TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 11

1Park Drive Ravine - Ontario Municipal Board Decision(Midtown)

2Draft Zoning By-law - 535 Queen Street East (Don River)

3Rescindment of Permit Parking - Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street (Downtown)

4Conversion of Carus Avenue from 'Area Based Permit Parking to 'Street Based Permit Parking' (Davenport)

5Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road (North Toronto)

6Hearing - Alteration of Queen's Quay West, between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street(Downtown)

7Hearing - Alteration of Boulton Avenue- Installation of Speed Humps and Reduction in Speed Limit (Don River)

8Hearing - Alteration of Close Avenue -Installation of Speed Humpsand Reduction of Speed Limit (High Park)

9Hearing - Alteration of Margueretta Street - Installation of Speed Humps (Davenport)

10Alteration of Christie Street (Davenport, Midtown)

11Prescott Avenue,from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue -Implementation of Alternate Side Parking (Davenport)

12Extension of the Pavement and Construction of a Walkway at the South End of Atlantic Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

13Implementation of Alternate Side Parking -Hope Street (Davenport)

14Installation of Parking Meters and a Taxicab Stand -Robertson Crescent (Downtown)

15Conversion of Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to'Street Name Based Permit Parking(Davenport)

16Rescindment of Permit Parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street (Downtown)

17Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Madison Avenue,between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue (Midtown)

18Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road (Midtown)

19Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Shaftesbury Avenue(Midtown)

20Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Osler Street, from the Lane First North of the North Branch of Connolly Street to a Point 39.6 Metres South of St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

21Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Clinton Street, Between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

22Introduction of Permit Parking on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street(Downtown)

23Introduction of Permit Parking on the North Side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line (Devenport)

24Prohibition of Use By Vehicles Over 2.0 Metres in Width -Public Lane First North of Kingston Road Extending Between Bingham Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue (East Toronto)

25Adjustment to the Limits of the Existing No Parking Regulations -Castle Knock Road from Crestview Road to Roselawn Avenue on the West Side and from Elwood Boulevard to Roselawn Avenue on the East Side (North Toronto)

26Implementation of a "No Standing Anytime' Prohibition -Alpine Avenue, North Side (Davenport)

27Implementation of a One Hour Parking Limit, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.Monday to Saturday - Wanda Road (Davenport)

28Reversal of One-way Southbound Operation- St. Clarens Avenue between Bloor Street West and Paton Road (Davenport)

29Removal of Existing Speed Bumps - Lane System bounded by Rhodes Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Coxwell Avenue and Hanson Street (East Toronto)

30Proposed Installation of Speed Humps -Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue (Midtown)

31Ingress/Egress Turn Prohibitions from the West Toronto Street Driveway - 2129 St. Clair West (Canadian Tire Store)(Davenport)

32Installation of a School Bus Loading Zone in Front of Indian Road Crescent Public School - 285 Indian Road Crescent (Davenport)

33Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Contro l- Intersection of Geoffrey Street and Sorauren Avenue (High Park)

34Installation of a Northbound "Stop" Sign- Intersection of Hertle Avenue and Highfield Road (East Toronto)

35Installation of "Stop" Sign Control - Intersection of Grassmere Road and Willard Avenue and Intersection of Grassmere Road and Windermere Avenue (High Park)

36Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces and Disabled Persons Loading Zones (High-Park, Trinity-Niagara, Davenport, Midtown, Don Riverand East Toronto)

37Amendments to the Parking and Stopping Regulations -Balmuto Street between Charles Street West and Bloor Street West (Downtown)

38Proposed Parking Prohibition on the South Side of Rosedale Valley Road at the Manulife Centre Driveway(Midtown and Don River)

39Extension of Permit Parking Hours -Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue (East Toronto)

40Traffic Calming Measures - Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

41Provision of a "School Bus Loading Zone" and a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" in front of Essex Street School,- 50 Essex Street and in front of St. Raymond School, - 270 Barton Avenue (Davenport)

42Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Eastwood Road from Woodbine Avenue to Bellhaven Road (East Toronto)

43Introduction of a Prohibition to Restrict Vehicles First Lane South of Davenport Road Extending Between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue (Davenport)

44Front Yard Parking - 95 Montgomery Avenue Results of the Poll (North Toronto)

45Maintenance of a Fence -499 Spadina Road (Midtown)

46Proposed Amendments to Chapter 331, Trees, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code

47Removal of City-Owned Tree - 40 Bellefair Avenue(East Toronto)

48Removal of City-Owned Tree - 30 Hemlock Avenue(East Toronto)

49Removal of City-Owned Tree - 40 Alexander Street (Downtown)

50Amendment of Grant Agreement- 243 Coxwell Avenue - Royal Canadian Legion

51Application for Consent Under Chapter 276, Article I, Ravines, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code to Bury Telephone and TV Cable within the Avondale Ravine- 27 Rosedale Road (Midtown)

52Variances from Chapter 297 - Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - (Midtown, East Toronto, North Toronto, Downtown, High Park)

53Variance from Chapter 297 - Signs,of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -1345 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

54Site Plan Approval- 64 Parliament Street (Don River)

55Appointments to Board of Management -Central Eglinton Community Centre

56Air Canada Centre - Liquor Licence Application

57Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

58Dufferin Street Jog Elimination -Effect of Abandoned Tracks on Property Requirements (Trinity Niagara, High Park)

59Renaming of Polson Street Park to Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park(Don River)

60Committee of Adjustment Appeal -184 Sherbourne Street (Downtown)

61Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -2223 Bloor Street West - Runnymede Theatre (High Park)

62Ontario Municipal Board Decision- 963 Bloor Street West (Trinity Niagara)

63Relocation/Removal of City-Owned Tree -30 Ossington Street (Trinity-Niagara)

64Tree Removal - 21 Elgin Avenue (Midtown)

65Tree Removal - 12 Armstrong Avenue (Davenport)

66Tree Removal - 142 Evelyn Crescent (High Park)

67Tree Removal - 420 Castlefield Avenue (North Toronto)

68Tree Removal - Wychwood Park Pond andForest Rehabilitation (Midtown)

69Tree Removal - 165 Roxborough Street East (Midtown)

70Removal of Tree - 48 Symington Avenue (Davenport)

71Tree Removal - 63 Strathcona Avenue (Don River)

72Tree Removal - 204 - 212 and 220 Eglinton Avenue East(North Toronto)

73Boulevard Cafe Application - Bosco's Restaurant -96 Tecumseth Street (Trinity-Niagara)

74Residential Boulevard Parking Appeal -Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street (Downtown)

75Driveway Widening Appeal - 50 Balsam Avenue(East Toronto)

76Front Yard Parking - 38 Spruce Hill Road (East Toronto)

77Drain Claim - 30 Hastings Avenue (East Toronto)

78Front Yard Parking - 86 Caledonia Road (Davenport)

79Driveway Widening - 315 Forman Avenue (North Toronto)

80Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing -70 Huron Street (Downtown)

81Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenueand Dundas Street West (Downtown)

82Application for Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue flankage of1340 St. Clair Avenue West - Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. (Davenport)

83Designation - 540 Dovercourt Road(Massey-Quick House) (Trinity-Niagara)

84Designation and Heritage Easement Agreement -84 Woodlawn Avenue East (James Avon Smith House) (Midtown)

85Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory ofHeritage Properties - 145 Annette Street(Annette Library) (High Park)

86Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -195 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

87Final Report - Application No. 197027 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) (Midtown)

88Settlement Report -Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -9-17 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street (Midtown)

891107 Avenue Road - Site Plan Approval and Designation(North Toronto)

90Parks and Recreation User Fees

91Federal Funding for the Taddle Creek Project (Downtown)

92Garrison Creek Open Space Linkage Plan(Trinity Niagara, Davenport, Downtown)

93Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 11

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on September 16, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 1 and 2, 1998

1

Park Drive Ravine - Ontario Municipal Board Decision

(Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the City Solicitor be requested to continue to seek leave to appeal the Ontario Municipal Board Decision with respect to 119R Glen Road, and to withdraw the City's motion for leave to appeal with respect to 15 Beaumont Road."

City Council also gave confidential instructions to staff, and the matter of these instructions stayed in-camera, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

The Toronto Community Council requests that City Council schedule an in camera session at its meeting to be held on October 1, 1998, to consider a confidential report (September19,1998) from the City Solicitor respecting Park Drive Ravine, Ontario Municipal Board Decision on a Review Motion Pursuant to Section 43 of The Ontario Municipal Board Act issued September 3, 1998 exempting 15 Beaumont Road and 119R Glen Road from Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369, which has been forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (September 25, 1998) from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provision of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential communication (September 18, 1998) from the City Clerk, embodying the confidential report dated September 9, 1998, from the City Solicitor, such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(September 30, 1998) from the Chair, Task Force to Bring Back the Don, in support of the Ravine By-law No. 1997-0369 and urging Council to appeal the Ontario Municipal Board decision to amend this By-law to exempt the properties at 119R Glen Road and 15 Beaumont Road;

(ii)(September 30, 1998) from the President, South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association, in support of the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council to appeal the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board; and

(iii)(undated) from Nancy and John McFadyen, attaching a list of concerned citizens in support of the OMB's decision on Ms. Dickinson's property and in opposition of the OMB's decision on Mr. Russell's property; and suggesting that Members of Council separate the vote on Ms. Dickinson's appeal from the vote on Mr. Russell's appeal.)

2

Draft Zoning By-law - 535 Queen Street East (Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the report (May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on September16, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report submits a site specific zoning by-law as recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in her report dated May 11, 1998, (with certain modifications) to permit the conversion of a former industrial building at 535 Queen Street East to contain a combined maximum of eleven dwelling units and live-work units.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

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

(following the public meeting and in the event Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-law)

(2)the Draft By-law attached to the Report (September 14, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto."

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council will have before it the report (dated May 11, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that Zoning By-law No.438-86 of the former City of Toronto be amended to permit the conversion of a former industrial building at 535 Queen Street East to contain 11 dwelling units.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The attached Draft By-law would give effect to the recommendation of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services subject to certain modifications. Further to discussions with the Commissioner's staff the following modifications will be made to the form of by-law recommended by the Commissioner's report:

1.As the owner will still be required to provide the 8 bicycle parking spaces required by section4(13)(a), the site will not be exempted from that section; instead, it will be exempted from sections 4(13)(c) and (d) which deal with the manner in which the bicycle parking spaces are to be provided;

2.In addition to permitting dwelling units, the by-law will also permit live-work units to a combined maximum of eleven;

3.visitor's parking space will be defined to mean "a parking space reserved at all times for visitors to the building, individually designated by means of a clearly visible sign as being for the exclusive use of visitors to the building and having the way thereto designated by means of clearly visible signs on all driveways or passageways leading thereto from the street".

Conclusions:

Following the public meeting, should Toronto Community Council wish to permit the conversion of the former industrial building at 535 Queen Street East to contain a combined maximum of eleven dwelling units and live-work units, it would be appropriate to recommend that the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 14, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

Contact Name:

Stephen Bradley

392-7790

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

NO. A BY-LAW

To amend the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 with respect to the lands known as 535 Queen Street East.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.None of the provisions of Sections 4(13)(c) and (d) and Section 9(1)((a) of Zoning By-law No.438-86 being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the use on the site of the building which existed on the site in 1997, for dwelling units and/or live-work units, together with accessory parking spaces, provided:

(a)the lot on which the building is located comprises at least the site;

(b)no part of the building, above grade, is located otherwise than wholly within the area delineated by the heavy lines on Map 2 attached hereto,

(c)the total combined number of dwelling units and live-work units contained within the building does not exceed eleven,

(d)the residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 1 800square metres and the building is used only for the purpose of dwelling units and/or live-work units; and

(e)a minimum of 8 parking spaces, including one visitor's parking space, accessory to the dwelling units and live-work units are provided on the site.

2.For the purpose of this by-law:

(a)"site" means those lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law;

(b)visitor's parking space means a parking space reserved at all times for visitors to the building, individually designated by means of a clearly visible sign as being for the exclusive use of visitors to the building and having the way thereto designated by means of clearly visible signs on all driveways or passageways leading thereto from the street, and

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

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

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

(Note: Maps 1 and 2 will be completed prior to the passage of the By-law)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (May 11, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development:

Purpose:

This report recommends that a site specific By-law be adopted by City Council to permit the conversion of a former industrial building to 11 dwelling units.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

1.That the Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a)exempt the site from Sections 4(13)(a) and 9(1)(a) of Bylaw 438-86, as amended:

(b)permit the alteration and use of a building that existed on the lot in 1997 for no more than 11 dwelling units provided:

i) the residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 1,800 square metres;

ii)at least 8 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot of which one parking space is designated for the exclusive use of visitors to the building; and

iii)storage is provided and maintained on the lot for at least 8 bicycles.

Background:

The building which is the subject of this application, was illegally occupied for residential purposes after a construction permit was granted by the City for interior alterations to the building for light industrial activities. The owner then submitted a condominium application to the City, which was set aside on the advice of the City Solicitor. This rezoning application, if approved, would be the first step to legalize the building for residential use. The owner will then be required to receive the appropriate building permits to ensure that the work already completed meets all applicable laws including the Ontario Building Code and the Ontario Fire Code. Once an appropriate building permit is granted by the City the owner will be able to complete the condominium approval for the legalized building.

Planning Discussion:

The site is located within the Corktown Mixed Industrial-Residential District of the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan area. One of the planning objectives for this part of King-Parliament is to gradually permit the reallocation of small industrial properties from industrial to residential or live/work usage. For this reason the Part II Official Plan permits through rezoning approval, the conversion of light industrial buildings to residential or live/work uses. The proposal does not alter the built form of the existing building and therefore the proposal is in keeping with the existing physical character of the neighbourhood. The proposal is in keeping with the objectives of the PartII Official Plan for Corktown.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed the proposal and has recommended that 8 parking spaces be provided for the project.

The Medical Officer of Health has reviewed the proposal in respect to environmental issues and is now satisfied that the building is suited to residential occupancy.

Conclusions:

This project meets the intent of Part II Official Plan policies for the Corktown neighbourhood of King-Parliament. I am recommending that this small proposal be approved.

Contact Name:

Lance Alexander

Planner

East Section

City Planning

phone: (416) 392-7573

Fax:(416)3921330

e-mail:lalexand@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Confirmed Municipal Address:535 Queen Street East and 540 King Street East.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

3

Rescindment of Permit Parking - Baldwin Street,

between Henry Street and McCaul Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street be rescinded;

(2)Schedule D of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to exclude Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the rescindment of permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

1.(a)permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street be rescinded;

(b)Schedule D of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to exclude Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street; and

(c)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

OR

2.City Council deny the rescindment of permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Olivia Chow, on behalf of the Baldwin Merchants Association, to have the permit parking rescinded on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street.

Comments:

Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 6D, and the hours of operation are 12 midnight to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

There are 645 spaces within area 6D with 643 permits issued. Currently, out of a total of 46 on-street spaces on Baldwin Street, 30 permits have been issued to residents of this street.

The rescindment of permit parking on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the rescindment of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on June 30, 1998 and no objections were received.

However, given that 30 permits have been issued to residents of this street and that the rescindment of permit parking would require these residents to find alternate parking arrangements, I have requested the City Clerk to notify the affected permit holders, advising them of this proposal.

Conclusions:

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that permit parking be rescinded on Baldwin Street, between Henry Street and McCaul Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

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

-Mr. George Traini, Baldwin Merchants Association; and

-Mr. P. D. Wharton, President, La Bodega.

4

Conversion of Carus Avenue from 'Area Based Permit Parking'

to 'Street Based Permit Parking' (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, be converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; and

(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To convert permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the East End of Carus Avenue, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking' with the current operating hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

1.(a)permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, be converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; and

(b)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills;

OR

2.City Council deny the conversion of permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'.

Background:

A request was received from Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fortinos to have permit parking on Carus Avenue converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'.

Comments:

Carus Avenue is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 5C, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

In area 5C, there are 1,213 on-street spaces with 1,014 permits issued. On Carus Avenue itself, there are 15 on-street spaces with a total of 14 permits issued to residents on the street.

The conversion of permit parking on Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on May21,1998 and no objections were received.

However, given that the street has reached almost full space allocation, I have requested the City Clerk to notify the affected permit holders, advising them of this proposal.

Conclusions:

Carus Avenue, between Ossington Avenue and the east end of Carus Avenue, has already reached 93% space allocation. Once the street reaches 100% space allocation, any further applications for permit parking would have to be placed on a wait list.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that permit parking be converted to a street name basis on this section of Carus Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

5

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Bedford Park Avenue,

between Elm Road and Greer Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)permit parking hours of operation on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7days a week;

(2)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking of the former City of Toronto, be amended to incorporate Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

1.(a)permit parking hours of operation on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7days a week;

(b)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking of the former City of Toronto, be amended to incorporate Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road; and

(c)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills;

OR

2.City Council deny the reduction of permit parking hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road.

Background:

A petition signed by residents of Bedford Park Avenue was received by this Department, requesting the reduction of permit parking hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, is authorized for permit parking on a street name basis, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week. Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, has a total of 84 permits issued against 229 on-street parking spaces.

The reduction of permit parking hours on this street, constitutes a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former City of Toronto Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking hours was mailed to all affected permit holders on April 30th, 1998 and a number of objections have been received.

Conclusions:

Objections were received from residents of Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, on the reduction of permit parking hours. On hearing the matter, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant approval to reduce the permit parking hours on Bedford Park Avenue, between Elm Road and Greer Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

--------

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:

-(September 13, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Thwaites;

-(September 14, 1998) from Ms. Scorsone.

6

Hearing - Alteration of Queen's Quay West,

between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 13 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee Report No. 9, titled, "Widening of a Portion of Queen's Quay West to Accommodate the Waterfront West LRT Extension", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice of its hearing on September 16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Urban Environment and Development Committee

Report No. 9(13), adopted July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Queen's Quay West consisting of the widening of the pavement on the south side of Queen's Quay West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-2" (Pavement Widening) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Drawing

Street)Side)Width)From)To)No./Date)

Queen'ssouthfrom: 14.7 mLower Spadina a pointSK-2204

Quay Westto: 17.3 m -Avenueapproximatelydated

20.5 m210 m westJuly 6, 1998

thereof

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 13 of Report No. 9 of the Urban and Environment and Development Committee, headed "Widening of a Portion of Queen's Quay West to Accommodate the Waterfront West LRT Extension":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Urban Environment and Development Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the widening of a portion of the pavement on Queen's Quay West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street to facilitate the construction of the Waterfront West LRT extension.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the pavement widening on Queen's Quay West, west of Lower SpadinaAvenue, can be accommodated within existing departmental appropriations. Incremental costs relating to the adjustments of parks facilities and utilities will be borne by the TTC, as will costs related to the streetcar line construction.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to widen the pavement on Queen's Quay West described as follows:

"The widening of the pavement on the south side of Queen's Quay West, from a width varying from 14.7 metres to 17.3 metres to a width of 20.5metres (including track allowance) between Lower Spadina Avenue and a point approximately 210 metres west thereof, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2204 dated July 6, 1998"; and

(2) 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 necessary.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of April 29 and 30, 1998, in considering the 1998 Capital Budget request for the Toronto Transit Commission, approved the funds for the construction of a new streetcar connection on Queen's Quay West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street as part of the westerly extension of the Waterfront West line.

TTC staff have advised that all approvals are in place to proceed with the segment of the streetcar line extension between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street and have requested City staff to take the necessary steps to facilitate the project. In this regard, it is necessary to seek Council approval for the widening of the Queen's Quay West pavement for a short distance westerly from Lower Spadina Avenue to accommodate the track allowance. Construction of the extension is scheduled by the TTC to commence in the fall of this year.

Comments:

The straightening of the alignment of Queen's Quay West from Lower Spadina Avenue to BathurstStreet and the widening of the road allowance to provide a 27-metre section was a longstanding objective in the Harbourfront area intended to advance a variety of land use, parks and transportation goals. More particularly, the widening of the right-of-way on the south side was pursued to accommodate the eventual extension of the Waterfront LRT beyond its present terminus at Lower Spadina Avenue. The Implementation Agreement of 1992 between the City of Toronto, Queen'sQuay West Land Corporation (formerly Harbourfront) and the Crown provided the specific mechanism for the City to obtain the widening of lands and construct the realignment.

Pursuant to the Agreement, the City, among other works, constructed the realigned section of Queen's Quay West. The work was authorized by the former Council in 1996 and completed in 1997. At the time of design and approval, it was noted that minor interim modifications to the plan approved under the TTC's Environmental Assessment (EA) would be appropriate in light of the circumstances at that time. These minor amendments were endorsed by the former Metropolitan Council and TTC staff. By all indications, it appeared that the LRT extension would not occur for some indefinite period into the future.

In order to minimize costs of the realignment, only the section of the actual jogged alignment was constructed. The two tangent sections, from Lower Spadina Avenue to about 200 metres west thereof, and from Bathurst Street to about 100 metres easterly, were not reconstructed or widened at that time.

It is noted that the realignment was designed in consultation with TTC staff in such a manner as to facilitate the construction of the Waterfront West LRT and minimize throw-away costs. Most of the line between Lower Spadina Avenue and Lower Portland Street will be built in the new median. The road works, including sidewalks, curbs, gutters, adjacent utilities and grades, were constructed in accordance with the ultimate condition. It is now necessary to secure approval of the widening of the Queen's Quay West pavement in the vicinity of Lower Spadina Avenue as described in Recommendation No. (1) above and shown on the attached print of Sketch No. SK-2204, dated July6, 1998, in order to accommodate the transit work.

The widening of the pavement on Queen's Quay West constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. This matter is being reported to your Committee at this time in order that the statutory requirements set out in the Act (advertising Council's intent to enact the by-law, public deputation hearing) can commence over the summer months to permit final approval and construction commencement this fall. Any required modifications or issues arising out of the detailed design or public consultation processes can be reported to a subsequent meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee or City Council.

The Waterfront West Light Rail Transit project, including the pavement widening described in this report, westerly to Exhibition Place and beyond received Environmental Assessment (EA) approval from the Ministry of Environment and Energy in August 1995. The approved project contemplated the line on Queen's Quay West to Lower Portland Street, then northerly to Lake Shore Boulevard West. TTC staff advise that they have applied to have the EA approval amended to allow the line to extend westerly on Queen's Quay West as far as Bathurst Street, before heading north to the existing tracks on Fleet Street.

A TTC staff report of July 15, 1997, acknowledged that a traffic study of this change is required, particularly with respect to operations at the Bathurst Street/Lake Shore Boulevard West/Fleet Street intersection. There will also be a need to encompass operations at the Bathurst Street/Queen's Quay West intersection in light of potential impacts to the new school/community centre located in the southeast quadrant. Upon completion of this work and design, it will be necessary to submit a further report outlining the necessary pavement alterations at this location.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mr. John Niedra, Manager of Programmes, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, 392-7711.

(A copy of Drawing No. SK-2004 dated July 6, 1998, referred to in the foregoing report, in on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

7

Hearing - Alteration of Boulton Avenue

- Installation of Speed Humps and

Reduction in Speed Limit (Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to relocate the speed humps as outlined in the communication (September 15, 1998) submitted to Councillor Layton, and to consult Mr. Rowan as to the new location of the speed humps.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 4 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, headed "Boulton Avenue between Queen Street East and Dundas Street East - Installation of Speed Humps (Don River)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on June 3 and 4, 1998, notice of its hearing on September 16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 6(4), adopted June 3 and 4, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Boulton Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Queen Street East to Dundas Street East.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side/ Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner)Repair)From)To)No./Date)

Boulton AlterationQueen St.Dundas St.421F-5175

AvenueconsistingEastEastdated

of theMay, 1998

installation

of speed humps

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (August 31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This report is to advise the Toronto Community Council of the results of a poll conducted on the subject section of Boulton Avenue respecting a proposal to install speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of June 3 and 4, 1998 adopted Clause 4 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 6 entitled, Boulton Avenue, between Queen Street East and Dundas Street East - Installation of Speed Humps (Don River) and in doing so, subject to the favourable results of a poll of affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council, approved the installation of speed humps at specific locations on this street and coincident with the installation of these traffic calming devices, the reduction of the speed limit from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour. The appropriate City Officials were also directed to take the necessary action to implement the foregoing.

Comments:

Works staff conducted a poll between July 6, 1998 and July 31, 1998 of adult residents on Boulton Avenue. About 20% of the eligible voters returned responses to the poll, the findings of which are as follows:

No. Of

Valid ResponsesPercentage

In support of the speed hump proposal2790%

Opposed to the speed hump proposal 310%

Under the provisions of the Speed Hump Policy adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997, a minimum of 60% of the valid responses to the speed hump poll must support the proposal to warrant further action by staff to install same.

In consideration of the results obtained and as the next step towards installation, I have requested staff of Corporate Services (City Clerk's Division and Legal Division) to arrange for the following:

a) The statutory advertising of the proposed highway alterations, which would include the date for the deputations meeting;

b) The preparation and distribution of a suitable notice to residents; and

c) The hearing of deputations concerning this matter at the Toronto Community Council meeting on September 16, 1998.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 4 of Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "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.

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

392-7771

8

Hearing - Alteration of Close Avenue -

Installation of Speed Humps

and Reduction of Speed Limit (High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to discuss with the principal of the Queen Victoria School where the Speed Humps should be located.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 26 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, titled, "Installation of Speed Humps - Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue (High Park)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice of its hearing on September 16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 10(26), adopted July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Close Avenue by the installation of speed humps from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side/ Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner)Repair)From)To)No./Date)

CloseAlterationQueen StreetSpringhurst421F-5208

AvenueconsistingWestAvenuedated

of theJune, 1998

installation

of speed humps

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 26 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue (High Park)":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July3,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Close Avenue.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $13,500, funds for which are available in Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Close Avenue, from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue 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 CLOSE AVENUE from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5208, dated June, 1998";

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

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

Comments:

At the request of Ward Councillor and area residents, Works staff assessed the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue in response to concerns about the volume and excessive speed of traffic on this street.

Close Avenue from Queen Street West to a point 43 metres further south, operates two-way with a pavement width of 6.1 metres, and from a point 43 metres south of Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue, operates one-way southbound with a pavement width which varies between 6.1 to 7.3 metres. The posted speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour.

Close Avenue is approximately 783 metres long and at its mid-point, intersects with King Street West. "Stop" sign controls are posted for northbound traffic at Queen Street West and for southbound traffic at King Street West and at Springhurst Avenue. Heavy trucks are prohibited at all times.

The following summarizes the data which was obtained from traffic counts undertaken by Works staff on Close Avenue in October, 1997:

As can be seen from the table, the incidence of motorists' travelling in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit on Close Avenue between Queen Street West and King Street West is approximately 45%. The percentage of vehicles recorded at a rate of speed in excess of fifty kilometres per hour is approximately 11% of all traffic. Similarly, the incidence of speeding in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit on Close Avenue between King Street West and Springhurst Avenue is approximately 50%, with about 11% in excess of fifty kilometres per hour. This speed profile is of concern given the proximity of the adjacent schools along Close Avenue.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5208 dated June 1998, consists of nine speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 km/h, as permitted by the City of Toronto Act, 1996, would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the poll results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the Close Avenue roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions 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. In the interim, 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 Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

9

Hearing - Alteration of Margueretta Street - Installation of

Speed Humps (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 23 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue (Davenport)", which was amended and adopted by City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice of its hearing on September16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 10(23) adopted, as amended, July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Margueretta Street by the installation of speed humps from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side/ Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner)Repair)From)To)No./Date)

MarguerettaAlterationBloor StreetWallace421F-5234

StreetconsistingWestAvenuedated

of theJuly 13, 1998

installation

of speed humps

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 23 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue (Davenport)":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to the Toronto Community Council on the feasibility of reverting St.Clarens Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Paton Road, back to a northbound, one-way street.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July15,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Margueretta Street between Bloor Street West and Wallace Avenue.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $13,200, funds for which are available in Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Margueretta Street, from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue 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 MARGUERETTA STREET from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5234, dated July 13, 1998";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Davenport Councillors Disero and Fotinos and area residents, Works staff assessed the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue in response to concerns about the excessive speed of traffic on this section of street. Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, operates one-way northbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited on both sides of Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to a point 76 metres north thereof. Alternate side parking is currently in effect on this section of street and the permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.

Twenty four hour speed and volume counts were obtained over four consecutive days in September 1997 and it was found that, on average, Margueretta Street carries approximately 1,400 vehicles per day. Of these, 64% of all vehicles travelled at or below the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and approximately 28% (400 vehicles per day) travelled between 41 kilometres per hour and 50 kilometres per hour. The percentage excessive speeding (vehicles recorded travelling at a rate of speed in excess of 50 kilometres per hour) is approximately 8% (120 vehicles per day) of all traffic.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5234 dated July 13, 1998, consists of six speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 km/h, as permitted by the City of Toronto Act, 1996, would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As prescribed by City Council Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the poll results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the Margueretta Street roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions 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. In the interim, 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 Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl (392-7892)

Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Margueretta Street

10

Alteration of Christie Street (Davenport, Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 15 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, titled "Proposed Road Narrowings - Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street (Davenport)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice of its hearing on September16, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on August 25, September 1, September 8 and September 15, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 10(15), adopted July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 and

Intended for first presentation to Council: September 16, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Christie Street by narrowing the pavement between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-3" (Pavement Narrowing) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side or Drawing

Street)Location)Width)From)To)No./Date)

Christiefrom: 11 mBloor StreetDupontSK-2200

Streetto: 8 m-10 m WestStreetdated

July 6, 1998

Christienorth-from: 9 mnorth of SK-2200

Streetboundto: 7 m - 8 mBloor dated

legStreetJuly 6, 1998

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 15 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Proposed Road Narrowings - Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street (Davenport)":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street to facilitate the planting of trees and landscaping portions of the boulevards and the traffic island at Bloor Street West while providing a measure of traffic calming on the street, as part of scheduled road reconstruction work in 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the planned reconstruction work on Christie Street have been accommodated in the 1998 Capital Budget. Funds to cover the incremental costs of the curb realignments, boulevard landscaping and island adjustments are available in the Urban Planning and Development Services Capital Budget and under Capital Fund Code No. 296702 for Traffic Calming.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavement on Christie Street described as follows:

"the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 11 m to a width varying from 8 m to 10 m on CHRISTIE STREET between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street, and the narrowing of the pavement on the northbound leg of CHRISTIE STREET north of Bloor Street West from a width of 9 m to a width varying from 7 m to 8 m, as shown schematically on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2200, dated July 6, 1998; and

(2) 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.

Comments:

Existing Conditions

Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street is an arterial route and has a width of 11 m. It carries two-way traffic under a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and serves a TTC bus route. Approximately 12,000 vehicles per day use this portion of Christie Street, with about 55% of vehicles exceeding the 40 km/h speed limit and about 9% exceeding the limit by at least 10 km/h. Traffic signals are located at the intersections of Christie Street with Bloor Street West, Barton Avenue and Dupont Street and pedestrian crossovers are located at Yarmouth Road and Follis Avenue. Abutting uses are primarily residential in nature with some retail/commercial sites. Christie Pits abuts the west side of the street south of Barton Avenue.

The following parking regulations are in effect:

East side- "Stopping" is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.

- Parking is prohibited at all other times.

West side- "Stopping" is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Monday to Friday.

- Parking is prohibited at anytime from Dupont Street to a point 67.6 m south thereof and along the one-way sections north of Bloor Street West.

- Parking is permitted for a maximum duration of one hour from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

- Permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum duration of 3 hours.

- Parking meters are in operation from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum duration of one hour; and from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday for a maximum duration of three hours.

Christie Street was realigned a number of years ago at Bloor Street West to eliminate the jog with Grace Street to the south of Bloor Street West. This realignment resulted in the construction of a traffic island and channelized northbound leg which also provides access to commercial properties and a subway station on the east side of the street.

The pavement on Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street was constructed in 1949 and is scheduled for reconstruction this year. In addition, portions of the sidewalks and curbs have reached the end of their economic life-cycle and also require reconstruction this year.

Proposed Plan

Staff of the Urban Design Division of Urban Planning and Development Services in consultation with staff of Works have developed a conceptual plan of streetscape improvements which includes a number of components. The main feature is the narrowing of the road by approximately one metre on the east side, generally as indicated in the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2200 dated July 6, 1998 and described in Recommendation No. 1 above. This will allow for the planting of a row of trees in the east boulevard. As the trees mature, this would gradually transform the appearance of the street.

A moderate level of traffic calming can be introduced at certain intersecting streets by providing localized sidewalk extension/road pavement narrowings on the west side of Christie Street to "frame" the on-street parking and at the same time provide more generous pedestrian space at intersections. Specifically, these sidewalk extensions measuring about 2 m in width are proposed at:

Melville Avenue- north and south sides

Yarmouth Road- south side

Garnet Avenue- north and south sides

Essex Street- north side

Pendrith Avenue- north and south sides.

Such sidewalk narrowings are precluded at other corners on the west side of Christie Street due to the presence of bus stops and the manoeuvring space needs.

Finally, a component of the proposal is a minor reconfiguration and enlargement of the existing traffic island just north of Bloor Street West, accomplished by narrowing the northbound leg of Christie Street. This will result in shorter pedestrian crossing distances and opportunities for additional landscaping and tree planting, while at the same time maintaining access to adjacent properties and facilitating bus turning movements.

Under the present configuration, the width of the street is not sufficient to accommodate parking on both sides. The one metre narrowing will allow the existing travel and parking lane arrangement to remain, and accordingly, will not adversely affect the functioning of the street. Parking will be retained on the west side, and the existing peak parking prohibitions will be rescinded, so that parking is available 24 hours per day.

Consultation and Approval Process

The narrowing of the pavement on Christie Street constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provision of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, it is anticipated that if this matter is recommended by Toronto Community Council at its July 22 meeting and endorsed by City Council at its July 29, 1998 meeting, the statutory advertising could proceed during the month of August. The required deputation hearing could be scheduled at the September 16, 1998 meeting of Toronto Community Council, with final approval by City Council on October 1, 1998. This schedule will allow for public consultation and an information session if deemed appropriate by the affected Ward Councillors in August or early September. Discussions with TTC and emergency services staff have been initiated and will continue as necessary. Any modifications to the proposal which are found to be desirable or necessary can be reported to the subsequent meetings of Community Council or City Council. The work is scheduled to be undertaken in the fall of this year.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environment Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, Manager of Programmes

Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division

392-7711

11

Prescott Avenue,

from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue -

Implementation of Alternate Side Parking (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Appendix 'A' to the report dated June 24, 1998, from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services, be amended by striking out the words 'Monday to Friday' embodied in Recommendation No. (6) and inserting in lieu thereof the words, 'Monday to Saturday'.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services be adopted;

(2)approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue for traffic calming purpose as described below, with implementation being subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto

"The construction of speed humps on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, generally as shown on Drawing No.T555-2, dated June 1998";

(3)the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

(4)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 may be required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 24, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To consider a report to implement alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That in order to implement alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, the recommendations noted in Appendix "A", attached, should be approved; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of implementing alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, for the purpose of allowing both sides of the street to be mechanically swept to remove litter and debris and to maximize the number of available on-street parking spaces during winter months.

Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue operates two-way with a roadway width of 7.3 metres. Parking on the east side of the street is allowed for a maximum period of three hours outside of the 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily permit parking hours of operation, excepting the section of street from St. Clair Avenue West to East Avenue, where parking is restricted to a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Parking on the west side of the street is prohibited at anytime.

There are currently a total of 34 on-street parking spaces on the east side of the subject section of roadway and 43 potential spaces on the west side. Implementing alternate side parking would result in a total of nine additional parking spaces being made available to residents during winter months and on a semi-monthly basis at other times. However, it should be noted that streets where alternate side parking operates must reflect the side of the street with the least number of parking spaces. Accordingly, the inventory of permit parking spaces on this street and in permit parking area 3C would remained unchanged.

The provision of alternate side parking on this section of Prescott Avenue will also provide the opportunity to mechanically, as opposed to manually, sweep both sides of the street to remove litter and debris on a more frequent basis.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth

Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

--------

Appendix "A"

In order to implement alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, it is recommended that parking regulations on this street be amended as follows:

1. That the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the west side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, be rescinded;

2. That the permit parking system operate on an alternate side basis on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily;

3. That parking on the west side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue be prohibited from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive;

4. That parking on the east side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue be prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th and at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year inclusive;

5. That parking on the west side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to the first lane north thereof, be permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m., Monday to Friday, from the 1^st to the 15^th of each month from April 1^st to November30^th inclusive and December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year; and

6. That the "One Hour, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation which operates on the east side of Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to East Avenue, be adjusted to apply from the 16^th to the end of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive.

12

Extension of the Pavement and Construction

of a Walkway at the South End of

Atlantic Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the recommendation of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee embodied in the communication dated September 28, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on September 24, 1998, recommended to City Council the adoption of the recommendations of the Budget Committee embodied in the transmittal letter dated September 23, 1998, from the City Clerk, viz.:

"The Budget Committee:

(1)supported the approval of the project to extend the pavement and construct a walkway at the south end of Atlantic Avenue; and

(2)recommended to the Strategic Polices and priorities Committee and Council that:

(a)funds for this project be approved from the Transportation Department's existing Capital Budget; and

(b)if sufficient funds are not available within the Transportation Department's Capital Budget, that a further report be submitted to the Budget Committee." ' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council on the possibility of including the cost of the work to be done in the 1998 Capital Program, given the small amount of funds to be expended.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Service:

Purpose:

To authorize the acquisition of lands, execution of necessary agreements and licences, lay out and dedication of lands, and the construction of a pavement and walkway at the south end of Atlantic Avenue to facilitate access to the Exhibition GO Station and Canadian National Exhibition grounds.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of land acquisition and licence fees associated with this project, in the amount of $8,750.00, excluding land transfer tax and GST, are available in Capital Fund Code 296-001.

Funds to cover the cost of the planned construction in the estimated amount of $125,000.00 will have to be included in the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Budget request for consideration by City Council.

Recommendations:

(1) That the concept of the southerly extension of the Atlantic Avenue pavement and the provision of a public walkway on CN lands to provide a pedestrian link to the Exhibition Go Station and CNE grounds be endorsed;

(2) That the acquisition of Part 1 on Reference Plan No. 64R-15697 from 1289777 Ontario Limited (shown as Part A on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2197 dated August 26, 1998) for the southerly extension of Atlantic Avenue be authorized;

(3) That the lands shown as Part A on Drawing No. SK-2197 dated August 26, 1998, be laid out and subsequently dedicated to form part of Atlantic Avenue;

(4) That, subject to the adoption of Recommendation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above, approval be given to construct a pavement, sidewalk and curbs on Atlantic Avenue as follows:

"The construction of a pavement, sidewalk and curbs and the necessary drainage facilities on ATLANTIC AVENUE from the southern terminus of Atlantic Avenue to approximately 13.6 m further south, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2197, dated August 26, 1998";

(5)That approval be given to enter into an agreement with CN in accordance with terms and conditions satisfactory to the Commissioner of Corporate Services, City Solicitor and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the construction and maintenance of a pedestrian walkway by the City on CN lands shown as Part B on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2197, dated August 26, 1997;

(6)That the total cost of property acquisition not exceed $10,000.00 inclusive of Land Transfer Tax and GST; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, staff from Works, Urban Planning and Development and Corporate Services have been assessing means of facilitating pedestrian access to the Exhibition GO Station located on CN lands at the foot of Atlantic and Jefferson Avenues. A walkway in this area, as shown on the attached context plan, will provide a much needed and desirable north-south connection between Strachan Avenue and Dufferin Street linking the Liberty and Parkdale areas to the GO Station, the TTC Loop, and Exhibition Place including the Trade Centre and Ontario Place.

This proposal meets one of the general planning principles of the Garrison Common North area by providing a physical connection to the waterfront. A design concept/preliminary functional plan has been developed to the satisfaction of GO Transit, CN Rail, the property owner of Premises No.1 Jefferson Avenue and City staff and is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2197, dated August 26, 1998. The key components of the plan are as follows:

*The extension of the Atlantic Avenue pavement some 14 m south of its existing terminus and the construction of a sidewalk on the east side. This will provide vehicular access to Premises No. 1 Jefferson Avenue as well as service access to the rail lands to the south and pedestrian access to a walkway leading to the GO Station;

*The construction of a walkway from the proposed southerly end of Atlantic Avenue to the GO platform approximately 50 m south easterly. This walkway would terminate at the fair free zone on the platform and would connect to the existing GO pedestrian tunnel via the existing stairs and/or elevator thereby facilitating access and accessibility to the GO paid zone and/or the CNE grounds;

*The provision of the necessary landscaping, fencing, grading, lighting and adjustments to the existing platform and canopy/enclosure required in connection with the walkway construction; and

*The construction, in granular materials, of a driveway on CN lands to provide CN service vehicle access to the rail lands from Atlantic Avenue.

The implementation of the pavement extension and walkway involves the acquisition of property and the entering into of a license agreement between the City and CN, as more specifically set out below:

a) Southerly extension of Atlantic Avenue

The lands immediately to the south of the existing Atlantic Avenue right-of-way are known as 1 Jefferson Avenue and owned by 1289777 Ontario Limited. The land required for the southerly extension of Atlantic Avenue is shown as Part 1 on Plan64R-15697, a 20.12 m by 13.62 m parcel forming part of a larger 1.3 ha parcel. Discussions have been held between the owner and City real estate staff and the owner has verbally agreed to sell Part 1, Plan 64R-15697 to the City for $5,000.00, a price that is considered to be reasonable by the Interim Lead, Real Estate.

Assuming City Council authorizes the acquisition of this property, staff of Works and Emergency Services could prepare any required reference plans and the lands could be conveyed to the City and laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes in the usual manner. Staff of Corporate Services would finalize the terms and conditions of the sale and the City Solicitor would prepare, execute and close an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with the owner.

b) Pedestrian Walkway

The walkway extending south of the extended Atlantic Avenue right-of-way would be constructed on lands currently owned by CN. Staff of CN are in support of this initiative provided that the City agrees to provide a service vehicle access to CN from the south end of Atlantic Avenue and the necessary fencing to separate the walkway from its track facilities. CN will also require that the City enter into an agreement with CN in respect of the walkway, its maintenance, indemnification, insurance, etc., and has agreed to a 25-year term at a total licensing fee of $3750.

The extension of the Atlantic Avenue pavement and construction of the walkway will provide a substantial benefit to the general public and under the circumstances the cost of the work should be borne by the City. Funds to cover the total cost of land acquisition and licensing, in the estimated amounts of $5,000.00 and $3,750.00, respectively, are available in the approved 1998 Works and Emergency Services Capital Budget, Capital Fund Code 296-001. Funds to cover the cost of construction, in the estimated amount of $125,000.00, will be included in the Works and Emergency Services 1999 Capital Budget request.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule 'A' of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Policy of the former City of Toronto Council requires that those sites to be acquired are not contaminated, unless a specific exemption to the policy is approved. This often necessitates the retention of the services of a consultant to conduct environmental testing prior to an acquisition to assess the environmental condition of the lands. It is understood that CN had previously completed environmental reports of its land holdings and CN would make available these reports to the City. Depending on the information provided, additional environmental testing may be warranted. Staff will make the necessary arrangements for whatever additional evaluation may be required.

This concept has received favourable consideration from the West Toronto Industrial Advisory Committee (WTIAC) and was favourably received and has the support of the Ward Councillors. Staff of Works and Emergency Services, Urban Planning and Development Services and Corporate Services have participated in the preparation of this report and concur with its contents.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, Manager of Programmes

Infrastructure Planning and Transportation

392-7835

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 28, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on September 24, 1998, recommended to Council the adoption of the recommendations of the Budget committee embodied in the transmittal letter (September 23, 1998) from the City Clerk.

Background:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it a report (September 23, 1998) from the Budget Committee respecting the extension of the pavement and construction of a walkway at the south side of Atlantic Avenue (Trinity-Niagara) and advising that the Budget Committee:

(1)supported the approval of the project to extend the pavement and construct a walkway at the south end of Atlantic Avenue; and

(2)recommend to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council that:

(a)funds for this project be approved from the Transportation Department's existing Capital Budget; and

(b)if sufficient funds are not available within the Transportation Department's Capital Budget, that a further report be submitted to the Budget Committee.

The Committee recommended the adoption of the report from the Budget Committee and that such recommendation be considered with Clause 12 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council.)

(Transmittal letter dated September 23, 1998, from the City Clerk to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee)

Recommendations:

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998:

(1)supported the approval of the project to extend the pavement and construct a walkway at the south end of Atlantic Avenue; and

(2)recommended to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee and Council that:

(a)funds for this project be approved from the Transportation Department's existing Capital Budget; and

(b)if sufficient funds are not available within the Transportation Department's Capital Budget, that a further report be submitted to the Budget Committee.

The Budget Committee reports having directed that a copy of this decision be forwarded to the appropriate standing committee for their information.

Background:

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendations adopted by the Toronto Community Council and requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council on the possibility of including the costs of the property acquisition in the 1998 Capital Program, given the small amount of funds to be expended.

Councillor Pantalone, Trinity-Niagara, appeared before the Budget Committee in connection with this matter.)

