City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules

City of Toronto Council and Committees

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 14

1Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street (Downtown)

2Proposed Sign By-law Amendment -1 Dundas Street West et al. (Toronto Eaton Centre) (Downtown)

3Draft Zoning By-law and Plan of Subdivision -2078 and 2300 St. Clair Avenue West and 66 Symes Road (Davenport)

4Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue (North Toronto)

5Draft Zoning By-law -69 Prescott Avenue (Davenport)

6Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -40 Bay Street (Downtown)

7Application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street - Home Depot (Don River)

8Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 359-361 Ontario Street(James McMillan Houses) (Don River)

9Construction of a Wrought Iron Fence and Stone Pillars -16 Highland Avenue (Midtown)

10Maintenance of A Fence - 136 Heddington Avenue (North Toronto)

11Curblane Vending Permit -James Street, East Side, 84.5 Metres North of Queen Street West (Downtown)

12Tree Removal - 314 St. Clarens Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

13Tree Removal - 40 Alexander Street (Downtown)

14Closing Time Restriction - Boulevard Cafes on Commercial Frontages -Queen Street East, Between Coxwell Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue (East Toronto)

15Hearing - Installation of Speed Humps -on Bartlett Avenue North Between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road(Davenport)

16Hearing - Proposed Closing and Conveyancing of Public Lane - North of Scollard, Easterly from Hazelton Avenue, Between Nos. 35 and 37 Hazelton Avenue(Midtown)

17Hearing - Closing of the Portion of Eastern Avenue -Linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road Extension and the Public Lane - 1641 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

18Hearing - Installation of Speed Humps -Prescott Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue (Davenport)

19Hearing - Installation of Speed Humps -Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue (Davenport)

20Injury of Two Trees - 3256 Yonge Street (North Toronto)

21Tree Removal - 10 & 20 Avoca Avenue (Midtown)

22Commercial Boulevard Parking -232 Christie Street (Davenport)

23Boulevard Cafe -718 College Street (Trinity-Niagara)

24Natural Garden Exemption -56 Gilmour Avenue (High Park)

25Natural Garden Exemption -98 Castlefield Avenue (North Toronto)

26Natural Garden Exemption -699 Markham Street (Midtown)

27Appointments to Board of Management -The 519 Church Street Community Centre

28Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -(Downtown, High Park, Don River, Midtown, North Toronto)

29Exemption from Part Lot Control - 150 to 172 King Street East,61 and 63 Jarvis Street, 199 and 207 Adelaide Street East, and 80 George Street (Downtown)

30Naming of Lanes - St. James Court (Don River)

31Tree Removals - 909-931 Bay Street,36 and 38 Breadalbane Street (Downtown)

32Tree Removal - 18 Foxbar Road (Midtown)

33Tree Removal - 585 Balliol Street (North Toronto)

34Tree Removal - 220 Prescott Avenue (Davenport)

35Boulevard Cafe - De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street Koo Koo Roo Canada Limited (Midtown)

36Boulevard Cafe - Ossington Avenue flankage of832 College Street - Coffee Time (Trinity-Niagara)

37Boulevard Cafe - Holly Street flankage of45 Eglinton Avenue East Fran Restaurants (North Toronto)

38Boulevard Cafe - Kenilworth Avenue flankage of1961 Queen Street East - Extension of Hours - Whitlock's Restaurant (East Toronto)

39Boulevard Cafe - Roxborough Street West flankage of1094 Yonge Street - Extension of Hours -Espressimo Caffebar (Midtown)

40Reduction of Speed Limit - Oak Park Avenue to Newmarket Avenue (East Toronto) 15304

41Installation of Speed Humps - Shaw Street from Bloor Street West to College Street (Trinity-Niagara)

42Installation of Speed Bumps - Lane bounded by Davenport Road, Laughton Avenue, Uxbridge Avenue and Pelham Avenue (Davenport)

43Reduction of Speed Limit - Alexander Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street (Downtown)

44Installation of "Stop" Sign Control - Intersection of Glen Gordon Road and Indian Grove (Davenport)

45Parking Conditions - Walmer Road, from Bloor Street West to a point 70 metres north (Midtown)

46Parking Prohibition - Wood Street, North Side - East of Yonge Street (Downtown)

47Permit Parking - Rosewell Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue West and Cheritan Avenue (North Toronto)

48Installation of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (High Park, Trinity-Niagara and Davenport)

49Front Yard Parking for Disabled Persons - 26 Ascot Avenue (Davenport)

50Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road (East Toronto)

51Retention of Sign - Casa do Alentejo (Portuguese Community Centre) - 1130 Dupont Street (Davenport)

52Stop Up and Closing - Portions of Public Highway adjacent to Lawrence Subway Station (North Toronto)

53Request for Endorsement of Event for Liquor Licensing Purposes (Downtown)

54Provision of a "Student Pick-up and Drop-off" area Bond Street, East Side, from Dundas Street East to Shuter Street (Vicinity of St. Michael's Choir School) (Downtown)

55Status Report - 2230, 2324 & 2336 Gerrard Street East (East of Main) (East Toronto)

56Rescindment of Regulations to Provide a Loading Area Adjacent to111 Carlton Street (Downtown)

57Dogs Off Leash Hours - Jean Sibelius Park(Midtown)

58Interim Control By-Law Exemption -45 Berryman Street (Midtown)

59Committee of Adjustment Process -1661 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

60Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 14

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on October 22, November 5 and 12, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)authority be granted to staff to put forward the proposed settlement outlined in the report (October 26, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and substantially in the form of the Draft By-laws attached to the report (November 10, 1998) of the City Solicitor, subject to:

(a)receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated into the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and the lands to be conveyed to the City for public purposes (Hayden Street widening and pedestrian easement); as well as drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the dwellings to enable the preparation of building envelope plans;

(b)receipt by the City Solicitor, of an Undertaking in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, executed by the owner agreeing to the settlement set out in the reports of staff as amended by City Council, and in the event the Ontario Municipal Board fails to implement the settlement to support an appeal by the City to have the settlement put in place;

(c)receipt by the City Solicitor, of $50,000.00 or satisfactory security in lieu thereof;

(d)receipt by the City Solicitor, of a satisfactory election from the owner requesting that City Council and the Ontario Municipal Board increase height and density otherwise permitted on the site in return for the provision of the facilities matters or things outlined in the report (October 26, 1998 of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development services;

(e)receipt by the City Solicitor, of an executed section 37 agreement, title opinion and any necessary postponements to enable the agreement to have priority on the site;

(2)Recommendation Nos. (1), (2) and (5)(c) of the Final Report (October 26, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by requiring that the Noise impact statement be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit and be secured in the section 37 agreement; and

(3)Recommendation Nos. (1), (2) and (5)(c), as amended, and Recommendation Nos. (3), (4), (6), (7) and (8) of the Final Report (October 26, 1998) of 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 October14,1998, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Mr. Peter Van Loan, Fraser Milner, Barristers & Solicitors, on behalf of the applicant;

-Mr. David Lewis, Associate Director of Administration, The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario; and

-Mr. Robert Statton, Hayden Street Ratepayers Association.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The Toronto Community Council will be holding a public meeting to consider the report (October26, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services which supports a mixed use development at the property at 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street. This report provides the necessary draft Official Plan Amendment and draft Zoning By-law to implement the suggested course of action respecting the owner's appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funding implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the settlement proposal for the Draft By-laws.

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

(2)that authority be granted to staff to put forward the proposed settlement outlined in the report (October 26, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and substantially in the form of the Draft By-laws attached to the report (November 10, 1998) of the City Solicitor, subject to:

(c)receipt by the City Solicitor, of $50,000.00 or satisfactory security in lieu thereof;

(e)receipt by the City Solicitor, of an executed section 37 agreement, title opinion and any necessary postponements to enable the agreement to have priority on the site;

(3)That Recommendations 1, 2 and 5(c) of the Final Report (October 26, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by requiring that the Noise impact statement be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit and be secured in the section 37 agreement.

(4)That Recommendations 1, 2 and No. 5(c) as amended and 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 of the Final Report (October 26, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

There is an Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled to commence on December 1, 1998. The purpose of the Commissioner's report and of this report is to provide documentation to implement the Commissioner's recommended course of action.

Attached are draft by-laws which would implement recommendations 1 and 2 and recommendation3 as it pertains to the repeal of Section 12(1)346 of By-law No. 438-86, as provided in the report (October26,1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services as proposed to be amended in recommendation (4) above. My office was contacted by the owners solicitor asking that provision of the noise impact statement be done prior to issuance of building permit. That is satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and can be secured in the Section 37 Agreement.

Contact Name:

Gordon Townend

Telephone:(416) 392-6905

Fax:(416) 392-0024

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

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority:Toronto Community Committee Report No. , Clause No.

as adopted by Council on

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. - 1998 (OMB)

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

respecting lands known as 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street.

1.The owner of the lands at 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to an application for an Official Plan Amendment and amendment to the Zoning By-law.

2.The Council of the City of Toronto supports the application as finally revised as set out within Clause ___ of Toronto Community Council Report No. ____ adopted by City Council at its meeting of November ____, 1998.

3.The Ontario Municipal Board considered this matter at a hearing respecting Board file Nos. O980120 and Z980076, and rendered a decision and issued an Order.

4.The Ontario Municipal Board orders as follows:

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

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No. ______.

--------

SCHEDULE "A"

1.Section 18 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto is amended by adding Section 18.___:

"18.____Lands known as 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street.

85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street

See map 18.____ at end of this section.

(a)Despite any of the provisions of this plan relating to high density mixed commercial residential areas and pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lot shown on map 18._____ to increase the height limits and maximum residential gross floor area permitted on the lot to 17,078 square metres and to decrease the amount of non residential gross floor area permitted on the lot to 330 square metres, if the non residential gross floor area is used for street related retail and service uses, not more than a total of 17,398 square metres of residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area is erected or used on the lot; and the owners of the lot are required by the by-law to:

(1)pay to the City of Toronto $50,000.00 for park improvements at the time a zoning by-law is passed pursuant to this amendment;

(2)convey for nominal consideration an easement in favour of the City of Toronto for the benefit of the public for the purposes of the construction provision and maintenance of a public walkway across the site;

(3)convey for nominal consideration a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street;

(4)provide improvements to the public boulevard and public sidewalk and parts of the lot adjacent thereto or pay for the improvements to be provided;

(5)design, construct and maintain the project in accordance with an approved noise impact statement;

(6)set back the building at least 2.7 metres from Bloor Street East and build the building not more than 2.8 metres from Bloor Street East at the north east corner of the lot with the building face aligned generally parallel to the centre line of Bloor Street East;

(7)provide space for utility access and vaults; and

(8)allow for the construction of and maintain a satisfactory pedestrian walkway which walkway allows for and does not interfere with pedestrian access from Hayden Street to Bloor Street East.

(Map to be attached outlining lot consisting of 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street)

------

DRAFT BY-LAW (2) (OMB)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No.

as adopted by Council on

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. - 1998

To amend the Zoning By-law for the former City of Toronto No. 438-86,

with respect to 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street.

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of the municipality may in a By-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in the height or density of development beyond that otherwise permitted by the By-law that will be permitted in return for the provision of such facilities, services or matters as are set out in the By-law; and

WHEREAS subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in the height or density of development, a municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facilities services and matters; and

WHEREAS the owner of the lot has elected to provide the facilities, services or matters as are set out in this by-law; and

WHEREAS the increase in height and residential density of development permitted under this By-law beyond that otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lot by By-law No. 438-86, as amended, is to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities services and matters set out in this By-law and to be secured by one or more agreements between the owner of the lot and the City of Toronto; and

WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto has required the owner of the lot to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increase in permitted height and density in connection with the lot;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lot has appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to an application to amend the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto and to amend the Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board in considering the appeals (Board file Nos.O980120 and Z980076) held a hearing;

AND WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board has accepted the request of the Council of the City of Toronto and has required the owner of the lot to enter into one or more agreements with the City of Toronto dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increase in permitted height and density in connection with the lot;

THEREFORE the Ontario Municipal Board orders as follows:

1.None of the provisions of Sections 4(2)(a), 4(16), 8(3) Part 1(1), 8(3) Part 1(3)(a) and 12(2)(259)(ii) of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection or use on the lot shown on Plan1 attached to and forming part of this by-law of a mixed-use building containing more residential gross floor area than otherwise permitted by By-law No. 438-86 and non-residential gross floor area used for no purpose other than street related retail and service uses provided;

(1)the lot on which such building is located comprises at least those lands delineated by heavy lines on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law;

(2)no portion of any building or structure located above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the areas delineated by heavy lines on Plan2 attached hereto;

(3)no portion of any building or structure erected or used on the lot is located above the height limits shown on Plan 2 attached hereto exclusive of parapets and of rooftop structures and elements permitted by and complying with Sections 4(2)(a)(i) or (ii) of the aforesaid By-law No.438-86;

(4)not more than 17,078 square metres of residential gross floor area is erected or used on the lot;

(5)not more than 330 square metres non-residential gross floor area is erected or used on the lot;

(6)not more than a total of 17,398 square metres of residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area is erected or used on the lot;

(7)the building or structure erected and used on the lot contains not more than 252 dwelling units;

(8)not less than 156 parking spaces are provided and maintained in an underground parking structure on the lot of which not more than 8 may have an unobstructed area of not less than 4.5 metres in length and not less than 2.5 metres in width;

(9)at least 50% of the aggregate length of the portion of the frontage of the lot abutting Bloor Street East is used for the purposes of street related retail and services uses but is otherwise in compliance with all other provisions of section 12(1) 259 of the aforesaid By-law 438-86;

(10)the owner of the lot, at their expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in section 1(11) herein:

(a)pays to the City of Toronto $50,000.00 in cash or provides security for that amount by letter of credit for park improvements at the time the form of this zoning by-law is approved by City Council;

(b)provides a generally rectangular easement of indefinite term, in favour of the City of Toronto, at the southeast corner of the site, extending 13 metres in length from the south property line and 2.5 metres in width from the east property line, for the purposes of the construction, provision and maintenance of a public walkway across the site, connecting the existing exterior public walkway on the abutting lands to the east, known as 121 Bloor Street East and 117 Hayden Street, with a future public walkway on the lands to the south, known as 52 Hayden Street, to provide in total a continuous public walkway from Bloor Street to Hayden Street, with such walkway over the easement to be implemented if the City secures the necessary portion of the public walkway from the south end of the easement to Hayden Street, to be secured to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

(c)conveys by the owner to the City, at nominal cost, of a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

(d)carries out of street scape improvements on the public sidewalk/boulevard for Bloor Street East across the frontage of the site, generally as stipulated on approved Plans, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, 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;

(e)provides maintains and operates of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for approved Plans;

(f)erect and maintain the building a 2.7 metres from the Bloor Street East property line at the east end of the frontage, with the building face aligned generally parallel to the centre line of Bloor Street East;

(g)that a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify will 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;

(h)provide for 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;

(i)provide for the construction and maintain within the lot a pedestrian walkway over the easement referred to in clause (b), above, and that such pedestrian walkway shall:

1)remain open and accessible to the public at all times during the hours of operation of the Toronto Transit Commission subway system and such access may be refused, or a person may be required to leave the pedestrian walkway, in the case of a person who:

i)unreasonably interferes with the ability of other members of the public or lawful occupants to use the pedestrian walkway;

ii)carries on an unlawful activity;

iii)acts in a manner unreasonably inconsistent with the intended use of the premises;

iv)injures or attempts to injure any person, property or property rights;

v)obstructs or injures any lawful business or occupation carried on by the building owner or person in lawful possession of the premises; or

vi)commits any criminal or quasi-criminal offence; and

2)be illuminated to a minimum average intensity of 10 lux on the pedestrian walkway surface; and

3)be maintained clear of snow and ice at all times;

and that this access for construction of the walkway be provided if and when the City secures the necessary portion of the through-block pedestrian walkway from the south end of the easement on the site to Hayden Street and the walkway has been constructed over the easement.

(j)conveys for nominal consideration, an easement in favour of the City of Toronto for the benefit of the public at the south east corner of the site extending 13 metres in length from the south property line and 2� metres in width from the east property line for the purposes of the construction provision and maintenance of a public walkway across the site;

(k)conveys for nominal consideration a 1.5 metre wide stoop of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street;

(l)provides improvements to the public boulevard and public sidewalk and parts of the lot adjacent thereto or pays for the improvements to be provided;

(m)designs, constructs and maintains the project in accordance with an approved noise impact statement;

(n)implements the facilities, services and matters set forth in sections 1(9)(a) to (m) herein within the time frames provided for each such facility, service or matter in the agreement referred to in section 1(11) herein; and

(11)the owners of the lot enter into an agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in section 1(9) herein, and consent to such agreement being registered on title to the lot as a first charge against the lot.

2.For the purposes of this by-law each other word or expression which is italicized in this by-law shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

3.Section 12(1) 346 of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended is repealed upon the coming into force of the balance of this by-law.

(Maps to be attached showing lot, building envelope and height limits)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (October 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations respecting an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law

amendments, and respecting authorization for City staff to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board, for a mixed use development at 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That, subject to the completion of the matters set out in Recommendation 5, below, the Official Plan be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18.483Lands known as 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street

See Map 18.483 at the end of this Section

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lot shown on Map 18.483, 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 and non-residential floor area of the building does not exceed 17,398 m2, of which:

i)not more than 17,078 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential uses; and

ii)not more than 330 m2 is used for non-residential uses; 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)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $50,000.00 for the development of the public park at 13 Isabella Street;

ii)the provision of a generally rectangular easement of indefinite term, in favour of the City of Toronto, at the southeast corner of the site, extending 13 metres in length from the south property line and 2.5 metres in width from the east property line, for the purposes of the construction, provision and maintenance of a public walkway across the site, connecting the existing exterior public walkway on the abutting lands to the east, known as 121 Bloor Street East and 117 Hayden Street, with a future public walkway on the lands to the south, known as 52 Hayden Street, to provide in total a continuous public walkway from Bloor Street to Hayden Street, with such walkway over the easement to be implemented if the City secures the necessary portion of the public walkway from the south end of the easement to Hayden Street, to be secured to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

iii)the conveyance by the owner to the City, at nominal cost, of a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

iv)the carrying out of streetscape improvements on the public sidewalk/boulevard for Bloor Street East across the frontage of the site, generally as stipulated on approved Plans, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, 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;

v)the provision, maintenance and operation by the owner of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for approved Plans;

vi)that the building be set back a minimum of 2.7 metres from the Bloor Street property line at the east end of the frontage, with the building face aligned generally parallel to the centre line of Bloor Street East;

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)provision of 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;

ix)the owner shall maintain within the development site a pedestrian walkway over the easement referred to in clause (ii), above, and that such pedestrian walkway shall:

a)remain open and accessible to the public at all times during the hours of operation of the Toronto Transit Commission subway system and such access may be refused, or a person may be required to leave the pedestrian walkway, in the case of a person who:

i)unreasonably interferes with the ability of other members of the public or lawful occupants to use the pedestrian walkway;

ii)carries on an unlawful activity;

iii)acts in a manner unreasonably inconsistent with the intended use of the premises;

iv)injures or attempts to injure any person, property or property rights;

v)obstructs or injures any lawful business or occupation carried on by the building owner or person in lawful possession of the premises; or

vi)commits any criminal or quasi-criminal offence; and

b)be illuminated to a minimum average intensity of 10 lux on the pedestrian walkway surface;

c)be maintained clear of snow and ice at all times;

and that this provision be implemented if and when the City secures the necessary portion of the through-block pedestrian walkway from the south end of the easement on the site to Hayden Street and the walkway has been constructed over the easement."

2.That, subject to the completion of the matters set out in Recommendation 5, below, the Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

a)exempt the site from the following sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

2definition of "parking space";

4 (2)Height limits of buildings and structures;

4(16)Hard surfaced driveway;

8(3) PART I 1 Maximum total density;

8(3) PART I 3(a) Maximum residential gross floor area; and

12(2)259(ii)Minimum retail frontage;

b)permit the erection and use of a mixed use building containing residential and non-residential uses and a below-grade parking facility, on the lot shown on Map 1 and known municipally as 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street, provided:

i)the combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 17,398 m2;

ii)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 17,078 m2;

iii)the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 330 m2;

iv)the number of dwelling units does not exceed 252;

v)Section 4(2) shall apply except that the mechanical penthouse may have a maximum height of 8.0 metres above the height limit, a flag mast is permitted on the roof with a maximum height of 12.0 metres above the height limit, indoor residential amenity space is permitted on the roof to the extent of a maximum floor area of 65 m2 with a maximum height of 5 metres above the height limit, and a proposed structure for open air recreation may be permitted less than 2.0 metres from an adjacent outside wall or vertical projection of the wall;

vi)the Section 2 definition of "parking space" shall apply except that no more than 8 spaces may have minimum horizontal dimensions of 2.7 m in width by 4.5 m in length;

vii)not less than 156 parking spaces are provided on site to serve the project;

viii)one Type G loading space is provided and maintained on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

ix)an easement is provided for an indefinite term, in favour of the City of Toronto, with dimensions of 2.5 m in width and 13.0 m in length, in the southeast corner of the site, for the purposes of a future public walkway connection between the existing exterior public walkway on the abutting lands to the east and a public walkway which may be obtained on the abutting lands to the south, in order that a public walkway from Bloor Street East to Hayden Street is possible;

x)Section 12(2)259(ii) shall apply except that the minimum percentage of the frontage for retail and service uses shall be 50%; and

xi)the owner shall maintain within the development site a pedestrian walkway over the easement referred to in clause (ix), above, and that such pedestrian walkway shall:

i)unreasonably interferes with the ability of other members of the public or lawful occupants to use the pedestrian walkway;

ii)carries on an unlawful activity;

iii)acts in a manner unreasonably inconsistent with the intended use of the premises;

iv)injures or attempts to injure any person, property or property rights;

v)obstructs or injures any lawful business or occupation carried on by the building owner or person in lawful possession of the premises; or

vi)commits any criminal or quasi-criminal offence;

b)be illuminated to a minimum average intensity of 10 lux on the pedestrian walkway surface;

c)be maintained clear of snow and ice at all times;

all provided that the owner enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

i)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $50,000.00 for the development of the public park at 13 Isabella Street;

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;

ix)the owner shall maintain within the development site a pedestrian walkway over the easement referred to in clause (ii), above, and that such pedestrian walkway shall:

i)unreasonably interferes with the ability of other members of the public or lawful occupants to use the pedestrian walkway;

ii)carries on an unlawful activity;

iii)acts in a manner unreasonably inconsistent with the intended use of the premises;

iv)injures or attempts to injure any person, property or property rights;

v)obstructs or injures any lawful business or occupation carried on by the building owner or person in lawful possession of the premises; or

vi)commits any criminal or quasi-criminal offence;

b)be illuminated to a minimum average intensity of 10 lux on the pedestrian walkway surface;

c)be maintained clear of snow and ice at all times;

3.That, upon the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended in Recommendations 1 and 2, above, Section 12(1) 346 of By-law 438-86 be repealed, the previous approval of Site Plans by the former City of Toronto Council at its meetings of January 24, 1991 and February 4, 1991 under Application No. 390073 be rescinded, and the City Solicitor be authorized to release Development and Collateral Agreements registered on title on September 20, 1991 as Instrument Nos. CA158422 and CA158423, respectively.

4.That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and the Agreement be entered into prior to the adoption by Council of Recommendations 1 and 2, above, to secure the facilities, services and matters substantially as set out in Recommendations 1 and 2, above.

5.That prior to the adoption by Council of Recommendations 1 and 2, above:

a)the owner enter into an undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act;

b)the owner enter into an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act;

c)the owner submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

d)the owner 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 lands to be conveyed to the City, the remainder of the site, and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto; and

e)the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to Council's consideration of this matter.

6.That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner:

a)convey to the City, at nominal cost, a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

b)submit a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

c)submit to, and have approved by, the Toronto Transit Commission, Site and Foundation Plans, which include:

i)shoring drawings;

ii)plot plan/sections/elevations showing relation to the subway structure;

iii)structural calculations showing loads;

iv)geotechnical report; and

v)excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans.

7.That the City Solicitor and other City staff as necessary be authorized to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board to represent the position of City Council in this matter, with such authorization subject to completion by the owner of the matters set out in Recommendation No. 5, above.

8.That the owner be advised of the comments of civic officials appended to this report, namely:

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 East boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

c)to obtain building location and streetscape permits from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to construction of this project;

d)that the stormwater runoff 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;

e)of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection;

f)to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

g)that the Toronto Transit Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants, that noise and vibration attenuation measures should be applied, and that prospective purchasers and lessees should be informed through a clause in purchase or rental agreements of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions;

h)that the proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act; and

i)that 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.

Background:

a)Applicant and Owners

Application submitted by Page and Steele Inc. Architects and Planners, 95 St. Clair Avenue West, 2^nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1N6 on behalf of Lakeburn Land Capital Corporation, 48 St. Clair Avenue West, Suite 600, Toronto, Ontario M4V 3B6

b)Site

The 1904.5 m2 site is located in the east half of the block bounded by Bloor, Church, Hayden and Yonge Streets, with the main development site on Bloor Street. The property currently contains a 50-space commercial parking lot. The main frontage and development site is the 85 Bloor Street property, with the 44 Hayden Street property providing a minor frontage accommodating vehicular access from Hayden Street.

c)Surrounding Context

On the site to the east along the south side of Bloor Street is a 16 storey (61 m) office building, and to the east of that is a surface parking lot for the 6 storey (23 m) Salvation Army Grace Hospital fronting on Hayden and Church Streets. The 18 storey (73 m) Crown Life office building exists at the southeast corner of Church and Bloor Streets. To the west of the site along the south side of Bloor is a 1.5 storey restaurant, a 6 storey (23 m) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario office building, the site of an approved 19 storey residential condominium with retail at grade, now under construction at 55 and 57 Bloor Street East, and a 76 m office building (Xerox Centre) at 31 Bloor Street East. On the southeast corner of Yonge and Bloor, a four year old, dormant Official Plan and Rezoning application for a 19-storey (84 m) office building is being reactivated, with frontage on Bloor, Yonge and Hayden Streets. That site is currently occupied by 2 and 3 storey commercial buildings.

On the north side of Hayden Street, 2 to 3 storey residential and commercial buildings exist on either side of the driveway, and further to the east are the 3 storey St. Andrew's United Church and the Grace Hospital. To the west is the Chartered Accountants building, then the site of a proposed 13 storey residential condominium at 30 Hayden Street, and then the 76 m Xerox Centre office building at 31 Bloor Street East.

On the north side of Bloor Street is the Hudson Bay Centre, beginning at the northeast corner of Yonge and Bloor Streets and extending eastward to a point east of the subject site, containing retail, service and office uses, the 256 room Radisson Plaza Hotel, a 700 seat theatre and 400 dwelling units. The Centre has 2 main towers, with the westerly office tower reaching 134 m in height, and the easterly tower, almost directly opposite the proposed development, reaching 123.4 m in height. At the northwest corner of Church and Bloor Streets is a 9 storey (36.6 m) commercial building, also a Crown Life building.

d)Proposed Development

The proposed 20-storey (61.0 m) mixed use building contains ground floor retail uses and 252 residential condominium units, and 156 parking spaces in a below-grade parking garage. The building fronts on Bloor Street, from where the main pedestrian access is obtained. The 44 Hayden Street site is used for a vehicular driveway for building occupants, visitors, and service vehicles. The loading and garbage storage areas are located at grade in the interior of the site. The vehicular ramp to the below-grade parking facility is parallel to Hayden Street and located at the south end of the 85 Bloor Street property, and provides a separation between the proposed building and the house form buildings on the abutting properties to the south.

The building is set back 2.7 m from the Bloor Street property line for most of the frontage, but because the frontage is irregular and the building remains generally parallel to the street, this setback is reduced at the west end of the frontage. Where primary windows face the east, west and south property lines, the face of the building is set back a minimum of 5.5 metres.

Indoor residential amenity space is located on the 1^st and 2^nd floors and a rooftop lounge (62 m2). Outdoor residential amenity space is located at grade and on the roof.

The proposed retail floor area is 320 m2 (0.17 times lot area), fronting on, and accessed by pedestrians from, Bloor Street. The residential floor area is 17,078 m2 (8.97 times lot area). The mechanical room on the roof is an additional 8 m in height, and the rooftop lounge is 5 m higher, than the 61 m high roof.

e)History

In early 1991, the former City of Toronto Council approved Site Plan Application No. 390073 for a 17 storey (61 m) mixed office/residential building containing 39 residential condominium units. The density, approved under the pre-Cityplan zoning using the Units Per Hectare method of density calculation, resulted in a total floor area equivalent to 9.14 times lot area, of which 4.5 times lot area was residential and 4.6 times lot area was commercial. Development and Collateral agreements were registered on title.

During the formulation of the Cityplan zoning amendments, the density maximum for the zoning district in which the site is located was established at 7.8 times lot area, with a maximum non-residential density of 4.5 times lot area. Through discussions with the owner of the site, the residential and non-residential gross floor areas necessary to permit the previously approved building were enshrined in a site-specific permissive exception in Section 12(1) 346 of the Zoning By-law.

In 1995, Site Plan Approval Application No. 394013 was approved for a 50 space surface commercial parking lot, and an Undertaking was executed. In 1996, Site Plan Approval Application No. 396057 to amend the previous parking lot approval by permitting a vehicular access to Bloor Street, was refused.

f)Public Review

A public meeting was held in the community on May 4, 1998, the minutes of which are attached as Appendix D to this report. Approximately 16 members of the public attended the meeting. The issues raised at the meeting included: shadow impact; traffic impact on Hayden Street; vehicular access from Bloor Street; adequacy of parkland in the area; the density increase vis-a-vis the Official Plan limits; public benefits; service vehicles; and a through-block public walkway.

