study which the architect forwarded to me. The rear setback of the proposal reduces potential shadow impacts. Notwithstanding, the two-storey addition will create shadows on adjacent properties.

The prevailing height context is three storeys. No. 20 Prince Arthur Avenue, a 22-storey apartment building located immediately west of the site, is an anomaly within the Area of Special Identity, in terms of its massing. Except for a rear setback, the proposed addition is not set back on either its east or west elevations, and most importantly, it is not set back from the front elevation. The 5.5 storey scale of the proposal will be inconsistent with the prevailing built form context.

Also, Heritage Toronto advises me that the applicant's proposal to cover the yellow brick exterior of the existing building with stucco is not in keeping with the prevailing masonry features of the area.

Conclusions:

I am recommending that City Council refuse Application 197033, for reasons which include that the height of the addition will contravene the objectives of the East Annex Heritage Conservation District, and that civic staff appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend Council's refusal.

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

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197033
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	December 31, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	May 4, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:14 Prince Arthur Avenue

Nearest Intersection:	North side of Prince Arthur Ave., west of Avenue Road.

Project Description:	Build a 2-storey addition (1012 m2) over an existing 3.5-storey commercial-office building.

Applicant:

Halimar Investments Ltd.

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

966-6629

Agent:

Adam J. Brown

900 - 5075 Yonge Street

222-0344

Architect:

Gary Stein

109 - 14 Prince Arthur Avenue

961-6646

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	Special Commerce Area	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	CR T2.0 C2.0 R1.0	Historical Status:	See comments
Height Limit (m):	12.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	1291.5 m²	Height:	Storeys:	5.5
Frontage:	18.6 m		Metres:	17.80, plus a 1.8 m mech. equipment room
Depth:	70.4 m
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:	618.2 m²	Parking Spaces:	15
Residential GFA:		Loading Docks:		1
Non-Residential GFA:	3862.9 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:	3862.9 m²

FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN
Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Existing office	1854.6 m²
Office addition	1012.0 m²
Existing restaurant		996.3 m²

PROPOSED DENSITY
Residential Density:	Non-Residential Density: 0.78	Total Density: 0.78

COMMENTS

Historical status: Within East Annex Heritage Conservation District. The proposed addition would increase the density on the property from 2.2 X to 3.0 X.

Status:

OMB hearing scheduled for July 6, 1998.

Data valid:

May 11, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

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

Insert Table/Map No. 4

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 5

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 6

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 7

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 8

14 Prince Arthur Avenue

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

-Ms. Sandra Marki, Brown Dryer Karol, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Eric Jackson, Elgin Lowther Association, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Jane Beecroft, President - Community History Project, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Roger Jackson, Toronto, Ontario.

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:

-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. Adam J. Brown, Brown Dryer Karol; and

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Eric Jackson, Chairman, Elgin Lowther Association.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 21, 1998) addressed to Councillor John Adams, Midtown, from Dr. Brent Willock, Ph.D., C.Psych., Toronto, Ontario.)

Urban Design Task Force Railway Lands

Central and West (Downtown)

(City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May11,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received the report (April 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Railway Lands Central and West - Environmental Task Force, and recommending that the report be received for information.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to summarize the discussions and recommendations of the Railway Lands Central and West Urban Design Task Force.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding requirements for the 1998 budget, however, funding should be allocated in the 1999 Capital Budget for Works and Emergency Services as per recommendation 6 below.

Recommendations:

(1)That Council adopt the recommendations from the Urban Design Task Force and work group set out in Appendix "A" to form part of the Urban Design Guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West.

(2)That a statement be added to the Precinct Agreements for the Concord Adex lands indicating that all development proposals shall have regard for the Urban Design Guidelines.

(3)That staff prepare revised Urban Design Guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West for adoption by Council in the fall of 1998.

(4)That an Urban Design and Environment Advisory Group be established for the Railway Lands Central and West to provide ongoing review and advice regarding development and that Urban Planning and Development Services staff report to Council in the fall of 1998 on terms of reference and membership for the Advisory Group.

(5)That the City's Storm Water Group and the Wet Weather Master Plan Steering Committee be requested to comment on opportunities and techniques for on-site storm water management within the Railway Lands.

(6)That preliminary design drawings be prepared for the Portland Street vehicular bridge and the pedestrian bridge between Portland Street and Spadina Avenue including cost estimates, and that funds be allocated in the 1999 Works and Emergency Services Capital Budget to hire consultants to assist in the preparation of the drawings.

(7)That Council direct staff to undertake the work outlined in the conclusion of this report as background for the Urban Design Guidelines and to advance the implementation of plans for the Railway Lands Central and West.

Background:

On March 19, 1998, the Toronto Community Council adopted the Terms of Reference and membership for an Urban Design Task Force for the Railway Lands Central and West.

The purpose of the Task Force was to provide an opportunity for area landowners and community and business groups to review the urban design work done to date in the Railway Lands Central and West and to give advice to staff on public open space, i.e. streets and parkland, issues in the Railway Lands Central and West.

The Terms of Reference requested members to give advice on:

(a)identifying issues related to public spaces which are to be addressed in the urban design guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West;

(b)creating an Open Space Master Plan for the Railway Lands Central and West;

(c)developing criteria for and design details of the public space system, streetscape and civic design;

(d)developing design objectives for the pedestrian and vehicular bridges at Portland Street and between Portland Streets and Spadina Avenue; and

(e)locating and phasing public art.

The Task Force was chaired by Councillor Olivia Chow (Ward 24), and membership included two City Councillors, area landowners and leaseholders, community and resident groups and four Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appellants. A complete list of members and attendees is included as Appendix B.

The Task Force reviewed the urban design framework presented by the urban design work group, consisting of four architects and a landscape architect. This work group was set up by Urban Planning and Development Services staff in November 1997 and its members were asked to review the changes to the Official Plans and Zoning By-laws for the Concord Adex lands, and to make suggestions for the development of urban design guidelines. The participants were: George Baird, Ken Greenberg, Michael Kirkland, Bruce Kuwabara, and David Anselmi. The recommendations of the work group were originally attached as an appendix to the March 19, 1998 report to the April 1, 1998 Toronto Community Council which established the terms of reference and membership of the Urban Design Task Force. The revised recommendations of the work group now form part of the recommendations of the Urban Design Task Force, and are included in Appendix A of this report.

The Task Force also helped to address concerns raised by four of the parties which made OMB appeals to the Concord Adex amendments to the Railway Lands Plans. The OMB directed City staff to review the urban design issues raised by these appellants as part of the work of the Task Force.

Three of the four OMB appellants who were members of the Urban Design Task Force have withdrawn their appeals based on the work of the Task Force and additional discussions with City staff and Concord Adex representatives. The Urban Design Task Force addressed a number of the issues raised by the fourth appellant whose outstanding issues were dismissed by the OMB at its May 8, 1998 hearing.

In addition to the recommendations of the Urban Design Task Force, City staff agreed to minor official plan and zoning by-law amendments to settle issues raised by three appellants including one who was a member of the Task Force. The official plan and zoning by-law amendments which formed part of OMB settlements have been addressed in the report of the City Solicitor which was at the May 13, 1998 meeting of City Council.

Comments:

The Task Force met four times and covered the range of topics set out in the Terms of Reference. The following is a brief summary of the meetings, which led to the summary of issues to be included in the Urban Design Guidelines listed in Appendix A.

Meeting one, held April 7, 1998 was a background and briefing session. The background and scope of the Task Force were reviewed, and each member introduced themselves and stated their interests related to urban design and the public realm in the Railway Lands Central and West. A number of common interests emerged, including streetscape design, a connected open space system, recognition of Garrison Creek and the Fort York open spaces system, public art, public safety, composition of the skyline, pedestrian bridges across the rail corridor, and protection of GO idling yards and compatibility of uses. Some discussion was held regarding the character and function of the northern linear park, the open space and park program, Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) service along Bremner Boulevard, and future library service for the area. It was agreed that the exact location of the pedestrian bridge between Portland Street and Spadina Avenue should be left flexible, and be the subject of further community input.

There was discussion and a recommendation regarding the design and timing of the construction of the Portland Street bridge. The discussion focused on the need for a vehicular bridge to be built across the rail corridor as early as possible. I am therefore recommending that the preliminary design drawings and cost estimates be prepared for the Portland Street bridge to advance planning for this structure.

Meeting two was held on April 22, 1998 and began with a presentation by the urban design work group, who gave an overview of both open space and built form issues in the Railway Lands Central and West. This was followed by a number of presentations including a draft of the Open Space Master Plan and the community park programming requirements, including the School Boards' requirements. Of major concern were the character, design and safety of the northern linear park, and a recommendation was made that this park be conceived as a public corridor and a visual extension of the public street system.. A representative from TTC made a brief presentation about existing and future service in the area, and a recommendation was made to eliminate the LRT right-of-way in favour of bus service along Bremner Boulevard. Presentations on bicycle planning and streetscape design also led to recommendations for both detailed and comprehensive design guidelines, including a draft bicycle master plan.

Urban Planning and Development Services staff were requested to consult with Parks and Recreation staff and incorporate the Garrison Creek Interpretive Area into the Open Space Master Plan for the Railway Lands Central and West.

There was also discussion and a recommendation encouraging on-site storm water management.

Additional work by City staff was requested to analyse traffic capacity for a three lane cross section on Bremner Boulevard, particularly intersection capacity.

Meeting three was held on April 27, 1998 and began with a review of the Draft Outline for the Urban Design Guidelines. This outline provided a framework into which the recommendations have been inserted as a starting point for the final Urban Design Guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West. This was followed by presentations and discussions on the design of the bridges, pedestrian crossings at major intersections, and particularly the Bathurst Street frontages. Recommendations were made regarding further detailed design for the intersections, pedestrian safety, and the design process for the pedestrian bridge between Portland Avenue and Spadina Avenue. Finally, there was an overview of the City's public art program and a brief summary of the next steps in the planning process.

Staff was asked to prepare preliminary design drawings for the following intersections, with the objective of providing full pedestrian movement:

(a)Lake Shore Boulevard and Portland Street;

(b)Lake Shore Boulevard and Spadina Avenue;

(c)Lake Shore Boulevard and Rees Street;

(d)Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard; and

(e)Bathurst Street and Bremner Boulevard.

The final meeting was held on May 4, 1998 and was a review and summation of the recommendations made. The documents reviewed included: the recommendation for an ongoing Urban Design and Environmental Advisory Group, a revised summary of recommendations of the urban design work group, a summary of issues of the Task Force to be included in the Urban Design Guidelines, and a summary of further actions to be recommended to Council.

The discussion of the ongoing Advisory Group included reference to the Gardiner Lake Shore Task Force, and it was recommended that a representative from the Gardiner Lake Shore Task Force also attend the Railway Lands Central and West Urban Design Advisory Group. Staff will report to Council on the terms of reference for the Advisory Group in the fall of 1998.

Conclusions:

The recommendations of the Task Force fall into two categories: Appendix A of this report represents a summary of the issues for the urban design guidelines, and is organized into the draft outline of the guideline. The second category of recommendations requires further work by staff, and can be summarized as follows:

(a)analysing capacity requirements for Bremner Boulevard between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street related to a three-lane cross section, with particular regard to intersections;

(b)amending the Stadium Precinct Agreement to eliminate the requirement that a median be included as part of the initial construction of Bremner Boulevard;

(c)reviewing the design of the intersections of Bathurst Street, Portland Street, Spadina Avenue and Rees Street with Lake Shore Boulevard W., and intersections at Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard and Bathurst Street and Bremner/Fort York Boulevard, to achieve full pedestrian movements;

(d)reviewing other opportunities to cross the Lake Shore/Gardiner Corridor, including pedestrian bridges over Lake Shore Boulevard and below the Expressway;

(e)discussing minimum clearances required for bridges over the rail corridor with the rail corridor operators and owners;

(f)identifying possible locations for a library to serve the Railway Lands, Harbourfront, Bathurst/Strachan and the Niagara Neighbourhood and opportunities for the early funding and construction of a library;

(g)reviewing the possibility of a pedestrian or vehicular route along the Brant Street alignment from King Street to Front Street in the context of the King-Spadina PartII Plan; and

(h)discussing opportunities for additional tree planting along the waterfront West LRT on Queen's Quay W. with TTC staff .

The final Urban Design Guidelines will be prepared by staff and forwarded to Council in the fall of 1998 for adoption.

Contact Name:

Lorna Day

Telephone (416) 392-7733

Fax (416) 392-1330

E-mail: lday@city.toronto.on.ca

_______

Appendix A

Railway Lands Central and West Urban Design Task Force

and urban design work group

Summary of Issues to be addressed in the

Urban Design Guidelines

Section 1 Objectives for Development: The Public Realm

Connections to the City

Define the character of Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard and emphasize the role they play as "two powerful streets which traverse the plan north-south and east-west", and ensure these streets have all the characteristics of great urban boulevards such as well-defined edges, public character, lively uses and attractive sidewalks.

Define the new neighbourhood as a place through a unified design approach for all new development, and particularly emphasize the need for Bremner Boulevard and Spadina Avenue to act as unifying elements.

Emphasize the potential for "gateways" on Spadina Avenue at Front Street and Lakeshore Boulevard, and prescribe streetwalls and towers at these locations. Additional measures should be set out at the site plan approval stage when the first Development Context Plan is prepared.

Open Space Master Plan

Incorporate an Open Space Master Plan for the Railway Lands west of SkyDome, including a full network of streets and parks, linkages into publicly-accessible open space and public streets, into the Urban Design Guidelines for the Concord Adex lands and the remainder of the Railway Lands West.

Include a plan for an interconnected system of bicycle and pedestrian routes within the Railway Lands and surrounding area, which should be developed in the context of the Open Space Master Plan.

The Structure Plan

Include a structure plan to form part of the Urban Design Guidelines showing the context of Harbourfront, Bathurst/Strachan and King Spadina.

Examine the potential for a view terminus at Bremner Boulevard and Spadina Avenue.

Infrastructure

Build the major infrastructure of public spaces such as streets and parks and bridges in the early stages of the development and in particular, the Urban Design Guidelines should express strong support for the early construction of the Portland Street Bridge and the pedestrian bridge between Portland Street and Spadina Avenue.

Section 2 Pedestrian Amenities and the Design of the Public Realm

Design of the Central Neighbourhood Park

Accommodate the needs of the local residents and the programming requirements of the proposed community centre, elementary schools, and preschool daycare in the design of the Neighbourhood park.

Review the following program and design considerations:

- active and passive uses e.g. playing fields, strolling, sitting

- community centre programming e.g. outdoor classes, community events

- school requirements e.g. hard and soft play areas

- preschool daycare requirement for secure outdoor play space

- hard and soft areas, this is related to the use and the balance between the two

- adults' and childrens' programs

- local circulation patterns and views

- planting and greening

- historic references e.g. shoreline

- grade changes

- storm water retention

Design of the Northern Linear Park and Blue Jays Way Extension

Define the northern linear park as a public corridor in its entirety, including design of facing uses, a fire access route, pedestrian and bicycle access, a continuous narrow street, if feasible, to enhance safety and public character.

Ensure that the detailed design of Blocks 29 and 32 include an extension of the public corridor along the Northen Linear Park.

Ensure that there is no street along the northern limit of Block 36.

Provide bicycle and pedestrian routes in the parks, particularly in the northern and southern linear parks.

Ensure that the grading of the northern linear park permits connections under the Bathurst Street Bridge, the Portland Street Bridge abutment, the Spadina Avenue Bridge, and connections to Garrison Creek.

Design of Streetscapes

Design Bremner Boulevard to accommodate a surface bus route rather than a dedicated LRT right-of-way in order to minimize the pavement width within the right-of-way.

Refine the draft streetscape sections, and include the final versions as part of the Urban Design Guidelines.

Review the portion of Bremner Boulevard between Portland Avenue and Bathurst Street to ensure adequate streetscape treatment on both the north and south sides of Bremner Boulevard.

Establish a wide landscaped boulevard on the north side of Bremner Boulevard to accommodate a double row of trees, cafes, benches, bicycle parking, etc., exclusive of any weather protection.

Consider the use of evergreen understorey material in the street boulevards.

Planting

Consider the use of evergreen plant materials in public areas such as the Neighbourhood Park and the linear parks, and in private open spaces and courtyards.

Utilities

Identify opportunities and techniques for on-site storm water management within the Railway Lands, including the use of infiltration beds on individual development sites.

Include the proposed re-creation of the historic Lake Ontario shoreline at Fort York as an opportunity for storm water management.

Co-ordinate underground servicing in order to optimize tree planting opportunities.

Design of Spadina Avenue Bridge

Recognize the long-term potential for retail on the Spadina Avenue bridge.

Design of Permanent Pedestrian Bridge

Do not determine the location of the pedestrian bridge between Spadina Avenue and Portland Street at this time. Location criteria should be established as part of the Development Context Plan for the area and consideration should be given to a technical review of the alternate locations.

Consider safety, wind conditions, clearances over the rail corridor, accessibility for cyclists and strollers, adequate width for two-way, side by side bicycle and pedestrian use, lighting (including low level lighting of the bridge deck), public art and seating in the design of the permanent pedestrian bridge between Portland Street and Spadina Avenue.

Encourage a design competition for the permanent pedestrian bridge and include an artist on the design team.

Weather Protection

Encourage a continuous colonnade or canopies along Spadina Avenue, including spaces between buildings and across the bridge. Weather protection on Bremner Boulevard should also be encouraged and could vary depending on the type of building facing the street. Minimum dimensions of arcades should be established.

Environmental Issues and Microclimate Remediation

Include references to the following environmental issues:

-microclimate including wind and sun/shade

-landscape and planting including species diversity, use of native plants, planting for energy conservation and the potential of planting to improve air quality

-storm water management including use of permeable surfaces and various techniques

-auto minimization through the design of street sections, priority for bicycles, pedestrians and transit routes

-energy efficiency and conservation including the use of renewable energy sources

-district heating and cooling

-water conservation including treatment of on-site water

-air quality including indoor air quality

-waste management and sewage treatment

Public Art

Prepare the Public Art Master Plan for the Railway Lands Central and West as early as possible.

Safety

Incorporate appropriate site specific safety standards with reference to the City's Safer City Guidelines.

Accessibility and Bicycle Planning

Include a plan for bicycle and pedestrian routes in the entire area of the Railway Lands West and Central as part of the Open Space Master Plan.

Phasing and Long Term Planning

Consider the recommendations of the Gardiner Lake Shore Task Force in the design of the southern edge of the Railway Lands Central and West.

Pedestrian Crossings at Major Intersections

Review preliminary designs for the intersections at: Lake Shore Boulevard West and Bathurst Street, Portland Street, Spadina Avenue and Rees Street; Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard; and Bathurst Street at Bremner/Fort York Boulevard and incorporate full pedestrian movements and signals. Consider the design of these intersections both with and without the Gardiner Expressway.

Consider pedestrian safety and TTC access in the design of the Bathurst Street and Bremner Boulevard intersection.

Section 3 Building Block Guidelines

Streetwall and the Definition of the Public Realm

Establish strong and continuous streetwalls, particularly on Bremner Boulevard and Spadina Avenue. Building setbacks along the north side of Bremner Boulevard should follow the curve of the street, and encourage a generally continuous streetwall.

Encourage the following minimum heights to ensure appropriate streetwall:

-12 metres on side streets

-20 metres on Bremner Boulevard and Portland Street west of the park

-30 metres on Spadina Avenue and Front Street

Building Base

Establish a datum line for colonnades and arcades along Spadina Avenue, as well as base buildings to provide consistency to the streetwall and continuity with the King-Spadina built form.

Tower Locations, Orientation and Design

Consider the position and shape of the towers as one composition to create urban design coherence and to frame streets, and parks, and define intersections.

Establish detailed design guidelines for the landmark tower on Block 22, to describe base, shaft and cap definitions and potential for a tapering floor plate.

Encourage design competitions for all towers in the neighbourhood, particularly for the landmark tower on Block 22 in the Railway Lands Central.

Grade Related Uses

Ensure the ground floor level of buildings follow grade along Bremner Boulevard, Spadina Avenue and Front Street, and that floor to ceiling heights be at least 3.6 metres in order to encourage retail and public uses. Recognize that residential units at grade may require some separation from the public sidewalk but that the height from grade to the ceiling of a residential unit should be at least 3.6m.

Examples of Building Types: Low, Mid and High Rise

Include descriptions and illustrations of several building typologies, including towers, mid-rise and row housing.

Block by Block Guidelines

Encourage the extension of the public street system through Block 20/23, to be implemented at the time of site plan review.

_______

Appendix B

Urban Design Task Force

Railway Lands Central and West

Task Force Members:

Councillor Olivia Chow, Ward 24 (Chair)

Councillor Joe Pantalone, Ward 20

Councillor Kyle Rae, Ward 24

Henry Man, Concord Adex Developments Corp.

Marc Hewitt, IBI (for Concord Adex Developments Corp.)