13

Implementation of Alternate Side Parking -

Hope Street (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement alternate side parking on Hope Street in order to enhance street cleaning opportunity on both sides of the street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the no parking at anytime prohibition on the north side of Hope Street, from Dufferin Street to Harvie Avenue, be rescinded;

(2)That parking on the south side of Hope Street, from Dufferin Street to Harvie Avenue, be prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th and at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next year inclusive;

(3)That parking be prohibited on the north side of Hope Street, from Dufferin Street to Harvie Avenue, from the 16^th day to the last day of each month, from April 1^st to November 30^th inclusive; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing alternate side parking on Hope Street.

Hope Street, from Dufferin Street to Harvie Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Hope Street and parking is permitted on the south side of the street for a maximum period of three hours outside the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

There are presently 56 parking spaces available on the south side of Hope Street and a potential of 57 spaces on the north side of the street. For practical purposes, the inventory of available on-street permit parking spaces on streets where alternate side parking is in effect, must reflect the side with the least number of spaces (i.e. 56 spaces on the south side). Accordingly, the implementation of alternate side parking on Hope Street would not result in any additional parking permits being made available for area residents.

Alternate side parking would, however, allow for regular mechanical street sweeping on both sides of Hope Street from spring to fall.

I note that implementation of alternate side parking on a street that operates two-way on a pavement width of less than 8.5 metres is not normally advisable. When parking simultaneously occurs on both sides of the street during the changeover period, the travelled portion of the roadway can be reduced to the extent that traffic flow can be impeded. However, in this instance the volumes are quite low and only minor inconvenience would be expected. If obstructions become problematic, the plan can be revisited.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

14

Installation of Parking Meters and a Taxicab Stand -

Robertson Crescent (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August4,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

These adjustments are intended to provide convenient short term parking for customers of nearby businesses and to enable taxicabs to legally stand and wait for fares in the vicinity of the Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime be rescinded on:

1. the east side of the west branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 32.0 metres further south;
2. the north side of the south branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 18.0 metres west of the east branch of Robertson Crescent to a point 38.0 metres further west;
3. the east side of the east branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 28.0 metres further south;

(2) That parking be allowed for a maximum period of 30 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily and for a maximum period of 60 minutes from 9:00 p.m. of one day to 8:00 a.m. of the following day on:

(a) the east side of the west branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 32.0 metres further south;

(b) the north side of the south branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 18.0 metres west of the east branch of Robertson Crescent to a point 38.0 metres further west;

(3)That parking meters be installed to operate for a maximum period of 30 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., daily at a rate of $1.00 for 30 minutes on:

a)the east side of the west branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 32.0 metres further south;

1. the north side of the south branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 18.0 metres west of the east branch of Robertson Crescent to a point 38.0 metres further west;

(4)That a "Taxicab Stand" for 4 vehicles be installed on the east side of the east branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 28.0 metres further south; 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:

Robertson Crescent was dedicated as a public highway in 1997. City Council at its meeting of April16, 1998 adopted the recommendations contained in my report of March 18, 1998 to the Toronto Community Council entitled, "Robertson Crescent, south of Queens Quay West - Traffic Regulations" (Clause 19 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 3) and in doing so authorized the prohibition of parking at anytime on both sides of Robertson Crescent in its entirety to establish an initial parking control mechanism on this street.

The parking prohibition on Robertson Crescent in combination with regular enforcement by the Toronto Police Service's Parking Enforcement Unit and Marine Unit (located on the south side of Robertson Crescent), has resolved many of the parking problems that occurred on the street prior to its dedication as a public highway. Notwithstanding, it would appear that the parking prohibition also has caused some inconvenience for business proprietors on Robertson Crescent and their customers. Therefore, at the request of local merchants, a representative of the Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral (Premises No. 249 Queens Quay West) and representatives of the taxicab industry, Works staff, in consultation with Councillor Olivia Chow's staff have investigated rescinding the parking prohibition where appropriate on sections of the west and south branches of Robertson Crescent and in place thereof allowing short term metered parking and delineating a taxicab stand on the east branch of Robertson Crescent across from the entrance to the above-noted hotel.

Robertson Crescent has a variable pavement width resulting from several indentations or lay-bys in the curb alignment along the inner side of the "U" shape formed by Robertson Crescent. These lay-bys provide suitable locations where vehicles may park/stop without impeding traffic operation on the street. Based on our assessment and discussions with the persons noted above, short term metered parking as outlined in my recommendations should be allowed on:

1. the east side of the west branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 32.0 metres further south; and
2. the north side of the south branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 18.0 metres west of the east branch of Robertson Crescent to a point 38.0 metres further west.

Five parking meters would be installed at each of the foregoing locations to provide a total of 10 parking spaces on the street.

Additionally, a "Taxicab Stand" for 4 vehicles should be installed on the east side of the east branch of Robertson Crescent from a point 15.0 metres south of Queens Quay West to a point 28.0 metres further south to meet the requirements of the Radisson Plaza Hotel Admiral and nearby businesses in Harbourfront.

Implementation of these regulations will not impact adversely on the operation of traffic on Robertson Crescent or at the signalized intersection formed by Queens Quay West, Rees Street and the west branch of Robertson Crescent.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton

Transportation Operations Coordinator

392-1806

15

Conversion of Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street

and Shaw Street, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to

'Street Name Based Permit Parking

(Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the conversion of permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking', with the current operating hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, be converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'; and

(2)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of the residents, to have permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, converted from 'Area Based Permit Parking' to 'Street Name Based Permit Parking'.

Comments:

Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking areas 3G and 3L, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week. Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, has a total of 104 permits issued against 151 on-street parking spaces.

The conversion of permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on May 6, 1998 and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking on Hallam Street, between Dufferin Street and Shaw Street, be amended to indicate 'Street Name Based Permit Parking', with the operating hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a weeks.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

16

Rescindment of Permit Parking on Hayden Street,

between Yonge Street and Church Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the rescindment of permit parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, be rescinded;

(2)Schedule B of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to exclude Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Kyle Rae, on behalf of the Yonge-Bloor-Bay Association, to have the permit parking rescinded on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street.

Comments:

Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, is authorized for permit parking on a street name basis, and the hours of operation are 10: 00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The rescindment of permit parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the rescindment of permit parking was placed in the Toronto Star on April 9, 1998, and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking on Hayden Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, be rescinded.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

17

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Madison Avenue,

between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue

(Midtown)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the hours of operation of the parking meters located on this section of Madison Avenue be adjusted to commence at 7:00 a.m. and that this change take effect concurrent with the change in hours of permit parking; and

(2)authority be granted for the introduction of any necessary bills to give effect thereto.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12 midnight to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule SS of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., 7days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule SS of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor John Adams to reduce the permit parking hours on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, permit parking area 5D, and the hours of operation are 12: 01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking hours was placed in the Toronto Star on April 9, 1998, and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Madison Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Lowther Avenue, be amended to indicate 12 midnight to 8:00 a.m., 7days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number: Bob Bonner, 392-7876

18

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Prince Arthur Avenue,

between Avenue Road and Bedford Road (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road;

(3)on the south side of Prince Arthur Avenue, from a point 45.7 metres west of Avenue Road to Bedford Road:

(a)the existing parking meter hours of operation be adjusted to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum period of one hour and for a maximum period of three hours, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, at the rate of $1.00 per hour;

(b)the existing "One Hour Parking, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation be adjusted to indicate "One Hour Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday"; and

(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor John Adams to have the permit parking hours on Prince Arthur Avenue reduced from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, permit parking area 5E, and the hours of operation are 12: 01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking hours was placed in the Toronto Star on April 9, 1998, and no objections were received.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Prince Arthur Avenue, between Avenue Road and Bedford Road, be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

19

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Shaftesbury Avenue

(Midtown)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated September 22, 1998, from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1) the existing parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue from Yonge Street to a point 91.4 metres east be adjusted to apply from Yonge Street to a point 77.4 metres east; and

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on extending the permit parking two car lengths to the west.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, be extended from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule R of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillors Ila Bossons and John Adams, on behalf of the Summerhill Residents Association, to have the permit parking hours extended on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, so as to be in harmony with the operating hours in effect on other licensed streets within area 10A.

Comments:

Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 10A, and the hours of operation are 2:00 a.m. to 11:00a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Shaftesbury Avenue, between Ottawa Street and Tacoma Avenue, is an administrative procedure, the hours should be amended to indicate 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 22, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services Division, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide additional on-street parking spaces for residents of this street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the existing parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue from Yonge Street to a point 91.4 metres east be adjusted to apply from Yonge Street to a point 77.4 metres east; and

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

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, in considering a report entitled, "Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Shaftesbury Avenue (Midtown)", recommended the adoption of this report with the amendment (moved by Councillor Ila Bossons) that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to City Council for its meeting of October 1, 1998, on increasing the number of parking spaces by two to the west (Clause 19 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

Shaftesbury Avenue from Yonge Street to Summerhill Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width ranging from 7.3 metres to 9.7 metres and a maximum speed limit of forty kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the entire south side and on the north side from Yonge

Street to a point 91.4 metres east. Parking is currently allowed elsewhere on the north side of the street by permit only from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and for a maximum period of three hours at other times.

Based on our assessment, the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue should be rescinded from a point 91.4 metres east of Yonge Street to a point 14.0 metres west thereof. In place of the parking prohibition, the permit parking regulation currently in place elsewhere on this block of Shaftesbury Avenue would apply overnight as would the three-hour maximum parking regulation at other times. This would provide two additional parking spaces on the Shaftesbury Avenue and in permit parking Area 10A, and can be accomplished without adversely effecting operational safety on the street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Koropeski, Director,

Transportation Services District 1

Tel: 392-7711)

20

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Osler Street, from the

Lane First North of the North Branch of Connolly Street

to a Point 39.6 Metres South of St. Clair Avenue West

(Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 24 hour permit parking, 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 24 hour permit parking, 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule S of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West;

(3)that the existing "No parking 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation on the east side of Osler Street from Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West be adjusted to operate from the north branch of Connolly Street to the lane first north thereof; and

(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Betty Disero to have the permit parking hours on the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, extended from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00a.m., 7 days a week, to 24 hour permit parking, 7 days a week.

Comments:

Osler Street, between the north branch of Connolly Street and a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, permit parking area 3D, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Parking is prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on this section of Osler Street.

The extension of permit parking hours is to allow residents of Osler Street, from house Nos. 363 to375 to park on their streets.

Conclusions:

The extension of permit parking hours on the east side of Osler Street, from the lane first north of the north branch of Connolly Street to a point 39.6 metres south of St. Clair Avenue West, will allow permit holders of Osler Street and area 3D to park on the street 24 hours, 7 days a week. Given the parking problems experienced by residents of this section of the street, it is recommended that the permit parking hours be amended to indicate 24 hours, 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

21

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Clinton Street,

Between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00a.m., 7 days a week.

(2)Schedule P of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate, Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva to have the permit parking hours on Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and the Bloor Street West, extended from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 4B, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours of Clinton Street, between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West, is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 10:00a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

22

Introduction of Permit Parking on Gerrard Street East,

between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of permit parking on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 6G, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 6G, to operate during the hours of 12:01a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Kyle Rae, on behalf of the residents, to introduce permit parking on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street.

Comments:

Under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, we are required to conduct a poll of the residents to determine if there is support to introduce permit parking.

Ballots were mailed out on May 26, 1998, with the last date for filing a response being June 26, 1998. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of permit parking on Gerrard Street, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street. It is therefore recommended that permit parking be introduced on Gerrard Street East, between Jarvis Street and Sherbourne Street, on an area basis within permit parking area 6G, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

23

Introduction of Permit Parking on the North Side

of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the

Canadian National Railway Line (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To introduce permit parking on the north side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line, on an area basis, within permit parking area 3H, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on the north side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line, on an area basis, within permit parking area 3H, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule G of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate the north side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway line; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

In her communication of June 18, 1998, Councillor Betty Disero requested that we proceed with the introduction of permit parking on the north side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line.

Comments:

Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line, is currently authorized for permit parking on the south side, on an area basis, within permit parking area 3H and operates between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., 7 days a week.

The introduction of permit parking on this section of the street will provide 6 additional on-street permit parking spaces to residents of this street and area 3H.

Conclusions:

Given that permit parking is already authorized on the south side of Paton Road, between Lansdowne Avenue and the Canadian National Railway Line and that the introduction of permit parking on the north side will provide 6 additional on-street parking spaces for residents of this street and area 3H, it is recommended that permit parking be introduced.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

24

Prohibition of Use By Vehicles Over 2.0 Metres in Width -

Public Lane First North of Kingston Road Extending

Between Bingham Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August11, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidence of damage being inflicted on adjacent property by oversized trucks attempting to travel in this lane.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That vehicles over 2.0 metres in width be prohibited at anytime from travelling in the lane, first north of Kingston Road extending between Bingham Avenue and Victoria Park 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 the residents at Premises No. 111 Bingham Avenue and in consultation with Councillor Tom Jakobek, staff have investigated prohibiting vehicles over 2.0 metres in width from travelling in the lane first north of Kingston Road extending easterly from Bingham Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue, to minimize the likelihood of damage occurring to a retaining wall at Premises No. 111 Bingham Avenue.

The subject lane has a width of 2.8 metres and traffic operates two-way. Parking is prohibited at anytime in this lane. It would appear that, overly wide vehicles attempting to turn into this lane have frequently contacted the retaining wall at Premises No. 111 Bingham Avenue causing repeated damage to the wall and cost to the owners.

Although this lane provides access to the rear of commercial/retail properties fronting on Kingston Road, between Bingham Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue, it is not wide enough nor intended for use by oversized vans and delivery trucks to service these properties. Accordingly, based on our assessment, vehicles over 2.0 metres in width should be prohibited at all times from travelling in the subject lane. This should resolve many of the concerns experienced by residents at Premises No. 111 Bingham Avenue and should not significantly inconvenience other commercial/retail property owners abutting the lane as the current parking regulations allow loading/unloading on Kingston Road for most of the day.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

25

Adjustment to the Limits of the Existing No Parking Regulations -

Castle Knock Road from Crestview Road to Roselawn Avenue

on the West Side and from Elwood Boulevard to

Roselawn Avenue on the East Side (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To adjust the limits of the "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation on both sides of Castle Knock Road, south of Roselawn Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation on the east side of Castle Knock Road from Elwood Boulevard to Roselawn Avenue be adjusted to operate from Elwood Boulevard to a point 41 metres south of Roselawn Avenue;

(2)That the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation on the west side of Castle Knock Road from Crestview Road to Roselawn Avenue be adjusted to operate from Crestview Road to a point 36.5 metres south of Roselawn Avenue; and

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

Background:

In response to requests from area residents, Works staff investigated complaints regarding long term non-resident parking on both sides of the subject section of Castle Knock Road. In order to address the issue of long term non-resident parking during the weekday daytime hours, Works staff suggested several alternatives to North Toronto Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston by letter dated April 22, 1998. In response to this letter, Councillor Walker conducted a poll of area residents to determine a consensus of the preferred alternative and forwarded a letter to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 22, 1998 requesting that parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Castle Knock Road from Crestview Road to Roselawn Avenue on the west side and from Elwood Boulevard to Roselawn Avenue on the east side. City Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 in considering Clause No. 25 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, adopted the Clause without amendment.

Comments:

Councillor Michael Walker's office has now requested an adjustment to the northerly limit of the "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation. In this regard, the aforementioned limits should be adjusted as described in Recommendations Nos.1 and 2, above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

26

Implementation of a "No Standing Anytime' Prohibition -

Alpine Avenue, North Side (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement a "No Standing Anytime" prohibition on the north side of Alpine Avenue, for its entire length, to discourage the incidence of tractor-trailers obstructing the roadway.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the north side of Alpine Avenue, for its entire length, be changed to "No Standing Anytime"; 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, staff have investigated the feasibility of changing the existing "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the north side of Alpine Avenue, for its entire length to "No Standing Anytime". Alpine Avenue is a two-way roadway with a pavement width of 8.5 metres, extending 38 metres west of Edwin Avenue to its termination point. At that point the public highway becomes a private driveway that services a factory, Premises No.1655 Dupont Street. Parking on the south side of the roadway is allowed for a maximum period of three hours outside of the 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily permit parking hours of operation.

Residents have raised concerns that on many occasions, tractor-trailer drivers park their vehicles two-abreast on Alpine Avenue, while waiting to pick-up/drop-off materials at the factory. This situation renders the roadway impassable for other vehicles and necessitates that vehicles parked on the south side of the street be "shuffled" onto Edwin Avenue, should residents require their use.

The introduction of a "No Standing Anytime" prohibition on the north side of the street would prohibit tractor-trailer drivers from occupying the north side of the roadway while waiting to pick-up/discharge materials from the factory (which they are permitted to do in a "No Parking Anytime" zone) and subject violators to enforcement measures by Parking Enforcement Unit staff.

It should be noted that area residents would also be subject to similar enforcement measures for standing their vehicles in a "No Standing Anytime" zone (to load/unload goods or merchandise), however they would still be permitted to pick-/drop-off passengers on the north side of the street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

C. Booth,

Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

27

Implementation of a One Hour Parking Limit, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Monday to Saturday- Wanda Road (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement a one hour parking limit on Wanda Road in order to reduce the incidence of long term transient parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking on the south side of Wanda Road from Indian Road Crescent to Dorval Road be regulated for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday; 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 a one hour parking limit on Wanda Road.

Wanda Road from Indian Road Crescent to Dorval Road operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side of Wanda Road and parking is permitted on the south side of the street for a maximum period of three hours outside of the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

The implementation of a one hour parking limit on Wanda Road to operate between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m, Monday to Saturday, should reduce the incidence of long term transient parking that is presently occurring along the street due to the nearby commercial district along Bloor Street West and the T.T.C. subway station at Bloor Street West and Keele Street.

As your Community Council is aware, vehicles displaying valid on-street area parking permits would be exempt from this one hour parking restriction. However, residents without parking permits, visitors and trades persons may be inconvenienced as selective enforcement by the Parking Enforcement Unit of the Toronto Police Service is not possible.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

28

Reversal of One-way Southbound Operation

- St. Clarens Avenue between Bloor Street West

and Paton Road (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the one-way southbound operation on St. Clarens Avenue between Bloor Street West and Paton Road be reversed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the reversal of the existing one-way southbound operation on St. Clarens Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Paton Road, to a one-way northbound operation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 City Council, in considering Clause No. 23 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 10 entitled, "Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue (Davenport)", amended the foregoing Clause by adding thereto "It is further recommended that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to the Toronto Community Council on the feasibility of reverting St. Clarens Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Paton Road, back to a northbound, one-way street."

Comments:

In response to a memorandum dated September 30, 1993 addressed to the City Services Committee from former Councillor Rob Maxwell, Works was requested to review the possibility of reversing one block of St. Clarens Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Paton Road, from one-way northbound to one-way southbound, to address concerns raised by area residents regarding certain illegal activities taking place on St. Clarens Avenue just north of Bloor Street West.

The City Services Committee at its meeting of October 13, 1993 recommended that the above-noted block of St. Clarens Avenue be reversed to operate one-way southbound for a six month trial period and that the Commissioner report back on the results of the trial. The Committee also requested that the Commissioner report directly to City Council on November 1, 1993 on the implementation of this proposal.

Works staff undertook a study and prepared a report to City Council advising that the reversal of the one-way operation on this portion of St. Clarens Avenue would likely result in a shift of the traffic pattern west from the existing area to an adjacent area including Lansdowne Avenue and that the change would not curtail the illegal activity, just shift the problem over to the next available northbound street, namely Lansdowne Avenue. It was anticipated that Lansdowne Avenue would experience an increase in traffic of about 900 vehicles per day and that approximately 650 southbound vehicles would be displaced from neighbouring streets onto St. Clarens Avenue as a result of the reversal. City Council adopted the City Services Committee's recommendation and approved the one-way reversal at its meeting of November 1 and 2, 1993 (Clause 36 in City Services Committee Report No. 13). Signs to give effect thereto were posted on January 5, 1994.

In a report dated August 18, 1994 to the City Services Committee, the Commissioner, as requested, reported back after the six month trial. It was noted that there had been a 44% increase in traffic on St. Clarens Avenue between Paton Road and Bloor Street West but that on Emerson Avenue, one street to the east and the nearest southbound operating street, traffic had been reduced by approximately 17%. There had been no complaints from area residents during the trial period and it was recommended that the one-way operation be maintained. The report was received by the City Services Committee at its meeting of August 31, 1994.

Should Toronto Community Council wish to proceed with the one-way reversal of the portion of St. Clarens Avenue between Bloor Street West and Paton Road, then the following recommendations should be adopted:

(1)That the existing one-way southbound regulation on St. Clarens Avenue from Bloor Street West to Paton Road be rescinded;

(2)That a one-way northbound regulation be established on St. Clarens Avenue from Bloor Street West to Paton Road; 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.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, 392-7892

Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations Section

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause 23, contained in Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street from Bloor West to Wallace Avenue (Davenport)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting on July29,30 and 31, 1998, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

29

Removal of Existing Speed Bumps - Lane System bounded by

Rhodes Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Coxwell Avenue

and Hanson Street (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To remove the existing speed bumps and all associated signs at the laneway location as noted above.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That the by-law authorizing speed bumps in the laneway system bounded by Rhodes Avenue, Danforth Avenue, Coxwell Avenue and Hanson Street, as shown on Drawing Nos.421F-3047 and 3048, attached, be rescinded; and

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

Comments:

Councillor Tom Jakobek has requested that the existing speed bumps in the laneway system as noted above be removed. This request has been made on behalf of local residents who have expressed concerns to the Councillor that their vehicles are being damaged when travelling over the existing speed bumps.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Elio Capizzano

Transportation Administrator

392-7878

30

Proposed Installation of Speed Humps -

Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to

Highland Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $8,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Roxborough Drive, from Mt.Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of 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 Roxborough Drive, from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5242, dated August 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; 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.

Comments:

At the request of the Midtown Ward Councillors and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on this street.

Roxborough Drive is a local residential street, winding and hilly in nature, which operates two-way between Mt. Pleasant Road and Highland Avenue. The easterly portion of the street has a gradient of between 6% and 8% with a sharp curve while the westerly portion has more moderate gradients and a much gentler curve. Concerns about the speed of vehicles and loss of control have historically been focused at the sharp curve at the end of the steepest portion of the road. A flashing yellow light, with an advisory 20 kilometres per hour speed and sharp curve symbol signs have been installed to clearly indicate to motorists the need for extra caution at this location.

Roxborough Drive between Mt. Pleasant Road and Highland Avenue has a pavement width of 7.3 metres, a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and carries about 1,200 vehicles per day. Parking is permitted on the south side only, from a point 73 m east of Mt. Pleasant Road to a point 160 m further east for a maximum period of three hours. The permit parking system is not in place on this street.

Speed surveys have revealed that at least 59% of the vehicles are traveling in excess of the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and at least 12 % are traveling more than 10 kilometres per hour over the limit. I also note that this survey was taken towards the Mt. Pleasant Road end of Roxborough Drive where the roadway is more level and speeds, particularly westbound, may not be at their maximum.

As the gradient from the sharp curve to the Highland Avenue end of the street is in excess of 5% speed humps cannot be safely installed on this section of Roxborough Drive. However, four speed humps could be installed on the remaining portion of the roadway as shown on the attached Drawing No. 421F-5242, dated August 1998. I note that the first hump west of the curve is placed approximately 70 metres from the curve and as a further precaution signs informing westbound motorists that speed humps are ahead would be posted in advance of the curve. With speed humps on the western portion and the recently installed traffic circle at the Highland Avenue end, the speed limit on this portion of Roxborough Drive should be reduced to 30 kilometres per hour.

In light of the historical speed related problems on this street and the current amount of speeding it is recommended that residents be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street, and households on Old George Place whose only access is from Roxborough Drive. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Roxborough Drive as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, 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 emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their 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

Mike Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

31

Ingress/Egress Turn Prohibitions from the West

Toronto Street Driveway - 2129 St. Clair West

(Canadian Tire Store)(Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit southbound right turns and eastbound left turns at the West Toronto Street driveway access to the Canadian Tire parking lot (Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The property owner (The Toronto Stock Yard Land Development Board) is required to bear all expenses to implement the turn restrictions, noted in Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2, below.

Recommendations:

(1) That southbound right turns be prohibited at all times, from the driveway access at the rear of Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West to West Toronto Street;

(2) That eastbound left turns be prohibited at all times, from West Toronto Street to the driveway access at the rear of Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West; and

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

Comments:

Pursuant to the terms and conditions noted in the "Statement of Approval/Undertaking" of May 22, 1998, between the City of Toronto and the Toronto Stock Yard Land Development Board respecting Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West (the Canadian Tire store), the turn restrictions noted in

Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 above, should be implemented to minimize the impact of transient traffic on the adjacent residential community. I note that the owner of Premises No. 2129 St. Clair Avenue West is required to pay for the installation of the above signage, estimated to be approximately $1,500.00 to $2,000.00.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

C. Booth, 392-7771

Senior Traffic Investigator

32

Installation of a School Bus Loading Zone

in Front of Indian Road Crescent Public School

- 285 Indian Road Crescent (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To establish a loading zone fronting Indian Road Crescent Public School for school buses to pick-up and discharge students.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That a school bus loading zone be established on the east side of Indian Road Crescent from a point 23.5 metres north of Humberside Avenue to a point 20 metres further north; 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 Ms. Meg Young, Principal of Indian Road Crescent Public School, Works staff have investigated establishing a school bus loading zone fronting Indian Road Crescent Public School.

Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of Indian Road Crescent from Humberside Avenue to Annette Street and parking is allowed on the west side of this section of Indian Road Crescent to a maximum period of three hours, outside the hours of permit parking operation between 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., daily.

To facilitate the safe movement of children and vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the school, a school bus loading zone should be established on the east side of Indian Road Crescent from a point 23.5 metres north of Humberside Avenue to a point 20 metres further north.

Given that parking is currently prohibited on the east side of the subject section of Indian Road Crescent, the implementation of the school bus loading zone will not effect the supply of on-street parking.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

33

Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control

- Intersection of Geoffrey Street and Sorauren Avenue

(High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Geoffrey Street and Sorauren Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That "Stop" signs be installed for northbound and southbound traffic on Sorauren Avenue at its intersection with Geoffrey Street; 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 area residents, and in consultation with High Park Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of installing an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Geoffrey Street and Sorauren Avenue.

Geoffrey Street from Sorauren Avenue to Roncesvalles Avenue operates one-way westbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Sorauren Avenue in the vicinity of Geoffrey Street operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Both streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection.

A recent 8-hour traffic survey conducted by City Works Services at this intersection during the morning and afternoon peak and off-peak periods recorded a total of 366 vehicles travelling westbound on Geoffrey Street away from the intersection, 1510 vehicles approaching southbound on Sorauren Avenue and 1442 vehicles approaching northbound on Sorauren Avenue. Additionally, 248 pedestrians crossed Geoffrey Street and 75 pedestrians crossed Sorauren Avenue at this intersection.

An examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection revealed that from January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1996, there were no reported accidents.

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the criteria governing the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control which encompass factors such 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 concluded that the warrants for an all-way "Stop" sign control are satisfied.

Specifically, the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control at this intersection would be in keeping with the pattern already established in the area in that there is an all-way "Stop" sign control at every intersection on Sorauren Avenue from Marion Street to Wabash Avenue. Accordingly, it would be reasonable for a motorist to expect to stop at the subject intersection and would enhance safety for pedestrians.

Although Geoffrey Street operates one-way westbound away from its intersection with Sorauren Avenue, and there are no apparent conflicts for vehicular traffic, the installation of "Stop" sign control for northbound and southbound Sorauren Avenue motorists will improve safety for pedestrians using the intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

34

Installation of a Northbound "Stop" Sign

- Intersection of Hertle Avenue and Highfield Road

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a northbound stop sign be installed at the intersection of Hertle Avenue and Highfield Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request to install a "Stop" sign for northbound traffic Highfield Road at Hertle Avenue, thereby creating an all-way stop controlled intersection.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Tom Jakobek, I am reporting to the Toronto Community Council on the installation of all way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Highfield Road and Hertle Avenue to reduce northbound left turn cornering speeds.

Hertle Avenue and Highfield Road form a T-type intersection. Hertle Avenue operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.53 metres with a daily traffic volume of approximately 200 vehicles and a posted 40 kilometre per hour speed limit. Parking is allowed on the east and south sides of the street for a maximum period of three hours and parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily. A "Stop" sign is posted for eastbound traffic on Hertle Avenue at Highfield Road. Highfield Road between Dundas Street East and Richard Avenue is a residential street which operates one-way northbound on a pavement width of 8.53 metres with a 40 kilometre per hour maximum speed limit and a daily volume of approximately 500 vehicles. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street and permit parking is in effect on this section of Highfield Road from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Highfield Road is the through roadway and traffic flow is not regulated by a "Stop" sign at the present time.

Having evaluated this intersection against the installation criteria for "Stop" signs adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of September 16 & 17, 1991, this intersection does not satisfy the technical guidelines for the installation of all-way "Stop" sign control (which would result from the installation of a northbound "Stop" sign on Highfield Road).

The aforementioned criteria have been applied by Works staff for the past seven years when evaluating "Stop" sign requests. However, these criteria are unique to the former City of Toronto and are significantly less stringent than the installation guidelines established by the Provincial Ministry of Transportation (MOT) and those used by other municipalities when evaluating all-way "Stop" sign requests. Notwithstanding, neither the former City of Toronto's installation criteria nor the MOT's installation guidelines endorse cornering speed or speed reduction in general as reasons for installing "Stop" signs.

Several site visits by Works staff have not detected any specific problems related to operational safety at the intersection of Highfield Road and Hertle Avenue. However, it is typical that sporadic incidents of high speed turns like those described by area residents occur which might not have been detected during our review.

For your Council's information, staff have also evaluated Hertle Avenue with respect to speed humps against the installation criteria for speed humps as approved by City Council in August of 1997 and have found that the installation of speed humps is not warranted as the daily traffic volume is approximately 200 vehicles which falls well short of the required 1,000 vehicle per day minimum.

Notwithstanding all of the above, should the Toronto Community Council wish to install a "stop" sign for northbound traffic on Highfield Road at Hertle Avenue it will be necessary to recommend that City Council approve the following amendments to Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for northbound traffic on Highfield Road at Hertle Avenue; and

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

35

Installation of "Stop" Sign Control - Intersection of

Grassmere Road and Willard Avenue and Intersection

of Grassmere Road and Windermere Avenue

(High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Grassmere Road and Willard Avenue and at the intersection of Grassmere Road and Windermere Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for westbound traffic on Grassmere Road at its intersection with Willard Avenue;

(2)That a "Stop" sign be installed for eastbound traffic on Grassmere Road at its intersection with Windermere Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of area residents, and in consultation with High Park Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of installing a "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Grassmere Road and Willard Avenue and at the intersection of Grassmere Road and Windermere Avenue.

Grassmere Road from Willard Avenue to Windermere Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Willard Avenue in the vicinity of Grassmere Road operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.6 metres and a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. Windermere Avenue has a pavement width which varies between 8.5 and 10.9 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Both streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection respectively and there is currently no "Stop" sign control in any direction of travel at either of these intersections.

An examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersections revealed that from January 1, 1993 to March 31, 1997, there were no reported accidents.

Works staff have evaluated these intersections against the criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs which encompass factors such 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 concluded that the warrants for "Stop" sign control at both intersections are satisfied.

Specifically, the installation of "Stop" sign control at these intersections would clearly establish right-of-way for vehicular traffic and would enhance safety for pedestrians.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

36

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking

Spaces and Disabled Persons Loading Zones

(High-Park, Trinity-Niagara, Davenport, Midtown, Don River

and East Toronto)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that Table 'A', appended to the report dated August 28, 1998, from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services, be amended by:

(1)adding 'from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.' to the Dovercourt Road location listed under the heading 'Establishment of Disabled On-Street Loading Zone', so that such location shall now read as follows:

'Dovercourt Road, east side, from a point 60 metres north of Shanley Street to a point 9.5 metres further north from 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.'; and

(2)striking out the first reference to '5.5 metres' and inserting in lieu thereof '55metres' for the Stephenson Avenue location listed under the heading 'Removal of Disabled On-Street Loading Zone', so that such location shall now read as follows:

'Stephenson Avenue, north side, between a point 55 metres west of Westlake Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further west.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August28, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation/removal of disabled on-street parking spaces and disabled on-street loading zones 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:

Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated the feasibility of installing/removing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces and disabled on-street loading zones at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.

All applicants for new spaces 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 and disabled on-street loading zones 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

Administrator - 392-7878

--------

TABLE "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

19Fern Avenue, south side, from a point 9 metres west of Roncesvalles Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Pat McGuire, a resident of Premises No. 197 Fern Avenue).

20Markham Street, east side, from a point 42 metres south of Herrick Street to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. S. Roti, a resident of Premises No. 521 Markham Street).

20Claremont Street, east side, from a point 110 metres south of Dundas Street West to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. Maria Silva, a resident of Premises No. 141 Claremont Street).

20Bellwoods Avenue, east side, from a point 13 metres north of Treford Place to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. Anna Roberto, a resident of Premises No. 233 Bellwoods Avenue).

21Blackthorn Avenue, west side, from a point 42.5 metres north of Rockwell Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Ms. Annamaria Bacchiocchi, a resident of Premises No. 126 Blackthorn Avenue)

21Laughton Avenue, east side, from a point 53.5 metres north of Kingsley Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. Salvatore Pompa, a resident of Premises No. 19 Laughton Avenue).

21Harvie Avenue, west side, from a point 133.5 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mrs. Margherita Pallotta, a resident of Premises No. 36 Harvie Avenue).

21Ossington Avenue, east side, from a point 9 metres south of Manchester Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Mr. V. Iamundo, a resident of Premises No. 941 Ossington Avenue).

23Palmerston Gardens, north side, from a point 76 metres east of Manning Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. T. Brady, a resident of Premises No. 35 Palmerston Gardens).

26Fairford Avenue, south side, between a point 15.3 metres east of Craven Road nd a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. Henry Fraser, a resident of Premises No. 47 Fairford Avenue).

26Wolverleigh Boulevard, south side, from a point 130.5 metres east of Woodington Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. Paul Vaccarella, a resident of Premises No.265 Wolverleigh Boulevard).

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

20St. Clarens Avenue, east side, from a point 385metres north of College Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 331 St. Clarens Avenue has moved).

20Claremont Street, east side, a point 21 metres north of Robinson Street and a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 47 Claremont Street has moved).

21Indian Grove, west side, from a point 98 metres north of Glenlake Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 296 Indian Grove, no longer required).

25Chester Avenue, east side, from a point 216.0 metres north of Danforth Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 75 Chester Avenue has moved).

25Logan Avenue, west side, from a point 68.0 metres south of Eastern Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 48 Logan Avenue has moved).

26Monarch Park Avenue, both sides, between a point 47 metres south of Mountjoy Avenue to point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 53 Monarch Park Avenue has moved).

26Milverton Boulevard, north side, between a point 16.0 metres west of Donlands Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 60 Milverton Boulevard has moved).

26Ivy Avenue, north side, between a point 62 metres east of Prust Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 98 Ivy Avenue has moved).

26Pickering Street, east side, between a point 49 metres south of Gerrard Street East and a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 225 Pickering Street has moved).

Establishment of disabled on-street loading zone

WardLocation

21Dovercourt Road, east side, from a point 60 metres north of Shanly Street to a point 9.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mrs. Thelma Ashman, a resident of Premises No. 893 Dovercourt Road).

Removal of disabled on-street loading zone

WardLocation

26Stephenson Avenue, north side, between a point 5.5 metres west of Westlake Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Thompson of Premises No. 36 Stephenson Avenue has moved).

37

Amendments to the Parking and Stopping Regulations -

Balmuto Street between Charles Street West and

Bloor Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August31, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to implement a parking and stopping arrangement on this street which will address the short-term parking and delivery needs of various stakeholders on the street, reduce traffic congestion at intersecting streets and enhance traffic movement during peak operational periods.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the entire east side of Balmuto Street, be rescinded;

(2) That the 1 hour maximum parking regulation, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the entire west side of Balmuto Street, be rescinded;

(3)That the provision for parking meters, operating from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday at a rate of $0.25 for 15 minutes/$1.00 per hour, for a maximum period of 1 hour on the entire west side of Balmuto Street, be rescinded;

(4)That the following regulations be implemented on the east side of Balmuto Street from Charles Street West to Bloor Street West:

a) Stopping be prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday;

b) Standing be prohibited 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;

c) Parking be prohibited from 6:30 p.m. of one day to 8:00 a.m. of the following day, Monday to Friday, from 6:00 p.m. to midnight, Saturday and at anytime on Sunday;

(5) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Balmuto Street:

a) from Bloor Street West to a point 35.0 metres south;

b) from a point 112.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to Charles Street West;

(6) That stopping be prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Balmuto Street from a point 35.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 77.0 metres further south;

(7)That an on-street parking area for disabled persons, suitable of accommodating 3 vehicles be designated on the west side of Balmuto Street from a point 35.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 21.0 metres further south;

(8) That 2 parking meters for use by commercial vehicles only be installed on the west side of Balmuto Street from a point 56.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 28.0 metres further south, operating 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 at a rate of $1.00 per half-hour;

(9) That 4 parking meters be installed on the west side of Balmuto Street from a point 84.0 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 28.0 metres further south, operating 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, for a maximum period of 30 minutes at a rate of $0.25 for 15 minutes; and

(10) 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.

Comments:

Over the past year, Works staff, in consultation with Councillor Kyle Rae, representatives of the Parking Enforcement Unit and neighbourhood business associations, have reviewed traffic conditions on Balmuto Street with a view towards resolving a number of operational issues, including traffic congestion at the intersections of Bloor/Balmuto and Charles/Balmuto, illegal parking, on-street delivery activity and parking for disabled persons.

Balmuto Street has a pavement width of about 11.0 metres and extends from Charles Street West to Bloor Street West, a distance of 163 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the entire east side of the street but is allowed (controlled by 18 parking meters) with certain temporal parking restrictions on the entire west side of the street.

Several site inspections have revealed that the metered parking spaces on the west side of Balmuto Street are generally occupied throughout the day, several for durations in excess of the one hour parking restriction and/or by vehicles displaying disabled persons parking permits. Illegal parking was also noted on the west side within the corner parking prohibitions and in front of a ramp leading from an underground parking garage. Despite the parking prohibition on the east side of the street, a considerable amount of short-term illegal parking occurs throughout the day, particularly close to Bloor Street West. This combined with delivery vehicles stopping on the east side and illegal parking on the west side as noted above, constricts traffic flow and causes congestion near the intersecting streets, particularly during the afternoon rush period.

In our discussions with the various stakeholders, it has generally been agreed that to enhance traffic operation on Balmuto Street more stringent stopping/standing regulations need to be implemented at specific times of day and on specific sections of the street. However, in combination with more stringent regulations, provisions should be maintained on the street for short-term parking, curbside deliveries and parking by disabled persons. With these goals in mind, staff have developed a parking plan for Balmuto Street which has been endorsed by Councillor Rae's office and the neighbourhood business improvement associations. The highlights and impacts of the plan are as follows.

East Side:

a) Standing would be prohibited 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. The higher set fine associated with this infraction might be a deterrent to would-be parkers during business hours of the day when the current illegal parking problems are most prevalent and have the greatest adverse impact on traffic operation. Motorists would still be permitted to stop and drop off or pick up passengers but vehicles would not be permitted to legally stop while making a delivery;

b) Stopping would be prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, to deter illegal parking/standing/stopping during the afternoon rush period. Typically, traffic volume on Balmuto Street and traffic congestion at Bloor Street West and at Charles Street West reach their respective peaks during this period of the day; and

c) Parking would be prohibited at all other times. This retains the regulation currently in place in the evening, overnight and on Sundays when traffic conditions would no longer justify more stringent regulations.

West Side:

a) Stopping would be prohibited at anytime from Bloor Street West to a point 35 metres south and from Charles Street East to a point 51 metres north (112 metres south of Bloor Street West). In combination with the stopping/standing/parking prohibitions on the east side, this should act as a greater deterrent to illegal parking near the intersecting streets, reduce traffic congestion and enhance traffic operation throughout the day;

b) Stopping would be prohibited from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday from a point 35 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 77 metres further south to augment the similar regulation on the east side of the street and enhance traffic operation during the afternoon rush period;

c) 3 Disabled Persons Parking Spaces for use at times other than the afternoon rush period by persons issued with disabled parking permits would be delineated from a point 35 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 21 metres further south. Based on the number of vehicles that staff have seen parked on this street with disabled parking permits (average of about 3 vehicles during the daytime), this would ensure that a reasonable number of parking spaces are provided for disabled persons in what appears to be a popular parking area;

d) 2 Metered Parking/Loading Spaces for use at times other than the afternoon rush period by commercial vehicles only would be identified from a point 56 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 28 metres further south. Although under the provisions of the Highway Traffic Act, a vehicle may legally stop to make a delivery or pick-up in an area prohibited to parking provided that the vehicle is actually engaged in this purpose if the vehicle is left unattended while the driver completes the delivery, it becomes "parked" and is subject to enforcement. A metered parking/loading area for commercial vehicles is a relatively new initiative which delineates an exclusive location on the street where delivery operations should be conducted and enables the driver to leave the vehicle unattended provided that a fee is deposited in the meter and the meter is activated. In this particular instance, 2 spaces, each 14 metres in length, would be provided on Balmuto Street to facilitate curbside deliveries. The meters would operate 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 off set the impact that the stopping/standing prohibitions on the east side of Balmuto Street would have on delivery operations; and

e) 4 Parking Meters for use by the general public for a maximum period of 30 minutes 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 (the operational periods of the meters) and for 3 hours at other times (with the exception of the afternoon rush period) would be identified from a point 84 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 28 metres further south. These parking spaces would discourage meter "feeding", which has been observed, address the short term parking needs of persons patronizing some nearby businesses and might encourage motorists requiring longer duration parking to use nearby off-street parking facilities.

Based on our assessment, these changes to the parking regulation should improve traffic operation on Balmuto Street. However, there would be a reduction of 14 metered parking spaces on this street which might be perceived as an inconvenience by some people in the neighbourhood. Notwithstanding, the benefits to traffic operation and safety out weigh the need for on street parking in this instance.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton

Transportation Operations Coordinator, 392-1806

38

Proposed Parking Prohibition on the South Side of

Rosedale Valley Road at the Manulife Centre Driveway

(Midtown and Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August18, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To implement a parking prohibition on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, at the Manulife parking lot driveway, to improve the sightlines and turning radii for motorists using this driveway.

Funding Sources:

The funds associated with this work are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)parking be prohibited at all times on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, from 152.5 metres east of Park Road to 82.5 metres further east thereof; and

(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.

Background:

At the request of a member of the public, staff reviewed the feasibility of prohibiting parking on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, adjacent to the driveway which provides access to the Manulife Centre. The inquirer is concerned that the vehicles parked on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, near this driveway, are creating a sightline hazard for motorists using this driveway.

Discussion:

The driveway to the Manulife Centre is located on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, approximately 200 metres east of Park Road. The existing Rosedale Valley Road parking prohibitions are as follows:

Existing Parking Regulations on Rosedale Valley Road

Under the general rules of the Uniform Traffic By-law, vehicles are permitted to park within 0.6 metres of driveways. However, the operating characteristics of the subject driveway are similar to those of a minor street. Parking is generally prohibited at non-signalized intersections on roadways for a distance of up to 15 metres to maintain adequate sightlines and turning radii. Our field observations revealed that vehicles do park close to the Manulife Centre driveway during off-peak weekday and weekend periods.

Therefore, it would be appropriate to prohibit parking at all times for a distance of 15 metres on either side of the driveway to the Manulife Centre to improve access and egress at this driveway. The proposed parking prohibition would have a negligible impact on parking in this area.

A review of Toronto Police Service collision records over a five-year period ending December 31, 1997 did not disclose any collisions involving vehicles entering or egressing the Manulife Centre driveway and east-west motorists on Rosedale Valley Road.

All four ward councillors affected by the proposal have been notified of the recommendations. None have voiced any objections or concerns.

Conclusions:

The installation of a "No Parking Any Time" zone on the south side of Rosedale Valley Road, at the driveway to the Manulife Centre, will provide better sightlines and turning radii for motorists using this driveway without negatively impacting parking in this area.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Jacqueline White

Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region

(416) 397-5021

39

Extension of Permit Parking Hours -

Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and

Walpole Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the existing parking regulations on Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue be rescinded;

(2)parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue;

(3)the permit parking hours of operation (from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily), currently on the east side of Woodfield Avenue, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue, be transferred to the west side, to operate from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily;

(4)Schedule Z of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue; and

(5)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 11, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule Z of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Sandra Bussin to have the permit parking hours extended on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 8C, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue, is an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 10:00 p.m. to 10:00a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

Motion To Toronto Community Council for its meeting of September 16, 1998

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (undated) from Councillor Bussin:

It is suggested that the following motion be placed before Toronto Community Council in order to amend Item 112 to allow for the transference of parking from east side to the west side of the subject section of Woodfield Road:

"In order to transfer parking from the east side to the west side of Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue, while at the same time, extending the permit parking hours of operation, that the recommendations contained in the report (September 11, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services, be deleted and replaced with the following:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the existing parking regulations on Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue be rescinded;

(2)parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Woodfield Road, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue;

(3)the permit parking hours of operation (from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily), currently on the east side of Woodfield Avenue, from Gerrard Street East to Walpole Avenue, be transferred to the west side, to operate from 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily;

(4)Schedule Z of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Woodfield Road, between Gerrard Street East and Walpole Avenue; and

(5)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills."