Staff have also received a letter of objection on this application, reproduced in Appendix C to this report, from the owner of 44A Hayden Street which abuts the east side of the driveway over 44 Hayden Street. The issues raised in this letter include the adverse effects on his property due to the increase in vehicular traffic on Hayden Street and the driveway, including service vehicles. The objector requests traffic, noise and environmental impact studies be carried out. A traffic impact study has been carried out and is discussed below, and this report recommends that a noise impact study be submitted prior to Council's adoption of this report.

The planning issues raised by the public have been addressed in the section of this report entitled "Planning Considerations", below, as well as in other sections of this report.

g)Appeal of Current Application to Ontario Municipal Board

The owner, through his solicitor, has appealed the application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) pursuant to Sections 22(7), 34(11) and 41(12) of the Planning Act, which permit such an appeal if the City has not made a decision within 90 days of the date of application in the case of Official Plan and Zoning amendments, and 30 days in the case of Site Plan Approval applications. The applicant's solicitor did make it clear to planning staff that the applicant was not upset with the manner in which staff had dealt with the application, but was attempting to expedite the approval process. The OMB hearing is scheduled to begin on December 1, 1998.

Comments:

1.Planning Controls

a)Official Plan

The site is designated as High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area B in the Official Plan, which permits mixed use buildings at a maximum density of 7.8 times the area of the lot.

b)Zoning By-law

The zoning designation in the general Zoning By-law is CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8, which permits mixed use buildings with maximum total and residential gross floor areas of 7.8 times the area of the lot, and within the total maximum, a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 4.5 times the area of the lot. The height limit on the 85 Bloor Street East property, where the building is proposed, is 61.0m, while the 44 Hayden Street property has a 46.0 m height limit.

A site-specific permissive exception (Section 12(1)346) pertaining to this site is contained in the Zoning By-law, which permits a mixed use building with a maximum residential gross floor area of 8,655 m2 (4.54 times lot area), and a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 8,743 m2 (4.59times lot area). No exception to the height limit is included.

2.Planning Considerations

a)Density, Height, Massing

The proposed total density of 17,398 m2 is exactly that permitted by the existing site-specific permissive exception (Section 12(1)346 of the Zoning By-law), but the current application proposes to increase the residential density and decrease the commercial density within this maximum. Because office uses generally have higher floor to ceiling heights than residential uses, this reduction in the permitted non-residential uses, as compared to the originally approved building, results in a building with less overall mass than was originally approved in 1991. The 5.5 m side and rear yard setbacks required for primary windows in residential units have been maintained, and the bulk of the building, with the exception of some relatively minor rooftop facilities, is within the 61 m height limit of the Zoning By-law.

The proposed total density represents an increase of 2,543 m2 (1.34 times lot area) over the 14,855m2 (7.8 times lot area) permitted in both the Official Plan and the general Zoning By-law. The density increase per se does not raise any planning issues of concern. The shadow and traffic impact of that increase are discussed below. The massing of the density is not out of context with other buildings, existing and approved, on Bloor Street East in the vicinity. The Official Plan does encourage residential intensification in the Central Area, and while that is not sufficient justification by itself for a residential density increase, the proposed development is furthering that Official Plan objective.

The Zoning By-law does not permit an indoor lounge on the roof of a building unless it is included in the height. The proposed lounge (62 m2 floor area) is an amenity for the occupants, including a washroom, storage room, sitting area/party room, and access to the exterior rooftop terrace. The roof level is accessed by elevator and stairs. This space is close to the centre of the building, set back from the sides, is behind the mechanical rooms and not visible to a pedestrian in proximity to the building. It is a beneficial addition to the building, and an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit the rooftop lounge is recommended. Related to this lounge, the elevator machine room is 3 m higher than the permitted 5 metres as a result of the elevator access to the roof, and a zoning amendment to permit this height increase is also recommended. A flag mast of 12 m in height above the roof is proposed at the centre of the Bloor Street frontage of the building, and a Zoning By-law amendment to permit this mast is recommended.

b)Through-Block Public Walkway

A through-block public walkway is desirable in the vicinity of this project. Such a walkway was established on the abutting lands to the east, and secured in an agreement registered in 1981 as a result of the development of the former United Church property for the existing office building at 121 Bloor Street East, but the results have been less than desirable. The walkway extends from Bloor Street south across the hard-surfaced exterior space on the lands immediately abutting the east property boundary of the 85 Bloor Street site, and then through the interior of St. Andrew's United Church to Hayden Street. The problem is that the Church has locked its doors, making the public walkway unusable, and the Church is unwilling to allow continued use of the walkway through its building for security reasons. The interior of the Church was not appropriately designed to accommodate a public walkway.

When the surface parking lot was approved on the 85 Bloor/44 Hayden site, a through-block walkway, although narrow, was secured down the west side of the site, and appears to be used. Three options for through-block public walkways involving the lands in the current application have been considered:

i)a continuation of the existing exterior walkway on the abutting lands to the east from in front of the church doors, south on the 85 Bloor site, across the rear of the site, and down the east side of the driveway on 44 Hayden Street;

ii)a walkway down the west side of the site; and

iii)a walkway from Bloor Street down the east side and across the rear of the site and down the east side of the driveway to Hayden Street.

These options have various design flaws which make them far from ideal, i.e. narrow width (1.0 to 1.2 m) as a result of the servicing, parking ramp, storage, amenity space and retail uses which need to be accommodated on the ground floor (all 3 options); convoluted layout causing poor site lines (Options (i) and (iii); lack of wheelchair accessibility (Option (i)); danger from vehicles (all 3 options); proximity to potentially unsafe areas (Option (ii)); creation of an undesirable "tunnel" through the building (Option (ii)); creating a pathway abutting the rear of neighbouring properties to the south (Options (i) and (iii)); and leading the public past unaesthetic garbage and loading areas (Option (ii)).

Planning staff do not wish to promote a public walkway which is not used, is unsafe, or is unappealing. While the owner was willing to provide a walkway as per Options (i) and (iii), above, the results were not satisfactory in terms of design. At least one abutting property owner on Hayden Street objected at the community public meeting to a public walkway across the rear of his property.

Therefore, a compromise solution was reached with the applicant, to require an easement over the southeast corner of the 85 Bloor site which will provide for a future connection between the exterior walkway on the lands to the east and a possible future walkway over lands to the south, should they be redeveloped or come into City ownership. If such a through-block walkway came to fruition, it would extend over at least 4 properties in total. The easement is 2.5 m in width, allowing a more spacious walkway than could be provided over other portions of the site due to at-grade space constraints. Such an easement has been recommended. The actual construction of the walkway over the easement would not occur until the connection to Hayden Street had been secured.

If a walkway were to extend up the east or west side of the building to Bloor Street, as in Options(ii) and (iii), it would reduce the retail frontage to an amount below the minimum Zoning By-law requirement of 60%. Although such a walkway is not currently contemplated, site plans could later be amended if an acceptable design for such a walkway was agreed to. Therefore, an amendment to the Zoning By-law to reduce this required minimum retail frontage on Bloor Street to 50% has been recommended.

c)Shadow Impact

Given that the proposed building is, with the exception of relatively minor rooftop facilities, within the Zoning By-law height limit, the shadow impact on the public sidewalks (primarily Bloor Street) and public open spaces is not a planning issue. As previously discussed, the currently proposed building is, in any event, less massive than the previously approved building with the same total gross floor area but a greater proportion of office space, the density for which is permitted in the Zoning By-law.

At the May 4, 1998 community public meeting, residents of a building located some distance to the south and east (71 Charles Street East) expressed concern that their sunsets would be blocked from view. As was pointed out at that meeting, the blockage of sunlight to private residences is not a strong planning argument against a particular development. Any building built to the height limit on the site, even with no density increase, would block the sunset for those residents. Furthermore, staff is of the opinion that while sunset may be an aesthetically pleasing time, it represents only a few minutes of sunlight out of the day, and the degree of shadow impact on the residents' building would not be significant in terms of the duration of sunlight lost.

d)Hayden Street Interim Guidelines

On October 7 an 8, 1991, City Council adopted "Interim Guidelines for Hayden Street", and adopted a minor correction on April 13 and 14, 1992. They were developed by the Hayden Street Ratepayers. Due to their status as both "interim" and "guidelines", they are not rigidly applied. The intent was that they be used until more permanent policies could be produced in connection with the Cityplan Official Plan and Zoning By-law review process, which was completed in 1993 with the adoption of the resulting citywide amendments. Since the Cityplan Official Plan amendments were citywide in scope, the Guidelines were not seen as suitable for inclusion. The Guidelines have been of use in reviewing development applications.

The two matters contained in the Guidelines which are of particular relevance to this development are the 1.5 m road widening, and the through-block public walkway. The road widening is being recommended as a condition of approval of this development, and the through-block walkway is discussed above.

e)Section 37 Agreement

The owner's solicitor has argued that because the total density being requested in this application is already permitted in the permissive exception in Section 12(1)346 of the Zoning By-law, that what was being sought was a shift in the proportion of residential and non-residential gross floor area rather than an overall density increase. Furthermore, the owner's solicitor has argued that the Official Plan encourages residential intensification, and thus the increase in the amount of residential density, balanced by an equivalent decrease in non-residential density, is furthering the objective of the Official Plan. His conclusion was that the application did not represent a density increase, and thus the owner should not be required to provide public benefits pursuant to negotiations regarding Section 37 of the Planning Act as would be required if the permitted total density was being increased from 7.8 to 9.14 times lot area.

Having said that, the owner has volunteered to provide a $50,000.00 contribution for parkland development in the area, which would be secured in a Section 37 agreement, over and above the required parks levy. In 1999, a park is proposed for construction between Isabella and Gloucester Streets, just east of Yonge Street over the subway at 13 Isabella Street.

Staff is willing to accept that contribution without agreeing with the argument by the owner's solicitor. The City Solicitor advises there is case law to the contrary. The application seeks an Official Plan amendment to increase the permitted total and residential density. It is not merely a re-apportionment of density permitted in the Zoning By-law. However, rightly or wrongly, the Zoning By-law currently permits the total density being sought, and an increase in the residential proportion of that overall permitted density is furthering the residential intensification objective of the Official Plan. If the application was seeking to increase the non-residential proportion and decrease the residential proportion of the overall permitted density, staff would recommend securing public benefits commensurate with the increase in non-residential density.

The other more common public benefits resulting from the application, which might otherwise have been secured in a development or collateral agreement, are also recommended to be included in the Section 37 agreement. The list of such public benefits is included in Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 of this report.

f)Traffic Impact

At the public meeting and in the letter of objection reproduced in Appendix C attached to this report, it was reinforced that traffic impact on Hayden Street is a major concern of the surrounding community, since the Hayden Street traffic becomes jammed, particularly during the evening peak hour. Hayden Street is one-way eastbound between Yonge and Church Streets. The left turn from Hayden Street onto Church Street while northbound Church Street traffic is backed up at the Bloor Street traffic lights is the major cause of the problem.

The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study, which has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, who has accepted the assumptions and criteria contained in the traffic study. Works and Emergency Services staff advise that the study identifies the critical traffic operations difficulties on the eastbound approach to the unsignalized intersection of Church and Hayden Streets during the evening peak hour. A previous traffic study estimated that the former office building on the 85 Bloor/44 Hayden site contributed 17 vehicles to the eastbound peak hour traffic, and the existing commercial parking lot contributes 19 vehicles, as compared to the 15 vehicles forecast for the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed development has no adverse impact during the peak evening rush as compared to the existing or former situation. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is satisfied with the traffic impact study.

g)Vehicular Access from Bloor Street

Several comments from the public have suggested that vehicular access be obtained from Bloor Street, either permanently or during construction. The objective is to minimize the traffic impact on Hayden Street. Firstly, Bloor Street is a major traffic arterial and it is the City's objective to provide vehicular access to sites from secondary streets or lanes whenever possible in order to maintain as efficient a traffic flow on arterials as possible. This has been a consistent position of the former Metro government for many years. Secondly, Bloor Street has a high pedestrian traffic flow, and it is desirable to minimize the disruptions to pedestrian traffic as much as possible, to maintain a high quality and safe pedestrian environment. Vehicular access from Bloor Street is not supported on planning grounds.

h)Service Vehicles

Comments from the public raised the issue of noise from service vehicles, entering and exiting the site and on-site. The loading and garbage storage area is close to the middle of the 85 Bloor Street site, rather than at the south end where it would increase noise for the property owners to the south. The loading space is located 22 m from the nearest Hayden Street property. Service vehicles using the driveway might increase noise for the abutting properties, but that appears to be an unavoidable fact of life in an urban situation such as this. Even if a development were proposed on the site which complied in every respect with the existing Zoning By-law, and only Site Plan Approval was required, service vehicles would still have to enter and exit the site.

i)Damage to Tree on Neighbouring Property

Forestry Services staff in Parks and Recreation have identified as an issue the fact that a tree exists on one of the Hayden Street properties, very close to the property line of the site. An arborist's report has been submitted which indicates that the tree is in declining condition, but nonetheless still requires a permit for removal. Forestry staff have advised that the tree cannot likely survive the construction of the proposed development due to root damage and should be removed if the development proceeds in its present form. Under the provisions of the current by-law to protect trees on private property, the City cannot accept an application for a permit to injure or destroy a tree situated on an adjacent private property, which the applicant does not own, without the written consent of the owner of the adjacent property on which the tree is situated.

Forestry staff advise that Council has approved in principle amendments to the Tree By-law which would permit the owner of an abutting property to submit such an application, but to date, the Bill to implement those amendments has not been introduced in Council. By the time construction of this development could begin, such By-law amendments would very likely have been adopted, so the City will be in a position to consider an application. There may be a civil common-law issue which the respective property owners must resolve amongst themselves. The City will thus consider an application to damage the tree in due course.

j)Implications of Applicant Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board

As previously discussed, the applicant has appealed the Official Plan amendment, the Zoning By-law amendment, and the Site Plan Approval applications to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Consequently, while the adoption of the recommendations in this report will establish a Council position on the applications and authorize staff to attend the hearing to represent that position, the actual approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and the Site Plan application is up to the OMB. The OMB can approve, refuse or modify these applications as it sees fit. Council will not be adopting actual by-laws to implement the amendments.

The meeting of Toronto Community Council is thus not a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act, as would usually be the case when a Final Report recommending by-law amendments is considered. The recommendations of this report are structured so that City support for the proposed development is subject to completion by the owner of the matters set out in Recommendation No.5. An implication of the December 1, 1998 hearing date is that this report must therefore be dealt with by Council at its meeting beginning November 25, 1998.

k)Request for Environmental Impact Statement

The letter of objection from a neighbour, attached as Appendix C, requests an environmental impact statement. An environmental impact statement is not required for a development of this nature. The perceived potential for garbage and debris being strewn along the access route for garbage trucks seems to be the reason for this request.

Garbage trucks already travel along Hayden Street to serve other developments, and thus the only proposed change is that the driveway access to the garbage storage area on the site would now also accommodate such trucks. Garbage and debris along the existing truck route has not been identified as a problem, and there is no reason why this development would cause any unique problem in that regard.

l)Site Plan Approval

As previously mentioned, the owner has also appealed the Site Plan Approval aspect of the application to the OMB. The Site Plan Approval is delegated to planning staff by Council. The Statement of Approval/Undertaking related to the site plans will be issued, and the Undertaking executed, prior to Council's adoption of Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2, above. At the time of preparation of this report, revised landscape plans had not yet been submitted by the applicant, but their submission was apparently imminent. The plans and drawings of the proposed development submitted with the application, with the exception of the aforementioned landscape plans still outstanding, are satisfactory and ready for approval.

Conclusions:

The proposed development, with its associated increases in height and density, does not have any significant adverse planning impact on the surrounding properties or neighbourhood, and represents good planning. The appropriate amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are recommended, together with related conditions of approval. Authority to attend the OMB hearing to represent Council's position regarding this application is recommended. Such recommendations are predicated on the applicant satisfying certain conditions prior to Council's adoption of this report.

Contact Name:

Peter Langdon

Toronto City Hall

Telephone: (416) 392-7617

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

________

Appendix A

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197030
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	December 23, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	October 6, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street.

Nearest Intersection:	South side of Bloor Street East; west of Church Street.

Project Description:	To construct a mixed use development.

Applicant:

Vladimir Losner

95 St. Clair Av. W.

924-9966

Agent:

Vladimir Losner

95 St. Clair Av. W.

924-9966

Architect:

Page & Steele

95 St. Clair Av. W.

924-9966

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	HDMCRA'B'	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	61.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	1904.5 m²	Height:	Storeys:	20 + Mech.
Frontage:			Metres:	61.00
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	156
Residential GFA:	17078.0 m²	Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:	320.0 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:	17398.0 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Condo	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Bachelors:	32	Residential	17078.0 m²
1 Bedroom:	136	Retail	320.0 m²
2 Bedroom:	84
Total Units:	252

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 8.97	Non-Residential Density: 0.17	Total Density: 9.14

Comments

Status:

Preliminary Report dated March 13, 1998 adopted by TCC on April 1,1998.

Data valid:

October 6, 1998

Section:

CP East

Phone:

392-7333

_______

Appendix B

Comments of Civic Officials

1.Director of Buildings Division, Urban Planning and Development Services dated October 19, 1998

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Build 20 storeys and 4 levels of basement parking of retail store and dwelling building with 252 dwelling units

Zoning Designation:CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8Map:51H321

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

Plans prepared by:Page & Steele ArchitectsPlans dated :October 6, 1998.

Gross Floor Area (GFA):17,398 m²

Residential GFA:17,078 m²

Non-Residential GFA:320 m²

Zoning Review

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

Note :The submitted plans are not fully dimensioned and this review is only based on the data provided by the Architect on Plan SPA-01.

1.The by-law requires a parking space to have minimum unobstructed dimensions of at least 5.9 metres in length by 2.6 metres in width. 8 of the proposed 156 parking spaces will have dimensions of 4.5 metres by 2.7 metres. (Section 2, definition of "parking space".)

2.The proposed elevator machine and the mast will have 8.0 metres and 12.0 metres above the permitted 61.0 metres instead of the by-law permitted 5.0 metres. ( Section 4(2)(I)A.)

3.The proposed structure for open air recreation is 0.0 metre from an adjacent outside wall instead of the required 2.0 metres. ( Section 4(2)(ii)B.)

4.The proposed enclosed lounge at the roof is not permitted. ( Section 4(2)(ii)C.)

5.The by-law requires an apartment building having a residential gross floor area in excess of 2800 square metres to have a driveway that serves an entrance to the building and which allows vehicles to travel in one continuous motion. No driveway is proposed. (Section 4(16))

6.The by-law limits the maximum combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area to not more than 7.8 times the area of the lot: 14,854.7 square metres. The proposed building has 17,398.0 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

7.The by-law limits the maximum residential gross floor area to not more than 7.8 times the area of the lot: 14,854.7 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 17078.0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3.The proposal DOES NOT require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

4.The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

5.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.Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated September 23, 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)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 Councils' requirements;

(c)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;

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

(e)Provide and maintain a minimum of 156 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(f)Designate individually the substandard parking spaces by means of clearly visible signs for use by small cars only;

(g)Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 40 square metres in size and a recycling room at least 20 square metres in size to serve the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(h)Provide and maintain access to the garbage room and the recycling room with double doors or large roll type doors to accommodate the transport of container bins;

(i)Provide and maintain 1 Type G 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;

(j)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;

(k)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;

(l)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 9 compactor containers on collection day;

(m)Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 1.5m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

(n)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 to be conveyed to the City the remainder of the site 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;

(p)Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

(q)Submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a grading and drainage plan 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 East boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of this Department;

(d) 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;

(e) Of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection; and

3. That the lands conveyed to the City under Recommendation No. 1(m) above, be laid out and thereafter dedicated by the City, for public highway purposes.

Comments:

Location

Between Bloor Street East and Hayden Street, west of Church Street.

Proposal

Construction of a mixed-use building comprising 252 residential condominium units and 320 square metres of ground floor retail space.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated March 24, 1998. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Previous Applications

The site was the subject of Site Plan Review Application No. 390073 resulting in Development and Collateral Agreements registered on September 20, 1991 as Instrument Nos. CA158422 and CA158423, respectively, Site Plan Review Application No. 394013 resulting in Statement of Approval/Undertaking No. U394013 and Site Plan Review Application No. 396057.

Parking and Access

The proposed provision of 156 parking spaces in a 4-level underground parking garage is less than the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 204 spaces, based in part on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 189 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project and 15 spaces for the use of residential visitors. However, as far as can be ascertained, the proposed parking supply satisfies the Zoning By-law requirement for 156 spaces. In this regard, the applicant has expressed the opinion that, given the accessibility to transit facilities, specifically the Yonge-University-Spadina and Bloor-Danforth subway lines, the requirements of the Zoning By-law would be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand generated by the residents. Furthermore, recognizing the availability of public parking facilities in the area to satisfy visitor parking, the elimination of the proposed visitor parking in order to provide 15 additional spaces for the residents, if the need arises, would be acceptable. Based on the foregoing, the proposed parking supply is satisfactory.

The parking layout is generally satisfactory and the dimensions of the parking spaces satisfy the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law, with the exception of 8 substandard spaces with a length of 4.5 m, which is acceptable.

Access to the underground garage is proposed via a two-way driveway from Hayden Street. Your staff has advised that the proposed pedestrian walkway shown along the east side of the access driveway will be eliminated. The proposed access is acceptable.

Traffic Impact Assessment

Hayden Street operates one-way eastbound and, therefore, all traffic entering the site must travel through the Yonge Street/Hayden Street intersection and all traffic leaving the site must use the Church Street/Hayden Street intersection. Previous studies indicate that these two intersections experience constrained conditions, operating essentially at capacity. In order to address these concerns, the applicant's traffic consultant, DS-Lea Associates, has prepared a Traffic Impact Study dated July, 1998 which assesses the traffic impacts associated with this development. The study identifies an existing concern with traffic operations on the eastbound approach at the unsignalized intersection of Church Street/Hayden Street during the evening peak hour. A previous study estimated that the former office building on this site contributed 17 vehicles to the eastbound movement at this intersection during the evening peak hour, whereas, the current study indicates that the existing parking lot contributes 19 vehicles. By comparison, the study forecasts the proposed residential building (which has different arrival/departure patterns) to contribute 15 vehicles, which represents a nominal decrease compared to the previous uses. Consequently, the forecasted levels of peak hour traffic generated by this project would be adequately accommodated on the road network with no further impact on the critical eastbound approach at the Church Street/Hayden Street intersection. The assumptions and criteria provided in the report have been reviewed and are acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with the bulk lift method of refuse collection in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste). This will require the provision of the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(g) to 1(l ), above. The sizes of the garbage room, recycling room and the concrete pad used to store container bins on collection day, and the configuration of the Type G loading space are acceptable.

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, 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.

Widening of Hayden Street

As the Hayden Street road allowance width of 12.19 metres is substandard, a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, should be conveyed, at nominal cost, for the purpose of providing additional public boulevard space within the public highway. The required widening is shown on the plans.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sewer systems are adequate to accommodate the development.

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

The applicant should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Work Within the Road Allowances

It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department in respect of any work within the road allowance. With respect to Bloor Street East, the design of the boulevard must meet this Department's guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. This includes providing or preserving a decorative band of impressed concrete 0.6 metres wide along the back of curb. If clarification is required on how these standards will apply to this site, the applicant can contact the Streetscape Program at 392-3808.

Permits

The applicant is required to obtain building location 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 392-4960 regarding the site specific permit/licence requirements."

3.Director, Parks and Recreation, Central District, Economic Development, Culture, and Tourism, dated July 16, 1998

This will acknowledge your Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning Circulation Form which was circulated on July 10, 1998 and contained revised plans for the above noted application. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

-There is/are one City owned tree(s) involved with this project which is/are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These tree(s) 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.

-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 generally in good health 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.

-I advise that the plans prepared by Page + Steele Architects Planners, date stamped as received on July 3, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.

4.Manager, Service Planning, Toronto Transit Commission dated March 16, 1998

"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 required:

-shoring drawings

-plot plan/sections/elevations showing relation to the subway structure

-structural calculations showing loads

-geotechnical report

-excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans.

Subsequent approval of the foregoing development is subject to any conditions that may be specified to the applicant by 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 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, through 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.Comments from Senior Coordinator of Planning, Toronto Catholic District School Board dated September 3, 1998

"Further to your request for comments, please be advised that staff reviewed the above-noted proposal and wishes to re-affirm that children emanating from this development could be accommodated in permanent facilities at the following schools:

Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School (JK-8)

St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School

Should your require additional information regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Joe Ruscitti at 222-8282, extension 2281."

--------

Appendix C

Correspondence from the Public

Letter dated May 20, 1998 from Haim Klein, owner of 44A Hayden Street, c/o Piller Investments Ltd., 234 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 606, Toronto, Ontario M4P 1K5

"I am the owner of 44A Hayden Street in the City of Toronto.

I wish to file my objection to the above-noted Proposed Development primarily because the only access, both during construction and following occupancy, to the proposed site would be from Hayden Street, adjacent to my property. Such limited and restricted access would result in the following:

1.My property would be adversely affected due to the dramatic increases in vehicular traffic both on Hayden Street and immediately adjacent to my building. A traffic impact study should be prepared for community review.

2.Commercial vehicles would create noise and there would likely be more garbage and debris along this access route. A Noise Impact Statement and an Environmental Impact Study should be prepared by approved consultants for community review.

A general increase to the total density and the residential density as required by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law will affect the immediate area. Hayden Street is currently almost impossible at certain times during the day. This increase is not in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan and the corresponding zoning. The community must be in agreement with any changes.

Please advise me of any future meetings, reports, or revised drawings regarding this development."

--------

Appendix D

Minutes of the Community Public Meeting

Held at the YMCA, 42 Charles Street East, 9^th Floor Auditorium

on Monday, May 4, 1998, 7:00 p.m.

Application No. 197030 to amend the City of Toronto Official Plan

and Zoning By-law regarding 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street

Present:

Vladimir LosnerPage and Steele Architects Planners, architect

Peter Van LoanFraser and Beatty, applicant's solicitor

Terry WallaceD. S. Lea and Associates, transportation consultant

Tony BarryRepresenting owner, Lakeburn Land Capital Corp.

Peter LangdonCity of Toronto Urban Planning & Development Services, Area Planner (chairperson of meeting)

Councillor Kyle RaeCity of Toronto Councillor, Downtown (Ward 24)

Attendance: Approximately 16 members of the public.

Opening Remarks

Peter Langdon opened the meeting by introducing the applicant's team and Councillor Kyle Rae. He explained the purpose and structure of the meeting. The meeting was structured such that he would describe the planning context and issues, the applicant would describe in detail the proposed development, and questions and comments from the audience would then be entertained. Mr. Langdon then explained the application approval process, and described the additional opportunities for public comment in that process.

He then made a number of logistical announcements including: the location of the sign-in sheet if people wished to be included on a notification list for future meetings and events regarding this application; the location of Comment Sheets at the meeting should anyone wish to provide written comments; and the location at the meeting of copies of the Preliminary Report on the application from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Planning Context and Issues

Peter Langdon described the size and location of the site and the surrounding development, both existing and proposed. He utilized large mounted maps showing the location of the site on an Official Plan map and a map showing properties, building footprints and general Zoning By-law designations. The current use of the site is as a 50-space commercial surface parking lot. In 1991, Council approved a Site Plan Application for a 17-storey (61m) mixed office and residential building on the site at a floor area of 9.1 times the lot area. He explained the meaning of "density" as used here. The current proposal is for 20-storey (61m) mixed use building containing 252 residential condominium units and retail at grade, at a total density of 9.14 times the lot area.

The Official Plan designation of the site is High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area "B", which permits mixed use developments with a maximum total floor area of 7.8 times the lot area. The zoning designation is CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8, the meaning of which was explained. The Zoning By-law height limits are 61m on 85 Bloor Street East and 46m on 44 Hayden Street. Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are required to increase the total density to 9.14 times lot area from the maximum permitted 7.8 times lot area. Further amendments to the Zoning By-law are required to increase the maximum residential density from 7.8 to 8.97 times lot area and to permit an interior lounge on the roof.

Mr. Langdon briefly described the planning issues which had arisen to date:

a)Through-block public walkway. The history of, and problems with, the existing walkway through the church property to the east, and the alignment and configuration of the proposed walkway were described. Mr. Langdon stated that a walkway alignment down the west property line of the site had been discussed with the applicant, but the applicant felt that an unsafe "tunnel" would be created where the walkway went through the proposed building, and the walkway would have to pass the garbage storage areas and come very close to the truck turning area behind the proposed building. An alignment has also been discussed on the site down the east property line, then following the currently proposed route across the rear of the site. None of these proposed alignment was ideal;

b)Vehicle parking spaces. The Zoning By-law required 157 spaces, whereas 156 were proposed, and Works and Emergency Services staff had requested a higher number, and the matter is still under review;

c)Construction vehicle entrance. Peter Langdon explained that a concern had been raised by neighbours about the negative impact of construction vehicles queuing on Hayden Street, and he had consequently investigated with Works and Emergency Services staff the possibility of a construction vehicle entrance off Bloor Street. The answer had been an emphatic no; and

d)Setback of mechanical penthouse from front of building. Whereas planning staff had initially identified this as an issue in the preliminary report, they had come to the conclusion, after discussion with the applicant and further review, that the proposed penthouse was a deliberate, and not undesirable, architectural feature, and was satisfactory as proposed.