Bronwyn Krog, Wittington Properties Limited

Kyle Knoeck, (for Wittington Properties Limited)

Joanne Rusnell, SkyDome

Charles Munroe (for SkyDome)

David Sadowski, Canada Lands Company

Norm Jarus (for Canada Lands Company)

Bud Purves, TrizecHahn

Paul Mailer, Goodman Phillip & Vineberg (for TrizecHahn)

Karen Fraser, CN Rail

Richard Charkawy, Toronto Terminal Railways Company

Rick Ducharme, GO Transit

Dan Francey (for GO Transit)

David Peters, Housing, City of Toronto

Ross Winter, Housing, City of Toronto

Hugh Durning, Royal Bank

Steve Russell (for Royal Bank)

Pat Colenutt, Harbourfront Square Residents Association

Ajai Kumar, Harbourfront Residents Association

Maurice Anderson, Harbour Terrace

Bill Boyle, Harbourfront Centre

Jo-Anne Azzarello, Toronto Entertainment District Association

Carl Skelton, Niagara Neighbourhood Association

Sylvia Pellman, Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association

Marilyn Roy (for Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association)

Bill Brokenshire, Draper Street Residents Association

Joe Gill, Friends of Fort York

Ian Keith, (for Friends of Fort York)

Catherine Nasmith, (for Friends of Fort York)

Donald Schmitt, Garrison Creek Community Project

John Alati, Trees for Toronto (OMB Appellant)

Mark Sterling (for Trees for Toronto, OMB Appellant)

J. Robert Naylor (OMB Appellant)

Patrick Devine, Goodman and Carr (for City Front Development Inc., OMB Appellant)

Barb Gosse, Goodman and Carr (for City Front Development Inc., OMB Appellant)

R. Scott James (owner 20 Niagara Street, OMB Appellant)

Interested Parties:

Gil Nefsky, Toronto District School Board

Angelo Sangiorgio, Toronto Catholic School Board

Ken Rose, VIA Rail

Leo Longo, Aird and Berlis

Ken Greenberg, Urban Strategies (urban design work group)

George Baird, Baird Sampson Architects (urban design work group)

David Anselmi, PMA Landscape Architects Ltd. (urban design work group)

Michael Kirkland, The Kirkland Partnership Inc. (urban design work group)

Bruce Kuwabara, Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg (urban design work group)

Josie Tomei, CP Railway Company - Real Estate

George Kapelos, Toronto Society of Architects

Mary Hay, Metropolitan Waterfront Coalition

Leslie Woo, Waterfront Regeneration Trust

Bill Coukell, Harbourfront Community Centre

Gary Reid, The Toronto Harbour Commissioners

Michel Trocme, Urban Strategies (for urban design work group)

Technical Work Group:

Robert Glover, City Planning

Lorna Day, City Planning

Brian Jackson, City Planning

Lynda Macdonald, City Planning

Eric Pedersen, City Planning

Jane Perdue, City Planning

Rollin Stanley, City Planning

Robert Stephens, City Planning, Safe City

John Mende, Works and Emergency Services

John Niedra, Works and Emergency Services

Barry Hughes, Parks and Recreation

Yvonne Yamoaka, Parks and Recreation

Bonnie Duncan, Property Services

Richard Stromberg, Heritage Toronto

Mary-Ann George, Toronto Transit Commission

Bill Dawson, Toronto Transit Commission

Dan Egan, City Cycling Committee, Urban Planning and Development Services

Carolyn Whitzman, Safe City Committee, Urban Planning and Development Services

Joe Ruscitti, Toronto Catholic School Board

Grant Moore, Toronto District School Board

Technical Work Group - Interested Parties Staff:

Paul J. Bedford, Executive Director and Chief Planner, City Planning Division

Stephen Bradley, Solicitor, Corporate Services

Maggie Easton, City Planning

Ann-Marie Nasr, City Planning

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

Purpose:

At its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1998 Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report on reactivating the Environmental Task Force for the Railway Lands and that staff consult with interested members of Council in preparing the report.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funding requirements arising from the recommendations of this report.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1998, City Council adopted, among others, the following recommendations. That:

"the Railway Lands Environmental Task Force by reactivated;

Urban Planning and Development Services staff provide background information on the Railway Lands Environmental Task Force, as included in the Official Plan for the Railway Lands and Ontario Municipal Board decisions, to the Toronto Community Council for its meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998;

Urban Planning and Development Services staff consult with interested Members of Council in the preparation of the review of the role and function of the Task Force."

Comments:

The policy creating the Railway Lands Environmental Task Force was developed during the Railway Lands Review and included as Section 9.6 of the Railway Lands East and West Part II Official Plans adopted by City Council in 1991. The Railway Lands East Part II Official Plan was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1992.

At it meeting of October 26, 27 and 28 of 1992, City Council approved a June 24, 1992 Planning and Development report dealing with the establishment of a Railway Lands Environmental Advisory Task Force, as provided for in the Railway Lands East and West Part II Plans, and accompanying reports dealing with the proposed membership of the Task Force. The Task Force was not set up at the time because of CN's objections to the Railway Lands West Plan, including the provisions relating to the Environmental Advisory Task Force.

In 1994, the Ontario Municipal Board approved the Part II Plans for the Railway Lands West and Central. As a result of discussions with CN and the Railway Lands Advisory Committee (RLAC), the Official Plan provision relating to the Environmental Task Force was modified. In 1995, the Railway Lands East Part II Plan was amended to reflect the wording set out in the Railway Lands West and Central Part II Plans. This amendment received ministerial approval on November 7, 1995.

The modifications to the Official Plans changed the Task Force's mandate from commenting on the environmental aspects of specific development applications to that of an advisory body to Council on general environmental issues and building techniques, technologies and types.

The revised provision addressing Council's intention of establishing the Task Force is as follows:

"9.6To assist Council in achieving the environmental objectives of this Plan and to advise Council generally on environmentally advanced building techniques, technologies and types, including their financial implications, it is Council's intent to establish and consult an Advisory Task Force to assist Council in promoting environmental objectives.

Council recognizes that many of the acknowledged environmental issues and concerns of the present day should preferably be addressed by other levels of government. Accordingly, Council shall:

(a)encourage the higher levels of government to put suitable policies, legislation, standards, and programs in place which will address and attempt to rectify the issues and concerns to the fullest extent possible; and

(b)seek clarification and further powers from senior levels of government to define and reinforce the ability of the City of Toronto to directly address environmental issues and concerns where this may be appropriate.

Council will seek to lead by example and be the strongest possible proponent of its own environmental policies. Accordingly, Council shall endeavour to implement environmentally appropriate measures with respect to its own activities, buildings, vehicles and related functions."

Staff consultation with interested members of Council about the Environmental Task Force is ongoing. I will report on the reactivation of the Task Force when this consultation is complete.

Contact Name:

Lynda Macdonald

Telephone (416) 392-7618

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-mail: lmacdonl@city.toronto.on.ca

Revised Application - Site Plan Approval and Ravine

Control By-law - 8 South Kingsway (High Park)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the report dated June 2, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled 'Further Report to my May 14, 1998 report regarding Revised Site Plan Application No. 396100 and Application No. 096178 for Ravine approval, to permit a Gas Bar, Car Wash and Retail Store at 8 South Kingsway (High Park)', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'That City Council amend Clause No. 27 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council by:

(i)Replacing Recommendation 1. (a) of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998 with the following:

"1.(a)That the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping on-site substantially in accordance with Preliminary Plot Plan, dated January28, 1998, and Landscape Plan, dated February11, 1998, both red lined by the applicant on June2, 1998, both prepared by Petro-Canada, and date stamped as received on March 20, 1998, all on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;";

(ii)Replacing Recommendation 1. (b) of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998, with the following:

"1.(b)that the owner shall replace the one existing 43 centimetre elm tree to be removed from the site with 16 Freeman maple and 10 White spruce trees, and the shrub planting of 246Dwarf silverleaf dogwood, 41 Anderson spreading yew, and 12Broadleaf snowberry;"; and

(iii)Replacing Recommendation 3. of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998, with the following:

"3.That City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application for 8 South Kingsway, namely the Preliminary Plot Plan, dated January 28, 1998, Site Services Plan, dated March 2, 1998, Grading Plan, dated February 13, 1998, Landscape Plan, dated February 11, 1998, all red lined by the applicant on June 2, 1998, and Car Wash Floor Plan, dated March 18, 1998, Retail Store Floor Plan (undated), Exterior Elevations, dated February 3, 1998, and Roof Plan and Details, dated February 3, 1998 all date stamped as received March 20, 1998, all prepared by Petro-Canada, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;";

(iv)Replacing Recommendation 4. (G) (16) of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998, with the following:

"4.(G) (16)the owner shall ensure an archaeologist is present on site during any excavation to evaluate any potential impacts on the archaeological/cultural resources;"; and

(v)Adding a new condition 4.(I) (24) to the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998, as follows:

"4.(I) (24)the owner enter into an agreement with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with respect to the public acquisition of the valleylands to the satisfaction of both parties." ';

(2)the report dated June 3, 1998, from the City Solicitor, entitled '8 South Kingsway - OMB Hearing - Clause 27 of Report No. 6 of The Toronto Community Council (High Park - Ward 19)', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the City of Toronto consents to:

(a)the approval of Application Nos. 396100 and 096178, in respect of a gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment at 8 South Kingsway, as identified in the reports of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services dated May 14, 1998, and June 2, 1998, and

(b)the approval of the associated minor variances,

upon the terms and conditions set out in the Minutes of Settlement (attached as Appendix "A" to the report of the City Solicitor dated June 3, 1998) between Petro-Canada and the Swansea Area Ratepayers Group and Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd.'; and

(3)'WHEREAS Petro Canada, the Swansea Area Ratepayers Group and the Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd. have reached a settlement respecting 8 South Kingsway; and

WHEREAS it is still of the utmost importance that 8 South Kingsway, being the site of the first European settlement in Toronto, come into public ownership;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Petro Canada be urged, in the strongest possible terms, prior to any redevelopment of the 8 South Kingsway site, to actively investigate and pursue a land exchange agreement with the City of Toronto and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority of the 8 South Kingsway site and the site currently under discussion between Petro Canada and City staff.' " )

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council upon any potential settlement or other issues related to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report forwards staff comments on a revised site plan and ravine applications for a Petro-Canada gas bar, car wash and retail store, to replace an existing auto service station in the Humber Valley Ravine. The proposal has been sent back to the City by the Ontario Municipal Board for comments on the revisions. Unlike the previous proposal, which was not supported by City Council, this proposal is entirely on the Petro-Canada site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

Should Council support the revised project, the following recommendations should be adopted:

(1)That City Council consent to Applications No. 396100 and No. 096178 respecting 8SouthKingsway 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 that 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, dated January 28, 1998 and Landscape Plan, dated February 11, 1998, and red lined by the applicant on May 14, 1998, both prepared by Petro-Canada, and date stamped as received on March 20, 1998, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b)that the owner shall replace the one existing 43 cm elm tree to be removed from the site with 17 Freeman maple and 10 white spruce trees, 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 Works and Emergency Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.

(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, dated January 28, 1998, Site Services Plan, dated March 2, 1998, Car Wash Floor Plan dated March 18, 1998, Retail Store Floor Plan (undated), Exterior Elevations, dated February 3, 1998, Roof Plan and Details, dated February 3, 1998 and Landscape Plan, dated February 11, 1998, and red lined by the applicant on May 14, 1998, all date stamped as received March 20, 1998, all prepared by Petro-Canada, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and 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 the above referenced Landscape Plan, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and carry out the improvements within a reasonable period of time or, at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency 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 2 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 a 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 provide and maintain signage at the southerly access to South Kingsway restricting operations to one-way outbound only;

(8)the owner shall ensure all existing curb cuts are closed and restored to Toronto standards;

(9)the owner shall ensure all the access work be at no cost to the City;

(E)TOP OF SLOPE STABILITY

(10)the owner shall design and build the development in accordance with the Slope Stability Analysis, prepared by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited, and approved by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

(11)the owner shall submit a sediment and erosion control plan for the construction period for review and approval by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

(F)STORMWATER MANAGEMENT

(12)the owner shall submit a stormwater management report for the review and approval of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City's Community Services (Parks and Recreation);

(13)the owner shall submit a grading plan showing a stormceptor, for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, prior to the issuance of a building permit and the owner shall maintain the site as per the approved plan.

(G)HERITAGE ISSUES

(14)the owner shall ensure all excavation work related to the caissons are monitored, on a full time basis, by a licensed archaeologist for the duration of earth-moving activities;

(15)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 time that a crew of experienced archaeologists can complete such work;

(16)the owner shall ensure an archaeologist is present on site during any grading or excavation to evaluate any potential impacts on the archaeological/cultural resources;

(17)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 Carrying Place Trail" and the "Rousseau Trading Post", to the satisfaction of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in consultation with Heritage Toronto and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(H)STUDIES REQUIRED BY CIVIC OFFICIALS

(18)the owner shall submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency 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;

(19)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 Works and Emergency Services;

(20)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;

(21)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;

(22)(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;

(23)(i)the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for the approval of the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit; and

(ii)the owner shall 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 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 receive approval from the Ontario Municipal Board of the variances as listed in the zoning notice from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

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

(e)of the need for the South Kingsway boulevard to be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Works and Emergency Services;

(f)of the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits from the Department of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the construction of this project;

(g)of the possible need to obtain other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, piling, shoring, etc.);

(h)of the need to contact the Department of Works and Emergency Services, Road Allowance Control Section regarding the site-specific permit/licenses required;

(i)of the need to ensure that the South Kingsway right-of-way meets the Department of Works and Emergency Services requirements for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics;

(j)of the need for a description of the waste composition which shall be generated by the development and the expected quantity of each category of waste material;

(k)of the need for a description of the policies, programmes, processes and equipment which will be put in place to carry out material recovery and waste reduction;

(l)of the need for the provision of space to store and/or process recovered materials;

(m)of the need for separate accommodation for the recovery, safe storage and disposal of hazardous waste, if any;

(n)of the revised comments of the Commissioner of Community Services (Parks and Recreation) that an additional Freeman maple tree be planted on the South Kingsway boulevard;

(o)of the revised comments of the Commissioner of Community Services (Parks and Recreation) regarding the need for the riverbank and undeveloped top of bank to be planted with appropriate native trees and shrubs, to help stabilize the slope and provide a natural buffer between the proposed development and the Humber River, if Petro-Canada does not agree to place the valley lands (stable top of bank plus 10 metres inland) into public ownership with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and

(p)that the signage illustrated on the plans submitted with Application No.'s 396100 and 096178 are subject to a separate approval process.

Background

City Council at its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998 refused the sign application for the previous proposal. A new sign application with fewer signs will be required for this project.

On March 17, 1998 the Ontario Municipal Board held a hearing on the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment variances to permit the gas bar, car wash and retail store proposal for this site and a portion of adjacent City land. After initial arguments, Petro-Canada withdrew their proposal and presented a revised proposal, entirely on their site.

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, requested I convene a public meeting on this new proposal and report back to Toronto Community Council before the scheduled June 15, 1998 continued Board hearing on this matter.

A well attended public meeting was held on May 4, 1998 at the Swansea Recreational Centre to discuss the revised plan and to deal with local concerns. Many concerns were raised about traffic, proposed hours of operation, lighting, design and operation of the replacement gas station.

Comments:

1.Project:

The development proposal is for a gas bar and car wash to replace the 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.

3.Requirement of Civic Officials

(a)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has set out requirements relating to parking, connection to the City's sewer system, work to be carried out in the street allowance, and a material recovery and waste reduction plan.

(b)The Commissioner of Community Services (Parks and Recreation) considers the site plan and landscape plan to be acceptable.

(c)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services 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 for the archaeological consultant to be acceptable and advises that 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.

An application for five variances, including use, retail density, sign height, and more than one building on the site were submitted to the Committee of Adjustment last October. The application was approved by the Committee of Adjustment on October29, 1997 and subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by two local ratepayer groups, with the City later joining the appeal.

The revised proposal has been reduced to three variances. At the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on March 17, 1998 the Board member stated that he will deal with these variances and that the applicant does not have to submit a new Committee of Adjustment application for the revised proposal.

5.Planning Considerations

(a)Application under the Ravine Control By-law

The property is located entirely within the Humber Valley Ravine, and is subject to the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 276, Ravines, Article I.

The proposal replaces an existing facility, requires the removal of only one tree, and offers benefits of increased tree and shrub planting.

The siting of the project is acceptable to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (T.R.C.A.) based on an approved slope stability study, geotechnical soil core testing and required sediment and erosion control plan, and a public access request described in Section (b) below.

To prevent water, and possible fuel seepage directly into the Ravine Valley lands or the Humber River, the Toronto Region and Conservation Authority has requested a stormceptor device to be installed with the re-connection to the storm sewer system approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. The T.R.C.A. and the Community Services (Parks and Recreation) have also requested a Stormwater Management Report to further review the issue.

(b)Site Plan Approval

The proposal requires Site Plan Approval by the City.

Site Planning

The applicant has submitted a revised plan that addresses some of the concerns raised by local residents over both the two previous proposals in terms of the further canopy reorientation. The canopy intrusion is reduced as it now faces south, away from nearby residential condo building. The revised site plan has also resulted in a substantial reduction in the new retail floor area from 216 m2 to 86 m2.

The proposed land exchange with City land directly south of the site has been dropped, and the car wash is now proposed for its current location. The car stacking is now proposed at the north and west ends of the site, allowing full use of Queen Street West for parking for people accessing the Humber River. These arrangements will allow for better visual monitoring of the site by Petro-Canada sales staff.

Toronto and Region Conservation Authority who must issue their own development permit for this project, are requesting (as a condition of their approval) a public conveyance of the rear table land down to the riverbank.

Variances

The height of the station and canopy meets the 6 metre height limit for the site. Only a minor (0.55m) height penetration is still required for their corporate maple leaf logo sign. The lighting of the site is designed not to extend beyond the property limits and is the subject of current dispute resolution negotiations between Petro-Canada, local ratepayer groups and the City.

Landscaping

The revised landscape plan has been improved as the result of discussions between Petro-Canada, City Urban Design and Parks and Recreation forestry staff. Native trees and species are proposed to be planted with most emphasis placed on the west side of South Kingsway and to a slightly lesser degree on both ends of the site to provide a buffer for the street and park edges.

Parking

The applicant is required to provide only two customer parking spaces, as a result of the diminished size of the retail store, including one space for people with disabilities. In addition, 24 "stacking" spaces have been provided for the car wash to meet Toronto by-law standards.

Traffic Access to the Site

Local residents continued to express their concerns at the May 4, 1998 public meeting and by letter about current and future traffic volumes on South Kingsway and how a new gas station will result in more auto accidents for vehicles entering and exiting an expanded Petro-Canada gas bar. However, the review to date by Works and Emergency Services, Transportation Planning staff has not been able to support this position. A further traffic safety study will be sent directly to the May27^th, 1998 Toronto Community Council under separate cover. 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 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (T.R.C.A.) and Community Services (Parks and Recreation). Geotechnical studies have been undertaken and the stable top of the bank has been established and approved by the T.R.C.A. The applicant has been requested to deal with concerns of stormwater run-off on the site by the T.R.C.A. and Community Services (Parks and Recreation). The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has agreed to allow a reconnection to the City's sewer system. This will be subject to a stormceptor being installed.

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 City lands south of the site. For this reason, considerable attention has been paid to heritage matters and an archaeological study was undertaken.

The study determined that the trading post site would now be buried under at least 9 m of land fill that has occurred in the area since the 18^th century, and it would be unlikely that excavation required for the proposal would uncover any archaeological resources related to the historic site.

The owners consultant, 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." Heritage Toronto and T.R.C.A. concur with this and it forms part of the recommendations of this report.

On April 15, 1998 City Council adopted a report from Heritage Toronto, which recommended designation of 4 and 8 South Kingsway (Rousseau Site), under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. However the designation is for the lands and does not effect the existing or proposed structures.

I am recommending that Petro-Canada erect a historic plaque and an illustrated information board on the table lands trail at the rear of their site, where T.R.C.A. is requesting a public conveyance. This would both commemorate the history of the "Toronto Carry Place Trail" 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 operates from 7 a.m. - 10 or 11 p.m., beyond the City's 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. limit. Petro-Canada wants to extend the hours of operation to 24 hours. Concerns were raised about this extension by many 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. If Petro -Canada wants to operate beyond the permitted 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. limit on a 24 hour operation, they would have to submit an application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. This process is not related to the site plan approval or ravine application.

Next Steps:

(a)Dispute Resolution

Currently Petro-Canada, two local ratepayer groups and City staff are involved in discussions to try and reach a mediated settlement prior to an Ontario Municipal Board hearing, set for June 15, 1998. The first meeting was held on May 3, 1998 and further meetings are planned.

Any changes to the 8 South Kingsway gas bar operation or design, that might result from these discussions should not be deemed to represent the City's policy direction in terms of the "Gas Bar Design Guidelines" that are currently being developed by City staff, in consultation with industry representatives and ratepayer groups.

(b)Possible Alternative Land Swap

City staff are currently discussing a real estate transaction which could move the entire Petro-Canada operation to another, City-owned site in the area. I will report further if these discussions have any tangible results.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks

Telephone: (416) 392-0758; Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

_______

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	396100
Rezoning:	N	Application Date:	December 2, 1996
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:	March 20, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:8 South Kingsway

Nearest Intersection:	North-west corner of Queen St. W. and South Kingsway.

Project Description:	Build gas bar, car wash and retail store buildings.

Applicant:

Petro Canada- CRCB Asset Mgnt.

3275 Rebecca St., Oakville

469-3668

Agent:

Wes Robbins

3275 Rebecca St., Oakville

469-3668

Architect:

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	Open Space	Site Specific Provision:	Sec.12 1 (1) 330
Zoning District:	G	Historical Status:	Land not building
Height Limit (m):	6.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	4921.0 m²	Height:	Storeys:	1
Frontage:			Metres:	6.55
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:
Residential GFA:		Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:	223.3 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:	223.3 m²


Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Commercial	223.3 m²

PROPOSED DENSITY
Residential Density:	Non-Residential Density: 0.05	Total Density: 0.05

COMMENTS

Status:

Site Plan Approval Report dated August 18, 1997.

Data valid:

March 20, 1998

Section:

CP West

Phone:

392-7333

_______

Appendix A - Comments of Civic Officials

1.City Works Services (May 8, 1998)

1.That the owner be required, as a condition of approval of the plans and drawings for the project; to:

(a)Provide and maintain a minimum of 2 parking spaces on site, over and above the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law, for a total of 2 spaces;

(b)Provide and maintain signage at the southerly access to South Kingsway restricting operations to one-way outbound only;

(c)Provide and maintain the northerly driveway to/from South Kingsway with a width of 8.0 m and provide and maintain additional curb cuts of 4.5 m to the north and south for a total curb cut of 17.0 m;

(d)Provide and maintain the southerly exit driveway to South Kingsway with a width of 5.0 m and provide and maintain an additional 1.0 m curb cut to the north and an additional 7.5 m curb cut to the south for a total curb cut of 13.5 m;

(e)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency 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;

(f)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 Works and Emergency Services;

That the owner be advised:

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

(b)That the South Kingsway boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of Works and Emergency Services; and

(c)Of the need to obtain building location access and streetscape permits from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to construction of this project.

Comments:

Location

West side of South Kingsway, north of The Queensway.

Proposal

Construction of a gas bar resulting in a 137 square metre car wash and a gas bar and retail store containing 86 square metres of floor area. The proposal was dealt with in Departmental reports dated January 8, May 26 and August 13, 1997. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous reports.

It is noted that the Queen Street West road allowance south of the subject site does not form part of this proposal.

Ravine Control Area

The entire site is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 276, Ravines, Article I (Humber Valley Ravine).

Parking and Access

The provision of 2 parking spaces satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the project for 2 spaces, whereas, the Zoning By-law, as far as can be ascertained, does not specify a parking requirement for the proposed uses. The owner has indicated in a letter dated May 11, 1998, that only two employees will be on site (the proposed car wash will be an "attendant-less" facility). As a result, the proposed parking spaces are acceptable.

The proposed access to the site is approximately in the same location as the existing access. The proposed northerly two-way access to South Kingsway is shown as being 8.0 m wide with additional curb cuts of 4.5 m to the north and south for a total of 17.0 m. This is acceptable. The proposed southerly access to South Kingsway is shown as being 5.0 m in width with an additional 1.0 m curb cut to the north and an additional 7.5 m curb cut to the south for a total curb cut of 13.5 m. This is satisfactory. The proposed southerly access must be restricted to one-way outbound operations only, and must be signed accordingly.

Refuse Collection

This project would not qualify for refuse collection by City forces under the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. As a result, the owner must make arrangements for the services of a private waste collection firm.

Material Recovery and Waste Reduction

The owner is required to submit a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan which will include:

(a)A description of the waste composition which shall be generated by the development and the expected quantity of each category of waste material;

(b)A description of the policies, programmes, processes and equipment which will be put in place to carry out material recovery and waste reduction;

(c)The provision of space required to store and/or process recovered materials; and

(d)Separate accommodate for the recovery, safe storage and disposal of hazardous waste, if any.