40

Traffic Calming Measures -

Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 15, 1998) from Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue to Davenport Road by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $6,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of 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 Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5253, dated September 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road coincident with the implementation of speed humps; 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.

Comments:

Councillor Betty Disero, in 1997, requested staff assistance in developing a traffic calming plan for Bartlett Avenue North to reduce vehicle speeds. A traffic calming plan was previously installed on Bartlett Avenue between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street in 1997, comprising 7 traffic islands which narrow the roadway at specific locations. Various alternatives to reduce vehicle speeds were developed by staff for Bartlett Avenue North, including traffic calming islands and speed humps.

Bartlett Avenue North from Geary Avenue to Davenport Road has a pavement width of 7.32 metres, a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates one-way northbound. The block is approximately 420 metres long. A 24-hour speed and volume survey recorded approximately 1000 vehicles during a typical weekday and of these about 36% exceeded the speed limit with about 13% in excess of 10km/h over the limit.

The alternate side parking system is in effect on this block under the following regulations:

West side

• Parking is prohibited at anytime from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April1 to November 30, inclusive.

East side

• Parking is prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, April 1^st to November30^th, inclusive.

• Parking is prohibited at anytime from December 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the next following year, inclusive.

The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Four speed humps could be installed on this portion of Bartlett Avenue North as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5253, dated September, 1998. The humps, if constructed

7.5 cm high, would reduce average speeds at the humps to less than 25 km/h. The speed limit would be reduced to 30 km/h. I note that although spacing would accommodate it, we do not recommend installing another speed hump closer to Davenport Road, as the grade in this portion of the block exceeds 5%.

As outlined in the former City of Toronto speed hump policy, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adult residents (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

The changes proposed to Bartlett Avenue North as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, 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 emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their 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

Joe Gallippi, Transportation Technologist, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Bartlett Avenue North

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (September2,1998) from Councillor Disero:

I refer to your letter dated March 16, 1998 with respect to the above subject.

Could you please proceed with the installation of speed humps on Barlett Avenue North, as per your number 2 proposal in your letter. Please submit your report to the next Toronto Community Council meeting of September 16th for the implementation of the speed humps.

Thank you for your anticipated co-operation.

--------

(Communication (March 16, 1998) from the

Director, Infrastructure and Transportation,

Works and Emergency Services, addressed to Councillor Disero)

Further to my acknowledgment of November 3, 1997 to your letter of October 8, 1997 regarding the above, Works' staff have completed a review of the matter and provide the following.

Bartlett Avenue North from Geary Avenue to Davenport Road has a pavement width of 7.32 metres, a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates one-way northbound. The block is approximately 420 metres long. A 24-hour speed and volume survey of November 23, 1995 recorded approximately 1000 vehicles during a typical weekday, and of these about 36% exceed the speed limit with about 13% in excess of 10 km/h over the limit.

The alternate side parking system is in effect on this block under the following regulations:

West side

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from the 16th day to the last day of each month from

April 1 to November 30, inclusive.

East side

-Parking is prohibited from the 1st day to the 15th day of each month, April 1st to November30th, inclusive.

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from December 1st of one year to March 31st of the next following year, inclusive.

The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours. The subject section of Bartlett Avenue North is located within permit parking area 3F where as of February 17, 1998, 630 permits have been issued against 998 parking spaces. Specifically on this portion of Bartlett Avenue North, 35 permits have been issued against 44 parking spaces.

Various traffic calming measures could be introduced on Bartlett Avenue North between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road:

1.Four chicanes could be introduced in the vicinity of the following locations:

-Premises No. 308;

-Premises Nos. 331, 332 and 334;

-Premises Nos. 337 and 368; and

-Premises Nos. 411, 396 and 400.

These would be similar in appearance to those on Yarmouth Road west of Christie Street. Parking would be staggered (and the alternate side parking system rescinded), and a total of about 39 parking spaces would be made available year round. The chicanes would consist of traffic calming islands and could contain planters if nearby residents were interested in maintaining flowers, trees or small shrubs;

2.Bartlett Avenue North satisfies the City's criteria for speed humps, and a suitable speed hump plan for this block would consist of approximately 6 speed humps. The alternate side parking system would be unaffected and there would be no change in the number of parking spaces available;

3.A combination of chicanes and speed humps could be introduced, and the alternate side parking system would need to be rescinded; or

4.The creation of several "islands" of parking on this block could be considered. Island parking means that parking is fixed to one side of the street with short zones or "islands" of parking on the other side. This would have the effect of slightly reducing vehicle speeds while leaving sufficient manoeuvring room for fire trucks and other large vehicles. When considering streets for island parking, the following conditions need to be met:

a)Parking islands should be restricted in length to 10-11 metres to accommodate a maximum of two vehicles per island;

b)"No Parking Anytime" zones between islands should have a minimum length of 36 metres;

c)A minimum driving lane width of 3.3 metres should be maintained on a street with a pavement width of 7.3 metres (such as Bartlett Avenue North). Parking "islands" and the parking spaces opposite the islands must be restricted to a maximum width of 2 metres by-law;

d)The islands should only be in effect during the non-winter months; and

e)The pavement width should be 7.3 - 10.0 metres.

Island parking requires a new sign pole and parking signs at each end of each island, and also requires the rescindment of the current alternate side parking system. This proposal would provide about 50 parking spaces year round (if parking is switched to the east side) and would also provide about 12 additional parking spaces in the non-winter months (April 1 to November 30), on the west side.

I will be pleased to receive your comments on the above before proceeding.

41

Provision of a "School Bus Loading Zone" and a "Student

Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" in front of Essex Street School,

- 50 Essex Street and in front of St. Raymond School,

- 270 Barton Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 11, 1998) from Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To implement a "School Bus Loading Zone" and a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" in front of Essex Street School, No. 50 Essex Street and in front of St. Raymond School, No. 270 Barton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the amendments to parking regulations on Essex Street and on Barton Avenue be approved as outlined in Appendix "A"; 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 the Principals of Essex Street School and St. Raymond School, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing the above-noted zones in front of both schools to enhance the safe arrival and departure of children attending the school.

As Toronto Community Council is aware, when a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" is established at a school it allows parents dropping off children to leave their vehicles unattended in the zone for a maximum ten minute period to accompany their child(ren) into the school, without the fear of being ticketed. The hours of operation of such zones are generally for an hour, prior to the beginning of the school day, at lunch time and at the end of the school day.

A "School Bus Loading Zone" is often established in addition to a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" for the purpose of maintaining a clear area along the frontage of a school to provide for the safe pick-up and drop-off of children by school buses at the curb. The area is generally signed as "No Parking" during the daytime hours to eliminate the standing of any vehicles in the zone. In many cases, parking is not prohibited during the evening hours to accommodate the needs of area residents who may hold on-street overnight parking permits.

Essex Street School, No. 50 Essex Street

Essex Street from Shaw Street to the east property limit of Essex Street School operates one way westbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is currently prohibited at anytime on the north side of this section of street and is allowed on the south side for a maximum period of three hours, outside of the permit parking hours of operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.

Along the frontage of Essex Street School, which comprises two separate school buildings, parking is currently prohibited at anytime. Therefore, the implementation of a "School Bus Loading Zone" and a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" will not impact negatively on permit parking spaces or daytime parking spaces.

Ms. Melanie Tait, Principal of Essex Street School has requested that a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" be established between the two main entrances of the buildings, with a "School Bus Loading Zone" at either end of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone". The east building houses the public school and the west building houses a day care centre. School buses service both buildings.

St. Raymond School, No. 270 Barton Avenue

Barton Avenue from Shaw Street to Pendrith Lane operates two way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is currently prohibited on the north side from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, and otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours, outside of the permit parking hours of operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of this section of street.

Along the frontage of St. Raymond School parking is currently prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00p.m. daily and permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily. As above, due to the existing parking regulations and proposed hours of operation of the zones, implementation of this request will not impact negatively on permit parking spaces or on daytime parking spaces.

Ms. Arlene Blonde, Principal of St. Raymond School, has requested that the existing "School Bus Loading Zone" be relocated to in front of the main entrance of the school and that a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" be established in its former place.

I advise that I have no objections to these requests and have consulted with both Principals and Councillor Disero regarding the hours of operation of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zones" as outlined in Appendix "A".

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, 392-7892

Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations

Appendix "A"

Essex Street School, No. 50 Essex Street

(1)That the existing no parking at anytime regulation on the north side of Essex Street from Christie Street to Shaw Street be amended to operate from Christie Street to a point 167 metres west thereof and from a point 284 metres west of Christie Street to Shaw Street;

(2)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Essex Street, from a point 167 metres east of Christie Street, to a point 117 metres further west and that parking be prohibited at all other times; and

(3)That two "School Bus Loading Zones" be established on the north side of Essex Street, from a point 101.5 metres west of Christie Street to a point 65.5 metres further west and from a point 284 metres west of Christie Street to a point 67 metres further west.

St. Raymond School, No. 270 Barton Avenue

1.That the existing no parking 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily regulation on the north side of Barton Avenue, from a point 35 metres east of Shaw Street to Pendrith Lane, be adjusted to operate from Pendrith Lane to a point 94.5 metres further west;

2.That the existing "School Bus Loading Zone" on the north side of Barton Avenue, from the lane first east of Shaw Street to a point 50.5 metres further east be relocated to operate from Pendrith Lane to a point 80.5 metres further west;

3.That parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., and from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Barton Avenue, from a point 94.5 metres west of Pendrith Lane, to a point 50.5 metres further west; and

4.That parking be prohibited on the north side of Barton Avenue, from a point 94.5 metres west of Pendrith Lane, to a point 50.5 metres further west, from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:30a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday.

42

Installation of Traffic Control Devices -

Eastwood Road from Woodbine Avenue to Bellhaven Road

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the report (September 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 be adopted; and

(2)the poll referred to in Recommendation No. (1) of the report (September 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services, be conducted from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue, south of Duvernet Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the operating speed of motorists using this section of Eastwood Road.

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 Eastwood Road, from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue 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 Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5200, dated April 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue, 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.

Comments:

As requested by residents of Eastwood Road and in consultation with Ward Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, a staff investigation has been conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue to reduce the number of speeding motorists on this street.

Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.56 metres and has a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A recent twenty-four hour speed and volume survey conducted on Eastwood Road between Kingsmount Park Road and Glenmore Road has provided the speed data shown in the following table.

The incidence of speeding in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit is approximately 84%; while the percentage of vehicles recorded at a rate of speed in excess of fifty kilometres per hour is 64.0%. This speed profile indicates that speeding vehicles are of genuine concern along this section of Eastwood Road.

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, Eastwood Road carries a total of 4,655 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 a high level of acceptance, namely 60% of those responding, be achieved in order to authorize the installation.

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

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:

David G. Dignard

Traffic Investigator

392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Eastwood Road

43

Introduction of a Prohibition to Restrict Vehicles

First Lane South of Davenport Road Extending Between

Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue

(Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 15, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit vehicles in excess of 2 metres in width from travelling in the first lane south of Davenport Road between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That vehicles over 2 metres in width be prohibited from travelling in the first lane south of Davenport Road extending between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton 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 have investigated the feasibility of introducing a regulation to prohibit vehicles in excess of 2 metres in width from travelling in the first lane south of Davenport Road between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue.

The subject lane, being part of the public lane system bounded by Davenport Road, Uxbridge Avenue, Laughton Avenue and Pelham Avenue, is 3 metres in width. The east and west branches of this lane are offset and are connected by two right angle turns forming a tight "S" type jog in the lane. As a result of the narrow width and configuration of the lane it is impassible to large vehicles. The primary function of this lane is to provide vehicular access to garages at the rear of residential properties along Davenport Road. There are no commercial establishments abutting this lane.

In view of the above, regulations should be introduced to restrict vehicles having a width in excess of 2 metres from travelling in the first lane south of Davenport Road between Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue.

For Community Council's information, a heavy truck prohibition currently operates on Uxbridge Avenue and Laughton Avenue and signs giving effect to this prohibition are posted at Davenport Road.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

44

Front Yard Parking - 95 Montgomery Avenue

Results of the Poll (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of the poll conducted in connection with front yard parking at 95 Montgomery Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for front yard parking and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the applicant obtain permission from Urban Planning and Development Services for the alteration of the front porch.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 6, 1998, had before it a communication (April 27, 1998) from Councillor Walker, respecting front yard parking at 95 Montgomery Avenue, recommending that the request for front yard parking be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fee prescribed by the former Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to accept and process the application, including conducting a poll of area residents, and report back to the Toronto Community Council.

Comments:

Mr. Tony DiLeo, owner of 95 Montgomery Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4R 1E1, submitted an application for front yard parking on February 10, 1998. The application was refused as the proposal did not meet the current criteria of the Municipal Code. The refusal was appealed to the Toronto Community Council, which approved the parking and requested that the formal poll be conducted.

The polling was conducted in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 90, Polling and Notifications Procedures, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The area polled was on both sides of Montgomery Avenue, from Nos. 77 to 137 on the south side and between Nos. 118 to 140 on the north side. The deadline for receiving the ballots was August 24, 1998. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

The majority of the ballots cast were in favour of the parking proposal.

The vehicle the applicant intends to park in the front yard is 4.4 metres in length. The maximum length of a vehicle that can park fronting this property is 3.8 metres. In order to accommodate the vehicle, the applicant would be required to reduce the size of the front porch by 0.6 metre.

Conclusions:

As the polling results were in favour of front yard parking at this location, it is recommended that it be approved. However, modifications to the front porch would have to be made in order to accommodate the parking of the vehicle and a building permit must be obtained to alter the front porch by reducing it by 0.6 metre, to meet the physical criteria of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

45

Maintenance of a Fence -

499 Spadina Road (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowners' request to maintain a wrought iron fence within the City street allowance which exceeds the maximum height permitted under the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks. At Councillor Adams' request this is scheduled as a communication item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the maintenance of a wrought iron fence ranging in height from 1.58 m to 2.04 m within the City street allowance fronting 499 Spadina Road, subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Molly Sniderman and Carol Grafstein of 499 Spadina Road, Toronto, Ontario M5P 2W6, submitted an application on July 22, 1998 to maintain a wrought iron fence between the brick pillars. This fence ranges in height from 1.58 m to 2.04 m rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed in Chapter313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

We have received letters, dated August 7, 1998, from the immediate neighbours on either side of the subject location, wherein it is stated that they have no objections to the wrought iron fence and consider the fence an improvement to the property and enhancement to the neighbourhood.

Staff have also inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that this fence does not impact negatively on the general streetscape.

Details of this fence and the letters from the owner and area residents are on file with this department.

Conclusion:

As this fence does not impact negatively on the streetscape in the area, the fence should be permitted to be maintained.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

46

Proposed Amendments to Chapter 331, Trees, of the

Former City of Toronto Municipal Code

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To respond to the request of the Toronto Community Council that the City Solicitor in consultation with appropriate staff report back to the Toronto Community Council on September 16, 1998 on proposed amendments to Chapter 331, Trees of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which would resolve joint ownership issues and issues respecting applications which straddle property lines and on the motion from Councillor Johnston that:

"In respect to trees that straddle property lines Council reinstate the former City of Toronto Municipal Code provisions that allowed the owner of either property to make an application to injure or destroy a tree that straddles a property line and allowed the owner of an abutting property to make an application to injure or destroy a tree on an adjacent property in respect to a development that would affect the roots or branches of such a tree."

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council amend By-law No. 1997-0418 by deleting section 331-13A(6) of Municipal Code Chapter 331 thereby reinstating the former Municipal Code provision which would permit the owner of either property where the base of a tree straddles the property line or where a property is physically impacted by the roots or crown of a tree on adjacent property to make an application to injure or destroy such tree; and

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to introduce a by-law in substantially the same form as the by-law attached to this report.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 25, 1998 Toronto Community Council had before it a communication respecting 204-212 Eglinton Avenue East and the resolution of a dispute surrounding the protection of a 33cm diameter elm tree located on abutting property at 220 Eglinton Avenue East.

Toronto Community Council requested that the City Solicitor report directly to City Council on July8, 1998 on options available to Council to grant an exemption to by-law No. 1997-0418 and to report back to Toronto Community council on September 16, 1998 on proposed amendments to Chapter 331, Trees of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code which would resolve joint ownership issues and issues respecting applications which straddle property lines.

At its meeting of July 31, 1998 City Council adopted by-law No. 610-1998 which provides an exemption from the requirement that applicants obtain the consent of the adjacent property owner in circumstances where the base of a tree straddles the property line or where a property is physically impacted by the roots or crown of a tree on adjacent property, however, this exemption is only applicable in circumstances where a development application was approved prior to the adoption of by-law No. 1997-0418 on August 21, 1997.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Prior to the passage of By-law No. 1997-0418 on August 21, 1997, the owner of either property where the base of a tree straddled the property line or where a property was physically impacted by the roots or crown of a tree on adjacent property could make an application to injure or destroy such a tree. By-law No. 1997-0418 removed the right of an owner in such circumstances to make an application without first obtaining the consent of the adjacent property owner.

Prior to the passage of By-law 1997-0418 the City Solicitor reported on amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, that would require joint ownership issues to be resolved prior to an application being accepted and advised that the Municipal Code provision in place at the time which allowed for either property owner to make an application to injure or destroy a tree where the tree straddled the property line had been adopted by City Council in November 1995 in order to permit applications to be processed in such situations thereby allowing the development review process to proceed. Prior to this 1995 amendment, several situations had arisen in which neighbours had used the trees by-law to effectively sterilize abutting properties from development because of the need to obtain a neighbouring property owner's consent. The 1995 amendment allowed the owner of an intended development site to submit the necessary application and required that notice be given to the abutting property owner so that any objections could be made. No consent was required. The owners of both properties affected by the trees at issue were advised that the City was dealing with the issue under the trees by-law but was not providing authority for the owner of a development site to enter onto or otherwise destroy his or her neighbour's property.

Amending the by-law to allow either owner to make an application will permit applications to be considered on their merits and result in the tree by-law causing the least possible delay to development applications. Requiring joint ownership issues to be resolved prior to an application for the injury/destruction of trees on private property removes the ability of an owner of a development site to move an application forward until the consent of the abutting property owner has been obtained and can result in substantial delays in the processing of development applications, thereby allowing an objecting property owner to effectively sterilize an abutting property from development.

Given the added benefit that having applications move forward forces property owners to consider each other's position and attempt to resolve the issues respecting such trees in a timely way, while still giving Council the opportunity to consider each case on its merits, it is appropriate for Council to consider amending the by-law to remove the consent requirement.

Conclusions:

If Council wishes to reinstate the former City of Toronto Municipal Code provisions, in place prior to the adoption of by-law 1997-0418 which permitted the owner of either property to make an application to injure or destroy a tree that straddles a property line or where the roots or branches of a tree will be injured or destroyed as a result of development on an adjacent property the appropriate course of action would be to amend by-law 1997-0418 by deleting Municipal CodeS.331-13A(6).

Contact Name:

Jasmine Stein, (tel. 392-7226)

--------

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No.

Adopted by City Council on

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

DRAFT BY-LAW No.

To amend the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III respecting trees that straddle property lines.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III of the former City of Toronto is amended by:

A.Deleting Subsection 331-13A(6)

ENACTED AND PASSED THIS Day of , A.D. 1998.

______________________________________________________

MayorCity Clerk

--------

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

-Clause 17, contained in Report No. 11 of the Neighbourhoods Committee of the former City of Toronto, titled "Municipal Code - Trees - Chapter 331, Article III - Injury of Destruction of Trees in Defined Areas", which was adopted, as amended by City Council at its meeting on August 21, 1997; and

-Clause 2 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, titled "Committee of Adjustment Application - 204, 212 Eglinton East (North Toronto), which was adopted by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998.

47

Removal of City-Owned Tree - 40 Bellefair Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for tree removal at 40 Bellefair Avenue be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Councillor Jakobek on behalf of Ms. Susan Taylor, 40 Bellefair Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4L 3T8, for City Council to consider removal of a City owned Norway maple tree located at the above noted address. Ms. Taylor reports that the tree roots are clogging her drains.

Recommendation:

That this request for tree removal be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 32 cm diameter Norway maple which is in good condition and is valued at $716.28. My staff inspected the tree on August 27, 1998 and found that the tree does not qualify for routine removal.

With respect to drain problems experienced at this address, I advise that if drains leak, they will attract tree roots to a much greater depth than the normal 60 cm and this may result in clogged drains. The only solution to this problem is to replace old, deteriorating drains with new drains which do not leak and attract roots. Partial replacement of drains usually only works for a short time until roots are attracted to another segment of deteriorating drains. Removal of the tree may not solve the problem of blocked pipes as water will still leak from the drain and the opening could allow soil and roots from other trees or shrubs into the pipe.

Removal of City trees suspected of causing damage to drains is neither practical nor advisable and would set an undesirable precedent for removing many City trees.

However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, I recommend that the owner pay all costs involved, this includes the tree value of $716.28, the removal costs of $227.51, and the cost to plant a replacement, $475.01, for a total of $1,418.80.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

Email: wquan @ city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-1940

Fax: 416-392-6657

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (August 6, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek forwarding a communication (July 28, 1998) from Mrs. Susan Taylor, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

48

Removal of City-Owned Tree - 30 Hemlock Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to consult further with the Ward Councillors and report back to the Toronto Community Council in the spring of 1999.

Purpose:

An application has been received from Councillor Jakobek for City Council to consider removal of a City owned Norway maple tree located at the above noted address. Councillor Jakobek reports that the tree attracts over 500 starlings during the summer months. The noise and mess from these birds are causing distress to the property owners of 28 and 30 Hemlock Avenue

Recommendation:.

That as a first option Forestry staff significantly thin the tree crown to try and preserve the tree while discouraging the starlings from roosting there leaving tree removal as a second option if pruning is not successful.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 102 cm diameter Norway maple which is in good condition and valued at $7,648.60.. Forestry staff inspected the tree on August 27, 1998 and found that the tree does not qualify for routine removal.

Forestry have been working with the property owners for several years and have tried sound repellents such as an air horn and recorded starling distress calls to deter the starlings from roosting in the tree. These efforts had limited success.

Removal of the City owned tree will probably not solve the problem because the starlings will roost in other trees around the property. Flocks of starlings often congregate in large numbers when trees form a dense crown. This particular tree does have a very dense crown. A possible solution is to prune the tree significantly to create a more open crown.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

Email: wquan @ city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-1940

Fax: 416-392-6657

The Toronto Community Council also submits a communication (July 24, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

I am writing to solicit your support to remove a beautiful, healthy tree for a somewhat bazaar reason. The tree in question is located at 28-30 Hemlock Avenue. For some unknown reason, it attracts a group of over 500 starlings during the summer. The noise and the mess from these birds are something you cannot believe.

Our parks department has been great by pruning the tree, spraying the tree and installing speakers to keep the birds away. All of these efforts worked initially but not permanently.

I have, over the past seven or eight years, resisted acting on this matter in hope that the birds would perhaps go away or that another solution could be found.

Our staff believe there are only two answers: remove the tree or live with the birds. Both owners have said they cannot sell their homes nor continue living with the noise and smell. Although the tree is beautiful, virtually every neighbour on the street is in agreement. I ask you to please support the removal of the tree.

49

Removal of City-Owned Tree -

40 Alexander Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Matthew Bernstein, Terraplan, Landscape Architects, 20Champlain Boulevard, Unit 102, Toronto, Ontario, M3H 2Z1, for City Council to consider removal of two City owned trees.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be approved on the condition that:

(1)the applicant submit a certified cheque in the amount of $4,615.16 to cover the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement costs of two City owned trees;

(2)the applicant plant four trees on Alexander Street of minimum 80 mm caliper and of a species satisfactory to the Director of Development and Support, on completion of the project.

Background:

This request for tree removal forms part of a Committee of Adjustment application filed with Urban Development Services for the purpose of replacing the existing retail store and office building.

Comments:

The landscape plan indicates there are four City owned trees involved with this project. One of the two Norway maples is in poor condition. This tree will be removed and replaced at no cost to the applicant. The other Norway maple will be protected and preserved during the construction work. The remaining two trees do not qualify for removal and are the subject of this application for removal. The trees in question are a 26 cm diameter tree-of-heaven and a 50 cm diameter Mulberry. The building and underground garage are proposed to be constructed in close proximity to these trees so their preservation on site cannot be guaranteed.

These trees are in excellent condition and valued at $2,321.02. The costs to remove these trees is $1,344.12 and the costs to replace two City owned trees in turf are $950.02, for a total of $4,615.16.

Since these two trees cannot be preserved due to their proximity to the existing building and proposed building, I am recommending that approval be granted for the removal of the two trees provided that the applicant pay for all costs and tree values listed above, and plants four trees of minimum 80 mm caliper on Alexander Street.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

Email: wquan@city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-1940; Fax: 416-392-6657

50

Amendment of Grant Agreement

- 243 Coxwell Avenue - Royal Canadian Legion

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council authorize the amendment of the grant agreement made as of 7th of October, 1997 by:

(1)deleting the requirement that the parking lot be signed in such a way that the members of the public will know that it is available for public use;

(2)inserting a requirement that any signage at the parking lot at 243 Coxwell Avenue may not exclude or restrict any member of the public from parking at the lot at any time; and

(3)inserting a requirement that the parking lot be fully available to the public for parking at any time at no charge.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following joint report (August 27, 1998) from the City Solicitor, the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief Administrative Officer:

Purpose:

To advise Council of the current status of the grant approved by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997 and to seek instructions in respect of the proposed amendment of the grant agreement, the terms of which were authorized by the Council at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

At its meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997 the Council of the former City of Toronto authorized a grant in the amount of $10,000.00 to the Royal Canadian Legion (Baron Byng Memorial Hall Corporation) hereafter referred to as ("the Legion") to allow for the drainage repairs and repavement of the parking lot at 243 Coxwell Avenue. Although a grant agreement was executed by the former City of Toronto and the Legion the grant has not been disbursed. No source of funds for the grant was identified by the Council of the former City of Toronto. If the grant is to be disbursed at this time funds will be required to be provided.

Recommendations:

That Council decide whether or not to authorize the amendment of the grant agreement made as of the 7th of October, 1997 to delete the requirements that:

(1)the parking lot will be available for use by all members of the public, not just seniors and legion members, and;

(2)the parking lot be signed in such a way that members of the public will know that it is available for public use.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting held on September 22 and 23,1997 by its adoption, as amended, of Clause 58 of Executive Committee Report No.21 authorized a grant of $10,000.00 to the Legion to allow for the drainage repairs and repavement of the parking lot at 243 Coxwell Avenue on condition that the parking lot be open to the public, that a grant agreement be entered into with the Legion and that the terms of the grant agreement be considered at the Council meeting of October 6,1997. Release of grant funds was subject to the completion of a Declaration Form regarding the adoption of the then City of Toronto's Non-Discrimination Policy.

By the adoption of communication 49 as set out in Minute Number 24.95 the Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997, approved the terms and conditions of the grant agreement which included, among others, that the parking lot be available for use by all members of the public, not just seniors and legion members and that the lot be signed in such a way that members of the public know that it is available for public use, and that no fee be charged for parking on the lot. The grant agreement also provides that the grant funds would not be disbursed until execution of the agreement by both parties and the grantee's compliance with the Service Equity Program of the City. (i.e. execution of the Declaration Form regarding Non-Discrimination Policy).

The grant agreement was executed by both parties. However the Legion did not execute and return the Declaration of Non-Discrimination Policy form which was forwarded to it by letter dated December 23, 1997. As stated above the execution and return of that form was a precondition to the release of the grant funds. However I should advise that on August 25, 1998 I was provided with a copy of a report from the then Commissioner of Corporate Services, dated September 16, 1997, which was submitted to Council as a communication item at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997. The report listed organizations which had adopted the former City of Toronto's Non-Discrimination Policy and had filed a Declaration Form to that effect. Royal Canadian Legion (Coxwell) is on the list attached to the report.

I am advised that the Accounting Services division of the Finance Department has no record of the grant having been disbursed.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Councillor Jakobek has received correspondence dated July 22, 1998 from the President of the Legion outlining the Legion's concerns with respect to the conditions of the grant in particular those conditions that require that the parking lot be open to the public and signed in such a way that members of the public know that the parking lot is available for public use. Councillor Jakobek has requested that I report on the matter.

The Legion in its correspondence to Councillor Jakobek advises that its evening rentals are affected due to the use of its parking lot by others. In particular it advises that the parking lot behind the stores on Coxwell Avenue now charges for parking, the customers of a bingo hall on Coxwell Avenue have been told that the Legion parking lot is public, and that the landlord of an adjacent building has advised its tenants that they have parking on the Legion lot. It also advises that the three handicap spaces on the lot are being abused by the public and that handicapped veterans are being forced to walk a considerable distance to the building entrance.

As I understand the Legion's correspondence it is requesting relief from the provisions of the grant agreement which require it to provide public parking and to provide signage that indicates that the lot is available for public use.

Conclusions:

If so advised Council could authorize the amendment of the grant agreement made as of the Th day of October, 1997 to delete the requirements that the lot be available for use by all members of the public, not just seniors and legion members and that the lot be signed in such a way that members of the public know that it is available for public use.

Contact Name:

Dolores M. Morrell

Legal Services

392-7234

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (September 25, 1997) from the Assistant City Clerk, of the former City of Toronto, forwarding Clause 58 contained in Report No. 21 of the Executive Committee, titled "Grant Request - Parking Lot Repairs - 243 Coxwell Avenue (Ward 10)", which was adopted, as amended by City Council at its meeting on September 22 and 23, 1997, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

51

Application for Consent Under Chapter 276, Article I, Ravines,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code to Bury

Telephone and TV Cable within the Avondale Ravine

- 27 Rosedale Road (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 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 the burying of telephone cable within the rear yards of the properties at 10 Avondale Road and 27 Rosedale Road.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council consent to Application No. 098049 pertaining to the burying of telephone and TV cable within the Avondale Ravine portion of the property at 27 Rosedale Road, substantially in accordance with the plan titled Avondale Ravine, Proposed Landscape, date stamped as received on June 12, 1998, prepared by Vertechs Design Inc., as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(2)That the owner undertake to hand dig a trench as shown on the Proposed Landscape plan, prepared by Vertechs Design Inc.

(3)That the owner be advised 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.

Background:

The site is located within the Avondale Ravine, as designated by Chapter 276, Article I of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (see Map 1), and is located to the rear of properties bounded by Park Road, South Drive, Crescent Road, Rosedale Road and Avondale Road. The majority of the ravine consists of generally developed rear garden lands mixed with a substantial amount of natural vegetation.

The owners are proposing to bury existing telephone and TV cable by hand digging a trench within the Avondale Ravine.

A minor variance application from the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 276, Ravines, was submitted on June 12, 1998 by Inese Bite of Vertechs Design Inc, Suite 205, 1246 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4T 1W5 on behalf of Mark and Judith McLean of 27 Rosedale Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 2P5.

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 to any existing landform and at the completion of the work, the valley floor would be restored to its current condition. The routing of the buried cables is such that they will be adequately directed around the roots of all existing trees and would not have any negative effects on the natural characteristics of the ravine.

Conclusions:

I believe that the current proposal to bury the existing above ground cable lines is both reasonable and within the intent of Chapter 276, Ravines, of the Municipal Code. Therefore, I recommend that the Community Council give consent to the proposed development.

Contact Name:

Angus M. Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-7536, E-Mail:acransto@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Appendix A

Reports of Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services (August 20, 1998)

Comments:

The proposal has been reviewed and there are no Departmental requirements of the owner.

Location

North side of Avondale Road, west of Park Road.

Proposal

To bury Bell Telephone and Cable TV lines.

Ravine Control Area

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

2.Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Toronto Parks and Recreation) (July 15, 1998)

This will acknowledge your Minor Variance from the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 276 Ravines, Circulation Forms which were circulated on June 16, 1998, and contained new plans for the burial of telephone and cable TV lines at the above noted address. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

I advise that the plans to hand dig a trench and bury Bell telephone and cable TV lines as shown on the Proposed Landscape Plan date stamped as received on June 12, 1998, by Urban Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services are acceptable.

3.Heritage Toronto (July 9, 1998)

We received the Circulation for the above noted property on June 16, 1998.

The property at 16 Avondale Road is not listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties; the property at 27 Rosedale Road which is affected by this application, is listed.

The Minor Variance will not affect the heritage attributes of 27 Rosedale Road.

4.The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (June 25, 1998)

Authority staff has reviewed the above noted application and we offer the following comments.

We note that the subject property is located within the Avondale Ravine. Although this corridor is affected by the City's Ravine By-law, we advise that it is not currently, or proposed to be, regulated by this Authority. Further, it is our understanding that the proposed works are limited to a hand dug trench for the purpose of burying telephone and cable lines.

Based upon the above, we would have no objections to the approval of this application as submitted.

We trust that this is satisfactory. However, should you have any questions please contact the undersigned or Gaspare Ritacca at extension 324.

52

Variances from Chapter 297 - Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Midtown, East Toronto, North Toronto, Downtown, High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 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:

(September 4, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit signage on each elevation of the historically designated building at 888 Yonge Street for identification purposes.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998070 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit seven illuminated non-encroaching fascia signs and two illuminated encroaching fascia signs.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998070, 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-west corner of Yonge Street and Davenport Road, in a mixed use (Commercial-Residential) district. The property accommodates a historically designated building. The applicant is requesting permission to erect nine signs for identification purposes. The proposed signs are illustrated on the attached Figures 1- 5.

West Elevation:

The two proposed illuminated, non encroaching signs on the west elevation do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.The illuminated "Comedy Network" logo fascia signs, will not be located 20 metres from a lot in a "G" (park) district, as required.

This provision, respecting minimum separation distance, is intended to reduce the impact of illuminated signs adjacent to parks. Both signs face west and though visible from the small parkette, they are not directed towards the park users. While the separation distance between the signs and the "G' (park) district is less than 20 metres, the actual distance between the signs and the park is greater than 20 metres. Therefore, the signs in question will not have an adverse impact on the users of this parkette.

North Elevation:

The proposed illuminated, non encroaching sign on the north elevation does not comply with Chapter297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.The 34.8 m² illuminated fascia sign will exceed the maximum permitted 25 m² sign area by9.8m².

The variance relates to the size of the sign on the building. This provision restricts the size of signs in order to minimize their impact on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. The sign would be installed along a blank portion of the side wall between the second and third storeys. In this instance, the uses in the immediate vicinity are commercial in nature. In my opinion, the sign's excess size will not negatively impact the building, streetscape or adjacent uses.

Southeast Corner: (first storey)

The proposed illuminated, encroaching sign on the southeast corner does not comply with Chapter297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1. The 14.6 m² illuminated encroaching sign will exceed the 30 % maximum required area of the building face of the first storey commercial unit.

2.The vertical minimum clearance between the public sidewalk and the lowest point of sign would be 0.9 metre instead of 2.5 metres as required by the Municipal Code.

3.The sign will be located less than 20 metres from a lot in a G (park) district.

The size and vertical clearance of signs are regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached and to ensure that pedestrian safety is maintained. In this case the sign has been sized and positioned to fit into the architectural recess at the corner of the building and it would project less than two inches beyond the property line. The applicant has been advised that this projection will have to be further reduced in order to satisfy the Ontario Building Code. It is my opinion that the sign will not create an unsafe condition for pedestrians.

Although visible from the parkette, the sign is directed towards motorists and pedestrians on Yonge Street and while the separation distance, between the sign and the "G' (park) district, is not 20 metres, the distance between the sign and the park is more than 20 metres. The sign should not negatively impact the park.

Southeast Corner: (above second storey)

The proposed illuminated, encroaching sign on the southeast corner does not comply with Chapter297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.The variance occurs because the sign will be erected above the second storey more than 10 metre above grade.

2.The sign will be located less than 20 metres from a lot in a G (park) district.

Signs are permitted to be located only within the first two storeys of a building. This provision restricts signs to their traditional locations in order to minimize the impact of signage on the building, on the streetscape and on upper floor residential units in the immediate vicinity. In this instance, there is no residential unit in the immediate vicinity and the sign consists of three modestly sized (1.8m x 1.8 m) individual letters. The sign has been sized and positioned to complement the proportions of this narrow, rounded and recessed facade.

With respect to the minimum separation distance between illuminated signs and park, I would advise that the sign is directed towards Yonge Street motorists and pedestrians. Also, while the separation distance between the sign and the "G" (park) district is less than 20 metres, the distance between the sign and the park is more than 20 metres.

South Elevation:

The four proposed illuminated, non-encroaching fascia signs on the south elevation do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.The signs will obstruct and interfere with windows of the building.

2. The signs will be located within 20 metres from a lot in a "G" (park) district.

The four illuminated signs on the south elevation of the building do not comply with provisions of Sign By-law 1994-0337 as they obstruct windows. However, the windows in question have been blocked by the previous owner to reduce sound transmission from the former concert hall and the new owner intends to use this premises for taping live comedy shows. Therefore, I have no concern with the blocked windows being covered by signage.

Again, while the separation distance between the signs and the "G' (park) district is less than 20 metres, the actual physical distance between the signs and the park is in excess of the required 20 metres separation distance.

Staff of the Heritage Toronto have reviewed the plans and have advised that they have no concerns.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I consider the requested variances to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar, Telephone: (416) 392-7209; Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

(August 27, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to install three

non-illuminated ground signs for the purpose of advertising the sale of new residential units within "Woodbine Park Community" at 1669 Queen Street East.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998063, respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit three non-illuminated ground signs at 1669 Queen Street East, on condition that the signs be permitted only for a period of 12 months from the date of City Council approval.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998063, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The 33 hectare property is the site of the former Greenwood Racetrack, bounded by Queen Street East, Woodbine Avenue and Lakeshore Boulevard East, and is zoned residential. The applicant is requesting permission to install signage in order to market residential properties which have been approved for this site (see Figure 1).

Ground signs 1 and 2 have a length of 3.7 metres and a height of 2.4 metres, with an area of 8.9 m² and sign 3 has a length of 7.2 metres and a height of 4.9 metres, with an area of 35.3 m² (see Figure2).

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

1.the area of a sign is not permitted to be more than 1 m². The proposed ground signs 1 and2, each will have an area of 8.9 m², while ground sign 3 will have an area of 35.3 m²; and

2.the height of a sign is not permitted to be more than 2.0 metres. The proposed ground signs1 and 2, each will have a height of 3.7 metres, and ground sign 3 will have a height of 6.1 metres.

The variances occur because the land is zoned residential. Signs in residential districts are required to be small and low in order to limit any negative impact on the streetscape and on neighbouring residential uses. The proposed signs are much larger and higher than permitted by the Municipal Code. However, given that the non-illuminated signs will be temporary and will be erected at least 30 metres away from the closest residential property, there will not, in my opinion, be any adverse impacts.

I am recommending that this application be approved, with a condition respecting the length of the approval period, as I consider the proposed variances to be acceptable in this circumstance. The applicant is in agreement with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

(August 13, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated ground sign for identification purposes at 125 Chatsworth Drive.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve Application No. 998054 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign at premises 125 Chatsworth Drive.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-west corner of Lawrence Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive, in a residential district. The property accommodates Lawrence Park Collegiate Institute. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated ground sign for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 1.6 metres and a height of 1.7 metres, with an area of 2.7 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the area of the proposed sign (2.7 m²) will exceed the maximum permitted area of 2.5 m² by 0.2 m²; and

2.the proposed sign will not be erected between the front lot line and the main wall of the building as required.

The first variance occurs because the sign will be 0.2 m² larger than permitted by the Municipal Code. Signs in residential districts are required to be small and low in order to limit any negative impact on the streetscape and on neighbouring residential uses. Given that the closest residential property from which the sign would be visible would be approximately 30 metres away and across Chatsworth Drive, the sign would not have an adverse impact on the neighbouring residential uses.

Respecting the second variance, the Municipal Code requires that the sign be erected between the front lot line and the main wall of the building. The school building is situated on a corner lot and in this instance the sign would be located 2.0 metres inside the side lot line, near the south-west corner of Lawrence Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive. It would be directed toward motorists and pedestrians on both Lawrence Avenue West and Chatsworth Drive. I do not feel that the proposed sign would have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighbourhood.

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:

Norm Girdhar, Telephone: (416) 392-7209, Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

(August 13, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated projecting sign and permit one additional illuminated projecting sign at 12 Richmond Street East.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998031 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated projecting sign and permit one additional illuminated projecting sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998031, 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 Richmond Street East, between Yonge Street and Victoria Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a seven storey commercial building. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated projecting sign and install a second illuminated projecting sign on the south elevation of the building within the tenant's commercial unit frontage (see Figure 1). The signs each have a length of 1.4 metres and a height of 0.6 metres, with an area of 0.82 m².

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that they will overhang the sidewalk by 2.1 metres instead of the permitted 1.0 metre.

At its meeting of November 18, 1996, City Council approved a minor variance application for this tenant to permit a sign which projected 1.52 metres instead of the permitted 1.0 metre. Since then, the applicant has installed a new sign that projects 0.58 metres beyond the previously approved sign. The applicant has advised that the canopy on the building made it difficult to see the previously approved sign. The applicant is proposing to mount a second similar projecting sign on an existing pole west of the existing sign (see Figure 1).

A recent site visit by staff has confirmed that the canopies extend substantially over the pedestrian sidewalk obscuring visibility of the signs from the street. In my opinion, the signs are appropriately located in order to be visible from Yonge Street and Victoria Street. Further, the signs are located approximately 3.0 metres above grade and their extent of projection will not endanger nor inconvenience pedestrians.

Heritage Toronto has advised that they have no objections to this application.

Given these reasons, 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

(August 31, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit a second illuminated ground sign on the Bay Street frontage for identification purposes at 825 Bay Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998055 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign on condition that :

-the sign be illuminated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and that this be achieved by means of an automatic device; and

-all existing non-conforming signs posted on the light standards are removed prior to the issuance of the necessary permit(s) for the illuminated ground sign.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998055, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permit(s) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located north of College Street on the east side of Bay Street, and it consists of the entire block between Grosvenor Street and Grenville Street, in a CR district. The property accommodates Addison on Bay, an auto dealership. The applicant is requesting permission to erect a second illuminated ground sign for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 2.7 metres and a height of 5.9 metres, with an area of 7.0 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.only one ground sign for the purpose of identification is permitted within any frontage of a property.

The number of signs permitted within a single frontage is regulated so as to prevent sign clutter. In this instance, however, the lot frontage is a block long and is able, in my opinion, to accommodate a second ground sign without there being a negative impact on the streetscape. Further, the owner has agreed that as a condition of approval he will remove all existing non-conforming signs posted on the light standards. Given that the closest residential unit from which the sign would be visible would be approximately 30 metres away and at the 3^rd floor level, there should not be any adverse impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. However, to ensure this, I have required that the hours of illumination be restricted to between 7:00 a.m and 11:00 p.m.

I am recommending that this application be approved, with conditions respecting the removal of certain existing signs and the restriction of hours of illumination, as I consider the proposed variance to be acceptable in this circumstance. The owner is in agreement with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

825 Bay Street

Key Map

Insert Table/Map No. 2

825 Bay Street

(August 31, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one encroaching illuminated projecting sign for identification purposes at 347 Jane Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998057 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one encroaching illuminated projecting sign at 347 Jane Street.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998057, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on east side of Jane Street, north of Bloor Street West and south of Annette Street, in a mixed use district. The two storey building accommodates a Scotia Bank Branch on the first floor and a Billiard Hall (Baby Point Lounge) on the second floor. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one encroaching illuminated projecting sign for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 1.0 metre and a height of 1.0 metre, with an area of 1.0 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the sign will overhang the public sidewalk by 1.2 metres instead of the permitted 1.0 metre.

The variance results from the extent of the sign's projection from the building face. The sign would overhang 0.2 metres more than permitted by the Municipal Code. In this instance, however, the sign is in keeping with other signs along this segment of Jane Street and its extent of projection will not endanger nor inconvenience pedestrians.

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:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209; Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

(September 1, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated ground sign, four illuminated "outrigger" signs and two non-illuminated pedestal signs at 1800 Bayview Avenue.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998046 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign, four illuminated "outrigger" signs and two non-illuminated pedestal signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998046, 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-west corner of Bayview Avenue and Roehampton Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates an automotive service station. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated ground sign, four illuminated "outrigger" signs and two non-illuminated pedestal signs in conjunction with the renovation of an existing gas station (see Figure 1). The signs have dimensions as follows:

Ground sign "A", has a length of 1.9 metres and a height of 6.0 metres, with an area of 11.4m²;

Outrigger signs "B", each have a length of 1.6 metres and a height of 0.5 metres, with an area of 0.8m²; and Pedestal signs "C", each have a length of 0.7 metres and a height of 1.0 metres, with an area of 0.7 m².

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

1.the ground sign will not be set back a minimum distance of 2.0 metres from the streetline and 6.0 metres from the point of intersection of two streetlines;

2.the "outrigger" signs are not defined under the Municipal Code and are therefore not permitted; and

3.more than one pedestal sign will be erected within both frontages of the lot.