Peter Van Loan then described in greater detail the history of the previous City approval of a development on the site. In his view, the current proposal essentially represented a conversion of the commercial floor area in the already approved development to a residential use. In his opinion, this was in accordance with the spirit of the City's current provisions to allow conversion of non-residential uses to residential, noting that the material difference was that the approved development had not yet been constructed. Vladimir Losner then gave a detailed description of the currently proposed development.

Questions, Comments, Discussion

Questions and comments were then invited from the audience.

a)Gregory and Rosemary Kolesar, 71 Charles Street East, were concerned that the proposed building would block their view of the setting sun.

b)Gloria Collinson, 50 Hayden Street, stated that currently in the planning stage were 750 residential units, which would all generate more traffic for Hayden St., where traffic is already bad. Terry Wallace of D. S. Lea and Associates stated that southbound Church St. currently impedes left turns from Hayden Street, and right turns from Hayden are consequently blocked in the queue. He added that on-street parking takes up extra lanes. A member of the audience inquired as to why Bloor St. could not be used for traffic egress and ingress. Peter Langdon pointed out that the City's traffic management staff would not permit this when an access to and from Hayden Street was available. Mr. Wallace pointed out that the direction of residential traffic is opposite to commercial traffic in the peak afternoon period, and he was of the opinion that outbound traffic from the proposed residential building would be less than that from the current surface parking lot.

c)Rosemary Kolesar inquired about parkland in the area, and why additional residential development was even being contemplated when more parkland was needed. Peter Langdon pointed out that parkland acquisition takes time and is costly. Peter Van Loan added that new development such as this proposal are required to pay a parks levy, which is intended for parks acquisition and improvements in the City. Councillor Rae later pointed out that a new City park was currently being constructed on the former Toronto Parking Authority site between Charles and Isabella Streets.

d)A resident of 50 Hayden St. asked why the developer could not sell 44 Hayden Street and thus obtain vehicular access from Bloor St. He does not want the entrance situated next to him. A member of the audience felt that the extra lane on the south side of Bloor Street could be used for access to the site. Peter Langdon stated that he had investigated whether a temporary entrance for construction vehicles could be created on Bloor St., and was given an emphatic no by Works and Emergency Services staff. Another resident of Hayden Street stated that garbage trucks entering this site would have to "zig-zag" across the road, and another member of the public wondered what time of day the garbage trucks would be operating, and how much noise they would generate. Vladimir Losner pointed out that the garbage pick up area on the site was far from Hayden Street in the interior of the site.

e)Peter Van Loan stated that traffic generation should be compared to that of the already approved building. Terry Wallace stated that the existing approval would generate more traffic.

f)A member of the audience asked about the number of parking spaces. Vladimir Losner responded that 156 spaces would be provided, which complies with the Zoning By-law. Gloria Collinson was concerned about the impact of the proposed building on Hayden Street.

g)Nicholas Paul, 39 Hayden St., stated that the old approval was not built, and that the current proposal should be considered on its own merits. He asked why the additional density was necessary. Why not stick with the density permitted by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law? Peter Van Loan pointed out that the owner could build the existing approval, but that markets change. The existing approval is larger and generates more traffic. The proposed building generates a better financial return for the owner. Mr. Paul felt that the impact of accumulated density increases is important and could cause severe problems, particularly with traffic on Hayden St.

h)In response to a question about what the developer will contribute to the community, Peter Van Loan responded that the parks levy would be paid, and Vladimir Losner stated that the pedestrian walkway would be provided.

i)An audience member stated that the walkway should be routed down the west side of the site, and thus avoid abutting the existing properties on Hayden Street. Vladimir Losner described the walkway as being 5 ft in width, and that it might be temporary across the rear of the site. In future, it may be able to go directly south to Hayden Street, when the properties to the south are redeveloped. Robert Statton stated that the property to the east is 8 ft. higher, and wondered how this change in height would be handled. Vladimir Losner advised that the most recent discussions had concluded that an on-site walkway connecting to Bloor St. down the east property line would permit a gentle slope (about 1.5%) to accommodate wheelchairs. Mr. Statton advised that he would fight any proposal that involved a walkway across the rear of the site next to his property. He felt that represented a security problem for his property. He thought that the existing surface parking lot was well designed as far as a parking lot was concerned, with lighting, trees, and a walkway down the west property line.

j)Someone noted that one of the abutting properties on Hayden to the south of the site had been up for sale for about 12 years. Councillor Kyle Rae stated that the landowners want to maximize their return on their property, and are seeking a development premium, which is why the property has not sold to date.

k)Robert Statton asked how many floors and how many extra units are represented by the increase in density from 7.8 to 9.14 times lot area. Vladimir Losner responded that 2 extra floors could be built, with about 18 extra units. Robert Statton felt that a building on the site should be built in accordance with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. He felt that the City should have pursued the issue with the church of maintaining open the existing approved public walkway through the church building. Councillor Rae advised that when the former Toronto City Council last dealt with that issue, the church would not cooperate, and in consultation with Mr. Statton and others, Councillor Rae had decided that the matter should not go to Council for a decision because Council would not have supported enforcing the existing agreements. Mr. Statton suggested a setback of the walkway from the Hayden Street properties, with buffering. He also felt that the open balconies would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties. He felt that the traffic study would not be adequate in that it would not examine ancillary traffic such as deliveries and taxis. While he favours residential development, he suggested that the developer meet with the neighbours regarding tree planting and buffers.

l)Councillor Rae felt that the proposal represented appropriate development, and that translating the existing approval of a 9.1 times commercial building to residential is a good idea. While traffic impact is a concern, access onto Bloor is problematic from a pedestrian traffic and arterial function and mitigate that argument. He felt that he and the community fought against the parking garage and lost with respect to traffic impact arguments. Density was not an issue for him; rather, the built form is important. He felt that people in this building would use their vehicles mainly on weekends, and primarily use public transit. He felt that there should be an agreement regarding public benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act, perhaps money for parks. He was sorry about the potential blockage of sunset views, but historically, views of sunsets have not been protected by the Ontario Municipal Board, and in any event, the height permission for a building constructed at the 7.8 times density permitted in the Zoning By-law would also obscure the sun. He felt that it would be appropriate for surrounding building owners to talk to the developer to see if any resolution of issues, or a land purchase, could be reached.

m)Nicholas Paul questioned Councillor Rae as to why the 7.8 times density could not be adhered to. Councillor Rae responded that the Official Plan provides control for considering the merits of a proposed development, and that in this case, a more elegant building would result, in comparison to the existing approved building. Mr. Paul asked if the Official Plan was simply a reference point for development. Councillor Rae stated that the Official Plan was not written in stone, and Peter Langdon added that the Official Plan provides a framework for considering change through a public process.

n)Councillor Rae stated that in his opinion, the developer should consider a straight-through pedestrian walkway down the west property line.

o)Rosemary Kolesar asked if traffic lights could be installed at the Church/Hayden intersection. Councillor Rae responded that unfortunately, the intersection was too close to the Church/Charles and Bloor/Church intersections to permit traffic lights.

There being no further questions or comments, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a copy of the "Interim Guidelines for Hayden Street (Corrected Version) (Ward 6)" from Mr. Robert Statton, Hayden Street Ratepayers Association, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

85 Bloor Street & 44 Hayden Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

85 Bloor Street & 44 Hayden Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

85 Bloor Street & 44 Hayden Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

85 Bloor Street & 44 Hayden Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

85 Bloor Street & 44 Hayden Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

85 Bloor Street & 44 Hayden Street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

85 Bloor Street & 44 Hayden Street

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(November 18, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a copy of Clause No. 20 of Report No.5 of the Land Use Committee, entitled "Interim Guidelines for Hayden Street (Corrected Version) (Ward 6)", which was adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting held on April 13 and 14, 1992, submitted by Mr. Robert Statton; and

(ii)(November 5, 1998) from Mr. Vernon Chapman pertaining to a proposed zoning by-law amendment for 85Bloor Street East.)

Proposed Sign By-law Amendment -

1 Dundas Street West et al. (Toronto Eaton Centre)

(Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the words "there is indirect illumination by floodlights directed down from the top of the signs and if" be deleted from subsection R(7) of the Draft By-law attached to the report (November4,1998) of the City Solicitor;

(2)the Draft By-law attached to the report (November4,1998) of the City Solicitor, as amended by Recommendation No. (1) be approved and authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto;

(3)Recommendation No. (3) of the report (October 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be revised to read as follows:

"(3)That the City Solicitor be authorized to submit a Bill in Council to amend Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the erection of a sign tower structure and a canopy (neon letter) sign.";

(4)Recommendation No. (5) of the report (October 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be revised to read as follows:

"(5)An encroachment agreement be entered into between the applicant and the City of Toronto for the encroaching sign tower and canopy sign, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, provided that there shall be no requirement that the colours of the lights associated with the encroaching sign tower and canopy sign will be pastel.";

(5)the report (October 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation Nos. (3) and (4) be adopted; and

(6)the City, through the encroachment agreement, reserve the right to place restrictions on the hours of operation of the lighting, and the signs being lit from the back rather than the front, should residential development take place on the east side of Yonge Street across from the proposed signs.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with the Municipal Act. The public hearing was held on October14, 1998, and Mr. Mark Noskiewicz, Goodman Phillips & Vineberg, on behalf of Cadillac Fairview addressed the Toronto Community Council.

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

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendment to implement the recommendation of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-law has no financial implications or impact for the City of Toronto. It requires no funding.

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 Municipal Act.

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

(2)The Draft By-law attached to the report (November4,1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

(3)Recommendations 3 and 5 of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (October30,1998) be deleted and the following substituted:

"3.That the City Solicitor be authorized to submit a Bill in Council to amend Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the erection of a sign tower structure and a canopy (neon letter) sign."; and

"5.An encroachment agreement be entered into between the applicant and the City of Toronto for the encroaching sign tower and canopy sign, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services."

and that such report, as amended, be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (October30,1998) recommending a draft sign by-law respecting No. 1 Dundas Street West et al (Eaton Centre). Attached is the recommended by-law for consideration with such report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The draft by-law implements the recommendation of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and is submitted for your consideration. The draft by-law report also recommends, with concurrence of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, amendments to recommendations 3 and 5 of her report.

Recommendation 3 of the planning report recommended a minor variance to former Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the erection of the sign tower structure and canopy sign. Former Metro By-law No. 118 is required to be amended by by-law rather than by minor variance and recommendation 3 of the planning report is amended in this regard. These same signs, which are recommended to be the subject of an encroachment agreement (recommendation 5 of the planning report), are to be restricted in the manner set out on page 8 of the planning report, namely:

"The illumination on this tower, including the tower structure itself, as well as the signs, will be static and the colours of the lights will be pastel to avoid creating undesirable visual impacts on the properties directly across Yonge Street. These neighbouring properties are zoned for future mixed commercial and residential uses, so it is important that the development opportunities of these lands not be adversely affected by this proposed sign structure."

The most appropriate manner to secure the above restriction is within the encroachment agreement and with the concurrence of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, recommendation 5 of her report is recommended to be amended so that the encroachment agreement, to be prepared by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, is also drawn in consultation with the Commissioner Urban Planning and Development Services.

Conclusions:

Not applicable.

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7237

Fax:392-0024

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

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Ch. 297, Signs,

respecting No. 1 Dundas Street West et al.

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

1.Section 297-12 of Chapter 297, Signs, of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto is amended by adding the following subsection:

R.Section 297-10 shall not apply to prohibit the erection or display of signs hereinafter described and shown in Schedule B, Maps ___ at the end of this chapter, on the Yonge Street elevation of the Eaton Centre located on lands municipally known in 1997 as including No.1Dundas Street West, if the signs comply with the following:

(1)For the purposes of this exception, the following terms shall have the meaning indicated:

DISPLAY SURFACE - The display surface of the sign screen is the area of the building facade which may be used to erect or display signs, as shown in Schedule B, Maps ___.

SIGN TOWER - The sign tower structure, supports, uprights, bracing and framework erected on a building existing on the lands known in 1997 as including No.1 Dundas Street West for the purpose of supporting signage.

(2)Nine (9) illuminated fascia signs identified by the number 1 and located as shown in Schedule B, Maps ___, for the purpose of identification or for the purpose of third-party advertising, are permitted to be erected or displayed if there is compliance with Subsection (10).

(3)Four (4) illuminated fascia signs identified by the number 2 and located as shown in Schedule B, Maps ___, for the purpose of identification, are permitted to be erected or displayed if there is compliance with Subsection(10).

(4)Seven (7) illuminated fascia signs identified by the number 2(a) and located as shown in Schedule B, Maps ___, for the purpose of identification of the occupant, are permitted to be erected or displayed if there is compliance with Subsection (10).

(5)Three (3) illuminated signs identified by the number 3 and located as shown in Schedule B, Maps ___, for the purpose of direction to the parking garage within the building, are permitted to be erected or displayed if there is compliance with Subsection (10).

(6)One (1) illuminated sign tower located as shown in Schedule B, Map __, for the purpose of identification or the purpose of third-party advertising, is permitted to be erected or displayed if the illumination is static and not intermittent or flashing and if there is compliance with Subsection (10).

(7)Two (2) illuminated signs identified by the number 4 which are supported by the sign tower and located as shown in Schedule B, Map ___, for the purpose of identification or the purpose of third-party advertising, are permitted to be erected or displayed if there is indirect illumination by flood lights directed down from the top of the signs and if the illumination is static and not intermittent or flashing and if there is compliance with Subsection (10).

(8)Two (2) illuminated signs identified by the number 4(a) which are supported by the sign tower and located as shown in Schedule B, Map ___, for the purpose of identification of the name of the building, are permitted to be erected or displayed if the illumination is static and not intermittent or flashing and if there is compliance with Subsection (10).

(9)One (1) illuminated canopy sign identified by the number 5 and located as shown in Schedule B, Map __, for the purpose of identification of the name of the building, is permitted to be erected or displayed if there is compliance with Subsection (10).

(10)The following general provisions also apply:

(a)All signs shall be framed with a non-corrosive metal frame.

(b)The signs shall not contain animated copy, changeable copy, electronic message display copy nor tri-vision panels or consist of flags or pennants.

(c)Unless otherwise indicated, the signs are illuminated with internal illumination with the light source located within the sign or behind the copy.

(d)All display areas shall contain sign copy at all times.

(e)No sign shall be erected or displayed which resembles an official traffic signal, traffic sign or other traffic regulating device unless the sign is erected and displayed for the purposes of direction and is entirely on private property.

(f)No sign shall be erected or displayed which obstructs or otherwise interferes with an official traffic signal, traffic sign or other traffic regulating device.

2.Schedule B of Chapter 297 is amended as follows:

A.By inserting in the list of maps, in numerical order by section number, the following:

Area referred to in � 297-12R (Maps 1 through __)

B.By inserting in numerical order by section number, the maps at the end of this by-law.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a site specific amendment to Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit the erection of a variety of first and third party signs on the east (Yonge Street) elevation of the Toronto Eaton Centre, as shown on the plans attached to and forming part of this application.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Application No. 998079, to permit the erection of twenty-seven (27) signs on the Yonge Street facade of the Toronto Eaton Centre, be approved substantially in accordance with the plans filed with the application in the Office of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(2) The City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the installation of signage proposed by this application on the Yonge Street facade of the Toronto Eaton Centre.

(3) A minor variance from the former Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the erection of a sign tower structure and a canopy (neon letter) sign, subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City for these sign structures, be approved.

(4) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998709, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(5) An encroachment agreement be entered into between the applicant and the City of Toronto for the encroaching sign tower and canopy sign, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(6) The lease of rights including, but not limited to air rights, commercial uses and signage be reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and be subject to a fair market rental determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services and payable to the City of Toronto, Transportation Services Account, as of the installation date.

(7) The applicant, Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd., pay all legal costs of the City of Toronto in the preparation and registration of the agreement.

(8) The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to undertake the steps necessary to give effect to the foregoing.

Background:

Since 1995, the Council of the former City of Toronto, has approved a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging the revitalization of lower Yonge Street (between Queen and College Streets), centred on the intersection of Yonge and Dundas Streets. (See Map 1) One of these initiatives was the establishment of the Downtown Yonge Street Regeneration Program and the designation of the area as a Community Improvement Project Area. Significant changes are being contemplated to the appearance of properties fronting on Yonge Street in order to create appropriate new development opportunities and facilitate the reuse of existing buildings for contemporary retail and entertainment purposes. A common theme throughout these renewal policies is the desire to create a sense of vitality and visual excitement through the use of oversized signage similar to that found in New York City's Times Square.

Over the past year, numerous businesses within the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Project Area have undertaken or applied for municipal approvals to undertake building facade improvements, major renovations and expansions that have incorporated exciting and dynamic proposals for signage. One of the largest of these proposals involves the Toronto Eaton Centre.

In April, 1998 the City approved an application by Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd. to enlarge the perimeter of the Yonge Street facade of the Eaton Centre between Trinity Way and Queen Street West at the first and second floor levels so as to establish individual store fronts which are accessible from Yonge Street. The proposal, which also involves filling in the voids at the levels of the above ground parking garage, is now under construction. (See Figure 1)

The purpose of this report is to discuss the application by Cadillac Fairview to amend Chapter 297, Signs, of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto and grant a variance to former Metropolitan Toronto By-law No.118, in order to install signage on the renovated Yonge Street facade of the Toronto Eaton Centre.

Site and Surrounding Area:

The property is located on the block bounded by Dundas Street West, Yonge Street, Bay Street and Queen Street West , in a mixed-use (commercial residential) district. The site is home to the Toronto Eaton Centre, the most prominent shopping and tourist destination in the Greater Toronto Area.

Proposal:

The applicant is requesting permission to install signage on the east elevation of the building in conjunction with renovation of the Toronto Eaton Centre Yonge Street facade. (See Figures 1 - 4(a)) The facade renovation, which is currently underway, includes the addition of new storefronts, mirroring the pattern of typical storefronts found on the east side of Yonge Street.

The renovation also includes new signage opportunities consistent with the Official Plan policy for the Downtown Yonge Street Reinvestment Area, the aim of which is to revitalize Yonge Street as one of Toronto's main shopping and entertainment streets. Several signs are proposed along the new Yonge Street facade of the Toronto Eaton Centre, extending from the south end of the building to just north of Shuter Street, south of the new entrance to the office tower at 250 Yonge Street. (See Figures 1 to 4(a))

The application includes five categories of sign types:

CategoryType of SignPurpose of SignNo.

1 Fascia Sign First and/or Third Party Advertising 9

2 Fascia SignFirst Party advertising 4

2(a) Fascia SignTenant Identification 7

3 Directional SignsParking Garage entrance/clearance 3

4 Sign Tower*First and/or Third Party Advertising 1

4(a) Sign Tower*Neon Identification 2

5 Canopy Sign First Party Identification 1

Total 27

(* Sign Tower is an undefined sign type in Municipal Code, Chapter 297 - Signs)

Compliance with Applicable Regulations:

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

Category 1 -9 Fascia Signs Used for the Purpose of Identification and/or Third Party Advertising

All of the proposed fascia signs in this category will be located above the second storey level of the building and are not permitted. Fascia signs which face a street are required to identify a commercial business within the building. All of the proposed signs will be used for the purposes of either first or third party advertising. The area of each of the proposed signs will be greater than 25 m�, which is the maximum allowable size for signs in CR and RA districts. These proposed signs will not meet the 60 metre separation distance requirement between third party signs. Six of these signs will be greater than 70 m� in area, so they will not meet the 300 metre separation requirement for large signs (i.e. signs that are greater than 70 m� in area). (See Figures 2 to 4)

Category 2 -11 Fascia Signs Used for the Purpose of Identification (First Party Signs)

One of the proposed first party signs in this category will be erected above the second storey or 10 metres above grade and will not be located within the commercial unit frontage. The maximum permitted sign area is 25 m�. The proposed sign has a sign area of 60 m�. This proposed sign will be located above the garage parking entrance to the Eaton Centre at the foot of Shuter Street and acts as a view terminus to the end of this street. (See Figure 4 )

Three of the fascia signs in this category will not be located within a commercial unit frontage, (see Figure 2) and only portions of 7 tenant fascia identification signs will be located within their commercial unit frontages. (See Figures 2 to 4) The Sign By-law requires all first party fascia signs that identify a retail store or other commercial activity be located on the portion of a building wall facing a street that is occupied by that business. The purpose of this by-law provision is to provide visual congruence and fair opportunities for signage to commercial tenants.

In this instance, strict adherence to this requirement is unnecessary, as all of the stores that front onto the Yonge Street elevation will contain identification signs. Additional signage (4 fascia signs) is being provided for promotional advertising for tenants or for other interior stores that have no street presence. (See Figures 2 & 4)

With respect to the 7 tenant identification signs noted above, portions of these signs will be erected over doorways which contain internal emergency exits. The proposed signs do not interfere with the operation of the exits or create visual confusion for patrons entering storefronts from Yonge Street. These signs will be contained within building elements, such as columns and will result in a more balanced, aesthetic appearance along this facade. (See Figures 2 to 4(a))

Category 3 - Parking Garage Signs

The applicant is proposing three directional signs in conjunction with the operation of the parking garage at the Shuter Street garage entrance. (See Figure 4 ). One sign indicating "Toronto Eaton Centre Parking" will identify the entrance to the parking garage. The top portion of the proposed sign will be located more than 0.8 m above the second floor level. Another variance results because the proposed sign is located above this entrance way and below the bottom of the windows of the second floor .

The parking identification sign will be flanked underneath, on either side, by two non-encroaching directional signs (indicating a vertical clearance height for vehicles). The latter signs will be suspended from the ceiling rather than mounted wholly against the wall of the building, as required by the Municipal Sign By-law.

Category 4 -Illuminated Sign Tower (Undefined Sign Type) Used for the Purpose of Identification and Third Party Advertising

The applicant is proposing to erect a 46 metre high vertical sign structure above the proposed canopy over the southeast entrance to the Toronto Eaton Centre, at Trinity Way. (See Figures 3 & 5 ). This illuminated tower structure will support two large vertical sign panels mounted at a 45 degree angle from the street and used for the purposes of either first or third party advertising. The two proposed sign panels will each have a sign area of approximately 112 m� and will be indirectly illuminated with flood lights directed downward from the top of the sign. This proposed lighting will have the least impact on neighbouring properties and properties on the west side of Yonge Street that face the site.

In addition, two identification signs (one facing north and the other south), consisting of illuminated letters identifying the "EATON CENTRE" will be attached to the centre mast of the tower. This tower structure will be located above the canopy sign at the southeast entrance to the building.

The proposed sign tower is an unidentified sign type, so is not permitted by the Municipal Sign By-law. The proposed sign that will be used for third party advertising purposes will be located within 60 metres of other third party signs on this building and due to its size (greater than 70m� in area) it cannot comply with a further separation distance requirement of 300 m from the six other proposed third party fascia signs on this building facade (Category 1 signs that are over 70 m� in size).

Category 5 - Canopy Sign for the Purpose of Identification

A canopy sign is proposed above the southeast entrance to the Eaton Centre. (See Figures 3 & 5 ). This sign will consist of neon letters indicating "EATON CENTRE" and will be situated on top of the canopy along the front edge of the structure. Because the sign will extend about 2.34m above the uppermost point of the canopy structure, it will not comply with the Municipal Sign By-law. The area of the sign copy also exceeds the allowable maximum of sixty percent of the area of the canopy perimeter.

Both the sign and the canopy will encroach onto the public right-of-way (city sidewalk) and will be located within 0.6 metres of the curb line of the street.

Former Metro By-law No. 118

Former Metropolitan Toronto By-law 118, which applies to the Yonge Street right-of-way, prohibits signs to project more than 18 inches beyond the street line. The proposed sign tower and the "Eaton Centre" identification signs attached to the mast will encroach over the Yonge Street public sidewalk by approximately 2.34 metres. (See Figure 5) The proposed canopy sign will have the same encroachment over the sidewalk. A variance from the former Metro By-law 118 is required to allow the encroachment of these sign structures over the public right-of-way.

Planning Considerations:

Since 1995, the Council of the former City of Toronto has approved a number of initiatives aimed at encouraging the revitalization of Downtown Yonge Street, between College Street and Queen Street. These initiatives have included the adoption of the Downtown Yonge Street Community Improvement Plan and various Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to facilitate reinvestment in this area. (See Map 2).

The former City of Toronto Official Plan recognizes the significance of Downtown Yonge Street as a Prominent Area and a Priority Retail Street. The objectives of the Plan are to reinforce this area as a major shopping and entertainment destination and a primary location for street related retail and entertainment uses. The DowntownYonge Street corridor, extending from Queen Street to just north of Gerrard Street has been designated as a Reinvestment Area in the Official Plan. This designation provides for greater building densities and introduces built form controls for development in this area.

Significant improvements are envisioned for Yonge and Dundas, including the development of a new public square on the southeast corner of this intersection and a new urban entertainment centre on the northeast side. There is an approved "media tower" for signage purposes included with the renovation that is currently underway for the Atrium-on-Bay building at 306 Yonge Street, located just to the north of Dundas Street, on the west side of Yonge Street.

Part of the vision for this prominent retail area is to create a sense of visual identification and vitality through the introduction of oversized signage, similar to that of Times Square in New York City and Piccadilly Circus in London, England.

The Yonge/Dundas area serves as a significant tourist and visitor destination in the Greater Toronto Area. The Toronto Eaton Centre is the most predominant shopping venue in the region and attracts the most visitors, drawing more than 50 million visitors annually, a quarter of whom are tourists.

The first phase of the Toronto Eaton Centre facade improvement, involves the expansion of the building to provide a better retail presence on the street and is well underway. It is anticipated that enlivening this portion of Yonge Street through redevelopment and prominent signage will improve this area and provide a more lively pedestrian oriented streetscape that will attract more tourists and visitors and benefit the local retailers and property owners.

How the Proposal Meets the Downtown Yonge Street Reinvestment Area Planning Objectives:

(a)Proposed Fascia Signs (Category 1 and 2 Signs)

The proposal to integrate large fascia signs for first and third party purposes into the new facade expansion that is currently under construction for the Toronto Eaton Centre will add to the vibrancy and visual excitement of this area. This proposal will also act as one of the catalysts for the renewal of the Yonge Street corridor.

Across the street from the Toronto Eaton Centre, on the east side of Yonge Street, is a low rise retail strip containing a number of historical buildings of up to four stories in height. The first two floors of the facade renovation of the Toronto Eaton Centre will mirror the low rise scale of retail activity across the street.

The Municipal Sign By-law of the former City of Toronto only permits first party identification signs on the first two floors of a commercial building, which reflects the traditional character of most of the City's main streets. In order to enhance the facade renovation of the Toronto Eaton Centre and mirror the traditional signage on the east side of Yonge Street across from the site, only first party tenant fascia signs are proposed below the second floor level of the new Toronto Eaton Centre facade. (See Figures 2 to 4(a))

The 9 larger fascia signs that are designated for either first or third party purposes will be located above this level and will not extend above the roof line. None of the proposed signs will be permitted to cover window glazing.

(b)Proposed Directional Signs (Category 3 Signs)

The three proposed directional signs above the Shuter Street parking garage entrance are needed to provide directions to visitors who wish to use this parking facility and will replace existing signs at this location.

(c)Proposed Sign Tower (Category 4 Signs)

The proposed sign tower above the southeast entrance to the building (at Trinity Way) will add to the excitement and balance the effect of the Elgin and Wintergarden Theatre and Pantages Theatre roof signs on the east side of Yonge Street, across from the site. The sign tower will also contain two neon identification signs (indicating "EATON CENTRE") that will be erected above this entrance and will give definition to it. (See Figures 3 & 5)

The illumination on this tower, including the tower structure itself, as well as the signs, will be static and the colours of the lights will be pastel to avoid creating undesirable visual impacts on the properties directly across Yonge Street. These neighbouring properties are zoned for future mixed commercial and residential uses, so it is important that the development opportunities of these lands not be adversely affected by this proposed sign structure.

(d)Proposed Canopy Sign (Category 5 Sign)

Finally, a proposed neon letter sign, indicating "EATON CENTRE" will be erected on top of the canopy structure above the southeast entrance to the building, below the sign tower. The sign will provide definition and identification to this entrance. (See Figures 3 & 5).

As both the sign tower and the canopy sign will extend about 2.44 metres over the City sidewalk, a minor variance from the former Metro Sign By-law is needed, along with an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto. Officials with the Transportation Division of Works and Emergency Services do not object to a variance for this encroachment, provided that an Encroachment Agreement is entered into between the applicant and the City, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

The proposed fascia signs, sign tower, directional signs and neon canopy sign are important elements that are necessary to complete the reconstruction of the Yonge Street facade of the Toronto Eaton Centre, along its southern portion (just north of Shuter Street, below the office tower at 250 Yonge Street). This application meets all of the planning objectives of the Official Plan Amendment for the Downtown Yonge Street Reinvestment Area and will complement other new development projects in this area, including the Atrium-on-Bay expansion and the Yonge Street Redevelopment Project on the east side of the Yonge / Dundas intersection. It will also complement the current facade improvement program for smaller buildings along this major retail strip.

Given these reasons, I am recommending approval of this application, including the introduction of a draft by-law by the City Solicitor to implement this proposal. I am also recommending that this approval be conditional on the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto for the sign tower and canopy sign, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Contact Name:

Diane Stevenson

Telephone: (416) 392-0142

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (November 11, 1998) from Mr. Mark Noskiewicz, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Councillor Fotinos declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that his wife is an employee of the Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 8

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 9

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

Insert Table/Map No. 10

Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (November 18, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a submission dated November 11, 1998, from Mr. Mark Noskiewicz, Goodman, Phillips and Vineberg, pertaining to a proposed sign by-law amendment for 1 Dundas Street West, et al (Toronto Eaton Centre) (Downtown).)

(Councillor Fotinos, at the meeting of City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his wife is an employee of the Cadillac Fairview Corporation Limited.)