The owner is advised that the Sanitation Branch (telephone no. 392-1040) of this Department will assist in the format and content requirements in the preparation of the plan.

Work within the Road Allowance

The design of the boulevard area on the South Kingsway frontage must meet this Department's requirements for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics, including the planting of trees every 6 to 8 m. If clarification is required on how these standards will apply to this project, the applicant can contact the Streetscape Program at 392-2808.

Permits

The applicant is required to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits from this Department prior to construction of this project. Other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, piling/shoring, etc.) may also be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the applicable permits and should be advised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (RACS) at 392-2984 regarding the site-specific permit/licence requirements.

2.Community Services (May 13, 1998)

Further to our memorandum dated May 6, 1998, which provided comments on the above application, I advise the following:

One full-form Freeman Maple or Red Oak tree must be planted in City road allowance, in accordance with the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to the City.

Street Trees in Turf:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 101 for Balled and Burlapped Trees in Turf Areas.

This comment replaces the previous comments which specified that three red oak trees were to be planted in City road allowance.

If the valleylands (stable top of bank plus 10 metres inland) are recommended to be placed in ownership of the TRCA, as stated in the letter to Urban Development Services, attention Barry Brooks from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, dated May 8, 1998, the following comment (previously stated in the May 6^th memorandum) is unnecessary and may be excluded from your report to Council. Please note that the City of Toronto cannot accept these lands without further environmental testing.

The undeveloped portion of the property, including the riverbank and undeveloped top of bank should be planted with appropriate native trees and shrubs, to help stabilize the slope and provide a natural buffer between the Gas Bar/Car Wash and the Humber River.

I advise that the plans prepared by Petro-Canada, date stamped as received on March 20, 1998 by Urban Development Services, red-lined and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services are acceptable to my Division.

3.(May 6, 1998)

This will acknowledge your Site Plan Approval Circulation Form which was circulated March 20, 1998 and contained revised plans for the above noted application. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

Three red oak trees must be planted in accordance with the Tree Details Section of the former City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to the City.

Street Trees in Turf:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 101 for Balled and Burlapped Trees in Turf Areas.

I advise that the plans prepared by Petro-Canada, date stamped as received on March 29, 1998 by Urban Development Services on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.

4.Heritage Toronto (March 31, 1998)

I have reviewed the revised site plan application, dated March 20, 1998, with respect to the above-noted property. The revised plan does not affect our previous comments. We would be concerned that Petro-Canada continue to follow the recommendations made by Archaeological Services Inc., as noted in our letter to you last July. Since we understand that Petro-Canada is committee to doing so, and further since we understand Petro-Canada still supports erecting a commemorative plaque in an appropriate location on site, Heritage Toronto does not oppose the revised application.

5.The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (May 11, 1998)

Staff have reviewed the revised site plan received on March 24, 1998 and we offer the following comments.

Enclosed please find a part print of the Authority's Flood Plain and Fill Regulation line map, sheet No. 1 of the Humber River, on which we have plotted in red the subject property; in blue the regional flood plain; and in green the Authority's fill regulation limit.

As you will note, the rear portion of the property is within the Fill Regulated and Flood Plain area. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 158 a permit is required from the Authority prior to any of the following works taking place:

(a)construct any building or structure or permit any building or structure to be constructed in or on a pond or swamp or in any area susceptible to flooding during a regional storm;

(b)place to dump fill or permit fill to be placed or dumped in the areas described in the schedules whether such fill is already located in or upon such area, or brought to or on such area from some other place or places;

(c)straighten, change, divert or interfere in any way with the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse.

In October of 1994, the Authority released the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) which sets out the policies for development adjacent to and within valley and stream corridors. The valley corridor limit is defined by a line established 10 metres inland from the stable top of bank of the valley wall. To this end, the applicant submitted a geotechnical investigation prepared by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited dated July 11, 1997, which delineated the stable top of bank limit. This limit is accurately shown on the site plan. We advise that the valleylands (stable top of bank plus 10 metres inland) are recommended to be placed in public ownership with either the City of Toronto or the TRCA.

As a component of the redevelopment, the Authority requires that water quality control measures be utilized during construction to ensure that no negative impacts occur to the Humber River watershed and Lake Ontario basin. To this end a plan illustrating the means by which sediment and erosion will be controlled on site during and after construction must be submitted for our review and approval. Furthermore, a stormwater management report that addresses water quality treatment must be submitted for our review and approval. Please note that stormwater will not be permitted to be discharged to the watercourse without some form of treatment. "Treatment" refers to providing some form (or forms) of water quantity attenuation and quality abatement usually accomplished by allowing stormwater run-off to infiltrate into the ground or through temporary stormwater detention or retention that would allow some settling of suspended solids and associated contaminants, prior to release. To this end, the applicant submitted stormwater management and erosion/sediment control plans on August 29, 1997 and September 19, 1997 which we found to be satisfactory. These plans were for the previous version of the site plan. We therefore require updated plans for the new site plan layout. We note that the submitted grading plan does not include the stormceptor device proposed on the original plans, and therefore the grading plan should be reviewed accordingly.

As you may be aware, the TRCA is seeking to have the Humber River designated as a "Canadian Heritage River". The purpose of this designation is to formally recognize the natural and cultural heritage, and recreation values of the Humber River; and the contributions the river has made in the development of this country. We therefore wish to ensure that the redevelopment of this site is done in a manner which maximizes the protection of the natural and cultural resources of the Humber River.

In view of the above, we have no objections to the approval of these applications subject to the following conditions.

1)The design of the site conform with the recommendations of the Slope Stability Analysis, prepared by Jacques Whitford Environment Limited.

2)The Humber River valley lands including the 5 metre stable slope allowance and 10 metre buffer being placed in public ownership with either the City of Toronto or the TRCA.

3)The stormwater management report be submitted for our review and approval. We are concerned that, unless proper stormwater management techniques and erosion and sedimentation control measures are employed on site both during and after construction, negative impact on the downstream water quality through erosion may occur. Stormwater leaving the site will require "treatment", both before and after development. "Treatment" refers to providing some form (or forms) of water quantity control to the receiving watercourse as well as some form (forms) of water quality abatement usually accomplished by allowing stormwater run-off to infiltrate into the ground or through temporary stormwater detention or retention that would allow some settling of suspended solids and associated contaminants, prior to release.

4)A sediment and erosion control plan for the construction period be submitted for our review and approval.

5)That an archeologist be present on site during any grading or excavation to evaluate any potential impacts to the archeological/cultural resources.

We trust this is satisfactory. Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned at this office.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

8 South Kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 2

8 South Kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 3

8 South Kingsway(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report amends certain recommendations and conditions of the 8 South Kingsway Revised Site Plan and Ravine report, dated May 14, 1998. This report facilitates changes requested by local ratepayers and City staff, to assist in implementing a proposed settlement for 8 South Kingsway which will be dealt with by the Ontario Municipal Board on June 15, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

That City Council amend Clause 27 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council by:

(i)Replacing Recommendation No. (1) (a) of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998 with the following:

(1) (a)That the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping on-site substantially in accordance with Preliminary Plot Plan, dated January 28, 1998 and Landscape Plan, dated February 11, 1998, both red lined by the applicant on June 2, 1998, both prepared by Petro-Canada, and date stamped as received on March 20, 1998, all on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(ii)Replacing Recommendation No. (1) (b) of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998 with the following:

(1) (b)that the owner shall replace the one existing 43 cm elm tree to be removed from the site with 16 Freeman maple and 10 White spruce trees, and the shrub planting of 246 Dwarf silverleaf dogwood, 41 Anderson spreading yew, and 12 Broadleaf snowberry; and

(iii)Replacing Recommendation No. (3) of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998 with the following;

(3)That City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application for 8 South Kingsway, namely the Preliminary Plot Plan, dated January 28, 1998, Site Services Plan, dated March 2, 1998, Grading Plan, dated February 13, 1998, Landscape Plan, dated February 11, 1998, all red lined by the applicant on June 2, 1998 and Car Wash Floor Plan, dated March 18, 1998, Retail Store Floor Plan (undated), Exterior Elevations, dated February 3, 1998, and Roof Plan and Details, dated February 3, 1998 all date stamped as received March 20, 1998, all prepared by Petro-Canada, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(iv)Replacing Recommendation No. (4) (G) (16) of the report of Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998 with the following:

(4)(G) (16)the owner shall ensure an archaeologist is present on site during any excavation to evaluate any potential impacts on the archaeological/cultural resources; and

(v)Adding a new condition (4)(I) (24) to the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, dated May 14, 1998 as follows;

(4)(I) (24)the owner enter into an agreement with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority with respect to the public acquisition of the valleylands to the satisfaction of both parties.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks, Telephone: (416) 392-0758, Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: bbrooks@city.toronto.on.ca.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (June 3, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To obtain instructions from Council upon a potential settlement of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for June 15, 1998 regarding the applications by Petro-Canada to establish a gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment at 8 South Kingsway.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funds are required as a result of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The City Solicitor be authorized to advise the Ontario Municipal Board that the City of Toronto consents to:

(b)the approval of the associated minor variances,

upon the terms and conditions set out in the Minutes of Settlement (attached as Appendix"A") between Petro-Canada and the Swansea Area Ratepayers Group and Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Petro-Canada applied for site plan approval and variances from the City's zoning by-law to establish a gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment at 8 South Kingsway. As the City's Ravine Control By-law designates the site as a ravine, Petro-Canada also applied for permission to do work within the ravine. The Committee of Adjustment granted the variances sought by Petro-Canada. The Swansea Area Ratepayers Group and the Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd. appealed the Committee's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (the "Board"). Petro-Canada appealed the site plan application and ravine application to the Board on the basis that the City had not made a decision within the required time limits. At its meeting held on March 4, 1998 City Council authorized the City Solicitor to attend the Board hearing on March 17, 1998 to oppose Petro-Canada's applications.

At the March 17, 1998 hearing, Petro-Canada advised it wished to revise its site plan application to exclude the City-owned road allowance on the south side of the site. The Board adjourned the matter to June 15, 1998 and advised Petro-Canada to submit the revised application to the City for circulation and comment. By report dated March 25, 1998, the Toronto Community Council Solicitor advised that:

As City Council has not had adequate opportunity to review or determine the position to be taken by the City upon the latest version of Petro-Canada's proposal, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services should report to the Toronto Community Council upon the proposal to establish a gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment all within the lands currently occupied by Petro-Canada at 8 South Kingsway. Toronto City Council should then provide the City Solicitor with instructions as to the position to be taken by the City at the continuation of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on June15, 1998.

By report dated May 14, 1998, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services reported on the revised application. At its meeting held on May 27, 1998, the Toronto Community Council submitted the matter to Council without recommendations and requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council upon any potential settlement or other issues related to the Board hearing scheduled for June 15, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

I have just been advised by the solicitor for Petro-Canada and the solicitor for the Swansea Area Ratepayers Group and the Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd. that their respective clients have agreed to Minutes of Settlement which I have attached as Appendix "A" to this report. The Minutes of settlement are contingent upon,

(1)Council's approval of the May 14, 1998 report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services as amended by the Commissioner's report dated June 2, 1998 (both of which are before Council), and

(2)both Ward Councillors indicating their support to Petro-Canada for the signs Petro-Canada wishes to erect on the site.

Petro-Canada's solicitor has advised both Ward Councillors should communicate their position upon the proposed signs to him before the June 15, 1998 Board hearing. Petro-Canada's solicitor has also advised that his client reserves the right to address the Board regarding the conveyance of the ravine land [as noted in Recommendation (v) of the Commissioner's June 2, 1998 report] in the event his client cannot reach a satisfactory agreement with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority prior to the hearing scheduled for June 15, 1998. He does, however, anticipate the matter will be resolved prior to the hearing.

The proposed settlement can be summarized as reducing the impact of lighting and signage, restricting turns at the southerly exit, restricting the number of pumps, and restricting the depth of grading that can occur without an archeologist on site. Staff of Urban Planning and Development Services have reviewed the Minutes of Settlement and have confirmed the terms and conditions agreed to by the parties are suitable for the development of the site.

Conclusions:

It is appropriate that Council adopt the above noted recommendation and thereby endorse the settlement which has been reached between Petro-Canada and the two residents groups, the Swansea Area Ratepayers Group and the Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd..

Contact Name:

Stephen Bradley, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7790

Fax: (416) 392-0024

Appendix "A"

Minutes of Settlement

Whereas:

A.Petro-Canada is the owner of the property municipally known as 8 South Kingsway (the "Property") in the City of Toronto;

B.Petro-Canada applied to the Committee of Adjustment (the "Committee") for the City of Toronto (the "City") for variances from the City's zoning by-law to establish a gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment on the Property;

C.By decision dated October 29, 1997, the Committee granted the variances sought by Petro Canada;

D.The Swansea Area Ratepayers Group and the Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd. (collectively, the "Ratepayers") appealed the Committee's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (the "Board");

E.Petro-Canada submitted a site plan application and an application for work in a ravine (collectively the "Applications") to the City, to permit the gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment on the Property;

F.Petro-Canada appealed the Applications to the Board as the City had not made a decision on these applications within the time limits specified by the Planning Act;

G.The Board hearing in respect of the Ratepayers appeal of the Committee's decision (the "Ratepayers Appeal") and Petro-Canada's appeal in respect of the Applications (the "Petro-Canada Appeal") commenced on March 17, 1998 at which time,

(1)Petro-Canada submitted a revision to the Applications (the "Revised Applications"), and

(2)Petro Canada advised the Board that the reconfiguration of the proposed gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment as shown on the Revised Applications would require less variances from the City's zoning by-law than those granted by the Committee's decision;

H.After hearing argument, the Board,

(1)ruled that it had jurisdiction to consider the Revised Applications and the variances sought associated with the Revised Applications,

(2)adjourned the hearing to June 15, 1998, and

(3)noted that Petro-Canada "upon consent, is to circulate the latest amended Site Plan to the agencies in the list agreed to by all parties and officially file an amending Site Plan with the City";

I.The City's Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has submitted a report dated May 14, 1998 to the City's Community Council, with a technical amendments report dated June2, 1998, (which reports are collectively the "Planning Report") commenting upon the Revised Applications.

J.Petro-Canada had made an application to the City to allow signs on the Property, which was refused by the City, and now wishes to submit a revised sign application (the "Revised Sign Application") for the signs (the "New Signs") listed and described in Schedule "1" attached to these Minutes of Settlement for the proposed gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment as shown on the Revised Applications;

K. The Ratepayers and Petro-Canada have agreed to settle their respective appeals upon the terms and conditions as herein set out.

In Consideration of the settlement of the Ratepayers Appeal and the Petro-Canada Appeal, and for other good and valuable consideration, the undersigned (the "Parties") agree as follows:

1.The recitals are true and form part of these Minutes of Settlement.

2.The Parties support the approval by the Board of the Revised Applications, in the form of the plans and drawings identified in the Planning Report, to permit the proposed gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment on the Property, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the Planning Report's recommendations, and the following additional conditions,

(A)the following shall apply to the lights associated with the proposed gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment,

(i)the lights shall be as shown on the Revised Applications (10 perimeter lights and 31 lights under the canopy and breeze way),

(ii)each light shall not exceed 250 watts,

(iii)each light shall contain a metal halyde bulb only,

(iv)each light located under the canopy or breeze way shall be recessed so as to not protrude below the under surface of the said canopy or breeze way, and

(v)each of the perimeter lights shall have a lens cover which will not protrude but will be flush to the said light fixture.

(B)the southerly exit from the Property will be restricted to right turns only and configured to discourage left turns, with no ingress permitted,

(C)the number of fuel pump dispensers located on the Property shall be restricted to four, but this restriction shall be without prejudice to Petro-Canada's right to submit a revised application to increase the number of pumps in which event the Ratepayers reserve the right to comment upon or oppose any such application as they consider appropriate, and

(D)Petro-Canada agrees that any grading on the site to a depth of greater than five feet will be considered excavation for the purposes of the Report and will require an archeologist on the Property.

3.The Parties support the approval of the associated variances to permit the proposed gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment subject to the Board approving the Revised Applications, in the form of the plans and drawings identified in the Planning Report, upon the terms and conditions set out above.

4.The Ratepayers agree they have reviewed the New Signs and they have no objection to the New Signs, including the proposed number and location. The Ratepayers agree not to object to any application required to be filed by Petro-Canada for the New Signs.

5.The Parties agree that these Minutes of Settlement are conditional upon the Planning Report being approved by the City at its meeting to be held on June 3 and 4, 1998 and City Councillors David Miller and Chris Korwin-Kuczynski indicating their support for the New Signs required for the proposed gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment.

6.Upon the conditions contained in paragraph 5 above being fulfilled, the Parties shall advise the Board at, or prior to, the continuation of the Board hearing on June 15, 1998, that the Parties support the approval of settlement of the Ratepayers Appeal and the Petro-Canada Appeal on the terms and conditions set out above.

Dated at Toronto this day of June, 1998

PETRO-CANADA

SWANSEA AREA RATEPAYERS GROUP

RIPLEY AREA RESIDENTS GROUP LTD.)

(A copy of Schedule 1, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May26, 1998) addressed to the President, Petro-Canada, from Mr. Murray E. Blankstein.)

Park Drive Ravine - Ontario Municipal Board Decision

(Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council receive this matter for information.

The above recommendation was carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, McConnell, Miller, Walker, - 11

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 3, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor:

Purpose:

Summary of Ontario Municipal Board Decision dismissing two appeals to Zoning By-law No.1997-0369.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Council of the former City of Toronto on July 14, 1997 enacted By-law No. 1997-0369 which prohibited development within Park Drive Ravine and within 10 metres of the top of slope of Park Drive Ravine. The two appeals to such by-law respecting properties at No. 119R Glen Road and No. 15 Beaumont Road were dismissed by the Ontario Municipal Board in a decision issued December16,1997.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The City Solicitor and outside planning consultants and a biologist retained by the City attended at the Ontario Municipal Board for a three week hearing commencing October14,1997 of the two appeals to Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369.

Of the approximately 170 properties affected by By-law No. 1997-0369, 4 were vacant lots and the appellants owned two of these lots. Redevelopment was proposed within the ravine portion of such lots and the Ontario Municipal Board was not convinced that relief was warranted. The decision of the Ontario Municipal Board issued December16,1997, which is 32 pages in length, has been filed, under separate cover, with the City Clerk.

The owners of four properties adjacent to No. 119R Glen Road retained counsel to support the City's by-law and opposed both appeals.

Both appellants have filed motions seeking leave to judicially appeal the Ontario Municipal Board decision and no date has been set to hear these. Both have also requested that the Ontario Municipal Board grant a review of its decision under Section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act. The Ontario Municipal Board has responded to the appellants that it is holding in abeyance the requests for a motion seeking review pending the outcome of the motion seeking leave to judicially appeal, and if granted, the outcome of the appeals.

Conclusions:

The Ontario Municipal Board has dismissed the two appeals to Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369. I will continue to support the City's by-law and oppose any judicial appeals or any requested reviews before the Ontario Municipal Board of its decision.

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7237

Fax: (416) 392-0024

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

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following Ontario Municipal Board Decision (December 16, 1997) which is being forward to Council under separate cover.

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

-Ms. R. Vera Dickinson, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Gayle Christie, obo Ms. Vera Dickinson, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. J. J. McQuaid, Weir & Foulds, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Bruce Fountain, Acting Chairman of Binscarth Road Beaumont Ravine Stewardship, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. C. S. Fox-Revett, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Dalton C. Shipway, Chair, Watersheds United, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Gregory Daly, Senior Planner, Weir & Foulds, Toronto, Ontario;

-(March 31, 1998) from Mr. Michael J. McQuaid

-(April 1, 1998) from Mr. Brad Teichman

-(May 25, 1998) from Ms. Susan Brenninkmeyer

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Phillip Frigla

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Larry D. Clarke

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Peter Warren

-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. Alexander K. Stuart

-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. John T. Bank

-(May 25, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Hawkins

-(May 25, 1998) from M.P. Fischer

-(May 26, 1998) from Ms. Janice O'Burn

-(May 26, 1998) from Ms. Heather Brodeur

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Gregor G. Beck

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. John and Mrs. Nancy McFadyen

-(May 26, 1998) from Geri Clever

-(May 26, 1998) from Ms. Penny Pepperell

-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. John Wilson

-(May 27, 1998) from Ms. Annabelle Heintzman

-(undated) from Ms. Gayle Christie

-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. David Vallance

-(May 27, 1998) from Mr. Michael J. McQuaid, Weir & Foulds

(City Council on June 3 and 4, 1998 had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (June 2, 1998) from the President, The South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association, regarding Park Drive Ravine, Ontario Municipal Board Decision, Dismissal of Two Appeals to Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369 and 15 Beaumont Road (Midtown), requesting City Council to continue to oppose the request for another hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board of the dismissed appeals to Zoning By-law No.1997-0369.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (June4, 1998) from Sean and Katherine Shanahan, in support of Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369.)

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code

(North Toronto, Midtown, Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(April 29, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated fascia sign - 3080 Yonge Street, Application No. 998024: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Brill-Light Neon Signs Inc., 6380 Northwest Drive, Mississauga, Ontario, L4V 1J7, on behalf of The Excelsior Life Insurance Company, 79 Wellington Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1N9. (North Toronto)

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998024 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign 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 controlled by means of an automatic timing device.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998024, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Yonge Street, north of Lawrence Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential)district and residential (R2) district. The property accommodates a six storey office building. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated fascia sign to identify the municipal address of the property on the south elevation of the building's uppermost storey (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 2.5 metres and a height of 0.9 metres, with an area of 2.3 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will be located on a building at a height of less than 34 metres above grade.

The Municipal Code requires illuminated logo signs to be located within the uppermost storey of buildings and higher than 34 metres above grade in order to reduce their visual impact on the streetscape, on the buildings to which they are attached and on adjacent uses. In this instance, the proposed sign would be located at a height of 19 metres. I was concerned about the potentially negative impact an illuminated sign at this height might have on the residential uses south of the site and across Lawrence Avenue. The applicant has advised that the individual letters would be halo-lit meaning that the letters would be outlined in light rather than fully illuminated in order to minimize the impact of illumination. The applicant has also proposed to control the hours of illumination by means of an automatic timing device. Given these controls, I am recommending approval of this application.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

3080 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

3080 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

3080 Yonge Street

(May 1, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated projecting sign - 50 St. Clair Avenue East, Application No. 998011: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Smith Sign Company, 45 Riviera Drive, Markham, Ontario, L3R 5J6, on behalf of 1016256 Ontario Ltd., c/o Realmatt Property Mgmt., 1315 Finch Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 2G6. (Midtown)

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998011 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated projecting sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998011, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north side of St. Clair Avenue East, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a four storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated projecting sign on the south elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 0.6 metres and a height of 0.8 metres, and an area of 0.48 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that a projecting sign is not permitted in a commercial/residential district in the Yonge-St. Clair area.