The first variance occurs because the sign would be set back 1.5 metres from the east property line instead of 2.0 metres. At its meeting of April 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council passed By-law No. 1996-0172 to increase the separation and setback requirements for ground and pedestal signs throughout the city. These regulations are aimed at ensuring that, where possible, commercial streetscapes and view corridors are preserved and enhanced and sight lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved. In this instance, the applicant proposes to remove the existing ground sign and install a new ground sign in the same location within a curbed landscaped area using the existing concrete base. The sign cannot be set back any further because of existing underground utilities and its slightly reduced setback would not interfere with motorists or pedestrians entering or existing the site.

The second variance is caused because the outrigger signs are not a sign type defined under the Municipal Code. The signs would be suspended 0.9 metres below the underside of the service canopy and would be oriented north/south parallel to the pump island. These signs are small in size and illumination from these signs would be minimal. Further, the closest residential dwelling is located approximately 50 metres away and across Roehampton Avenue. In my opinion, the signs are necessary for vehicles manoeuvring within the gas pump area.

The third variance occurs because leader boards would be installed on either end of the gas pumps totalling two pedestal signs per frontage. The leader boards are used to identify the type of fuel being sold at the pump and are non-illuminated and low in height which I consider acceptable.

At its meeting dated January 21, 1998, Toronto Community Council requested that I report back on design guidelines of gas stations and gas bars within the context of the urban environment. In this instance, the signs are necessary and in my opinion, their approval will not prejudice the results of the study currently being undertaken by staff.

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

(September 3, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain six fascia signs at 912 Mount Pleasant Road.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998030 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one non-illuminated fascia sign and five illuminated signs on condition that the signs be illuminated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and that this be controlled by means of an automatic timing device.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998030, 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 Mount Pleasant Road, between Erskine Avenue and Broadway Avenue, in a residential (R4A) district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain four illuminated fascia signs on the east elevation of the building and one illuminated fascia sign and one non-illuminated fascia sign on the south elevation of the building (see Figures 1 and 2).

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that they are not permitted in this residential district.

The Municipal Code permits illuminated signs in residential districts in conjunction with uses that are normally permitted in this district. Car dealerships are not permitted and hence the variance. The applicant has advised that the car dealership use has existed in this location for approximately 20 years and therefore the use is legal non-conforming. The new signs have been installed in conjunction with exterior renovations that were approved as part of a Committee of Adjustment application in 1997.

Five of the six existing signs consist of channel letters mounted horizontally across the building face. The applicant has advised that the channel letters are halo-lit rather than front lit in order to minimize the impact of illumination. However, to ensure that there is no negative impact I am recommending that the signs be illuminated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. and that this be controlled by means of an automatic timing device. Given that the closest residential use is located approximately 30 metres away and across Mount Pleasant Road this control on illumination should suffice.

I am recommending approval of this application with controls on the hours of illumination. The applicant concurs with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

53

Variance from Chapter 297 - Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

1345 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998037 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising on condition that the west facing sign panel only be illuminated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and that this be controlled by means of an automatic timing device; and

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998037, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

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

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising at 1345 Queen Street East.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998037 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated ground sign for third party advertising on condition that the west facing sign panel 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. 998037, 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 side of Queen Street East, west of Knox Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a one storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated ground sign at the north-west corner of the property (see Figures 1 & 2). The sign has a length of 3.6 metres and a height of 4.8 metres, with an area of 17.3 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that a third party ground sign is not permitted in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district.

On February 13, 1996, Urban Planning and Development Services issued permit no. 380703 to allow the installation of one illuminated, third party ground sign on the west side of this property. This variance application has been filed because the ground sign was installed 0.45 metres too close to the west property line and a revision to the permit was denied because third party ground signs are no longer permitted in this district.

At its meeting of April 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council passed By-law No. 1996-0172 to amend Chapter 297, Signs, of the Municipal Code to prohibit third party ground and pedestal signs in CR and MCR districts throughout the city. This regulation is aimed at reducing sign proliferation in the city's commercial/residential districts. Signs which were legally erected prior to the passing of the by-law and which do not conform to the current sign provisions of the Municipal Code are permitted to remain with a legal non-conforming status.

The ground sign has been a source of concern for the owner of the residential building immediately to the west. However, the applicant has advised, and a recent site visit has confirmed, that neither the sign nor its supporting elements encroach onto the adjacent property and the light sources have been shielded to prevent light from spilling over onto the adjacent residential properties. In areas where ground signs are currently permitted there is no sideyard setback requirement and in my opinion, closer compliance would not meaningfully improve the existing conditions. However, I am concerned about the potentially negative impact of the illuminated sign on the adjacent residential uses west of the site. Consequently I am requesting that the hours of illumination be controlled by means of an automatic timing device.

As a permit was issued for a ground sign prior to the prohibition of such signs and given that modifications were made to the sign to address the concerns of the neighbouring owner, I am recommending approval of this application to permit the maintenance of the illuminated ground sign with the above-noted condition. I have consulted with the applicant and he concurs with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421; Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

54

Site Plan Approval

- 64 Parliament Street (Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by adding a new Recommendation No. 2(12) to read:

"Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the development, the owner shall have submitted to, and have approval by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, details of all the areas (including areas within the public road allowance) as shown on above reference plan #L1, which are intended to be landscaped and further, the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping as shown on the plans approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services."

and that the report, as amended, be adopted; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the Toronto Community Council, no later than November 12, 1998, on the current automobile uses in the King-Parliament Neighbourhood and recommending ways to deter the excessive growth of those uses.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report sets out the conditions of approval for construction of a one storey Volvo Service and Repair Shop, Class "A" with 22 parking spaces at the north-west corner of Front and Parliament Streets.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely Plan Nos. A-1, A-2, A-3 and L1, date stamped received on April 22, 1998, prepared by Plaston Architect Limited, as redlined on May 28, 1998, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(2)That as a condition of City Council approval, the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act requiring that:

(1)the proposed development, including all landscaping related thereto, shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the drawings referred to above;

(2)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 1 Type B loading space on the site with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(3)the owner shall provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6m and 13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading space;

(4)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 22 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(5)the owner shall submit an application for improvements to the public sidewalk/boulevard generally as shown on above referenced Plan No. L1 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;

(6)the owner shall immediately conduct a 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;

(7)the owner shall conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on the site and in the existing buildings. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines. A report on the site and building audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(8)(i)the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposed remediation options to be submitted for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and

(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 environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan;

(9)(i)the owner shall prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any building permit; and

(ii)the owner shall implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health;

(10)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; and

(11)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.

Background:

The application was submitted on October 28, 1997, for Site Plan Approval and has been revised a number of times since then. Councillor Pam McConnell requested that this application be forwarded to Toronto Community Council for consideration.

Comments:

1.Location:

The site is located on the northwest corner of Front and Parliament Streets within the historic area of King-Parliament.

2.Site:

The site is approximately 1585 m2 in size (35 m by 46 m). There are a variety of surrounding land uses ranging from a vacant site to the north, gas station to the south, a commercial business depot to the west and a site in transition to the east where a major commercial\industrial\residential development proposal has been approved.

3.Proposal: (See Appendix A)

The proposal is to construct a one-storey motor vehicle repair shop "Class A" with 551 square metres of floor area. There are 22 at-grade parking spaces proposed to be located along the north and west property limits.

4.Requirements of Civic Officials: (See Appendix B)

The plans submitted with this application were reviewed by City staff. The applicant amended the plans to address a number of issues raised including the provision of a Type B loading space, expansion and relocation of the building, introduction of corner doors facing Front Street on the west side of the building and an improvement to the roof line.

Public Health requires a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as well as the implementation of a Dust Control Plan. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services requires a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction plan for the development.

In addition, the plans submitted have been reviewed by Buildings, Works and Emergency Services, Public Health and The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The recommended conditions of approval are contained in the Recommendations noted above.

5.Planning Considerations:

The introduction of a car-related use at this location is permitted as-of-right on the north side of Front Street fronting Parliament Street. The applicant has had regard for the comments of civic officials and has amended the plans to achieve staff's objectives for this historic part of the city. The proposed landscaping and pavement treatment of the sidewalk will greatly improve the sidewalk area along the west side of Parliament Street.

Conclusion:

That Site Plan Approval Application No. 397138 for 64 Parliament Street be approved.

Contact Name:

Denise Graham

Development Approval Division, Zoning Section

Toronto City Hall Office (392-0871)

E-mail: dgraham1@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Appendix A

Application Data Sheet

Confirmed Municipal Address:64 Parliament Street.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

--------

Appendix B

Reports of Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services (June 5, 1998)

Recommendations:

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 maximum of 22 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(b)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;

(c)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;

(d)Provide and maintain a minimum of 1 Type B loading space on the site with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(e)Provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6 m and

13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading space;

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

(c)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for the proposed roof overhang within the Front Street East road allowance.

Comments:

Location

North-west corner of Parliament Street and Front Street East.

Proposal

Construction of a one-storey motor vehicle repair shop class A containing 551.5 square metres of floor area.

The proposal was dealt with in Departmental reports dated November 19, 1997 and February 26, 1998. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous reports, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised drawings which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The provision of 22 at-grade parking spaces, located along the north and west property limits, satisfies the Zoning By-law for the King/Parliament area which permits a maximum of 22 parking spaces for this use, with no minimum. However, it is estimated that this project would generate a demand for 28 parking spaces based on the surveyed parking and storage requirements of motor vehicle repair shops in the City. Although the proposed parking supply does not satisfy the estimated demand, the provision of 22 parking spaces is acceptable given that it satisfies the provisions of the Zoning By-law. The general parking layout and dimensions of the parking spaces and driveway widths are acceptable.

Access to the parking spaces is provided both on Parliament Street and Front Street East and is acceptable.

Loading

The provision of 1 Type B loading space located at the south-west limit of the site, within the access driveway, satisfies, as far as can be ascertained, the provisions of the Zoning By-law for the King/Parliament area, for 1 Type B loading space. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

This project does not qualify for refuse collection by City forces under the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. Refuse generated by this project would most likely consist of manufacturers' trade waste which may include hazardous waste and, as a result, the owner will have to make arrangements for the services of a private waste collection firm licensed to dispose of hazardous waste.

Encroachment

The plans indicate the proposed roof overhanging over the Front Street East road allowance and, as a result will require the submission of a separate application to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plans

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 accommodation for the recovery, safe storage and disposal of hazardous waste, if any.

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

Storm Water Management

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

Work Within the Road Allowance

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received from this Department.

2.Community and Neighbourhood Services (Public Health) (May 25, 1998)

Further to my request of January 13, 1998, the applicant has provided for review an "Environmental Investigation of 64 Parliament Street", prepared by Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd. (August 22, 1998). Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this information and offer the following comments.

The applicant proposes to construct a Volvo service garage on this site.

Historical Review:

The consultant reviewed Canadian Underwriter's Association fire insurance plans, Goad's Atlas, Might's Directories and Ministry of Natural Resources aerial photographs. A land title search was also conducted. Previous environmental studies were reviewed and regulatory agencies were contacted to obtain any pertinent environmental information that may be available. The accumulated information indicated that the site was used as a foundry from 1880 to approximately 1910, it appears to have been vacant until 1963 when an automobile service station was located on the site. According to Might's Directories, a service station was located on this site until approximately 1996, at which time the underground fuel storage tanks were removed and the soils were remediated.

Subsoil Investigation:

The consultant drilled 4 boreholes from 2.9 metres to 8.3 metres in depth, to assess groundwater and soil conditions at the site boundaries. Samples were obtained and visually examined prior to submission to a lab for chemical analysis.

The soil analysis reports indicate that there are no exceedances of the Ministry of Environment 1996 Guideline criteria for heavy metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. I would note that the consultant conducted a peer review of a previous environmental report and using information contained in that report, along with the supplementary information gathered during this investigation, the consultant concluded that the site meets the Ministry of Environment criteria for commercial/industrial land use.

Excavation Dust Control Plan:

The report does not contain a dust control plan, therefore the Medical Officer of Health requests the following controls be put in place during excavation /demolition activities:

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

2.The daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25 metres from the property line.

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

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

5.The tarping of all trucks leaving the site which have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris.

6.An air monitoring program, if necessary, as determined through consultation with Environmental Health Services.

7.Supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified environmental consultant.

Recommendations:

1.That 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 environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

2.That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

Please inform the applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of this letter. If you have any questions contact me at 392-7685.

3.(January 13, 1998)

Thank-you for your request of October 31, 1997 to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The applicant proposes to build a one-storey building to be used as a motor vehicle repair shop. The site area to be developed is 1584.79 m².

A review of information available to this Department indicates that this property was zoned industrial (1949). Our filed also indicate that this property is a former Consumer's Gas Company coal gasification site.

Additional information is required by EHS staff in order to adequately conduct a review of the environmental conditions at the subject site. This should include a Historical Review, Site and Building Audit, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, details of which are included in the enclosed attachment.

This information will help to identify any environmental concerns with respect to the subject property.

Recommendations:

1.The owner shall immediately conduct a 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 (prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council);

2.The owner shall conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines. A report on the site and building audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of a building permit (prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council);

3.(i) the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposed remediation options to be submitted for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a building permit (prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council), and

(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 environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

4.(i) the owner shall prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any building permit; and

(ii) the owner shall implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

By copy of this letter I will inform the applicant with respect to this matter. If you have any questions please contact Alan Banks, Gordon Chan or Anthony Nikolopoulos at 392-7685.

4.Urban Planning and Development Services (May 11, 1998)

Our comments concerning this proposal area as follows:

Description: Construct 1 storey motor vehicle repair shop class A building

Zoning Designation: RAMap:51G 322

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

Plans prepared by: Plaston Architect Ltd.Plans dated:April 22, 1998

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 therefore 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.

5.The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (February 24, 1998)

This will acknowledge receipt of the above noted application.

Authority staff has reviewed the proposal and since it does not appear to affect the program or policy interests of this Authority, we have no objections to the application as submitted.

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

--------

Appendix C

Advisory Comments of Civic Officials

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

(c)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Service for the proposed roof overhang within the Front Street East road allowance.

55

Appointments to Board of Management -

Central Eglinton Community Centre

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Mr. Dean Leach, Ms. Donna Matthews, Mr. John Carsone be appointed to the Board of Management of the Central Eglinton Community Centre and Mr. Alex Vander Veen be re-appointed to the Board of Management of the Central Eglinton Community Centre on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 20, 1998) addressed to the City Clerk's Department, Metro Hall from Ms. Susan Kee, Executive Director, Central Eglinton Community Centre:

On Tuesday June 23, 1998 Central Eglinton Community Centre held its Annual General Meeting.

The following were elected to the Board of Management for a two year term to fill vacancies left by directors who have resigned.

Mr. Dean Leach to replace Mr. Brian Chong

Ms. Donna Matthews to replace Ms. Jamie Aitken

Mr. John Carsone to replace Ms. Betty Heininger

Our Board Chair, Mr. Alex Vander Veen completed a two year term and was re-elected to the Board of Management for a second two year term.

I trust the foregoing is the information you require. Please forward the same to the appropriate committee for approval.

56

Air Canada Centre - Liquor Licence Application

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve, subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 719, as amended, and licence approval by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, the application by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. for permission to sell beer, wine, coolers and spirits in Air Canada Centre for all events held therein commencing February, 1999.

The Toronto Community Council submits the communication (September 2, 1998) from Richard M. Borins, Director, Legal and Business Affairs, Air Canada Centre:

We are in the process of applying for a liquor licence for Air Canada Centre. The Liquor Licence Board of Ontario requires that we obtain a resolution from City Council approving the sale of beer, wine, coolers and mixed drinks containing spirits in Air Canada Centre. In this regard, we ask that City Council give our request consideration at its meeting scheduled for September 16, 1998.

We have provided a form of resolution for your consideration which has been based on the form of resolution provided by Council with respect to the Maple Leaf Gardens Licence.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter.

--------

Resolution of the Council of the City of Toronto

Be It Resolved That:

It is recommended that City Council approve, subject to the provisions of Ontario Regulation 719, as amended, and licence approval by the L.L.B.O., the application by Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment Ltd. for permission to sell beer, wine, coolers and spirits in Air Canada Centre for all events held therein commencing in February, 1999.

Dated at Toronto, Ontario this day of , 1998.

57

Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes:

(1)advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the Argos Pre-Game Party to be held on October 23, 1998 in front of gates 8 and 9 at Skydome and has no objection to its taking place:

(2)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:

(a)has declared the Community Street Fair to be held on September 27, 1998 on Brunswick Avenue to be an event of municipal and/or community significance and had no objection to it taking place;

(b)was aware of the Gala Folk Evening Event to be held in the Courtyard of the Performing Arts Lodge at 110 The Esplanade on September 19, 1998 and had no objection to its taking place.

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:

-(July 23, 1998) from Ms. Catherine Cragg, Chair, Sussex-Ulster Residents' Association;

-(August 19, 1998) from Mr. Dale Bartlett, Sr. Operations Consultant, McDonald's at the SkyDome; and

-(August 18, 1998) from Ms. Pam Hyatt, The PAL Place, Producer of PAL's Special Events.

58

Dufferin Street Jog Elimination -

Effect of Abandoned Tracks on Property Requirements

(Trinity Niagara, High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Dufferin Street Jog Elimination project be undertaken; and

(2)the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer prepare the necessary reports to the Budget Committee, in order that the project can be included in the 1999 Capital Works Program.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 9, 1998) from the City Engineer, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the effect of the abandoned railway tracks at the Dufferin Street Jog and the feasibility of shortening the proposed underpass and thereby reducing or eliminating the need for property acquisition to the north of the railway corridor.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 22, 1998, in considering the July 2, 1998 report on the Dufferin Street Jog from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (Clause No. 87 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10), requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to report to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council on the property requirements and how they have been affected by the fact that some of the rail tracks across this corridor have been abandoned.

Because of previous involvement of staff of the Works and Emergency Services Department on this project, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development requested that we report on this matter directly to the Toronto Community Council.

Comments:

The estimated total cost in 1998 dollars for the Dufferin Street Jog elimination project amounts to $31.0 million of which $6.5 million are required for the acquisition of properties at nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street and no. 1258 Queen Street West.

The construction of the underpass as previously proposed allows for the crossing of four mainline tracks, one service track and two future tracks requested by CN Rail.

Currently, the service track on the south side of the rail corridor has been abandoned and the railway companies (CN, CP and GO Transit) have initiated a sharing of the mainline tracks which has raised the issue of the need for the two future tracks.

The abandonment of the service track makes the connection to the existing underpass on Queen Street West somewhat easier but overall has little impact on the cost of the project. If the two future tracks, however, are not required, the underpass could be shortened and the road profile adjusted to meet the grade south of Peel Street.

In this regard, I have sent a letter dated August 26, 1998 to CN Rail requesting their consent to delete the requirement for the future tracks.

Furthermore, I have investigated the feasibility of constructing the underpass without acquiring the two properties at 405 and 440 Dufferin Street. If the two future rails are not required and the width of the underpass is reduced from 23.5 m to 21.3 m by eliminating provision for bicycle lanes, then construction of the underpass would not encroach on premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street. (See attached Plan No. 3, road cross section A-A north of the underpass.)

However, the construction of the underpass would require concrete caisson walls along the frontage of both 405 and 440 Dufferin Street at a distance of only 1.5 m from the building faces. This would cut off the access to two existing loading doors to 405 Dufferin Street and one of the two existing loading doors to 440 Dufferin Street. Some access to these properties could be maintained further north near the Peel Street intersection, however, this would, from a traffic point of view, not be desirable on the downslope to the underpass. Accordingly, if the City intends not to acquire these properties, it would be necessary to negotiate with the owners of these properties alternate access to their buildings from the rear and/or from Peel Street.

On the assumption that CN Rail will waive the requirement for the two future tracks, that premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street will not be acquired and excluding the cost for relocating access to premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street, we estimate the total construction cost of the underpass to be $24.0 million of which $0.2 million is for property acquisition.

Conclusions:

Subject to the CN Rail waiving their requirement to allow for two future tracks along the rail corridor at the Dufferin Street Jog and reducing the width of the proposed underpass by eliminating the provision for bicycle lanes, it would be possible to shorten the proposed underpass and thus reduce project cost and the impact of the proposed structure on premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street; e.g. construction would not encroach onto these two properties.

However, eliminating the encroachment of the underpass construction onto premises nos. 405 and 440 Dufferin Street would require the construction of a concrete caisson wall along the frontage of these properties and would cut off three of the four existing loading doors. Maintaining any loading door access on the down slope to the underpass (south of Peel Street) would be undesirable and cannot be recommended. Therefore, if the City intends not to acquire the two properties, it would be necessary to negotiate alternate access to the buildings from the rear and/or Peel Street.

CN Rail has been requested in writing to waive their requirement to accommodate future tracks and we will be reporting on their response.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Denes Pataky, Senior Works Engineer

Works and Emergency Services

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416) 392-7672; Fax (416) 392-7874

59

Renaming of Polson Street Park to

Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park

(Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(1)the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication dated September 23, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998 recommended to City Council that funds in the amount of $2,000.00 for a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park be allocated from within the Parks and Recreation Division's budget.'; and

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to submit a report to the Economic Development Committee on necessary revisions to the Parkland Naming Policy which would ensure that there is direct input into the naming process from Parks officials and the community.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the lands known municipally as Polson Street Park be officially named Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park;

(2)Section 2(c) of the Policy for Renaming of Parks be waived with respect to this proposal;

(3)Heritage Toronto be authorized to install a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj in this park and that funds in the amount of $2,000 be allocated for this purpose; and

(4)the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the foregoing.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council on the identification of source of funds for Recommendation No. (3).

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

To obtain approval to rename Polson Street Park as Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park in honour of Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj.

Source of Funds:

Heritage Toronto requires $2,000 to fund the installation of a commemorative plaque.

Recommendations:

(1)That the lands known municipally as Polson Street Park be officially named Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park;

(2)That Section 2(c) of the Proposed Policy for Renaming of Parks be waived with respect to this proposal;

(3)That Heritage Toronto be authorized to install a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj in this park and that funds in the amount of $2,000 be allocated for this purpose; and

(4)That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take the actions necessary to implement the foregoing.

Comments:

Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj was born in Toronto in 1989, she resided here until 1995 when a custody decision awarded the care of Jennifer to her father and necessitated a move to Bowmanville. On April 2, 1996, Jennifer's father, a diagnosed schizophrenic attacked his mother with a knife. Jennifer tried to protect her grandmother from being attacked, unfortunately, she was unsuccessful and both her grandmother and six year old Jennifer succumbed to injuries received in the attack. Jennifer is buried in Toronto. The Durham Police Force has honoured Jennifer with a posthumous citation for bravery. Jennifer's maternal grandfather who resides in Toronto has submitted a request to name a park or street in her honour as a lasting memory and a testimony to her courage. I have consulted with the Works and Emergency Services Department and it is agreed that should Council endorse the renaming, it would be more appropriate to name a park in honour of the little girl rather than a street. Polson Street Park is a 0.35 acre City-owned park located at the west end of Polson Street overlooking the lake.

At its meeting on July 8, 1998, City Council adopted, as amended, the Policy for Renaming of Parks, Section 2(c) of the policy requires that local residents be consulted and that they agree with the proposal. This park is located in the Ports area of Toronto and does not have a local residential population, further, Councillor's McConnell and Layton have advised they support the proposed renaming and the recommendation to waive the requirement in this instance. Heritage Toronto has expressed reservations about supporting the renaming in light of the intended honoree's residence being outside Toronto. City Council has previously the renaming of a park to commemorate the memory of a child who died under tragic circumstances. At its meeting of June 3, 1982, City Council endorsed the renaming of Carroll Street Park as Joel Weeks Park in honour of the eight year old boy who died when he was swept into a manhole.

Contact Name:

Susan Richardson, Director, Development and Support

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

Tel: 392-1941; Fax: 392-0845

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation;

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998 recommended to Council that funds in the amount of $2,000.00 for a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj Park be allocated from within the Parks and Recreation Division's Budget.

Background:

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council and requesting that the Budget Committee report directly to Council on the identification of source of funds for Recommendation No. (3) wherein $2,000.00 is being requested for the installation of a plaque commemorating Jennifer Kateryna Koval's'kyj in this Park.)

60

Committee of Adjustment Appeal -

184 Sherbourne Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion from Councillor Rae:

WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment, on July 22, 1998 refused a Committee of Adjustment application for 184 Sherbourne Street; and

WHEREAS the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommended refusal of the application; and

WHEREAS the applicant has appealed this decision to the Ontario Municipal Board;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in defence of the Committee of Adjustment Decision respecting 184 Sherbourne Street.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (July 16, 1998) from the Director, Development Approval and Deputy Building Official, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

61

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -

2223 Bloor Street West - Runnymede Theatre

(High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the recommendation of the Budget Committee embodied in the communication dated September 23, 1998, from the City Clerk, be adopted, viz.:

'The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998, recommended to Council that, in the event it is necessary to retain the services of an outside planner, the necessary funds be absorbed from within the budget of the Legal Division.'")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the City Solicitor be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in opposition to the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting 2223 Bloor Street West - Runnymede Theatre; and

(2)he be authorized to retain an outside planner, if necessary.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Budget Committee to report directly to Council on a source of funds.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 16, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise Toronto Community Council on options for the October 5, 1998 Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the proposal to convert the Runnymede Theatre to a bookstore.

Source of Funds:

Funds would have to be allocated, if an outside planner is to be retained.

Recommendations:

If Council wishes to oppose the Committee of Adjustment approval of variances that permit the conversion of the Runnymede Theatre to a bookstore,

(1)the City Solicitor should be instructed to appear at the Board to oppose the variances; and

(2)an outside planner should be retained to give evidence at the Board hearing, if necessary.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Runnymede Theatre occupies the building at 2223 Bloor Street West, which is historically designated. The owner applied to the Committee of Adjustment for variances required to permit the conversion of the theatre use to a large bookstore. Variances are required because the existing theatre building partially extends into the adjacent residential zoning district, and the total floor area of the proposed bookstore would exceed the 1800 square metre limit on new retail uses by approximately 300 square metres.

A public meeting was convened by the Ward Councillors on June 10, 1998. The majority of the large turnout expressed concerns about the loss of a neighbourhood theatre and possible negative effects of a large format bookstore. Ideas regarding the best techniques to introduce the new use, protecting the historic building and even allowing for a further reconversion to a theatre use were also discussed.

The Committee of Adjustment approved the variances on June 24, 1998, but the approval was appealed.

Planning staff did not oppose the variances at the Committee of Adjustment. If City Council wishes to support the appeals, planning staff would have difficulty providing the best evidence.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks

Telephone: (416) 392-0758

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 23, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on September 23, 1998 recommended to Council that in the event it is necessary to retain the services of an outside planner, that the necessary funds be absorbed from withing the Legal Division's Budget.

The Budget Committee reports having requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on October 1, 1998 on the amount of funds that have been allocated in the 1998 Budget for consultants.

Background:

The Budget on September 23, 1998, had before it a transmittal letter (September 18, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the recommendations adopted by the Toronto Community Council wherein it requested the Budget Committee to report directly to the Council on the source of funds if an outside planner is necessary.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a petition signed by concerned citizens supporting the continued operation of the Runnymede Theatre.)

62

Ontario Municipal Board Decision

- 963 Bloor Street West (Trinity Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council receive the following report (July 23, 1998) from the City Solicitor and that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission be advised that City Council has requested that serving on the patio at 963 Bloor Street West cease at 10:00 p.m:

Purpose:

To advise the Toronto Community Council of the Ontario Municipal Board Decision respecting 963 Bloor Street West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications for the City. This matter requires no funding.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments:

The owner of 963 Bloor Street West appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing a variance to permit a rear restaurant patio on property located 9.44m from the nearest R-zoned property, rather than the prescribed minimum separation of 10 m. At its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, Council adopted the motion made by the ward councillors seeking authority for the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the refusal.

The assigned solicitor reviewed the matter with the area planner, who had previously submitted a letter to the Committee of Adjustment recommending conditions for approval. The planner advised that he could not testify in support of outright refusal and informed the Ward Councillors. (No other member of planning staff could testify to that effect, either.) The assigned solicitor, therefore, attended the hearing without a planning witness and presented a case relying on cross-examination of the appellant's planner, the testimony of neighbours in opposition and final submissions.

The Board allowed the appeal and permitted the rear patio, subject to conditions directed to the operation and management of the patio. The conditions included the five originally suggested by the planner with two amendments making them stricter and two new conditions extracted by the City's lawyer through cross-examination, as set out in the decision.

In my view, there are no grounds for appeal of the decision.

A copy of the OMB Decision is attached and is on file with the City Clerk.

Contact Name:

John Paton, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7230

Fax:392-0024

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

63

Relocation/Removal of City-Owned Tree -

30 Ossington Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council now recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of the tree located at 30 Ossington Avenue, subject to the owner paying the costs for tree removal and the costs of planting a new tree of similar size and calibre in the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Community Council resubmits Clause 75 of its Report No. 10, headed "City-Owned Tree Relocation/Removal - 30 Ossington Street (Trinity-Niagara):

--------

City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for tree removal at 30 Ossington Street be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 30, 1998) from the Director of Development & Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Macedo, 2 Kimber Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, L4L 9A7, for City Council to consider relocation or removal of a City owned honey locust tree located at the above noted address. Mr. and Mrs. Macedo reports that the tree is in direct conflict with a proposed new driveway entrance.

Recommendation:.

That this request for tree removal be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 13 cm diameter honey locust which is in fair condition and is valued at $121.79. Due to the size and condition of this tree, it cannot be successfully relocated to another location. This tree does not qualify for removal at this time.

The costs to remove the tree are $186.20 and the costs to plant a replacement tree in a sidewalk tree pit at another location are $1,222.87, for a total of $1,530.86. However, there are also additional costs of approximately $250.00 for City Works Services to permanently cap the existing pit and approximately $200.00 to break open a new tree pit for a new tree to be planted at another location in the City. These costs can vary, depending on the type of pavement involved.

Since it would be necessary to permanently eliminate the planting site in order to avoid any conflict with the proposed driveway entrance, and such a tree removal would set an undesirable precedent for tree removals in Toronto, Forestry is opposed to removal of this tree.

Mr. Mike Defaria, on behalf of the owner of 30 Ossington Avenue, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

64

Tree Removal - 21 Elgin Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of one of the two elm trees at 21 Elgin Drive to be determined by the applicant, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree in the general neighbourhood to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property that are overshadowing newly planted trees and shrubs has been filed by Mrs. Carol Ann Marshall, 21 Elgin Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5R 1G5, owner of 21 Elgin Avenue.

Recommendations:

Either 1, 2 or 3 below.

(1)Issue a permit for removal of one of the two elm trees to be determined by the applicant.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the trees.

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

Comments:

The trees in question are forty-four and forty-six centimetre diameter Siberian elms, both in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Al Miley that accompanies this application states that the trees are in fair condition and growing normally with a minor infestation of elm leaf beetle, a moderate amount of deadwood and overcrowding growth. The report states that the property owner has landscaped and that the plan at the time was to keep the trees until the landscape planting grew to a significant size. The elm trees are growing in close proximity to one another and the removal of one would provide more sunlight for the applicant's landscaping and would not significantly impact 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. One written objection was received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter 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

--------

(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 September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

65

Tree Removal - 12 Armstrong Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for garage construction and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 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 in order to permit the construction of a garage at the rear of 14 Armstrong Avenue has been filed by Mr. Victor Hipolito, Ambient Designs Limited, 1579 Dupont Street, Toronto, Ontario, M6P 3S5, agent for the owner of 14 Armstrong Avenue. The owner's authorization form has been signed by the owner's of 12 Armstrong Avenue and accompanies the application for tree removal.

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 i) the issuance of a building permit for garage construction and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty centimetre diameter Ailanthus altissima in fair condition. The tree is located at the rear of the property close to the property line with 14 Armstrong Avenue. The proposed construction of a garage would have a significant impact on the root system of the tree and would likely result in the decline of the health of the tree. If the tree is to remain, an alternative would be to construct a carport on piers thereby minimizing any impact construction activity would have on the health of the tree. This tree is one of only a few mature trees in the area and its removal would have an impact on 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. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. The owner of 12 Armstrong Avenue has submitted a letter that accompanies the application stating that they are not opposed to tree removal provided the applicant plants a replacement tree to their satisfaction.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone: (416) 392-1894; Facsimile: (416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

66

Tree Removal - 142 Evelyn Crescent (High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 142 Evelyn Crescent, conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for a rear addition and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 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 to allow for the construction of a rear addition has been filed by Mrs. Jill A. Carpenter, 142 Evelyn Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M6P3E2, owner of 142 Evelyn Crescent.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for a rear addition and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree, requiring the applicant to abandon her plans for an addition.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-three centimetre diameter white birch in fair condition. The birch tree is located in close proximity to the rear of the existing house and any proposal for a rear addition would require the removal of the tree. The tree has an unbalanced crown due to past pruning on the west side to clear the property at 144 Evelyn Crescent and will require continual pruning to maintain clearance from the homes at 142 and 144 Evelyn Crescent. The birch tree as a species does not withstand heavy pruning and is susceptible to attack by insect and disease at the points of pruning wounds. This particular specimen is poorly located and reaching maturity and its removal combined with replacement planting is an acceptable option in the opinion of urban forestry staff.

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

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

67

Tree Removal - 420 Castlefield Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 420 Castlefield Avenue, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 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 is obstructing the view and light into the house has been filed by Mr. Voja Zikic, 420 Castlefield Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M5N1L5, owner of 420 Castlefield 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 to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-five centimetre diameter blue spruce in fair condition located at the front of the property. The spruce tree is located within five metres of the front of the house and is approximately twelve metres in height. The applicant has consulted a landscape architect who indicated that the tree is unhealthy, obstructs the view and light into the house and therefore recommends removal of the tree. The south portion of the trees crown is sparse due to competition from a City owned Norway maple but the overall health of the tree is good and removal would only be necessary from an aesthetic point of view. The spruce tree could accommodate further pruning of the lower limbs in order to raise the crown and by so doing increase the view of the house from the street. Removal of the spruce tree will not increase the amount of light reaching the house in the summer months as there are numerous City owned shade trees fronting this property.

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

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

68

Tree Removal - Wychwood Park Pond and

Forest Rehabilitation (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of five trees at Wychwood Park, subject to the Wychwood Park Trustees planting five replacement trees in the general neighbourhood, to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council that it has requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division) to write to the objectors and enclose a copy of the report (August 31, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support - Toronto Parks and Recreation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove five trees on private property in order to carry out pond restoration and forest rehabilitation work has been filed by Marc Gacomelli, 81 Wychwood Park, Toronto, M6G 2V5, Wychwood Park Trustee.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Issue a permit for removal of the trees.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit for tree removal.

Comments:

The trees in question are a thirty-one centimetre diameter black locust, two thirty-five centimetre diameter silver maples, a thirty-seven centimetre diameter white ash and a thirty-two centimetre diameter Norway maple. The report prepared by Gartner Lee Limited, Environmental Consultants states that the removal of the above trees is necessary to establish vegetation along the pond shoreline. The report states that as part of the pond and forest management, selective removal of trees along the shoreline should be conducted to reduce the shade canopy over the pond and permit the shoreline planting's to become established. The report also states that the purpose of the forest management would be to enhance the aesthetics of the woods, permit the establishment of a healthy groundcover and young vegetation, and promote a sustainable ecosystem consisting of more native species representative of the Carolinian forest that used to cover the area.

The arborist report prepared by Thomson, Bruce and Associates, Consulting Arborists and Foresters, identifies several reasons for removal of the trees described above, these include trees within the limits of pond excavation, trees located within a critical storm outfall zone identified for restoration, trees identified as a major source of organic debris which is undesirable for water quality and a mature Norway maple, an invasive exotic species that prevents the establishment of more desirable species. The arborist report also states that every effort will be made to preserve as many trees as possible. The proposed pond restoration and forest management proposed by the Wychwood Park Trustees demonstrates ecological awareness and in the opinion of Urban Forestry staff, the loss of the five trees described above is necessary to achieve the long term benefits which will result from this management plan.

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. Four written objections were received in response to the application to remove the trees 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, the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(September 15, 1998) from Ms. Marjorie Wilton, Chair, Wychwood Park Heritage Advisory Committee;

-(September 14, 1998) from Mr. Donald C. Harrison, on behalf of the three Wychwood Park Trustees.

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

-Dr. Don Harrison, Trustee, Toronto Ontario;

-Mr. Ruedi Hofer, PMA Landscape Architects, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Ian Bruce, Arborist, Toronto, Ontario.

(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 September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

69

Tree Removal - 165 Roxborough Street East (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree at 165 Roxborough Street East, requiring the applicant to redesign his plans for construction of a new garage; and

(2)the building permit for the new garage at 165 Roxborough Street East be granted only if the utmost care is taken by the proponent to prevent injury to the tree.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 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 in order to construct a new garage has been filed by Mr. Stephen Kosa, 165 Roxborough Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 1V9, owner of 165 Roxborough Street East.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree requiring the applicant to redesign his plans for construction of a new garage.

(2)Issue a permit for removal of the tree conditional on i) the issuance of a building permit for a new garage and ii) the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-eight centimetre diameter horsechestnut in fair condition. The report prepared by Bostock Tree Service that accompanies this application states that the chestnut tree is healthy and viable in spite of being surrounded on three sides by asphalt and concrete. The report states that the construction of a new garage is required due to a Manitoba maple located at the rear of 157 Roxborough Street East that fell and crushed the previous garage. The Manitoba maple also fell into the chestnut tree requiring extensive corrective pruning on the west side of the chestnut. The report also states that if a new garage is to be constructed on the same footprint as the old one, then the corner of the concrete pad will be lifted along with the asphalt in the laneway by expansion of the tree's root system, and the corner of the garage will have to allow for the expansion of the tree's stem. The report concludes that one solution is the removal of the tree while another involves an arborist working with an architect to save the tree during construction of a new garage. The chestnut tree was able to coexist with the previous garage and if the plans for the new garage are prepared with the thought of saving the tree, the tree could be preserved. The requirements of the Buildings Division of Urban Planning and Development Services will have to be considered prior to any proposed construction.

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 was received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter 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

--------

(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 September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

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

-Mr. D. Mueller, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Stephen Kosa, Owner.

70

Removal of Tree - 48 Symington Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for removal of the tree at 48 Symington Avenue, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 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 is heaving concrete steps and walkways has been filed by Sudan Madhu Sharma and Urmila Sharma, 48 Symington Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6P 3W1, owner's of 48 Symington Avenue.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

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

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

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy-four centimetre diameter American elm in fair condition. The elm tree is located at the front of the property approximately two metres from the foundation of the house. The root system of the tree has caused cracking and heaving of a concrete walkway at 46 Symington and has also caused heaving of the steps at 48 Symington. The owner of 46 Symington would like to repair the walkway and has therefore approached the owner's of 48 Symington to submit the application for tree removal. If repairs to the walkway and stairs are made and the tree remains there is the potential that further cracking and heaving could result due to the expansion of the trees root system. There has been no evidence submitted with the application that would indicate that the tree is causing any damage to the foundations of either 46 or 48 Symington Avenue. There are very few mature trees on this street and removing the elm would be unfortunate.

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

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

71

Tree Removal - 63 Strathcona Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for the removal of the Manitoba maple tree, but refuse to issue a permit for the removal of the elm tree at 63 Strathcona Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property that the applicant feels are too close to the house and have branches that fall onto the deck and into the rear yard has been filed by the owner, 63 Strathcona Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 1G9.

Recommendations:

Either 1, 2 or 3 below.

(1)Issue a permit for the removal of the Manitoba maple tree, but refuse to issue a permit for the removal of the elm tree.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit for the removal of both trees.

(3)Issue a permit for the removal of both trees.

Comments:

The trees in question are a thirty-six centimetre diameter Manitoba maple and a fifty centimetre diameter American elm, both in fair condition. The two trees are growing within a metre of one another and are located along the west property line approximately five metres south of the house. Neither tree meets the criteria for an exemption under Article III, Chapter 331 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code. If the Manitoba maple were to be removed, the weaker wooded of the two species, there would not be a significant loss in terms of tree cover in the neighbourhood and the native elm tree would benefit as a result.

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

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (August 24, 1998) from Ms. L. Tanner and Ms. J. Tanner, in opposition to the removal of the two trees; and suggesting that the trees could be trimmed.)

72

Tree Removal - 204 - 212 and 220 Eglinton Avenue East

(North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for the removal of two trees located at 204-212 and 220 Eglinton Avenue East, conditional on:

(1)the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Site Plan Application No.397135 commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(2)the applicant planting all plant material, in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Marius Ois, date stamped as received on March 23, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services, and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Toronto City Hall:

Purpose:

An application has been filed under the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, for a permit to remove two trees situated on private property in order to facilitate the construction of a residential condominium apartment building with an underground parking structure on the properties 204 - 212 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto.

Recommendations:

That if Toronto Community Council approves the request for the removal of two trees indicated in this report, that such approval be conditional on:

1.the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Site Plan Application No. 397135 commence which warrant the destruction of the trees;

2.the applicant planting all plant material, in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Marius Ois, date stamped as received on March 23, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services, and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services.

Comments:

I have received a request from Mr. Isaac Meisels of Cartier Place Apartments Ltd., 880 Ellesmere Road, Scarborough, Ontario, M1P 2W6, the owner of 204 - 212 Eglinton Avenue East, that the City consider the removal of two trees situated on private property.

One of the two trees which is the subject of this application is situated on the adjacent private property of 220 Eglinton Avenue East in close proximity to the property line of 212 Eglinton Avenue East. Given that extensive excavation must take place along the property line of 212 and 220 Eglinton Avenue East in order to facilitate the construction of an underground parking structure which is proposed as part of the subject development, the tree in question must be removed due to the impact on the root system of the tree.

The owner of the adjacent property, 220 Eglinton Avenue East, has not authorized the removal of the tree from that property given that Toronto City Council at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 amended City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III to exempt development applications approved prior to August 21, 1997 from the consent requirement of the by-law. It was on August 21, 1997 that the former Toronto City Council amended Chapter 331, Article III to require that adjacent property owners provide written consent when a permit application to injure or destroy trees on private property is filed to the City for a tree which an adjacent property owner either partial or solely owns. As such, a property owner may now apply for the injury or destruction of a tree on a property which they do not own if approval has been received for a development application prior to August 21, 1997.

In this circumstance, the owner of 204 -212 Eglinton Avenue East received approval from the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance to permit the proposed development on June 4, 1997.

The request to destroy the two trees in question forms part of Site Plan Approval Application No.397135 for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a residential condominium apartment building with an underground parking structure on the properties 204 - 212 Eglinton Avenue East.

As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was posted on the property for the minimum 14 day posting period. At the time of writing this report, three (3) letters were received in response to the notice of application to remove the trees in question which includes a petition signed by twenty-nine (29) individuals.

The two trees in question are as follows:

1.33 cm diameter White (American) Elm in fair condition

This tree is situated on the adjacent private property of 220 Eglinton Avenue East;

2.46 cm diameter Tree-of-Heaven in fair condition

This tree is situated on the private property of 212 Eglinton Avenue East.

Both trees require a permit and the consent of City Council to remove or injure.

The proposed development in its present form precludes the retention of the two trees proposed for removal due to the size and scale of the development.

The landscape plan which was filed with the subject development application indicates the planting of four ornamental pear trees on the Eglinton Avenue East City road allowance of the development site.

Should the Toronto Community Council recommend that the request to remove the trees in question be approved, such approval should meet the conditions outlined above in my recommendation.

Contact Name:

Gary R. Le Blanc

Telephone: (416) 392-0494; Facsimile: (416) 392-6657

E-mail:gleblanc@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 communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(September 15, 1998) from Ms. Kimberly L. Beckman, Davies Howe Partners;

-(undated) from Councillor Johnston.

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

-Ms. Kimberly Beckman, Davies, Howe Partners, on behalf of the Applicant;

-Mr. Stephen Longo, Goodman & Carr, on behalf of the Applicant;

-Mr. Marius Ois, Marius Ois & Associates Inc.;

-Ms. Maria Szily, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. I. Meisels;

-Mr. F. Volpi, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. John Laverty, Toronto, Ontario.

(A copy of the letters and petition referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

73

Boulevard Cafe Application - Bosco's Restaurant -

96 Tecumseth Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in §313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report o the Toronto Community Council in September, 1999 on the results.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 31, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owners' application for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street as requested by Councillor Joe Pantalone. 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:

That Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone, in his communication dated May 21, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested a report on the application, along with the relevant poll results, for a boulevard cafe fronting 96Tecumseth Street.

Comments:

Messrs. Robert Stanley Beasly, Dwayne Michael Bosco and Duy Tang, Bosco's Restaurant, 96Tecumseth Street, Toronto, Ontario M6J 2H1, requested a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 96 Tecumseth Street.

I have reviewed this application and I have determined that the application meets the physical criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

For your Committee's information, this location was previously licensed from May 1988 to April 1998, at which time, the business was sold to the current operator. Even though the licence was in effect until April 1998, the cafe did not operate for the past 2 years.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 19.31 sq. m. of City sidewalk fronting 96 Tecumseth Street, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). It can accommodate 4 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 17 people.