(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that the applicant's solicitor is a partner at the same law firm as his older son, who is not a real estate lawyer and does not personally act on this file.)

Draft Zoning By-law and Plan of Subdivision -

2078 and 2300 St. Clair Avenue West and

66 Symes Road (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report (November10,1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto subject to:

(a)provision of a satisfactory Noise Impact Statement to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(b)submission of and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, of a Traffic Impact Assessment for the project, prepared by a qualified Transportation Engineer;

(c)submission of revisions to the draft Plan of Subdivision which include the following:

-1.5 metre triangular splays at the intersections of the public lanes;

-a 3.0 metre strip along St. Clair Avenue West for road widening purposes;

-an additional 3.0 metre strip along St. Clair Avenue West, such strip to be free of any permanent structures or encumbrances, for possible acquisition by the City at a nominal cost;

-elimination of the 0.3 metre reserve strip (Block 179); and

-the conveyance of Block 176 for public park purposes;

(d)submission for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, of a suitable phasing plan as outlined in the final planning report;

(e)the owner conducting a detailed historical review of the site to identify existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the site and submit said report to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health;

(f)the owner conducting 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 to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health;

(g)receipt by the City Solicitor, of a satisfactory election pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act from the owner requesting that City Council increase height and residential density otherwise permitted on the site in return for the provision of the facilities matters or things outlined in the report (November 5, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(h)receipt by the City Solicitor, of an executed Section 37 Agreement, title opinion and any necessary postponements to enable the agreement to have priority on the site; and

(2)recommendation Nos. (1)-(12) of the Final Report (November 5, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to report directly to Council respecting any outstanding issues which may arise during negotiation of the Section 37 Agreement, including provisions respecting noise attenuation and timing of conveyances and provision of security.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the T.T.C. and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to report to the Toronto Community Council on:

(1)the alterations of the right-of-way on St. Clair Avenue West at Gunns Road, so as to separate the T.T.C. tracks from left turn movements;

(2)a critical path to achieve, in a timely fashion, the improvement set out in Recommendation No. (1) above, respecting alterations of the right-of-way; and

(3)what opportunities exist and should be protected on St. Clair Avenue West, west of Symes Road, for a possible relocation of the Gunns Road T.T.C. loop.

The Toronto Community Council further 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 October 14, 1998, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Ms. Joan Miles, on behalf of West Toronto Junction Historical Society;

-Mr. Ian Wheal, on behalf of the Ontario Society for Industrial Archaeology;

-Ms. Catherine Lyons, Goodman, Phillips & Vineberg; and

-Ms. Rosemarie Humphries, Weston Consulting Group Inc.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The Toronto Community Council will be holding a public meeting to consider the report (November5, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in this matter. This report provides the necessary Draft By-law Amendment to permit Subdivision Application No. 55T-95002 to proceed as recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funding implications.

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 the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-law, it could recommend:

(2)The Draft By-law attached to the report (November10,1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto subject to:

(a)provision of a satisfactory Noise Impact Statement to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(b)submission of and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, of a Traffic Impact Assessment for the project, prepared by a qualified Transportation Engineer;

(c)submission of revisions to the draft Plan of Subdivision which include the following:

-1.5 metre triangular splays at the intersections of the public lanes;

-a 3.0 metre strip along St. Clair Avenue West for road widening purposes;

-an additional 3.0 metre strip along St. Clair Avenue West, such strip to be free of any permanent structures or encumbrances, for possible acquisition by the City at a nominal cost;

-elimination of the 0.3 metre reserve strip (Block 179); and

-the conveyance of Block 176 for public park purposes.

(d)submission for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, of a suitable phasing plan as outlined in the final planning report;

(e)that the owner conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the site and submit said report to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health;

(f)that the owner 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 to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health.;

(h)receipt by the City Solicitor, of an executed Section 37 Agreement, title opinion and any necessary postponements to enable the agreement to have priority on the site.

(3)That Recommendations 1-12 of the Final Report (November 5, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

(4)That the City Solicitor in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report directly to Council respecting any outstanding issues which may arise during negotiation of the Section 37 Agreement, including provisions respecting noise attenuation and timing of conveyances and provision of security.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The attached By-law implements recommendation 1 of the report (November 5, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Contact Name:

Gordon Townend

Telephone:(416) 392-6905

Fax:(416) 392-0024

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

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No.

as adopted by Council on

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. - 1998

To amend the Zoning By-law for the former City of Toronto No. 438-86,

with respect to 2078 and 2300 St. Clair Avenue West and 66 Symes Road.

WHEREAS the owner of the lot has elected to provide the facilities, services or matters as are set out in this by-law; and

AND WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto has required the owner of the lot to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increase in permitted height and density in connection with the lot;

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

1.That maps 47K-312 and 47K-313 contained in Appendix 'A' of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, be further amended by redesignating the lands shown outlined on Plan 1 attached from the designation of I2 D2 and I3 D2 to R2 Z1.0.

2.That maps 47K-312 and 47K-313 contained in Appendix 'B' of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended, be further amended by redesignating the lands shown outlined on Plan 1 attached from height limit designation of 14.0 metres and 11.0 metres.

3.None of the provisions of sections 6(3)PART II(2), 6(3)PART II(3)(A)(II), 6(3)PARTII 7(ii)A, and 6(3)PART VII(1) of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended, shall apply to prevent the use of lands or the erection or use on the lands shown on Plan 1 attached to this by-law of buildings and structures otherwise in compliance with all other provisions of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, provided:

(1)the lands and the buildings and structures are used for any use permitted in sections 6(1)(f)(a) and 6(1)(f)(b) of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86 except for apartment building, dwelling units-two or more, keeping of roomers or boarders, rowplex, triplex, rooming house and parking area;

(2)no building fronting on St. Clair Avenue West is located closer to the front lot line than 3.0 metres;

(3)no building fronting on Streets 'A', 'C' or 'D' as shown on Plan 2 attached, is located closer to the front lot line than 1.0 metre;

(4)no building situated on a corner lot is located closer to the flanking street than 1.0 metre;

(5)no accessory building, including a private garage, is located closer to a residential building than 2.0 metres;

(6)the lot on which each building is located has a lot frontage of not less than 5.5 metres;

(7)not less than 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling unit in a private garage;

(8)the owner of the lot, at their expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in section 3(8) herein provides the following facilities, matters or things:

(i)that, prior to the registration of the Plan of Subdivision, the owner convey to the City, at nominal cost, the lands shown as Blocks 175 and 176 (hereinafter referred to as the Parkland Dedication Lands) and that the owner pay for the costs of such conveyance, including any Land Transfer Tax and the preparation and registration of all relevant documents;

(ii)that, prior to the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide to the satisfaction of City Solicitor, all legal descriptions and applicable reference plans of survey for the Parkland Dedication Lands;

(iii)that, not more than 30 days before the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide to the City Solicitor a title opinion, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, that the City would, upon registration of the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, acquire fee simple title to the land forming the Parkland Dedication Lands, free of encumbrances and that such opinion shall, if requested by the City Solicitor, be accompanied by all material relied upon in reaching such opinion, including copies of all applicable abstracts of title and copies of all registered documents relevant to the title and the proposed conveyance;

(iv)that, prior to the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism and Medical Officer of Health, an opinion, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism and Medical Officer of Health, as to whether the Parkland Dedication Lands are or will, at the time of conveyance, meet all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines respecting sites to be used for public park purposes including City Council's policies respecting soil remediation of sites to be acquired by the City, such opinion to be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant acceptable to the Medical Officer of Health;

(v)that the owner agree in writing to be responsible for any and all claims, demands, suits actions, causes of action, liabilities, costs and expenses (including legal costs) arising from or in any way connected with any contaminant left on or below the Parkland Dedication Lands at the time of conveyance or created as a result of the development of the site with the exception of any liability arising from the negligence of the City or the introduction of contaminants to the site by the City's use thereof as a park;

(vi)that, prior to the conveyance of any streets, lanes, and the widenings of St. Clair Avenue West the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide a Record of Site Condition in the most current form provided by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, completed by the qualified environmental consultant, with the Acknowledgement of Receipt completed by the said Minister or Provincial Officer therefore, as the case may be, and an acknowledgement by the said Minister or delegate that an audit will not be done or has been carried out with results and remediation satisfactory to the said Minister;

(vii)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase of the development, the owner obtain an occupancy permit for the Parkland Dedication Lands from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism and indemnify the City against any claim during any interim use of or work carried out, by the owner, on the Parkland Dedication Lands;

(viii)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase of the development, the owner take out and keep in force until completion of the Interim Landscaping referred to in subsection (xii), comprehensive general liability insurance, in an insurance policy in the amount of $5,000,000 and in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, for the joint benefit of the developer and the City, against any liability for claims respecting personal injury, death or property damage resulting from any accident or occurrence on the Parkland Dedication Lands and that such insurance policy shall name the City as an insured party and shall contain a clause protecting the City against claims by the developer as if the City were separately insured and a clause providing that the insurer will not cancel nor refuse to renew the said insurance without first having given the City 30 days prior written notice thereof;

(ix)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase of the development, the owner deliver to the City Treasurer a Certificate of Insurance, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, in respect of the insurance policy referred to in subsection (viii) above;

(x)that, prior to the earlier of the issuance of a building permit for any phase of the development or following the satisfactory remediation of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner install 1.8 metre high hoarding or chain link fencing along the boundaries of the Parkland Dedication Lands, such fence to remain in place until such time as the Interim Landscaping referred to in subsection (xii) below is completed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism;

(xi)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase of the development, the owner provide the City with an irrevocable Letter of Credit in an amount and form satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for the Interim Landscaping referred to in subsection (xii) below;

(xii)that, not later than two years following the issuance of the first building permit for the development, the owner install Interim Landscaping on the Parkland Dedication Lands, such Interim Landscaping to include "Backfill", "Topsoil", "Sod", "Water Service", and "Noise Attenuation Wall (if required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services):

For the purposes of this section,

"Noise Attenuation Wall" shall mean a 2.4 metre high acoustical fence satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to be constructed along the north property line of Block 175.

(xiii)that, prior to the installation of the Interim Landscaping, the owner shall grade the surface of the Parkland Dedication Lands in a satisfactory manner;

(xiv)that the Interim Landscaping shall be completed not later than two years following the issuance of the first building permit for the development, after which time the City may draw upon the Letter of Credit referred to in subsection (xi) to complete the Interim Landscaping; and

(xv)that, prior to conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide the City with an irrevocable Letter of Credit in the amount of $90,000 and in a form satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to be used toward the final landscaping of the Parkland Dedication Lands and which may be drawn upon following completion of the Interim Landscaping referred to in subsection (xii) above.

(xvi)that, prior to the final approval of the Plan of Subdivision, the owner provide a financial contribution in an amount satisfactory to the Toronto Transit Commission, toward the cost of the track relocation work at St. Clair and Gunns Road, said amount not to exceed $100,000.00; and

(xvii)implements the facilities, services and matters set forth in sections 1(8)(I) to (xvi) herein within the time frames provided each such facility, service or matter in the agreement referred to in section 3(8) herein; and

(9)the owners of the lot enter into an agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in section3(8) herein, and consent to such agreement being registered on title to the lot as a first charge against the lot.

4.For the purposes of this by-law, each other word or expression which is italicized in this by-law shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

5.Notwithstanding the provisions of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended, the erection and use on the lands shown on Plan 1 of a temporary sales showroom with a floor area of not exceeding 175 square metres or a model home is permitted provided that the model home complies with the requirements set out in this by-law and the temporary sales showroom is removed prior to the assumption of any road allowances by the City.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (November 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of zoning by-law amendments and a draft plan of subdivision to create a new low density residential neighbourhood made up of approximately 352 houses and a 0.86 hectare public park on the site of the former Maple Leaf Foods meat processing plant on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West between Gunns Road and Symes Road.

Source of Funds:

N/A.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.The City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend Zoning By-law No.438-86 substantially as set out below:

(a)amend Maps 47K-312 and 47K-313 contained in Appendix 'A' of By-law 438-86 by redesignating the lands highlighted on Map 1 from I2 D2 to R2 Z1.0;

(b)amend Maps 47K-312 and 47K-313 contained in Appendix 'B' of By-law 438-86 by establishing a 11.0 metre height limit on the lands highlighted on Map 1;

(c)prepare a site-specific by-law to:

(i)exempt the site from the following sections of Zoning By-law 438-86:

-6(3) Part II(2) - front yard setback;

-6(3) Part II(3)(A)(II) - side yard setback for corner lots;

-6(3) Part II 7(ii)A - setback of accessory building from adjacent dwelling; and

-6(3) Part VII(1) - minimum lot frontage.

(ii)permit the use of a lot and erection of a detached house, semi-detached house, rowhouse, converted house duplex, semi-detached duplex, residential care facility, bed and breakfast establishment, home/work or private home daycare and uses accessory thereto provided:

-no building fronting on St. Clair Avenue West is located closer to the front lot line than 3.0 metres;

-no building fronting on Streets 'A', 'C' or 'D' is located closer to the front lot line than 1.0 metre;

-no building situated on a corner lot is located closer to the flanking street than 1.0 metre;

-no accessory building, including a private garage, is located closer to a residential building than 2.0 metres;

-the lot on which each building is located has a lot frontage of not less than 5.5 metres;

-not less than 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling unit in a private garage.

(iii)permit the use of a lot and erection of a temporary sales showroom for the purposes of selling the residential dwellings provided the floor area does not exceed 175 square metres or a model home provided that the model home complies with the zoning requirements set out in the by-law.

(iv)require a Section 37 Agreement as set out in Recommendation 7 below.

2.That, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Noise Impact Statement which, amongst other things, sets out the following: any proposed phasing of noise attenuation; alternative, on-site noise attenuation measures in the event that agreements for at-source noise attenuation are not entered into; and the owner's financial obligations toward a long term maintenance programme for all noise attenuation measures, such measures to be secured in the Subdivision Agreement.

3.That, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Traffic Impact Assessment for the project, prepared by a qualified Transportation Engineer.

4.That, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner be required to submit revisions to the draft Plan of Subdivision which include the following:

-1.5 metre triangular splays at the intersections of the public lanes;

-a 3.0 metre strip along St. Clair Avenue West for road widening purposes;

-an additional 3.0 metre strip along St. Clair Avenue West, such strip to be free of any permanent structures or encumbrances, for possible acquisition by the City at a nominal cost;

-elimination of the 0.3 metre reserve strip (Block 179); and

-the conveyance of Block 176 for public park purposes.

5.That, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner submit for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a phasing plan for the construction of roads and municipal services, such plan to ensure that no dead end roads or lanes are created at any point in the phased construction.

6.That, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the site and submit said report to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health.

7.That, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner 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 to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health.

8.That, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner be required to enter into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, requiring the following:

Parkland Dedication Lands

(vi)that, prior to the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide a Record of Site Condition in the most current form provided by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, completed by the qualified environmental consultant, with the Acknowledgement of Receipt completed by the said Minister or Provincial Officer therefore, as the case may be, and, where reasonably required by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, an acknowledgement by the said Minister or delegate that an audit will not be done or has been carried out with results satisfactory to the said Commissioner;

(viii)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase of the development, the owner take out and keep in force until completion of the Interim Landscaping referred to in Subsection xii, comprehensive general liability insurance, in an insurance policy in the amount of $5,000,000 and in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, for the joint benefit of the developer and the City, against any liability for claims respecting personal injury, death or property damage resulting from any accident or occurrence on the Parkland Dedication Lands and that such insurance policy shall name the City as an insured party and shall contain a clause protecting the City against claims by the developer as if the City were separately insured and a clause providing that the insurer will not cancel nor refuse to renew the said insurance without first having given the City 30 days prior written notice thereof;

(x)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase of the development, the owner install 1.8 metre high hoarding or chain link fencing along the boundaries of the Parkland Dedication Lands, such fence to remain in place until such time as the Interim Landscaping referred to in Subsection xii below is completed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism;

For the purposes of this section

"Backfill" shall mean all material used to restore the grade and elevation of the said lands; such material shall meet the unrestricted land use criteria set forth in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's interim soil management policy, including without limitation, that such material shall be selected from excavation or other sources for the use intended, unfrozen and free of rocks larger than 75 millimetres, cinders, ashes, sods, refuse or other deleterious materials; all backfill material shall be approved by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism prior to its installation; all backfill material is to be compacted to eighty (80) percent standard proctor density and should include, as a top layer, a minimum of 4 inches of topsoil that has been fine graded to remove all debris and stones.

"Topsoil" shall mean fertile, friable, natural loam, containing not less than 4 percent organic matter for clay loams and not less than 2 percent organic matter for sandy loams, to a maximum of 15 percent, and capable of sustaining vigorous plant growth, free of sub-soil contamination, roots and stones over 50 millimetres in diameter, soil sterilants and growth inhibitors, reasonably free of weeds, and having a pH range from6.0 to 7.5.

"Sod" shall mean Certified No. 1 cultivated turf grade sod, grown in accordance with Metric Guide Specifications for Nursery Stock prepared by the Canadian Nursery Trades Association and to be Number 1 Kentucky Bluegrass grown from minimum 60% Kentucky Bluegrass and 40% Creeping Fescue, in healthy, vigorous growing condition at the time of installation.

"Water Service" shall mean the installation to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a separately metered 50 millimetre diameter water line to the Parkland Dedication Lands.

"Noise Attenuation Wall" shall mean a 2.4 metre high acoustical fence satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to be constructed along the north property line of Block 175.

(xiii)that, prior to the installation of the Interim Landscaping, the owner shall grade the surface of the Parkland Dedication Lands in a manner that permits the site to drain freely and such that the perimeter elevations of the Parkland Dedication Lands shall be consistent with the grades of abutting public streets and abutting properties and that, prior to the installation of the sod, the owner shall request a representative of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism to inspect the site to ensure that the final grading meets with the said Commissioner's approval;

(xiv)that the Interim Landscaping shall be completed not later than two years following the issuance of the first building permit for the development, after which time the City may draw upon the Letter of Credit referred to in Subsection xi to complete the Interim Landscaping; and

TTC Track Relocation

(xvi)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner provide a financial contribution in an amount satisfactory to the Toronto Transit Commission, toward the cost of the track relocation work at St. Clair and Gunns Road, said amount not to exceed $100,000.

9.That City Council approve the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (with the revisions set out in Recommendation 4) prepared by Weston Consulting Group date stamped as received October 27, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services subject to the owner entering into a Subdivision Agreement in form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services requiring the following:

Roads, Lanes and Municipal Services

(i)the owner submit a functional road plan incorporating the pavement widths, triangular splays and traffic calming principles for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(ii)the owner provide the new public streets and lanes shown on the draft plan with a minimum road allowance width of 20 metres for Street 'B', 11.5 metres for Street'D', 15 metres for Streets 'A' and 'C' and 5 metres for all public lanes;

(iii)the owner provide and maintain 1.5 metre by 1.5 metre triangular splays at the intersection of all lanes and at 90 degree corners;

(iv)the owner engage the services of a qualified Municipal Consulting Engineer satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the design and field supervision of all underground and surface public works services and facilities;

(v)the owner prepare and submit for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's design policies and specifications for all underground and surface public works services and facilities including a site grading plan, and construct all such services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

(vi)the owner provide, upon completion of the work, "as constructed" drawings of all underground and surface public works services and facilities, certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer that such services and facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

(vii)the owner provide Letters of Credit in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for all municipal infrastructure for the development (sewers, waterworks, streets including intersections with existing streets and lanes, sidewalks, lanes, street lighting, street furniture, Interim Landscaping for the Parkland Dedication Lands, etc.) or such lesser amount as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may approve, as determined by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the earlier of the issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the development, until completion of the work;

(viii)the owner, prior to the earlier of the issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the development, provide letters of credit in an amount equal to 25% of the value of completed municipal infrastructure as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and acceptance by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(ix)the owner construct all utilities underground;

(x)the owner submit suggestions for a suitable name for the new streets in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No. 22 adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of July 11, 1988;

(xi)the owner remonument the street limits and proposed lot/block corners after completion of construction, if necessary;

(xii)the owner submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a soil study addressing soil contamination/remediation within the proposed road allowances;

(xiii)the owner agree to defer the installation of the final coat of asphalt on each street/lane until the substantial completion of construction of buildings on that street/lane, or at earlier timing as may be required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, acting reasonably;

(xiv)the owner design and construct the new public streets and lanes in accordance with the principles contained in the report from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(xv)the owner convey to the City at nominal cost a 3.0 metre strip of land along the entire frontage of St. Clair Avenue West for road widening purposes, free and clear of any encumbrances except for municipal services and utilities;

(xvi)the owner register on title an additional 3.0 metre easement in favour of the City of Toronto on those properties fronting onto St. Clair Avenue West for possible, future road widening and municipal services and utilities;

(xvii)the owner provide to the city, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a one-time cash contribution of $2,500 toward the supply and installation of measures required to mitigate potential impacts of traffic generated by this project on local area streets and intersections;

(xviii)the owner have a qualified Transportation Engineer certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Traffic Impact Assessment approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and any other traffic measures have been implemented;

(xix)the owner construct sidewalks on both sides of Symes Road, between St. Clair Avenue West and the north limit of the subdivision, to City specifications, or alternatively pay for the cost of constructing these sidewalks, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase abutting Symes Road;

(xx)the owner provide, maintain and operate the noise impact, soil remediation and traffic management measures, facilities, strategies stipulated in the respective plans approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(xxi)the owner provide space within the development for the construction of transformer vaults and Hydro, Bell and sewer maintenance holes;

(xxii)the owner confirm that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have been made with Bell Canada for any Bell Canada facilities serving this development;

(xxiii)the owner provide a 6 metre by 8 metre easement on the site, in favour of Bell Canada, to house a walk-in cabinet accommodating digital electronic switching equipment;

(xxiv)the owner provide and maintain 0.3 metre vertical and 0.6 metre horizontal clearance from all Consumer Gas lines;

Phasing

(xxv)the owner apply for building permits on a phased basis according to the Phasing Schedule set out below:

-Phase 1-lots 16 - 37

-Phase 2-lots 38 - 59

-Phase 3-lots 1 - 15

-Phase 4-lots 60 - 74

-Phase 5-lots 90 - 103

-Phase 6-lots 75 - 89

-Phase 7-lots 104 - 132

-Phase 8-lots 133 - 163

-Phase 9-lots 164 - 174

Environmental

(xxvi)the owner provide and maintain the at-source and on-site noise attenuation measures set out in the Noise Impact Statement to be approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, such measures to include, but not be limited to, the following:

-the owner, prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit Agreements between said owner and the companies (or future businesses operating on these sites) set out below to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services outlining the owner's responsibilities toward the at-source noise attenuation measures which will be set out in the Noise Impact Statement to be approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the introduction of a bill in Council.

Canamera Foods-prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phases 1, 2, 5, 7 or 8

Best Western Beef-prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phases 1, 2, 5, 7 or 8

Toronto Transit Commission-prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phases 1, 2, 5 or 7

Intergen-prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phases 5, 6, 7 or 8

Universal Drum-prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phases 5, 6, 7 or 8

New York Pork-prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phases 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 or 9

-the owner, prior to occupancy of any building, have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify in writing that the at-source noise attenuation measures for the respective phase have been completed and that sound levels are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

-the owner, in the event that Agreements can not be reached with the companies set out above, prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services alternative on-site noise attenuation strategies;

-the owner include warning clauses with wording satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and Deeds warning potential purchasers of potential noise and odour impacts;

(xxvii)the owner, prior to occupancy have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, that each phase of the development has been designed and constructed and all noise and vibration attenuation measures required for each respective phase of the development have been implemented in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(xxviii)the owner implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health and upon completion, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase of the development, 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;

(xxix)the owner conduct a Preliminary Ambient Air Quality Assessment to identify potential air quality impacts including those from all proximal sources of air pollutants and construction activities which exist at or near the site;

(xxx)the owner, prior to the issuance of a building permit prepare a Dust Control Plan to the Commissioner of Urban Planning for approval by the Medical Officer of Health;

(xxxi)Prior to the initiation of grading, and prior to the registration of the draft Plan of Subdivision or any phase thereof, the owner submit to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City for review and approval the following:

-plans illustrating how this drainage system will tie into the surrounding drainage systems and indicating whether it is part of an overall drainage scheme, how external flows will be accommodated and the design capacity of the receiving system;

-the location and description of all outlets and other facilities which may require permits under Provincial regulations;

-stormwater management techniques which may be required to control minor or major flows;

-proposed methods of controlling or minimizing erosion and siltation on site and in downstream areas during and after construction; and

-an overall grading plan for the lands within this plan.

(xxxii)the owner shall agree, in wording satisfactory to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the City:

-to carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority the recommendations set out in any and all reports referred to above;

-to obtain all necessary permits referred to above;

(xxxiii)the owner forward a copy of the fully executed Subdivision Agreement to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority;

CP Spur Line

(xxxiv)the owner insert a clause in all offers to purchase, agreements of sale and purchase or lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling within 300 metres of the railway right-of-way, warning prospective purchasers or tenants of the existence of the railway's operating right-of-way, the possibility of alterations including the possibility that the railway may expand its operations, which may affect the living environment of the residents notwithstanding the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuation measures in the design of the subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities and/or operations;

(xxxv)the owner provide a 1.83 metre high chain link fence to be constructed and maintained along the common property line of the Railway and the developer provide appropriate funds to the City for maintaining the fence in a satisfactory condition;

(xxxvi)that no dwelling be located less than 15.0 metres from the railway right-of-way;

(xxxvii)that the owner submit for the review and approval of CP Rail a drainage report for any alterations to the existing drainage pattern which may affect railway property;

(xxxviii)the owner enter into appropriate agreements with CP rail for any utilities proposed under or over railway property;

Low-End-of-Market Housing

(xxxix)the owner, prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development an implementation plan to provide 30% of the units as low-end-of-market housing or affordable housing.

Other

(xl)the owner deposit the plan of subdivision in the appropriate Land Registry Office such plan to be in metric units with all lot and block corners integrated with the Ontario Land Co-ordinate System;

(xli)the owner provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

10.That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances.

11.That the owner be advised to design the St. Clair Avenue West boulevard in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

12.That the owner be advised of the need to obtain building location and streetscape permits from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the construction of this project.

Comments:

Project Description:

The applicant is proposing 352 houses arranged in a traditional grid pattern of streets and blocks. The development consists of 340 semi-detached houses and 12 rowhouses. Parking for each dwelling will be provided in rear garages which are accessed from a new system of public lanes. A 0.86 hectare public park is proposed at the east end of the site and a smaller 0.06 hectare park is proposed along the west side of Symes Road. This proposal amends a previously submitted application by Maple Leaf Foods for 740 dwelling units and some neighbourhood commercial uses on a larger site.

Site and Area Description:

This 9.26 hectare site is situated on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West between Gunns Road and the CP spur line just west of Symes Road. It was previously occupied by the Maple Leaf Foods meat processing plant which ceased operation in 1995 and has since been demolished.

A variety of land uses surround the site including a rail spur, vacant industrial land, food processing plants and commercial uses including some recently constructed big-box retail uses. Map 1 shows the surrounding land use pattern.

Current Official Plan and Zoning:

The site is designated as a Mixed Industrial-Residential Area under the recently approved Part II Plan for the Old Stockyards District. The Official Plan allows Council to pass by-laws to permit a residential development provided that issues related to environmental suitability and compatibility between industrial and residential uses are satisfactorily addressed and that appropriate regard is had for the established City pattern in terms of built form and street and block layout. These issues are discussed below.

The site is zoned I2 D2 (industrial).

Planning Issues:

1.0Subdivision Pattern and Proposed Zoning:

The proposed Plan of Subdivision has been laid out in a manner typical of the City's existing residential neighbourhoods with a new system of local roads which radiate from major arterials. The proposed road pattern will ensure minimal infiltration of industrial traffic into the residential neighbourhood. A new system of public lanes will provide access to rear yard parking for all new houses and will provide a buffer between the new houses and abutting industrially zoned lands along the west and north edges of the site.

The proposed lots and blocks are similar to the dimensions of lots and blocks of existing residential neighbourhoods. The lot patterns will ensure consistent frontage on the public street and provide a suitable amount of front and rear yard open space.

It is recommended that the site be rezoned to R2 Z1.0 consistent with the zoning in other Low Density Residence Areas. The proposed new zoning will permit a variety of residential uses up to a maximum density of 1.0 times the area of the lot. The proposed subdivision is generally in keeping with the general zoning regulations for an R2 district; however, some minor relief from the lot frontage and setback requirements is necessary.

2.0Neighbourhood Parks:

This applicant now proposes relocation of the 0.86 hectare park from the middle of the site to the east end of the site abutting the previous alignment of Maybank Avenue, which is now closed. The reason for this relocation is to address potential noise concerns at the east end of the site. The location of the park at the east end of the site creates an opportunity to provide a larger park by making use of the closed Maybank Avenue road allowance.

In addition to this new neighbourhood park, a 0.06 hectare landscaped parcel is proposed on the west side of Symes Road. The purpose of this parcel is to provide a landscape buffer between those dwellings on the west side of Symes Road and industrial traffic along Symes Road.

The land for the parks will be conveyed to the City prior to the registration of the Plan of Subdivision. The owner is responsible for grading, sodding and providing water service to the parks no later than two years following the issuance of the first building permit. The owner is also required to contribute $90,000 toward the final landscaping of the parks (i.e., furniture, playground equipment, etc.). The exact design and programming for the parks will need to be discussed through a community consultation process.