The building is located in the Yonge-St.Clair area for which there are specific sign regulations. Only fascia signs consisting of individual letters not exceeding a vertical dimension of 0.5 metres are allowed to be displayed on the front wall of a building. These provisions are intended to prevent oversignage and reduce the visual impact of signage on buildings in this area.

Given that the sign is of modest size and is located well above grade and would not interfere with or inconvenience pedestrians, I am prepared to support the requested variance in this circumstance.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca,

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536;

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

50 St. Clair

Insert Table/Map No. 2

50 St. Clair

Insert Table/Map No. 3

50 St. Clair

(May 7, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated fascia sign - 48 St. Clair Avenue West, Application No.998028: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Provincial Sign Service Ltd., 375 Frankcom Street, Ajax, Ontario, L1S 1R4, on behalf of Delisle Properties Ltd., 1 St. Clair Avenue West, Suite 600, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 3B6. (Midtown)

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998028 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No.998028, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 12.5 storey office building. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated fascia sign in the form of a corporate logo on the south elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a diameter of 0.9 metres, and an area of 0.81 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the sign will not consist only of letters.

The building is located in the Yonge-St.Clair area for which there are specific sign regulations. Only fascia signs consisting of individual letters not exceeding a vertical dimension of 0.5 metres are permitted. The purpose of this regulation is to produce signage, which in terms of its size and design, is appropriate for this secondary commercial node.

Given the modest size of the proposed corporate logo sign and recognizing the existence of other comparable logo signs in the immediate vicinity, the proposed signage would not, in my opinion, be unnecessarily obtrusive.

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

48 St. Clair Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

48 St. Clair Avenue

(May 7, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one illuminated fascia sign and one illuminated projecting sign - 1497 Yonge Street, Application No.998017: Request for approval of variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Kwality Signs, 454 Aberfoyle Court, Mississauga, Ontario, L4Z 2J5, on behalf of 791486 Ontario Limited, 43 Front Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1B3. (Midtown)

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998017 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign and one illuminated projecting sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998017, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Yonge Street, north of St. Clair Avenue East, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 2.5 storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign and one illuminated projecting sign on the west elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The fascia sign has a length of 1.2 metres and a height of 1.2 metres, and an area of 1.4 m� and the projecting sign has a length of 0.5 metres and a height of 0.5 metres, and an area of 0.3 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the signs do not consist only of letters; and

2.a projecting sign is not permitted in the Yonge-St. Clair area.

The building is located in the Yonge-St.Clair area for which there are specific sign regulations. Only fascia signs consisting of individual letters not exceeding a vertical dimension of 0.5 metres are permitted. The purpose of this regulation is to produce signage which, in terms of its size and design, is appropriate for this secondary commercial node.

The signs have been designed as internally illuminated circular logos consisting of letters and graphic. The fascia sign has been installed towards the north end of the building beside the company name and the projecting sign has been installed towards the south end of the building.

Given the modest size of the signs and recognizing the existence of other comparable corporate logo signs in the immediate vicinity, the signs, in my opinion, are not unnecessarily obtrusive.

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

1497 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1497 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1497 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1497 Yonge Street

(May 13, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit two illuminated ground signs - 111 Queen's Park, Application No. 998016: Request for approval of variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by The Brothers Markle, 3780 14^th Avenue, Unit 103, Markham, Ontario, L3R 9Y5, on behalf of Victoria University, 91 Charles Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1K7. (Downtown)

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998016 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated ground signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998016 , of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Queen's Park, south of Bloor Street West, in an Institutional (Q) district. The property accommodates the George R. Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art. The applicant is requesting permission to remove an existing ground sign and install two new ground signs in the Queen's Park frontage of the property (see Figure 1). The signs each have a length of 5.0 metres and a height of 0.6 metres, with an area of 3.0 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the area of each sign (3.0 m�) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 2.5 m� by 0.5 m�; and

2.only one sign is permitted within the frontage of the lot.

The variances occur because the signs are larger and more numerous than permitted by the Municipal Code. The number of signs as well as their size are regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached.

The museum building is set back a considerable distance from the front lot line. The signs have been designed for the purposes of building identification and would be located within a raised landscaped area on either side of the building's main entrance, oriented north and south. 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 function.

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

111 Queen's Park

Insert Table/Map No. 2

111 Queen's Park

Insert Table/Map No. 3

111 Queen's Park

Insert Table/Map No. 4

111 Queen's Park

(May 8, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit seven illuminated projecting banner signs - 147 Spadina Avenue, Application No. 997096: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Alice Liang Architect, 377 Markham Street, Toronto, Ontario, M6G 2K8, on behalf of 458728 Ontario Ltd., 119 Spadina Avenue, Suite 401, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 2L1. (Downtown)

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 997096 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit seven illuminated projecting banner signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997096, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-east corner of Richmond Street West and Spadina Avenue, in a reinvestment area (RA) district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to install five illuminated projecting banner signs along the Spadina Avenue frontage of the building and two illuminated projecting banner signs along the Richmond Street frontage of the building (see Figures 1&2). The banner signs will identify the municipal address of the property. The signs each have a length of 0.7 metres and a height of 2.9 metres, with an area of 2.0 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the aggregate area of the signs on Spadina Avenue (10.3 m�) exceeds the permitted area of 3.3 m� and the aggregate area of the signs on Richmond Street (4.2 m�) exceeds the permitted area of 2.8 m�.

The maximum area for a projecting sign is based on the amount of frontage the unit has on the street. The banner signs will run lengthwise along the columns on the building's south and west elevations. In my opinion, the signs are appropriately sized for this corner property and will not negatively impact the streetscape or the building.

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

147 Spadina Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

147 Spadina Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

147 Spadina Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

147 Spadina Avenue

(May 7, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit two illuminated fascia signs - 393 University Avenue, Application No. 998025: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Dominic Rotundo, 453 Chancellor Drive, Woodbridge, Ontario, L4L 5E1, on behalf of Elliott & Page Ltd., 393 University Avenue, Suite 2100, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1E6. (Downtown)

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998025 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated fascia signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998025, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of University Avenue between Dundas Street West and Armoury Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 23 storey commercial building.

The applicant is requesting permission to install two illuminated fascia signs in the form of a corporate logo on the north and south elevations of the building (see Figures 1 & 2). The sign on the north elevation has a length of 3.0 metres and a height of 3.3 metres, with an area of 9.9 m�, and the sign on the south elevation has a length of 7.6 metres and a height of 3.0 metres, with an area of 23 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. the height of sign on the north elevation (3.3 metres) will exceed the maximum height permitted of 3.0 metres by 0.3 metres; and

2.the sign on the south elevation will not be located on the uppermost storey of the building.

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 was considered on April 22, 1998. The Committee's decision has been reserved pending the outcome of City Council's decision on this report.

The proposed signs consist of a company name and logo. The first variance occurs because the height restrictions of the logo and name combined will be exceeded. In this instance, however, the sign only slightly exceeds the maximum permitted and is in keeping with other corporate logo signs along University Avenue.

Respecting the second variance, the Municipal Code requires corporate logo signs to be located within the uppermost storey of buildings in order to reduce their visual impact on the streetscape , on the buildings to which they are attached and on adjacent uses. In this instance, the uppermost storey of the building is recessed from the main front wall and therefore I consider the proposed location on the 22^nd storey to be appropriate.

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

393 University Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

393 University Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

393 University Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

393 University Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 5

393 University Avenue

(May 4, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated fascia sign - 177 Beverley Street, Application No. 998012: Request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Teresa Yau, 55 Alamosa Drive, North York, Ontario, M2J 2N8, on behalf of The Chinese Presbyterian Church, 177 Beverley Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1Y7. (Downtown)

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement::

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No.998012 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No.998012, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-east corner of Beverley Street and Baldwin Street, in a residential (R3) district. The property accommodates a place of worship. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated fascia sign on the west elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 2.7 metres and a height of 0.8 metres, and an area of 2.2 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the height of sign above grade (5.1 metres) exceeds the maximum height permitted of 2.0 metres by 3.1 metres.

The variance occurs because the sign is higher than permitted by the Municipal Code. Signs in residential districts are required to be small and low in order to order to limit any negative impact on neighbouring residential uses. In this instance, the sign cannot be installed any lower because it would interfere with an existing canopy. Given that the sign is within the permitted 2.5 m� size limit for fascia signs in this district and that the nearest residential building from which the sign would be visible is approximately 30 metres north of the site and across Beverley Street, I am prepared to recommend approval of this application.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421; Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

177 Beverley Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

177 Beverley Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

177 Beverley Street

(May 14, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting 3 applications for variances to permit illuminated fascia signs in the Yonge Street, Bay Street and York Street underpasses - 71 Front Street West: Applications Nos. 998013, 998019, and 998020: Request for approval of variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon application by Tunnel-Vision Marketing Ltd., 4141 Dixie Road, Rockwood Mall, P.O. Box 41083, Mississauga, Ontario, L4W 4X9, on behalf of Toronto Terminals Railway Company Limited, 65 Front Street West, Suite402, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 1E6. (Downtown).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998013 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit four additional illuminated signs on the east and west sides of the Yonge Street underpass.

(2)That City Council approve Application No. 998019 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit ten illuminated signs on the east side of the Bay Street underpass, subject to the following conditions:

(a)that the owner/applicant remove the signs on 90 days notice from the City in order to permit the development of the teamway; and

(b)that prior to the issuance of a permit to erect the signs, the wall where the signs are to be installed is cleaned, patched, and painted in a manner consistent with the work undertaken in the Yonge Street underpass and to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and that the owner and applicant enter into an Undertaking with the City, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, specifying that the improved condition be maintained for the life of the signs.

(3)That City Council approve Application No. 998020 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit ten illuminated signs on the east side of the York Street underpass subject to the following conditions:

(a)that the owner/applicant remove the signs on 90 days notice from the City in order to permit the development of the teamway; and

(b)that prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the owner and applicant enter into an Undertaking with the City, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to undertake the cleaning, patching and painting of the north elevation of the Yonge Street underpass within six months of the issuance of a sign permit and that the improved condition be maintained for the life of the signs.

(4)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of the above-noted applications, of the requirement to obtain the necessary approvals from the Toronto Transportation Department and permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Background:

At its meeting dated August 14 & 15, 1995, the former City of Toronto Council had before it my report dated May 24, 1995 which recommended approval to permit 16 illuminated signs in the Yonge Street underpass, 7 illuminated signs in the Bay Street underpass and 10 illuminated signs in the York Street underpass. Council gave approval to 16 illuminated signs in the Yonge Street underpass but deferred consideration of the Bay and York Street underpasses.

Since then, a pedestrian walkway (teamway) has been installed on the west side of the York Street underpass and a teamway is scheduled to be opened as part of the Air Canada Centre development on the west side of the Bay Street underpass. Teamways are also proposed for the east side of Bay and York Streets, secured as part of the Precinct Agreements for the Railway Lands East. The current application is for permission to install illuminated signage on the existing east walls of these two underpasses and to install four additional illuminated signs in the Yonge Street underpass. The applicant is aware that the proposed signage will have to be removed when construction for the teamways is commenced.

Comments:

The municipal address for the properties are 71 Front Street West, which is Union Station, however, the signage is proposed to be located in the York Street, Bay Street and Yonge Street railway underpasses, running south from Front Street. The property is zoned for transportation use.

The applicant is proposing to install illuminated signs within the recessed panels of the underpasses. The York and Bay Street underpasses will each accommodate 10 illuminated signs on the east side of the underpasses and an additional 4 illuminated signs are proposed in the Yonge Street underpass (see Figures 1,2 & 3 attached). The signs will each have a length of 3 metres and a height of 1.8 metres, with an area of 5.6 m�.

In exchange for the lease of these spaces, the Toronto Terminal Railway Company Limited (TTR) is requiring the applicant to improve the appearance of the Bay Street underpass by cleaning, patching and painting the surface of the underpass where the signs are to be located, similar to that undertaken in Yonge Street. As the cleaning of the York Street underpass has already been completed as part of the City's Infrastructure Program, I am requiring that as a condition of approval of the proposed York Street underpass signs that the applicant clean, patch and paint the exterior surface of the bridge structure on the north elevation of the Yonge Street underpass.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.third party fascia signs are not permitted to face a street;

2.the signs will be located within 60 metres of each other; and

3.the signs are not attached to the wall of a building but the wall of a tunnel.

Although the signs generate numerous variances, this application is unique and should be reviewed on its own merits. These underpasses are key links between the City's downtown core and the waterfront. The installation of the proposed signage will necessitate the cleaning, patching and repainting of these underpasses which act as gateways to and from the City. Further, the illuminated signs will brighten the underpasses, thereby making them safer and more inviting.

Given these reasons, I am recommending approval of the applications subject to the conditions outlined above.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

71 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

71 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

71 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

71 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

71 Front Street

Application for Consent - Chapter 276, Article I,

Ravines of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

14 Riverside Crescent (High Park)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May14,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report is an assessment of the City's position on the ravine consent application regarding a proposed in-ground pool at 14 Riverside Crescent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council consent to Application No. 098036 for the construction of an in-ground pool within the Humber Valley Ravine portion of the property at 14 Riverside Crescent on the condition that the owner enter into a Ravine Control Agreement requiring:

(a)that the owner shall provide and maintain landscaping and ravine improvements substantially in accordance with the plan titled Proposed Swimming Pool, date stamped as received on April 29, 1998, prepared by Gib-San Pools Ltd. and Jonas Adda Landscape Planning Ltd., as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(b)that prior to the pool excavation the owner shall erect snow fencing and maintain it for the duration of construction at a minimum of 4 metres from the base of the 60 cm diameter oak tree and the 35 cm diameter oak and the area within the fence protection may not be disturbed by compaction or storage of soil or other materials.

(2)That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement.

(3)That the owner be advised:

(a)to contact the Forestry Services Section, Parks and Recreation Division, Community Services at 392-1900, upon the completion of all work as indicated on the approved plans;

(b)to protect all existing on-site ravine trees, particularly the 60 cm diameter oak located near the east property line and the 35 cm diameter oak located at the rear of the proposed north fence line; and

(c)to adjust the hole locations to avoid root damage when installing the pool fence posts within the minimum 4 metre protection zones surrounding the 65 cm and 35 cm diameter oak trees.

Background:

The site is located on the north side of Riverside Crescent, west of Riverside Drive. Approximately 20 metres of the northerly rear portion of the property is within the Humber Valley Ravine as designated by Chapter 276, Article I of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (see Map 1). The majority of the site is on tableland at the base of the slope.

The owner is proposing to construct an in-ground swimming pool of which approximately 90 percent would be within the designated Humber Valley Ravine lands (Appendix A).

A ravine consent application was filed on April 14, 1998 by Khurana Associates, 148 Glendale Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6R 2T2 on behalf of Dyann Sheppard, 14 Riverside Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M6S 1B6. A related site plan application was also filed on April 14, 1998 and is delegated to me for approval under Chapter 165, Article IV of the Municipal Code.

I have undertaken the required consultations with all relevant City departments. I am in agreement with the comments contained in the reports reproduced in Appendix B.

Comments:

No alterations are proposed at the adjacent toe of the slope and sediment fencing will be erected between the toe and the proposed works. The proposed in-ground swimming pool is located within a flat portion of the rear yard and the proposed construction would not have any negative effects on the natural characteristics or slope of the ravine.

Conclusions:

I believe that the current proposal to construct an in-ground swimming pool is both reasonable and within the intent of Chapter 276, Ravines, of the Municipal Code. Therefore, I recommend that Council give consent to the proposed development, subject to the owner entering into a Ravine Control Agreement.

Contact Name:

Lori Martin

Telephone: (416) 392-7196

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

APPENDIX A

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	398033
Rezoning:	N	Application Date:	April 9, 1998
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:14 Riverside Cr.

Nearest Intersection:	North side of Riverside Crescent; west of Riverside Drive.

Project Description:	To construct a swimming pool.

Applicant:

Jassie Khurana

148 Glendale Av.

534-6762

Agent:

Khurana Associates

148 Glendale Av.

534-6762

Architect:

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	LDRA	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	R1 Z0.35	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	9.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	613 m²	Height:	Storeys:	1.5
Frontage:	15.2 m		Metres:
Depth:	39.9 m
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:	67.9 m�	Parking Spaces:	1
Residential GFA:	135.8 m�	Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	135.8 m�

DENSITY
Residential Density:	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density:

COMMENTS

Status:

Report Drafted

Data valid:

May 12, 1998

Section:

Development Approval

Phone:

392-7187

_______

APPENDIX B

Reports of Civic Officials

1.Urban Planning and Development Services (April 24, 1998)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:	Install private pool at rear.
Zoning Designation:	R1 Z0.35	Map:	46H323
Applicable By-law(s):	438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by:	Jassie Khurana	Plans dated:	Apr.23/98

Zoning Review

A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal complies with the City's zoning by-laws.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal does not require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal does not require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

3.The proposal does not require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

4.The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

2.Works and Emergency Services (April 28, 1998)

Comments:

The proposal has been reviewed and there are no Departmental requirements of the owner.

Location

North side of Riverside Crescent, west of Riverside Drive.

Proposal

Construction of an in-ground swimming pool.

Ravine Control Area

The northerly 19.5 metres, more or less, of the site, including approximately 90 per cent of the swimming pool, is subject to Municipal Code, Chapter 276, Ravines, Article I (Humber Valley Ravine).

3.Economic Development and Culture and Tourism, Toronto Parks and Recreation (May8,1998)

This will acknowledge your Ravine Control By-law Circulation Form of April 30, 1998, which contained a new application for the construction of a swimming pool at the above noted address within the designated Humber River Ravine.

I advise that the plans for construction of a swimming pool are acceptable to my division, as shown in the plan titled Proposed Swimming Pool for Mr. and Mrs. P. Sheppard, prepared by Gib-San Pools Ltd. and Jonas Adda Landscape Planning Ltd., dated and received by Urban Planning and Development Services April l2, 1998.

I request that the following recommendations be included in your report.

That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare a Ravine Control Agreement between the City and the owners to give effect to the following:

(1)That the owners shall protect all existing on-site ravine trees, including the 60 cm diameter oak located near the east lot line, and the 35 cm diameter oak located to the rear of the proposed north fence-line. A snow fence must be erected 4 metres between the area of excavation and these trees. This fence must be in place prior to pool excavation, and remain for the duration of construction. The area within this fence may not be disturbed by compaction or storage of soil or other materials. Further, the pool fence posts to be installed within this protection zone must be installed by adjusting hole locations to avoid root damage.

(2)That the owners shall provide and maintain landscaping and ravine improvements substantially in accordance with the plan titled Proposed Swimming Pool for Mr. and Mrs. P. Sheppard, prepared by Gib-San Pools Ltd. And Jonas Adda Landscape Planning Ltd., dated April 29, 1998 and received by Urban Planning and Development Services April 29, 1998.

4.Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (April 27, 1998)

We acknowledge receipt of the above noted applications and offer the following comments.

On both properties the applicants are proposing to construct swimming pools in the rear yards. Both pool locations are within flat portions of the yard. No alterations are proposed at the adjacent toe of slope and sediment fencing will be erected between the toe and the proposed works. Permits are not required from this Authority under Ontario Regulation 158.

In light of this we have no objections to approval of the Site Plan Applications for 12 and 14 Riverside Crescent.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

14 Riverside Crescent

Insert Table/Map No. 2

14 Riverside Crescent

Application for Consent under Chapter 276, Article I,

Ravines, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

12 Riverside Crescent (High Park)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May14,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report is an assessment of the City's position on the ravine consent application regarding a proposed in-ground pool at 12 Riverside Crescent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council consent to Application No. 098037 for the construction of an in-ground pool within the Humber Valley Ravine portion of the property at 12 Riverside Crescent on the condition that the owner enter into a Ravine Control Agreement requiring:

(a)that the owner shall provide and maintain landscaping and ravine improvements substantially in accordance with the plan titled Contract Working Drawing - Backyard Site Improvements and Planting Plan, date stamped as received on April 29, 1998, prepared by Renaud Webber Design Consultants, as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(b)that prior to the pool excavation the owner shall erect snow fencing and maintain it for the duration of construction at a minimum of 4 metres from the base of the 92 cm diameter oak and the area within the fence protection may not be disturbed by compaction or storage of soil or other materials.

(2)That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement.

(3)That the owner be advised:

(a) to contact the Forestry Services Section, Parks and Recreation Division, Community Services at 392-1900, upon the completion of all work as indicated on the approved plans;

(b)to protect all existing on-site ravine trees, particularly the 92 cm diameter oak located near the east property line; and

(c)to adjust the hole locations to avoid root damage when installing the pool fence within the 4 m protection zone of the 92 cm diameter oak tree.

Background:

The site is located on the north side of Riverside Crescent, west of Riverside Drive. Approximately 9 metres of the northerly rear portion of the property is within the Humber Valley Ravine as designated by Chapter 276, Article I of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (see Map 1). The majority of the site is on tableland at the base of the slope.

The owner is proposing to construct an in-ground swimming pool of which approximately 80 percent would be within the designated Humber Valley Ravine lands (Appendix A).

A ravine consent application was filed on April 14, 1998 by Khurana Associates, 148 Glendale Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6R 2T2 on behalf of Sherry Lyn Davies, 12 Riverside Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M6S 1B9. A related site plan application was also filed on April 14, 1998 and is delegated to me for approval under Chapter 165, Article IV of the Municipal Code.

I have undertaken the required consultations with all relevant City departments. I am in agreement with the comments contained in the reports reproduced in Appendix B.

Comments:

Conclusions:

Contact Name:

Lori Martin

Telephone: (416) 392-7196

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

_______

APPENDIX A

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:
Rezoning:	N	Application Date:	April 14, 1998
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:12 Riverside Cr.


Nearest Intersection:
Project Description:	To construct a swimming pool.

Applicant:

Jassie Khurana

148 Glendale Av.

534-6762

Agent:

Khurana Associates.

148 Glendale Av.

534-6762

Architect:

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	LDRA	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	R1 Z0.35	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	9.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	845.3 m²	Height:	Storeys:	2
Frontage:	15.2 m		Metres:
Depth:	55.1 m
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	1
Residential GFA:		Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:

DENSITY
Residential Density: 0.50	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 0.50

COMMENTS

Status:

Report Drafted.

Data valid:

May 12, 1998

Section:

Development Approval

Phone:

392-7187

_______

APPENDIX B

Report of Civic Officials

1.Urban Planning and Development Services (April 24, 1998)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:	Install private pool at rear.
Zoning Designation:	R1 Z0.35	Map:	46H-323
Applicable By-law(s):	438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by:	Jassie Khurana	Plans dated:	Apr.23rd/98

Zoning Review

A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal complies with the City's zoning by-laws.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal does not require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal does not require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

3.The proposal does not require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

4.The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

2.Works and Emergency Services (April 28, 1998)

Comments:

The proposal has been reviewed and there are no Departmental requirements of the owner.

Location

North side of Riverside Crescent, west of Riverside Drive.

Proposal

Construction of an in-ground swimming pool.

Ravine Control Area

The northerly 8.6 metres, more or less, of the site, including approximately 80 per cent of the swimming pool, is subject to Municipal Code, Chapter 276, Ravines, Article I (Humber Valley Ravine).