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

A poll, dated June 10, 1998 to July 10, 1998 was conducted on the west side from Nos. 96 to 118 Tecumseth Street, and on the east side from Nos. 85 to 101 Tecumseth Street, including 653 Adelaide Street West, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French.

The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Conclusions:

The application meets the criteria of § 313-36 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and staff can issue a boulevard cafe licence at 96 Tecumseth Street.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

(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 September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

74

Residential Boulevard Parking Appeal -

Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for residential boulevard parking on the Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street, and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-40 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, including a favourable poll.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for residential boulevard parking facilities on the Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for residential boulevard parking on the Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street, and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-40 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, including a favourable poll;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for residential boulevard parking on the Sussex Avenue flankage of 226 Major Street.

Background:

In a communication dated July 20, 1998 to Councillor Chow, Ms. Katrina McHugh, owner of 226 Major Street, appealed staff's refusal for three (3) residential boulevard parking spaces.

Comments:

Ms. Katrina McHugh, owner of 226 Major Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2L3, submitted an application on June 19, 1998, to park three (3) vehicles on the City boulevard, on the Sussex Avenue flankage of the property.

The property is located at the south west corner of Major Street and Sussex Avenue. The proposed parking area is presently paved in gravel and accommodates three (3) vehicles. The area is also serviced by a ramp which provides access to two (2) of the proposed parking spaces.

Adequate parking facilities can be constructed totally on private property in the rear yard by removing the existing fence in front of the ramped boulevard.

Consideration for residential boulevard parking is governed by Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current criteria:

(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)prohibits residential boulevard parking where the property has access to existing parking facilities on the lot or where adequate space for parking can be provided on the lot;

(c)sets a maximum of one (1) residential boulevard parking space per property.

We have investigated the feasibility of residential boulevard parking at this location and we have determined that it does not meet the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code for residential boulevard parking for the following reasons:

1.Permit parking is authorized on an alternate side basis on both Major Street and Sussex Avenue, within permit parking area 6B;

2.There are no parking facilities on the lot, however parking can be accommodated totally on private property with access from an existing ramp on Sussex Avenue; and

3.The application is for three (3) parking spaces.

I note that for properties which 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.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking and has adequate space to construct parking facilities on the lot, it is not eligible for residential boulevard parking. In view of the above, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

Ms. Katrina McHugh appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

75

Driveway Widening Appeal - 50 Balsam Avenue

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening for a second parking space, at 50 Balsam Avenue, subject to the owners:

(1)submitting an landscaping plan satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture, which would restrict the parking to two cars; and

(2)providing an Undertaking that they will not park more than two cars on the property.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on an application for driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

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 for a second parking space, at 50 Balsam Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Ms. Sally Rollinson and Mr. Paul Rollinson, co-owners of 50 Balsam Avenue, have requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for a second parking space at this location.

Comments:

This location was previously licensed for driveway parking for one (1) vehicle. The parking was confined within the private driveway and totally on private property.

Ms. Sally Rollinson and Mr. Paul Rollinson have recently purchased the property and submitted an application on July 20, 1998 to park two motor vehicles on private property, situated on the private driveway and on a widened portion adjacent to the driveway in front of the property (see Appendix'A').

The property has a private driveway 3.04 metres wide, which leads to a single car garage at the rear of the property. The driveway is 16.5 metres long from the back edge of the sidewalk to the jog in the building where the driveway is reduced to 2.33 metres wide. The property can accommodate parking for 3 vehicles (see Appendix 'B'). Although parking on private driveways in front of houses is a zoning infraction, it is hard to enforce and is a fairly common practice throughout the former City of Toronto. (The former City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 governs any parking on the property. It prohibits any parking on any portion of the lot beyond the front wall of a dwelling, but permits casual parking on a properly surfaced driveway.)

Driveway widening is governed by the criteria set out in § 248-3 of Municipal Code Chapter 248 and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. This application does not meet the requirements of the legislation, as the Code limits the licensing to one (1) space in the front yard.

The Rollinsons have just been licensed for one space within the limits of the driveway. They are requesting a second parking space adjacent to the driveway. If the second parking space is licensed, this would effectively provide parking for 4 vehicles at 50 Balsam Avenue.

Accordingly, the second parking space has been denied and Sally and Paul Rollinson have been advised of this by letter on August 24, 1998.

Conclusions:

As the property is currently licensed for one (1) parking space at the front of the dwelling within the confines of the private driveway, and the Code limits the licensing to one (1) space, this location is not eligible for driveway widening for a second space. Since the proposal does not meet the current criteria, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

Ms. Sally Rollinson appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

76

Front Yard Parking - 38 Spruce Hill Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for a second parking space at 38 Spruce Hill Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 20, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit a second front yard parking space. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it should be scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council for the hearing of deputations.

Background:

In a communication dated July 9, 1998 to your Committee, Ms. Helen Beauchamp is appealing staff's refusal for a second parking space at 38 Spruce Hill Road.

Comments:

History of applications at 38 Spruce Hill Road

A previous owner of 38 Spruce Hill Road applied for front yard parking on December 16, 1988. The necessary poll, required at the time, was conducted during the summer of 1989. The by-law to permit front yard parking on this block of Spruce Hill Road was adopted by the former City Council on September 7, 1989.

Our records indicate that since that time, the property changed ownership at least twice. The current owners, Henry and Terry Beauchamp, took ownership on August 21, 1989, and subsequently applied for front yard parking on August 31, 1989. They were advised in writing on September 28, 1989 that because the proposal involved extensive landscaping to create the parking area, that no further processing could be done on the file until detailed plans for the project were submitted for review.

The owners wrote requesting an extension to submit plans; this extension was granted to March 30, 1990.

On March 31, 1990, they wrote again requesting a further extension, which was granted until June4, 1990, by way of our letter dated April 17, 1990. This letter also noted that "Failure to receive your drawings by that date will result in the cancellation of your file."

No plans were received and the file was subsequently closed in 1990. No further communication was received from the owner, until Councillor Jakobek, in a letter dated September 17, 1997, requested that a report be submitted directly to the former City Council.

The former City Council, at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, had before it our report (October6, 1997) entitled "Front Yard Parking - 38 Spruce Hill Road". Council directed that should the owners of 38 Spruce Hill Road apply for front yard parking, that an exemption be granted to the requirement that prohibits front yard parking where a property is situated in an area authorized for permit parking and authorized the Commissioner of City Works Services to process the application accordingly.

Current status of the application

Mr. and Mrs. Beauchamp submitted a new application to park two vehicles at the front of their property on March 26, 1998.

The required poll was conducted and the results were in favour of the application. The applicants were notified on June 23, 1998 of the results of the poll and approval was granted for one front yard parking space. To date, no licence for front yard parking has been issued for 38 Spruce Hill Road.

I have been asked again to report on the appeal of staff's decision to refuse the application for a second parking space at this location.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current front yard parking criteria of Chapter 400, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code:

(a)prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking;

(b)prohibits front yard parking where the installation of the ramp to service the parking space will result in the loss of an on-street permit parking space; and

(c)limits the number of front yard parking spaces to one per property.

The former City Council granted an exemption to permit front yard parking at this location, notwithstanding that it was in an area licensed for permit parking. However, the application at that time was for only one parking space and therefore City Council did not comment on the number of spaces to be considered. The current application is for two parking spaces, but as the Municipal Code does not permit more than one parking space per property, approval for a second parking space cannot be granted.

Conclusions:

As the property has already received approval for one front yard parking space, and the property is not eligible for a second front yard parking space, under the criteria set out in Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the request for a second parking space should be denied by Council.

In addition, as this is a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, this report should be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council for deputations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 9, 1998) from Ms. Helen Beauchamp, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

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

-Mr. Terry Beauchamp, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Helen Beauchamp, Toronto, Ontario.

77

Drain Claim - 30 Hastings Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council waive the account for the drain claim at 30 Hastings Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 7, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek:

Ms. MacDougall had problems with her drains. She contacted the City to see if the problem was on City or private property. Our City work crew responded and found that the problem was on private property. Although Ms. MacDougall had the problem repaired by a private contractor, the City is now charging her $1,173.42 for the work the city did. She is aware that she signed an agreement with the City to pay all costs if the problem was not on City property, but feels she was forced to doso.

I would kindly request permission for Ms. Suzanne MacDougall to address the Toronto Community Council regarding the above.

--------

Ms. Suzanne MacDougall appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the invoice, agreement and work order, attached to the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on September 16, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

78

Front Yard Parking - 86 Caledonia Road (Davenport)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by deleting the word "commercial" from the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council, so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"The Toronto Community Council recommends that approval be granted to permit boulevard parking at 86 Caledonia Road.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that approval be granted to permit commercial boulevard parking at 86 Caledonia Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 20, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit front yard parking which does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it should be scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council for the hearing of deputations.

Background:

In a communication dated July 2, 1998 to your Committee, Councillor Disero requested that the owner of 86 Caledonia Road be permitted to continue access to his front yard parking pad.

Comments:

The property is located at the south west corner of Caledonia Road and Norman Avenue which is located within an area zoned R2 that permits residential use only. This property contained a commercial establishment on the ground floor which was permitted on a legal non-conforming basis, and the owner, Mr. Pino Sacco, was previously licensed for commercial boulevard parking for one parking space parallel to the roadway, fronting the building. This location was licensed from May 1988 to November 1997.

The commercial ground floor of the building was recently converted from commercial to residential use and therefore, under the Municipal Code, the property no longer qualifies to have the commercial boulevard parking licence. I note that once the commercial use was converted to residential use, as the area is zoned R2, no future commercial use of the property would be permitted. In a letter dated November 4, 1997, we advised Mr. Sacco that his licence was cancelled.

Consideration for parking at the front of residential properties is governed by Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current front yard parking criteria of Chapter 400, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code:

(a)prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking;

(b)prohibits front yard parking where the property has access to existing parking facilities on the lot;

(c)requires that the parking space must be perpendicular to the sidewalk;

(d)requires a minimum of 15% of the area on the City boulevard be soft landscaping, and all other areas other than the walkway and the parking pad must be soft landscaping;

(e)requires that the parking area be paved using semi-permeable paving materials; and

(f)sets a maximum of one (1) front yard parking space per property.

We have investigated the feasibility of front yard parking at this location and we have determined that it does not meet the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code for front yard parking for the following reasons:

1.Permit parking is authorized on the even side of Caledonia Road, and on both sides of Norman Avenue, within permit parking area 3B;

2.There is a 3 car garage at the side of the property with access from Norman Avenue; and

3.The paving specifications and the soft landscaping requirements are not met (boulevard on Caledonia Road is paved with asphalt).

I note that for properties which 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.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking and has existing parking facilities on the lot, it is not eligible for front yard parking. In addition, as it is now a residential property, it does not qualify for commercial boulevard parking. In view of the above, this request should be denied by Council.

As this is a request for an exemption from Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, this report should be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council for deputations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (July 2, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

I am writing to ask for Community Council's assistance in a matter that concerns the above noted address.

It has been brought to my attention that 86 Caledonia Road was licensed in 1988, under Commercial Boulevard Parking. In 1997, it was determined that the property no longer had a commercial component and the license was rescinded. Since then, cement barriers have been placed on the front yard pad.

The owner of the property has informed me that this parking entrance has existed since he bought the property in 1962 and that the previous owner had told him it had existed for many years prior to that. Since 1991, the owner had been paying for the use of the parking space and is prepared to continue to do so.

Of particular concern is the fact that the owner claims he never once received a communication from the City of Toronto stating that such actions were going to be taken.

For these reasons, I ask that Community Council allow this gentleman continued access to his front yard pad.

79

Driveway Widening - 315 Forman Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the parking space at 315 Forman Avenue, notwithstanding that the property is not eligible for a second parking space, conditional upon the landscaping proposal being altered to meet the minimum requirements of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To comment on the applicant's landscaping plans in connection with a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit driveway widening for a second parking space which does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that, should Council approve the second parking space, notwithstanding that the property is not eligible for a second parking space, the landscaping proposal be altered to meet the minimum requirements of the Code.

Background:

At its meeting on July 22, 1998, Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of a request for an exemption from the by-law from Mr. Allan Fleisher, co-owner of 315 Forman Avenue, and requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism comment on the applicant's landscaping plans.

Comments:

Mr. Allan Fleisher and Ms. Judy Fleisher, owners of 315 Forman Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4S2S6, submitted landscaping plans (see Appendix 'A'), in connection with their application for two (2) parking spaces adjacent to the mutual driveway.

Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code limits the size of the parking space, to 5.2 metres in width and 5.9 metres in length, for two (2) vehicles. Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto requires that 50% landscaped open space be maintained within portions of the front yard on private property and 15% must be constructed as soft landscape, ie. grass or an area to be used for planting of shrubs or flowers.

The landscaping plans were reviewed by staff of Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and they confirmed that the proposal did not meet the requirements for landscaped open space and soft landscaping, including the planting of a tree.

Discussions with Mr. Fleisher on the landscape proposal resulted in further modifications, the results of which are as follows:

As can be seen, the revised landscape proposal has met most of the requirements, including the planting of a tree, with the exception of the total landscaped open space. Mr. Fleisher was informed of this, however, he is reluctant to increase this area due to maintenance of the area and more importantly due to safety concerns for Ms. Fleisher.

The requirement of the landscaped open space can be met, if Mr. Fleisher was to further revise his proposal by situating the parking area of the vehicles to within 5.9 m back of the sidewalk.

Conclusions:

Mr. Fleisher's proposal has met most of the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248 and Zoning By-law No. 438-86, with the exception of the landscaped open space.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to grant permission for the parking of two vehicles.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

Works and Emergency Services

Warren Quan, 392-1940

Economic Development, Culture & Tourism

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 17, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit driveway widening for a second parking space which does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)an application for a second parking space at 315 Forman Avenue be denied by City Council, as such request does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the excessive paving is removed, as requested by City staff.

Background:

Mr. Allan Fleisher, co-owner of 315 Forman Avenue, has requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for a second parking space at this location.

Comments:

Mr. Allan Fleisher and Ms. Judy Fleisher, owners of 315 Forman Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4S2S6, submitted an application on February 20, 1998 for a second space adjacent to the mutual driveway (see Appendix 'A').

We opened a file on this location in September 1997 because the owners had paved the entire front yard in asphalt prior to approval and vehicles were parking without authorization.

Driveway widening is governed by the criteria set out in § 248-3 of Municipal Code Chapter 248 and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. The location met the requirements of the legislation for the parking of one vehicle and a permit was issued on April 24, 1998.

Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, requires that 50% landscape open space be maintained within portions of the front yard on private property and 30 % of the 50% landscaped open-space must be constructed as soft landscape.

If Council were to approve the second parking space, the landscaping requirements could be met, provided the parking spaces are situated within 5.9 m from the back of the sidewalk and all of the excess paving is removed.

For the Committee's information, the department has received complaints about the unauthorized parking of the second vehicle and we have asked the owners to cease the parking and remove the excess asphalt.

Conclusions:

Given that the owners had paved the entire front yard with asphalt and that the property is not eligible for a second parking space adjacent to the mutual driveway under the criteria set out in Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, this request should be denied by Council.

In addition, the excessive paving should be removed, as previously requested.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (July 9, 1998) from Councillor Johnston:

Recommendation: That the request for two (2) front yard parking spaces at 315 Forman Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fees prescribed by the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments: I have received a request from Mr. and Mrs. Fleisher, owners of 315 Forman Avenue, that they be permitted to install a second front yard parking space at their home.

Mr. and Mrs. Fleisher bought their home in February of 1996, and the two front yard parking spaces were a major selling point. The by-law which prohibited front yard parking on their property came into effect in July 1996, and as they did not close on the property until June 1996, they were unable to process their application before the new by-law came into effect. Since that time, they have made, at considerable expense, great improvements to their property, and now they wish to continue the improvements in the fall by repaving their driveway.

In addition, Mrs. Fleisher's job requires that she work various shifts and concerns have been expressed about her safety in returning home from work in the early hours of the morning and being unable to park.

The Fleishers in February 1998, made an application for two parking spaces and were granted approval for one parking space. They did not know that they could appeal the decision of the Commissioner to deny the second parking space or they would have done so earlier.

As they wish to upgrade the driveway in the fall, and Council will not be meeting until October, I am requesting that this appeal be considered at the meeting to be held on July 22nd, 1998, and that their request be granted.

--------

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:

-(July 20, 1998) from seven residents of Forman Avenue;

-(July 21, 19980 from Ms. Judy and Mr. Allan Fleisher;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Ron Baker.

Ms. Judy Fleisher, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

80

Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing -

70 Huron Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 70 Huron Street;

(2)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder; and

(3)the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 70 Huron Street because of ongoing excessive display of goods. 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:

That, after the hearing of deputations, should the Toronto Community Council decide to proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 70 Huron Street:

1.a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder; and

2.the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, in considering Clause No. 10 of Report No.10 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue Between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, Between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street" adopted the report, as amended, by deleting:

(a)Licence No. M-1912 (264 Spadina Avenue) from Appendix 'A';

(b)Licence No. M-1138 (437 Dundas Street West) from Appendix 'B'.

In addition, City Council adopted the report (July 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services entitled, "Boulevard Marketing - 70 Huron Street" and in so doing:

(1)directed that, should a further 'Summons' for excessive marketing be issued to the licence holder of 70 Huron Street, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Toronto Community Council on the possible cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence and the applicant be given the opportunity to be heard by the Committee; and

(2)after the hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council recommend to City Council the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence.

Comments:

As outlined in our earlier report, staff have visited 70 Huron Street on numerous occasions and issued several "Notices of Advice" and "Summonses" to 1229920 Ontario Inc., o/a Hong Fat Seafood Market, for excessive marketing. Currently, there are 2 outstanding "Summonses" for excessive marketing at this location, and to-date, 1 conviction has been registered for excessive marketing.

In order to assist the business operator in confining their licensed marketing area to the permitted limits, arrangements were made on July 24, 1998 to repaint the boundaries of the licensed area.

On August 7, 1998, while on routine patrol, staff noted that there was display of goods outside the licensed marketing area. The inspector contacted the manager of Hong Fat Seafood Market to discuss the past problems concerning excessive marketing at the location and to ensure their responsibility in confining all marketing within the licensed area. The excessive marketing was removed in the presence of the inspector.

On August 24, 1998, staff again noted that there was an over display of goods fronting 70 Huron Street. Accordingly, a Part 1 Offence Notice was issued to 1229920 Ontario Inc., o/a Hong Fat Seafood Market for excessive marketing.

As the licence holder must be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee or Council prior to cancellation or amendment of the licence, I have requested the City Clerk to notify the licence holder of the proposed cancellation.

Conclusions:

In view of the on-going problems associated with excessive marketing, it is recommended that the boulevard marketing licence fronting 70 Huron Street be cancelled.

Should the Toronto Community Council decide to cancel the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 70 Huron Street, in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements, a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder and the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

81

Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue

and Dundas Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 433, 443, and 444 Dundas Street West; and

(2)(a)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holders; and

(b)the licence holders be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.

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

(1)to report further to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998, on the possible cancellation of boulevard marketing locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 254 and 311 Spadina Avenue:

(2)to report to the Toronto Community Council on amending Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code so that boulevard marking fronting the premises is permitted only for goods for which the store has primary use; and

(3)to submit the locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 254 and 311 Spadina Avenue to the Licensing Commission with the request that the Commission withhold the renewal of the premises' operating licences pending the requested report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of the survey conducted on August 27, 1998 of the licensed marketing locations within Toronto District's Downtown Chinatown (Spadina Avenue between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street) that were identified in the July 9, 1998 report.

As licence holders must be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee or Council prior to cancellation or amendment of their licence, this matter is scheduled as a deputation item.

Recommendations:

That, after the hearing of deputations, should the Toronto Community Council decide to proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 433, 443, 444 and 459 Dundas Street West and 254 Spadina Avenue:

1.(a)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holders; and

(b)the licence holders be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee; and

2.I report further to your Committee at its meeting of October 14, 1998 on the possible cancellation of boulevard marketing locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 311 Spadina Avenue.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, in considering Clause No. 10 of Report No.10 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue Between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, Between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street" adopted the report, as amended, by deleting:

(a)Licence No. M-1912 (264 Spadina Avenue) from Appendix 'A';

(b)Licence No. M-1138 (437 Dundas Street West) from Appendix 'B'.

Comments:

In our report of July 9, 1998, we identified a number of licensed boulevard marketing locations which were selling merchandise unrelated to the use of the main business (i.e. hardware store selling fruits and vegetables on the sidewalk).

These licence holders were given 30 days from July 22, 1998 to modify their business practices so that merchandise being sold within the licensed marketing area are the same or similar to the merchandise being sold from within the premises.

The following are the conclusions of the survey conducted by staff on August 27, 1998 and the recommended action to be taken by your Committee.

Locations recommended for cancellation:

The business owner of 433 Dundas Street West (bakery) has indicated that he was leasing the boulevard marketing to a vendor. He is no longer leasing the boulevard, therefore the boulevard marketing licence can be cancelled.

The business owner of 443 Dundas Street West has indicated that he can confine his operations totally on private property, therefore no marketing licence is required.

Mr. A. Wong of 444 Dundas Street West operates a travel agency on the second floor and is registered on our files as the licence holder of the boulevard marketing. We have been unable to identify the ownership of the boulevard marketing area fronting this location as Mr. Wong, his staff and staff of the main floor business (meat store) claim no ownership of it. Under the circumstances, the boulevard marketing licence registered at this location should be cancelled.

The business operator at 459 Dundas Street West, Ms. Sandy Lo, Nung Fown Restaurant, has a vendor operating the marketing area selling T-shirts and jewellery. Given that the property is being used as a restaurant, it is recommended that the licence be cancelled.

The licence holder of 254 Spadina Avenue is operating his business from the foyer of the main entrance of the property. Under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the owner in possession or the occupant of the ground floor of the property which may be lawfully used for industrial or commercial purposes and which abuts on a boulevard is eligible for boulevard marketing. The main floor at the subject property is used as a restaurant. Given the above, it is recommended that this licence be cancelled.

Locations that complied with criteria of Municipal Code:

The business operators of 449 Dundas Street West, 273, 280, 300B, 305, 322, 340 and 346 Spadina Avenue have modified their business practices and now comply with the regulations of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.

Ms. Le Lynh of 318 Spadina Avenue has indicated that the business will be undergoing major renovation in the immediate future and that she will ensure that the boulevard marketing comply with the regulations of the Municipal Code. Currently, the marketing area is not in use.

The business operators of 492 and 494 Dundas Street West, and 311 Spadina Avenue have somewhat modified their business practices to comply with the Municipal Code, however, the primary use of the business is not what is being sold within the boulevard marketing. These locations are currently being further reviewed and a report will be submitted to the next Toronto Community Council for its meeting of October 14, 1998.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

--------

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

-Mr. Nelson Wong, Nung Fown Restaurant and Souvenirs;

-Mr. Cheung Lee, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. David Huynh, Cam Ranh Fashion Boutique.

82

Application for Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue flankage of

1340 St. Clair Avenue West - Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. (Davenport)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, notwithstanding the former City of Toronto Council's decision to cancel the business owner's licence to operate a boulevard cafe, and that such approval be subject to:

(1)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)the applicant ensuring that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 12:00 midnight, 7 days a week.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 22 and 23, 1998, in considering my report (July 9, 1998) entitled "Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. - Application for a Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue Flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West", recommended that the matter be deferred to its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 and that the temporary permit for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West be extended to September 16, 1998, under the same terms and conditions approved by City Council, at its meeting held on May 13 and 14, 1998 (i.e. the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00p.m., Sunday to Thursday, and 12;00 midnight, Friday and Saturday).

In addition, the Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on any complaints respecting this boulevard cafe.

Comments:

As directed by City Council, a temporary cafe licence (expiry date July 31, 1998) for the cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West was issued to Mr. Pastore, Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc., on May 27, 1998, until such time as the poll results could be considered in July by City Council.

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 22, 1998, in considering the application for the boulevard cafe, together with the polling results, deferred the matter to its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 and recommended that the temporary permit for the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West be extended to September 16, 1998, under the same terms and conditions approved by City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998. A further temporary cafe licence (expiry date September 16, 1998) was issued to Mr. Pastore on August26, 1998.

Notwithstanding the poll conducted in May 1997 and the most recent poll in June 1998, wherein the area residents indicated that the neighbourhood is strongly opposed to the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, the cafe has operated since May 27, 1998 without any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the location.

In addition, site inspections have confirmed that the cafe operator complied with the closing hours.

Given the above, should the Toronto Community Council wish to recommend that a boulevard cafe licence be issued to Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, as set out in my report dated July 9, 1998, staff should be requested to report back to the Toronto Community Council on the operation of the boulevard cafe at the end of the 1999 cafe season.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the Clause 83 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council headed, "Application for Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West - Boyz and Galz Cafe Inc. (Davenport)":

--------

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that this matter be deferred to its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 and that the temporary permit for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West be extended to September 16, 1998 under the same terms and conditions approved by City Council at its meeting held on May13 and 14, 1998 (ie. the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., Sunday to Thursday, and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, on any complaints respecting this boulevard cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's request to reinstate the boulevard cafe licence on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West. As this matter is 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 a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, notwithstanding the former City of Toronto Council's decision to cancel the business owner's licence to operate a boulevard cafe, and that such approval be subject to:

(a)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b)the applicant ensuring that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 12:00 midnight, 7 days a week;

OR

(c)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(d)the applicant ensuring that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., 7days a week;

OR

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, in considering a communication (February 24, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a poll with respect to an application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West (as shown on Appendix 'A') and to report back on the results of the poll to its meeting of June 24, 1998.

City Council, at its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, in considering a communication (May 7, 1998) from Councillor Disero, approved the issuance of a temporary permit for the cafe until such time as the poll results can be considered in July by City Council, subject to the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., Sunday to Thursday, and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday.

Comments:

As directed by the Toronto Community Council, a poll was conducted, dated June 5, 1998 to July6, 1998, on Nairn Avenue, between house Nos. 6 to 50 and 7 to 51, including 1340 and 1312 St. Clair Avenue West to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English, French, Portuguese and Italian. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

A copy of the ballot sent to the owners and residents of Nairn Avenue within 120 m of the proposed cafe is attached in Appendix 'B' of this report.

In addition, as directed by City Council, a temporary cafe licence (expiry date July 31, 1998) for the cafe on Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West was issued to Mr. Pastore, Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc., on May 27, 1998. The cafe has operated since May 27, 1998 and we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or the Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

In addition, site inspections have confirmed that the operator complied with the closing hours.

The location meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Conclusions:

A licence for a boulevard cafe was originally issued to Mr. Pastore on July 15, 1994, with the closing hours of 11:00 p.m. Because of a history of complaints associated with the business operation during the 1994, 1995 and 1996 cafe seasons pertaining to:

(a)the cafe operating beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction;

(b)noise emanating from the cafe area;

(c)alcohol-related problems, i.e. "rowdiness" of cafe patrons;

(d) garbage and fowling; and

(e)vehicles obstructing the sidewalk on the Nairn Avenue flankage;

the former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of July 14, 1997, approved the cancellation of the boulevard cafe licence, effective September 10, 1997.

A poll conducted in May of 1997 and the most recent poll, June 1998, indicate that the neighbourhood is strongly opposed to the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Although the proposed cafe meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (i.e. setbacks, physical design, location), this criteria alone cannot address all public concerns which relate to noise, garbage, pedestrian and car traffic.

On hearing the matter, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant permission for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

(A copy of Appendix B, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

83

Designation - 540 Dovercourt Road

(Massey-Quick House) (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council state its intention to designate the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (August 27, 1998) from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

Background:

At its meeting of August 26, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The property owner was advised of the request and wrote a letter supporting the designation.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Massey-Quick House

540 Dovercourt Road

The property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The property contains a double house completed in 1896 for contractor Robert Grant. First occupied by Arthur L. Massey and John E. Quick, the double house was designed by Toronto architect D. B. Dick.

The Massey-Quick House displays the mixture of materials, asymmetrical composition, and varied forms associated with Queen Anne styling. The building is constructed of brick on a stone foundation and trimmed with brick, stone and wood. Rising 2½-stories, the house is covered by a gable roof with cross-gables, dormers and chimneys. Important features are the round-arched principal (east) entrance, two-storey southeast porch, bay window (east wall), and pattern of round-arched and flat-headed window openings.

Located on the northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Dewson Street, the Massey-Quick House is a prominent feature in the Dovercourt neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239; Fax: 392-6834

--------

(Report dated August 10, 1998, from the Acting Managing Director,

Toronto Historical Board, addressed to the

Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendations

1.That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value.

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

Comments

1.Background:

In a letter dated May 15, 1998, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 540 Dovercourt Road for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. On July 29, 1998, representatives of the property owners sent a letter supporting the request.

The property is not included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. Heritage Toronto staff evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it merits inclusion as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

A Short Statement of Reasons for Designation, intended for publication, follows. A Heritage Property Report (Long Statement of Reasons for Designation), including visuals, is attached. Both documents constitute the Reasons for Designation.

2.Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

The property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The property contains a double house completed in 1896 for contractor Robert Grant. First occupied by Arthur L. Massey and John E. Quick, the double house was designed by Toronto architect D. B. Dick.

The Massey-Quick House displays the mixture of materials, asymmetrical composition, and varied forms associated with Queen Anne styling. The building is constructed of brick on a stone foundation and trimmed with brick, stone and wood. Rising 2½ stories, the house is covered by a gable roof with cross-gables, dormers and chimneys. Important features are the round-arched principal (east) entrance, two-storey southeast porch, bay window (east wall), and pattern of round-arched and flat-headed window openings.

Located on the northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Dewson Street, the Massey-Quick House is a prominent feature in the Dovercourt neighbourhood.

--------

Heritage Property Report

Massey-Quick House

540 Dovercourt Road

August 1998

Table Of Contents

Basic Building Data

1.Dovercourt Neighbourhood

2.540 Dovercourt Road

Architectural Description

Context

Summary

Sources Consulted

Attachments:

IShort Statement of Reasons for Designation

IILocation Map

IIIPhotographs

IVArchitectural Drawings *

*source: Horwood Collection, Archives of Ontario; reproductions supplied by Crawford Shaw Historical Society

--------

Heritage Toronto

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address:540 Dovercourt Road (northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Dewson Street)

Ward:20 (Trinity-Niagara)

Current Name:Dufferin Grove Housing Co-op

Historical Name:Massey-Quick House

Construction Date:1895-1896

Architect:D. B. Dick

Contractor/Builder:Bennett and Wright

Additions/Alterations:dates unknown: door opening replaced by window opening on principal (east) façade; wood sunporches added to south and north walls; wood fire escape added to rear (west) wall

Original Owner:Robert Grant

Original Use:Residential (double house)

Current Use*:Residential (9-unit co-op)

Heritage Category:Neighbourhood Heritage Property

Recording Date:August 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

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

Historical Background:

1.Dovercourt Neighbourhood:

Following the founding of the Town of York in 1793, Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe divided the area bounded by the Don River and present day Queen, Dufferin and Bloor Streets into nearly 30 Park Lots which were distributed to members of Upper Canada's political and military elite. Close to Dufferin Street, Park Lot 26 was initially reserved for the unnamed Solicitor General of the province. However, in 1798, the lot was divided in two, with the north half granted to Alexander McNab, Clerk of the Executive Council, and the south half given to William Chewitt, Deputy Surveyor General of Upper Canada. The properties remained undeveloped when George Taylor Denison purchased the south and north halves in 1816 and 1822, respectively.

George Taylor Denison was the eldest son of John Denison (1755-1824), patriarch of one of the most influential families in the development of Toronto. George Taylor Denison inherited almost all of his father's extensive land holdings, including several Park Lots between Spadina Road and Dufferin Street. Portions of Park Lots 25 and 26 were transferred to his eldest son, Richard Lippincott Denison, who named the property "Dover Court" for his great-grandmother's ancestral home in Essex.

2.540 Dovercourt Road:

While members of the Denison family developed expansive estates on their Park Lots, by the mid-19^th century they responded to the westward expansion of the City of Toronto by subdividing and selling portions of their properties. In 1877, Plan D262 was registered for Denison land on the west side of Dovercourt Road between College and Bloor Streets. Lot 19 at the northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Dewson Street was acquired in 1892 by Robert Grant, a prominent Toronto contractor who resided at 528 Dovercourt Road.

A native of Scotland, Robert Grant (born 1840) immigrated to Toronto in 1870, forming a brief partnership with engineer Lionel York. Although his qualifications are unknown, Grant advertised his services as an "architect" in an 1873 Directory. By the next year, however, he joined architect D. B. Dick in a partnership that formally lasted through 1876. David Brash Dick (1846-1925) received his training at the Edinburgh School of Design and in the offices of the Scottish architectural firms of W. L. Moffatt and Peddie and Kinnear. He evidently arrived in Toronto via Chicago where he participated in the rebuilding campaign that followed the Great Fire of 1871. Grant and Dick designed the semi-detached house at 30-32 Lowther Avenue in 1875, followed by the Consumers' Gas Company of Toronto Chambers at 17 Toronto Street in 1876. Both properties are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The latter commission led to Dick's significant body of work for Consumers' Gas and its president, James Austin. He is best known, however, for his projects on the University of Toronto campus, including the restoration of University College in 1890 and his subsequent designs for Wycliffe College and the University of Toronto Library.

Beginning in 1877, Robert Grant concentrated on property development, engaging other contractors to construct his projects. In April, 1894, Grant received a building permit for "one pair of semi-detached 2-storey-and-attic brick dwellings" with a value of $8000 at the northwest corner of Dovercourt and Dewson. The project was designed by his former partner, Dick, as evidenced by drawings for the project housed in the Horwood Collection at the Archives of Ontario (see Attachment IV). Grant engaged the firm of Bennett and Wright to construct the double house. Historical records show the building as incomplete in 1894 and early 1895, and vacant in 1896. The first tenants were recorded in 1897 when Arthur L. Massey occupied #538 Dovercourt (now absorbed into #540), while #540 was the residence of John E. Quick. Little is known about Quick, who was listed in various City Directories as a baggage agent for the Grand Trunk Railway, a secretary and a mariner. Arthur Lyman Massey, however, was the grandson of Hart Massey, founder of the internationally recognized manufacturer of agricultural implements. Following the untimely death of Arthur's father and Hart's heir, Charles Massey, and an estrangement within the clan, control of Massey-Harris passed to Arthur's uncles and cousins. Arthur L. Massey was listed as an accountant during his tenancy at 540 Dovercourt Road.

In 1898, 540 Dovercourt was occupied by a prominent Torontonian, George Taylor Denison IV. A barrister with the family firm of Macklem and Denison, he evidently resided here prior to developing his own property at the south end of Dovercourt. Robert Grant retained the double house until 1910 when Loretto Ladies Colleges and Schools acquired it as rental properties. In 1926, the building was converted into a nine-unit apartment house known as Dover Hall Apartments. The Dufferin Grove Housing Co-op purchased the property in 1978.

Architectural Description:

The Massey-Quick House is designed in the Queen Anne style, characterized by its asymmetrical composition, mixture of materials and varied forms. The double house is constructed of red brick on a coursed stone base with brick, sandstone and wood trim. Rising 2½ stories, a hipped roof with cross-gables on all four slopes covers the building. There is a gabled dormer on the north slope, and a hipped dormer on the rear (west) slope. Some of the gables and dormers are filled with shingles.

The principal (east) façade on Dovercourt Road is organized into four bays of varied widths with entrances placed in the first and third bays. On the south end of this wall, a two-storey porch protects the entry to the portion of the house formerly identified as #538. Partially enclosed, the porch has wood columns and brackets. In the second bay, a projecting frontispiece has a two-storey bay window beneath a gable with returned eaves and a Palladian-styled window opening. Off-set near the centre of the wall, a round-arched entrance porch with a stone keystone provided access to the north half of the semi-detached house. The original panelled wood door with transom has been replaced with a window opening. It is flanked by a window with sandstone detailing. At the north end of the wall, round-arched window openings in the first storey are topped by a gabled wall dormer with a round-headed window opening, brick corbels, and brick detailing in a Greek key pattern. Most of the window openings in the east wall are flat-headed with stone labels and sills.

The long south wall on Dewson Street repeats many of the features introduced on the principal façade. The first and second stories are divided by an elaborately detailed sandstone belt course. Beneath the cross-gable, a projecting frontispiece has rows of flat-headed window openings with sandstone and brick trim. A pedimented gable containing a round window opening with louvered wood shutters surmounts it. An oval window marks the lower storey. The north wall displays a variety of window openings. In the cross-gable, pairs of flat-headed window openings are separated by brick panels and topped by a round arch containing basketweave brickwork. The rear (west) wall has a projecting wing with a gable roof and a combination of round-arched and flat-headed window openings.

Context:

The property at 540 Dovercourt Road is located on the northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Dewson Street. It is part of a streetscape of residential buildings that share its setback but not its size. To the north, the Dovercourt-St. Paul's Presbyterian Church (built) on the northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Hepbourne Street is included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Summary:

The property at 540 Dovercourt Road is identified for architectural and historical reasons. The Massey-Quick House was completed in 1896 according to the designs of the important Toronto architect D. B. Dick for his former partner, contractor Robert Grant. Early occupants of the semi-detached house were members of Toronto's leading families. The evolution of the neighbourhood witnessed the successful conversion of the building into an apartment house and later a multi-unit co-op. The Massey-Quick House is an impressive example of the Queen Anne style. Located on the northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Dewson Street, the property is a visible feature in the Dovercourt neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Arthur, Eric. Toronto. No Mean City. 3^rd ed. Revised by Stephen A. Otto. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986.

Assessment Rolls. City of Toronto. Ward 6, Division 2. 1894-1898.

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.

Building Permit #1588 (12 April 1894).

City of Toronto Directories. 1895-1899.

Crawford Shaw Historical Society. "Heritage Property Report: 540 Dovercourt Road". May 1998.

Gagan, David. The Denison Family of Toronto, 1792-1925. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1973.

Hudson, Edna. Bellevue Avenue. An Architectural and Social Study. Toronto: Toronto Region Architectural Conservancy, July 1993.

"The Late Mr. David B. Dick". The Builder (July-December 1925).

Martyn, Lucy Booth. Aristocratic Toronto. Toronto: Personal Library, 1980.

"The Massey Mystique". Weekend Magazine (16 June 1979) 11-14.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2^nd ed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

--------

Attachment I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Massey-Quick House

540 Dovercourt Road

The property at 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The property contains a double house completed in 1896 for contractor Robert Grant. First occupied by Arthur L. Massey and John E. Quick, the double house was designed by Toronto architect D. B. Dick.

The Massey-Quick House displays the mixture of materials, asymmetrical composition , and varied forms associated with Queen Anne styling. The building is constructed of brick on a stone foundation and trimmed with brick, stone and wood. Rising 2½-stories, the house is covered by a gable roof with cross-gables, dormers and chimneys. Important features are the round-arched principal (east) entrance, two-storey southeast porch, bay window (east wall), and pattern of round-arched and flat-headed window openings.

Located on the northwest corner of Dovercourt Road and Dewson Street, the Massey-Quick House is a prominent feature in the Dovercourt neighbourhood.

84

Designation and Heritage Easement Agreement -

84 Woodlawn Avenue East

(James Avon Smith House) (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council state its intention to designate the property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East (James Avon Smith House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act;

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

(3)authority be granted for the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owner of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East using substantially the form of easement agreement prepared by the City Solicitor, subject to such amendments as may be deemed necessary by the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board);

(4)authority be granted for the necessary Bills in Council to give effect hereto; and

(5)the owners be requested to provide Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board) with two (2) copies of the required photographs of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East for inclusion in the easement agreement.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (August 27, 1998) from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East (James Avon Smith House) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and that permission be granted to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the property owner.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East (James Avon Smith House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

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

(3)That authority be granted for the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owner of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East using substantially the form of easement agreement prepared by the City Solicitor, subject to such amendments as may be deemed necessary by the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board).

(4)That authority be granted for the necessary Bills in Council to give effect hereto.

(5)That the owners be requested to provide Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board) with two (2) copies of the required photographs of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East for inclusion in the easement agreement.

Background:

At its meeting of August 26, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East (James Avon Smith House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The owner has requested the designation of the property and has agreed to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

The property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. Constructed in 1881, the house was designed by James Avon Smith of the Toronto architectural firm Smith and Gemmell as his family residence.

The James Avon Smith House is designed in the Gothic Revival style. Rising 2½ stories beneath a gable roof with cross-gables, the house is constructed of brick on a stone base and trimmed with brick, stone and wood. Important exterior features are the principal (south) entrance, two-storey verandah, bay windows, round-arched and segmental-headed window openings (some with lead glass windows and louvered shutters), dormers and chimneys. The two-storey entrance hall and staircase, and the fireplaces, door openings and detailing in the first-floor study, parlour and dining room, and the second-floor master and southeast bedrooms are significant interior elements.

The James Avon Smith House is set back and elevated on a rise of land on the north side of Woodlawn Avenue East. With its landscaped grounds, the property is an important feature of the Summerhill neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East (James Avon Smith House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and that permission be granted to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the owner of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239; Fax: 392-6834

(Report dated August 18, 1998, from the Acting Managing Director,

Toronto Historical Board, addressed to the Chair and Members,

Toronto Historical Board)

Recommendations

1.That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East (James Avon Smith House) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value.

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

3.That authority be granted for the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owners of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East using substantially the form of easement agreement prepared by the City Solicitor, subject to such amendments as may be deemed necessary by the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board).

4.That authority be granted for the introduction of any necessary Bills in Council to give effect hereto.

5.That the owners be requested to provide Heritage Toronto (Toronto Historical Board) with two (2) copies of the required photographs of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East for inclusion in the easement agreement.

Comments

1.Background:

In a letter dated May 4, 1998, the owner of the property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East requested Heritage Toronto to consider the property for designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. The owner also agreed to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement to protect the heritage features of the property in perpetuity.

The property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East is not included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. Heritage Toronto staff evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it merits inclusion as a Notable Heritage Property (Category B).

A Short Statement of Reasons for Designation, intended for publication, follows. A Heritage Property Report (Long Statement of Reasons for Designation), including visuals, is attached. Both documents constitute the Reasons for Designation.

2.Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

The property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. Constructed in 1881, the house was designed by James Avon Smith of the Toronto architectural firm Smith and Gemmell as his family residence.

The James Avon Smith House is designed in the Gothic Revival style. Rising 2½ stories beneath a gable roof with cross-gables, the house is constructed of brick on a stone base and trimmed with brick, stone and wood. Important exterior features are the principal (south) entrance, two-storey verandah, bay windows, round-arched and segmental-headed window openings (some with lead glass windows and louvered shutters), dormers and chimneys. The two-storey entrance hall and staircase, and the fireplaces, door openings and detailing in the first-floor study, parlour and dining room, and the second-floor master and southeast bedrooms are significant interior elements.

The James Avon Smith House is set back and elevated on a rise of land on the north side of Woodlawn Avenue East. With its landscaped grounds, the property is an important feature of the Summerhill neighbourhood.

--------

Heritage Property Report

James Avon House

84 Woodlawn Avenue East

August 1998

Table of Contents

Basic Building Data

Historical Background

1.Summerhill Neighbourhood

2.84 Woodlawn Avenue East

Architectural Description

Context

Summary

Sources Consulted

Attachments:

IShort Statement of Reasons for Designation

IILocation Map

IIIPhotographs

--------

Heritage Toronto

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address:84 Woodlawn Avenue East (north side, east of Yonge Street)

Ward:23 (Midtown)

Current Name:not applicable

Historical Name:James Avon Smith House

Construction Date:1881

Architect:James Avon Smith

Contractor/Builder:James S. Nicholson

Additions/Alterations:post-1900: verandah posts likely replaced

Original Owner:James Avon Smith, architect

Original Use:Residential (Single)

Current Use*:Residential (Single)

Heritage Category:Notable Heritage Property (Category B)

Recording Date:August 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

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

Historical Background:

1.Summerhill Neighbourhood:

With the founding of the Town of York in 1793, the land north of the community was laid out as the Township of York. A series of 200-acre farm lots were surveyed between the future Bloor Street and Eglinton Avenue. Lot 17 in the Second Concession, on the east side of Yonge Street south of St. Clair Avenue, was granted by Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe to John Playter in 1796. Playter, a member of one of the Town of York's founding families and later the Overseer of Highways for the Town and Township of York, retained the property until 1802.

The site remained undeveloped following its acquisition by Charles Thompson in 1833. Thompson, who operated both stagecoaches and steamships, engaged Toronto architect John E. Howard to design a residence called "Summerhill" on his property in 1842. On another portion of his lot, Thompson established an amusement park, first known as Thompson Park and later called Summer Hill Spring Park and Pleasure Grounds. In 1859, Thompson's executors successfully subdivided Lot17 into 59 smaller lots.

When the Historical Atlas of the County of York was published in 1878, the Summerhill area was shown as part of Yorkville, the community centered at Yonge and Bloor Streets to the south. It remained an unincorporated area between Rosedale and Deer Park until 1903 when the City of Toronto annexed the lands on the east side of Yonge Street.