Section 51.1 of the Planning Act authorizes the City to require dedication of a maximum of 5% of the land for public park purposes as a condition of approving a plan of subdivision. Since the amount of parkland proposed represents approximately 10% of the total lot area, the parkland dedication is being secured pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning in exchange for an increase in residential density.

3.0Compatibility with Existing Industry:

A number of meat processing and other industrial uses are located around the site. It is therefore important that measures be taken to ensure suitable residential living conditions and to ensure that existing industrial operations are not adversely affected by the introduction of residential uses into the area. Section 9.7 of the Official Plan requires issues such as noise, odour and separation of industrial and residential traffic be addressed prior to the passing of a Zoning By-law to permit residential uses.

3.1Noise:

A Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted to the City and must be approved prior to the introduction of a bill in Council. The Noise Impact Assessment recommends a number of at-source and on-site noise attenuation measures in order to bring noise levels to an acceptable level for future residents. The Subdivision Agreement will require that agreements between the owner and specified industrial operators be entered into prior to the issuance of building permits in order to secure the owner's responsibilities for at-source noise attenuation. The primary method of noise attenuation will be to install silencers on steam and cooling vents.

These at-source noise attenuation measures have been discussed with industrial operators in the area and there is general agreement to have these measures installed. However, additional information is required by these operators in order to ensure that the proposed measures will not disrupt their current operations. If agreements between the owner and industrial operators cannot be arrived at, the owner will be required to provide and maintain alternative on-site noise attenuation measures. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has advised the applicant to revise the Noise Impact Assessment to provide more detail about alternative on-site noise attenuation. The owner's financial obligations toward construction, installation and long term maintenance of all noise attenuation measures will also be secured. The Noise Impact Statement is required to be approved prior to the introduction of a bill in Council.

In addition to these at-source noise attenuation measures, a number of on-site measures are also proposed. These include acoustical barriers around the perimeter of the site and along side lot lines which are close to potential noise sources. Upgraded windows are proposed for houses along St. Clair Avenue West to mitigate noise from Corsetti Meat Packers and St. Clair Avenue traffic. It is also recommended that Agreements of Purchase and Sale and deeds to each house contain clauses warning potential purchasers of noise and odour impacts.

The Plan of Subdivision has also been designed to provide additional noise attenuation. Development blocks abutting the spur line have a lane and garage between the spur line and the dwelling, providing a 15 metre setback from the spur line in accordance with the railway requirements. The dwellings on the northeast corner of the site, where there were significant noise concerns have been eliminated and replaced by the parkland dedication block.

3.2Air Quality:

An Air Quality Assessment prepared for the site has been reviewed by the Medical Officer of Health. Staff at Environmental Health Services are of the opinion that the location of the subject site is such that odour impacts from nearby industries will be unavoidable. Although odours, at times, may be offensive to some future residents, the levels of contaminants discharged by industries in the area are not likely to cause an adverse effect on the site. The applicant will be required to provide adequate notification to prospective buyers advising that the area has a high potential to be impacted by offensive nuisance odours from nearby industries.

4.0Transportation:

The proposal includes the creation of new streets and lanes arranged in a traditional grid pattern. The proposed road network appears to provide for good distribution of residential traffic by providing access and egress opportunities via Gunns Road at the east edge of the site and Symes Road at the West edge of the site. These roads are proposed to be built by the developer in accordance with City standards and conveyed to the City upon completion to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Given the substantial effort and expense to retrofit streets in many areas of the City for traffic calming, Street 'A' should be designed and constructed incorporating traffic calming principles. Speed bumps are recommended in all lanes and sidewalks are required on Symes Road.

A 3.0 metre road widening along St. Clair Avenue West and an additional 3.0 metre reserve for possible road widening are recommended in order to provide for the future widening of St. Clair Avenue West and the possible westward extension of the streetcar route.

In response to increased traffic from new development in the area which affects streetcar operations, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) has secured funds in connection with new development applications toward the separation of the streetcar tracks from the westbound left turn lane at St. Clair Avenue West and Gunns Road. As this development will add to traffic congestion on St. Clair Avenue West, the TTC is requesting that the applicant make a $100,000 cash contribution towards this work. The developer has agreed to make a financial contribution toward this work which will be secured in the Section 37 Agreement.

A revised Traffic Impact Analysis has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. In addition to the road design and improvements discussed above, the applicant may be required to provide certain off-site transportation improvements, as was the case with other developments in the area.

5.0Schools:

When the possibility of a new residential neighbourhood on this site first arose in 1994, preliminary discussions were undertaken with the Toronto and York Boards of Education and Metro Separate School Board. At that time, School Board officials indicated that existing facilities could accommodate some, if not all of the additional demand generated by, what was at that time, a much larger residential development (740 units).

Using previously submitted student generation estimates, it is estimated that the revised proposal could generate up to 200 new students (combined public and separate). Given the potential for additional students, the School Boards should be requested to review the announced potential school closures in the area.

6.0Municipal Services:

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises that water supply to the site will be adequate and that there is existing capacity in the sanitary trunk sewer to accommodate the flow generated by this development. Arrangements have been secured to ensure telephone, gas and hydro service to the development.

7.0Low-End-of-Market Housing:

The applicant is required by the Official Plan to provide approximately 30% of all units as low-end-of-market housing. To implement this policy, the owner shall submit a low-end-of-market or affordable housing implementation plan. This plan should be submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase.

For the purpose of this requirement the term low-end-of-market housing means small private market housing units suitable for households of various sizes and compositions, the price of which would not be monitored or controlled but which by virtue of their modest size relative to other market housing units would be expected to be priced for households up to the 6th percentile of income distribution for all households in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area.

8.0Public Consultation:

In addition to several public meetings concerning the potential for a new residential development on this site when the new Official Plan for the Old Stockyards was being considered, a public meeting was held on May 27, 1998 to discuss the specifics of the current proposal. Area residents were generally supportive of the proposal. There were, however, some concerns about traffic operations in the area as a result of this and other recent developments in the area. In addition to the Traffic Impact Assessments required of new development proposals in this area, and off-site transportation improvements secured in connection with new retail development, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has hired the consulting firm of Totten, Sims and Hubicki to review traffic operations in the broader area and recommend improvements to the area traffic network. A report is expected in the Spring of 1999.

In addition to this general public meeting, two separate meetings were held with existing industrial operators in the area. The Noise Impact and Air Quality Assessments were given to each industrial operator for review. Their major area of concern was that the introduction of new residential uses would lead to additional noise and odour complaints against their companies. The industrial operators indicated their interest in having at-source noise attenuation installed but required additional information to ensure there operations would not be adversely affected by these measures.

Since these meeting, the Solicitors for Banks Bros. & Son have expressed continued concern about the compatibility of a residential development with their operations and I will continue to meet with them to address their concerns. However, staff are satisfied that the proposed noise attenuation measures prescribed in the Subdivision Agreement are satisfactory and that other issues set out in the Official Plan with respect to compatibility of use have been satisfactorily addressed.

Conclusion:

The introduction of a new residential neighbourhood on the Maple Leaf Foods site is encouraged in the Official Plan policies for the Old Stockyards District. This proposal is an important step in the revitalization of the area which will contribute in a positive way to its overall image and amenity. The rezoning and plan of subdivision process will ensure that the aforementioned planning issues are addressed and that the municipal services required to serve the development are secured and provided in a timely manner.

Contact Name:

Michael Major

Telephone: (416) 392-0760

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	N	Application Number:	195015
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	March 24, 1995
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:	October 28, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:2078 and 2300 St. Clair Ave. West., and 66 Symes Road.

Nearest Intersection:	On the north side of St. Clair Av. W., west of Weston Rd.

Project Description:	To amend the Zoning By-law to permit a residential development with 352 units, comprising 340 semi-detached and 12 row houses.

Applicant:

Graywood Developments

Box 130, Suite 500, 370 King St. W.

599-1930

Agent:

Weston Consulting Group Inc.

Royal Centre, 3300 Hwy 7, Ste. 320

738-8080

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:		Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	I2 D2	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	14.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	92600.0 m²	Height:	Storeys:	3
Frontage:			Metres:	11.00
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:
Residential GFA:		Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:

Dwelling Units
Tenure:	Private
3 Bedroom:	352
Total Units:	352

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 1.00	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 1.00

Comments

In conjunction with Plan of Subdivision 55T - 95002.

Status:

Preliminary Report dated April 16, 1998.

Data valid:

October 28, 1998

Section:

CP West

Phone:

392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1.Bell Canada (July 14, 1998)

Thank you for your correspondence dated May 12, 1998 regarding the above noted Draft Plan of Subdivision.

Would you please ensure that the following paragraphs are/have been included as conditions of Draft Plan Approval:

1.Bell Canada shall confirm that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have been made with Bell Canada for any Bell Canada facilities serving this draft plan of subdivision which are required by the Municipality to be installed underground; a copy of such confirmation shall be forwarded to the Municipality.

2.The owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in words satisfactory to Bell Canada, to grant to Bell Canada any easements that may be required for telecommunication services.

If there are any conflicts with existing Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for re-arrangements or relocation.

If you have any questions please feel free to contact our office.

2.Canadian Pacific Railway (September 14, 1998)

Canadian Pacific Railway is not in favour of residential developments adjacent to our right-of-way, as this land use is not compatible with railway operations. The health, safety and welfare of potential residents could be adversely affected by railway activities.

However, to ensure the safety and comfort of adjacent residents and to mitigate as much as possible the inherent adverse environmental factors, we request that the attached requirements be included as Conditions of Subdivision Approval. The attached measures are requirements for our industrial lead at this location which is considered an Industrial Spur Line.

Should Council decide not to incorporate the attached requirements, we have no alternative but to request that this application be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board.

I would appreciate being circulated with all future correspondence related to this application. Please quote our file number in all future correspondence.

Attachment: Industrial Spur Line Requirements

1.Setback of dwellings from the railway right-of-way to be a minimum of 15 metres. While no dwelling should be closer to the right-of-way than the specified setback, an unoccupied building, such as a garage, may be built closer.

2.A clause should be inserted in all offers to purchase, agreements of sale and purchase or lease and in the title deed or lease of each dwelling within 300 m of the railway right-of-way, warning prospective purchasers or tenants of the existence of the Railway's operating right-of-way; the possibility of alterations including the possibility that the Railway may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents notwithstanding the inclusion of noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the subdivision and individual units, and that the Railway will not be responsible for complaints or claims arising from the use of its facilities and/or operations.

3.Any proposed alterations to the existing drainage pattern affecting railway property must receive prior concurrence from the Railway, and be substantiated by a drainage report to be reviewed by the Railway.

4.A 1.83 metre high chain link fence be constructed and maintained along the common property line of the Railway and the development by the developer at his expense, and the developer is made aware of the necessity of including a covenant running with the lands, in all deeds, obliging the purchasers of the land to maintain the fence in a satisfactory condition at their expense.

5.Any proposed utilities under or over railway property to serve the development must be approved prior to their installation and be covered by the Railway's standard agreement.

3.Consumers Gas (April 22, 1998)

We have indicated on the attached print our existing and/or proposed underground plant.

We have no objection to the above proposal, provided our standard clearances of 0.3 m minimum vertically and 0.6 m minimum horizontally are maintained.

We trust this information is satisfactory for your records.

4.Fire Department (April 14, 1995)

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.

5.Medical Officer of Health (October 1, 1998)

Thank you for your request to review the following air study reports with respect to the above referenced application.

1.Letter dated September 25, 1998 regarding Air Quality Assessment Westclaire Village, P1658 prepared by Church & Trought Inc.

2.Air Quality Assessment, Westclaire Village, Graywood Developments Ltd., CTI Project P1658 prepared by Church and Trought Inc. dated July 1998; and

3.Ambient Air Quality Assessment, Westclaire Village, Report P1605 prepared by Church & Trought Inc. dated April 28, 1998;

Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed the above documents and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The September 25, 1998 letter from Church & Trought Inc. (CTI) referred to findings of a "phase one" air assessment for the subject site, on behalf of Maple Leaf Foods Inc. and concluded that the focus of the air quality assessment should be on odours. The levels of contaminants discharged by industries in the area are not likely to cause an adverse effect at the subject property. This conclusion was based on a review of the type of processes involved and discussions held with Ministry of the Environment (MOE) staff familiar with the companies in the area.

The July 1998 CTI report stated that the area has a history of odour related issues related to the type of industries in the area. Residences have been in close proximity to the existing industries for decades. There has been a significant reduction in odours over the past few years as companies have closed and/or relocated and processes have been changed. The complaint history from the Ministry of the Environment indicated that the last specific complaint about odour was in October 1996. The MOE has acknowledged that there have been some general complaints about odours but note that the odour levels are significantly lower than they were. The odour assessment by CTI made the assumption that odour complaints would not be anticipated at less than two times the dilution to threshold (2 D/T) and that at levels greater than seven times the dilution to threshold (7 D/T), complaints would be anticipated. Odours detected would be dependent upon wind direction and ground level wind speed of less than 10 mph. It was found that for the study period, 8% of the readings were greater than 7 D/T. Most of the odours were described as unpleasant and of animal origin. Based on weather conditions and the test times each day, one could expect higher readings under different but relatively common atmospheric conditions such as early in the mornings during stable weather conditions.

The consultant concluded that mitigation may be required to reduce the air quality impact from industries in the area. Mitigation at the subject property may include buffers (such as berms, walls, fences, vegetation, and/or location of buildings and activity areas) and/or building specifications such as air conditioners for the residential units. In an interview with John Trought of CTI, he stated that the area has been subject to odours for some time from nearby industries. He advised that those industries which require Ministry approval have MOE Certificates of Approval (C. of A.) for air discharges. Indoor controls at residences at the subject site to improve air quality, of course, would have little effect in view of the fact that all indoor air is drawn from outside air. Indeed, the odour impact during outside activities such as outdoor barbequing, gardening, lounging or exercise would be unavoidable. The developer might consider approaching the offending industries to look at input into control of emissions to lessen the impact on the subject site. Mr. Trought cautioned that odour mitigation, whether at the subject site or additional odour controls at the sources may not necessarily provide the additional improvement to the air quality anticipated.

Staff at EHS, in reviewing the submitted documents and interviewing the environmental consultant are of the opinion that the location of the subject site is such that odour impacts from nearby industries will be unavoidable. Intervention on the part of the developer with mitigation at the subject site or greater controls at the industry sources may improve the situation somewhat. Readings taken at the subject showed a maximum of 15 D/T near St. Clair Avenue West and Symes Road. The consultant acknowledged that this reading was for that specific period of the day during the study period and that higher odour levels may have been present at other times of the day, and similarly during other times of the year there may be different levels of odour present. The western portion of the subject property was noted, in the study, to experience persistent odours exceeding 2 D/T and that a majority of the eastern side experienced faint odours. Wind speed and direction, of course, will always be factors to determine how much or how little odour an area will receive. However, given the magnitude of some of the D/T readings, even significant reductions in odour emissions from some of the industries might still result in an odour impact on the subject site that some would find offensive. The developer should ensure that adequate notification be provided to prospective occupants of this proposed subdivision to advise that there is the potential for odour impacts from nearby industries should significant odour mitigation be unsuccessful. Therefore staff at EHS recommend the following to address the odour impact from nearby industries.

Recommendations:

1.The developer should explore and implement mitigation options either at the subject site or at the sources to reduce the odour impact to the subject site. Odours at the sources should be approached in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment.

2.The developer should provide adequate notification to prospective buyers advising that the area has a high potential to be impacted by offensive nuisance odours from nearby industries.

Should there be any questions, please contact me at 392-7685.

6.(April 18, 1995)

Thank you for your request of April 6, 1995 to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed these plans and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The applicant proposes a major development of a new residential neighbourhood with commercial components and Site Plan Approval for specific development components which would involve redesignation from Heavy Industrial to Restricted Industrial. A review of the files available to us indicate the lands were zoned industrial in 1949. Additionally, 2211 St. Clair Avenue West was a research laboratory and also used in other services incidental to agriculture (SICCODE 239) in 1964 and 2255 St. Clair Avenue West was used for leather and allied products - hides (SICCODE 17) in 1964.

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, Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and a Preliminary Ambient Air Quality Assessment. This information will help to identify any environmental concerns with respect tot eh 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 Commissioner of Planning and Development for review by the Medical Officer of Health, 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 Labour and 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 introduction of a Bill in Council.

3.i)The owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing programme and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes remediation options to be submitted to the Commissioner of Planning and Development for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council; and

ii)the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified 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 Plan.

4.i)The owner shall prepare a Demolition and Dust Control Plan to the Commissioner of Planning and Development 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.

5.The owner shall immediately conduct a Preliminary Ambient Air Quality Assessment to identify potential air quality impacts including those from all proximal sources of air pollutants and construction activities which exist at or near the subject site, to be submitted to the Commissioner of Planning and Development for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

Please inform the owner/applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of my comments and recommendations along with the List of Department of Public Health Environmental Requirements. If you have any questions, please contact Gordon Chan at 392-7685.

7.Metro Planning (September 23, 1998)

We have reviewed the above revised plan of subdivision as requested, and submit the following comments.

The revised application was circulated to all the relevant agencies in May, 1998 and to date there have been responses from (3) of them, and copies of their letters are attached.

The agencies which have not responded are: Metro Parks and Culture, Metro Separate School Board, Metro Toronto School Board, Metro Transportation Department, Toronto Board of Education and the TTC. You may wish to contact them separately.

From Metropolitan Planning standpoint, there are no concerns with the reviewed proposal and our previous comments remain as stated.

We now await your approval of the draft plan.

8.(August 1, 1995)

Our preliminary review of this application has revealed a number of comments and issues pertaining to the proposed development.

Environmental Issues

1.Metropolitan Official Plan Policies

Due to the previous industrial uses of this site and the location of the site in an industrial area, there are several environmental matters to be addressed as indicated by the Metropolitan Official Plan. Policies 171 and 172 of the Official Plan address soil remediation. We note that past uses of the site included an edible oil refining operation, abattoirs and meat processing facilities. Preliminary investigation of the proposal suggests a possibility that soil contamination may have taken place due to these past uses.

Since this site is located proximate to actively used railway lands, policies 183 and 184 of the Official Plan apply. There is a requirement for appropriate noise abatement measures as a condition to be secured prior to final approval of plans of subdivision. Further comments and requirements with respect to soils and noise abatement are expected from the Ministry of the Environment and Energy.

Metro's Official Plan also addresses storm water management practices in policies 177, 178 and 179. In conjunction with the Area Municipalities and other governments, Metro is seeking to improve the quality of stormwater discharges. Appropriate designs, practices and technologies are encouraged to be incorporated in all new developments to reduce the volume and rate of stormwater runoff. Metro also supports and participates in the development of appropriate stormwater management strategies in co-operation with the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) and the Area Municipalities.

2.Ministry of Natural Resources

The Ministry of Natural Resources has requested the inclusion of a number of provisions to the official plan amendment related to concerns pertaining to stormwater management, soil erosion and the protection of fish habitats in nearby Humber River and Black Creek. Specifically, Ministry officials have requested that the amendment give recognition to the value of fishery water courses and the need to minimize negative effects from development; that appropriate storm water management practices be employed and that storm water quality control should meet Level 2 Protection criteria as outlined in Provincial guidelines ("Stormwater Quality Best Management Practices, MOEE/MNR April 1991" and "Stormwater Management and Design Manual, MOEE June 1994"); and appropriate erosion and sediment controls be implemented in order to meet the requirements of the Federal Fisheries Act, prior to stripping or grading. Any increase in concentrations of suspended solids or sediment loading may be in violation of this Act. With respect to this latter point, officials of the MNR will monitor the effectiveness of controls and take appropriate action if required.

With respect to the proposed plan of subdivision, the Ministry advises that appropriate stormwater management techniques must be implemented on the site and that it may be necessary to alter the configuration of this plan through redline revisions to provide adequate land for the requirements of the stormwater management facilities and erosion and sedimentation control measures. These latter comments are advisory only.

3.MTRCA

The MTRCA have no objections to the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment. There are also no objections to the approval of the draft plan of subdivision subject to a number of conditions, including:

1)Prior to the initiation of grading, and prior to the registration of this draft plan of subdivision or any phase thereof, the owner shall submit to the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA) and the area municipality for review and approval the following:

a)a detailed engineering report that describes how the storm drainage system for the proposed development will be dealt with including:

i)plans illustrating how this drainage system will tie into surrounding drainage systems, and indicating whether it is part of an overall drainage scheme, how external flows will be accommodated, and the design capacity of the receiving system;

ii)the location and description of all outlets and other facilities which may require permits under Provincial regulations;

iii)the location and description of all outlets and other facilities which may require permits under Provincial regulations;

iv)proposed methods for controlling or minimizing erosion and siltation on-site and in downstream areas during and after construction.

b)overall grading plans for the plans within this plan.

2)The plan be red-line revised to accommodate any stormwater management facilities required to manage either stormwater quantity or quality as determined through the report prepared to satisfy Condition 1.

3)The owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement, in wording satisfactory to the MTRCA and the area municipality:

a)to carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority, the recommendations set out in any and all reports referred to in Condition 1;

b)to obtain all necessary permits for works referred to in Condition 1; and

4)A copy of the fully executed subdivision agreement shall be forwarded to the MTRCA.

Housing Policies

Policies 122 and 122 b) of the Metropolitan Official Plan apply to this proposal. The achievement of a housing supply to meet the Plan's housing target of an additional 200,000 to 245,000 by 2011 is encouraged. The achievement of these targets is encouraged through the redevelopment of obsolete industrial lands such as those in this proposal.

Policy 128 suggests that Area Municipalities shall require that opportunities be created so that at least 25% of new residential units are affordable housing. In addition, these opportunities are to be considered in all developments that contain 8 or more units as specified by Policy 129. Information from the applicants indicates that the estimated cost of housing units to be constructed are in an affordable price range of $99,000 to $169,000.

Services

1.Metro Works

Metro Works has indicated that water supply for this area will be adequate. The development will be served by the Metropolitan Toronto St. Clair Sanitary Trunk Sewer for treatment at the Humber Treatment Plant. The existing capacity of these facilities is adequate.

With respect to the servicing design of the development, the applicant should be requested to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff by detaining flows for gradual release into the ground and to improve the quality of stormwater discharges as per policies 177, 178 and 179 of the Metro Official Plan.

2.Metro Community Services

Metro Community Services suggest the need for a more comprehensive plan for the provision of key community services before development commences. Suggested services include recreation for youth, open park space, settlement services for immigrants, support for single parents, community space and programs for children and youth.

The City of Toronto has addressed the issue of a Community Services Plan for this area in the DRAFT OPA report, A New Plan for the Stockyards Area, Part II Official Plan Proposals. A Community Services and Facilities Strategic Plan will be prepared in conjunction with the Final Report on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for this area. The Final Report will deal with the identification of existing deficiencies in the area; the likely impact of new development on existing services; and, the report will put forth the means by which deficiencies, if any, may be addressed.

With respect to open spaces in the area, the City of Toronto has indicated the importance of linkages with Lavender Creek, the Humber Valley System and High Park; visibility of open spaces from the street; the use of abandoned rail lines; and, the need for parkland dedication in large re-development sites.

3.Toronto Board of Education

Existing Metropolitan Attendance Area arrangements suggest that most students will attend City of York schools. Another report by the Toronto Board of Education will be provided following additional review with the York Board of Education.

Other Comments

1.CN Rail

Officials from CN have requested that a warning clause be included in all Subdivision Agreements and in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease relating to potential negative impacts on the living environment of the residents due to alterations, or expansions on the existing right-of-way. The clause applies notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and the individual dwellings. This clause is to be included in the Draft Conditions.

CN has also indicated that the owner is to undertake a noise and vibration study and to recommend abatement measures necessary to achieve maximum level limits set by MOEE. This study is to be undertaken in consultation with CN and the MOEE.

CN would like to review the Draft Conditions prior to approval and to receive a copy of the Approved Draft Conditions.

2.Bell Canada

Bell Canada has requirements for both floor space and a small parcel of land granted through leasing arrangements and easements to accommodate equipment. If conflicts with existing Bell facilities should arise, the Owner/Developer is responsible for rearrangement or relocation.

3.Consumers Gas

There is no objection from Consumers Gas provided the standard clearances of 0.3 metres minimum vertically and 0.6 metres horizontally are maintained because all pipelines are located beneath public roadways.

There are a number of transportation issues with respect to the proposed road network which need to be addressed. Metro Transportation Department will be better prepared to deal with the transportation issues following the receipt of a Traffic Impact Study from the applicant. The TTC have also indicated that a response is forthcoming.

We are still awaiting comments on this proposal from the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, the Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board, CP Rail and the Commissioner of Planning for the City of York. The Ministry of the Environment and Energy have indicated that a response will be forwarded by mid-August. We hope that these agencies can expedite their responses so that we may continue with our evaluation and analysis of this proposal.

Since an Official Plan Amendment is required to permit the proposed development, our delegated authority precludes Metro Toronto from making a decision on the subdivision plan until the Official Plan Amendment for this area is approved.

Should you have questions about this plan of subdivision, please contact Mary McElroy at 392-6578.

9.Metropolitan Separate School Board (May 31, 1995)

Further to your request for comments regarding the above-noted matter, please be advised that the following schools service the proposed amendment area and have space available for new students.

James Culnan (Elementary)

Archbishop Romero Secondary School

Saint-Noel-Chabanel (French Elementary)

Mgr-de-Charbonnel (French Secondary)

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

10.Toronto Transit Commission (September 8, 1998)

We have reviewed the revised site plan application and the associated Traffic Impact and Access Study and offer the following comments.

The traffic impact study does not accurately reflect the impacts of this development and other in the area on the surrounding road system. According to our review, the improvements necessary at the Keele Street/St. Clair Avenue West intersection are understated in the study and the conclusion that other signalized intersections in the area will operate at a good level of service in the 2003 horizon year is not consistent with our review or with the conclusions drawn in traffic impact studies which were done in association with other recent developments in the area.

According to the subject study, the St. Clair Avenue West/Gunns Road intersection would operate with a level-of-service (LOS) "A" in the 2003 horizon year. The Provigo traffic study, however, indicates that the following intersection improvements would be required:

-a longer eastbound left turn lane

-a longer westbound left turn lane located between relocated streetcar tracks

-a revised lane configuration on Gunns Road and,

-a northbound flashing advanced green with a longer cycle length.

Regardless of claims made in the applicant's study, the traffic generated by the subject development will contribute to the breakdown of traffic operations in the road area network. Given the large number of developments in this area, and the fact that this area is vulnerable to the cumulative effects of development, the City of Toronto should ensure that an appropriate share of the costs of all of the required transportation network improvements, including the streetcar track relocation on St. Clair east of Gunns Road, is secured from this applicant and all others in this area.

Specifically with regard to the streetcar track relocation, $262,000 has been secured from Canadian Tire and Provigo as their contribution towards the track modifications. However, as a road widening is required, I believe it would be appropriate for TTC and City staff to meet to discuss and confirm the total road and track project costs, the obligations placed on other developers in the area as far as road improvements are concerned, and the appropriate amount which the Westclaire developer should contribute. My staff will be contacting city Planning and Transportation staff to set up this meeting.

In order to accommodate a possible future extension of the streetcar tracks, separated from left turn lanes, on St. Clair Avenue west of Gunns Road, it will be necessary to widen St. Clair Avenue on both the north and south sides. A 5 m strip of property is required on both sides of St. Clair for this purpose. The Westclaire development, therefore, will be required to be set back a minimum of 5 m along its entire St. Clair Avenue frontage, with a provision for the City to acquire, at a nominal cost, this 5 m strip of land for the possible future streetcar extension/road widening. This arrangement is similar to the setback requirement which was included in the development approval of the nearby Canadian Tire on the south side of St. Clair.

11.Works and Emergency Services (November 5, 1998)

The proposal for the above-noted site, located on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West extending between Gunns Road, to the west of Symes Road, and south of the east-west rail spur, was the subject of the Departmental report of August 28, 1998. The proposed subdivision has now been revised to, among other things:

-Revise the street and lane layout to eliminate dead ends, and to refine the lane network so that they function only as access to the residential parking garages for each lot, rather than as integral components of the street circulation system.

-In conjunction with the revised street and lane layout, provide minimum road allowance widths of 15m for Street A and Street C, 20m for Street B and 11.5m for Street D, and minimum widths of 5m for each of the residential public lanes.

-In conjunction with the redesign of Street D, provide a 0.06 hectare parkette on the inside of the crescent.

-Submit a Noise Impact Study outlining proposals for noise attenuation measures required in conjunction with this development.

-Provide for possible phasing of the project as follows:

-Phase Ilots 16-37 (fronting on St. Clair)

-Phase IIlots 38-59 (fronting on St. "A")

-Phase IIIlots 1-15 (fronting on St. Clair)

-Phase IVlots 60-74 (fronting on St. "A")

-Phase Vlots 90-103 (fronting on St. "A")

-Phase VIlots 104-117 (fronting on St. "C")

-Phase VIIlots 75-89 (fronting on St. "A")

-Phase VIIIlots 118-132 (fronting on St. "C")

-Phase IXlots 133-174 (fronting on St. "C")

-Phase Xlots 164-174 (fronting on St. "D")

The owner has recently submitted a number of studies required which are currently under review by this Department. The acceptability of these studies has not been established, nor have any of the measures recommended in these studies been approved. In this regard, your Department proposes that these matters be addressed prior to the introduction of Bills in Council. Accordingly, there may be a number of requirements under the jurisdiction of this Department relating to such matters as noise, soil conditions within the road allowances, and traffic which are recommended as conditions of approval of these studies. These matters should be secured in the Subdivision and Section 37 Agreements, as appropriate. Comments on the revisions are set out below:

Revised Street and Lane Plan

The revised street and lane plan is generally acceptable. Of course, it will be necessary for the owner to submit detailed design drawings in accordance with Departmental specifications. It is noted that acceptance of Street "D" with a 11.5m road allowance width is premised on the proposal that the abutting Block 176 on the east side of the street will be dedicated as a City parkette, and that no sidewalk will be required in the parkette. If there is any change to the status of the parkette, the minimum road allowance width of Street "D" would have to be reconsidered.