3.Economic Development and Culture and Tourism, Toronto Parks and Recreation (May 8, 1998)

I advise that the plans for construction of a swimming pool are acceptable to my division, as shown in the plan titled Contract Working Drawing, Backyard Site Improvements and Planting Plan, prepared by Renaud Webber Design Consultants, dated and received by Urban Planning and Development Services April 29, 1998.

I request that the following recommendations be included in your report.

That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare a Ravine Control Agreement between the City and the owners to give effect to the following.

1.That the owners shall protect all existing on-site ravine trees, particularly the 92 cm diameter oak located near the east property line. A snow fence must be erected prior to pool excavation, 4 to 5 metres from the base of this tree, to remain in place for the duration of construction. The area within this fence may not be disturbed by compaction or storage of soil or other materials. Further, the pool fence posts to be installed within this protection zone must be installed by adjusting hole locations to avoid root damage.

2.That the owners shall provide and maintain landscaping and ravine improvements substantially in accordance with the drawings prepared by Renaud Webber Design Consultants, dated April29, 1998 and received by Urban Planning and Development Services April 29, 1998.

4.Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (April 27, 1998)

We acknowledge receipt of the above noted applications and offer the following comments.

On both properties the applicants are proposing to construct swimming pools in the rear yards. Both pool locations are within flat portions of the yard. No alterations are proposed at the adjacent toe of the slope and sediment fencing will be erected between the toe and the proposed works. Permits are not required from this Authority under Ontario Regulation 158.

In light of this we have no objections to approval of the Site Plan Applications for 12 and 14 Riverside Crescent.

We trust that this is satisfactory.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

12 Riverside Crescent

Insert Table/Map No. 2

12 Riverside Crescent

Temporary Street Closure - Church Street,

Alexander Street, Maitland Street and

Wellesley Street East - Gay and Lesbian Pride Day

(Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To seek City Council's approval for the planned 3 day closure of Church, Maitland, Alexander Streets and Wellesley Street East from June 27-29, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the following streets be closed to all vehicular traffic from 1:00 a.m. Saturday, June 27, 1998 up to and including 3:00 a.m. Monday, June 29, 1998, for the Gay and Lesbian Pride Day event:

(a)Church Street, from the south side of Monteith Street to the north side of Carlton Street;

(b)Alexander Street, from the east side of Church Street to approximately 30.5 m east of Church Street;

(c)Alexander Street, from the west side of Church Street to approximately 9.1 m west of Church Street;

(d)Maitland Street, from the east side of Church Street to approximately 24.4 m east of Church Street;

(e)Maitland Street, from the west side of Church Street to approximately 24.4 m west of Church Street;

(f)Wellesley Street East, from the east side of Yonge Street to approx 45.7 m east of Church Street; and

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

Background:

Under Municipal Code Section 313-19, the Commissioner may issue a permit for a street closure for "social recreational, community and athletic purpose or a combination of these purposes" for less than 24 hours, if local access for residents and emergency vehicles is maintained. A permit for the same purpose may only be issued with Council's approval if the closure is to be greater than 24 hours with respect to a particular application. The Gay and Lesbian Pride Day closures will extend over 3 days.

Comments:

Mr. Colin Leishman, Co-chair for Pride Toronto, applied for a temporary street closure permit for various streets for their annual "Pride Day" event from June 27-29, 1998. This application requests permission to close the following streets to vehicular traffic from Saturday, June 27, 1998 at 1:00a.m. to Monday, June 29, 1998 at 3:00 a.m., to facilitate the installation of tents and booths on the roadway and to provide adequate street cleaning after the event:

(a)Church Street, from the south side of Monteith Street to the north side of Carlton Street;

(b)Alexander Street, from the east side of Church Street to approximately 30.5 m east of Church Street;

(c)Alexander Street, from the west side of Church Street to approximately 9.1 m west of Church Street;

(d)Maitland Street, from the east side of Church Street to approximately 24.4 m east of Church Street;

(e)Maitland Street, from the west side of Church Street to approximately 24.4 m west of Church Street;

(f)Wellesley Street East, from the east side of Yonge Street to approx 45.7 m east of Church Street.

The applicant has notified residents and businesses directly affected by the proposed closures. In addition, I have consulted with the Ward Councillors, Fire Department, Ambulance Services, Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Police Service who have no objection to the above-noted closures.

Conclusions:

In consideration that all of the requirements for a temporary street closure have been met by the applicant, I recommend that permission be granted for the closure of the streets previously indicated, from Saturday, June 27, 1998 at 1:00 am to Monday, June 29, 1998 at 3:00 am, and that the appropriate amendment be made to Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, to allow me to issue a permit, assuming Council has approved the closures.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

Naming of Proposed Public Street -

44 Norwood Terrace - Littleyork Road

(East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May14,1998) from the City Engineer, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the name "Littleyork Road" be authorized for use on the Draft Plan of Subdivision for the proposed residential development at 44 Norwood Terrace.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That the name "Littleyork Road" be approved for the proposed public street to be located at the residential development at 44 Norwood Terrace, illustrated on the enclosed Map A; and

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

Background:

I have a request from Rashmi Nathwani of Namara Associates Limited, to name the proposed public street at the residential development at 44 Norwood Terrace, "Littleyork Road." The name Littleyork was submitted by William Greer, Namara's Heritage and Preservation Consultant, and relates to the unincorporated Village of Little York which was located in the Main Street and Gerrard Street East area, circa 1880. When East Toronto was incorporated as a town in 1903, it absorbed the unincorporated Village of Little York along with other hamlets in the area. East Toronto was then annexed by the City of Toronto in 1908.

Comments:

The proposed name Littleyork Road has been circulated for comment and has the support of Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, Heritage Toronto, Toronto Planning and Toronto Fire Services, however, Mary Campbell of the Beach and East Toronto Historical Society has objected to the use of the name and has suggested some alternative names. The correspondence from Namara Associates Limited and the Beach and East Toronto Historical Society are set out in Appendix A.

Conclusions:

The proposed name "Littleyork Road" is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by Toronto City Council on July 11, 1988 (Clause 4, Executive Committee Report No. 22).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831

Fax: (416)392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@city.toronto.on.ca

_______

Appendix A

Letter dated March 16, 1998, from Rashmi Nathwani, Namara Associates Limited, 372 Bay Street, Suite 1402, Toronto, Ontario, M5H-2W9.

This is our application for naming the newly created road for our development at 44 Norwood Terrace now known as "Upper Beach Village" in accordance with the City of Toronto Policy regarding Naming of Public Streets (Clause 40, ECR #22 Passed July 11, 1998).

Our Heritage and Preservation Consultant, Mr. William Greer, has recommended the name Littleyork Road (consisting of one 10-letter word) for the new road along the north side of the subdivision. Mr. Greer's recommendation was based on consultation with Ms. Kathryn Anderson at Heritage Toronto. The accompanying coloured Site Plan and Draft Plan of Subdivision indicates where the new road will be situated.

The name "Littleyork" was chosen after the unincorporated Village of Little York which was situated in the Main and Gerrard Street area, circa 1880. When East Toronto was incorporated as a Town in 1903, it absorbed the unincorporated Village of Little York along with other hamlets in the area. East Toronto was then annexed by the City of Toronto in 1908.

We believe that "Littleyork" Road would be a well deserved commemoration to the history of this locale.

The Draft Plan of Subdivision and the Subdivision Agreement are expected to be registered next month. Your early consideration of the matter would be appreciated. If you require additional information please do not hesitate to call.

Letter from Mary Campbell, The Beach and East Toronto Historical Society, dated April 13, 1998

Thank you for your letter of March 31 (which I received last week) inviting my comments on the proposed name "Littleyork Road" for a public street to be located at the 44 Norwood Terrace development.

I think that this name is most inappropriate for several reasons. First of all, with all due respect to Heritage Toronto, I feel that the name would be misleading. While the name "Little York" may originally have been used to refer to the community around the York railway station (which was located east of Main Street and north of Gerrard), the Village of East Toronto was incorporated in 1888, centred around the Main and Gerrard intersection, at which time the area known as Little York was centred around the intersection of Danforth Avenue and Dawes Road. This was the Little York which was incorporated into the Town of East Toronto in 1903.

My other major concern has to do with the form of the name. It would seem to conflict with Name Selection Criteria #9, as a "corrupted or modified name," and would be historically inaccurate as well.

It seems to me that the community of Little York would be more suitably remembered by using its name - properly spelled - for a major street in the new development east of Main street and north of Gerrard.

As to the naming of a street or streets in the 44 Norwood Terrace development, why not consider names like "Fielder" or "Paper Box" for the business which recently stood on the site, or "Delaplante" for the lumber company which thrived in the immediate area in the days of East Toronto?

I hope that you will seriously reconsider this matter, and not use the name "Littleyork." Please continue to keep me informed of the street naming process in this area. I am always glad to be of assistance in matters of local history.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Littleyork Road

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route -

Broadview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, and Jones Avenue

Bicycle Lanes - Danforth Avenue to Queen Street

East (Don River and East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the bicycle route identified in Drawing No. 421F-5211 entitled "Proposed Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes", May 1998, attached to the report (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services be approved in principle;

(2)approval in principle be given to narrow the pavement in order to facilitate the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route, at the locations described as follows:

(a) The narrowing of the pavement on the south side of Chatham Avenue from a width of 8.6 metres to a width ranging from 6.6 metres to 8.6 metres, from Jones Avenue to a point 15 metres east thereof;

(b) The narrowing of the pavement on the south side of Strathcona Avenue from a width of 7.4 metres to a width ranging from 5.4 metres to 7.4 metres, from Pape Avenue to a point 15 metres east thereof; and

(c) The narrowing of the pavement on the north side of Strathcona Avenue from a width of 7.3 metres to a width ranging from 5.3 metres to 7.3 metres, from Pape Avenue to a point 20 metres west thereof.

(3)bicycle lanes be approved in principle on both sides of Jones Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East as detailed in Appendix A attached to the report (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services;

(4)in conjunction with the implementation of the bicycle route, roadway alterations and bicycle lanes identified in Recommendation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, the traffic and parking regulations detailed in Appendix B attached to the report (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services be approved in principle;

(5)bicycle lanes be approved in principle on Strathcona Avenue as follows:

(a)from Pape Avenue to Carlaw Avenue on the north side for westbound cyclists; and

(b)from Pape Avenue to Blake Street on the south side adjacent to the parking lane for eastbound cyclists.

(6)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action 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 (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To initiate the process of establishing an on-street bicycle route parallel to Danforth Avenue from Broadview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, and establishing bicycle lanes on Jones Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the proposed work in the estimated amount of $70,000 are available under Capital Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That the bicycle route identified in Drawing No. 421F-5211 entitled "Proposed Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes", May 1998 be approved;

(2)That approval be given to narrow the pavement in order to facilitate the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route, at the locations described as follows:

(a) The narrowing of the pavement on the south side of Chatham Avenue from a width of 8.6 metres to a width ranging from 6.6 metres to 8.6 metres, from Jones Avenue to a point 15 metres east thereof;

(3)That bicycle lanes be approved on both sides of Jones Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East as detailed in Appendix A attached hereto;

(4)That, in conjunction with the implementation of the bicycle route, roadway alterations and bicycle lanes identified in Recommendation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, the traffic and parking regulations detailed in Appendix B attached hereto be approved; and

(5)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

The Toronto City Cycling Committee released a report in late 1993 entitled "Proposed New Bicycle Lanes and Routes - Various Locations". This document set out a rough master plan for establishing a network of on-street lanes and routes for bicycles. The former Toronto City Services Committee directed staff to report on the feasibility and implementation of these facilities. Over the past few years, staff have incrementally reported on and implemented the identified on-street bicycle facilities to the stage where there are now over 50 km of bicycle lanes in place. One of the remaining facilities which Works was requested to assess and report on is the Danforth By-Pass Bicycle Route between Broadview Avenue and Woodbine Avenue. This project was specifically identified in a report entitled "Enhancing Bicycle Safety" which was adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its February24, 1997 meeting.

A bicycle route is a recommended route for cyclists on streets, and is identified by circular blue and white bicycle route signs. Bicycle lanes, by way of comparison, are exclusive on-street traffic lanes to be used by bicycles only. They are identified by white edge lines, diamonds and bicycle logo symbols on the pavement, and regulatory (black and white) bicycle lane signs. Motor vehicles are not allowed to drive or park in bicycle lanes, whereas a bicycle route is not exclusive to cyclists.

Comments:

(1) Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route - Broadview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue

Existing Conditions

Danforth Avenue is the busiest cycling street east of the Don Valley. Many cyclists, however, do not feel safe cycling on Danforth Avenue. Recent pavement marking changes have improved general traffic operations and cycling safety on Danforth Avenue between Broadview Avenue and Pape Avenue, but the intense traffic and parking activities on the street remain a deterrent for many cyclists. The east-west residential streets, generally to the south of Danforth Avenue, provide a good alternative for these cyclists. In addition, there are numerous schools and public parks in this area which attract young cyclists and families who could benefit from the by-pass route.

As the attached drawing entitled "Proposed Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes", May 1998 shows, it is possible for cyclists to by-pass Danforth Avenue and travel between Broadview Avenue and Woodbine Avenue. Although many cyclists already choose this option, eastbound cyclists do so illegally, as there are no connecting streets between Jones Avenue and Pape Avenue which permit eastbound traffic. In addition, the westbound route is somewhat indirect if cyclists abide by the existing one-way regulations.

Many of the one-way regulations on streets in this neighbourhood were originally introduced to reduce the amount of motor vehicle traffic. Unfortunately, these regulations also affect cyclists, although cyclists are not the concern of most residents.

Proposal Details

The Danforth By-Pass is designed to maintain the restrictions to motorised traffic while allowing cyclists to legally and safely use the neighbourhood streets. In order to accomplish this, the following one-way regulations would be rescinded:

(1) Strathcona Avenue between Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue (one-way eastbound);

(2) Strathcona Avenue between Pape Avenue and Blake Street (one-way westbound); and

(3)Chatham Avenue between Jones Avenue and Byron Avenue (one-way westbound).

In conjunction with the rescindment of the one-way restrictions, entry onto these streets would be prohibited at one end to simulate the current operating conditions. For example, entry onto Strathcona Avenue at Pape Avenue would be prohibited at all times and from all directions, except for bicycles. This has two advantages. Cyclists would legally be able to enter the street from both directions and in addition residents and others who are parked on the street or in the rear lane-ways would be able to travel in either direction and exit the street at either end. The potential for motorised through traffic would still be avoided by means of the entry prohibitions.

Besides the one-way designation changes and entry prohibitions, traffic islands would also be installed at the three locations where entry is to be prohibited. The attached "enhanced" photograph entitled "Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route - Proposed Chatham Avenue/Jones Avenue Changes", March 1998, illustrates the proposed concept. The purpose of the traffic island is to physically discourage illegal entry by motor vehicles onto the street, and also to enhance the safety of bicycle, motor vehicle and pedestrian operations. This concept (in various design forms) is currently used in the United States, Europe and in a number of Canadian cities, including Edmonton, Vancouver and Ottawa, but has not yet been implemented in Toronto.

The changes will not impact the parking supply on Chatham Avenue and Jones Avenue. On Strathcona Avenue between Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue, the existing alternate side parking regulation would be rescinded and parking authorized only on the south side of the street to reflect the predominantly eastbound flow of traffic. On Strathcona Avenue between Pape Avenue and Blake Street the parking would be changed from the south side to the north side of the street to reflect the predominantly westbound flow of traffic. There would be a reduction in the parking supply on Strathcona Avenue as follows:

STRATHCONA AVENUE	PARKING SPACES				PERMITS ISSUED (As at April 1998)
	EXISTING		PROPOSED
	North	South	North	South
Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue (Existing Alternate Side Parking)	27	27	n/a	25	17
Pape Avenue to Blake Street (Existing Parking on South Side)	n/a	37	18	14	23

Although the proposed plan would result in the loss of 2 parking spaces between Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue, and 5 spaces between Pape Avenue and Blake Street, residents and visitors would have the added benefit of being able to drive in both directions on the street. This would also benefit visitors to Earl Grey Senior Public School on the north side of Strathcona Avenue.

The intersection of Greenwood Avenue and Chatham Avenue/Mountjoy Avenue is another key location along the by-pass route. At this off-set intersection cyclists must cross Greenwood Avenue without the aid of a traffic signal or pedestrian crosswalk. It is proposed that the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. parking prohibition on the east side of Greenwood Avenue opposite Chatham Avenue be rescinded, and a 2.4 m wide "hatched" area be implemented in the centre of the road with adjacent 3.8 m travel lanes. The proposed changes are shown in the attached Drawing No. 421F-5184, April 1998.

The hatched area would provide storage for pedestrians and left-turning bicycles, and motor vehicles. The concept is similar to changes recently implemented on Danforth Avenue between Broadview Avenue and Pape Avenue. This option would increase the parking supply by allowing parking on the east side of Greenwood Avenue during the evening peak period.

In addition to the changes discussed above, other modifications along the by-pass route are also being investigated. A review is underway to assess the feasibility of modifying existing vehicle sensors at traffic signals so that they also detect (and respond to) bicycles at the following locations:

(a) northbound and southbound on Monarch Park Avenue at Danforth Avenue;

(b)eastbound and westbound on Hanson Street at Coxwell Avenue;

(d)northbound on East Lynn Avenue and southbound on Woodmount Avenue at Danforth Avenue.

The implementation of the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route can be done independently of the Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes.

2. Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes - Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East

The 1993 report by the Toronto City Cycling Committee also recommended the implementation of bicycle lanes on both sides of Jones Avenue between Danforth Avenue and the CN Railway Overpass. Based on the current operating conditions on Jones Avenue, this investigation of bicycle lanes has been extended south from the railway overpass to Queen Street East.

Existing Conditions

Jones Avenue is 14 m wide with one travel lane in each direction and parking on both sides, except for the east side from Gerrard Street East to Danforth Avenue where parking is prohibited at all times. The permit parking program is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. The traffic volume on Jones Avenue is approximately 10,000 vehicles per day, which is well below the level on other streets which have successfully been converted to bicycle lanes. The No. 83 Jones TTC bus route also runs along Jones Avenue in both directions.

Proposal Details

The attached drawing entitled "Jones Avenue Bicycle Lane Proposal - Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East - Typical Cross-Section Before and After the Bicycle Lanes", April 1998 illustrates the proposed plan. Based on the existing conditions on Jones Avenue, the implementation of bicycle lanes is forecast to have a minimal impact on traffic and TTC operations. The impact on on-street parking on Jones Avenue is outlined in the table below.

JONES AVENUE	PARKING SPACES
	EXISTING		PROPOSED
	East	West	East	West
Danforth Avenue to Endean Avenue (one block south of Gerrard Street East)	0	92	82	92
Endean Avenue to Queen Street East	66	49	66	49
TOTAL	66	141	148	141

3. Public Notification - Danforth By-pass and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

Under the provisions of the Municipal Act, notice of Council's intent to enact any proposed by-law(s) to designate bicycle lanes or alter roadways must be advertised at least once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the community. This notice is also to indicate the date and time of the meeting at which Council will consider passing the proposed by-law(s) and hearing public deputations.

In accordance with procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting of July 24 and 25, 1995 set out in the joint report (June 13, 1995) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment (Clause 27 in City Services Committee Report No. 10 contained in Executive Committee Report No. 19), additional notification will be given to occupants of affected properties by postal walk, and non-occupant owners by mail, advising in advance of the Toronto Community Council's meeting at which deputations will be heard on these proposals, and as soon as possible in advance of the meeting at which the draft by-laws are to be considered.

4. Implementation Programme

Works staff have initiated consultations with the emergency services and the Toronto Transit Commission regarding the proposals. Detailed design work in relation to traffic signal and transit operations is continuing. Refinements arising out of the above mentioned consultations, the deputation process and the detailed design work can be reported to subsequent meetings of the Toronto Community Council as necessary.

Due to the need to co-ordinate the implementation of the bicycle route and lanes in 1998, there is some urgency to initiate the approval process. Ideally, a greater level of prior public scrutiny of the plan would have been helpful, however, this has not been possible in this instance. Public consultation can continue concurrently with the approval process, and there are several opportunities through subsequent reports to the Toronto Community Council or City Council to make refinements to the plan, if necessary.

The narrowing of the pavement on Strathcona Avenue and Chatham Avenue and reconfiguration of its intersections as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the Municipal Act. This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Conclusions:

The proposal to implement the Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes would benefit cyclists and residents, and have a minimal impact on parking and traffic operations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nigel Tahair,

Transportation Technologist,

Tel. No. 392-7711.

_______

APPENDIX A

Schedule Additions to Article IV

Required to Implement the Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

Add the following:

194-6 - Lanes designated principally for the use of bicycles

Highway	Side and Location	Between
Jones Avenue	Both, adjacent to curb lane used for parking	Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East

APPENDIX B

Parking Regulation Amendments Required to Implement the

Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

1.Delete the following:

�400-54 - Schedule I - One-Way Highways

Highway	Between	Time or Days	Direction
Chatham Avenue	Jones Avenue and Byron Avenue	Anytime	From east to west
Strathcona Avenue	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	Anytime	From west to east
Strathcona Avenue	Pape Avenue and Blake Street	Anytime	From east to west

2.Add the following:

�400-63 - Schedule X - Entry on Certain Highways Prohibited

Prohibited Highway	Travelled Highway	Direction	Days and Times
Chatham Avenue east of Jones Avenue	Jones Avenue	Southbound and northbound	Anytime (bicycles excepted)
Strathcona Avenue east of Pape Avenue	Pape Avenue and Strathcona Avenue	Southbound, northbound and eastbound	Anytime (bicycles excepted)
Strathcona Avenue west of Pape Avenue	Pape Avenue and Strathcona Avenue	Southbound, northbound and westbound	Anytime (bicycles excepted)

3.Delete the following:

�400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Greenwood Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and Mountjoy Avenue	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Sat., Sun. and public holidays
Jones Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and Myrtle Avenue	Anytime
Jones Avenue	East	Gerrard Street East and Endean Avenue	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	Anytime, from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	North	Pape Avenue and Jones Avenue	Anytime

4.Add the following:

�400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Greenwood Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and a point 50 m south of it	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Sat., Sun. and public holidays
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	North	Pape Avenue and a point 17 m east of it	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	North	Jones Avenue and point 75 m west of it	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	South	Pape Avenue and a point 29 m west of it	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	South	Pape Avenue and a point 195 m east of it	Anytime

5.Add the following:

�400-77 - Schedule XXIV - No Stopping

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Jones Avenue	East	A point 30.5 metres south of Danforth Avenue and Chatham Avenue	Anytime

6.Delete the following:

�400-79 - Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking

Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Strathcona Avenue	Even	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	20	All times, except no parking 16^th day to the last day of each month, inclusive, from Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive; and no parking anytime from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	20	All times, except no parking first day to the 15^th day of each month, inclusive, form Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From Pape Avenue to Blake Street	39	All times

7.Add the following:

�400-79 - Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking

Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Jones Avenue	Odd	From Endean Avenue to Chatham Avenue	82	All times
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	25	All times
Strathcona Avenue	Even	From Pape Avenue to a point 190 m east of it	18	All times
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From a point 190 m east of Pape Avenue to Blake Street	14	All times

8.Delete the following:

�400-81 - Schedule XXVIII - Alternate Side Parking

Highway	Side	Between	Parking Restrictions	Hours/Days
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	No parking; from Apr. 1 to Dec. 1	16^th day to the last day of each month, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	South	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	No parking; from Apr. 1 to Dec. 1	First day to the 15^th day of each month, inclusive

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

Interim Appointments to the Committee of Management

of Applegrove Community Complex

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends:

(1)That Sylvia Hua, Brenda Morse, Sheila O'Dell and Debra Warden be appointed to the Committee of Management of Applegrove Community Complex on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace Crystal Stuckenbrock, Tim Wainwright, Sue Parker and Joy Klopp; and

(2)That the Toronto District Board of Education be requested to name its interim appointee to serve on the Committee of Management of Applegrove Community Complex.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (May 22, 1998) from the Interim Secretary, Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

Recommendations:

(2)That the Toronto District Board of Education be requested to name its interim appointee to serve on the Committee of Management of Applegrove Community Complex.