1.84 Woodlawn Avenue East:

Following the subdivision of Lot 17, the north side of present-day Summerhill Avenue was laid out in a series of building lots. Lot 22, site of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East, was initially developed in the 1860s with the construction of a house on the south end of the property facing Summerhill Avenue. In 1870, Toronto artist Thomas Mower Martin acquired the lot, selling it to James Avon Smith four years later. Smith rented the property with the existing house until 1881. According to his directions, builder James S. Nicholson completed the construction of a new residence on the north end of Lot22 in June 1881. The house was reached via a laneway from Summerhill Avenue until Woodlawn Avenue was extended east across Yonge Street from "Woodlawn", the estate of William Hume Blake (1840) at 84 Woodlawn Avenue West.

James Avon Smith (1834-1918), a prominent Toronto architect, designed the house at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East. Born in Scotland, Smith immigrated to Toronto in the 1850s where he apprenticed with architect William Thomas and formed a brief partnership with John Bailey. While in solo practice from 1860 to 1870, Smith designed the first of the nearly 100 churches attributed to him. In 1870, he joined his former student, John Gemmell in a partnership that lasted nearly half a century. Among their many notable commissions were Charles Moore's Warehouses at 7 and 9 Wellington Street West (1871), the National Club at 303 Bay Street (1874), Knox College at 1 Spadina Crescent (1875), the Don Brewery at 19R River Street, and the Noble Block at 342-354 Queen Street West (1888). Ecclesiastical projects included Berkeley Street Wesleyan Methodist Church at 317 Queen Street East, the Church of the Redeemer at 162 Bloor Street West, Zion Congregational Church at 88 College Street, College Street Presbyterian Church at 452 College Street, and Morningside-High Park Presbyterian Church at 4 Morningside Avenue. All of the above noted properties are recognized on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

While records outlining the initial occupancy of the house do not survive, between 1883 and 1886 Smith rented the property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East to Hugh Ritchie, a machinery salesman. Smith and his family occupied the residence from 1886 to 1896. During this period, Smith subdivided Lot 22. In 1886, he built and sold a house at 84 Summerhill Avenue and, four years later, developed a semi-detached house at 81 Woodlawn Avenue East. In 1888, Smith built the neighbouring house at #82 Woodlawn whose design is attributed to his partner, Gemmell. James Strachan Cartwright acquired the latter residence. In 1896, Smith and Cartwright traded houses. Smith occupied #82 Woodlawn until 1903 when he moved into the semi-detached house, opposite, at 81 Woodlawn Avenue East.

James Strachan Cartwright, King's Council and Master-in-Chambers for the Supreme Court of Ontario, occupied the house at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East until his death in 1914. Three years later, his widow sold the property to Alexander Crooks. Crooks severed a portion of the property east of #84 where #86 Woodlawn was completed in 1919. In 1934, Cartwright's widow foreclosed on Crooks' mortgage and reacquired #84. She sold the site to her daughter and son-in-law, Dr. Gordon Dales, who established his medical practice in the house.

Architectural Description:

The James Avon Smith House is designed in the Gothic Revival style inspired by medieval architecture. Rising 2½ stories with an asymmetrical plan, the building is constructed of yellow brick on a stone base. The window openings are highlighted with brick voussoirs, stone sills and, in some cases, louvered wood shutters. Most openings contain sash windows. The building is covered by cross-gable roofs with hipped gables on the south and north (rear) façades. Gabled dormers with wood brackets and strapwork are placed on the east and north slopes, while large brick chimneys with corbelling and multiple pots are found on the south and east slopes.

The principal (south) façade is organized into three extended bays with different proportions. At the right end of the wall, a double gable tops a wide 2½-storey bay window. It has segmental-headed window openings (one containing a floor-to-ceiling window) in the outer faces. A chimney, with a brick panel with Gothic-inspired quatrefoil and shield motifs at the second-storey level, rises through the centre of the bay window. On the left, a two-storey verandah with Classical pillars and wood banisters extends across the wall and protects the main entrance. A moulded doorcase contains double wood doors with moulded wood panels, glass inserts, and multi-paned transoms with coloured glass. A segmental-headed window opening is placed on the left side of the entry. Above the entrance bay, the wall displays corbelled brickwork and a pair of extended rounded-arched openings with lead-glass transoms. One of the openings lights the interior stairwell, while the other is a French door opening onto the balcony. A segmental-headed window opening is found at the left end of the second floor. Overhead, a pair of diminutive round-arched window openings marks the attic level.

The east wall displays flat-headed window openings of varied heights in the first storey, and segmental-headed window openings in the second floor. On the west wall, a 2½-storey bay window has segmental-headed window openings on all three faces. The rear (north) wall displays a mixture of single and paired segmental-headed window openings.

On the interior, the entrance hall has wood floors, moulded doorcases and chair rails. A curved two-storey staircase displays turned newel posts and spindles, curved banisters and, in the second floor, a curved landing. On the first floor, the study (southwest corner), parlour (northwest) and dining room (southeast) have wood floors, moulded door and window surrounds, ceiling and baseboard mouldings, and fireplaces with tiled hearths, wood mantels, and surrounds in various finishes. This detailing is repeated on the second floor where the master bedroom (west end) and the southeast bedroom contain fireplaces. The doors into the bedrooms have adjustable transoms. An archway separates the stairhall from the remainder of the second floor.

Context:

The property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East is located on the north side of Woodlawn Avenue east of Yonge Street. The James Avon Smith House is set back from and rises above Woodlawn Avenue amid landscaped grounds. Flanked by its neighbours at #82 and #86 Woodlawn, the James Avon Smith House is situated on a rise of land bounded by the Rosehill Reservoir (built by the City of Toronto in 1875) on the north and David A. Balfour Park to the east. On the opposite side of Woodlawn Avenue, single residential buildings are set close to the street and to one another. Among them, the Arthur C. Stephenson House at #87 Woodlawn is included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. Completed in 1908, its design is attributed to James Avon Smith.

Summary:

The property at 84 Woodlawn Avenue East is identified for architectural and historical reasons. Completed in 1881, the house was designed by Toronto architect James Avon Smith. Its exterior elements and detailing are hallmarks of the Gothic Revival style. The interior has been meticulously restored. Situated amid landscaped grounds on an elevated lot, the James Avon Smith House is an important component of the Summerhill neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Arthur, Eric. Toronto. No Mean City. 3^rd ed. Revised by Stephen A. Otto. Toronto: University of Toronto, 1986.

Blumenson, John. Ontario Architecture. Toronto: Fitzhenry and Whiteside, 1990.

Campbell, Robert. "Notes on the History and Ownership of 84 Woodlawn Avenue East and Surrounding Property". Typescript, April 1998.

Historical Atlas of York County. Toronto: Miles and Company, 1878.

Lundell, Liz. The Estates of Old Toronto. Erin, Ont.: Boston Mills Press, 1997.

Martyn, Lucy Booth. Aristocratic Toronto. Toronto: Personal Library, 1980.

McArthur, Glenn, and Annie Szamosi. William Thomas Architect 1799-1860. Ottawa: Carlton University Press, 1996.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2^nd ed. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

Scadding, Henry. Toronto of Old (1873). Edited by F. H. Armstrong. Toronto: Oxford University, 1966.

--------

Appendix I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

James A. Smith House

84 Woodlawn Avenue East

The property identified as 84 Woodlawn Avenue East is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The house was constructed in 1881 according to the designs of James A. Smith of the Toronto architectural firm Smith and Gemmell as his family residence.

The James Avon Smith House is designed in the Gothic Revival style. Rising 2½ stories beneath a gable roof with cross-gables, the house is constructed of brick on a stone base and trimmed with brick, stone and wood. Important exterior features are the principal (south) entrance, two-storey verandah, bay windows, round-arched and segmental-headed window openings (some with lead glass windows and louvered shutters), dormers and chimneys. The two-storey entrance hall with staircase, and the fireplaces and detailing in first-floor study, parlour and dining room, and second-floor master and southeast bedrooms are significant interior elements.

The James Avon Smith House is set back and elevated on a rise of land on the north side of Woodlawn Avenue East. With its landscaped grounds, the property is an important feature of the Summerhill neighbourhood.

85

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of

Heritage Properties - 145 Annette Street

(Annette Library) (High Park)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August25, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 145 Annette Street (Annette Library) be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council state its intention to include the property at 145 Annette Street (Annette Library) on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

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

Background:

In October, 1996, the Toronto Historical Board (now known as Heritage Toronto) was requested to consider the property at 145 Annette Street (Annette Library) for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property owner was advised of the request and wrote a letter supporting the inclusion of the property on the Inventory of Heritage Properties.

As outlined in the attached report to the Toronto Historical Board (dated November 26, 1996), staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C).

Comments:

At its meeting of December 11, 1996, the Board recommended that the property be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property at 145 Annette Street (Annette Library) is identified for architectural and historical reasons as the first public library built in West Toronto, a well-detailed example of Edwardian Classicism, and an important feature on Annette Street in the West Toronto neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 145 Annette Street (Annette Library) on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

--------

(Report dated November 26, 1996, from the Acting Managing Director,

Toronto Historical Board, addressed to the Toronto Historical Board

Recommendation

That the property at 145 Annette Street (Annette Library) be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments

1.Background:

In a letter dated October 8, 1996, Ms. Diana Fancher, President of the West Toronto Junction Historical Society, requested that the property at 145 Annette Street, known as the Annette Library, be considered for inclusion on the Inventory.

The Toronto Public Library was notified of this request in a letter dated October 21, 1996. In a letter dated November 22, 1996, the Toronto Public Library indicated that it supports inclusion.

2.Discussion:

A Property Research Summary is attached.

--------

Toronto Historical Board

Property Research Summary

Address:145 Annette Street (southwest corner of Annette and Medland Streets)

Ward:19

Current Name:Annette Library (Annette Street Branch, Toronto Public Library)

Historical Name:West Toronto Public Library

Construction Date:1908-09

Architect:Ellis and Connery

Contractor/Builder:Teagle and Son

Additions/

Alterations:1955, stone cornice removed and cement cornice added; 1962, interior renovations;

1979-1980, vestibule redesigned, entrance glazed, addition added to west side of building, and accessibility ramps added to north facade, Sillaste and Nakashima Architects

Original Owner:West Toronto Public Library Board

Original use:Public (library)

Current Use:*Public (library)

Heritage Category:Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date:November 1996; revised August 1998

Recorder:HPD: JC/KA

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

Description:

The property at 145 Annette Street is identified for architectural and historical reasons. The Annette Library was constructed in 1908-1909 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of Ellis and Connery. Originally known as the West Toronto Public Library, its construction was partially funded by American steel magnate and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie.

The Annette Library is designed with features of Edwardian Classicism. Clad with orange-red brick and embellished with Ohio sandstone, the building rises one extended storey above a raised basement. The irregularly-shaped plan has projecting sections on the principal (north) and rear (south) facades. The building is covered by a flat roof with chimneys on the south slope. A stone cornice wraps around all four walls, while a continuous band course separates the basement level from the main floor.

On the principal facade, a projecting entrance block with a parapet is flanked by one-bay wings.

The entrance block is divided into three bays by Corinthian columns. The main entrance is centered in the wall. A stone doorcase with a broken pediment and keystone contains double doors. Above, a pair of flat-headed window openings are set in a stone surround with quoins and a keystone. On either side of the entrance, single flat-headed window openings are set midway in the wall and decorated with stone voussoirs, keystones and sills. The basement level has single window openings with stone lintels and sills. On either side of the entrance block, each wing is bounded by brick pilasters with stone capitals. In the main storey, a large single window opening has a stone surround with a lintel, keystone, quoins and sill, and contains a tripartite windows with transoms. A smaller version of the same opening is placed in the basement level.

The east wall facing Medland Street is similarly decorated with brick pilasters and two flat-headed window openings with stone detailing in the basement and main levels. On the west end of the building, a single-storey addition has complementary detailing but is not included as a significant heritage feature. The rear (south) elevation has a projecting centre bay with two pairs of segmentally arched window openings flanked by brick pilasters and ornamented by stone sills and voussoirs.

Situated on the southwest corner of Annette and Medland Streets, the Annette Library is one of four Carnegie libraries constructed in the City of Toronto. A good example of Edwardian Classicism, it is integral component of a streetscape of prominent churches, residences and public buildings in the West Toronto neighbourhood.

86

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

195 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Application No. 998044 respecting request for approval of a variance from Chapter 297, Signs of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit one illuminated roof sign for third party advertising at 195 Spadina Avenue, be refused.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated roof sign for third party advertising at 195 Spadina Avenue.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

City Council refuse Application No. 998044 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated roof sign.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Spadina Avenue, on the south side of Phoebe Street, in an industrial (IC) district. The property accommodates a three storey industrial building. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated roof sign near the north-west corner of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 6.0 metres and a height of 3.0 metres, with an area of 18 m².

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the height of the sign above grade (17.24 metres) will exceed the maximum permitted height of 15 metres by 2.24 metres.

The height of sign is regulated in order to reduce the impact of signs on the streetscape and on adjacent uses.

The sign would project 3.9 metres above the roof line of the building and would be highly visible from residential uses on the north side of Phoebe Street, a unique row of townhouses that are listed under the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties, and from two residential buildings across the street on the west side of Spadina Avenue.

At its meeting on February 18, 1998, Toronto Community Council adopted my report dated February 2, 1998 to promote the revitalization of Chinatown along Spadina Avenue, between Queen Street West and College Street. Among other things, the report recommended the introduction of residential permissions in this area as a continuation of existing residential neighbourhoods established on either side of Spadina Avenue. The implementation of these initiatives is currently being studied. The sign would be higher than otherwise permitted in this and other industrially zoned districts and in my opinion could set an unfortunate precedent for other properties in this area.

I am recommending that this application be refused as I find the variance requested to be significant and not 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

--------

Mr. Sid Catalano, Pattison Signs, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

87

Final Report - Application No. 197027 for

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) (Midtown)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council support Application 197027, which proposes to retain and incorporate the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(2)the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto), for lands known in the year 1998 as 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West, substantially as set out below:

"86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West

See Map 18. at the end of this Section.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map , to permit an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted, for the erection and use of a mixed commercial and residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(a)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,675 m2, of which:

(i)not more than 20,020 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(ii)not more than 6070 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(iii)not more than 7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes; and

(b)the owner of the lands enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

(i)retention and incorporation of the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(ii)a contribution to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, such contribution to be reported on to the Toronto Community Council and finalized prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council;

(iii)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements;

(iv)provision and maintenance of One Percent for Public Art on publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(v)provision and maintenance, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West, of the publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane;

(vi)provision and maintenance of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated for required approved Plans respecting Construction Phasing; Noise Impact; Soil and Groundwater Management; Demolition and Excavation Dust Control; Pedestrian; Loading Management; and Parking Information;

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

(viii)that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within twelve months of the opening of the cinema/ theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan; and

(iv)provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development."

(3)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, a draft by-law to amend the City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) as it affects the lands known as 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West so as to:

(a)exempt the lands shown on the Key Map attached to this report from the following Sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

4 (2) Height Limits: Buildings and Structures;

4 (5) Parking Spaces (b);

4 (14) Setbacks from the centre line of a Public Lane (a);

8 (3) Part I - Density;

8 (3) Part III - Open Space 1. (a); and

(b)permit, on the lands shown on the Key Map attached to this report, the erection and use of a mixed commercial and residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(i)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,675 m2, of which:

(a)not more than 20,020 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(b)not more than 6070 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(c)not more than 7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes;

(ii)the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed 160;

(iii)the height of such building does not exceed the heights and angular planes as shown on the plans and drawings submitted with this application, which is 84.4 metres at its tallest, exclusive of a 0.4 metre tall parapet and the mechanical penthouse. This provision is not intended to prevent the erection or use of other structural elements permitted by Sections 4 (2) Height Limits (a) (i) and (ii) of the Zoning By-law which may extend vertically beyond such building envelope;

(iv)not less than 445 parking spaces are provided and maintained to serve the building, provided:

(a)not less than 122 parking spaces are provided on-site for the exclusive use of the residents of the building;

(b)not less than 323 parking spaces are provided for the use of visitors to the residential building (10) and for the commercial uses (313), of which not more than 88 parking spaces of the 313 parking spaces required for the commercial uses may be provided off-site, within 300 metres of the site; and

(c)the on-site parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning By-law, save and except for the parallel parking spaces, located on the east side of the underground garage, which are required to have a minimum length of 7.0 metres;

(v)one Type G and two Type B loading spaces are provided on-site in the below-grade garage, with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(vi)a publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway, located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane, is provided and maintained, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West;

all provided that the owner of the lands enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

(aa)retention and incorporation of the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(bb)a contribution to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, such contribution to be reported on and finalized prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council;

(cc)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements;

(dd)provision and maintenance of One Percent for Public Art on publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(ee)provision and maintenance, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West, of the publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane;

(ff)provision and maintenance of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated for required approved Plans respecting Construction Phasing; Noise Impact; Soil and Groundwater Management; Demolition and Excavation Dust Control; Pedestrian; Loading Management; and Parking Information;

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

(hh)that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within twelve months of the opening of the cinema / theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan; and

(ii)provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development.

(4)Site-specific By-laws 434-89, 435-89 and 436-89 be repealed, on the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended in Recommendations 4 and 5 above.

(5)Prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)the owner enter into the above-referenced Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b)the owner provide the City Solicitor with any postponements as required; and

(c)the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure the contributions to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, and $8000 to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements.

(6)(i)The owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division), prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Construction Phasing Plan, to address interim access to 102 Bloor Street West, and which will include, but is not limited to, a requirement that the owner fully reconstruct Critchley Lane or any other affected public lands, and a provision that the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure that obligation; and

(ii)The owner submit a strategy aimed at keeping neighbourhood streets free from dirt due to excavation, haulage and construction activities; specifically, that the proponent maintain street cleaning equipment, and the necessary operating skills, on the construction site, to be deployed as needed;

(7)The owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Noise Impact Statement, and be required to:

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

(b)provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(8)The owner submit, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, at least three weeks prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto; and

(b)dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing the site-specific by-laws.

(9)Prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, the owner be required to amend the existing Heritage Easement Agreement or execute a new Heritage Easement Agreement with the City to replace the existing Agreement, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, for the conservation of the former University Theatre facade and the relocated portal of the Pearcy House facade, in consultation with Heritage Toronto.

(10)The owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, which may include, but is not limited to:

(a)a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects on the site; and

(b)a Site and Building Audit for identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings.

(11)The owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

(12)The owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the entering into of the Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, a Grading and Drainage Plan.

(13)The owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

(14)The owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Pedestrian Plan, detailing signage, pavement treatment and other physical conditions needed to ensure safety for pedestrians entering and exiting the site across Critchley Lane, and be required to provide, maintain and operate the pedestrian measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Pedestrian Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(15)The owner submit, and have approved by the Toronto Transit Commission, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, Site and Foundation Plans, which include:

(a)shoring drawings, showing calculations;

(b)a plot plan, showing the subway structure;

(c)structural calculations showing loads;

(d)a soils / geotechnical report; and

(e)excavating, de-watering and landscape plans.

(16)The owner enter into a Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, delegated to me under Chapter 165, Article IV, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to secure Site Plan Approval, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

(17)In connection with the construction of the underground parking garage, the owner be required to:

(a)acquire title to the land below the public lane, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, while the surface lands (with minimum depth of 0.5 metres from the finished grade) would remain with the City;

(b)submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a detailed design prepared by a qualified municipal engineer showing the manner in which the underground garage will be constructed below the public lane;

(c)construct the roof of the parking structure to Bridge Code Standards;

(d)pay for the cost of reconstruction of the public lane to existing conditions, and in this regard, provide security in the form of a Letter of Credit in an amount satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e)indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims, or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges, and expenses that may result from the construction of the garage beneath the public highway;

(f)maintain the structure in good and proper repair and in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g)indemnify the City from and against any loss or damage to the waterproofing and structure resulting from the maintenance and reconstruction of the lane pavement, unless such loss or damage is caused by negligence of the City; and

(h)include additional conditions as the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interests of the Corporation.

(18)The owner be advised of the Comments of Civic Officials appended to this report, including:

(a)the requirement to pay a Parks Levy, in lieu of a conveyance of land, pursuant to Chapter 165, Development of Land, Article I, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit;

(b)the comments of the Manager, Development Approval, Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting their Zoning review and required approvals;

(c)the comments and requirements of the Toronto Transit Commission for approval of the development;

(d)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)to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to submission of an application for a Building Permit.

(f)that the Bloor Street West boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g)the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits as well as potentially other permits, such as hoarding, piling / shoring etc. from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to construction; and

(h)the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection;

(19)The construction plan be formulated in consultation with the two Ward Councillors and the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(20)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Ward Councillors facilitate an agreement with 110 Bloor Street West on construction-related access to Cumberland Street;

(21)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services consider and report to the Toronto Community Council on the facilitation of an archeologist on site during the excavation phase of the project, as suggested by Ms. Jane Beecroft in her deputation; and

(22)The proponent meet with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to pursue entry/exit to the construction site from Bloor Street West.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council having requested:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, to report directly to Council regarding the social needs of residents of this development, and to comment on the capacity of nearby schools, child care centres and community centres to serve the new residents; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on the possibility of a tow-away zone or no-stopping zone on Critchley Lane.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations respecting an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a new mixed-use development for 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That, if City Council supports the continued conservation of the existing Pearcy House facade, at 96 Bloor Street West, in accordance with the Heritage Easement Agreement registered on title, then Application 197027 should be refused in its current form.

AND / OR

2.That, if City Council supports the preservation of the existing Physicians and Surgeons Building, at 86 Bloor Street West, pursuant to the recommendations of the Board of Heritage Toronto, then Application 197027 should be refused in its current form.

OR

3.That, if City Council supports Application 197027, which proposes to retain and incorporate the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development, then City Council should adopt Recommendations 4 to 20 below.

4.That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto), for lands known in the year 1998 as 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West, substantially as set out below:

"86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West

See Map 18. at the end of this Section.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map , to permit an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted, for the erection and use of a mixed commercial and residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(a)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,675 m2, of which:

(i)not more than 20,020 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(ii)not more than 6070 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(iii)not more than 7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes; and

(b)the owner of the lands enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

(i)retention and incorporation of the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(ii)a contribution to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, such contribution to be reported on and finalized prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council;

(iii)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements;

(iv)provision and maintenance of One Percent for Public Art on publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(v)provision and maintenance, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West, of the publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane;

(vi)provision and maintenance of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated for required approved Plans respecting Construction Phasing; Noise Impact; Soil and Groundwater Management; Demolition and Excavation Dust Control; Pedestrian; Loading Management; and Parking Information;

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

(viii)that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within twelve months of the opening of the cinema / theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan; and

(iv)provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development."

5.That the City Solicitor be requested to submit, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, a draft by-law to amend the City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) as it affects the lands known as 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West so as to:

(a)exempt the lands shown on the Key Map attached to this report from the following Sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

4 (2) Height Limits: Buildings and Structures;

4 (5) Parking Spaces (b);

4 (14) Setbacks from the centre line of a Public Lane (a);

8 (3) Part I - Density;

8 (3) Part III - Open Space 1. (a); and

(b)permit, on the lands shown on the Key Map attached to this report, the erection and use of a mixed commercial and residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(i)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,675 m2, of which:

(a)not more than 20,020 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(b)not more than 6070 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(c)not more than 7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes;

(ii)the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed 160;

(iii)the height of such building does not exceed the heights and angular planes as shown on the plans and drawings submitted with this application, which is 84.4 metres at its tallest, exclusive of a 0.4 metre tall parapet and the mechanical penthouse. This provision is not intended to prevent the erection or use of other structural elements permitted by Sections 4 (2) Height Limits (a) (i) and (ii) of the Zoning By-law which may extend vertically beyond such building envelope;

(iv)not less than 445 parking spaces are provided and maintained to serve the building, provided:

(a)not less than 122 parking spaces are provided on-site for the exclusive use of the residents of the building;

(b)not less than 323 parking spaces are provided for the use of visitors to the residential building (10) and for the commercial uses (313), of which not more than 88 parking spaces of the 313 parking spaces required for the commercial uses may be provided off-site, within 300 metres of the site; and

(c)the on-site parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning By-law, save and except for the parallel parking spaces, located on the east side of the underground garage, which are required to have a minimum length of 7.0 metres;

(v)one Type G and two Type B loading spaces are provided on-site in the below-grade garage, with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(vi)a publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway, located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane, is provided and maintained, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West;

all provided that the owner of the lands enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

(aa)retention and incorporation of the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(bb)a contribution to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, such contribution to be reported on and finalized prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council;

(cc)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements;

(dd)provision and maintenance of One Percent for Public Art on publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(ee)provision and maintenance, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West, of the publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane;

(ff)provision and maintenance of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated for required approved Plans respecting Construction Phasing; Noise Impact; Soil and Groundwater Management; Demolition and Excavation Dust Control; Pedestrian; Loading Management; and Parking Information;

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

(hh)that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within twelve months of the opening of the cinema / theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan; and

(ii)provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development.

6.That site-specific By-laws 434-89, 435-89 and 436-89 be repealed, on the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended in Recommendations 4 and5 above.

7.That, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)the owner enter into the above-referenced Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b)the owner provide the City Solicitor with any postponements as required; and

(c)the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure the contributions to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, and $8000 to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements.

8.That the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division), prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Construction Phasing Plan, to address interim access to 102 Bloor Street West, and which will include, but is not limited to, a requirement that the owner fully reconstruct Critchley Lane or any other affected public lands, and a provision that the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure that obligation.

9.That the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Noise Impact Statement, and be required to:

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

(b)provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

10.That the owner submit, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, at least three weeks prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto; and

(b)dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing the site-specific by-laws.

11.That, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, the owner be required to amend the existing Heritage Easement Agreement or execute a new Heritage Easement Agreement with the City to replace the existing Agreement, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, for the conservation of the former University Theatre facade and the relocated portal of the Pearcy House facade, in consultation with Heritage Toronto.

12.That the owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, which may include, but is not limited to:

(a)a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects on the site; and

(b)a Site and Building Audit for identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings.

13.That the owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

14.That the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the entering into of the Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, a Grading and Drainage Plan.

15.That the owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

16.That the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Pedestrian Plan, detailing signage, pavement treatment and other physical conditions needed to ensure safety for pedestrians entering and exiting the site across Critchley Lane, and be required to provide, maintain and operate the pedestrian measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Pedestrian Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

17.That the owner submit, and have approved by the Toronto Transit Commission, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, Site and Foundation Plans, which include:

(a)shoring drawings, showing calculations;

(b)a plot plan, showing the subway structure;

(c)structural calculations showing loads;

(d)a soils / geotechnical report; and

(e)excavating, de-watering and landscape plans.

18.That the owner enter into a Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, delegated to me under Chapter 165, Article IV, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to secure Site Plan Approval, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

19.That, in connection with the construction of the underground parking garage, the owner be required to:

(a)acquire title to the land below the public lane, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, while the surface lands (with minimum depth of 0.5 metres from the finished grade) would remain with the City;

(b)submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a detailed design prepared by a qualified municipal engineer showing the manner in which the underground garage will be constructed below the public lane;

(c)construct the roof of the parking structure to Bridge Code Standards;

(d)pay for the cost of reconstruction of the public lane to existing conditions, and in this regard, provide security in the form of a Letter of Credit in an amount satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e)indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims, or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges, and expenses that may result from the construction of the garage beneath the public highway;

(f)maintain the structure in good and proper repair and in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g)indemnify the City from and against any loss or damage to the waterproofing and structure resulting from the maintenance and reconstruction of the lane pavement, unless such loss or damage is caused by negligence of the City; and

(h)include additional conditions as the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interests of the Corporation.

20.That the owner be advised of the Comments of Civic Officials appended to this report, including:

(a)the requirement to pay a Parks Levy, in lieu of a conveyance of land, pursuant to Chapter 165, Development of Land, Article I, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit;

(b)the comments of the Manager, Development Approval, Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting their Zoning review and required approvals;

(c)the comments and requirements of the Toronto Transit Commission for approval of the development;

(d)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)to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to submission of an application for a Building Permit.

(f)that the Bloor Street West boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g)the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits as well as potentially other permits, such as hoarding, piling / shoring etc. from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to construction; and

(h)the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection.

Background:

1.Applicant and owners:

The application and revised plans were submitted by Kim Kovar, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, BCE Place, Suite 1800, Box 754, 181 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2T9, on behalf of B.C. Pacific Capital Limited and 695146 Ontario Limited (Gentra).

2.Site:

Nos. 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West are located on the north side of Bloor Street West, west of Bellair Street. The combined site area is 3579.5 m2, with approximately 71 metres of frontage along Bloor Street West and Critchley Lane to the north.

Currently, 86 Bloor Street West contains a 7-storey commercial-office building, known as the Physicians and Surgeons Building, and Flo's Diner, a one-storey Neo-Art Moderne style restaurant which fronts on Bellair Street. The Physicians and Surgeons Building, which was built in 1922, is listed on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties. No. 96 Bloor Street West, which is currently used together with 100 Bloor Street West as a commercial parking lot, contains the three-storey front facade of the former Sanderson Pearcy House. The Lothian Mews, well-remembered for its retail shops and courtyard complex, was once located behind the Pearcy House facade. The Pearcy House facade was listed in 1974 and designated under the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law by City Council in 1976. No. 100 Bloor Street West contains the front portion and facade of the former 1328-seat University Theatre, built in 1947. The University Theatre facade was listed in 1986 and designated in 1987.

3.Surrounding area:

A 16-storey, 120-unit, residential building is located immediately west of the site at 102 Bloor Street West. A public lane, known as Critchley Lane, and the Village of Yorkville Park are located immediately north of the site. The Village of Yorkville Park was formerly known as Cumberland Park. A variety of lower scale retail uses, and some residential uses, are located farther north in the Village of Yorkville.

4.Revised proposal:

The revised proposal, received August 12, 1998, is a 25-storey, 9.4 times density, mixed-use development containing:

(a)6067 m2 of non-residential gross floor area (or 1.7 times coverage) for retail uses;

(b)7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area (or 2.1 times coverage) for nine Famous Players' movie theatres, containing a total of 3090 seats;

(c)160 residential dwelling units (with a residential gross floor area of 20,015 m2 or 5.6 times coverage); and

(d)a four-level underground parking garage containing 395 parking spaces and three loading spaces.

5.History:

Application 197027 was received November 19, 1997.

The Preliminary Report, dated February 2, 1998, was adopted by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting on February 18, 1998.

6.Public review:

The public meeting in the community was held at Jesse Ketchum Public School on May 19, 1998. Approximately 35 people attended the public meeting. While the proposal was well-received by some in attendance, others expressed concerns. Concerns included that: the proposal is too big and too tall; the shadow impacts on the Village of Yorkville Park will be too excessive; the Pearcy House (Lothian Mews) facade should be saved; and area parking and traffic problems will be worsened.

Comments:

7.Planning Controls:

7.1Applicable Official Plan policies:

The Official Plan designates the site a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area 'A'. As discussed in Section 13.12 of the Plan, a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area is largely built up with tall, high density commercial and residential buildings. According to the Plan, these areas should be developed to help realize the housing intensification objectives of the Plan and high density residential buildings in these areas generally contain retail uses at grade. In a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area 'A', the maximum permitted total gross floor area is 6.0 times the area of the lot.

The site is also within the North Midtown Part II Plan area, and is affected by the provisions of the related Design Guidelines for North Midtown.

7.2Applicable Zoning:

The City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) zones the site CR T6.0 C4.5 R6.0. This high density mixed-use zone permits a mixed-use building with a maximum density of 6.0 times coverage. The governing Height Limit is 46 metres.

8.Planning considerations:

8.1Historic facades and the Physicians and Surgeons Building:

In 1989, Council adopted Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 17-storey, 7.8 times density, hotel and cinema complex at 96 and 100 Bloor Street West. At the time, the applicant was Cineplex Odeon. Council supported the amendments, subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement to preserve and incorporate the facades of the former Pearcy House and the University Theatre. The Heritage Easement Agreement was entered into and is registered on title. The Physicians and Surgeons Building site, at 86 Bloor Street West, was not part of the 1989 proposal, but is included in the current application. The Physicians and Surgeons Building was listed on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties for architectural reasons in 1982.

The current proposal retains and restores the historic University Theatre facade and appropriately incorporates it into the development as the main entrance to the new cinemas. The applicant has also advised Heritage Toronto that the canopy will be restored and a new vertical sign will be reconstructed to match the original "University" sign which was once attached to the front facade. Planning staff and Heritage Toronto support the proposed re-use of the former University Theatre facade.

However, the owner proposes to retain only a small element of the Pearcy House facade. The revised plans relocate the main entrance limestone portal of the Pearcy House facade into the Bellair Street lobby entrance for the proposed residential tower. The remainder of the facade is proposed to be demolished. According to Heritage Toronto, the Pearcy House facade provides an important view terminus to the top of St. Thomas Street, and could be incorporated into the development to accommodate retail shops on Bloor Street.

The Physicians and Surgeons Building is also proposed to be demolished. Heritage Toronto advises that the Physicians and Surgeons Building is the only building between Avenue Road and Sherbourne Street on Bloor Street which reflects the professional and commercial development of the medical practice between World War I and II, and it should be saved.

The applicant submitted to the City a Heritage Assessment, dated March 1998, and later, submitted to Heritage Toronto a Statement of Attributes and Public Benefits, dated June 3, 1998. According to the applicant, the design and the structural and floor space requirements of their project precludes retention of the Pearcy House facade and the Physicians and Surgeons Building.

At its meeting held on June 17, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto adopted the recommendations of the report of their Managing Director, dated June 9, 1998, respecting the current application. Heritage Toronto's support is conditional upon: revisions to the proposal to include the Pearcy House facade and the Physicians and Surgeons Building; the owner agreeing to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement to preserve the Physicians and Surgeons Building; and the owner posting a Letter of Credit with the City in an amount and form satisfactory to secure the restoration of all the historic components of this development.

In light of the conditions of Heritage Toronto and the position of the applicant, I am requesting that Council provide direction on this matter. If Council supports the continued conservation of the facade of the former Pearcy House, in accordance with the existing Heritage Easement Agreement registered on title, then Application 197027 should be refused in its current form. If Council supports the preservation of the existing Physicians and Surgeons Building, pursuant to the recommendations of the Board of Heritage Toronto, then Application 197027 should be refused in its current form. If Council supports Application 197027, which proposes to retain and incorporate the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed development, as described above, then it should approve the recommended amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

8.2Density, height and massing:

The maximum total density permitted on this site by the Official Plan and base Zoning By-law provisions is 6.0 times coverage. The applicant proposes to construct a 33,667 m2 mixed-use building on a 3579.5 m2 site. The total density is 9.4 times coverage.

The total densities of several buildings on Bloor Street West within the High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area 'A' are greater than the density of the proposed building. As examples: 102 Bloor Street West (immediately west of the subject site) has a density of 13 times coverage; 110 Bloor Street West is 12.8 times coverage; and 101 Bloor Street West (on the south-west corner of Bloor and St. Thomas Streets) is 12 times coverage. The new Windsor Arms development, a mixed hotel and residential building under construction on the north-west corner of Sultan and St. Thomas Streets, which is within the same zone as the subject site, has a density of 7.3 times coverage.

The base Height Limit applicable to the site is 46 metres. Existing buildings on Bloor Street in this area vary in height, but several buildings exceed the base Height Limit. For example, 102 Bloor Street West, which is immediately west of the subject site, is 59 metres in height. The tallest building within this zone is the terraced Renaissance Plaza, at 150 Bloor Street West, which reaches a height of 81.5 metres.

The height and massing of the proposed building can be described in two parts. First, the primarily non-residential component of the building, which contains the retail uses, nine cinemas and the main entrance to the residential tower, is 38 metres in height. This 'base' component of the building has also been notched-out on the north-west corner, and a lower 35-metre high street-edge, with a 45-degree angular plane, has been incorporated on the north elevation to increase sunlight access to the Park and Cumberland Street. The residential tower component, which is situated on the south-east end of the site, is 84.4 metres (or 25 storeys) tall at its main roof line. The upper floors of the tower have been stepped back to reduce the visual impact of the bulk of the building and to improve sunlight access to the north. At its most northerly point, the tower is set back 9.3 metres from the north property line. While the tower component of the proposed building is relatively tall, it covers less than half of the site. The base of the building is eight metres below the height limit and will be lower than most of the larger buildings on Bloor Street in this area. It should be noted that the elevations submitted with the revised plans, dated August 12, 1998, label the overall height at 83 metres. This is an error. Departmental review, including submitted sun/shadow studies, was based on a building which is 84.4 metres tall, with a 0.4 metre tall parapet. The project architect confirms their error. Prior to Site Plan Approval, corrected elevations will be submitted.

The applicant submitted a Pedestrian Level Wind Study, dated March 25, 1998, for review. The study finds that pedestrian level winds around the site will be acceptable.

Section 10.3 (c) of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown states that "New buildings should be located and designed to minimize overshadowing of the public sidewalk on the north side of Cumberland Street by ensuring that 60 percent of the sidewalk is in sunlight at noon on March 21/September 23." The current application was not revised to strictly adhere to this recommendation in the Design Guidelines for North Midtown. Instead, Parks staff compared the shade/shadow conditions illustrated in their Cumberland Park Design Competition report against the current proposal. Parks and Planning staff together assessed shadow impact analyses to ensure that sunlight access to the Park, and the sidewalks on Cumberland and Bellair Streets, would be satisfactory for various months and times. Staff are now satisfied that the massing of the current proposal allows for acceptable sunlight conditions.

Overall, the density and height of the proposal generally reflect the surrounding context, and its massing addresses wind and sunlight access concerns.

8.3Section 37:

Not unlike other large projects which require amendments for significant increases in density and height, this application will include a contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and existing Official Plan policies. The applicant has proposed to provide the funds required to re-design and reconstruct the existing Bay Subway station entrance within the Village of Yorkville Park; however, the preliminary estimates provided by the applicant for this contribution are less than an amount consistent with policies on these types of Section 37 benefits. Negotiations are on-going, and the appropriate Section 37 contribution has not been finalized. I am recommending that the applicant be required to enter into a Section 37 Agreement to secure a contribution and those facilities, services and matters referenced in Recommendations 4 and 5, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council. I will report further on this matter.

8.4Streetscape:

The project has four frontages: Bloor Street West, Bellair Street, Critchley Lane/Village of Yorkville Park and the pedestrian walkway between the site and 102 Bloor Street West. In the Preliminary Report, I stated that highly animated street-edges, and an appropriate at-grade relationship with the Village of Yorkville Park and along the length of the pedestrian walkway are important planning objectives.

As discussed, the Bloor Street frontage appropriately incorporates the University Theatre facade. The south elevation also shows a very large window element or curtain wall, approximately 30 metres by 30 metres in size, which is on axis with the St. Thomas Street view terminus. Escalators and interior circulation areas will be visible to the street, which will make for an interesting and very animated street-edge.

A similar, but smaller curtain wall is shown on the north elevation. The latest plans show secondary exit doors for the cinemas to an on-site sidewalk along a portion of the north edge of the site. Doors to the ground floor retail areas are also included along the north side of the building. Notwithstanding, I am concerned that most of the north side of the north elevation of the building is blank and unanimated. I am requiring that revised plans be submitted to show improvements in the animation and articulation of the north elevation. Such revisions will be necessary to obtain Site Plan Approval.

While the base of the building has been satisfactorily set back from 102 Bloor Street West, I am also concerned with the lack of animation on the west elevation. Materials and detailing are undefined. Significant improvements to the west elevation, in terms of animation, are required.

The Bellair Street elevation includes the entrance to the residential building and access to the below-grade parking and loading areas. As discussed, the applicant is proposing to relocate the main entrance limestone portal of the Pearcy House facade into the Bellair Street lobby entrance for the proposed residential tower.

8.5Setback from 102 Bloor Street West:

No. 102 Bloor Street West, located immediately west of the subject site, is a 16-storey building which was converted from office uses to residential uses in 1996, and it contains dwelling units which face east toward the subject site. In my Preliminary Report, I commented that the west elevation of the proposal should be set back no less than 5.5 metres from the property line and should, if possible, angle farther away towards the north and south property lines. This recommendation was made to ensure minimally acceptable light and view conditions for the east facing units of 102 Bloor Street West.

The first two floors of the base of the proposed building are set back 2.2 metres from the west property line. At the third floor, the west elevation is set back 4.0 metres and 5.5 metres, and arcs away slightly at the south and north property lines. The fourth floor is set back a minimum 5.5 metres. At the fourth floor mezzanine level, and for all floors above, the base is notched-out towards the south and north property lines, which increases the setback by another 3.0 metres.

The revised plans satisfactorily address this Department's concerns respecting the setback from 102 Bloor Street West.

8.6Parking:

The applicant proposes 395 below-grade parking spaces; however, the current plans do not delineate the number of spaces allocated to the residential dwelling units, and the retail and movie theatre uses. The applicant's parking and traffic consultant has advised me that their building garage will contain 160 parking spaces for the 160 residential dwelling units; 10 parking spaces for visitors to the residential building; and 225 parking spaces for the commercial uses. The applicant and the Parking Authority of Toronto are in discussions respecting management of the on-site commercial parking spaces. The applicant also proposes to provide 100 off-site parking spaces.

Buildings' officials have advised me that the Zoning By-law requirements for parking for this application are as follows: 90 parking spaces for the residential dwelling units; 10 parking spaces for visitors to the residential building; 61 parking spaces for the retail uses; and 627 parking spaces for the cinema uses. The total Zoning By-law parking requirement is 788 parking spaces. It should be noted that Buildings' staff have applied the more restrictive 'Not-in-force' Place of Assembly parking requirement to the cinema uses.

However, staff of Works and Emergency Services have reviewed the application, including area traffic and parking information provided by the applicant's traffic and parking consultant, and concluded that the proposed provision of 395 on-site parking spaces and 100 off-site parking spaces satisfies the estimated demand generated by the project for 445 parking spaces. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommends that the applicant be required to provide 445 parking spaces to serve the project, with a minimum of 122 on-site parking spaces for the residents of the building, and 235 on-site parking spaces for the visitors to the residential component of the building and for the commercial uses. I am recommending that 10 of the required 235 parking spaces be provided on-site within the below-grade garage for the exclusive use of visitors to the residential component. Eighty-eight of the 445 parking spaces required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may be provided off-site, which would allow for the applicant to provide 160 parking spaces on-site for the exclusive use of the residents.

While the applicant's proposal to lease off-site parking spaces is acceptable in principle to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, he advises that this arrangement be monitored, and is recommending that the applicant be required to submit, and have approved, within twelve months of the opening of the theatres, a Monitoring Report, detailing parking utilization on the site and in the off-site facility.

8.7Traffic:

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed traffic forecast information supplied by the applicant's consultant. According to submitted information, the peak of vehicular traffic activity associated with uses on this site is forecast to occur during the weekday evening, and will generate 100 and 110 net new vehicles inbound and outbound, respectively. Given that the project will include parking in an underground garage to serve residents, retail customers and a portion of theatre customers, as well as providing arrangements in an off-site facility to accommodate the remaining theatre parking, traffic activity will be dispersed, rather than concentrated entirely at the site.

The consultant's information indicates that the new development will not create any significant changes in traffic operations within the area. Notwithstanding, in order to respond to any potential measures which may be required as a result of this project, or any other traffic management measures identified by the businesses and residents in Yorkville and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to mitigate traffic impacts caused by the project, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is recommending that the applicant be required to partially off-set the cost of monitoring traffic and pedestrian activity and the implementation of possible measures through a one-time cash contribution of $8,000.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises me that the analysis of pedestrian activity indicates pedestrian volumes will increase significantly at peak times, in particular, on the sidewalk on the north side of Bloor Street West. This is partially off-set by the proposed entrance/exit onto Critchley Lane, which will redistribute some activity away from Bloor Street West and Bellair Street. The issue of safety for pedestrians exiting to Critchley Lane will be examined in further detail to establish additional warning and safety elements to minimize potential conflicts between vehicular traffic and pedestrians.

8.8TTC Subway connection:

When the application was first submitted, the owner proposed a below-grade walkway connection to the Bay TTC Subway station. The connection would have been made beneath the now complete Village of Yorkville Park. The applicant has since abandoned this proposal because of the close proximity of the site to the existing ground level entrances to the Bay TTC Subway station, which will maintain a higher level of pedestrian activity at grade and through the park.

8.9Loading:

The revised plans show one Type G and two Type B loading spaces on the Concourse Plan. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises me that the proposed number of loading spaces satisfies estimated loading demand generated by the project and the requirements of the Zoning By-law.

8.10Bicycle parking:

Buildings' staff have advised me that the Zoning By-law requirements for bicycle parking are 96 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 24 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. The proposal does not meet the requirements. The current bicycle parking provisions are not onerous, and I am not recommending that the application be exempted from the requirements. I am recommending that, prior to Site Plan Approval, the applicant submit revised plans which meet the bicycle parking requirements.

8.11Amenity space:

The revised plans, date stamped August 12, 1998, show 320 m2 of Indoor Amenity Space and 320 m2 of Outdoor Amenity Space on the 11th Floor and on the roof above the cinemas. The proposed amount of Indoor and Outdoor Amenity Space meets the requirements of the Zoning By-law.