Phasing

The revised proposal introduces phasing for the project. Although the construction of the project in phases is acceptable in principle, the proposed phasing will impact the municipal servicing (including roads) for the project. As a result, the servicing concept plan submitted for the project must be revised to reflect phasing for this project. In general, each phase should be constructed so that each phase will function adequately, without the necessity of further phases being constructed. The current phasing proposal would create some interim dead-end streets, which is unacceptable. In this regard, it is suggested that the phasing be revised, with the minimum infrastructure required to accommodate each phase of development, as follows:

PhaseLotsRequire Infrastructure

Phase Ilots 16-37 (fronting on St. Clair)Abutting lane and south half of Street "B"

Phase IIlots 38-59 (fronting on St. "A")Abutting portion of Street "A" and remainder of Street "B"

Phase IIIlots 1-15 (fronting on St. Clair)Abutting lane

Phase IVlots 60-74 (fronting on St. "A")Remainder of Street "A"

Phase Vlots 90-103 (fronting on St. "A")Abutting lanes and abutting part of Street "C"

Phase VIlots 75-89 (fronting on St. "A")Abutting lane

Phase VIIlots 104-132 (fronting on St. "C")Remainder of Street "C" to Symes Road and connecting lane

Phase VIIIlots 133-163 (fronting on St. "C")Abutting lanes

Phase IXlots 164-174 (fronting on St. "D")Street "D" and abutting lane

Having regard for the above, the owner should be required to submit and have approved by this Department, a phasing plan showing all roads and municipal services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council.

Noise Impact Statement

The owner has submitted a Noise Impact Statement for the project prepared under date of October28, 1998 by J.E. Coulter Associates.

It is clear that noise and vibration attenuation measures will be required with the introduction of the residential subdivision into this area, however, the above-noted Noise Impact Statement is not acceptable in its current form. The acoustical consultant will be required to address additional concerns. Possible measures being contemplated at this time include the installation of at-source mitigation measures for all identified industries in the vicinity of this development, at the cost of the developer of this subdivision, to be maintained in accordance with agreements between the developer and the owners of each individual industrial use. No such agreements have been entered into to date. Another alternative would to be construct an acoustical sound barrier around the perimeter of the site.

A revised Noise Impact Statement for the project must be submitted and approved by this Department, prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, such statement to outline a proposed noise mitigation strategy, and to indicate the owner's financial obligations toward construction, installation and long term maintenance of all noise attenuation measures. The owner will be required to contribute funds to provide for the future maintenance of the approved measures, whether these measures are located at the noise source or in the form of an acoustical barrier. The measures stipulated in the approved Noise Impact Statement would be secured in the Subdivision Agreement. The issuance of building permits for each phase of the project would be deferred pending execution of agreements with the specified industries in the vicinity of each respective phase, or, alternatively, implementation of other noise attenuation measures, such as construction of an acoustical barrier around each phase, in accordance with the approved Noise Impact Statement.

The proposed Noise Impact strategy will allow the City to secure noise attenuation measures prior to the construction of the houses. However, the economic and physical feasibility of implementing the proposed noise implementation measures have not been established to date. Abutting industries may not agree to the noise mitigation measures, or the cost of the installation and maintenance of the required on-site mitigation measures (e.g. acoustical barrier) may prove too costly for the proponent. This could result in noise levels experienced by residents which would exceed the limits considered appropriate for residential developments, which is unacceptable. Furthermore, industrial users may change over time, requiring alternate or enhanced mitigation strategies.

Traffic Impact Assessment

A Traffic Study and Supplementary report have been submitted under dates of March 7, 1998 and October 26, 1998. The methodologies and approach applied in the capacity analysis contained in the traffic studies are generally acceptable.

Based on information provided in the study, the site is estimated to generate 172 and 218 total two-way vehicle trips in the morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The proposed street system is based on a linear grid system, with a through street (Street "A") traversing the subdivision in an east-west direction, connecting to Symes Road and Gunns Road. Given the substantial benefits to be derived and the City's substantial efforts to retrofit streets in many areas, this street should be designed and constructed incorporating traffic calming principles. Street "A" should incorporate a 7.5 m pavement width, which would accommodate two-way traffic and parking on one side and boulevard and sidewalk on both sides. Given the length of the blocks and the susceptibility of the neighbourhood, by virtue of its location, to experience some through traffic routings, narrowings to about 5.5 m or chicanes should be installed at about 80 m intervals.

Similarly, speed bumps should be incorporated into the design of the public lanes, in accordance with City specifications, and implemented with the construction of the lanes.

As noted in the consultant's report, traffic data and observation indicate that a number of built or approved developments could put further pressure on the operations of the arterial road network in this area. In the case of Keele Street, traffic conditions can be monitored and measures developed to discourage site traffic from seeking alternate routes on the local street system including Ryding Avenue.

It is also noted that additional street-related safety measures will be required to address the mix of truck, vehicular and pedestrian activity which will occur on Symes Road between St. Clair Avenue West and the north limit of the subdivision as a result of this development. In this regard, the applicant is required to construct sidewalks on both sides of this section of Symes Road, or pay for the construction, prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase abutting Symes Road.

The applicant is also proposing to convey a 3-metre wide strip of land to the City along the entire St. Clair Avenue West frontage for road widening purposes, plus maintain an additional 3-metre wide setback area, in order to accommodate the possible future westerly extension of the Toronto Transit Commission's streetcar service. The 3-metre setback will also be conveyed to the City at the time of the streetcar extension. The conveyance/setback have not been identified on the current Draft Plan of Subdivision.

Consolidated Recommendations:

Having regard for the above, Recommendation Nos. 1(c), (d), (e) and (s) of the August 28, 1998 report should be amended, Recommendation No. (r) should be deleted (as the reserve strip will be eliminated), and new Recommendation Nos. 1(r), (s), (t) and (u) should be added. For the sake of clarity, the consolidated Departmental comments are set out below.

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)Comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law;

(c)Provide minimum road allowance widths as follows:

(i)Street B: 20 m;

(ii)Streets A and C: 15 m;

(iii)Street D: 11.5m :

(iv)Public lanes: 5 m minimum;

(d)Provide and maintain 1.5 m x 1.5 m triangular splays at the intersections of all lanes and at 90 degree corners;

(e)Submit a functional road plan incorporating the pavement widths, triangular splays and traffic calming principles described in this report for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f)In connection with the new public streets/lanes and the municipal services and facilities referred to in Recommendation Nos. 1(c) and 1(d), above:

(i)Engage the services of a qualified Municipal Consulting Engineer satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the design and field supervision of all underground and surface public works services and facilities;

(ii)Prepare and submit for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's design policies and specifications for all underground and surface public works services and facilities including a site grading plan, and construct all such services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

(iii)Provide, upon completion of the work, "as constructed" drawings of all underground and surface public works services and facilities, certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer that such services and facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

(iv)Provide letters of credit in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for all municipal infrastructure for the development (sewers, waterworks, streets including intersections with existing City streets/lanes, sidewalks, lanes, street lighting, street furniture, etc.) or such lesser amount as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may approve, as determined by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the earlier of issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the development until completion of the work;

(v)Provide letters of credit in an amount equal to 25% of the value of completed municipal infrastructure as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and acceptance by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(vi)Construct all utilities underground;

(g)Submit suggestions for a suitable name for the new streets in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No. 22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of July 11, 1988;

(h)Remonument the street limits and proposed lot/block corners after completion of construction, if necessary;

(i)Submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a soil study addressing soil contamination/remediation within the proposed road allowances;

(j)Agree to defer the installation of the final coat of asphalt on each street/lane until the substantial completion of construction of buildings on that street/lane, or at such earlier timing as may be required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, acting reasonably;

(k)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements, including the identification of any proposed phasing of noise attenuation measures, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council;

(l)Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that each phase of the development has been designed and constructed, and all noise and vibration attenuation measures required for each respective phase have been implemented, in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(m)Have a qualified Transportation Engineer certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Traffic Impact Assessment and any other traffic measures and facilities approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(n)Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact, soil remediation and traffic measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the respective plans and studies approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(o)Deposit the final plan of subdivision, in the appropriate Land Registry Office, such plan to be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System;

(p)Provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City;

(q)Submit revised drawings/additional information with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(d) and 1(e) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council;

(r)Provide to the City, a one-time cash contribution of $2,500 towards the supply and installation of measures required to mitigate potential impacts of traffic generated by this project on local area streets and intersections;

(s)Construct sidewalks on both sides of Symes Road, between St. Clair Avenue West and north limit of the Subdivision, to City specifications, or alternatively, pay for the cost of constructing these sidewalks, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the first phase of development abutting Symes Road;

(t)Design and construct the new public streets and lanes in accordance with the principles contained under the heading "Traffic Impact Assessment" in this report; and

(u)Submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, a phasing plan for the construction of roads and municipal services, such plan to ensure that no dead end roads/lanes are created at any point in the phased construction.

2. That the owner be advised of the need to:

(a)Receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances;

(b)Design the St. Clair Avenue West boulevard in accordance with the guidelines of this Department; and

(c)Obtain building location and streetscape permits from this Department prior to the construction of this project.

12.(August 28, 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)Comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law;

(c)Provide minimum road allowance widths as follows:

(i)Street A: 20 m;

(ii)Streets B, C, D, E, F and G: 15 m;

(iii)Street H: 15 m with a 27 m diameter cul-de-sac, or a connection to Symes Road, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(iv)Public lanes linking Streets B and C, Streets D and E and Streets F and G: 8 m (6 m pavement, 0.2 m curb, 1.5 m sidewalk, 0.3 m setback for street lighting and, if required, hydrants);

(v)All other public lanes: 5 m;

(d)Provide and maintain 1.5 m x 1.5 m triangular splays at the intersections of all lanes;

(e)Submit a functional road plan incorporating the pavement widths and turning radii described in this report for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f)In connection with the new public streets/lanes and the municipal services and facilities referred to in Recommendation Nos. 1(c) and 1(d), above:

(vi)Construct all utilities underground;

(h)Remonument the street limits and proposed lot/block corners after completion of construction, if necessary;

(i)Submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a soil study addressing soil contamination/remediation within the proposed road allowances;

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

(l)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;

(m)Submit to and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a Traffic Impact Assessment for the project, prepared by a qualified Transportation Engineer;

(n)Have a qualified Transportation Engineer certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Traffic Impact Assessment approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(o)Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact, soil remediation and traffic management measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the respective plans approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(p)Deposit the final plan of subdivision, in the appropriate Land Registry Office, such plan to be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System;

(q)Provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City;

(r)Agree to transfer title to the City of the Block of land located between the southern terminus of Street H and the property to the south of the site; and

(s)Submit revised drawings/additional information with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(c), 1(d) and 1(e) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

2. That the owner be advised of the need to:

(a)Receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances;

(b)Design the St. Clair Avenue West boulevard in accordance with the guidelines of this Department; and

(c)Obtain building location and streetscape permits from this Department prior to the construction of this project.

Comments:

Location

Rectangular-shaped parcel on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West extending between Gunns Road, to the west of Symes Road, and south of the east-west rail spur.

Proposal

Creation of a new subdivision comprised of new public streets and lanes and 316 building lots for 298 semi-detached units and 18 triples units.

Street System

The subdivision is comprised of Street A, a collector street extending between Gunns Road and Symes Road, a series of 6 north-south local streets identified as Streets B through G, and a cul-de-sac identified as Street H extending west of Symes Road then turning southerly.

The typical minimum right-of-way width for local and collector streets in the City is 20 m. The 15m right-of-way width of Street A, which would function as a collector street serving this subdivision, must be increased accordingly. However, in the case of Streets B to H, inclusive, the provision of a 15 m right-of-way width is sufficient to accommodate a 7.5 pavement width, sidewalks, municipal services and utilities, and desired streetscaping features. On this basis, the proposed 15 m rights-of-way are acceptable.

A series of public lanes is proposed to serve this subdivision. Although 5 m is the standard width for residential public lanes in the City, the east-west lanes linking Streets B and C, Streets D and E, and Streets F and G will effectively function as part of the street system. These facilities will provide links between the local north-south streets for vehicular circulation (e.g. garbage trucks and snowploughs which could not otherwise turn around on the streets), delivery vehicles (which would likely utilize the connecting lanes to access the next street rather than backtrack down to Street A) and municipal servicing (i.e. watermains which would be installed as part of a continuous looping water distribution system). For these reasons, the connecting lanes should be designed with a minimum right-of-way width of 8 m. This width will provide for a 6 m wide pavement which is the standard width for public commercial lanes in the City, which is sufficient for trucks, such as a garbage truck, to pass oncoming or stopped vehicles. The additional 2 m width will accommodate the installation of a sidewalk (1.5 m), curb (0.2 m) and street lighting (0.3 m). In addition, the detailed design drawings must incorporate 1.5 m x 1.5 m triangular splays at the intersections of the streets and lanes.

Street H is proposed as a dead end street with a hammerhead at the south end. This is undesirable from functional and municipal servicing points of view. Garbage trucks, snowploughs and other large vehicles would have to undertake multiple-point turns within the hammerhead, or alternatively, back out to Symes Road, both undesirable options. Furthermore, the cul-de-sac would require a dead-end watermain network which, from a fire safety and efficiency perspective, is less desirable than a continuous looping water main system. Accordingly, the owner should consider redesigning the street with an 8 m wide connecting lane to Symes Road, or, alternatively, redesign the road to provide for minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6 m and 13.4 m for the turning facility. This could be accomplished by the provision of a 23 m diameter cul-de-sac bulb at the south end of the street within a 27 m diameter right-of-way.

The proposed 5 m wide residential lanes (excluding the connecting lanes referred to above) are acceptable, subject to the provision of 1.5 m x 1.5 m triangular splays at the intersections of these lanes with other streets/lanes.

Phasing of Road Construction

In order to prevent the proposed new City streets and lanes from being damaged during construction, the Subdivision Agreement should require that the installation of the final coat of asphalt and subsequent assumption of each street for public highway purposes be deferred until the houses on each of these streets have been substantially completed, or such alternate timing as may be deemed appropriate by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Reserve Strip

The plans appear to indicate that there is residual land at the southerly terminus of Street H identified as Block 158. In order that the City can control access to the proposed public highway, the title of this block should be transferred to the City.

Harris Road

The owner proposes to incorporate the private road known as Harris Road into the site. Harris Road includes a residual portion of a public lane which must be closed and conveyed to the owner. In this regard, the owner has filed an application for the closing and conveyancing of this residual portion which is being processed separately. Of course, it will be necessary for this process to be completed prior to the registration of the Plan of Subdivision for the site.

The elimination of Harris Road will require adjustments to the St. Clair Avenue West boulevard, such as the elimination of the curb cut, at the expense of the owner. It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department for work within the road allowance.

Permits

Traffic Impact Study

The owner has submitted a Traffic Impact Study which is currently under review by this Department and will be reported on under separate cover. Any road improvements or mitigating measures required to accommodate this development, as identified in the approved Traffic Impact Study, would secured in the Subdivision Agreement for the site.

Parking

The project should comply with the parking requirements of the Zoning By-law, which requires the provision of a minimum of 1 parking space per residential unit.

Refuse Handling, Storage and Disposal

The City will provide the project with regular curbside refuse and recyclable collection service in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste.

Noise Impact Statement

The owner is required to submit a satisfactory Noise Impact Statement for the project.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sewer systems located within the existing public road allowances are adequate to accommodate the development.

Preliminary municipal servicing plans are currently under review of this Department. The recommendations above require that the services be constructed in accordance with an approved plan, consistent with Departmental policies.

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. In this regard the owner has demonstrated that infiltration is not appropriate as the site does not meet the MOE's Lakefill Quality Control Guidelines and therefore, connections to the storm sewer system are acceptable, in principle, subject to the following:

a) All foundations should be drained by pump to the storm sewer, with a check valve installed on each drain connection to prevent any back flow to the basements in the case of a sewer surcharge; and

b) No inlet control devices are installed in any of the proposed catch basins.

Soil Contamination

Although your staff have indicated that the entire site is being remediated to residential standards, no soil studies have been received by this Department to date. As indicated above, the site does not meet the MOE's Lakefill Quality Control Guidelines. Accordingly, further information is required to be submitted for the review and approval of this Department in order to ascertain whether the soil conditions in the proposed road allowances are acceptable for public highway purposes.

Plan of Subdivision

The final plan of subdivision, which must be deposited in the appropriate Land Registry Office, should be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System. The owner should be required to provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications, and a copy thereof has been forwarded under separate cover to City Council:

-(October 27, 1998) from Catherine A. Lyons, Goodman Phillips and Vineberg; and

-(November 11, 1998) from Ian Wheal, Ontario Society for Industrial Archeology.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2078, 2300 St. Clair Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2078, 2300 St. Clair Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2078, 2300 St. Clair Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

2078, 2300 St. Clair Avenue

City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(November 18, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding submissions from the following individuals regarding a draft zoning by-law - 2078 and 2300 St. Clair Avenue West and 66Synes Road (Davenport):

(a)(October 27, 1998) from Ms. Catherine A. Lyons, Goodman, Phillips and Vineberg; and

(b)(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Ian Wheal, Ontario Society for Industrial Archeology;

(ii)(undated) from Ms. Diana Fancher, President, West Toronto Junction Historical Society, requesting that Clause No. 3 of Report No. 14 of The Toronto Community Council be referred back to the Community Council in order to permit the West Toronto Junction Historical Society further input with respect to this matter; and

(iii)(November 9, 1998) from Ms. Sandra Chan, Engineering Services, Canadian National, forwarding comments with respect to the proposed zoning by-law amendments and Plan Subdivision Application - 2078and 2300 St. Clair Avenue West and 66 Synes Road (Davenport).)

Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue

(North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)subject to receipt of a signed Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act, the Draft By-laws attached to the report (November 10, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the report (October 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by the actions of the Toronto Community Council of October 14, 1998, be adopted.

Councillor Miller requested that he be recorded as voting against the above recommendations.

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 October 14, 1998, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Ms. Ann Stanley, Heritage Toronto; and

-Ms. Mary Bull, McCarthy Tetrault.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Draft By-laws to permit the residential condominium apartment building proposed for 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue. The project contains an 18 storey, 183 unit residential condominium apartment building.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

(2)subject to receipt of a signed Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act, that the Draft By-laws attached to the report (November 10, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998 had before it the final report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (October 1, 1998) respecting the above noted matter. That report as amended by the Toronto Community Council will be before your committee at the meeting to be held on November 12, 1998. The report recommends the passage of site-specific official plan and zoning by-law amendments which will permit the proposed residential condominium apartment building.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the planning report as amended by the Toronto Community Council. A minor change in the floor area has been incorporated in the Draft By-laws.

Contact Name:

Sharon Haniford, Solicitor

Telephone: 392-6975

Fax: 392-0024

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

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

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

respecting lands known as No. 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue.

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

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

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No. .

--------

SCHEDULE "A"

1.Section 18 of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto is amended by adding a new Section18. as follows:

"18. Lands known as No. 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue

Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map 18. to permit the erection and use of an apartment building containing not more than 21 620.0 square metres of residential gross floor area provided the number of dwelling units does not exceed 183.

For the purposes of this amendment, the terms "apartment building" and "dwelling unit" shall have the same meaning as those terms have for the purposes of By-law No.438-86 of the former City of Toronto, 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 an 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."

(Map to be inserted)

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend the General Zoning By-law No.438-86 with respect to

lands known as No. 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue.

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

1. None of the provisions of Sections 4(2), 4(4)(b) respecting visitor parking requirements, 4(13)(a) and (c), 4(16) or 8(3) PART l 3(a) of By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, 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 an 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 erection and use on the lot of an apartment building containing not more than 21 620.0 square metres of residential gross floor area, provided:(1)the lot consists of at least the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on the attached Plan 1;

(2)the maximum number of dwelling units erected or used on the lot does not exceed183;

(3)no portion of the building above the natural level of the ground is located otherwise than wholly within the area delineated by heavy lines as shown on the attached Plan2;

(4)the heights of the building do not exceed those shown on Plan 2 and the maximum building height, including those structures and elements referred to in Section4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, does not exceed 54.1 metres above grade;

(5) not less than 194 parking spaces are provided and maintained by the owner on the lot, of which not less than 172 parking spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the lot and of which not less than 22 parking spaces are reserved for residential visitors; and

(6) not less than 72 bicycle parking spaces are provided and maintained by the owner on the lot for the exclusive use of residents of the lot .

2. For the purposes of this By-law:

(1)except as otherwise provided herein, each word or expression which is italicized herein shall have the same meaning as such word or expression as defined in the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86; and

(2)"height" shall mean the level above grade for each area shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 2.

(Maps to be inserted)

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (October 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of this application to permit the replacement of the existing Union Carbide Building at 123 Eglinton Avenue East with an 18-storey, 183 units residential condominium apartment building at a residential density of 5.5 times the lot area.

Recommendations:

(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan substantially as set out below:

add to Section 18 a new subsection as set out below:

"Lands known as 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue

See Map 18.-- at the end of this Section.

(a)Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, City Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands indicated on Map 18.-- to permit the erection and use of a building containing residential uses provided the residential gross floor area does not exceed 21,460 square metres and the total number of dwelling units does not exceed183."

(2)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, as it affects the lands known municipally as 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue, shown on Map 1 attached to this report, so as to permit the erection and use of a residential building on the site provided:

(i)the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed 183;

(ii)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 21,460 square metres;

(iii)the building is contained within the building envelope shown on Map 1;

(iv)the heights of the building do not exceed those shown on Maps 2, 3 and 4, and the maximum building height does not exceed 54.1 metres, including the mechanical penthouse;

(v)not less than 194 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot, of which at least 172 spaces shall be reserved for the exclusive use of residents and at least 22 spaces shall be reserved for residential visitors;

(vi)not less than 72 bicycle parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot;

(vii)there is no vehicular access permitted off Eglinton Avenue East; and

(viii)the site is exempted from the appropriate provisions of Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, identified by the Chief Building Official in the letter dated September 24, 1998, and forming part of Appendix A to this report.

(3)That the owner enter into a Statement of Approval/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 introduction of any Bill in Council.

Background:

1.Application:

Application received on July 25, 1997 and revised on July 24, 1998 from Del Real Estate Consultants Inc. on behalf of the owner, Lombard Towers Holdings Limited, 77 Bloor Street West, Suite 1205, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1M2.

2.Site and Surrounding Area:

This 3,895 square metre site is located on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East and occupies all of the Eglinton Street frontage between Lillian Street and Redpath Avenue. A 10-storey, 45.7 metres high office building (Union Carbide Building) exists on the site but has been vacant for a number of years. The site is the subject of By-law 494-95 designating the existing structure as having architectural value or interest. Currently, no parking is available to serve the existing building.

The site forms part of the high density mixed commercial-residential use district along Eglinton Avenue between the Yonge-Eglinton Centre and Mount Pleasant Road. This portion of Eglinton Avenue East contains a variety of structures with building heights as low as one storey and as high as 12 storeys. Similarly, existing densities range from less than 1x to 7.6x the lot area.

Immediately surrounding uses are:

North:Office commercial uses with retail at grade in structures ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height;

East:an 8 storey office building with retail uses at grade;

South:a recently completed 4 storey condominium townhouse complex;

West:an existing 5 storey commercial building at the corner of Eglinton and Lillian Streets, to the immediate south of which a 6 storey condominium apartment building has recently received OMB approval.

3.Proposed Development:

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Union Carbide office tower and replace it with an 18 storey residential condominium apartment building having 183 residential units and a total of 280 below-grade parking spaces of which 30 will be reserved for visitors. The building will be sculpted above the 12^th floor and reach at maximum a height of 54.1 metres including the mechanical penthouse. Vehicular access to the building and the underground parking garage will be from a private east-west driveway along the south side of the building. The grounds surrounding the building will be well landscaped and include an outdoor swimming pool on the west side of the building. Grade related residential units with garden terraces will front onto Redpath Avenue. A publicly accessible garden area will be created in the north-westerly corner of the site.

4.Public Meeting:

On November 17, 1997, a Public Meeting was held, notes of which are attached to this report as Appendix B. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 area residents whose concerns focussed on the potential for conversion of the existing historically designated structure, the proposed density of the new building, on-site traffic circulation and impacts from the development on this already high traffic area.

5.Revised Application:

In response to concerns raised at the public meeting and by civic officials, the applicant has revised his proposal as follows:

-The building has been shifted eastward to provide for a publicly accessible landscaped open space with seating areas along the west side of the building next to Lillian Street, and to create grade-related residential units with private garden terraces and direct access onto Redpath Avenue.

-The previously enclosed pool at the west side of the building has been replaced by an outdoor pool, screened from Lillian Street by brick walls, set into a dense landscape.

-Introduction of a publicly accessible landscaped open space areas with seating arrangements for pedestrian use at both the north-westerly and north-easterly corners of the building.

-Introduction of an urbane street scape design including a linear progression of curb-side light standards, interwoven paving patterns, main entry sculpture markers, deciduous trees in tree grates and raised landscaped terraces along Eglinton Avenue.

-The previously proposed circular driveway off Eglinton Avenue has been deleted in favour of a drop-off area at the rear entrance of the building.

-The number of car parking spaces has been increased from 256 to 280 spaces.

-The access to below-grade parking has been changed from an exterior ramp parallel to Redpath Avenue to an interior ramp accessible via the private rear lane. The portion of the lane from the ramp to Redpath Avenue is to be 6.4 m wide to provide for 2-way traffic, while the remainder of the lane will be 4.5 m wide and one-way east from Lillian Street to Redpath Avenue.

-Due to the internalization of the ramp, the east portion of the ground floor has been redesigned, and the number of units has been reduced to 3 from 4.

-The top 5 floors of the building have been terraced instead of only the 2 top storeys. To compensate for the loss of building area caused by this increased terracing, the building height has increased from 17 to 18 storeys. The 17^th floor suites have upper rooftop decks with individual stair access to the roof.

-The residential unit count has been increased from 177 to 183.

6.Planning Controls:

6.1Official Plan:

The Official Plan of the former City of Toronto designates this part of Eglinton Avenue East as "High Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area 'A'" where residential and/or commercial uses at a maximum density of 6 times the lot area are permitted. The Plan's policies for this area designation aim at realizing the housing intensification objectives of the Plan while fostering a pedestrian friendly street environment, generally through retail and service commercial uses at grade.

The Yonge-Eglinton Part II Official Plan of the former City of Toronto designates the site as "Mixed Commercial Residential Area B" where mixed use buildings at densities up to 5 times are permitted provided neither the residential nor the commercial use exceeds 3 times the lot area.

6.2Zoning By-law:

The property is zoned CR T5.0 C3.0 R3.0 by By-law 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, permitting commercial and residential uses at a total density of 5 times the lot area , provided neither the residential nor the commercial use exceed a density of 3 times the lot area. The maximum permitted building height is 48 metres.

6.3Site Plan Control:

This site is within an area of Site Plan Control and subject to the delegated Site Plan Approval Process.

7.Historical Designation

On July 24, 1995, City Council of the former City of Toronto passed By-law 494-95 designating the property for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

On May 11, 1998, City Council adopted the following recommendation contained in my Directions Report (dated April 23, 1998) that "Council accept the applicant's submission that the Union Carbide Building cannot be re-used economically and direct staff to prepare a Final Planning Report on the merits of the proposed new residential building". This report responds to Council's direction in this regard.

Comments:

8.Reasons for this Application:

The application requires amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law because the proposed residential density is 5.5 times the lot area, whereas both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law permit a maximum residential density of 3.0 times the lot area.

9.Comments from Civic Officials:

The application has been circulated among public officials whose comments are attached to this report as Appendix A. The Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board has advised, in their letter dated December 12, 1997, of their concern that there is currently a lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding.

10.Reasons for Approving the Revised Application:

As discussed below, the revised application responds successfully to the concerns raised by public officials and at the public meeting and, consequently, I am recommending its approval.

10.1Built Form, Height and Site Design

Of major concern have been the potential negative impacts of high-rise re-development in terms of shadowing Eglinton Avenue and lack of transition to abutting low density residential development. In response to this concern, the building has been sculpted above the 12^th floor and incorporates a clearly defined 3 storey base with projecting cornices. Although these built form changes have resulted in increasing the proposed height from 17 to 18 storeys (including the mechanical penthouse area level), significant improvements have been achieved in terms of the bulk of the building as well as reducing the shadows on the north sidewalk of Eglinton Avenue East.

Concerns regarding the building's relationship to the residential side streets as well as the abutting low-rise residential development have been addressed by shifting the building closer to Eglinton Avenue and further to the east, and by internalizing the garage access ramp which was originally proposed as an open, exterior ramp parallel to Redpath Avenue. Internalization of the ramp has made it possible to create grade-related residential units with individual garden terraces and direct access to Redpath Avenue, thereby simulating the condition found in the existing townhouse development immediately to the south. The building's easterly shift has also resulted in additional open space along its west side on Lillian Street, facilitating location of a publicly accessible garden area on private property, including ample landscaping and seating walls for pedestrians. The generous landscaping has been continued along Eglinton Avenue.

The modified site and building design result in creating a publicly accessible parkette, a pedestrian friendly street environment along Eglinton Avenue, an improved interface with the low-rise development to the south, and maximizing sunlight on the north side of Eglinton Avenue as well as the north-westerly corner of the site, where the parkette is to be located.