Comments:

On May 11, 1998, the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions had before it a communication (April 8, 1998) from the Executive Director of Applegrove Community Complex submitting the names of nominees for appointment to their Committee of Management to fill vacancies on the Committee of Management.

The Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions suggests that appointments that must be made to individual Agencies, Boards and Commissions be made on an interim basis only until such time as a new policy for these appointments has been established and the review of the Agencies, Boards and Commissions has been completed.

Interim Appointments to University Settlement

Recreation Centre

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Michaela Koch and Frank Chui be appointed to the Board of Directors of University Settlement Recreation Centre on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace PhilMcDonald and Matthew Rapus.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (May 22, 1998) from the Interim Secretary, Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

Recommendation:

That Michaela Koch and Frank Chui be appointed to the Board of Directors of University Settlement Recreation Centre on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace Phil McDonald and Matthew Rapus.

Comments:

On May 11, 1998, the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions had before it a communication (January 29, 1998) from the President of University Settlement Recreation Centre submitting the names of nominees for appointment to their Board of Directors. Only two of the nominees are replacements to fill vacancies.

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communication (January 29, 1998) from the President, University Settlement Recreation Centre, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Interim Appointments to the Eastview

Neighbourhood Community Centre

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Michelle Smith, Angela Stevens and SooWong be appointed to the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre Board of Management on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace Wes Wilson, Julie Huynh and Khalid Elamam.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (May 22, 1998) from the Interim Secretary, Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions:

Recommendation:

That Michelle Smith, Angela Stevens and Soo Wong be appointed to the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre Board of Management on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace Wes Wilson, Julie Huynh and Khalid Elamam.

Comments:

On May 11, 1998, the Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions had before it a communication (March 16, 1998) from the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre submitting the names of eleven nominees for appointment to the Management positions at Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre, of whom eight are existing members pursuant to Bill 148 and will remain in place until Council appoints new members. Only three are replacements to fill vacancies.

The Task Force on Agencies, Boards and Commissions recommends that appointments that must be made to individual Agencies, Boards and Commissions be made on an interim basis only until such time as a new policy for these appointments has been established and the review of the Agencies, Boards and Commissions has been completed.

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

Naming of New Park - East of Main Development

(East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the new park which is being proposed as part of the development project on the East of Main lands be named after Mr. Joe McNulty.

The above recommendation was unanimously carried as follows:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Fotinos, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, McConnell, Walker, - 11

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (May 27, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

As members may be aware, the City is currently in the process of rezoning the East of Main area. Part of the rezoning will include a new park (the size yet to be determined). The new park's primary use will be to act as the new playing field for Malvern Collegiate, which is just to the south. Although we would normally wait until the site is dedicated to the city before naming it, we are requesting that this Community Council approve its intention to name the park after Joe McNulty.

Joe McNulty is a lifetime resident of the Beach area and former volunteer football coach for Malvern for more than 40 years. He has also been the President, and founding member of the Balmy Beach Club, a paddling coach (for more than 50 years) and a local business person. Joe is truly loved by all and is considered a household name. Unfortunately, Mr. McNulty was recently diagnosed with terminal cancer of the liver. Given his condition, representatives of the Canoe club and Malvern Collegiate have asked that we name the new park after Joe McNulty.

Please consider this request.

Lay-out and Dedication of Public Lane Purposes -

North-South Portion of the Lane System South

of Danforth Avenue, East of Luttrell Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May20,1998) from Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the lay-out and dedication for public lane purposes of a 0.3 metre wide City-owned reserve strip abutting the east limit of the north-south portion of the lane system south of Danforth Avenue, east of Luttrell Avenue, in order that these lands can be incorporated in an improved lane to provide rear access to the properties on the east side of Luttrell Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the 0.3 metre wide City-owned reserve strip abutting the east limit of the north-south portion of the lane system located south of Danforth Avenue and east of Luttrell Avenue, shown as Part 2 on Plan 64R- 15887, be laid out and dedicated for public lane purposes; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.

Comments:

There is a 0.3 metre wide City-owned reserve strip adjacent to the east limit of the north-south portion of the public lane, located south of Danforth Avenue and east of Luttrell Avenue. This reserve strip is identified as Part 2 on Plan 64R-15887, a print of which has been deposited with the City Clerk.

For many years the above-mentioned reserve strip served as a buffer between the City lane lands, which are currently unimproved and the private shopping mall lands to the east. In connection with the redevelopment of the mall, the layout and dedication of the reserve strip, Part 2 on Plan64R-15887, and widening of the lane secured as a condition of the development approval will permit the improvement of the lane to provide rear access to the properties on the east side of Luttrell Avenue.

This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental

Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Laurie Robertson

Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings

(392-7711)

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it Plan 64R- 15887, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Licensed Boulevard Cafe Fences

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the City of Toronto request that the Province of Ontario amend the appropriate provincial regulations to establish a common minimum height for licensed boulevard cafe fences of 36 inches;

(2)the City of Toronto further request that the Province of Ontario instruct its inspectors to suspend enforcement of orders against licensees whose fences meet the City's standards but not those of the province until a common minimum height for licensed boulevard cafe fences is established; and

(3)City officials take appropriate action to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint communication (May 18, 1998) from Councillors' Pantalone and Silva:

Current provincial regulations require that licensed establishments enclose any outdoor area in which liquor is served i.e. a boulevard café, with a barrier no less than 42 inches in height. City of Toronto by-laws require such barriers to be at least 36 inches high. Moreover within 30 metres of an intersection such fences cannot exceed 36 inches in height, by City by-law. As a result, owners complying with City of Toronto's standards may be subject to provincial fines or work orders.

Recommendations:

(1)The City of Toronto request that the Province of Ontario amend the appropriate provincial regulations to establish a common minimum height for licensed boulevard café fences of 36 inches;

(2)The City of Toronto further request that the Province of Ontario instruct its inspectors to suspend enforcement of orders against licensees whose fences meet the City's standards but not those of the province until a common minimum height for licensed boulevard café fences is established; and

(3)City officials give effect thereto.

Dogs Off-Leash in Vermont Square Park

(Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the implementationof a dogs off-leash area in Vermont Square Park between the hours of 6:00a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., weekdays and weekends, as a six month pilot project.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (May 26, 1998) from the Regional Director, Central, Parks and Recreational Department:

Purpose:

To request Community Council consideration of a dogs off-leash area in Vermont Square Park between particular hours on weekdays and weekends as a six month pilot project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council give consideration to the implementation of a dogs off-leash area in Vermont Square Park between the hours of 6:00am to 9:00am and 7:30pm to 11:00pm, weekdays and weekends as a six month pilot project.

Background:

The Seaton Village Residents Association held a public meeting to discuss the use of Vermont Square by dog owners and their dogs on May 20, 1998. At that meeting concerns were raised regarding dogs running free in the park contrary to the Uniform Parks Bylaw. While dog owners want a place to run their dogs, other park users have concerns relating to health issues, comfort and safety of other users and wear and tear on the park. Residents agreed that a reasonable compromise may be to allow dogs off-leash during specific times only and the bylaw be amended accordingly. It is suggested that the pilot project be reviewed after six months to determine its effectiveness and any concerns.

Comments:

For your information, according to a directive from the City Clerk dated March 27, 1998, as a result of a request from York Community Council, the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services has been directed to report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee on a City-wide uniform policy regarding leashed and unleashed dogs in City Parks. This report is currently in preparation in consultation with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Conclusions:

That the establishment of a dogs off-leash area between specific times be considered as a six month pilot project for Vermont Square Park.

Contact Name:

Jill Cherry; 392- 0360.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (May 22, 1998) from Gary Lichtblau, Chair, Seaton Village Residents Association, addressed to CouncillorAdams:

On the 20th of May the SVRA held a public meeting at Palmerston Public School to discuss the use of Vermont Square Park in general and its use by dog owners and their dogs in particular. The meeting was well attended; about fifty concerned residents, representing diverse points of view, came to express their thoughts on the matter. Also in attendance were Bernard Morton, your executive assistant, Mary Wilson, principal at Palmerston Public school, and representatives from the City's Animal Control Division and Parks & Recreation Department.

The meeting was called in response to on-going concern among residents about dogs running free in Vermont Square Park. Currently the municipal by-law requires that all dogs in public places be leashed. Dogs in Vermont Square Park are rarely on-leash.

It is clear that dog owners want a place to run their dogs, in contravention of the existing by-law. Other users however have concerns about dogs in the park. Discussion focused on the following issues: 1) wear and tear on the park, 2) the health hazard arising from the concentration of dogs, and3) the comfort and safety of all users and of children in particular.

Dog owners recognized the problems and were ready to listen to the concerns of others. They were ready to accept responsibility for complying and self-regulating compliance with any arrangement that would better meet their needs. The participants at the meeting acknowledged the contribution to community safety provided by the presence of dog owners in the park year-round. People recognized for the most part the responsible nature of dog owners, as well as their awareness of the impact dogs have on the park.

Various options were discussed. The people in attendance, in spite of the many different opinions expressed, came to a consensus on a proposal that could satisfy all users of the park.

The proposal involves a time-sharing arrangement that would allow dogs to run off-leash in the park at prearranged times as outlined below. At all other times dogs would remain on-leash as required by the existing by-law. It is hoped that by this arrangement dog owners would be prepared to regulate their use of the park.

Off-leash hours for the proposal would be:

Weekdays and weekends

Mornings 6:00 am to 9:00 am

Evenings 7.30 pm to 11:00 pm

At all other times dogs must remain on-leash

We would like to institute this proposal as a pilot project for a period of 6 months. Hours would be adjusted to address seasonal variations in use. Its success would be reviewed by the community.

The SVRA would also undertake to form a park users group whose mandate would be to address all local users concerns about use and maintenance of the park. The group would seek to provide a forum to maintain consensus about park use and establish an organized body of volunteers who would accept some responsibility for the care and maintenance of the park to augment services provided by the city, in cooperation with city departments dealing with park maintenance.

The pilot project would be the subject of other community meetings in the future in order to give all residents an opportunity to voice their views on park use. Further details will be provided as they become available.

In order for the above described proposal to be put into place, we understand that it would require support from the City and an exemption from the municipal by-law. We also understand that the proposal could be introduced onto the Community Council's agenda for their next meeting on the 27th of May, 1998 in order to expedite its establishment in the park for the summer/fall season. We would appreciate your support for the establishment of this six month pilot project into Vermont Square Park.

Use of Nathan Phillips Square -

Philippine Independence Day - Friday, June 12, 1998

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, declare the celebration of the 100th Anniversary of Philippine Independence Day to be held on Nathan Phillips Square on Friday, June 12, 1998, to be an event of municipal significance, and indicate that it has no objection to it taking place.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May25,1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

To obtain permission from Toronto Community Council under the Municipal Code Chapter 237 to permit the organizers to operate a beer and wine garden on Nathan Phillips Square.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that permission be granted to Philippine Executive Club to operate a beer and wine garden contingent upon the following:

(a)approval of the L.L.B.O.;

(b)approval of the Medical Officer of Health; and

(c)compliance with the Municipal Alcohol Policy. (with the former City of Toronto) Clause 24, Neighbourhoods Committee on April 24, 1995.

Background:

The operation of a beer and wine garden on Nathan Phillips Square requires Toronto Community Council approval pursuant Municipal Code Chapter 237a(1).

Comments:

We have an application for the use of Nathan Phillips Square from the Philippine Executive Club, 6979 Yonge Street, Suite 202, North York, Ontario M2M 3X9. They plan to stage an event on Friday, June 12, 1998 to celebrate their 100th Aniversary of the Philippine Independence.

In addition to entertainment and speeches, the organizers are requesting to operate a beer and wine garden with proceeds going to the Philippine Executive Club a non-profit organization. Food will also be sold. The beer garden will be set up within a barricaded area and the exits will be monitored.

Conclusion:

That this is a reasonable request.

Contact Name:

Joanna Gill

Supervisor, Building Services

392-7157; 392-1251 (Fax)

jgill@city.toronto.on.ca

Requests for Endorsement of Events for

Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council:

(1)for liquor licensing purposes, declare the following to be events of municipal significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a)32nd Annual Chin International Picnic to be held on July 1, 1998 to July 5, 1998 at Exhibition Place(Trinity-Niagara);

(b)Bloor West Village Ukranian Festival/Parade to be held on August 22, 1998 (High Park);

(c)East Lynn Danforth Festival to be held on June 20, 1998 in East Lynn Park (East Toronto);

(d)Beaches International Jazz Festival to be held on July 25 and 26, 1998 at Kew Beach (East Toronto);

(e)Beaches Labour Day Festival to be held on September 7, 1998 at Kew Gardens Park (East Toronto);

(f)Beaches Canada Day Festival to be held on July 1, 1998 at Kew Gardens Park (East Toronto);

(g)Canadian National Exhibition to be held from August 21 - September 7, 1998 at Exhibition Place (Trinity-Niagara);

(h)Portugal Day Festival to be held on June 12, 13 and 14, 1998 at Trinity-Bellwoods Park (Trinity-Niagara);

(2)advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the following events and has no objection to their taking place:

(a)Ninth Annual Easter Seals Regatta to be held on July 12, 1998 at the Royal Canadian Yacht Club (Downtown);

(b)Beer Garden within the City Street Allowance on St. Joseph Street between Yonge Street and St. Nicholas Street in conjunction with Gay Pride Day to be held on June 28, 1998 (Downtown);

(c)McMillan Binch - Series of Client Development Baseball Days to be held on June 4, June 9, June 11, June 23, June 25, July 9, July 14, July 16, July 28 and July 30, 1998 at Hanlan's Point on Centre Island (Downtown);

(d)20th Anniversary Celebration of Hard Rock Cafe to be held on June 14, 1998 on Dundas Square from Yonge Street to O'Keefe Lane (Downtown);

(e)Amex Air Miles Midsummer Night 5K to be held on July 3, 1998 at the First Canadian Place Courtyard on Adelaide Street West (Downtown);

(f)Imperial Life Financial Picnic In Riverdale Park to be held on June 17, 1998 (Don River);

(g)Black, Sutherland, Crabbe Picnic at Hanlan's Point, Centre Island Picnic to be held on June 26, 1998 (Downtown);

(h)Holiday Inn on King's Reception at Benson & Hedges Fireworks Display to be held on June 24, 1998 at Ontario Place (Trinity-Niagara);

(i)Performing Arts Lodge at 100 The Esplanade to be held on July 4, 1998 (Downtown);

(j)Friends of HMCS HAIDA fund raising event at Ontario Place to be held on June 25, 1998 (Trinity-Niagara);

(k)5th St. Stephen's Courier Classic at College Park to be held on June 6, 1998 (Downtown);

(l)Ontario Oyster Festival at Rodeny's Oyster House to be held on July 12, 1998 (Downtown);

(m)HOPE 10th Annual Charity Volleyball Tournament at Hanlan's Point to be held on June 13, 1998 (Downtown);

(n)Ernst & Young Picnic at Hanlan's Point, Centre Island to be held on June 11, 1998 (Downtown);

(o)Fundraising Event at The Power Plant Contemporary Art Gallery at Harbourfront Centre to be held on June 26, 1998 (Downtown);

(p)Korean Festival/Picnic at Christie Pits Park to be held on June 6, 1998 (Davenport);

(3)since the following events take place prior to the meeting of Council, endorse the actions of the Toronto Community Council in having advised the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it was aware of the following events and had no objection to their taking place:

(a)Spenco 5K held on May 29, 1998 at the First Canadian Place Courtyard on Adelaide Street West (Downtown);

(b)Dinner Reception At Metro Square held on June 2, 1998 (Downtown);

(c)Reception at Royal Canadian Yacht Club held on May 31 and June 2, 1998 (Downtown); and

(d)Spring Sports Day Barbecue at Upper Canada College held on May 31, 1998 (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Chief Administrative Officer, in his report to be submitted respecting delegation authority, give consideration to delegating the processing of liquor licensing applications to staff, such process to include mechanisms which would provide for notice to the Ward Councillors of such applications and which would permit the Community Councils to consider the applications at the request of the Ward Councillor.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having 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:

-(May 7, 1998) from Mr. Kevin J. Collins, Regatta Manager, Easter Seal Society;

-(May 7, 1998) from Mr. Philip Noble, Street Events Management;

-(May 1, 1998) from Ms. Rhonda Rossi, Marketing Assistant, McMillan Binch;

-(May 6, 1998) from Ms. Virginia Ludy, Sr. Concessions Coordinator, The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place;

-(May 13, 1998) from Mr. Tim Eddis, General Manager, Hard Rock Cafe- Yonge Street;

-(May 11, 1998) from Ms. Angie Seth, Events Coordinator, GMC Running Series, Runners' Choice Promotions, Second Dimension International Limited;

-(May 11, 1998) from Ms. Sue Bochner, Sue Bochner & Associates Ltd.;

-(May 8, 1998) from Ms. Pamela Briggs, Black, Sutherland, Crabbe;

-(May 8, 1998) from Ms. Janice Davies, Catering Consultant, Daniel et Daniel;

-(May 5, 1998) from Ms. Jennifer Fenton, Total Event Productions Inc.;

-(May 20, 1998) from Ms. Jackie Burns, Holiday Inn on King;

-(May 14, 1998) from Mr. David B. King;

-(May 14, 1998) from Mr. Robert A. Willson, Friends of HMCS HAIDA;

-(May 15, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski;

-(May 21, 1998) from Jennifer Trimper, East Lynn Danforth Festival;

-(May 1, 1998) from Ms. Sarah Hood, Cadmus Communications;

-(May 18, 1998) from Mr. Patrick McMurray, Rodeny's Oyster House;

-(May 12, 1998) from Ms. Sandra D. Cullen, H.O.P.E.;

-(May 7, 1998) from Mr. Robert Tallis, Beaches International Jazz Festival;

-(May 7, 1998) from Mr. Robert Tallis, Toronto Beaches Lions Club;

-(May 7, 1998) from Mr. Brian Denega, Ernst & Young;

-(May 15, 1998) from Mr. Rene Kuhn, UCC Association;

-(May 18, 1998) from Ms. Kim Marshall;

-(May 19, 1998) from Mr. David Bednar, Canadian National Exhibition;

(undated) from Alex Kang; and

-(May 26, 1998) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva.

Dellcrest Children's Centre - 182 Dowling Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor be instructed to continue the Appeal of the decision of Justice Hoilett, respecting 182 Dowling Avenue - Dellcrest Children's Centre.

During consideration of the foregoing matter, the Toronto Community Council had before it a confidential report (May 14, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting 182 Dowling Avenue - Dellcrest Children's Centre (High Park), which was forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (May 14, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(9) of the Municipal Act.)

Commercial Boulevard Parking Appeal -

Gladstone Avenue Flankage of 1137 Dupont Street (Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137 Dupont Street, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 22, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137 Dupont Street, because of a negative public poll. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137 Dupont Street, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;

(2)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137 Dupont Street.

Background:

Mr. John Lu, in his letter of March 24, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his application for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage of 1137 Dupont Street.

Comments:

Mr. John Lu, owner of Downtown Electronics, 1137 Dupont Street, Toronto, Ontario M6H 2A3, submitted an application on October 20, 1997, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage for the parking of 5 motor vehicles (as amended), parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in � 313-39 of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.

As the proposed parking is on a residential flankage, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 100 m from the proposed parking. 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 January 7 to February 6, 1998, was conducted on the west side from Nos. 776 and 820Gladstone Avenue and on the east side from Nos. 811 and 859 Gladstone Avenue to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed15 in favour 3	18
No response	130
Returned by post office	13
Total ballots issued	161

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

Mr. Lu is concerned that the polling process was flawed. In response, I note that the standard ballot for commercial boulevard parking (Appendix 'C') clearly explains the reasons for the poll and how the results will be used. In this particular case, the poll was conducted in English and French as requested by the former Councillor (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 2 languages).

A commercial boulevard parking licence was issued to a former occupant of the property on July 10, 1987 but was cancelled in December 1988.

The City Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 120 m along both sides of Gladstone Avenue from the proposed parking location, advising of Mr. Lu's appeal.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Lu a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Gladstone Avenue flankage because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied that the public poll was conducted properly.

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, 392-7564

_______

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

-(May 24, 1998) from Antonia Cassese

-(Undated) petition signed by 33 residents of Dupont Street and Gladstone Avenue in support

(A copy of Appendices A and C, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix B - 1137 Dupont Street

Driveway Widening Appeal -

263 Manor Road East (North Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for driveway widening at 263Manor Road 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 report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement:

Purpose:

To report on an application for driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licenses. As this is an appeal, 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 driveway widening at 263 Manor Road East as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code regarding the number of on-site parking spaces.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 6 and 7, 1998, in considering a communication (April 27, 1998) from Councillor Walker respecting an appeal on behalf of Mr.McDonald, owner of 263 Manor Road East, on the refusal of his application for driveway widening at this address, asked me to report to its meeting of May 27, 1998.

Comments:

Mr. Lachlan McDonald, owner of 263 Manor Road East, Toronto, Ontario M4S 1S3, submitted an application in June 1997, to park a vehicle adjacent to the mutual driveway, in front of the property. The application was refused as the proposal does not meet the current criteria of the Municipal Code.

The current driveway widening parking criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248 prohibits driveway widening where the property has access to a parking facility on the lot.

The property is located on the south east corner of Manor Road East and Harwood Road. The property has a mutual right-of-way on the east side of the property, shared with the neighbour at No.265 Manor Road East. There is also a two car garage at the rear, with access from Harwood Road.

Conclusions:

As the property has access to a two car garage at the rear, this location is not eligible for driveway widening. This request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (April 27, 1998) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council recommend that the request for front yard parking at 263 Manor Road East be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fee prescribed by the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

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.

From my understanding, the owner of 263 Manor Road East is unable to either park on or landscape the front driveway because of the existence of a second dirt driveway that leads to a parking area "half a football field away" from the house off of Harwood Street. In addition, the fact that the owner does not have a back door to his property and the distance and existing fencing make the use of this back parking facility completely impractical.