8.12Public Art:

Section 10.11 of the Official Plan states that it is the policy of Council to enhance opportunities for establishing public art by achieving a contribution of public art in all development proposals exceeding 20,000 m2 of gross floor area, the cost of which is equal to one percent of the project's gross construction costs. The gross floor area of the applicant's proposal exceeds 20,000 m2, and is therefore subject to this provision.

8.13Construction phasing:

In order to increase the on-site parking supply and improve the layout of the below-grade plans, the applicant is proposing to encroach and build a portion of the underground garage beneath Critchley Lane. This proposal will require the temporary closing of a portion or all of Critchley Lane during the construction of the building. Parking and loading access to 102 Bloor Street West, which is located immediately west of the subject site, is achieved via Critchley Lane.

In a letter, dated August 13, 1998, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services requested the applicant to submit a Construction Phasing Plan to demonstrate how access to the parking and loading facilities for 102 Bloor Street West will be maintained during construction of the project, if the Lane or a portion of it has to be closed. Interim access arrangements for 102 Bloor Street West could not only affect Critchley Lane but the Village of Yorkville Park itself.

Accordingly, I am recommending that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division), prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Construction Phasing Plan, which will include, but is not limited to, a requirement that the owner fully reconstruct Critchley Lane or any other affected public lands, and a provision that the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure that obligation.

Conclusions:

Subject to Council's direction on the Pearcy House facade and the Physician and Surgeons Building, I believe that the revised proposal should be supported. It will improve the area and appropriately return movie theatre uses to the former University Theatre site. I am satisfied that the current massing will minimize shadow impacts on the Village of Yorkville Park and Cumberland Street.

Some revisions to the plans will be necessary to respond to required modifications, including increased animation on the north and west elevations, which can be addressed through delegated Site Plan Approval.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi, City Planner, City Planning Division, North

Telephone: 392-1324

Fax: 392-1330, E-mail: mmizzi@city.toronto.on.ca

Application Data Sheet

Confirmed Municipal Address:86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

Appendix

Comments of Civic Officials

1.Urban Planning and Development Services (Buildings Section), dated August 18, 1998:

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct mixed-use building comprising 25 storeys plus a mechanical penthouse, for retail stores, place of amusement (cinemas) and 160 dwelling units.

Zoning Designation:CR T6.0 C4.5 R6.0Map:50J-313

Applicable By-laws:438-86, as amended

Plans prepared by:Au and Graham ArchitectsPlans dated:August 12, 1998

Residential GFA:20015.4 m2

Non-Residential GFA:13651.3 m2

Zoning Review

This list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

1.The height of the proposed building (86.0 metres) exceeds the maximum permitted by 40.0 metres. (Section 4(2)(a))

2.The 225 parking spaces proposed for non-residential uses are deficient of the minimum required 688 by 433. (Note: 61 parking spaces are required for the retail uses and 627 parking spaces are required in conjunction with the proposed cinemas.) (Section 4(5)(b))

3.The proposed parking spaces for visitors to the residential units are not designated or clearly identified. (Section 4(5)(h))

4.The by-law requires the indoor residential amenity space in rooms, one of which contains a kitchen and washroom. No kitchen and/or washroom are shown. (Section4(12))

5.The by-law requires at least 96 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the occupants of the building and 24 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. The proposed building will contain bicycle parking spaces in a room at the mezzanine level. The number of proposed spaces for occupants is not shown. No bicycle parking spaces for visitors is proposed (Section 4(13)(a) and (c))

6.The by-law requires a building or structure to be set back 3.5 metres from the centre line of the public lane. The proposed building or structure is set back 2.59 metres from the centre line of the public lane. (Section 4(14)(a))

7.The by-law requires that the combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area be not more than 6.0 times the area of the lot: 21477 square metres. The proposed building has 33666.7 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

8.The by-law requires the provision of at least 644.3 square metres of common outdoor space. The proposed common outdoor space is 0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PARTIII 1(a))

n/bAll parking spaces must be minimum 2.6 m by 5.9 m and parking for the handicapped must be included.

n/bAccess to commercial spaces and the level of the main floor must be designed in accordance with Section 8(3) PART XI 2. of the Zoning By-law.

n/bAll encroachments will require the approval of the City Works Services Department.

n/bSeparate approvals will be required for signage, pursuant to Chp 297 of the Municipal Code.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires Site Plan Approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal requires the conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3.The property is designated historical, and the proposal requires 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, dated August 27, 1998:

"Recommendations:

1.That the owner be required to:

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

(b)Provide and maintain a minimum of 445 parking spaces to serve the project, including at least 122 parking spaces on site for the exclusive use of the residents and at least 323 spaces for residential visitors and the commercial components of the project, of which 88 spaces may be provided off-site, within 300 m of the site;

(c)Provide and maintain a physical separation between the residents' and the residential visitors/commercial portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the residents' parking;

(d)Submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within 12 months of the opening of the cinema/theatre complex, a monitoring report which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan;

(e)Provide, maintain and operate the parking information measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Parking Information Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f)Pay a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8,000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for any traffic related improvements;

(g)Comply with the parking space dimensional requirements of the general Zoning By-law, save and except for the parallel parking spaces located along the east side of the underground parking garage which should have a minimum length of 7.0 m;

(h)Provide and maintain minimum widths of 3.5 m and 5.5 m for the access ramp/driveway system serving one-way and two-way traffic, respectively;

(i)Construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of the property line and not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;

(j)Construct those sections of the access ramp/driveway system which provide direct access to the parking spaces with a slope not exceeding 5%;

(k)Submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Pedestrian Plan which details signage, pavement treatment and other physical conditions needed to ensure safety for pedestrians entering and exiting the site across Critchley Lane;

(l)Provide, maintain and operate the pedestrian measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Pedestrian Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(m)Provide and maintain a minimum of two Type B and one Type G loading spaces on the site with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(n)Provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6 m and 13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading spaces;

(o)Provide maintain and operate the loading management measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Loading Management Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(p)Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 30 square metres in size and a recycling room at least 15 square metres in size, each equipped with overhead or double doors to accommodate the movement of container bins, to serve the residential component of the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(q)Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to, and level with, the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 5 compactor containers on collection day;

(r)Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

(s)Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

(t)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i)A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto;

(ii)Dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(u)Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

(v)Eliminate the door encroachment, when open, from the Bloor Street West road allowance;

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

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

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

(z)In connection with the construction of the underground parking garage:

(i)acquire title to the land below the public lane prior to the issuance of a building permit, while the surface lands (minimum depth of 0.5 m from the finished grade) would remain with the City;

(ii)submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed design prepared by a qualified municipal engineer showing the manner in which the underground garage will be constructed below the public lane;

(iii)construct the roof of the parking structure to Bridge Code Standards;

(iv)pay for the cost of reconstructing the public lane to existing conditions and in this regard, provide security in the form of a letter of credit in an amount satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(v)indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims, or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges, and expenses that may result from the construction of the garage beneath the public highway;

(vi)maintain the structure in good and proper repair and in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(vii)indemnify the City from and against any loss or damage to the waterproofing and structure resulting from the maintenance and reconstruction of the lane pavement, unless such loss or damage is caused by negligence of the City; and

(viii)include additional conditions as the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interests of the Corporation;

(aa)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, construction phasing plans addressing interim access for Premises No. 102 Bloor Street West during construction of this project;

(bb)Submit a grading and drainage plan and revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(c), 1(g), 1(h), 1(i), 1(m), 1(p), 1(q) and 1(v), above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2.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 Bloor Street West boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of this Department;

(c)Of the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits as well as potentially other permits, such as hoarding, piling/shoring etc. from this department prior to construction; and

(d)Of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection.

Comments:

Location

Northwest corner of Bloor Street West and Bellair Street.

Proposal

Construction of a mixed-use project comprising 160 residential condominium dwelling units, 6067 m² of retail space and a 3134-seat cinema facility.

Parking and Access

The proposed provision of 395 on-site parking spaces in a four-level underground parking garage and 100 off-site parking spaces (for a total of 495 spaces) satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 445 spaces, including 122 spaces for the residents, 10 residential visitor spaces, 52 spaces for the retail component and 261 spaces for the cinema component. The total estimated parking demand is based in part on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units and a review of the parking requirements for various cinema/theatre projects. As far as can be ascertained, the general provisions of the Zoning By-law would require a minimum of 779 parking spaces.

The owner's transportation consultant, BA Group, has indicated in supplemental technical information dated August 18, 1998, to their Traffic Impact Assessment which is discussed in more detail below, that the owner proposes to provide 160 parking spaces (one space per unit) for the residents. This is acceptable as it satisfies the estimated resident demand. An additional 323 spaces would be required to satisfy the demand for residential visitor and commercial parking, including the balance of 235 on-site parking spaces and a minimum of88off-site spaces.

The supplemental technical information dated August 18, 1998 proposes an arrangement for the lease of the off-site parking spaces, which is acceptable in principle. The proposal is for the applicant to lease up to 100 parking spaces from the Parking Authority of Toronto facility at Premises No. 50 Cumberland Street, daily after 6 pm. The parking facility would be monitored by the parking operator and if it is found to be fully occupied on a recurring basis, the applicant would secure a suitable alternate off-site arrangement. The term "recurring basis", as it relates to the frequency of full parking lot conditions (i.e. at-capacity), shall be defined as any four observations in a two month period or, any six observations within a six month period or, any lesser frequency of at-capacity conditions mutually agreed to by the City, the parking lot operator and the owner. An "at-capacity" event shall be defined as one or more observations occurring on a survey day in which the parking lot demand meets or exceeds the parking lot supply. In this regard, the applicant's consultant should be required to submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within 12 months of the opening of the cinema/theatre complex, a monitoring report which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6 pm.

Supplemental information to the Traffic Impact Assessment dated June 25, 1998 proposes a parking information plan to inform theatre users of the off-site parking facility. This plan is acceptable. Also, the monitoring report referenced above should address the need for any additional elements in the parking information system.

The general layout of the parking spaces is acceptable, however, the plans for all levels must show the dimensions of the spaces and the widths of the driveway aisles. The parking spaces should have minimum dimensions of 2.6 m x 5.9 m, except the parallel spaces located along the east side of the underground parking garage which should have a minimum length of 7.0 m, and the driveway aisles should have a minimum width of 3.5 m for one-way traffic and 5.5 m for two-way traffic. The plans must also indicate that there will be a physical separation between the residential and non-residential portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the resident parking spaces. Although control gates are shown on Level 1, it is not clear if they are intended to separate a portion of the underground parking garage or how they relate to traffic movements.

Access to the underground garage is proposed via a ramp from Bellair Street at the north end of the site. The plans must show the width of the ramp. The slope should not exceed 5% within 6 m of the street line (the plans show 3% and 7%) and not exceed 15% along the remaining portions. Also, the slope of any sections of the access ramp/driveway aisle system providing direct access to parking spaces should not exceed 5%.

The plans show the construction of the underground parking garage under Critchley Lane, which abuts the site on the north. This is acceptable in principle. However, it will be necessary to submit construction phasing plans to demonstrate how access to the parking and loading facilities for Premises No. 102 Bloor Street West will be maintained during construction of this project. Given the possible implications of the interim access arrangements on the Village of Yorkville Park, the construction phasing plans will also require the review and approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Traffic Impact Assessment

A Traffic and Parking Study dated May 22, 1998, including supplementary material dated June 25 and August 18, 1998, has been submitted by BA Consulting Group Ltd. on behalf of the owner. This documentation outlines the pedestrian, traffic, parking and loading activity forecast to occur as a result of the project.

The peak of vehicular traffic activity associated with uses on this site is forecast to occur during the weekday evening, and will generate 100 and 110 net new vehicles inbound and outbound, respectively. Given that the project will include parking in an underground garage to serve residents, retail customers and a portion of theatre customers, as well as providing arrangements in an off-site facility to accommodate the remaining theatre parking, traffic activity will be dispersed, rather than concentrated entirely at the site.

The consultant's information indicates the site "will not result in any significant changes in traffic operations within the district". Nevertheless, in order to respond to any potential measures that may be required as a result of this project or any other traffic management measures identified by the Yorkville community and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to mitigate the impact of site activity (e.g. changes to traffic regulations, signage or pavement marking modifications, installation of bollards, etc.), the applicant is required to partially offset the cost of monitoring traffic and pedestrian activity and the implementation of possible measures through a one-time cash contribution of $8,000.

Pedestrian Analysis

The analysis of pedestrian activity indicates pedestrian volumes will increase significantly at peak times, in particular on the sidewalk on the north side of Bloor Street West. This is offset to some extent by the proposed entrance/exit onto Critchley Lane, which redistributes some activity away from Bloor Street West and Bellair Street. The consultant has indicated in Figure 3 of the August 18, 1998 submission that a railing could be provided to direct pedestrians using Critchley Lane. The issue of safety for pedestrians exiting to Critchley Lane will need to be examined in further detail, prior to the issuance of a building permit in order to establish additional warning and safety elements to minimize potential conflicts between vehicular traffic and pedestrians.

Loading

The provision of 2 Type B and 1 Type G loading spaces within the concourse level of the building satisfies the estimated loading demand generated by this project for 2 Type B and 1 Type G loading spaces and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like amount. The proposed loading area and loading spaces are configured such that trucks using the loading spaces would be able to enter and exit the loading area in a forward motion, which is acceptable, however, the plans must show the dimensions of the loading spaces.

There is a need to control and regulate the loading activity in order to minimize its impact on the residences and commercial uses in the area, and on traffic operations on Bellair Street, Critchley Lane and Bloor Street West. In this regard, the applicant's traffic consultant identifies a number of signage/operational elements to reduce the impact of the loading activity, which are acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide the residential component of this project with the bulk lift method of refuse collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a Type G loading space and the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(p) to 1(s), above, which must be identified and clearly shown on the plans.

It is the policy of City Council to levy a service charge on all new residential developments, payment of which is a condition for receiving City containerized garbage and recycling collection. The levy is currently $34.50 per month, including taxes, multiplied by the number of garbage containers on site. The levy includes the provision and maintenance of City garbage and recycling containers. Should the owner choose to provide private garbage containers, the levy will still be charged and the containers must meet City specifications and be maintained privately at the expense of the building owner. Further information regarding the above can be obtained by contacting the Operations and Sanitation Division at 392-1517.

The refuse generated by the commercial component will require the services of a private refuse collection firm.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to accommodate this development.

The applicant should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Encroachments

The plans show that a door will encroach, when opened, onto the Bloor Street West road allowance. This is not acceptable and this encroachment must be eliminated.

Work Within the Road Allowance / Permits

It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department for a permit(s) in respect of any work proposed or required within the road allowance. In regard to streetscape work within the Bloor Street West road allowance, the design of the boulevard must meet this Department's guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. Clarification on how these standards will apply to this site can be obtained from the Streetscape Program at 392-3808. Building location, access and 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 for Bloor Street West and the By-law Administration Division at 392-7877 for Bellair Street."

3.Toronto Transit Commission, dated August 7, 1998:

"The comments in my letter to the former Metro Planning Department, dated December 24, 1997 (copy attached), still apply, with the exception of the requirements associated with the previously proposed direct pedestrian connection to the Bay subway station. By letter dated May 12, 1998 (copy attached), Mr. K.C. Au, Au and Graham Architects Inc., indicated that the applicant would not be pursuing the direct subway connection. We encourage the applicant to reconsider this decision since a direct connection would provide a convenient alternative to accessing the site by car."

4.Toronto Transit Commission to Metro Planning, dated December 24, 1997:

"It is noted that the Bloor-Danforth subway line is adjacent to the subject site. It will, therefore, be necessary for the developer to obtain approval of site and foundation plans (5 sets) from the TTC (Attention: Domenic Garisto - Property Management Department) prior to receiving a building permit. The following supporting documentation is also requested:

-shoring drawings showing calculations

-plot plan showing the subway structure

-structural calculations showing loads

-soils / geotechnical report

-excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans

-detailed plans of entrance connection

Subsequent approval of the foregoing development is subject to any conditions that may be specified to the applicant by Mr. Garisto. As the proposed development may encroach on the subway easement, and encroachment agreement may be required between the applicant, Metro and the TTC.

As the developer is proposing a subway entrance connection, he should be aware that both escalators and elevators from the street to the platform will be required. The provision and maintenance of such facilities will be the responsibility of the developer as part of a development agreement. In this regard, the developer should again contact Mr. Garisto.

Please inform the applicant that the Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants. Since noise and vibration may be transmitted from the street traffic and from our transit operations, the developer should apply attenuation measures so that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest level technically feasible. The developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, though a clause in the purchase or rental agreements, of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such effects."

5.Fire Department, dated June 26, 1998:

"Please be advised that when the pertinent requirements of the Ontario Building Code have been applied relative to this project, our Department may be deemed as satisfied."

6.Public Health, dated June 16, 1998:

"Thank you for your request of March 30, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments:

The application proposes to construct condominiums on this site. A review of our files indicates that we have no information on the subject site.

Additional information is required by EHS staff in order to adequately conduct a review of the environmental conditions at the subject site. This should include an Historical Review, Site and Building Audit, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, and a Dust Control Plan, details of which are included in the enclosed attachment. This information will help to identify any environmental concerns with respect to the subject property.

Recommendations:

1.That 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 to the Medical Officer of Health, for review prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

2.That the owner shall conduct a site audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site. 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 audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

3.That 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 to the Medical Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

4.That 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 environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

5.That the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Medical Officer of Health for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

6.That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

By copy of this letter, I will inform the applicant in respect to this matter. If you have any questions, contact me at 392-7685."

7.Heritage Toronto, dated June 9, 1998:

"Recommendation:

That Heritage Toronto support this proposal on the following conditions:

1.That the proposal be revised to include the Lothian Mews facade and the Physicians and Surgeons Building at 86 Bloor Street West.

2.That the owner agree to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreements to preserve the historic building at 86 Bloor Street West.

3.That the owner post a letter of credit with the City in an amount and form satisfactory to the Managing Director, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to secure the restoration of all the historic components of this development.

Comments:

Background:

The owners are B.C. Pacific Capital Corporation and 69516 Ontario Ltd., c/o Brookfield Commercial Properties Ltd. The project architect is Colin Graham of Graham and Au Architects. The proposal is for a 26 storey (85 metres) mixed use commercial-residential building that will incorporate the facade of the University Theatre as the main entrance to a new cinema complex. The remaining facade of the former Lothian Mews and the historical building known as the Physicians and Surgeons Building, at the corner of Bloor and Bellair, would be demolished.

In October 1997, staff of Heritage Toronto wrote to Urban Development Services in response to the initial circulation of plans for this proposal. Staff expressed support for restoring the theatre facade, but concern for the proposed demolitions. Subsequently, in November, the applicant submitted a Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. Staff of Heritage Toronto have met with the applicants on several occasions who have recently submitted an illustrated Statement of Attributes and Public Benefits, dated June 3, 1998 (copy attached).

Discussion:

This application seeks an increase in height and in density. Six times coverage is the permitted density; the proposal is for 9.9 times coverage. The permitted height is 46 metres; they are proposing 85 metres.

There is a Heritage Easement Agreement registered on title to ensure that the facades of the University Theatre and Lothian Mews would be preserved and eventually incorporated into a new development. City Council recognized the adjacent Physicians and Surgeons Building, constructed in 1922, as an historic building in 1982.

Staff of Heritage Toronto has reviewed the plans and the architect's recent Statement of Attributes and Public Benefits.

The positive aspect of this proposal is that it incorporates the University Theatre facade into the new development as a main entrance to the new cinemas. The canopy will be restored and a new vertical projecting sign will be reconstructed to match the original. All the stone will be repaired and other details will be either repaired or new elements made to match the original high quality detail and finishes.

The proponents suggest that the Lothian Mews cannot be incorporated into the new building. Staff disagree. The Lothian Mews facade forms a terminus to the top of St. Thomas Street. The brick wall with stone highlights could easily be adapted to form shop fronts for Bloor Street. There are other older buildings immediately across the Street that are fully occupied with commercial tenants. There is considerable merit to retaining this facade.

The 1922 Physicians and Surgeons Building at the corner is the only building between Avenue Road and Sherbourne Street that reflects the professional/commercial development of the medical practice between the two wars. Nearby examples include the Medical Arts Building at Bloor and St. George and the former Mount Sinai Hospital on Yorkville Avenue.

In conclusion, staff supports the applicant's intent to restore and bring back to life the University Theatre. We would also expect them to apply similar efforts to the other two historic components on the site. The Official Plan policy supporting historic preservation must be respected. Given the huge increase in height and density, our heritage should benefit - the project should include the retention of the Lothian Mews facade and the Physicians and Surgeons Building. Staff urges the owners to continue to explore options that would retain more of the heritage character of this portion of Bloor Street."

--------

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:

-(undated) from Perry and Rae Dellio, Perry's Colonnade;

-(September 11, 1998) from Ms. Jane Beecroft, President, Community History Project;

-(September 15, 1998) from Mr. David J. Whalen;

-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert Sheridan and Ms. Jane Cuddy, The Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-(September 16, 1998) from Ms. Kim M. Kovar, Aird & Berlis; and

-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert W. Korthals.

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

-Ms. Kim M. Kovar, Aird & Berlis;

-Mr. Robert Sheridan, Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-Mr. Budd Sugarman, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Jane Beecroft, President, Community History Project;

-Mr. John S. Bailey, President, Famous Players;

-Mr. Colin P. Stevenson, Teplitsky, Colson, obo Nicolas Manowear;

-Mr. J. Viscoff, Brookfield Property Management;

-Mr. Rowland Douglas, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Maxwell Leveson, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 28, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the feasibility of introducing a "No Stopping Anytime" zone or a tow-away zone in Critchley Lane.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, in considering a report (September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development entitled, "Final Report - Application No. 197027 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) (Midtown)", recommended the adoption of this report and requested, among other things, that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to City Council for its meeting of October 1, 1998, on the possibility of establishing a tow-away zone or no-stopping zone on Critchley Lane (Clause 87 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

Critchley Lane, from Bay Street to its terminus approximately 93 metres west of Bellair Street, is a public lane with a pavement width of approximately 5 metres. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 400-33F of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, which prohibits parking in any lane where signage to that effect is posted, signs are currently posted in this lane prohibiting parking.

Under the provisions of Section 170(15) of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, any vehicle found by a police officer (or any other person authorized to enforce the provisions of the Act) to be parked on any public highway (which includes a public lane) so as to interfere with the movement of traffic or snow removal activities or to be parked contrary to a municipal by-law (in this case, the posted "No Parking in this Lane" signage), may be subject to tagging, towing and impoundment. Signage is not required on any public highway to give effect to this regulation. Notwithstanding, arrangements will be made to have "Vehicles Subject to Towing" tabs added to the existing "No Parking in this Lane" signage as soon as practicable in order to enhance motorists' awareness of the possibility that illegally parked vehicles may be towed.

With respect to the suggestion that stopping be prohibited in Critchley Lane, I would not suggest that this regulation be implemented at this time as this would preclude all loading activities within the laneway (in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code and the Highway Traffic Act, a vehicle may temporarily stand in a parking prohibited area while actively engaged in loading activities). As there is a shortage of on-street loading space on adjoining streets, the implementation of a stopping prohibition on Critchley Lane would cause considerable problems in terms of facilitating deliveries to the abutting properties. On the other hand, if vehicles are staying illegally for extended periods, the existing "No Parking" regulation, augmented with the above-noted "Tow-Away" advisory signage, should enhance the ability to enforce the regulation and keep the lane passable.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Koropeski, Director, Transportation Services, District 1, 392-7711.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide City Council with a summary of social services in the vicinity of 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting held September 16, 1998, the Toronto Community Council considered the Final Report (September 1, 1998) of Urban Planning and Development Services on an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a new mixed-use development for 86, 96and 100Bloor Street West (Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause No. 87).

At their meeting, Toronto Community Council requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, report directly to City Council regarding the social needs of residents of this development, and to comment on the capacity of nearby schools, child care centres and community centres to serve the new residents.

Comments:

(1)Schools:

The application and plans were circulated to the Toronto Board of Education and the Toronto Separate School Board. Neither Board expressed opposition to the proposal.

Staff of the School Boards have advised me that the following schools are the primary facilities serving the proposed development site:

The public elementary school serving the area (at both junior and senior levels) is Jesse Ketchum Public School, which is located at 61 Davenport Road. During the 1997/1998 academic year, there was a total of 569 pupils served (including 98 junior and senior kindergarten students) at Jesse Ketchum Public School. The boundaries for public secondary schools are more flexible, with an expectation that high school students will be travelling to school facilities on public transit. Relevant secondary schools include: Central Technical School (725 Bathurst Street); Jarvis Collegiate Institute (487 Jarvis Street); and Northern Secondary School (851 Mount Pleasant Road).

The Catholic elementary school serving the area is Holy Rosary Separate School at 308Tweedsmuir Avenue, which is in the St. Clair Avenue and Spadina Road area. The catholic secondary school serving the area is the new Marshall McLuhan Separate School located on Avenue Road north of Eglinton Avenue.

Capacities for each of these facilities are being reviewed by the Ministry of Education and Training and are not yet available. Furthermore, both School Boards are in the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of their facilities. The impact on local communities is not known at this time. Planning staff are working with officials of the School Boards on this matter.

(2)Daycare:

The Jesse Ketchum Public School houses a daycare facility with a capacity of 95 children (infant, toddler, pre-school and school age). Currently, enrolment is 81 children. There are 76 children on the waiting list for daycare at Jesse Ketchum Public School. However, the waiting list is comprised of families waiting for a publicly-funded fee subsidy. Full fee paying parents could access vacant spaces. Church of the Messiah Daycare (240 Avenue Road) has 29 toddler and pre-school spaces, and an enrolment of 18. Three children are on the waiting list for a subsidized space. Friends Daycare Centre (60 Lowther Avenue) has a capacity of 24 pre-school children, and a current enrolment of 22. Four children are on the waiting list for a subsidized space.

(3)Community Centres:

The 519 Church Street Community Centre, which is a City community centre, is operated by a volunteer Board of Management. Programs include drop-in programs for parents and children, seniors and the homeless; summer camps for school aged children; and a family resource centre. All of these programs are well-subscribed, however, capacities are flexible given their informal nature. Some of the residents of the proposed development could access these services. As well, the Centre provides extensive programs and services to the gay and lesbian community. The Central YMCA is located at 15 Breadalbane Street. While the Central YMCA requires a membership fee, subsidies for low income participants are available. The facility has extensive recreation and fitness-oriented programs.

(4)Libraries:

Both the Yorkville Public Library and the Metro Toronto Reference Library are within two blocks of the development site.

Conclusions:

In general, residents of the proposed building will have access to a wide range of community services and facilities in the area. However, not unlike other areas in downtown, there continues to be a demand in this area for infant and toddler daycare spaces.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi, City Planner, City Planning Division

Telephone: 392-1324

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: mmizzi@city.toronto.on.ca)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (September 4, 1998) from Mr. V. Nitti, Harry Rosen Inc., addressed to Councillor Adams, expressing the company's interests and concerns regarding the manner in which the proposed development proceeds; and requesting to be notified of all decisions and meetings with respect to this project.)

88

Settlement Report -

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

9-17 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street (Midtown)

(City Council, on October 1 and 2, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated September 29, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled 'Supplementary Report as Requested by Toronto Community Council - 9-17 Christie Street and 338-402 Clinton Street (Midtown)', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve the recommendations contained in my report dated September 15, 1998, to the Toronto Community Council, contained in Clause No.88 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, subject to the following modification in respect of 9-17 Christie Street:

(i)that, in respect to underground parking, the phrase "accessed from the rear lane" in Recommendation No. (1) (c) (ii) be removed.'; and

(2)City Council encourage the owner to provide a tenant relocation search service to assist existing tenants in finding similar rental accommodation elsewhere in the area.")

The Toronto Community Council:

(1)submits the report (September 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to Council without recommendation; and

(2)recommends that the applicant be directed to plant a minimum of five shade trees on the private property flankage of Christie Street.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(1)to meet with representatives of the Seaton Village Residents' Association to discuss the settlement;

(2)to continue discussions with the developer to investigate if further modifications can be made; and

to report on the discussions directly to Council; and

(3)to explore with the developers the concept of offering displaced tenants first option to purchase units in the new building.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend to Council a settlement of the referral and appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board on this application and to direct staff to undertake all necessary actions to secure the settlement.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council instruct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on October 19, 1998, to settle the appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board respecting 9-17 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street, based on the following terms:

a)that the applicant will withdraw the appeal of Official Plan Amendment No. 96 (Seaton Village Part II);

b)that the City Solicitor be requested to submit to the Board a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto) for lands known in the year 1998 as 9-17 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street, substantially as set out below:

9-17 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street

See Map 18_ at the end of this Section.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map _, to permit:

(i)for the lands comprising 388-402 Clinton Street, an increase in the density of development otherwise permitted, for the construction of a maximum of eight (8) rowhouses provided that the ratio of the floor area of the residential buildings, including basements, to the area of the lot does not exceed 1.29; and

(ii)for the lands comprising 9-17 Christie Street, an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted, for the erection and use of a residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that,

(a)the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 4,990 square metres; and

(b)the height does not exceed seven storeys;

c)that the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the applicant, be requested to submit to the Board a draft by-law to amend the City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) to permit the following for:

(i)the lands comprising 388-402 Clinton Street, to permit the development of 8 rowhouses, with basement units, on individual lots facing Clinton Street provided that:

(a) the maximum residential gross floor area, including basements, is 2,040 square metres;

(b)the maximum residential building depth is 15 metres;

(c)garages are accessed from the rear lane; and

(d)notwithstanding By-law 94-0518, the lands comprising 388-402 Clinton Street shall not be exempt from site plan control; and

(ii)the lands comprising 9-17 Christie Street, to permit the proposed development of a seven storey residential building with a maximum of 62 residential units and underground parking accessed from the rear lane provided that:

(a)on the east elevation, the sixth floor is recessed 2.0 metres and the seventh floor is recessed a further 5.0 metres;

(b)on the west elevation, the sixth and seventh floors are recessed 1.5 metres;

(c)the maximum height does not exceed 22.19 metres;

(d)the amenity space to be provided is at least 120 square metres indoors and 92 square metres outdoors;

(e)the minimum setbacks are 3.34 metres for the front yard, 2.17 metres for the rear yard and 0.1 metres for the side yards;

(f)the maximum residential gross floor area is 4,990 square metres; and

(g) a minimum of 65 parking spaces are provided; and

d)that the City Solicitor request that the Board require, as condition of approval, that the owner enter into an agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act which would result in the termination of the abattoir use (currently carrying on business as Gross Abattoir) on the site of this application prior to site plan approval on either the Christie or the Clinton sites; and

e)that the Ontario Municipal Board dispose of the Zoning appeal on the foregoing basis.

2.That this report be forwarded to City Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled for October 1, 1998; and

3.That the owner be advised that development on both the Clinton and Christie sites is subject to site plan approval and that the owner will be required to enter into an Undertaking with the City.

Background:

1.Applicant

The application and revised plans were submitted by Hessie Rimon, PMG Planning Consultants, 227 Bridgeland Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6A 1Y7 on behalf of Anne Johnson and the Estate of Ruth Appleton.

2.Site

The development site of about 0.3 hectares is on two land parcels, separated by a north-south lane, between Christie and Clinton Streets. The portion of the application on Clinton Street is currently occupied by the Gross Abattoir, which is a legal non-conforming use and which Council has long sought to remove from this predominantly residential area.

.History

The history of this application, including discussion of the public meeting and appeals and referral to the Ontario Municipal Board was described in detail in my report dated September4, 1998, listed as Item 41 at the September 16, 1998 Toronto Community Council meeting. This report also outlined the principles for a settlement which would permit a development consisting of 8 unit townhouse facing the street on the Clinton site and a seven storey apartment building with the upper floors being recessed and with underground parking accessed from the rear lane on the Christie site. Details of the settlement were subject to further negotiation which was to be reported to Toronto Community Council at its meeting of September 16, 1998.

4.Settlement Details

Details of the settlement, to which the applicant has agreed, are specified in the attached plans and drawings and discussed below.

For the Clinton Street site:

- eight freehold townhouses facing Clinton Street will:

-have a maximum height of 10 metres;

-have a maximum depth of 15 metres;

-have a gross floor area, including basements, averaging 255 square metres per unit and a maximum of 2,040 square metres over the total Clinton Street site, resulting in a ratio of floor area to lot size of 1.29;

-be set back from the street in a staggered manner so that the north and south townhouse units approximate the setbacks of the adjacent existing development;

-have garages accessed from the rear lane and which provide an average of 1.5 parking spaces per townhouse lot;

-not change the grade nor have significant overlook impacts on the properties to the north and south; and

-have the potential for one basement unit per townhouse.

In general, the planning approvals I am recommending would require that the built form of any development which occurs on the Clinton Street site reflect existing development in the area, notwithstanding the slightly higher density. As with existing housing in the area, the proposed development will be approximately 2 1/2 storeys, or 10 metres, in height, and will front onto Clinton, with setbacks similar to adjacent houses. The applicant is showing in his plans that the elevations will be similar to existing houses in the area. I will be seeking the same approach from the ultimate developer of the lands.

I do not oppose the inclusion of potential basement units as the Zoning By-law permits an existing house in the area to have an accessory unit.

In terms of parking, each townhouse lot will include a garage accessed from the rear lane, identical to existing development in the area. An average of 1.5 parking spaces will be provided in these garages. This exceeds the Zoning By-law requirements.

In previous proposals, the applicant sought an increase in the grade of the property and an arrangement of units which would result in serious overlook and shadow problems for adjacent properties. The settlement that I am recommending maintains the existing grade and will not have significant overlook and shadow impacts on adjacent properties.

For the Christie Street site:

-the seven storey apartment building, will

-have a maximum height of 22.2 metres;

-have a maximum gross floor area of 4,990 square metres;

-have the sixth floor recessed on the east elevation by 2.0 metres and the seventh floor recessed by a further 5.0 metres;

-have the sixth and seventh floors recessed by 1.5 metres on the west elevation to tie into the five storey building to the north;

-have an amenity space which at least 212 square metres, of which 120 square metres is outdoors and 92 is outdoors; and

-have 65 parking spaces in an underground garage accessed by the rear lane.

The planning approvals which I am recommending will permit the construction of an apartment building which takes advantage of the open space view of Christie Pits Park and the excellent public transit access provided by the adjacent Christie subway station.

Care was taken to ensure that, in recessing the upper floors of this building, the shadow impacts on properties to the east would be no worse than a five storey building and that, on the Christie Street elevation, the five storey building to the north would be echoed in the design of this building.

The total number of units on this site cannot exceed 62, although the actual number of units will be determined at the time of development. The applicant has proposed that more than half of the units will be greater than one bedroom, a ratio which is consistent with similar types of development in the area and an improvement over earlier proposals for this site.

The number of parking spaces conforms to Zoning By-law requirements and given the proximity of the subway station, should be adequate to meet resident and usual visitor needs for this building.

The provision of a roof top amenity area is common among recent apartment developments and can be secured through site plan approvals with the ultimate developer of the lands.

I have also recommended that, in order for these approvals to take effect, the abattoir use on Clinton Street will have to cease operations. This can be achieved by the applicant signing an agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act. I have further recommended that development on both sites be subject to site plan approval.

5.Conclusions

The settlement which I am recommending, and to which the applicant has agreed, will provide redevelopment on Clinton Street which reflects existing housing in the area and an apartment building on Christie Street which benefits from both the excellent transit access provided by the Christie Street subway station and the proximity to Christie Pits Park. The proposed apartment building should have no greater shadow impact on adjacent properties than a five storey building. The settlement I am recommending will result in the removal, at no cost to the City, of the abattoir use, a legal non-conforming use which has been the source of neighbourhood complaints over a long time.

Contact Name:

Wayne Morgan

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone 392-1316

Fax 392-1330

E-mail wmorgan@city.toronto.on.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise Council of a pending settlement for a referral and appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board on this application with more detailed information being presented at the Toronto Community Council meeting on September 16, 1998.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That this report be received by Toronto Community Council and forwarded to City Council for its information.

Background:

(1)Applicant

The application and revised plans were submitted by Hessie Rimon, PMG Planning Consultants, 227 Bridgeland Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6A 1Y7 on behalf of Anne Johnson and the Estate of Ruth Appleton.

(2)Site

The development site of about 0.3 hectares is on two land parcels, separated by a north-south lane, between Christie and Clinton Streets. The portion of the application on Clinton Street is currently occupied by the Gross Abattoir, which is a legal non-conforming use and which Council has long sought to remove from this predominantly residential area.

(3)History

This application was the subject of my reports dated March 19, 1998, listed as Item 111 at the April 1, 1998 Toronto Community Council meeting and May 13, 1998, listed as item 54 at the May 26, 1998 Community Council meeting. A public meeting was held on June 29, 1998 at which numerous concerns were expressed about the application.

The applicant submitted revised plans July 29,1998. Planning staff, after an evaluation of the revised plans, expressed concerns to the applicant in writing and advised that staff would have to recommend refusal to Community Council for the application in its current form.

The applicant has appealed policies in the Seaton Village Neighbourhood Part II Official Plan and the City's handling of this application. The appeal has been referred to the Ontario Municipal Board by the Minister. The Board has scheduled a hearing for this appeal on Monday, October 19, 1998.

(4)Settlement Principles

At the request of the applicant, meetings were held with planning staff and the Ward Councillors to discuss proposed revisions to the plans. At the latter meeting several proposals were put forward. The applicant has stated a willingness to settle the appeal and referral to the OMB on the following basis:

- Clinton Street site

- a row of eight freehold townhouses facing Clinton Street;

- parking in garages accessed from the rear lane, with an average of 1.5 parking spaces per property; and

-a basement unit in each townhouse.

- Christie Street site

-a seven storey apartment building, with the upper floors being recessed; and

-underground parking accessed from the rear lane.

(5)Conclusions

Details of the development continue to be negotiated. I intend to report directly to Toronto Community Council at its meeting on September 16, 1998 on the progress of negotiations based on the above principles so that City Council may place a position before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Contact Name:

Wayne Morgan

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone 392-1316

Fax 392-1330

E-mail wmorgan@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 (September 15, 1998) from Mr. Gary Lichtblau, Chair, The Seaton Village Residents' Association, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

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

-Mr. Hessie Rimon, PMG Planning Consultant;

-Mr. Peter Turner, Turner Fleischer Architects Inc.;

-Mr. Rocco Catalano, Member of Seaton Village Residents' Association; and

-Mr. Pasquale Pisani.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

9-17 Christie Street and 388 and 402 Clinton Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

9-17 Christie Street and 388 and 402 Clinton Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

9-17 Christie Street and 388 and 402 Clinton Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

9-17 Christie Street and 388 and 402 Clinton Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

9-17 Christie Street and 388 and 402 Clinton Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

9-17 Christie Street and 388 and 402 Clinton Street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

9-17 Christie Street and 388 and 402 Clinton Street

Insert Table/Map No. 8

9-17 Christie Street and 388 and 402 Clinton Street

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of staff actions on Toronto Community Council's requests respecting this application to City Council concerning: meeting with residents on the proposed settlement, further modifications to the proposal and consideration of tenants to be displaced by this development.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve the recommendations contained in my report dated September 15, 1998 to Toronto Community Council, embodied in Clause 88 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, subject to the following modification in respect of 9-17 Christie Street:

(i)that, in respect to underground parking, the phrase "accessed from the rear lane" in recommendation 1(c)(ii) be removed."; and

(2)City Council encourage the owner to provide a tenant relocation search service to assist existing tenants in finding similar rental accommodation elsewhere in the area.

Background:

At its meeting on September 16, 1998, the Toronto Community Council considered my Settlement Report (September 4, 1998) and my final Settlement Report (September 15, 1998) on an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and Site Plan Approval for a residential development at 9-17 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street (Clause 88 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council).

At its meeting, Toronto Community Council submitted my September 15, 1998 report to City Council without recommendation and requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(1)meet with residents to discuss the proposed settlement;

(2)continue discussions with the developer to investigate further modifications; and

report on the discussions directly to Council; and

(3)explore with the developers the concept of offering displaced tenants first option to purchase units in the new building.

Comments:

(1)Open House on the Proposed Settlement:

In response to the Community Council's direction, an Open House was held on Thursday, September24, 1998 between 5:00 p.m. and 8:30 pm at the Bob Abate Community Centre, 485 Montrose Boulevard. The applicant and planning staff were in attendance. Approximately 40 people attended.

In general, the public supported the proposed townhouse development on Clinton Street.

In summary, the following concerns were expressed about the proposed apartment on Christie Street:

-vehicular access to the underground parking garage from the rear lane;

-the height of the building and potential shadow impacts;

-density of development and potential parking problems;

-the proportion of one bedroom units and potential transient population;

-setbacks;

-lack of park space around the building and the need for developer contributions;

-consistency with the Seaton Village Part II Plan design guidelines; and

-displacement of tenants.

Each concern is addressed below. The access and height issues appeared to be the most important concerns. The issue of displacement of tenants is discussed in the next section.

Vehicular access to the rear lane - Planning staff attended on site with residents who live east of the proposed apartment building. It was noted that this development could result in an increase in traffic in the lane and that ultimate access to Christie Street would be via a connecting lane with restricted sight-lines at Christie.

Building Height - The building height is two storeys higher than the building to the north and the maximum height permitted on Bloor Street. However, the building has been set back above the fifth floor on both the west side, to match the north building, and on the east side, to minimize shadow impacts from the additional two stories. The residents association accepts a six storey building. Staff analyzed shadow impacts of the proposed apartment building and conclude that the removal of the seventh floor would not have a significant impact on adjacent properties to the east.

Density and parking - The density is higher than existing developments in the area. The primary impact of the increased density is in traffic from the site. However, the project is adjacent to a subway entrance and, as a result, this impact is expected to be minimal. The number of parking spaces proposed conforms to the Zoning By-law. It is anticipated that some residents will not have cars due to public transit access. Visitor parking will be provided underground and any overflow can be accommodated in the parking lot adjacent to the subway station.

Proportion of one bedroom units - The residents are concerned that one bedroom units will create a transient population. The Official Plan encourages the construction of one bedroom units to meet affordability targets. The applicant has shown, conceptually, a unit mix of - one bedroom -47percent, one bedroom plus den - percent, two bedroom - percent. I have recommended that the Zoning By-law amendment restrict the maximum number of units to 62. The unit mix will be determined at the site plan approval stage. Therefore, given the building envelope and the limit on the total number of units, there is control on the proportion of one bedroom units. Further, as the apartment is likely to be a condominium, the resident population will be no more transient than the neighbourhood population. In addition, there is a City-wide need for one bedroom units for single person households and empty nesters.

Setbacks - Residents have expressed concern about the 2.17 metre rear setback in relation to shadow impacts and adequacy for planting. The sixth floor is set back a further two metres and the seventh floor is set back an additional five metres beyond the sixth floor. Shadow impacts have been discussed above. The rear setback is sufficient for the planting of bushes and some tree species, which will be determined at the site plan approval stage.

Open Space - The applicant will be required to contribute a park levy in accordance with the Municipal Code. Further, shared amenity space, both indoor and outdoor, will be required in the building. Trees will be required to be planted along the building frontage in accordance with Toronto Community Council requirements.

Seaton Village Design Guidelines - The proposed apartment building conforms to all guidelines in the Seaton Village Part II Plan except height, which was specified as "a medium scale 3-5 storey building". These guidelines have been appealed to the OMB by the applicant. A seven storey building is appropriate for the site based on its proximity to the subway station and views offered by Christie Pits Parks.

(2)Discussions with the Developer on Further Modifications

During the Open House, the developer agreed to consider changing the vehicular access to the underground parking garage of the Christie Street apartment building in response to residents' concerns provided that the City would agree to this change. Planning staff have discussed this proposed modification with Works and Emergency Services and they agreed to a direct access onto Christie Street provided that the access is restricted to the north end of the site. This would permit all moves from the site and would not interfere with the extended island being built as part of landscaping improvements to Christie Street from Bloor Street north.

However, technical problems arise when both the loading area and the ramp to the underground garage are at the north end of the site. Further, more work is required to determine the impact of an access directly onto Christie Street on the streetscape. Details regarding site access are to be determined at the site plan approval stage. I made a brief reference to access in the recommended Zoning By-law amendment in my Report dated September 15th, 1998. I am now recommending that Council modify the earlier recommendation to remove the reference that access to the underground garage be from the rear lane.

The developer has stated that he was unwilling to make any further changes to the proposal in response to issues raised at the Open House.

(3)Housing Displaced Tenants

Most of the eight houses form buildings that would be demolished by this development are rented or contain rental units. Proposed units are intended to be freehold, although each townhouse will have the potential for one rental unit. However, once the townhouses are sold, the developer cannot oblige the new owners to rent to existing tenants. Provincial legislation offers no protection for tenants in this situation.

The City's Official Plan policies only offer protection to tenants in rental buildings being converted to condominium ownership. This application is not a conversion.

Staff considered giving existing tenants the first option to purchase a unit in the new development. They discussed this option with one of the tenants. Existing tenants may not have the financial resources to purchase a unit. Therefore staff suggest that Council should encourage the developer to provide a relocation search service to assist existing tenants in finding similar rental accommodation elsewhere in the community.

Conclusions:

In response to Toronto Community Councils request, Planning staff:

-held an open house on the proposed settlement;

-negotiated with the developer to make further modifications; and

-considered the issue of displaced tenants.