10.2 Parking and Traffic Circulation

A major challenge has been to provide a convenient "drop-off" area for residents and their visitors without creating a circular driveway and lay-by, not only uncharacteristic for this portion of Eglinton Avenue East but also interfering with the flow and safety of heavy pedestrian traffic in this area .The proposal has been revised to create a private laneway along the entire south side of the building to serve the dual function of providing access to the below grade parking garage as well as to an at-grade drop-off area near a well defined rear entrance to the building. No parking will be allowed in this laneway, which is to be well landscaped and treed along its entire south side to provide a buffer for the abutting townhouse complex.

A total of 280 parking spaces are provided in a 3-level underground garage which more than satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the proposal for 194 spaces (based on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 172 spaces for the residents and 22 spaces for visitors) as well as the Zoning By-law requirement for 262 spaces. The proposed parking supply, general parking layout and dimensions of spaces are all to the satisfaction of the City's Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

10.3Tree Removal

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the Landscape Plans received from the applicant are not acceptable at this time, primarily because of the need for City Council approval of the proposed removal of 7 City owned trees to facilitate the proposal. The applicant has submitted the necessary tree removal applications which are being reported on under separate cover at the same time as this report is being considered by this Community Council.

Conclusions:

The original application has been revised with a view to satisfying the built form and traffic/parking concerns raised by public officials and during the Public Meeting . Accordingly, I am recommending approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendations Section of this report.

Contact Name:

Feodora Steppat

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone:392-7740

Fax:392-1330

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

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197021
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	July 25, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	September 21, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:123 Eglinton Avenue East.

Nearest Intersection:	Eglinton Ave. E. between Lillian St. and Redpath Ave.

Project Description:	To construct a residential condominium containing 183 units.

Applicant:

Stephen Diamond

Box 48, Ste. 4700 TD Bank Tower

601-8400

Agent:

Stephen Diamond

Box 48, Ste. 4700 TD Bank Tower

601-8400

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	HDMCRA 'A'	Site Specific Provision:	1995-0494; 542-83; 544-83
Zoning District:	CR T5.0 C3.0 R3.0	Historical Status:	Designated
Height Limit (m):	48.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	3895.0 m²	Height:	Storeys:	18
Frontage:			Metres:	54.02
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:	1098.0 m²	Parking Spaces:	280
Residential GFA:	21460.0 m²	Loading Docks:	1
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	21460.0 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Condo	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Total Units:	183	Residential	21460.0 m²

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 5.50	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 5.50

Comments

Status:

Preliminary Report dated August 28, 1997 adopted by LUC on September 18, 1997. Application revised September 21, 1998

Data valid:

September 21, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comment from Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services, dated September 29, 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 194 parking spaces on the site to serve the project, including at least 172 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project and at least 22 spaces for visitors;

(c) Provide and maintain 1 Type G 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;

(d) Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access hereto 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;

(e) 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;

(f) 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 5 compactor containers on collection day;

(g) Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 30 square metres in size in the building and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(h)Provide and maintain a recyclable material drop-off/storage room at least 10 m� in size within the building;

(i)Provide and maintain "No Parking" signs within the east-west private driveway and adjacent to the Type G loading space;

(j)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building to enable the preparation of building envelope plans, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of a bill in Council;

(k)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;

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

(n)Submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a grading and drainage plan for

the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

2.That the owner be advised:

(a)That the storm water runoff 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 submit 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 runoff;

(b)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;

(c)Of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection;

(d)Of the need to obtain building location and streetscape permits from this Department prior to construction of this project; and

(e)That any work within the Eglinton Avenue East boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of this Department.

Comments:

Location

South side of Eglinton Avenue East, between Redpath Avenue and Lillian Street.

Previous Application

The site (the north portion of the lot which fronts Eglinton Avenue East) was subject to Development Review Application No. 395021. As well, the south portion was subject to Development and Rezoning Application Nos. 391110, 1539 and 2336 and is subject to Development and Collateral Agreements registered on June 2, 1995 as Instrument Nos. CA348974 and CA348975, respectively.

Proposal

Construction of a residential building containing 183 condominium dwelling units.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated November 12, 1997. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The provision of 280 parking spaces located in a 3-level underground parking garage satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the proposal for 194 spaces, based on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 172 spaces for the residents and 22 spaces for visitors, and, as far as can be ascertained, satisfies the Zoning By-law requirement for 262 spaces consisting of 216 residential spaces and 46 visitor spaces. The proposed parking supply, general parking layout and dimensions of the parking spaces are acceptable.

Access to the underground parking garage is proposed from the access ramp off of the east-west private driveway. The east-west private driveway extends between Lillian Street and Redpath Avenue. The plans indicate that the driveway is 6.4 m wide from Redpath Avenue to the access ramp which can accommodate two-way traffic and is 4.5 m from Lillian Street to the access ramp which is restricted to one-way eastbound traffic. "No parking" signs are shown on the plans prohibiting vehicles from parking within the driveway. The access ramp to the underground garage is shown as varying in width with a slope not greater than 15% and is satisfactory. The proposed access configuration is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with the bulk lift method of garbage collection in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(c) to 1(h), above. The proposed garbage room and recycling room are acceptable.

The plans indicate that the Type G loading space is to be located within the lay-by adjacent to the 4.5m wide east-west private driveway at the south-west limit of the site. Garbage trucks using the loading space would enter the site from Lillian Street and exit to Redpath Avenue. This configuration is acceptable provided that "No Parking" signs are posted prohibiting vehicles from parking within the lay-by. The concrete storage pad adjacent to the loading space is shown on the plans and is acceptable.

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, 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.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development.

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water runoff into the ground for all new buildings, wherever 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 Section (telephone no. 392-6787).

The applicant should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Work Within the Road Allowances

It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department in respect of any work within the road allowance. If any work is proposed or required within the Eglinton Avenue East road allowance, the design of the boulevard must meet this Department's guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. If clarification is required on how these standards will apply to this site, the applicant can contact the Streetscape Program at 392-3808.

Permits

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

2.Buildings, dated September 24, 1998.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Build 18^th Storey Apartment Building (183 Dwelling Units) with 3 levels of underground parking garage

Zoning Designation: CR T5.0 C 3.0 R 3.0Map:51 K-321

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

Plans prepared by: Julian Jacobs Architects Ltd Plans dated: Sept 18, 1998

Residential GFA:21459 m²

Zoning Review

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

1.The by-law requires a horizontal "bicycle parking space" to have minimum dimensions of 0.6 metres by 1.8 metres and a vertical clearance of 1.9 metres. The proposed bicycle parking spaces have no dimensions . (Section 2, definition of "bicycle parking space".)

2.The by-law requires a vertical "bicycle parking space" to have minimum dimensions of 0.6 metres by 1.2 metres and a vertical clearance of 1.9 metres. The proposed bicycle parking spaces have no dimensions . (Section 2, definition of "bicycle parking space".)

3.The by-law requires at least 110 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 27 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. The proposed building will contain 72 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and no bicycle parking spaces for visitors. (Section4(13)(a) and (c))

4.The by-law requires an apartment building having a residential gross floor area in excess of 2800 square metres to have a driveway that serves an entrance to the building and which allows vehicles to travel in one continuous motion. No driveway is proposed. (Section4(16))

5.The by-law requires that the residential gross floor area be not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot: 11,688 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 21,459 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

6.The by-law limits the proposed Apartment Building height to 48.0 metres. The proposed building has a height of 54.02 metres (incl. mech.). ( Section 4(2) of by-law 438-86 )

7.The by-law requires a minimum of 46 visitors parking spaces be provided. The number of proposed visitors parking spaces is 30. ( Section 4 (4) (b))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3.This property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In accordance with Section 34, Part IV of the Act, an owner wishing to demolish a designated building must receive consent in writing from City Council.

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 proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.

6.All work within the City's road allowance will require a separate approval by City Works Services.

3.Public Health, dated August 27, 1998.

Thank you for your request of July 29, 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 revisions to the site plan have been noted and do not alter the previous recommendations made for this site. Please refer to this Department's letter dated March 30, 1998, for this information.

Please inform the owner/applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of my comments.

Dated March 30, 1998.

Thank you for your request of March 11, 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 applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a 16 storey residential condominium containing 185 units, with underground parking for 231 vehicles.

EHS have previously commented on this site on June 5, 1995 (excavation permit #371246), September 22, 1995 (alteration building permit #373318), May 10, 1996 (sign off letter) and September 29, 1997 (demolition permit #402857). Copies of these letters are enclosed for your information. I would note that this division has consistently expressed no objection to the applicant receiving a permit for this site. Based on the specific information available, I have no objection to a permit being issued to the application for the proposed development.

Recommendations:

1.That the owner shall, upon completion of the soil excavation, submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the soils remaining on site meet the Ministry of Environment "Guideline For Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario", criteria for residential use prior to any above grade permit being issued.

2.That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

Please inform the applicant with respect to this matter.

4.Parks, dated August 25, 1998.

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on July 29, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

-There is/are nine City owned tree(s) involved with this project which is/are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. The plans filed appear to indicate that the applicant intends on removing (and replacing) City owned tree(s). A written request to remove the tree(s) in question must be filed by the applicant which outlines the reasons why they intend to undertake the removal. A written request for tree removal should not be filed until the Site Plan for the subject development is finalized with the developer. If City Council approves the request to remove the tree(s) in question, the applicant will be responsible for covering the monetary value of the tree(s), removal costs and replacement costs. If an adequate number of replacement trees are proposed for planting within the City road allowance as part of the development, funds to cover replacement costs do not have to be provided to the City. The remaining tree(s) 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.

-One of the City owned trees proposed to be removed qualifies for routine removal by Forestry Services. As such, Council approval for the removal of this tree is not required and the applicant will not be responsible for the costs noted above as they apply to this one tree.

-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.

-I advise that plans prepared by Julian Jacobs Architects Ltd. and the plans prepared by MBTW, all plans date stamped as received on July 24, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.

5.Metropolitan Separate School Board, dated December 12, 1997.

At the regular meeting of the Board, held on December 11, 1997, the following resolution was approved regarding the application.

"That the Metropolitan Separate School Board inform the appropriate authorities that the Board objects to the official plan amendment due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at St. Monica Catholic School, Marshall McLuhan and Loretto Abbey Catholic Secondary Schools."

--------

Appendix B

Notes of Public Meeting

November 17, 1997 at the North Toronto Memorial Community Centre

Application :123 Eglinton Avenue East

Attendance:

Sid Tennenbaum , Chair, Planning Advisory Committee

Julian Binks, Member, Planning Advisory Committee

Michael Walker, Councillor

Feodora Steppat, Urban Development Department, City Planning

John Blumenson, Heritage Toronto

Stephen Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault

Approximately 30 members of the public were present.

The Chair explained the purpose of the meeting. The area planner outlined the nature of the application and identified the basic issue as one of conflicting objectives, namely preservation of the existing historically designation versus its proposed replacement with a new residential structure with a gross floor area exceeding the existing as well as currently permitted levels of density. John Blumenson of Heritage Toronto explained the significance and effect of the historical designation and with reference to a hand-out, identified the significant architectural elements of the existing building. Subsequently, the applicant's lawyer, his architect and traffic consultant spoke to the details of the application including the proposed site design, structural details and traffic impacts.

Concerns raised at the meeting focussed on the potential for conversion of the existing structure, the proposed density of the new building, on-site circulation and traffic impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

The architect of the townhouse complex to the south was in attendance and noted that in his estimation, the existing building is a prime candidate for conversion and that the existing two basement levels of the building would lend themselves well as garage space accessible via the existing ramp off Redpath Ave. In his opinion the application to construct a new building with a density of 5.5 x the lot area is driven by land value to the exclusion of the designated building on the land.

Another person in the audience stated that he could not support the demolition of an historically designated building to make way for a density increase on these lands.

Another person expressed his dismay at the lack of the City's power to enforce its policies of protecting historic structures.

Someone in the audience noted that the building may be designated but that it is not particularly attractive. In answer to this, someone else in attendance pointed out that 40 year old buildings such as the one under consideration, tend to be temporarily out of fashion but regain their popularity with increased age.

A director of the Sherwood Park Ratepayers Association spoke on behalf of the Association thanking Tridel for consulting neighbourhood associations while developing their proposal. He also noted the Association's concern that an historic building is to be torn down. He also expressed concern with the proposed unit count and density as being too high and likely to result in increased traffic problems for this neighbourhood.

A representative of the South Eglinton Ratepayers' Association also thanked Tridel for their efforts to consult with the neighbourhood. He stated that in a perfect world, retention and re-use of the existing building would be desirable. Short of that, the proposals would appear to satisfy his association's concerns with maintaining if not decreasing the existing building mass although it would be desirable to achieve reductions in the currently proposed unit count. He spoke in support of providing a 'green' building setback and circular drop-off area along Eglinton Avenue.

A Board Member of the townhouse condominium to the south was present and thanked Tridel for having consulted with the Condominium Association prior to submission of their development application. The Board is generally in support of the proposal although there are concerns regarding potential negative traffic impacts. The applicant's traffic consultant stated that a traffic impact assessment has been undertaken showing that the peak hour impact is insignificant.

Concerns were expressed with the proposed service lane at the rear of the new building. It was suggested that gates be considered to control the use of the lane and avoid it becoming a short-cut not only for pedestrians but also for vehicular traffic.

The proposal to use the existing access ramp to the parking garage for the townhouse complex was expected by some in the audience to result in too high a traffic volume for that ramp and the potential for line-ups on Redpath at peak hours. There was the suggestion that below-grade access/egress to and from the parking garage for the new building be located off Eglinton Avenue.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.

--------

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

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto;

-(October 26, 1998) from Michael McClelland;

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Michael Freel, Chairman, Building and Development Committee, South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association;

-(October 8, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Morriss;

-Landscape Concept Plan from Ms. Mary Bull, McCarthy Tétrault, on behalf of the Applicant;

-(October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, forwarding the Community Council's action of October 14, 1998; and

-(November 9, 1998) from William N. Greer, obo The Advocacy Committee Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

123 eglinton

Insert Table/Map No. 2

123 eglinton

Insert Table/Map No. 3

123 eglinton

Insert Table/Map No. 4

123 eglinton

Insert Table/Map No. 5

123 eglinton

Insert Table/Map No. 6

123 eglinton

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (November 18, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding submissions from the following regarding Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - 123Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue (North Toronto):

(i)(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto;

(ii)(October 26, 1998) from Mr. Michael McClelland;

(iii)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Michael Freel, Chairman, Building and Development Committee, South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association;

(iv)(October 8, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Morris;

(v)Landscape Concept Plan from Ms. Mary Bull, McCarthy Tétrault, on behalf of the Applicant;

(vi)(October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, forwarding the Community Council's action of October 14, 1998; and

(vii)(November 9, 1998) from Mr. William N. Greer, Advocacy Committee, Canadian Association of Professional Heritage Consultants.)

Draft Zoning By-law -

69 Prescott Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report (October 29, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto, subject to:

(a)receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services at least three weeks prior to the introduction of the Bill in Council, of a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated into the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and the lands to be conveyed to the City for public purposes (Parkland Dedication Lands) and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto; as well as drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the dwellings to enable the preparation of building envelope plans;

(b)receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an approved Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council requirements; and

(c)receipt by the City Solicitor, of an Undertaking in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, executed by the owner agreeing to the conditions of severance set out in Recommendation No. 5 of the Final Report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting this development and agreeing, in the event the Committee of Adjustment fails to impose the conditions, not to oppose an appeal by the City to have the conditions imposed; and

(2)Recommendation No. (5) of the Final Report (October 23, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by adding the following phrase at the end of the definition of "Sod" in 5(xiii): "and installed to the base of the existing berm that is adjacent to the rail corridor", and by adding the following phrase after "in a manner that" in 5(xiv): "preserves the existing berm adjacent to the rail corridor and", and the recommendations in the Final Report be adopted, as amended.

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 October14, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 29, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendment to permit a development proposal at 69Prescott Avenue consisting of 5 detached houses with garages at the rear of each property.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No financial implications.

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 the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend:

(2)The Draft By-law attached to the report (October 29, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto, subject to:

(b)receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an approved Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council requirements; and

(3)That Recommendation No. 5 of the Final Report (October 23, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by adding the following phrase at the end of the definition of "Sod" in 5(xiii): "and installed to the base of the existing berm that is adjacent to the rail corridor", and by adding the following phrase after "in a manner that" in 5(xiv): "preserves the existing berm adjacent to the rail corridor and", and that the recommendations in the Final Report be adopted, as amended.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the Final Report (October 23, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services concerning the above-noted subject. This report recommends the passage of a site-specific Zoning By-law which will permit the erection and use of five detached houses at 69 Prescott Avenue subject to the conditions recommended in the Final Report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report. As well, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has indicated that amendments are required to Recommendation No. 5 of the Final Report to acknowledge that grading and sodding of the parkland dedication lands is to be done to the base of the existing berm adjacent to the rail corridor only. I am advised that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism concurs with the amendments. Therefore, the amendments are included in Recommendation No.(3) of this report.

Conclusions:

Not applicable.

Contact Name:

Raymond M. Feig, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7224

Fax:(416) 392-0024

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

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council, Report No. , Clause No.

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW NO. - 1998

To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86

with respect to lands known as 69 Prescott Avenue.

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

1.None of the provisions of Sections 4(1)(a), 9(1)(a) and (e), 9(3)Part II 1 and 12(2)25 of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use of not more than five detached houses and uses accessory thereto on the lands shown on Map 1 attached to and forming part of this By-law, provided:

(1)each detached house is erected and maintained on a separate lot, each lot having not less than 7.0 metres of frontage;

(2)the height above grade of each detached house does not exceed 10 metres;

(3)the residential gross floor area of each detached house does not exceed 186 square metres;

(4)not less than one parking space is provided for each detached house in a private garage; and

(5)no part of each detached house above grade extends beyond the area outlined by heavy lines shown on Map 2.

2.Notwithstanding the continued designation of the lands shown on Map1 as I1 D2, for the purposes of this By-law the provisions of Section 6(3) Part IX(1)(a), (b), (c)(ii) and c(iii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, shall apply.

3.For the purposes of this By-law, each word or expression which is italicized shall have the same meaning as the said word or expression has for the purposes of By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

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

MayorCity Clerk

--------

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

Purpose:

To recommend approval of a site-specific zoning by-law to permit a development proposal at 69 Prescott Avenue consisting of 5 detached houses and the acceptance of a 172 square metre parcel of land at the rear of the site as the owner's park levy contribution under the Toronto Municipal Code.

Source of Funds:

N/A

Recommendations:

(1)That Zoning By-law 438-86 be amended so as to:

(a)exempt the site from Sections 9(1)(f) and 12(2)(25) of Zoning By-law 438-86; and

(b)permit the erection and use of 5 detached houses and uses accessory thereto provided:

-the residential gross floor area of each detached house does not exceed 186 square metres;

-the height of each detached house does not exceed 10 metres;

-each detached house is maintained on a lot with not less than 7.0 metres of frontage;

-not less than 1 parking space is provided for each detached house in a private garage;

-no part of a detached house extends beyond the lines shown on the dimensioned plans referred to in Recommendation 2 below; and

-for the purposes of this by-law Section 6 (3) Part IX (1)(a),(b) and (c)(ii) and (c)(iii) of Zoning By-law 438-86 shall apply.

(2)That the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

-a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated into the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and the lands to be conveyed to the City for public park purposes (Parkland Dedication Lands) and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto; and

-drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the dwellings to enable the preparation of building envelope plans.

Such plans should be submitted at least three weeks prior to the introduction of a bill in Council.

(3)That prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council requirements.

(4)That, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, the owner enter into an Undertaking with the City, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, agreeing to the conditions of severance set out in Recommendation 5 below and in the event the Committee of Adjustment fails to impose the conditions, not to oppose any appeal by the City to have the conditions imposed.

(5)That City Council advise the Committee of Adjustment that it does not object to the severance of the subject lands into 6 lots provided that the owner enter into a Consent Agreement, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and City Solicitor, agreeing to the following:

(i)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify that the plans accompanying the permit application are in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(ii)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner convey to the City, at nominal cost, the lands shown on Map 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Parkland Dedication Lands) and that the owner pay for the costs of such conveyance, including any Land Transfer Tax and the preparation and registration of all relevant documents;

(iii)that, prior to the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide to the satisfaction of City Solicitor all legal descriptions and applicable reference plans of survey for the Parkland Dedication Lands;

(iv)that, not more than 30 days before the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide to the City Solicitor a title opinion, satisfactory to the City Solicitor, that the City would, upon registration of the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, acquire fee simple title to the land forming the Parkland Dedication Lands, free of encumbrances and that such opinion shall, if requested by the City Solicitor, be accompanied by all material relied upon in reaching such opinion, including copies of all applicable abstracts of title and copies of all registered documents relevant to the title and the proposed conveyance;

(v)that, prior to the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Medical Officer of Health, an opinion, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Medical Officer of Health, as to whether the Parkland Dedication Lands are or will, at the time of conveyance, meet all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines respecting sites to be used for public park purposes including City Council's policies respecting soil remediation of sites to be acquired by the City, such opinion to be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant acceptable to the Medical Officer of Health;

(vi)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner agree in writing to be responsible for any and all claims, demands, suits actions, causes of action, liabilities, costs and expenses (including legal costs) arising from or in any way connected with any contaminant left on or below the Parkland Dedication Lands at the time of conveyance or created as a result of the development of the site with the exception of any liability arising from the negligence of the City or the introduction of contaminants to the site by the City's use thereof as a park;

(vii)that, prior to the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner provide a Record of Site Condition in the most current form provided by the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, completed by the qualified environmental consultant, with the Acknowledgement of Receipt completed by the said Minister or Provincial Officer therefore, as the case may be, and, where reasonably required by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, an acknowledgement by the said Minister or delegate that an audit will not be done or has been carried out with results satisfactory to the said Commissioner;

(viii)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner obtain an occupancy permit for the Parkland Dedication Lands from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and indemnify the City against any claim during any interim use of or work carried out, by the owner, on the Parkland Dedication Lands;

(ix)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner take out and keep in force until occupancy of the final dwelling unit on the site, comprehensive general liability insurance, in an insurance policy in the amount of $5,000,000 and in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer, for the joint benefit of the developer and the City, against any liability for claims respecting personal injury, death or property damage resulting from any accident or occurrence on the Parkland Dedication Lands and that such insurance policy shall name the City as an insured party and shall contain a clause protecting the City against claims by the developer as if the City were separately insured and a clause providing that the insurer will not cancel nor refuse to renew the said insurance without first having given the City 30 days prior written notice thereof;

(x)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner deliver to the City Treasurer a Certificate of Insurance in respect of the insurance policy referred to in subsection(viii) above;

(xi)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner install 1.8 metre high hoarding or chain link fencing along the boundaries of the Parkland Dedication Lands, such fence to remain in place until such time as the dwellings have been constructed and the Interim Landscaping referred to in subsection xiii below is completed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(xii)that, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner provide the City with an irrevocable Letter of Credit in an amount and form satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for the Interim Landscaping referred to in subsection xiii below;

(xiii)that, prior to occupancy of the final building on the site, the owner shall provide Interim Landscaping on the Parkland Dedication Lands, such landscaping to include "Backfill", "Topsoil", "Sod" and "Water Service", all as are defined below;

For the purposes of this section

"Backfill" shall mean all material used to restore the grade and elevation of the said lands; such material shall meet the unrestricted land use criteria set forth in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's interim soil management policy, including without limitation, that such material shall be selected from excavation or other sources for the use intended, unfrozen and free of rocks larger than 75 millimetres, cinders, ashes, sods, refuse or other deleterious materials; all backfill material shall be approved by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism prior to its installation; all backfill material is to be compacted to eighty (80) percent standard proctor density and should include, as a top layer, a minimum of 4 inches of topsoil that has been fine graded to remove all debris and stones.

"Water Service" shall mean the installation to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a separately metred 50 millimetre diameter water line to the Parkland Dedication Lands.

(xiv)that, prior to the installation of the Interim Landscaping, the owner shall grade the surface of the Parkland Dedication Lands in a manner that permits the site to drain freely and such that the perimeter elevations of the Parkland Dedication Lands shall be consistent with the grades of abutting public streets and abutting properties and that, prior to the installation of the sod, the owner shall request a representative of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to inspect the site to ensure that the final grading meets with the said Commissioner's approval;

(xv)that the Interim Landscaping shall be completed prior to the occupancy of the final building or, if the final building is occupied in October, November or December of one year or January, February or March of the following year, the Interim Landscaping shall be completed by the 31^st of May of the aforesaid following year, after which time the City may draw upon the Letter of Credit referred to in subsection xii to complete the Interim Landscaping;

(xvi)that the owner register rights-of-way on favour of the owners of the dwelling units over the portions of the driveway required to access their respective garages;

(xvii)that the owner register a covenant against title that all future owners of any severed lot on the site will be granted rights-of-way, as required over the private mutual driveways and jointly be responsible for the maintenance of the private driveway, including winter maintenance; and

(xviii)that the owner apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing an application for a building permit.

(6)That City Council authorize the acceptance of the Parkland Dedication Lands shown on Map1 as the owner's contribution toward the provision of parkland pursuant to Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes of the Toronto Municipal Code.

(7)That the owner be advised 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.

(8)That the owner be advised that the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm water connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval of 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 runoff.

Council Reference/Background/History:

A preliminary report recommending a public meeting on this application was approved by the Toronto Community Council on May 17, 1998. A public meeting was held on June 16, 1998 and there were no objections to the development.

Site and Project Description:

This 1220 square metre site is situated on the north-east corner of Prescott Avenue and Kipping Avenue, just north of St. Clair Avenue West. The site is now vacant but was previously occupied by a small food warehouse. The surrounding area is comprised of low density residential uses. The CN rail corridor abuts the east side of the site.

The applicant is proposing 5 detached houses fronting on Prescott Avenue and Kipping Avenue. The integral garages originally proposed have been replaced with garages at the rear of each property.

The rear portion of the site, which was originally proposed to be developed for a small industrial building, is now proposed to be conveyed to the City for public park purposes. These lands shall constitute the parkland dedication required under Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the Toronto Municipal Code.

A companion application to the Committee of Adjustment is required to sever the site into 6 separate lots - 5 residential lots and 1 lot to be conveyed to the City for public park purposes. The public park and other City requirements will be secured in a Consent Agreement.

Planning Issues:

Official Plan and Zoning:

The site is designated in the Official Plan Part I as a Mixed Industrial-Residential Area and is zoned I1 D2 (light industrial). Section 9.41 of the Official Plan requires that prior to passing a by-law to permit a change in use from industrial to residential regard shall be had for the following:

-the advisability of retaining existing industrial buildings in terms of the retention of industrial jobs and the retention of industrial buildings in good structural condition or which may have architectural merit; and

-the extent to which a change in use would adversely affect the viability of other industrial uses in the area.

I have reviewed this application within this context and I am satisfied that these issues have been satisfactorily addressed. The industrial building was small and in disrepair and has been demolished. The site is the last industrial site along Prescott Avenue and its development for low density residential purposes is in keeping with the surrounding neighbourhood which is made up of low density residential uses.

Site Plan and Design:

The proposed lots are a minimum of 7.3 metres in width and 16 metres in depth which is in keeping with the lot characteristics of other residential lots in the area. The density, height and design of the proposed dwellings are also in keeping with the existing built form in the neighbourhood. Individual lot densities range from 0.79 to 0.97 times lot area.

Original concerns with respect to the impact of the front-facing, built-in garages on the streetscape have been addressed by providing detached rear garages which are accessed either by way of mutual driveways or, in the case of the corner lot, from the flanking street.

Environmental:

The applicant has submitted an Environmental Site Assessment Report which includes a historical review of the site and soil investigations in areas that the historical review indicates may have been impacted by underground storage tanks (furnace oil) or migration from the railway corridor. The report concludes that no further environmental investigation is recommended and that no remediation is required. The Medical Officer of Health has reviewed this report and does not object to the issuance of a building permit for residential purposes.

A Noise Impact Statement is required prior to the introduction of Bills in Council to address potential noise impacts from the railway.

Parkland Dedication Lands:

A 172 square metre parcel at the east end of the site was originally proposed for a small light industrial building. This industrial building was to provide a buffer between the proposed houses and the CN rail corridor. The industrial building was not part of this rezoning application as a building permit had already been issued.

At the public meeting, local residents expressed support for the residential development but had some concerns about the introduction of a new industrial use on the east end of the site. They preferred a park.

I have discussed this issue with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and have been advised that the size, configuration and location of the proposed park is acceptable for public park purposes. It is understood that notwithstanding Section 165-4(A) of the Toronto Municipal Code which normally requires a cash conveyance in cases where the amount of parkland would amount to less than 400 square metres, this conveyance will be deemed to be the owner's contribution toward parkland as is required under Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the Toronto Municipal Code.

Timing and Security:

In order to secure the City's interests with respect to the Parkland Dedication Lands, the owner is required to obtain severance permission from the Committee of Adjustment prior to the issuance of a building permit. At this stage, it is recommended that the City advise the Committee of Adjustment that, as a condition of severance, the owner be required to enter into a Consent Agreement with the City securing the owner's obligations at various stages of the development process (i.e., prior to the conveyance of the Parkland Dedication Lands, prior to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the occupancy of the final building).

Conclusion:

The development of this site for low density residential purposes logically completes the residential land use pattern in this area. Planning issues with respect to suitability of the soil for residential purposes and an alternative to the originally proposed front-facing, built-in garages have been addressed. Acquisition of the rear portion of the site for public park purposes will ensure a greater degree of compatibility with the proposed houses than the previously proposed industrial building and represents an appropriate park levy contribution in this area.