Currently the front driveway is made of "ugly concrete" slabs that the owner cannot use nor demolish, and its existence is preventing him from bringing the front property up to neighbourhood standards.

I therefore ask the Community Council to adopt the above-noted recommendation to enable the owner of 263 Manor Road East to proceed with his application for front yard parking.

_______

Mr. Lachlan McDonald, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the following communications appended to the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(July 29, 1997) from Mr. Lachlan McDonald

-(July 25, 1997) from the Senior By-law Officer, By-law Administration and Enforcement Division, City Works Services).

Adjustment to Traffic Calming on Euclid Avenue and

Clinton Street, Both from College Street to Bloor Street West

(Palmerston Area Traffic Calming) (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the provisions of By-law No. 1996-0463 respecting the narrowing of Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street, from College Street to Bloor Street West, be rescinded;

(2)the narrowing of Euclid Avenue, west side, from the lane first south of Ulster Street to a point 15 metres south thereof, from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 4.5metres to 7.3 metres be approved and added to Appendix B of the report (May25,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services;

(3)That approval be given to narrow the pavement at the locations on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue indicated in Appendix B of the report (May 25, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services;

(4)That approval be given to alter sections of the pavement on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue, between College Street and Harbord Street, by the installation of speed humps as identified in Appendix C of the report (May 25, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services, and shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5216 dated May 1998;

(5)That approval be given to reduce the speed limit from 40 kilometres per hour to 30kilometres per hour on Clinton Street from College Street to Harbord Street, and Euclid Avenue, from College Street to Bloor Street West; and

(6)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 25, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a poll of residents on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue (both from College Street to Bloor Street West) concerning traffic calming, conducted by Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the costs of removing traffic calming islands and installing speed humps on Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street from College Street to Bloor Street West at the locations described in this report, in the estimated amount of $50,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

Should Council decide to approve the amendments to the Palmerston Area Traffic Calming Plan and particularly the changes on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue, both from College Street to Bloor Street West, based on the results of the poll identified in Appendix A, the following should be approved:

1.That By-law No. 1996-0463 authorizing the narrowing of sections of Clinton Street, Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Avenue, Ulster Street, and Markham Street, be rescinded;

2.That approval be given to narrow the pavement at the locations on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue indicated in Appendix B of the report;

3.That approval be given to alter sections of the pavement on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue, between College Street and Harbord Street, by the installation of speed humps as identified in Appendix C of this report and shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5216 dated May 1998;

4.That approval be given to reduce the speed limit from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Clinton Street from College Street to Harbord Street, and Euclid Avenue, from College Street to Bloor Street West; and

5.That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Background

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 6, 1998 in considering a communication (April 28, 1998) from Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva respecting adjustments to traffic calming installations on Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street, both from Bloor Street West to College Street, adopted the following motions:

1.That traffic calming on Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street, both from Bloor Street West to College Street, be considered at the Toronto Community Council meeting of May 27, 1998 as a deputation item; and

2.That Councillors Silva and Pantalone advise the community of the recommended traffic calming changes to be considered on May 27, 1998.

Councillors Pantalone and Silva prepared and distributed ballots to residents of the two streets to gauge neighbourhood opinion on traffic calming measures that were installed in September, 1997 and determine whether alternatives were desired. Works staff tabulated the ballots for the Councillors. The results are discussed in this report.

Comments:

Palmerston Area Traffic Calming Plan

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of October 7 and 8, 1996, approved a traffic management plan for the Palmerston area, bounded by Grace Street, Bloor Street West, Bathurst Street and College Street. Specifically, the plan involved the narrowing of sections of the pavements to create mid-block chicanes and narrowed intersections by means of modular traffic islands on Clinton Street, Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Boulevard and Markham Street. This approval was the culmination of several years of effort by the Palmerston Area Residents' Association (PARA) to address concerns related to vehicle speeds and pedestrian safety in the neighbourhood. The implementation of the plan was subject to the approval of funds, which were subsequently secured in the 1997 budget.

Prior to installation, former Ward 4 Councillor Martin Silva conducted a poll of Manning Avenue residents, which resulted in the deletion of this street from the plan in July 1997. In consultation with the Councillor, it was decided that installation of the plan would proceed in phases, with the first, in September 1997, being Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street. In conjunction with the traffic calming islands, changes were made to parking, to shift from the east side of the streets to the west side in specific locations. Two speed humps were also implemented as part of the plan, one on Clinton Street and the other on Euclid Avenue, both north of College Street. As a result of the implementation of the traffic calming plan, the parking supply on Clinton Street increased by approximately 10 spaces, and on Euclid Avenue the parking supply decreased by approximately 15 spaces.

Poll of Residents

As part of an on-going consultation process to assess residents' views of the traffic calming measures that were installed on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue, Councillors Pantalone and Silva designed and distributed ballots to residents of the two streets.

Four separate ballots were prepared for the street sections as follows:

Clinton Street from College Street to Harbord Street

Clinton Street from Harbord Street to Bloor Street West

Euclid Avenue from College Street to Harbord Street

Euclid Avenue from Harbord Street to Bloor Street West

The questions on each ballot, and tabulated responses, are shown in Appendix A of this report. The ballots were distributed by the Councillors prior to April 20, 1998, and responses were requested by 4:30 p.m. on May 1, 1998.

Unlike the more formal polling procedures that would be carried out by Works staff pursuant to the Speed Hump policy, it should be noted that staff did not prepare the questions or lists of potential respondents (i.e. those on the affected streets 18 years of age or older). The role of staff, in order to assist the Councillors, was simply to collect the ballots, distribute additional ballots if requested by residents (about 20) and tabulate the results.

All ballots received prior to the stated deadline were considered. Approximately 5-10 ballots were returned incomplete (i.e., none of the options were checked), and these are not included in the total number of responses shown in Appendix A. Ballots which were partially completed (i.e., all of the questions were not answered) were included in the valid responses, and the responses to the completed questions considered.

Comments on Alternative Traffic Calming Measures

Residents on the sections of both Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street from College Street to Harbord Street were offered the alternative of installing speed humps in addition to whether or not they favoured the removal of the existing islands. Staff provided speed hump plans but these were modified by the Councillors. The plans that were included with the polls showed the locations for speed humps, which are also illustrated in the attached Drawing Nos. 421F-5216 and 421F-5217, dated May 1998 and identified in Appendix C.

The spacing between humps is not as close as is usual in other recent Toronto speed hump installations, or as recommended in the speed hump policy. In particular, the speed hump policy recommends 60 metres to 90 metres between humps, with 30 m to 50 m between intersections and the first hump in a series. The councillors' plan has spacings as follows:

	Clinton Street	Euclid Avenue
College Street to 1^st hump	110 m	54 m
1^st hump to 2^nd hump	151 m	120 m
2^nd hump to 3^rd hump	131 m	116 m
3^rd hump to 4^th hump	100 m	71 m
4^th hump to 5^th hump	---	98 m

The effect of locating speed humps at greater than the recommended spacings is that motor vehicle speeds are likely to increase significantly between humps, especially on Clinton Street where only four humps are proposed, rather than the five proposed for Euclid Avenue.

A further deviation from established practice in Toronto is the proposal to install speed humps just prior to stop signs (at Jersey Avenue on Clinton Street and at Ulster Street on Euclid Avenue). Speed humps can be expected to reduce speeds to approximately 15 to 20 kilometres per hour. Stop signs, however, require drivers to come to a full stop, so locating speed humps at these locations should be unnecessary. In addition, it may send the wrong message: that it is permissible to roll through the stop sign so long as one has slowed down for the speed hump. The Clinton Street/Jersey Avenue location is of particular concern because of the proximity of the Clinton Public School and the security that the stop sign gives school children and others crossing at this point. The possibility of residents requesting that the Stop sign be removed once the speed hump has been installed at this location seems remote. If the speed humps are installed as requested, considerable monitoring and evaluation would be necessary.

Poll Results

As noted above, the results of the ballots are summarized in Appendix A. Based on these results, Councillors Pantalone and Silva have indicated that the following course of action should be pursued.

Clinton Street from College Street to Harbord Street- remove islands, restore parking to original side and install speed humps.

Clinton Street from Harbord Street to Bloor Street West

- remove islands and restore parking to original side.

Euclid Avenue from College Street to Harbord Street

- remove islands, restore parking to original side and install speed humps.

Euclid Avenue from Harbord Street to Bloor Street West

- retain existing islands.

Should Toronto Community Council and City Council concur with this approach, the recommendations set out above should be approved to rescind existing roadway narrowings and parking regulations, where applicable, and authorize the speed hump installations and restored parking provisions.

The removal of the traffic islands and installation of speed humps constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to the Municipal Act. In accordance with these provisions, new installations of this nature would typically be subject to a public hearing at the Community Council, following the advertisement of Council's intention to pass a by-law authorizing such alterations. In this case, however, I am of the view that it is more than reasonable to consider the proposed measures as a continuation of the on-going process for this overall traffic calming plan. The measures represent amendments to the approved plan, which was duly processed, and are intended to serve essentially the same purpose. In view of these considerations, and the fact that the amendments to the plan are subject to public deputations, there would not appear to be a requirement to readvertise. Similarly, the policy regarding speed hump installation calls for staff to administer a poll of adult residents on the affected streets, with 60% approval the target for a favourable poll. In view of the polling done by the Councillors, a formal staff poll in this instance would seem redundant.

This work is approved without condition in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nigel Tahair, Transportation Technologist, 392-7711.

_______

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix A

_______

Appendix B

Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue Traffic Calming Plan

Pavement Alterations

Street	Side of Street	Existing Width	Proposed Width	From	To
Clinton Street	East	4.2 - 7.3 m	4.0 - 7.3 m	100 m north of College Street	20 m further north
Euclid Avenue	West	7.3 m	4.0 - 7.3 m	Herrick Street	15 m further north
Euclid Avenue	Both	7.3 m	4.5 - 7.3 m	45 m north of Herrick Street	25 m further north
Euclid Avenue	Both	7.3 m	4.5 - 7.3 m	15 m south of Lennox Street	15 m north of Lennox Street
Euclid Avenue	West	7.3 m	4.0 - 7.3 m	70 m north of Lennox Street	15 m further north

_______

Appendix C

Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue

College Street to Harbord Street

Proposed Speed Hump Locations

Street	From	To
Clinton Street	a point 108 metres north of College Street	a point 10 metres further north
Clinton Street	a point 258 metres north of College Street	a point 10 metres further north
Clinton Street	a point 5 metres south of Jersey Avenue	a point 10 metres further south
Clinton Street	a point 80 metres north of Jersey Avenue	a point 10 metres further north
Euclid Avenue	a point 50 metres north of College Street	a point 10 metres further north
Euclid Avenue	a point 170 metres north of College Street	a point 10 metres further north
Euclid Avenue	a point 284 metres north of College Street	a point 10 metres further north
Euclid Avenue	a point 5 metres south of Ulster Street	a point 10 metres further south
Euclid Avenue	a point 93 metres north of Ulster Street	a point 10 metres further north

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (April 28, 1998) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva:

Recommendations:

1.that traffic calming on a) Euclid Avenue (College Street to Bloor Street West) and on b) Clinton Street (from College Street to Bloor Street West) be considered at the Toronto Community Council meeting of May 27, 1998 as a deputation item; and

2.that Councillors Mario Silva and Joe Pantalone advise the community of the recommended traffic calming changes to be considered on May 27, 1998.

Discussion:

Toronto City Council, at its meeting of July 5, 1996 passed a by-law concerning the installation of traffic calming measures on Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street between College and Bloor Street West.

At the time of the implementation of this, the community was promised a vote on whether to continue the measures and on whether adjustments were required. We have sent out ballots on this issue with assistance from City staff. The returns are all to be in by May 1, 1998.

In order to achieve all necessary changes, sometime in June 1998, it is essential that the Community Council consider this matter on May 27, 1998 as a deputation item. We, with City staff's assistance, will advise those affected of the proposed changes.

Staff from Works and Emergency Services have been consulted and are in agreement with this course of action.

_______

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

-(May 13, 1998) from Ms. Mary Kainer

-(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Robert Bowers

Ms. Mary Kainer, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Clinton and Euclid

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Clinton and Euclid

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 29, 1998) from Mr. Glenn D. Manning, Toronto, Ontario, submitting comments in opposition to the present traffic calming islands on Euclid Avenue and to the proposed removal of same to accommodate the installation of speed humps; and expressing concern that input was not sought from the residents on Euclid Avenue.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May26, 1998) from Mr. David Siebert, Toronto, Ontario, requesting that the traffic calming islands on Euclid Avenue not be removed.)

Tree Removal - 271 Forest Hill Road (Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 271 Forest Hill Road, conditional on the applicant planting two eighty millimetre caliper sugar maple replacement trees upon completion of construction as indicated in the application for tree removal.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for the removal of an existing retaining wall and the construction of a replacement residence has been filed by Taylor Hannah Architect Inc., 5 Thornwood Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 2R8, agent for the owner of 271 Forest Hill Road.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree requiring the applicant to redesign the proposed new residence.

(2)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant planting two eighty millimetre caliper sugar maple replacement trees upon completion of construction as indicated in the application for tree removal.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-eight centimetre diameter Norway spruce in fair condition. The report prepared by Bostock Tree Service, that accompanies this application states that the construction activity associated with the demolition of the existing house and reconstruction of the dilapidated retaining wall will destroy a major portion of the trees root system. The report states that even if the tree survived it would be unstable and susceptible to the prevailing southwest winds. The applicant has stated in the application that two sugar maple trees will be planted as replacement if approval is granted for the removal of the Norway spruce tree. It should be noted that the two spruce trees directly west of the above noted tree will also be removed for the same reasons. These two trees meet the criteria for an exemption under Article III, Chapter 331 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The construction activity proposed for this property will be extensive and it will be difficult to adequately protect the spruce tree from injury. The property is well treed and the removal of the spruce tree, conditional on the replacement planting of two sugar maples after construction will not significantly reduce the tree cover in the 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. Two 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.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

_______

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a joint communication (May 25, 1998) from Ms. Barbara Cole, Mr. Steve Levitan and Mr. Andrew S. Volgyesi, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Ms. Dee Dee Hannah, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the objections referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Tree Removal - 451 Clendenan Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree at 451 Clendenan Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that the owner feels may damage his house in a storm has been filed by Mr. Alex Bartosh, 451 Clendenan Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6P 2X7, owner of 451 Clendenan Avenue.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

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

(2)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-one centimetre diameter white spruce in good condition. The spruce tree is located in the front yard of the property approximately three metres from the front of the house and is in no way interfering with the house. The tree is healthy and structurally sound with nothing to indicate that it would fall onto the house.

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. One written objection in the form of a petition with thirteen signatures was received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this objection has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

_______

Ms. Rosita Dubsek, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the objection referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Tree Removal - 204 Douglas Drive (Midtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree at 204 Douglas Drive.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 11, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by Ms. Suzanne McNeillie, 204 Douglas Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 2B8, owner of 204 Douglas Drive. Ms. McNeillie submitted the application since the neighbour at 64 St. Andrew's Gardens has complained that the tree is a destructive nuisance.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

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

(2)Issue a permit for tree removal.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty-one centimetre diameter black walnut in good condition. The tree has been pruned heavily in the past on the north side of the crown to clear the house at 64 St. Andrew's Gardens. The branches are well clear of the house at 64 St. Andrew's Gardens and the main stem of the walnut is separated by a wooden fence approximately three metres from the foundation of 64 St. Andrew's Gardens. The report from Bostock Tree Service, that accompanies this application states that the black walnut is both healthy and safe and that any further pruning on the north side of the tree would constitute injury to the tree.

It should be noted that while the owner of 64 St. Andrew's Gardens would like the tree to be removed, the owner of the tree would like to retain it but made the application so that Council may decide if the tree should come down.

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. Ten 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.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

_______

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (May 22, 1998) from Mr. Geoff Cape, Executive Director, Evergreen Foundation, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Commercial Boulevard Parking -

Osler Avenue Flankage of 2 Cariboo Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Osler Avenue flankage of 2 Cariboo Avenue and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's application for commercial boulevard parking on the Osler Avenue flankage of 2 Cariboo Avenue, which meets the requirements of the Municipal Code. The report was requested by the former City of Toronto Councillor Rob Maxwell. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Osler Avenue flankage of 2 Cariboo Avenue and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;

(2)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Osler flankage of 2 Cariboo Avenue.

Background:

Former City of Toronto Councillor Rob Maxwell, in his communication of August 25, 1997 (Appendix 'A'), requested a report on the application for commercial boulevard parking at 2 Cariboo Avenue.

The Ward Councillors are routinely notified of such applications, should they wish to comment or have the matter reported on.

Comments:

(a)The application

Mr. Juan Luis Cruz, owner of JLC Services, 2 Cariboo Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6P 3T6, submitted an application on June 4, 1997, requesting commercial boulevard parking on the Osler Avenue flankage for the parking of six (6) motor vehicles at right angle to the roadway, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

If a boulevard parking licence is issued, there will be sufficient sidewalk boulevard space for pedestrians.

No. 2 Cariboo Avenue was previously licensed. This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313. Because this is in an industrial area, no public poll is required and staff may proceed to issue Mr. Cruz a licence. It should be noted that 4 Cariboo Avenue is licensed for commercial boulevard parking privileges and we have applications pending for Nos. 6, 8, 10, 12, 25 and 34 Cariboo Avenue.

Section 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 stipulates that should such an application be refused by City Council, a further application from the same address may not be considered for 2 years from the date of the initial application.

(b)Past problems on the street

On Appendix 'C', I have shown the businesses and the boulevard area abutting the Canadian Pacific Railway lands. Cariboo Avenue, from Osler Street to the westerly dead end, is commercially zoned. On the north side, it is mainly comprised of auto body and vehicle repair shops. On the south side, there is only one business in operation, towards the dead end of the street. It is also a vehicle repair shop. The majority of the City boulevard on the south side of the street abuts an obsolete rail line belonging to Canadian Pacific Railway.

Over the past several years, complaints have been received about the storage of derelict vehicles, dumping of auto parts and debris within the City street allowance and private property, especially on the south side and at the dead end of Cariboo Avenue. To prevent this, a 2.44 m high chain link fence and guardrails have been installed along the south side of Cariboo Avenue and at the dead end. We are also investigating the feasibility of increasing the lighting levels on the street to discourage illegal dumping during the late evening or at night.

(c)Request for a performance undertaking

Given the past problems, Mr. Cruz was asked to provide his written undertaking that if licensed boulevard parking privileges were granted:

(a)he would ensure that the parking was confined to customer and/or employee vehicles in good repair;

(b)the boulevard could not be used for the storage of derelict or vehicles in disrepair, including the storage of auto parts;

(c)the boulevard would be maintained in a reasonable and tidy condition.

To-date, Mr. Cruz has not provided his written assurances. However, on subsequent inspections, we have found the City street allowance in a satisfactory condition.

Conclusions:

On hearing the matter, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to grant the requested commercial boulevard parking privileges.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

_______

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendices A and B - 2 Cariboo Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendices B and C - 2 Cariboo Avenue

Commercial Boulevard Parking -

10 Cariboo Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 10CaribooAvenue and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 10CaribooAvenue, which meets the requirements of the Municipal Code. The report was requested by the former City of Toronto Councillor Rob Maxwell. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 10CaribooAvenue and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;

(2)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 10CaribooAvenue.

Background:

Former City of Toronto Councillor Rob Maxwell, in his communication of August 25, 1997 (Appendix 'A'), requested a report on the application for commercial boulevard parking at 10Cariboo Avenue.

The Ward Councillors are routinely notified of such applications, should they wish to comment or have the matter reported on.

Comments:

(a)The application

Mr. Pablo Espinola, owner of Cariboo Ten Auto Service & Auto Body Repair, 10 Cariboo Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6P 3T6, submitted an application on May 29, 1997, requesting commercial boulevard parking fronting 10 Cariboo Avenue, for the parking of two (2) motor vehicles at right angle to the roadway, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

If a boulevard parking licence is issued, there will be sufficient sidewalk boulevard space for pedestrians.

No. 10 Cariboo Avenue was previously licensed for 2 spaces. This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313. Because this is in an industrial area, no public poll is required and staff may proceed to issue Mr. Espinola a licence. It should be noted that 4 Cariboo Avenue is licensed for commercial boulevard parking privileges and we have applications pending for Nos. 2, 6, 8, 12, 25 and 34 Cariboo Avenue.

(b)Past problems on the street

(c)Request for a performance undertaking

Given the past problems, Mr. Espinola was asked to provide his written undertaking that if licensed boulevard parking privileges were granted:

(a)he would ensure that the parking was confined to customer and/or employee vehicles in good repair;

(b)the boulevard could not be used for the storage of derelict or vehicles in disrepair, including the storage of auto parts;

(c)the boulevard would be maintained in a reasonable and tidy condition.

To-date, Mr. Espinola has not provided his written assurances. However, on subsequent inspections, we have found the City street allowance in a satisfactory condition.

Conclusions:

On hearing the matter, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to grant the requested commercial boulevard parking privileges.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

_______

Insert Table/Map No. 1

10 Cariboo Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

10 Cariboo Avenue

Commercial Boulevard Parking -

25 Cariboo Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 25 Cariboo Avenue and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 25 Cariboo Avenue. The application meets the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 25 Cariboo Avenue and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;

(2)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 25 Cariboo Avenue.

Background:

Councillor Betty Disero, in her communication of March 18, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), requested a report on the application for commercial boulevard parking at 25 Cariboo Avenue.

The Ward Councillors are routinely notified of such applications, should they wish to comment or have the matter reported on.

Comments:

(a)The application

Mr. Augusto Pires, owner of C.P. Auto Body, 25 Cariboo Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6P 3T7, submitted an application on March 4, 1998, requesting commercial boulevard parking fronting 25Cariboo Avenue for the parking of four (4) motor vehicles parallel to the roadway, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking in � 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313. Because this is in an industrial area, no public poll is required and staff may proceed to issue Mr. Pires a licence. I note that 4 Cariboo Avenue is licensed for commercial boulevard parking and we have applications pending for Nos. 2, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 34 Cariboo Avenue.

If a boulevard parking licence is issued, there will be sufficient sidewalk boulevard space for pedestrians.

(b)The street

(c)Problems in the vicinity

Conclusions:

On hearing the matter, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to grant the requested commercial boulevard parking privileges.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

_______

Insert Table/Map No. 1

25 Cariboo Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

25 Cariboo Avenue

Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing - 1251 St. Clair Avenue West

and Denial of Boulevard Marketing - 1253 St. Clair Avenue West

(Davenport)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council rescind the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue subject to:

(a)a 30 day written notice of cancellation being provided to the licence holder; and

(b)the licence holder being refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee; and

(2)the application for boulevard marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West be refused.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the cancellation of the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and on the business operator's application for boulevard marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West because of ongoing problems, as requested by Councillor Disero. As licence holders must be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee of Council prior to the revocation of a licence, this matter is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council rescind the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue subject to:

(a)the licence holder be notified and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council;

(b)that a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder; and

(c)the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee;

(2)City Council allow the licensed boulevard marketing to continue fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West, and I be directed to continue with the processing of the application for boulevard marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Background:

Councillor Betty Disero, in her communication dated April 20, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), requested a report on the cancellation of licences for boulevard marketing fronting Nos. 1251 and 1253 St.Clair Avenue West.