Residents are generally satisfied with the proposed Clinton Street townhouses. The major concerns with the proposed apartment, rear lane access and shadow impacts, have been addressed. The developer has agreed to change the apartment access to Christie Street. This change is acceptable to staff, in principle, with details regarding impacts on the loading and streetscape still to be worked out. I am therefore recommending deleting any specific reference to access. With respect to displaced tenants, the City cannot require that the developer find alternative rental accommodation. Therefore, I am recommending that the developer be encouraged to provide a relocation search service to displaced tenants.

Contact Name:

Wayne Morgan, City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-1316

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail wmorgan@city.toronto.on.ca)

89

1107 Avenue Road - Site Plan Approval and Designation

(North Toronto)

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the report (September 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by adding the words, ", in consultation with the Ward Councillors," after the words, "Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services" in Recommendation No. (2), and that the report, as amended, be adopted;

(2)the report (August 27, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board be adopted; and

(3)a school safety zone or community safety zone with a maximum limit of 40 kilometres per hour be established on Avenue Road, in the vicinity of 1107 Avenue Road and Allenby School during the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development:

Subject: Evaluation Report: 1107 Avenue Road - Application 398015 for Site Plan Approval for the redevelopment of a school and residences, North Toronto

Purpose:

To recommend site plan approval for Marshall McLuhan Catholic Secondary School and Hunt Club Residences by Toronto Community Council as requested by Councillors Johnston and Walker in accordance with Chapter 165, Article IV of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That, subject to Recommendation No. 2, City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with Site Plan Application No. 398015, namely:

-A-1 Site Plan,

date stamped as received on August 25, 1998, prepared by Global Architect Inc., Maragna Architect;

-A-2Ground and Second Floor Plans,

A-3Third and Fourth Floor Plans,

A-4Elevations,

R-1Basement Plan,

R-2Ground Floor Plan,

R-3Second Floor Plan,

R-4Third Floor Plan,

R-5Roof Plan,

R-6Sections,

R-7Elevations,

R-8 Elevations;

date stamped as received August 19, 1998, prepared by Global Architect Inc., Maragna Architect;

-Landscape Drawings Nos:

L-1Layout & Landscape Grading,

L-2Planting Plan,

L-3Landscape Details,

L-4Landscape Details Landscape drawings,

date stamped as received August 25, 1998, prepared by Global Architect Inc., Maragna Architect, Terraplan Landscape Architects; and

-Site grading, drainage, servicing and storm water management Drawings Nos.:

C-1Site Grading & Drainage,

C-2Site Servicing & Stormwater Management,

C-3Construction Details and Standard Details

date stamped as received August 25, 1998, prepared by Global Architect Inc., Maragna Architect, Terraplan Landscape Architects and Vincent & Associates Consulting Engineers.

2.That City Council delegate to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services the authority to approve amendments to Site Plan drawings specified in Recommendation No. 1 and to clauses in the Undertaking specified in Recommendation No.3, prior to the signing of such Undertaking, in respect of:

(i)the garbage collection and storage system, loading space, related concrete base pad and driveways and passageways for the residential portion of the development;

(ii)the on-site pick-up/drop-off facility for the school; and

(iii)landscaping, which includes types of vegetation, fencing materials and access arrangements on the eastern portion of the site and the tree preservation measures.

3.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 Substantially 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.Garbage

(2)the owner shall provide and maintain a 10 m² garbage room to serve the school;

(3)the owner shall provide and maintain a garbage room and a recyclable materials storage room with minimum sizes of 20 m² and 10 m², respectively, for the use of all residents of the residential building, and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room; and

(4)the owner shall install and maintain double or overhead doors of sufficient size to accommodate the transport of container bins between each garbage and recyclable storage room and the Type G loading space;

C.Loading

(5)the owner shall provide and maintain, in the residential building, 1 Type G loading space with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site on a forward motion;

(6)the owner shall provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 3 compactor containers on collection day;

(7)the owner shall provide and designate, in the residential building, a fully trained employee to manoeuvre the container bins to and from the front of the garbage truck for loading and to assist the garbage truck driver with the back-up manoeuvre onto the north-south driveway by controlling pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the exit from the loading space at all times during garbage collection periods;

(8)the owner shall construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures; and

(9)the owner shall construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

D.Parking

(10)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 44 parking spaces on the residential site to serve the residential portion of the project, including at least 38 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project and at least 6 parking spaces for residential visitors;

(11)at least two spaces of those parking spaces on the residential site required to be provided by the Zoning By-law shall be located as shown on above referenced Plan No. R-1, and shall be clearly designated for the exclusive use of people with disabilities, by means of the International Symbol of Accessibility for the Handicapped;

(12)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 75 parking spaces on-site for the exclusive use of the school; and

(13)the owner shall provide and maintain an on-site pick-up/drop-off facility for the school, with storage for no less than 15 vehicles;

E.Landscaping

(14)the owner shall provide and maintain sufficient soil depth and load bearing capacity above the roof slab of the underground garage to permit the installation and mature growth of all proposed plant material;

(15)the owner shall submit an application for improvements to the public sidewalk/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;

(16)the owner shall maintain the area identified as Parts 6 and 7 on the Plan of Survey, which abut the rear of the residential properties fronting on Oriole Parkway, as a natural area buffer between the playing field and the residential properties on Oriole Parkway. This area shall be appropriately fenced with locked gates so as to prohibit public access. The owner shall be required to keep the site clear of garbage; and

(17)prior to the issuance of a building permit for any new building on the site, the owner shall amend the Landscape Plans to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism as specified in his memorandum dated August 27, 1998.

F. Reference Plan of Survey and Dimensioned Plans for Site Specific By-laws

(18)the owner shall submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the proposed lots and any appurtenant rights-of-way;

G.Transformer Vaults

(19)the owner shall provide space within the development for the construction of transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

H.Studies Required by Civic Officials

(20)Transportation Demand Management Plan

(i)the owner shall submit to the City, prior to the issuance of a building permit for new buildings on the site, for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Transportation Demand Management Plan which will address all matters specified in the report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated September 1, 1998;

(ii)the owner shall develop, for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and undertake a program of regular monitoring of traffic and parking associated with the school and the Transportation Demand Management Plan as the site progresses to full build-out, with the first monitoring review to be undertaken within 3 to 6 months following opening of the school. The monitoring process will involve meeting with City and neighbourhood representatives to discuss the effectiveness of measures and fine tune the plan; and

(iii)the owner shall have a qualified Transportation Engineer/Planner certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Transportation Management Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

I.Other Conditions

(21)Heritage Matters

(i)the owner shall agree to the designation of the property at 1107 Avenue Road (Eglinton Hunt Club) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value;

(v)the owner shall prepare a detailed restoration plan by a restoration architect to the satisfaction of the Managing Director of Heritage Toronto prior to making application for any building permit; and

(vi)the owner shall agree to post a letter of credit in an amount and form satisfactory to the Managing Director, in consultation with the City Solicitor, prior to making application for any building permit;

(22)Transportation improvements and requirements:

(i)the owner shall provide and maintain signage at the Avenue Road access prohibiting westbound left turns;

(ii)the owner shall provide and maintain signage at the Roselawn Avenue access prohibiting northbound right turns and westbound left turns;

(iii)the owner shall provide and maintain the Avenue Road access with a width of 7.2 m with a 6.0 m curb cut to the north and south of the access width;

(iv)the owner shall provide a southbound left turn lane on Avenue Road at the site access to Avenue Road, by pavement marking modifications, which maintains a minimum of 25 m of storage for the existing northbound left turn at the Avenue Road and Roselawn Avenue intersection;

(v)the owner shall submit a functional plan of the proposed traffic arrangements described in clauses (22)(i), (22)(ii), (22)(iii) and (22)(iv) above, which eliminates the northbound left turn lane shown of Figure 8 of the BA Group, Traffic Study dated March, 1998 at the intersection of Kelway Boulevard/Avenue Road and eliminates the widening of the west leg of the Roselawn Avenue/Avenue Road intersection also shown on the same plan for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(vi)the owner shall provide a one-time cash contribution in the amount of $75,000 toward the supply and installation of any other traffic management measures recommended by the community and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services as a result of the neighbourhood traffic and parking study which is currently underway. As a result, it may be necessary to implement measures which require adjustments to the currently proposed site access arrangements and the School Board shall undertake not to oppose such measures or amendments, provided that reasonable vehicular access to the site is maintained;

(vii)the owner shall consult with staff of the Toronto Transit Commission to ensure that sufficient area for pedestrian accommodation at the Avenue Road stop locations is available;

(23)the owner shall submit to the City, prior to the commencement of the 1998/1999 school year, or as soon as possible thereafter, for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Construction Management Plan; and

(24)prior to the issuance of a building permit for new buildings on the site, the School Board shall pass a resolution specifying that the maximum enrollment of students at the school will be 1,000 and that a day care facility will not be provided on the site.

4.Heritage Easement Agreement:

(a)that authority be granted for the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owner of 1107 Avenue Road, using substantially the form of easement agreement prepared in February 1987 by the City Solicitor and on file with the City Clerk, subject to such amendments as may be deemed to be necessary by the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b)that authority be granted for the introduction of any necessary Bills in Council to give effect to the Heritage Easement Agreement; and

(c)that the owner provide Heritage Toronto with two (2) copies of the required photographs of 1107 Avenue Road (the Hunt Club) for inclusion in the Easement Agreement.

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

(c)of the need to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

(d)of the requirement to convey land for parks purposes or pay a Parks Levy, in lieu thereof, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act and Chapter 165, Development of Land, Article I, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and

(e)that portable classrooms may not be located on the site except by amendment to the site plan and any other planning approvals that may be required.

Background:

(1)Applicant

The application and revised plans were submitted by Ferracorp 2000 Inc., 2301 Haines Road, Suite 200, Mississauga, Ontario, L4Y 1Y5 on behalf of the Toronto Catholic School Board.

(2)Site

The development site is on a land parcel on the east side of Avenue Road between Elwood Boulevard on the south and Roselawn Avenue on the north. Avenue Road and Elwood Boulevard form, respectively, the west and south boundaries of the site. Roselawn forms most of the north boundary, while the east boundary consists primarily of the rear lot lines of properties fronting on Oriole Parkway.

(3)Surrounding Area

Except for low rise apartment buildings west of the Hunt Club portion of the site, it is bounded by low rise residential development, predominantly single detached dwellings, either across the following streets - Elwood Boulevard, Avenue Road and Roselawn Avenue, or immediately on the east boundary of the site.

(4)Proposal

The applicant, in revised plans filed August 19 and August 25, 1998, proposes to construct a secondary day school, with associated playing fields and parking, on the south portion of the property and a seniors building on the north portion of the site. All buildings on the site, except for the former military school on the south-west corner of the site and the former Hunt Club clubhouse near the north west-corner, will be demolished.

The existing school building will be renovated and an addition will be constructed east of this building, providing a total gross floor area for the school of 13,518.6 m² (10,853.5 m² for zoning purposes) to accommodate approximately 1,000 high school students. The ratio of the gross floor area of the school to the area of the lot is 0.6. The building height is approximately 12.1 metres or three storeys, at the Avenue Road entrance of the existing building and 9.6 metres or two storeys on the east wall of the new addition. The primary vehicular access to the school will be from an existing Avenue Road entrance with a secondary, restricted access onto Roselawn Avenue. Playing fields will be constructed east of the school. An on-site surface parking lot for the school will provide 73 spaces. Two additional parking spaces will be provided adjacent to the school for caretakers. Additional on-site parking for 15 vehicles will be provided for school events, such as graduation, in the vehicle turn-around and drop-off area. The principal pedestrian entrance to the school is near the intersection of Elwood Boulevard and Avenue Road.

The applicant also proposes an apartment building, containing a gross floor area of 5,049.4m² and 44 residential units, to be constructed on the north-west portion of the site. The total density for the residential portion of the application is 0.6 times the area of the lot. The building height is approximately 12.8 metres or four storeys on the east elevation and three storeys on the Avenue Road elevation. The former Hunt Club building, which is proposed for designation under the Ontario Heritage Act and for a Heritage Easement by Heritage Toronto, will be incorporated into the apartment building, providing recreational/community space for residents. Parking requirements for the apartment building will be provided underground, with 50 spaces for residents and 11 for visitors. Vehicular access for the apartment building will be from Roselawn Avenue.

Landscaping for the site includes a planting buffer between the existing residential development east of the site and the parking area and the playing fields on-site. Additional landscaping improvements will occur with the reconstruction and widening of the Avenue Road sidewalk and increased plantings along the Elwood and Roselawn frontages of the site.

(5)History

Until 1995, the site was a military training base owned by the Department of National Defence. Buildings on-site included a RCAF school at Avenue Road and Elwood Boulevard, military quarters, gymnasium, accelerator building and guard house. In 1995, the site was sold to the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board, now the Toronto Catholic School Board.

(6)Public Review

In processing this application, an intense program of public consultation occurred in response to requests from the Ward Councillors and as a result of concerns from area residents. This consultation involved receipt of responses from the public, both written and verbal, and public meetings. A public meeting, which was advertised through the mailing of notices to residents and property owners near the site, was held in the Hunt Club on June 10. At this meeting a range of opinions was expressed, from support, through concern about potential transportation/community impact to out-right opposition.

Subsequent to the public meeting, interested members of the public, City staff and agents for the applicant met on June 25, 1998 to deal with issues arising from this application. From this group, four working groups were formed to address these issues. These working groups, and corresponding meeting dates were:

-Pedestrian safety and sidewalk design - July 15

-Background transportation and parking issues - July 29, August 12 and August 26

-Site access and the Roselawn/Avenue Road intersection - August 6

-Planning process issues - August 6.

These groups proposed numerous modifications and suggestions to mitigate possible community impacts from this development. Many of these suggestions were incorporated in the design of the development or are recommended as approval conditions. In addition, suggestions were made for area parking and road improvements to be undertaken by the City separate from this application.

On August 31, 1998, an open house was held to inform the community of the revised Site Plan including revisions which had been made as a result of the public review process.

Comments:

(7)Applicable Planning Controls

Applicable Official Plan policies:

The site is designated a Low Density Residence Area in the former City of Toronto Official Plan. Permitted uses in Residence Areas include a range of housing types and public schools. Low Density Residence Areas are intended to achieve stability of existing neighbourhoods, while permitting appropriate new development. In assessing the suitability of new development, regard should be had for certain criteria set out in policy 12.5 (d) of the Official Plan. These include streets patterns, open space, scale, siting of buildings, entrance relationships, rear wall and rear yard relationships, streetscape, presence of historic buildings, transit and parking.

Applicable Zoning:

In the former City of Toronto's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) this site is in anR2Z0.6 zone with a 9 metre height limit. The Zoning By-law limits the maximum permitted gross floor area to 0.6 times the area of the lot. The Zoning By-law permits a range of housing types and community facility uses. The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment for three variances to the Zoning By-law and a consent to sever the residential parcel. The Committee, at its meeting on September 1, 1998 granted variances to the height and depth limit for the school and the residential buildings, and to use of the Hunt Club building for apartment residential uses. The Committee also granted the requested severance.

(8)Planning Considerations

Official Plan:

The proposed development was evaluated in relation to the criteria for maintaining the existing neighbourhood structure and character as set out in Official Plan policy 12.5 (d). The location of schools within residential areas is expected as part of the neighbourhood structure. This application maintains the neighbourhood structure and character by:

-building upon the existing street pattern;

-enhancing neighbourhood open space with the playing field and a landscaped buffer with the residences to the east;

-making use of several existing structures in the massing of new buildings on the site;

-minimizing neighbourhood impacts by locating the pedestrian entrance to the school on Avenue Road and the vehicular access on the existing entrance to the site. Some community impact will arise from some vehicles exiting onto Roselawn Avenue;

-making streetscape enhancements to:

- Avenue Road through a wider sidewalk and landscaping; and

- Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard through additional plantings;

-sympathetically integrating an historic building;

-providing sufficient parking for employees, residents and visitors during a normal school day. While some additional parking will be provided on-site for major events at the school, there is the potential for some neighbourhood impact which is discussed below under transportation;

-designing scale and massing of the apartment building in a way which, although different from other residential buildings in the area, is generally compatible with nearby residences and is in keeping with the scale of buildings currently on the site;

-making use of the existing good transit access to the site, with minor relocations of several bus stops to meet the needs of students and apartment residents using the Avenue Road bus.

On balance, I believe that this proposal maintains the existing neighbourhood structure and character as set out in the Official Plan.

Zoning:

The proposed residential and school uses are permitted by the Zoning By-law. The use of the Hunt Club building as a residential use has been approved by the Committee of Adjustment. The density of the proposed development is within the 0.6 lot coverage permitted by the By-law. Building height and depth variances have been approved by the Committee of Adjustment. The provision of parking spaces meets the requirements of the By-law.

Transportation issues:

The applicant submitted a transportation impact study by BA Transportation Consultants, dated March 1998, which served as a basis for discussions with the community and review by transportation agencies. Further work was conducted by the consultants at the request of these agencies.

It is forecast that most of the students accessing the site will be transit users, via the Avenue Road or Eglinton Avenue buses. To deal with the volume of students using the Avenue Road buses, the applicant and City staff are working with the Toronto Transit Commission regarding the relocation the following bus stops:

-on the east side of Avenue Road at Elwood to the north side of Elwood, near the school entrance, with the applicant providing a sufficient loading area which will permit continued pedestrian movement on the sidewalk;

-on the east side of Avenue Road at Roselawn slightly south of existing location;

-on the west side of Avenue Road, the stop currently located at Elwood Boulevard, one block south to Willowbank; and

-on the west side of Avenue Road south of Roselawn closer to the intersection at Roselawn. This relocation is being proposed to encourage student to cross Avenue Road at the stop lights at Roselawn.

Based on experience at other high schools, only a small proportion of students is expected to access the site through vehicular drop-off and pick-up. An on site drop-off and pick-up area will be provided via the existing access from Avenue Road. Based on the recommendations of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, which are contained in his report in Appendix A, I am recommending:

-a left-turn lane on Avenue Road be provided for south bound traffic to enter the site;

-that vehicles be encouraged to exit the site from the Avenue Road access through pavement design in the site plan;

-that westbound left turns be prohibited from the Avenue Road access;

-that an ancillary access be provided from the site onto Roselawn to accommodate vehicles exiting the site and travelling southbound on Avenue Road; and

-that at the Roselawn access, northbound right turns be prohibited through signage so that vehicles accessing the site will use only a small portion of Roselawn.

There is an on-going neighbourhood traffic and parking study for the area which may recommend measures to deal with existing problems which could affect access to this site. Therefore, I am recommending that an advisory clause be included in the Undertaking giving notice to the School Board that measures arising from this neighbourhood study which are endorsed by City Council may affect access to and from this site and may require amendment to the Site Plan. The School Board is not to oppose such measures, provided that reasonable access to this site is maintained. Staff are reviewing other measures designed to minimize infiltration of traffic into the neighbourhood. One such measure is the removal of the prohibition of left turns by east bound traffic on Eglinton Avenue to northbound Avenue Road. In this instance, implementation of this measure would not require an amendment to the Site Plan.

Alternative measures for handling vehicle access to the site were considered and evaluated, but, on the advice of Transportation staff, I am not recommending their implementation based on safety and operational considerations. These alternatives included the installation of an additional set of stop lights at the entrance to the school, relocating the stop-lights currently at Roselawn/Avenue Road to the entrance to the school, operating lights at the driveway and Avenue Road/Roselawn as one set of lights and construction of an island associated with the left turn access from Avenue Road to the site.

The transportation impact study specified that parking spaces provided by the applicant are sufficient to accommodate normal daily demands. However, during special events at the school, this parking supply may not meet all potential parking needs. Therefore, I am recommending the following approvals in respect to parking for this application:

-the minimum number of parking spaces required by the Zoning By-law for this development;

-that, during special events, an additional 15 parking spaces be provided on-site in the pick-up/drop-off area; and

-a Transportation Demand Management Plan as discussed below.

The estimates of vehicles accessing the site and parking requirements for special events at the school are based on experience elsewhere in the City. However, the actual number and timing of vehicles accessing this site may differ from the estimates. Further, during the intensive consultation process with the community, numerous concerns about traffic were expressed. Therefore, on the advice of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, I am recommending that the School Board be required to prepare and implement a transportation demand management plan, to be developed in consultation with the community and city staff and subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any new building on the site. This management plan will deal with strategies to minimize automobile use.

Although there will be some vehicular and pedestrian traffic arising from the seniors apartment building, this traffic does not add significantly to peak hour conditions. I am recommending approval of the parking facilities for automobiles and bicycles proposed by the applicant for the seniors apartment building, which meet the requirements of the Zoning By-law.

Heritage Matters

Heritage Toronto has listed the Hunt Club building as worthy of designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Heritage Toronto has reviewed the restoration and alteration plans provided by the applicant for the Hunt Club and is supportive of the massing and articulation of the seniors apartment building relative to the Hunt Club. I am recommending that approval of this development be subject to:

-designation of the Hunt Club under the Ontario Heritage Act;

-the owner entering into a Heritage Easement Agreement in respect of the Hunt Club; and

-the owner posting letters of credit for the Hunt Club building during construction.

Streetscape/Landscape:

The City has streetscape/pedestrian accommodation design guidelines for development fronting on Metropolitan arterial roads. These guidelines would involve a band of decorative concrete and tree plantings between the sidewalk and the curb and planting between the sidewalk and buildings on the Avenue Road frontage of the site. The working group on pedestrian safety and sidewalk design supported these design requirements and a sidewalk width of approximately 3 metres. In addition, this group recommended a wider pedestrian area at the bus stops to accommodate the needs of transit riders waiting for buses. Since the proposal meets these requirements, I am recommending approval of the plans in so far as they apply to the Avenue Road frontage of the site.

Most of the Roselawn frontage of the site is currently occupied by a grassed strip and the wall of the riding school wing. The staff of Heritage Toronto have suggested retaining a portion of the wall as a reminder of the building which used to occupy this site, although they did not require the retention of the building in total. The proposed plans show the retention of a reconstructed portion of the wall to act as a visual break between the private outdoor space of the apartment building and the parking lot, with appropriate breaks for the driveway and pedestrian entrances. Therefore, I am recommending approval of the plans in respect of the Roselawn Avenue frontage provided that the reconstructed wall be of a height to permit visual surveillance between the street and the parking lot and private outdoor space of apartment units facing Roselawn and that there be appropriate plantings between the reconstructed wall and sidewalk.

On the Elwood Boulevard frontage of the site, there are currently tree plantings between the school and fencing and the curb. The applicant has proposed additional tree plantings for this area. I am recommending approval of the plans as they apply to the Elwood Boulevard frontage.

On the east boundary of the site, which abuts residential properties most of which front onto Oriole Parkway, the applicant is proposing a landscaped buffer area to be retained in ownership by the condominium but maintained by the School Board. This design feature provides for the protection of the privacy of the rear yards of the abutting residential properties and enhances the natural characteristics of the site. For reasons of public safety and maintenance, I am recommending approval of the landscaped area on the east side of the site subject to appropriate plantings, fencing and access. Further discussions regarding these matters are required with the residents abutting this buffer area. Therefore, I am recommending that Council delegate its approval authority to staff to make any necessary changes to the Site Plan drawings and Undertaking in regard to plantings, fencing and access that may arise from further discussions with adjacent residents.

Other Matters:

The applicant has proposed garbage collection and storage facilities for the residential portion of the development which do not fully conform to City requirements. The applicant has indicated that the Site Plan will be revised to comply with these requirements. Therefore, I am recommending that Council delegate its approval authority to staff to make any necessary changes to the Site Plan drawings and Undertaking in regard to garbage collection and storage facilities for the residential portion of the development.

Conclusions:

The revised proposal, which meets the requirements of the Official Plan and, with the approval of minor variances by the Committee of Adjustment, conforms to the Zoning By-law, will provide needed education space for approximately 1000 students of the Catholic School Board. This proposal will also provide low rise apartment accommodation for senior citizens in 44 units. This proposal will achieve important urban design objectives including streetscape improvements on Avenue Road, Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard

Contact Name:

Wayne Morgan, Community Planning, South District

Telephone 392-1316; Fax 392-1330

E-mail wmorgan@city.toronto.on.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:YApplication Number:398015

Rezoning:NApplication Date:February 23, 1998

O. P. A.:NDate of Revision:August 19, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:1107 Avenue Road.

Nearest Intersection:East side of Avenue Rd., north of Eglinton Ave. W.

Project Description:Alterations and additions to existing buildings for a 4 storey (including basements (Catholic Secondary School and a 3 storey apartment building retaining the existing Hunt Club building.

Applicant:Agent:Architect:

Ferracorp 2000 Inc.Maragna Arch. Inc.Global Arch. Inc.

2301 Haines Rd. #2001415 Bathurst St. #2032301 Haines Rd. #200

848-6702484-4107848-2373

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:LDRASite Specific Provision:No

Zoning District:R2 Z0.6Historical Status:Listed

Height Limit (m):9.0Site Plan Control:Yes

Project Information

Site Area:26536.0 m²Height:Storeys: 4 + 3

Frontage: Metres: 16.40, 11.00

Depth:

IndoorOutdoor

Ground Floor:Parking Spaces:5875

Residential GFA: 4790.4 m²Loading Docks:

Non-Residential GFA:10853.5 m²(number, type)

Total GFA:15643.9 m²

Dwelling UnitsFloor Area Breakdown

Tenure:CondoLand UseAbove GradeBelow Grade

Total Units:44 Residential4790.4 m²

School10853.5 m²

Proposed Density

Residential Density: 0.18Non-Residential Density: 0.41Total Density: 0.59

Comments

Status:Application received.

Data valid:March 30, 1998Section:CP NorthPhone: 392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Reports of Civic Officials

1.Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings Division (July 24, 1998)

Preliminary Zoning Notice- Final Notice

Municipal AddressWardZone District

1107 Avenue RoadNorth TorontoR2 Z0.6

Owner

Metropolitan Separate School Board

Applicant

Ferracorp 2000 Inc.

Existing Use

Officer Training college (vacant)

Proposed Use

Public School with parking station on an adjacent lot and apartment building with below grade parking.

Description

Construct addition to existing officer training college for public school purposes and construct apartment building (44 units) attached to existing "Hunt Club"

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended unless other wise referenced. For the proposal to proceed, the plans may be revised to comply, an application for variance(s) be granted by the Committee of Adjustment, or City Council adopts a site specific By-law. Revised plans should be sent to the Examiner, Lance Cumberbatch. For information on Committee of Adjustment approvals and application forms, please visit the Committee of Adjustment Office, Main Floor West, Toronto City Hall or telephone (416) 392-7565. For an application for a site specific By-law, telephone (416) 392-7132.

1.The by-law requires an apartment building to be originally constructed for that use. The "Hunt Club" portion of the building was not originally constructed as an apartment building. (Section 2, definition of "apartment building".)

2.The proposed height of both buildings exceed the maximum 9.0 metres that is permitted. (Section 4(2))

3.The by-law limits a building in a 0.6 zone to a maximum depth of 14.0 metres. The proposed depth is 73.0 metres for the proposed apartment building and 83.795 for the school and the proposed additions thereto. (Section 6(3) PART II 5(i))

4.The by-law requires the proposed lot(s) to be capable of being conveyed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. The proposed lots require severance consent from the Committee of Adjustment prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Section 6(3) PARTIX1(a))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act. Please call (416) 392-7352 for an application or further information.

2.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act. Please see the attached sheet for Parks Levy information and processing requirements.

3.The property is listed historical, and the proposal requires the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act. Please call (426) 392-6827 for further information.

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.

Additional Comments

Changes to proposal

Revised plans must clearly identify all changes. Extensive changes to the proposal will require a new application to be submitted along with a separate application fee.

City of Toronto Requirements

Environmental measures

In addition to the energy and water conservation measures in the Ontario Building Code (ASHRAE90.1 Section 9.25, Part 7 etc.), it is City Council's policy that projects be designed with regard for energy and water conservation, material recovery and waste reduction and, where applicable, noise impact, transportation demand management and avoidance of exposure to electric and magnetic fields.

Protection of trees

The City requires the protection of existing trees on City and private property and encourages new tree planting. A permit is required to injure or destroy any public tree and those private trees having a diameter of 30 centimetres or more measured at 1.4 metres above ground level. (City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees)

Protection against termites

New construction with wood structural members must be made resistant to termites. Homeowners are also encouraged to construct in a manner that will discourage termite infestation, including re-treating previously treated soil which has been disturbed. (Ontario Building Code and City of Toronto Municipal code Chapter 326)

Smoke alarms

City of Toronto Municipal code Chapter 300, and Building and Fire Codes require smoke alarms be installed and maintained on each storey of every dwelling unit, including the basement.

2.Heritage Toronto (August 20, 1998)

Recommendations:

That the Board approve the Site Plan application subject to the following conditions:

1.That the owner agree to the designation of the property at 1107 Avenue Road (Eglinton Hunt Club) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical value.

2.That the owner agree to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of Toronto to preserve the historic building in perpetuity.

3.That the owner prepare a detailed restoration plan by a restoration architect to the satisfaction of the Managing Director of Heritage Toronto prior to making application for any building permit.

4.That the owner agree to post a letter of credit in an amount and form satisfactory to the Managing Director, in consultation with the City Solicitor, prior to making application for any building permit.

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

Comments

1.Background

A report describing the history of the site, its status as a listed property, and recommending designation (consistent with Recommendation 1) is included separately on this meeting's agenda.

The owner is the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board. Ron Possamai of Maragna Architect Incorporated/ Global Architect Inc. is the architect.

There are two main buildings located on the site: 1) the Eglinton Hunt Club, designed by Vaux Chadwick and Bryan Chadwick in 1928-1929, located on the northwest portion of the site, and 2) the former RCAF Staff School, a 3-storey building from the 1950s. The latter was not considered significant when the property was listed. The smaller ancillary structures are also not considered significant.

The project can be logically viewed as two projects. On the southern portion, the School Board is adding to the Staff School to create a new secondary school. Teacher and staff parking will be provided in a surface lot immediately east of the listed Hunt Club building. Staff note that some area residents have expressed concern about the school and the potential for increased traffic. However, staff believes that the school project does not affect the heritage significance of the site and thus is not of concern. We have no other comments on that part of the proposal.

This report deals with the redevelopment proposal for the northwest corner of the site. The proposal includes a low-rise seniors' condominium with a link to the original Eglinton Hunt Club Clubhouse. The proposal drawings, dated July 20, 1998, and a letter describing the project, dated August 19, 1998 are attached.

The applicant proposes to retain and restore the Eglinton Hunt Club Clubhouse. A wall of the 1929 riding school wing will be retained to create a stepped garden wall along Roselawn Avenue. The remainder of the riding school wing and the later 1940s and 1950s military buildings will be demolished to make room for the residential component of the project. The cupola, an original feature of the 1919 stables (demolished 1986), is to be incorporated within the redevelopment scheme. Spencer Higgins, Architect, has been retained to prepare a detailed restoration plan of how the building will be restored. The restoration plan is to be submitted to Heritage Toronto prior to application being made to commence redevelopment.

2.Discussion

Staff has met with the applicant on several occasions and is satisfied that the development will benefit the historic building. Once restored, this building will contain amenity uses for the condominium. The design for the seniors' condominium makes reference to and compliments the Clubhouse. The existing wall of the riding school wing will maintain the historic character and scale along Roselawn Avenue. A letter of Credit is also required to secure the preservation of the historic building during construction and restoration.

Staff support his proposal subject to the conditions contained in the recommendations.

4.Works and Emergency Services (Sept. 1, 1998)

Recommendations:

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 75 parking spaces on-site for the exclusive use of the school;

(b)Provide and maintain an on-site pick-up/drop-off facility for the school, with storage for no less than 15 vehicles;

(c)Provide and maintain a 10 m² garbage room to serve the school;

(d)Provide and maintain a minimum of 44 parking spaces on site to serve the residential building, including at least 38 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and at least 6 parking spaces for residential visitors;

(e)Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 20 square metres in size to serve the residential building and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(f)Provide and maintain a 10 m² recycling room accessible to all residents of the residential building;

(g)Install and maintain double or overhead doors of sufficient size to accommodate the transport of container bins between each garbage and recyclable storage room and the Type G loading space;

(h)Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site on a forward motion;

(i)Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 3 compactor containers on collection day;

(j)Provide and designate a fully trained employee to manoeuvre the container bins to and from the front of the garbage truck for loading and to assist the garbage truck driver with the back-up manoeuvre onto the north-south driveway by controlling pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the exit from the loading space at all times during garbage collection periods;

(k)Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

(l)Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of9 m and 16 m;

(m)Provide and maintain signage at the Avenue Road access prohibiting westbound left turns;

(n)Provide and maintain signage at the Roselawn Avenue access prohibiting northbound right turns and westbound left turns;

(o)Provide and maintain the Avenue Road access with a width of 7.2 m with a 6.0 m curb cut to the north and south of the access width;

(p)Provide a southbound left turn lane on Avenue Road at the site access to Avenue Road, by pavement marking modifications, which maintains a minimum of 25 m of storage for the existing northbound left turn at the Avenue Road and Roselawn Avenue intersection;

(q)Submit a functional plan of the proposed traffic lane arrangements described in Recommendations (m), (n), (o) and (p) above, and which eliminates the northbound left turn lane shown on Figure 8 of the BA Group Traffic Study dated March, 1998 at the intersection of Kelway Boulevard/Avenue Road and eliminates the widening of the west leg of the Roselawn Avenue/Avenue Road intersection also shown on the same plan for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(r)Provide a one-time cash contribution in the amount of $75,000.00 toward the supply and installation of any other traffic management measures recommended by the community and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services as a result of the neighbourhood traffic and parking study which is currently underway. As a result, it may be necessary to implement measures which require adjustments to the currently proposed site access arrangements and the School Board shall undertake not to oppose such measures or amendments provided that reasonable vehicular access to the site is maintained;

(s)Consult with staff of the Toronto Transit Commission to ensure that sufficient area for pedestrian accommodation at the Avenue Road stop locations is available;

(t)Submit to the City, prior to the issuance of a building permit for new buildings on the site, for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Transportation Demand Management Plan addressing strategies to minimize automobile use;

(u)Have a qualified Transportation Engineer/Planner certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Transportation Demand Management Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(v)Develop for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and undertake a programme of regular monitoring of traffic and parking associated with the school and the Transportation Demand Management Plan as the site progresses to full build-out, with the first monitoring review to be undertaken within 3 to 6 months following opening of the school. The monitoring process will involve meetings with City and neighbourhood representatives to discuss the effectiveness of measures and fine tune the plan;

(w)Submit to the City, prior to commencement of the 1998/1999 school year or as soon as possible thereafter, for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Construction Management Plan;

(x)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the proposed lots and any appurtenant rights-of-way;

(y)Submit revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(b), 1(f), 1(h), 1(i) and 1(l), above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2.That the owner be requested to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

3.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; and

(b)Of the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits from this Department prior to construction of this project.

Comments:

Location

East side of Avenue Road between Roselawn Avenue and Elwood Boulevard.

Proposal

Construction of an addition and demolition to the existing school building resulting in a total floor area of 13,518 square metres and, as well, construction of a seniors condominium building containing 44 units which will be connected to the existing "Hunt Club" building.

Parking

The provision of 75 parking spaces to serve the school satisfies the estimated essential parking demand for a minimum of 16 parking spaces and a maximum of 90 parking spaces, based on the parking requirements for schools within the central area, whereas, as far as can be ascertained, the school is exempt from the parking provisions of the Zoning By-law because the facility is owned and operated by the Toronto Separate School Board. A Traffic Impact Study dated March 1998 prepared by BA Consulting Group Ltd. on behalf of the owner indicated that a total of 75 parking spaces will be required to accommodate the expected parking demands exhibited by staff and visitors. Given that the proposed parking supply falls within the parking demand range above, the provision of 75 parking spaces to serve the school site is acceptable. The dimensions of the parking spaces and the driveways comply with the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law and the parking layout is generally satisfactory.

The provision of 61 parking spaces to serve the seniors' condominium building satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the condominium building for 44 spaces, based on the surveyed demand of condominium units, including 38 spaces for the residents and 6 spaces for visitors and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for 58 spaces consisting of 47 residential spaces and 11 visitor spaces. The proposed parking supply, general layout and dimensions of the parking spaces are acceptable.

Access and Traffic Impact

Access to the parking spaces and loading facilities is proposed from Roselawn Avenue and Avenue Road by way of two-way driveways. A Traffic Impact Study dated March, 1998, has been prepared and submitted by BA Consulting Group Ltd, on behalf of the owner. This Department has reviewed the study and has commented under separate cover (May 15, 1998). Further supplementary information has been received from BA Consulting Group Ltd. under dates of June 3, June 4, July17 and July 24, 1998. These documents address the traffic and parking issues related to this proposal. The appropriate measures are reflected in the recommendations section of this report and will be dealt within further detail under separate cover.

Loading

With respect to the school component of the project, the plans do not show the provision of any loading facilities. The estimated loading demand generated by the school is for 1 Type B loading space, whereas, the Zoning By-law, as far as can be ascertained, does not require the provision of loading facilities. It appears that any loading and unloading activities will take place within the outdoor receiving area adjacent to the vehicle turn around. As a result, formal loading spaces are not required under these circumstances.

The residential component of this project requires a Type G loading space. Specifications with respect to the Type G loading space are discussed in the following section dealing with refuse collection.

Refuse Collection

The City garbage and recyclable materials collection services to schools is scheduled to end

July 1, 2006. Therefore, the City will continue to provide curbside garbage and recyclable materials collection services to the school in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter309, Solid Waste. The proposed garbage storage areas are acceptable.

The City will provide the residential building of this project with the bulk lift method of garbage collection in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste, provided that all recyclable materials generated by this project are set out for collection on the days and the times scheduled by the City for collection of recyclables. This will require the provision of the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(d) to 1(k), above.

The plans show the provision of a Type G loading space, however, the dimensions of the space do not meet the Zoning By-law requirement for a vertical clearance of 6.1 m over the first 8 metres of the space. The plans should reflect the proper dimensions of a Type G loading space. The loading space is designed such that garbage trucks would enter the space from the proposed north-south driveway in a forward motion and back out onto the driveway to exit the site in a forward motion. The turning radii to access the Type G loading space, of an inside radius of 9 m and a 16 m outside radius have not been provided, resulting in trucks not being able to access the space. Although garbage trucks will back out of the space, if this configuration is to remain, the arrangement would be acceptable only if a member of the building staff is made available on collection day to assist with the back-up manoeuvre, given the volume of traffic utilizing this driveway. Furthermore, the plans do not indicate a concrete storage pad for container bins on collection day adjacent to the front of the loading space to accommodate 3 bins and a recyclable material storage room of 10 m² has not been provided, which should be separated from the garbage room and be equipped with a double door or an overhead door.

It is the policy of City Council to levy a service charge on all new developments, payment of which is a condition for receiving City containerized garbage and recycling collection. The levy is currently $34.50 per month. The levy includes the provision and maintenance of City garbage and recycling containers, including taxes, multiplied by the number of garbage containers on site. Should the owner choose to provide private garbage containers, the levy will still be charged and the containers must meet City specifications and be maintained privately at the expense of the building owner. Further information regarding the above can be obtained by contacting the Operations and Sanitation Division at 392-7721.

Neighbourhood Traffic and Parking Study

The owner is required to pay a one-time cash contribution in the amount of $75,000.00 toward the supply and installation of any other traffic management measures recommended by the community and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services as a result of the neighbourhood traffic and parking study which is currently underway. In this manner, funding for any changes to vehicular access to the site predicated by the requirements of the neighbourhood study including the provision of any associated infrastructure or traffic signal hardware will be secured from the applicant. Measures which have been discussed by the community Traffic Committee and which may be considered eligible for this funding include, but are not necessarily limited to:

-relocation of the existing traffic signal from the Roselawn Avenue/Avenue Road intersection to the school access on Avenue Road;

-removal of the southbound left turn movement at the Roselawn Avenue/Avenue Road intersection;

-provision of additional pedestrian sidewalk or boulevard amenities (e.g. on Roselawn Avenue);

-traffic management measures for the nearby neighbourhood.

As a result, it may be necessary to implement measures which require adjustment to the currently proposed site access arrangements. The School Board shall undertake not to oppose such measures or amendments provided that reasonable vehicular access to the site is maintained. In this regard, the School Board is encouraged to participate in the current study.

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans

As this project generates a non-residential parking demand of 75 parking spaces, the owner is required to submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan which sets out measures to be taken in the design and construction of the project, as well as on-going strategies to manage and reduce automobile use. The Transportation Demand Management Plan required of the owner will include:

(a)A description of the measures (policies, programmes, processes, facilities, equipment and manpower) which will be put in place to carry out and administer the TDM Plan, which should include the following:

-strategies to minimize automobile use in connection with the development and inform parents, teachers and students of neighbourhood traffic concerns (e.g. transit promotion, formal or informal car pool programmes, distribution of promotional material, provision of bicycle parking, school bulletin boards, announcements prior to special events etc.);

-operation and management of the on-site student pick-up/drop-off facility to minimize impact on the adjacent street system and neighbourhood (e.g. monitoring by school staff, distribution of promotional material to users, special signage and pavement marking, etc.);

-provision of additional temporary on-site parking spaces to accommodate parking demand during special events including evening events;

-provision of promotional material to inform parents of other off-street parking facilities available in the area in advance of special events and a description of the means whereby this information will be distributed to parents;

-feasibility of providing Point Duty Police control at the Avenue Road driveway to assist drivers turning during morning and evening periods and special events;

-designation of a staff member as school safety co-ordinator to organize, operate and maintain the traffic and parking measures described in the approved plan;

(b)A description of how the TDM will be integrated and operated, in the context of the plans and drawings for the development proposal;

(c)A description of the mechanisms which will be used to:

-implement and administer the TDM Plan;

-monitor, modify and enforce the TDM Plan, bearing in mind the automobile trip reduction targets; and

-ensure the continuity of the TDM Plan for the life of the development.

The owner is advised that the preparation of the plan can be facilitated by contacting the Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division (telephone no. 392-7711) for assistance in the format and content requirements.

Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan is required to be submitted to the City prior to the commencement of the 1998/1999 school year or as soon as possible, thereafter, for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, which should address each of the following measures:

-a detailed construction phasing plan which identifies among other things, on-site parking and points of access for site traffic and construction traffic for each phase of the work;

-the extent and impact of any temporary parking, drop-off or traffic circulation measures proposed during construction;

-proposed routing for construction vehicles and measures proposed to minimize the impact of construction activity on the community.

The Construction Management Plan shall include a process for community consultation involving meetings with City, neighbourhood, and school representatives to discuss the effectiveness of measures and any fine tuning required.

Work within the Road Allowance

It is noted that curb returns are not permitted at entrances; concrete sidewalks are to be extended across driveways. The proposed hard surface boulevard area on the Avenue Road frontage of the site is shown as extending a minimum of 3.0 m from the back of the curb and is acceptable. The treatment at the back of curb should include a minimum 600 mm wide decorative concrete banding set-back to a clear broom finish sidewalk area of 2.4 m.

As well, the Toronto Transit Commission will relocate the existing southbound Avenue Road stop location at Roselawn Avenue further to the north so that it will be approximately 20 m south of the Roselawn Avenue intersection and relocate the existing northbound Avenue Road stop location at Elwood Boulevard to the north side of Elwood Boulevard.

Municipal Numbering

The site will be severed into two properties, which should be separated for assessment and Official Record municipal numbering purposes. The owner should submit a separate application to this Department, including a plan showing the location of the principal access points, prior to filing a formal application for a building permit.

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.

Storm Water Management

A storm water management plan and a site servicing plan have been submitted with this application and have been reviewed by this Department. These are satisfactory.

5.Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Division (August 27, 1998)

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on August 25, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

-There is one (1) City owned tree involved with this project which is situated on the Elwood Avenue City road allowance adjacent to the development site. This tree must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

-Trees indicated for planting on the City road allowance must be planted 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.

Street Trees in Raised Planters:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 102 for Raised Tree Planter - Concept.

Street Trees in Tree Pits:In accordance with Planting Detail No.'s 103, 103-1, 103-2, & 103-3 for 1.2 m x 2.4 m Tree Pit. Tree pits must be constructed in accordance with the Continuous Tree Pit details outlined in the Construction Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as Drawing No.'s RE-1833M-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -6, 1 of 2 & 2 of 2.

-There appear to be trees situated on private property which may be impacted by this development. City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, requires that a permit be obtained for the injury or destruction of trees situated on private property which are healthy and have a diameter of 30 cm or more. Trees which may be affected could be located on the subject development site or on lands adjacent to the development site. For all existing trees situated on private property that are to be retained and protected, a detailed report and plan must be provided which indicates the impact of the construction activities in connection with the proposed development on the trees in question and appropriate tree protection measures as determined by a Certified or Registered Consulting Arborist or Registered Professional Forester retained by the applicant.

-Your staff should contact Mr. Gary Le Blanc of my staff at 392-0494 regarding the applicant's need to submit an application for permission to injure or destroy trees should the development continue in its present form. The City also encourages new tree planting on private property and encourages the protection of other existing trees situated on private property and construction which accommodates the preservation of trees.