Comments:

(a)The application

Mr. Ali Topyurek operates the businesses at 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West. Mr. Topyurek was issued a licence for boulevard marketing at 1251 St. Clair Avenue West on April 29, 1996, allowing him to display goods in an area of 9.1 sq. m. on the sidewalk. Although Mr. Topyurek has also applied to display goods in front of 1253 St. Clair Avenue West as well, a licence has not been issued to-date.

(b)The problems

Because of complaints about excessive marketing and curbside displays from the Corso Italia B.I.A., other business operators in the immediate area and the general public, staff have had to inspect 1251 St. Clair Avenue West at various times since the boulevard marketing licence was issued.

Despite repeated written warnings from the Department to stop the over-marketing, staff have had to lay charges against Mr.Topyurek. A list of the dates of notices, letters and charges is attached as Appendix 'B'

Mr.Topyurek has been advised that if the abuse of his privileges continued, it would result in a review of his licensed marketing and additional by-law enforcement measures, which may include the seizing of merchandise outside the licensed area.

Of note, on our June 3, 1997 inspection, we found not only merchandise being displayed in excess of the permitted limits and at curbside, but also Mr. Topyurek had parked a vehicle in front of 1251 St. Clair Avenue West and was displaying his merchandise from the vehicle.

In addition to the over-marketing, Mr.Topyurek has also erected a fixed awning with steel support posts that extend to the sidewalk area outside the licensed marketing area and therefore, impede pedestrian traffic. A list of the dates of notices, letters and charges for this violation is also shown in Appendix 'B'.

Although Mr. Topyurek submitted an application on February 16, 1998, requesting a licence to display merchandise on the sidewalk abutting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West, because of the ongoing problems at 1251 St. Clair West, the licence has not been issued. However, Mr. Topyurek continued to display merchandise at 1253 St. Clair West without a licence.

(c)Current situation

On inspections since April 17, 1998, the display at 1251St.Clair Avenue West has been within the licensed area and no merchandise has been displayed in front of 1253 St. Clair Avenue West. The support posts to the fixed awning at 1251 St. Clair Avenue West have been relocated.

However, should the Toronto Community Council recommend that the licence for boulevard marketing at 1251 St. Clair Avenue West be rescinded, in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements, a 30 day written notice of cancellation must be provided to the licence holder and the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

The City of Toronto Act requires that licence holders be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee of Council prior to the revocation of a licence.

Conclusions:

From the evidence in this report and on hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to:

(a)cancel the boulevard marketing fronting 1251 St. Clair Avenue West; and

(b)grant the application for boulevard marketing fronting 1253 St. Clair Avenue West.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

_______

APPENDIX 'B'

Nos. 1251 and 1253 St. Clair Avenue West

Dates of Notices, Department Letters and Charges

1251 St. Clair West

Over-marketing

1251 St. Clair West

Awning

1253 St. Clair West

Unauthorized Marketing

Final Notices

July 17, 1996

April 4, 1997

August 14, 1997

June 3, 1997

August 11, 1997

February 18, 1998

Department Letters

October 3, 1997

April 17, 1998

September 2, 1997

October 3, 1997

April 17, 1998

Charges Laid

June 3, 1997

September 18, 1997

January 6, 1998

April 3, 1998

September 18, 1997

January 6, 1998

April 3, 1998

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on May 27, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Residential Boulevard Parking - 71 Westlake Avenue

(Convenience Address for 2408 Danforth Avenue)

(East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve a site specific exemption for the Westlake Avenue flankage of 2408 Danforth Avenue East, to permit the ongoing use for three commercial boulevard parking spaces, subject to the licence holder being required to install and maintain flower planters and seating on the boulevard, of design and location to be approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Toronto Community Council on amending the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit residential tenants to use commercial boulevard parking spaces, where both commercial and residential tenancies occur in the same property.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, to permit residential boulevard 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 any application for residential boulevard parking at 71 Westlake Avenue be denied by City Council, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Councillor Jakobek has asked me to report on a request for residential boulevard parking which does not meet the criteria of Municipal Code Chapter 313. The Department has not received an application for residential boulevard parking for this address.

Comments:

The property is located at the north west corner of Danforth Avenue and Westlake Avenue. This property was a commercial establishment and was previously licensed for commercial boulevard parking for a total of three parking spaces to be parked parallel to the roadway, on Westlake Avenue flank, as follows:

(a)two licences issued since 1984 to the previous tenants of 71 Westlake Avenue (the back of the building), with access via one existing ramp;

(b)one licence issued since 1964, to the various tenants occupying the front of the building (2408 Danforth Avenue).

The building has been recently converted from commercial to mostly residential units. The front part of the building is still being used as commercial, and a commercial boulevard parking licence has been issued to the owner of the building Ms. Despina Giannopoulos. The back of the building is now being used for residential purposes. Under the Municipal Code the property no longer qualifies to have the commercial boulevard parking licences transferred, since the ground floor of the building is no longer a commercial establishment.

Residential boulevard parking is governed by City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 313 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current residential boulevard parking criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313:

(a)prohibits residential boulevard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking;

(b)requires that the parking space must be perpendicular to the sidewalk;

(c)requires that on the City boulevard, a minimum of 15% of the area must be soft landscaping, and all other areas other than the walkway and the parking pad must be soft landscaping;

(d)requires that the parking area be paved using semi-permeable paving materials; and

(e)sets a maximum of one residential boulevard parking space per property.

The boulevard on Westlake Avenue is paved in concrete, and the soft landscaping requirements are not met. Also the distance from the back of the sidewalk to the face of the building is 4.1 metres and the vehicle parking in the area can not exceed a maximum length of 3.5 metres. This distance is insufficient to accommodate the smallest vehicle currently sold in Canada.

Permit parking is authorized on the odd side of Westlake Avenue, within permit parking area 9C.

I note that for properties which do meet the basic eligibility criteria (i.e. no on-site parking, not in a permit parking area), the application is then reviewed against a set of physical criteria (i.e. clearances from trees, landscaping, etc.). If it meets these physical criteria, a positive response to a public poll is also required before staff may issue a licence. These steps have not been followed for 71 Westlake Avenue, as no application has been received from the owner.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking, it is not eligible for residential boulevard parking. As it is a residential property, it does not qualify for commercial boulevard parking. This request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

Driveway Widening Appeal - 47 Cranbrooke Avenue

(North Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for driveway widening at 47Cranbrooke 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 report (May 12, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

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 driveway widening at 47 Cranbrooke Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code regarding clearance from trees and number of on-site parking spaces.

Background:

I have received two communications (April 23 and 24, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. Tanner, owners of 47 Cranbrooke Avenue, appealing the refusal of their application for driveway widening at this address.

Comments:

Mr. Julian Tanner and Ms. Rhonda Cockerill Tanner, owners of 47 Cranbrooke Avenue, submitted an application in August 1994, to park a vehicle adjacent to the mutual driveway, in front of the property. The application was approved and Ms. Tanner came to the office on September 11, 1995 to obtain the permit for the paving of the parking space. The applicants wanted to alter the porch and relocate the steps, and since this would require building permits, the permit was not issued and the file was placed on hold until the permits from Buildings and Inspections were obtained.

On May 2, 1996, the approval letter was sent to the applicants advising that the permit for the paving of the parking area be obtained, and that the file would be closed should the permit not be obtained prior to July 2, 1996. They did not obtain the permit by July 2, 1996 and the file was closed.

Mr. and Mrs. Tanner now wish to proceed with the previously approved parking pad, and have submitted a second application on April 23, 1998. The application was refused as the proposal no longer meets the current criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248, since the property has access to parking at the rear of a public lane.

The original approval was granted in 1995, under Municipal Code Chapter 248, and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. The by-law at the time (438-86) stipulated that driveway widening in this area (formerly Ward 15 North of Eglinton Avenue) was permitted even though the property had vehicular access to an existing parking facility at the rear of the property, as long as 2 vehicles were parked anywhere on the lot. The property has access to a single open parking facility at the rear of the property accessed by means of a public laneway.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 248 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current driveway widening criteria of the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248:

(a)prohibits driveway widening where the property has access to a parking facility on the lot; and

(b)requires that the new requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, are complied with.

There is a large 86 cm diameter City-owned tree fronting this property which will be affected by the installation of the proposed parking pad. The new specifications for trees over 50 cm in diameter require that no paving be installed within 2.4 metres from the base of the tree, and that no grade change or excavation is permitted from 4.0 metres from the base of the tree. When taking these criteria into consideration, there is insufficient space from the tree to the porch and steps to accommodate a parking space.

Conclusions:

This property was initially approved for driveway widening in September 1995, under the previous more permissive by-law. The changes in the by-law in 1996 permitted the grandfathering of existing licensed locations, but did not grandfather the approved locations. As the property has access to a parking facility at the rear, this location is not eligible for driveway widening. This request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

_______

Mr. R. Tanner, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Front Yard Parking - 223 Waverley Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for front yard parking at 223 Waverley Road, although it no longer meets the criteria of Chapter400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, for two spaces with a ramp access 3.0 m wide.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works 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 approve either:

(1)the application for front yard parking at 223 Waverley Road, although it no longer meets the criteria of Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, for one space with a ramp access 2.6 m wide;

(2)the application for front yard parking at 223 Waverley Road, although it no longer meets the criteria of Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, for two spaces with a ramp access 3.0 m wide.

Background:

Councillor Jakobek has asked me to report on a request for front yard parking which had been previously approved in December 1993 but which was not installed. The owner Ms. Susan Driver is now ready to proceed with the front yard parking proposal, and has asked to reopen her application. Since the original approval, permit parking has been switched over to the odd side of the street, and the location no longer qualifies under the current criteria of Municipal Code Chapter 400. As there are extenuating circumstances, I am recommending that Ms. Driver be given Council's permission to proceed.

Comments:

The current owner was originally approved for front yard parking for two vehicles in December 1993. The property met all the criteria of the former Front Yard Parking By-law No. 65-81. The file was kept open until April 30, 1994, in order for the applicant to obtain the necessary permit from the department. Due to the site conditions, the installation of the proposed front yard parking space at the location requires an extensive excavation of approximately 4.0 m, the installation of major retaining walls, and the relocation of the Consumers Gas service to the home, all at a significant cost to the owner.

At the time of the application, permit parking was in effect on the even side of this portion of Waverley Road. However, on April 22, 1994, eight days before Ms. Driver's application would lapse if she had not obtained her construction permit, former Toronto City Council passed a by-law switching the permit parking from the even side of the street to the odd side of the street. At the time, the applicant was not advised of the passing of this by-law, and that should the application lapse, any new application would be disqualified under the new rules.

Had Ms. Driver known this she would have had the option of asking for an extended time to get her permit or she may have taken steps to initiate the project.

In August of 1994, the applicant called regarding the status of the file and was advised that the location no longer qualified for front yard parking since the file had been closed, and permit parking was now in effect on the same side of the street. Inspection confirmed that the installation of the 3.0m ramp would result in the loss of an on-street permit parking space.

July 5, 1996, Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current front yard parking criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400:

(a)prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking; and

(b)sets a maximum of one front yard parking space per property.

Permit parking is authorized on the odd side of Waverley Road, within permit parking area 9C, and the installation of a 3.0 m ramp, per the original proposal, to service the parking spaces will result in the loss of an on-street permit parking space. However, if the ramp is repositioned and reduced to 2.6 m to service a single parking space, the installation of the ramp will not result in a loss of on-street permit parking space.

Conclusions:

The original application was approved in December 1993. The applicant did not obtain the necessary permit as she was unable to proceed with the work in 1994, due to unforeseen circumstances. However, City staff did not advise her that the rules were about to change before her application lapsed. Given this chronology, we are recommending that City Council approve, notwithstanding the fact that there is permit parking on the street, either one space with a 2.6 m ramp (which will not reduce the amount of on-street parking) or two spaces, with a 3.0 m ramp, per the original application.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

_______

Ms. Susan Driver, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Alex Wilson Community Garden -

552 & 556 Richmond Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May14,1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Parks and Recreation, Toronto, City Hall:

Purpose:

To obtain authority for the City to enter into an Operating Agreement with the Alex Wilson Community Garden Corporation that will provide the framework for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the Garden portion of the parklands.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funding impact.

Recommendations:

(1)That authority be granted for the City of Toronto to enter into an Operating Agreement with the Alex Wilson Community Garden Corporation (the Corporation) that will provide the framework for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the Garden portion of the parklands.

(2)That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the foregoing.

Comments:

At its meetings on January 13 and October 6 & 7, 1997 the former Toronto City Council authorized the acceptance of a charitable donation from Studio Innova Inc. of the property known municipally as 552 and 556 Richmond Street West for the purposes of establishing the Alex Wilson Community Garden. The acquisition of the subject lands was completed on December 23, 1997. Immediately upon conveyance of the lands a Conservation Land Act Covenant whereby the City covenanted that the lands would be used in perpetuity for community garden and parks purposes was registered on title.

The donor's objective was that the lands would be donated to the City and that a community garden would be established and operated on the site as a tribute to Alex Wilson, a landscape designer and writer (author of The Culture of Nature) who died in 1993. In this regard, the Corporation was formed as a non-profit corporation for the purposes of operating the garden,further, the Corporation anticipates a decision on an application for charitable status will be forthcoming in the next two or three months. An Operating Agreement is required since the Corporation will be responsible for the day to day operation and maintenance of the Garden.

The Garden will be operated by the Corporation in perpetuity until such time as the Corporation ceases to exist or terms and conditions of the above-noted Operating Agreement are contravened. The perpetual operation is to be secured through the Operating Agreement which will have an initial term of 12 years with an automatic right to renewal by the Corporation for successive 12 year terms provided the Corporation is not in default of the Agreement. The operation of the Garden will comply with all City by-laws, regulations, policies and practices, as amended from time to time. The Corporation will be required to indemnify the City from any claims arising out of the operation of the Garden and will be required to provide insurance in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer. The Garden will be kept in a clean, neat, well-kept manner and safe condition in accordance with City Standards and in accordance with the rules and regulations that have been jointly developed by the City and the Corporation. Representatives of the City shall have access to the Garden at all times and shall retain rights to inspect activities associated with the Garden.

Contact:

Name:Susan Richardson, Director, Development and Support

E-mail:srichard@city.toronto.on.ca

Tel:392-1941

Fax:392-0845

Curb Realignment at the South-West Corner

of Spring Road and Parkside Drive (High Park)

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the realignment of the curb at the south-west corner of Spring Road and Parkside Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the curb realignment in the estimated amount of $10,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 292810.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to realign the existing curb at the south-west corner of the SPRING ROAD/PARKSIDE DRIVE intersection as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2193, dated May, 1998; and

(2)That the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

The former Metropolitan Council at its meeting of September 24 and 25, 1997 in considering Clause44 in Planning and Transportation Committee Report No. 19 authorized, among other things, the installation of traffic signals at Parkside Drive and Spring Road. During the detailed design stage of the signal installation, staff have established that it would be advisable to realign the curb at the south west corner of the Spring Road/Parkside Drive intersection, and have suggested the paving of the boulevard area created by the curb realignment to facilitate pedestrian crossings and improve pedestrian access into the park. Staff of Parks and Recreation have been consulted on this matter and concur with the proposed work.

The realignment of the curb as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2193 dated May, 1998, will also improve the channelization of vehicular traffic and will not adversely affect the functioning of the intersection.

The proposed curb realignment constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

J. Niedra, Manager

Programmes, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Curb Realignment

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Appeal of Denial of Application for Boulevard Cafe - 1021 Gerrard Street East (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following, as the Community Council was advised the appeal had been withdrawn:

(February 19, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for Boulevard Cafe - Marjory Street Flankage of 1021 Gerrard Street East (Don River);

(May 20, 1998) from Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services, advising appeal withdrawn;

(March 31, 1998) from Ms. Kerri Larson.

(b)50 Prince Arthur - Application to Remove Three Trees Situated on Private Property (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following until such time as the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application for 50 Prince Arthur is considered by the Toronto Community Council, and having requested staff from the Urban Forestry Section to convene a meeting with the applicant and representatives of the Annex Tree Committee to discuss tree related issues with respect to the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application:

(May 11, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation respecting 50 Prince Arthur - Application to Remove Three Trees Situated on Private Property (Midtown); and recommending:

That if City Council approves the request for the removal of the three trees noted below, such approval be conditional on:

(1)the trees in question not being removed or injured until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 197026 commence which warrant the removal of the trees; and

(2)the applicant planting a minimum of sixty-two (62) large growing shade trees, in accordance with the landscape plans prepared by Acme Environmentals, date stamped as received on September 29, 1997 by Urban Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(i)(May 11, 1998) from Mr. Harry L. Frost;

(ii)(May 7, 1998) from Ms. Kari Veblen;

(iii)(May 7, 1998) from Ms. Maruska Slankova;

(iv)(May 6, 1998) from Ms. Zanis P. Zeman;

(v)(May 25, 1998) from Mr. Peter Prattas;

(vi)(May 27, 1998) from Mr. James Botaitis and Ms. Carol Markusoff;

(vii)(May 22, 1998) from Ms. Esther Brooks and Mr. Ivan Feldman;

(viii)(May 14, 1998) from Ms. Barbara Chisholm; and

(ix)(May 26, 1998) from Mr. Eric Jackson, Chairman, Elgin Lowther Association.

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

-Ms. Mary Flynn-Guglietti, Goodman & Carr, and

-Mr. Paul Martel, Architect, Toronto, Ontario

(c)Request for Front Yard Parking for a Second Space at 85 Crescent Road (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on June 24, 1998:

(May 13, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to permit Front Yard Parking for a Second Space at 85 Crescent Road (Midtown), and recommending that:

(1)an application for a second parking space at 85 Crescent Road be denied by City Council, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the licence previously issued for a single space not be reinstated until the excessive paving is removed, as requested by City staff.

Mr. Victor Jaunkalns, Gunta Mackars Landscape Architecture, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(d)16 Clarence Square, Application No. 998014: Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on June 24, 1998:

(May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 16 Clarence Square, Application No. 998014: Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Downtown); and recommending that City Council refuse Application No. 998014 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one non-illuminated mural sign.

(e)1021 Avenue Road, Application No. 997108: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City Of Toronto Municipal Code (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until the previously requested report on the design of fuel service stations in urban areas is submitted to the Toronto Community Council, and having advised Petro Canada and other fuel providers that staff are in the process of developing design guidelines for fuel service stations in urban areas, with the invitation that the fuel providers participate in this process:

(May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 1021 Avenue Road, Application No. 997108: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City Of Toronto Municipal Code (North Toronto); and recommending that City Council refuse Application No. 997108 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit ten illuminated signs of varying types.

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

-Mr. Wesley Robbins, Petro-Canada Manager, Real Estate Development; and

-Mr. David Joyce, Petro-Canada Project Manager.

(f)2265 Danforth Avenue, Application No. 998004: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City Of Toronto Municipal Code (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until the previously requested report on the design of gas stations is submitted to the Toronto Community Council:

(May 11, 1998) from Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 2265 Danforth Avenue, Application No. 998004: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City Of Toronto Municipal Code (East Toronto), and recommending that:

(l)City Council approve Application No. 998004 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign "A" at 2265 Danforth Avenue;.

(2)City Council refuse Application No. 998004 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit eight illuminated signs "B" "C" and "D" at 2265 Danforth Avenue; and

(3)the applicant be advised, upon partial approval of Application No. 998004, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The above recommendation was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Adams, Bossons, Chow, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, McConnell, Miller, Walker - 9

Nays:Councillors Rae, Bussin, Fotinos, Jakobek - 4

(g)92 Avenue Road, Application No. 997083: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code To Permit One Illuminated Fascia Sign (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following reports sine die:

(i)(May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Further Report respecting 92 Avenue Road, Application No. 997083: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code To Permit One Illuminated Fascia Sign (Midtown); and recommending that the recommendations contained in my report dated January 8, 1998 on this matter be replaced with the following:

"That City Council refuse Application No. 997083, as revised, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign."

(ii)(January 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

(h)Emerson Avenue, at its Intersections with Armstrong Avenue and Millicent Street - Request for "Stop" Signs (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 13, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services respecting Emerson Avenue, at its Intersections with Armstrong Avenue and Millicent Street - Request for "Stop" Signs (Davenport) and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)9-15 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street - Application 197028 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit a Residential Development (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council report having adopted the following preliminary report:

(May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 9-15 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street - Application 197028 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit a Residential Development (Midtown), and recommending that, following submission of revised plans, 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.

(j)Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 198005 to Permit 5 Dwellings at 69 Prescott Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council report having adopted the following preliminary report:

(May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 198005 to Permit 5 Dwellings at 69 Prescott Avenue (Davenport), and recommending that I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the applications and to notify owners and tenants within 120 metres of the site, and the Ward Councillors.

(k)Greening the Port Industrial District.

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(May 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Greening the Port Industrial District (Downtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(l)Massey-Ferguson Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Dismissal of Appeal by Ontario Municipal Board (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(April 29, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting Massey-Ferguson Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Dismissal of Appeal by Ontario Municipal Board (Trinity- Niagara), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(m)Roadway Changes to Improve Safety (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting June 24, 1998:

(April 9, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, forwarding recommendations from its meeting of April 8, 1998 to Toronto Community Council for information.

(n)Existing Environmental Committees and the Environmental Task Force.

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk respecting Existing Environmental Committees and the Environmental Task Force, and forwarding the actions of the Special Committee to Review the Report of the Toronto Transition Team at its meeting held on April 24, 1998.

(o)Draft of Proposed Fence By-law.

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following communication sine die:

(April 30, 1998) from Councillor Brian Ashton respecting Draft of Proposed Fence By-law.

(p)Ward Boundary Review Process.

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of this matter, until the report previously requested is submitted, at which time the matter will be scheduled for deputations:

(May 7, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 4A of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, headed "Ward Boundary Review Process" which was adopted, as amended, by The Council Of The City Of Toronto at its Special Meeting held on April 28 and May 1, 1998.

(q)City-Wide Policies and Procedures respecting Condominium Conversion And Demolition Of Rental Housing.

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(May 20, 1998) City Clerk forwarding the actions of the Urban Environment and Development Committee of May 19, 1998 respecting City-Wide Policies and Procedures respecting Condominium Conversion And Demolition Of Rental Housing.

(r) Proposed Licence Agreement - Prince Edward Viaduct Parkette (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having advised City Council that it endorsed the recommendation of the Corporate Services Committee, contained in Clause No. 41 of Corporate Services Committee Report No. 7, that the report (May 12, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, respecting Proposed Licence Agreement - Prince Edward Viaduct Parkette (Midtown) be adopted.

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, May 27, 1998

(Report No. 6 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998.)

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links

� City of Toronto 1998-2001