Contact Name:

Michael Major

Telephone: (416) 392-0760

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	N	Application Number:	198005
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	March 31, 1998
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:69 Prescott Avenue.

Nearest Intersection:	North east corner of Prescott Avenue and Kipping Avenue.

Project Description:	To construct 5 residential houses.

Applicant:

Ralph Griffo

11 Allenvale Av.

653-4393

Agent:

Ralph Griffo

11 Allenvale Av.

653-4393

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:		Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	I1 D2	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	14.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	1004.8 m²	Height:	Storeys:	2
Frontage:			Metres:	7.04
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	5
Residential GFA:	750.4 m²	Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	750.4 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Private	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Total Units:	5	Residential	750.4 m²

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 0.74	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 0.74

Comments

Status:

Application received.

Data valid:

March 31, 1998

Section:

CP West

Phone:

392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services (August 28, 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 )Register rights-of-way in favour of the owners/tenants of each of the dwelling units over the portions of the driveway required to access their respective garages;

(c)Register a covenant against the title that all future owners and tenants of any severed lot on the site will be granted rights-of-way, as required, over the private mutual driveways and jointly be responsible for the maintenance of the private driveway, including winter maintenance;

(d )Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

(e)Provide and maintain a rodent-proof garbage storage facility for each dwelling unit on site, of sufficient size to accommodate the amount of garbage and recyclable materials generated by each unit between collections;

(f)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;

(g)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;

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

(i)Provide and maintain a minimum of 1 parking space on each severed lot;

(j)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)Final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed houses to enable the preparation of building envelope plans;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

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; and

(b)That the storm water runoff 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 runoff.

Comments:

Location

North-east corner of Prescott Avenue and Kipping Avenue.

Proposal

Construction of 3 detached dwellings fronting Prescott Avenue and 2 detached dwellings fronting Kipping Avenue. The site area shown on the application should be amended to read 1220.2 square metres.

Parking and Access

One parking space is proposed to serve each of the dwelling units, located in garages at the rear of each unit. This satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by each dwelling unit for 1 parking space and the Zoning By-law requirement for a like number.

Access to the garages of the 2 units fronting Kipping Avenue is proposed via a mutual driveway off of Kipping Avenue. Access to the garages of the 2 northerly units fronting Prescott Avenue is proposed via a mutual driveway off of Prescott Avenue, whereas, access to the garage of the southerly unit is from a separate driveway off of Kipping Avenue. The proposed access configuration is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with curbside refuse collection in front of each unit on Prescott Avenue and on Kipping Avenue in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter309 (Solid Waste). A garbage storage area, located on private property , of sufficient size to accommodate the amount of refuse generated in one week will be required for each dwelling unit. The storage of materials in each garage between collections is acceptable.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve this development.

Work within the Road Allowances

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowances must be received by this Department.

2.Medical Officer of Health (September 10, 1998)

Thank you for your request of August 20, 1998 to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and off the following comments.

EHS has previously commented on this site during a demolition permit application (No.410370). At that time EHS had no objection to the issuance of a demolition permit, based on the information provided in the Environmental Site Assessment Report. I would note that EHS indicated we may require that a comprehensive soil and groundwater testing program be conducted when redevelopment of this site is considered, that would deal with any subsurface contamination identified on the site.

The consultant has conducted soil investigations in areas of the site that, based on historical information and a site audit, may have been impacted by underground storage tanks (UST's) or migration from railway corridors located along the east property line.

An electro-magnetic detector was used, by the consultant, to try and locate any UST's on the property. The electro-magnetic scan did not identify any underground storage tanks on the site.

However, the presence of vent pipes and two cut feed lines prompted the consultant to conduct soil analysis tests in the proximity of the east building wall. The consultant also conducted soil analysis tests on samples obtained from boreholes constructed along the railway corridor. Results of all the tests, conducted on these soil samples, that were obtained from varying depths, in a total of 22 boreholes on the site, indicate no exceedances of Ministry of Environment criteria for hydrocarbons. Furthermore, according to the consultant, on-site plants appeared healthy in colour, without evidence of any significant subsurface contamination. The consultant concludes by stating that, "no further environmental investigations are recommended or warranted at this time regarding the subject site".

Based on the specific information provided, I have no objection to a building permit being issued for this site.

Please inform the owner/applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of my comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number.

3.Urban Planning and Development Services (May 28, 1998)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:	Construct 2 pairs of semi-detached houses and one detached house
Zoning Designation:	I1 D2	Map:	48K-312
Applicable By-law(s):	438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by:	Interarch Inc. Architect	Plans dated:	March 31,1998.
Residential GFA:	750 m²

Zoning Review

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

The semi-detached houses and detached house are not permitted uses. (Section 9(1)(f) and Section 12(2)25 )

The application form submitted for this rezoning states that 10 parking spaces are proposed. 5 parking spaces are shown to be provided within the integral garages, but the location of the remaining 5 spaces is not indicated. If these parking spaces are to be located on the proposed driveways of the integral garages and located partially within City Street Allowance, the following apply:

1)The required parking provided within the integral garages will not be readily accessible at all times for the parking and removal of a motor vehicle without the necessity of moving another motor vehicle, as required by the by-law. (Section 2, definition of "parking space" )

2)Parking proposed within City Street Allowance will require separate applications and approvals from City Works Services.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals:

1.The proposal DOES NOT require Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3.The proposal DOES NOT require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

4.The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

5.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.

6.The proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.

7.All work within the City's road allowance will require a separate approval by City Works Services.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

69 Prescott

Insert Table/Map No. 2

69 Prescott

Insert Table/Map No. 3

69 Prescott

Insert Table/Map No. 4

69 Prescott

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

40 Bay Street (Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on December 16, 1998.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998062 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two non-illuminated roof signs, category "L";

(2)City Council approve Application No. 998062 respecting minor variances from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 47 exterior signs of various types on the following conditions:

(i)that the four Search Lights "A" be activated only on event days and that they be illuminated only 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 and that the City receive written approval from Transport Canada prior to the issuance of a sign permit;

(ii)that the third party component of the Practice Facility, identification sign "E", not exceed an area of 20 m� and that it consist only of letters and logo;

(iii)that the two fascia signs "F" not exceed an area of 25 m� each and that the signs consist of a combination of text or logo and graphic; and

(iv)that the three fascia signs "K" not exceed an area of 15 m� each and that they consist only of letters and logo;

(3)City Council grant authority to:

(i)allow a minor variance to the provisions of Section 12(8) of the former Metro Sign By-law 211-74 to permit the installation of four signs within the public right-of-way of Lake Shore Boulevard West;

(ii)amend the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto/Air Canada Centre ramp agreement to permit the attachment of the pedestrian directional sign on top of the ramp parapet wall, and the parking identification sign to the ramp bulkhead. The resultant agreement is to contain such terms and conditions deemed necessary by the City of Toronto Solicitor, City Treasurer and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to protect the Corporation's interests; and

(iii)direct the appropriate City of Toronto Officials to give effect thereto.

(4)prior to applying for an occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit plans identifying signage for disabled persons to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and that the signage be installed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit;

(5)the PATH system signage be secured under a separate Wayfinding Agreement to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services as outlined in the Precinct R Development Agreement and that PATH system signage be installed prior to occupancy; and

(6)the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998062, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The above request for report from the City Solicitor was adopted on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Disero, Pantalone and Silva - 3

Nays: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, Miller and Walker - 10

A motion by Councillor Chow, to delete Recommendation No. 2(i) of the report (October 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, was lost on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Bossons, Chow and Layton - 4

Nays: Councillors Adams, Bussin, Disero, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller, Pantalone, Silva and Walker - 9

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit signage at 40 Bay Street. (71 Front Street West, 15 York Street) (Air Canada Centre).

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council refuse Application No. 998062 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two non-illuminated roof signs, category "L".

(2)City Council approve Application No. 998062 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 47 exterior signs of various types on the following conditions:

(ii)that the third party component of the Practice Facility, identification sign "E", not exceed an area of 20 m� and that it consist only of letters and logo;

(iii)that the two fascia signs "F" not exceed an area of 25 m� each and that the signs consist of a combination of text or logo and graphic; and

(iv)that the three fascia signs "K" not exceed an area of 15 m� each and that they consist only of letters and logo.

(3)That City Council grant authority to:

(iii)direct the appropriate City of Toronto Officials to give effect thereto.

(4)That prior to applying for an occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit plans identifying signage for disabled persons to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and that the signage be installed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit.

(5)That the PATH system signage be secured under a separate Wayfinding Agreement to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services as outlined in the Precinct R Development Agreement and that PATH system signage be installed prior to occupancy.

(6)That the applicant be advised, upon partial approval of Application No. 998062, 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 Lake Shore Boulevard West, on a block bounded by Bay Street, Bremner Boulevard and the CN Rail Corridor, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property is known as the Air Canada Centre. The lands surrounding the site are currently vacant but are zoned to permit mixed commercial/residential uses. At its meeting of July 24 & 25, 1995, the former City of Toronto Council gave approval to permit the construction of an 18,580 sq. m office tower at the north east corner of the site and a 22,500 seat multi-purpose sports and entertainment facility to accommodate both basketball and hockey events as well as a wide range of other entertainment uses.

A comprehensive pedestrian system will be provided in conjunction with the completion of the Air Canada Centre in order to ensure the efficient operation of the stadium. Adjacent to the west facade of the sports facility a 2600 m� open space (Union Plaza) will link to a new south entrance to Union Station. With the realignment of Bremner Boulevard south to Lake Shore Boulevard an east-west enclosed pedestrian walkway "Galleria" will be provided on the north side of the stadium connecting Bay Street to Union Plaza and Bremner Boulevard. A sidewalk along the south face of the historically designated Postal Delivery Building facade will connect Bay Street to the south end of Union Plaza. The sidewalk along the west side of Bay Street will be enlarged with the creation of a colonnade. The Bay West Teamway, a weather protected pedestrian connection, will provide access to Front Street and Union Station. Parking for 400 vehicles will be provided beneath the stadium to serve both the stadium and the office tower and parking for 15 buses will be provided to the west of the stadium.

The purpose of this application is to implement a comprehensive signage proposal as required under Precinct R Development Agreement No. CA441814. The application proposes, among other things, a detailed wayfinding system related to public routes in and around the stadium including PATH system signage. The Precinct R Development Agreement also requires the installation of directional signage for disabled persons to utilize ramps, elevators and other facilities. To date this last item remains outstanding. Consequently, it is recommended that prior to applying for an occupancy permit, the applicant shall submit plans indicating directional signage for disabled persons to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and signage connecting to the City's PATH system and that the signage be installed prior to the issuance of the occupancy permit.

The proposed signs can be grouped into categories and the location of each sign by category is illustrated on the attached Figure 2. In addition to the 53 signs that are part of this application, an additional 19 exterior signs, which are permitted under the Municipal Code, will be installed on the site. The areas of non-compliance with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code by sign category are described as follows:

A.Search Lights (total of 4 proposed):

a)are not a defined sign type.

The search lights will be mounted to the roof of the stadium building . At night during periods when there are scheduled events these search lights will be activated to serve as a beacon identifying the centre's location. Prior to event time the lights will criss-cross the sky at 40 degrees. The applicant is anticipating approval for the use of the search lights by Transport Canada. Transportation Services staff of City Works and Emergency Services have given their approval. However, I am concerned about the potential negative impact the lights may have on residential and hotel uses in the surrounding area. Therefore, I am recommending that the lights only be illuminated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and that they be controlled by means of an automatic timing device. The applicant is in agreement with this recommendation.

B.Illuminated Fascia Signs for third-party advertising on the Bay Street Teamway (total of 10 proposed):

a)the signs will not be located on a wall of a building but on a wall of a tunnel;

b)fascia signs for third-party advertising are not permitted to face a street; and

c)the signs will be located within 60 metres of each other.

Ten illuminated fascia signs are proposed on the west side of the Bay Street underpass (Teamway) on the inside wall. At its meeting of June 3 & 4, 1998, City Council gave approval to the installation of ten illuminated fascia signs on the east side of the Bay Street Teamway. In the current proposal signage will be installed within the recessed panels of the west wall similar to what has been approved on the east wall. Although the signs generate numerous variances, the Teamway is a key link between the City's downtown core and the waterfront and in my opinion, signs in this location will animate this important pedestrian connection and make it more inviting.

C.Non-illuminated Fascia Signs for Identification (total of 3 proposed):

a)the signs will not be located on a wall of a building but on a wall of a tunnel.

Three non-illuminated fascia signs are proposed on the north end of the Bay West Teamway. These signs are essential in identifying the refurbished Bay West Teamway and in directing pedestrians south along Bay Street to the waterfront and other destinations including the Air Canada Centre. In my opinion, the signs are appropriately located for their intended function.

D.Illuminated Ground Signs for Identification and Direction (total of 6 proposed):

a)more than 1 ground sign will be located within the east and west frontages of the lot; and

b)2 ground signs will be located within 2 metres from the street line.

Six illuminated ground signs for identification and direction purposes will be installed at various locations throughout the site. These 5.6 metre high pole-mounted signs will identify gate numbers and on-site amenities. The signs will also carry PATH system signage which will be secured under a separate Wayfinding Agreement to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services. Given the large size of the building and the extensive length of the property, approximately 125 metres, the signs are important components of the wayfinding system and do not represent oversignage.

E.Illuminated Fascia sign for Identification and third-party advertising on the west elevation "Practice Facility" (total of 1 proposed):

a)the sign will be located more than 10 metres above grade;

b)the sign will be located within 60 metres from other third-party signs; and

c)third-party signs are not permitted to face a street.

An illuminated identification sign is proposed on the west elevation of the building. The sign will identify the basketball practice court facility located on the north side of the stadium above the public "Galleria". The first variance occurs because the sign would be installed above the maximum permitted height of 10 metres. The Municipal Code restricts signs to the first two storeys or the uppermost storey of buildings 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, however, the sign would be located well within the second floor level of the building identifying the use at that level and there are no existing residential units from which the sign would be visible.

The second and third variances occur because third-party signs are not permitted to face a street and the sign will be located within 60 metres of other third-party signs. In this instance the building is significantly set back by approximately 57 metres from the street and the sign would not be visible from the street. The sign would also be located within 60 metres of other third-party signs proposed along the building's west facade. The 60 metre separation distance requirement was introduced into the Municipal Code in order to prevent sign clutter of large third party advertising signs. In this instance, however, while technically classified as a third-party sign, only a portion of the proposed sign (20 m�) describes a third-party product or service. I am prepared to recommend approval of the fascia sign on condition that the third-party component of the sign not exceed 20 m� and that it be restricted to corporate name and logo only. The applicant concurs with these recommendations.

F.Illuminated Fascia signs for third-party advertising on the west elevation (total of 2 proposed):

a) third-party signs are not permitted to face a street; and

b)the signs will be located within 60 metres of each other.

Five illuminated fascia signs are proposed on the west elevation of the stadium, two of which will be for the purposes of third-party advertising. The signs will be located within the first two floors of the seven floor stadium. The variances occur because the third-party signs will be located within 60 metres of each other and third-party signs are not permitted to face a street. In this instance, the signs will serve to animate the facade and visually reduce the scale of this 105 metre long building. However, to ensure that these signs have a positive visual impact, I have requested that the area of each sign not exceed 25 m� and that the signs contain a combination of text or logo and graphic as opposed to text alone. The applicant concurs with this recommendation. Respecting the second variance, the building is significantly set back from the street and will face a 25 metre wide pedestrian promenade which I consider acceptable.

G.Illuminated Fascia signs for third-party advertising on the east elevation (total of 11 proposed):

a)the signs will be located within 60 metres of each other; and

b)third-party signs are not permitted on a building which is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Eleven third-party fascia signs are proposed on the inside columns of the pedestrian colonnade which runs parallel to Bay Street. The variances occur because they will not meet the 60 metre minimum separating distance required for third-party signs and they are not permitted on a building that is designated historical. In this instance, the signs will be located on the inside face of the columns approximately 8 metres apart and as a result of their small size (1.0m�) will not clutter this busy pedestrian through route. Heritage Toronto staff have advised that the location of the signs do not affect the reasons for designation.

H.Illuminated Signs for Identification suspended from the ceiling (total of 2 proposed):

a)the signs are not a defined type of sign.

Two illuminated signs will be suspended from the ceiling of the Bay Street colonnade. The signs will be used to identify the gate entrances. The signs are also subject to By-law No. 1995-0506 which regulates the use of land and other matters. Under this site-specific zoning by-law the proposal does not meet the 4.5 metres minimum vertical clearance requirement. The applicant has applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a minor variance which will be considered on November 3, 1998. In my opinion, the signs are necessary for gate identification and are an important component of the wayfinding system.

I.2 Non-Illuminated Fascia Signs "Air Canada Centre" on the east and south elevations and 1 Illuminated Logo on the south elevation:

a)the signs will not be located within the uppermost storey of the lower portion of the building;

b)more than one sign will be erected on the south building face;

c)the logo sign will be located on a building that has a height of less than 34 metres; and

d)the height of the logo sign on the south elevation (3.8 metres) will exceed the maximum permitted height of 3 metres.

J.2 Illuminated Fascia Signs "Air Canada Centre" & logo on the north and west elevations:

a)the signs will be located on a building that has a height of less than 34 metres;

b)there will be more than one sign erected on the north building face; and

c)the height of the logo sign on the west elevation (3.8 metres) will exceed the maximum permitted height of 3 metres.

The variances for sign categories "I" and "J" have to do with the location of the signs on the building, the number of signs on the north and south elevations, the height of the logo signs above grade and the size of the logo signs. The Municipal Code requires illuminated corporate name and logo signs to be located within the uppermost storey of buildings higher than 34 metres above grade in order to reduce their visual impact on the streetscape, on the buildings to which they are attached and on adjacent residential uses. The "Air Canada Centre" signs would consist of individual stainless steel letters anchored to the facade of the building at a height of 17 metres above grade. Heritage Toronto staff have advised that they are in agreement with the location of the proposed signs because they would be installed in the same location as the postal building letters that previously existed on the building. The "Air Canada Centre" signs on the north and west elevations would be installed at the same level as the signs on the south and east building elevations forming a consistent sign band around the stadium building. Although the logo signs on the south and west elevations are larger than permitted, their slightly larger size will not negatively impact the building or the streetscape or future permitted uses on surrounding lands. The signs will be located on a building that is 32 metres instead of 34 metres. In this instance, however, horizontal expansion joints located on the upper storeys of the stadium building physically prevent signs from being installed any higher.

K.Illuminated Fascia Signs for third-party advertising (total of 3 proposed):

a)the signs will be erected on a building that is designated under the Ontario Heritage Act and will be located above the fourth storey of the building and 15 metres above grade; and

b)the signs will be located within 60 metres of each other.

Three illuminated fascia signs for third party advertising are proposed on the north elevation of the building. The variances have to do with the height of the signs above grade, their location on a heritage building and the fact that they will be located within 60 metres of each other. On October6 and 7, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council amended the sign regulations of Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code to limit the height of third party fascia and mural signs on the side walls of buildings to a maximum height of four storeys or 15 metres above grade in mixed-use commercial/residential districts. This regulation is aimed at preserving the appearance of commercial streetscapes and minimizing the negative impact of illuminated signs on adjacent residential uses. In this instance, the signs would be installed along the north wall of the stadium building, approximately 26 metres above grade. The signs would be at the same level as the "Air Canada Centre" signs proposed on the south, east and west elevations. The signs will identify the corporate sponsors of the Air Canada Centre and resemble fascia signs for identification. Further, their orientation towards the rail corridor will only make them visible to train users. Heritage Toronto staff have advised that the north elevation of the building is part of the stadium's new facade and the location of the signs do not affect the reasons for designation. Therefore, I am prepared to recommend approval of the fascia signs on condition that they not exceed 15 m� each and that they be restricted to corporate name and logo only. The applicant concurs with these recommendations.

L.Non-illuminated Roof Signs (total of 2 proposed):

a)roof signs are not permitted in this district.

Two non-illuminated Air Canada Centre logo signs are proposed on the roof of the stadium building. The signs will be 22 metres in diameter and will be welded flush and not perpendicular to the roof. The variance occurs because roof signs are currently prohibited in all mixed-use commercial/residential districts.

It is Council's policy to encourage residential uses throughout the downtown area and seek to achieve a high quality of life for downtown residents through, among other things, the preservation and enhancement of views. In this instance, while the signs would be positioned flush to the roof they would be visible from above to residents, hotel patrons and office workers in the downtown area. This could set a precedent for other building owners in mixed-use commercial/residential districts to use their roof tops for flush mounted advertisements.

A recent staff survey of major Canadian cities indicated that only one city (Calgary) permits such roof top signage. Consequently when recently approached by a sign company representative proposing this form of signage throughout the Financial District they were advised that staff could not support such a proposal.

In my opinion, the approval of roof signs would contradict the intent of Council's policies and objectives and could set a negative precedent with city-wide implications. For these reasons, I am recommending that the roof signs be refused.

M.4 Signs in Public Right-of Way

Two parking identification signs and two pedestrian directional signs are proposed within the Lake Shore Boulevard West right-of-way. One of the parking identification signs will be attached to the bulkhead of the vehicle access ramp of the underground parking garage and the second will be attached to the pillar of the F.G. Gardiner Expressway just west of the intersection. The directional signs will be set back approximately 3.0 metres west of Bay Street and 6 metres north of Lake Shore and attached to the parapet wall of the underground parking garage. Transportation Services staff of City Works and Emergency Services concur that the signage is necessary to move pedestrians and vehicles efficiently and effectively to and from the stadium and therefore recommend that a minor variance to Section 12(8) of the former Metro Sign By-law 211-74 be granted for these signs as outlined in Recommendation No. 3 above.

Conclusion:

The final signage proposals for this building are a result of extensive discussions between City staff and the applicants. This package represents appropriate signage for a building of this type and comprises considerably less signage and third-party advertising than originally proposed. The original requests were, in my opinion, not appropriate.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it Drawings of Aerial Views of Air Canada Centre, submitted by Mr. Tom Anselmi, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Mr. Tom Anselmi, Air Canada Centre appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 8

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 9

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 10

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 11

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 12

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 13

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 14

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 15

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 16

40 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 17

40 Bay Street

Application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and

324 Cherry Street - Home Depot (Don River)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following reports (November 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and (November 5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be adopted; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the C.A.O. meet with the local councillors, and afterward, a broader range of Members of Council, to discuss the strategies for the port lands that the City should adopt, in view of the decisions being taken, and the development proposals under appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board, or matters within the proposed ambit of the new marine body.

The above recommendations were carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Fotinos, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, Silva and Walker - 11

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that City Council refuse the Home Depot application for amendments to the former City of Toronto Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a retail warehouse in the East Bayfront and that the City Solicitor be instructed to advise the Ontario Municipal Board of this position at the pre-hearing conference of December 21, 1998. The report also recommends that a larger retail policy study be carried out.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council refuse the application of Home Depot to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a retail warehouse in the East Bayfront and that the City Solicitor advise the Ontario Municipal Board at its pre-hearing conference of December 21, 1998 of Council's decision.

(2)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in conjunction with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to undertake a study of the land use, economic development and policy implications of permitting additional big box retail development within the South District (the former City of Toronto), including the Port Industrial District, and that recommendations on this matter be brought back to Toronto Community Council in 1999.

Background:

An application to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the properties at 324 Cherry Street and 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East was submitted by The Home Depot Canada on June 27, 1997 (Map 1).

On January 22, 1998, The Home Depot Canada appealed its application to the Ontario Municipal Board for refusal or neglect of the city to enact an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment.

An Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing conference to consider that appeal, and the appeals to the East Bayfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law by 1227803 Ontario Limited and 1147390 Ontario Limited was held on August 4 and 5, 1998. At that pre-hearing, it was agreed to combine the Home Depot and East Bayfront appeals.

The City Solicitor informed the Board that Council, at its meeting of June 24 and 25, 1998, had recommended that a full hearing on the Home Depot application and East Bayfront objections should not take place until a research report on the cumulative impact of big box retail on the City's retail strips had been completed and evaluated in the context of the Home Depot application, the City's land use policies for the East Bayfront, and retail activity in general. This study was to be completed by the beginning of November 1998, and to be reported on by December 15, 1998, prior to the Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing on December 21, 1998.

Subject to the City confirming its position on the Home Depot application at the December 21, 1998 pre-hearing, the Board set a six week hearing starting on March 22, 1999.

Urban Planning and Development Services has since received two other applications in the vicinity of Lake Shore Boulevard and Cherry Street. On July 30, 1998, a joint application was submitted by United Castan Corporation and TEDCO for an Official Plan Amendment for an area of the Port Industrial District and East Bayfront including Polson and Cousins Quays, and the proposed Home Depot site (Map 2). This application requests redesignation from General Industrial and General Use to Medium Density Mixed Commercial-Residential for the Cherry Street corridor and the quays. For the lands to the east, the requested redesignation is from Heavy Industrial to General Industrial and from General Industrial to General Use.

In the absence of letters of consent from the other affected landowners, and submission of a complete application, the United Castan/TEDCO application has not been circulated. In a letter dated October26, 1998, from the solicitors for United Castan, I received notice that this application had been appealed to the OMB on the grounds that notice of a public meeting under Section 17(15) of the Planning Act had not been issued within the required time.

In a letter dated November 6, 1998, TEDCO withdrew as a co-applicant to the Official Plan Amendment application. The TEDCO letter also refers to my discussions with the TEDCO Board on October 27, 1998 including discussion of the need for a Part II Study for the Port Industrial District, a matter on which I will report further to the December 9, 1998 meeting of Toronto Community Council.

The second application was received on August 17, 1998, as a letter from the solicitors for Costco Canada Inc., requesting an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the lands bounded by Lake Shore Boulevard East, Saulter Street, Commissioners Street and the Don Roadway. The application proposes to develop a warehouse membership club in the area of the Port Industrial District known as the Port Centre. In the absence of complete documentation, this letter has not been accepted as an actual application for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning. The letter notes that TEDCO has signed an agreement with Costco to lease approximately 6.4 hectares (15.89 acres) of land to Costco in this location. The eventual acceptance of a complete application will require the City to reopen studies of the appropriateness of the Port Centre, a "power centre" of big box retail uses within the Port Industrial District.

Comments:

Planning Considerations

(a)The Home Depot Application

I have reviewed the Home Depot application, and I have informed the owner that there are a number of reasons to refuse this application.

The Home Depot Canada is seeking an amendment to the former City of Toronto Part I Official Plan and Zoning By-law for a big box retail store totalling 9,940 square metres (107,000 square feet). Site plan approval has also been requested. The proposed store would be located on 5.5 hectares (13.6 acres) of vacant land on the water's edge at the mouth of the Keating Channel in the East Bayfront. The existing I2 D3 zoning does not permit a retail store. Zoning By-law 1997-0184 (the East Bayfront Amendment), which is not yet in force but has been adopted by Council, would permit one retail store to a maximum of 4,500 square metres (48,400 square feet) per lot.

(b)Official Plan Policies for the Waterfront

Section 14 of the former City of Toronto's Official Plan contains policies to guide waterfront development. Sections 14.1 through 14.12 include general policies discussing the City's goals and objectives for all waterfront development, followed by specific sections which deal with individual geographic areas. The general sections address the unique location of waterfront sites, the waterfront's local and regional prominence, its importance as a "place" and its visibility at the water's edge where the city meets Lake Ontario. These policies as well as the ones pertaining to the East Bayfront are discussed below with reference to the Home Depot application.

Section 14.1 states that the waterfront provides significant opportunities for the realization of important city objectives due to the extensive land ownership by governments, their boards, agencies and commissions and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, and for the redevelopment of such land, as well as of privately owned lands within the area. This section recognizes that unique opportunities exist for development and public initiatives which are not possible in other areas of the city. I believe that this large development site at 429 Lake Shore Boulevard and 324 Cherry Street could contribute to important city objectives, and it is therefore not appropriate to permit a Home Depot store in the location.

Section 14.28 stipulates that the physical form of new development should include the location of buildings and landscaping in a manner that defines Queens Quay as a significant waterfront boulevard and reinforces the system of public open spaces south of Queens Quay. While Queens Quay East terminates at the Parliament Street slip to the west of the site, for the eastern portion of the East Bayfront, Lake Shore Boulevard acts as the primary waterfront boulevard. I believe that views from the waterfront boulevard to the lake should be maintained in this location. I do not believe that a view of a retail warehouse use with its attendant parking uses is consistent with Official Plan policies for areas of redevelopment on this part of the water's edge.

Unlike the other industrial areas of the former City of Toronto, the East Bayfront does not have an Official Plan designation on Map 1, the Generalized Land Use Plan of the Part 1 Official Plan. Instead, the area is guided by a series of distinct planning and urban design policies found in Section14.28 and 14.34. These policies encourage a mix of industrial and commercial development, provided the total non-residential floor area of any building does not exceed 3 times the area of the lot. The fact that a standardized Official Plan designation does not exist, points to the unique nature of development anticipated here.

The prominence of the development site proposed for Home Depot is also reinforced by the fact that it is identified on Map 4 of the Official Plan as one of the Prominent Areas and Sites within the Inner Harbour.

Section 14.2 of the Official Plan sets out its first objective for waterfront development as being to extend the richness, diversity and activity of city life into the Waterfront. Big box retail in this location does not introduce retail diversity to the waterfront in a way which supports the characteristic structure and retailing patterns of the former City of Toronto, I believe that permitting such a use on the waterfront would be contrary to this policy.

In June 1995, in recognition of the instability of the East Bayfront as a redevelopment area, the former City of Toronto Council established the East Bayfront Working Committee with membership including business owners and landowners in the East Bayfront, representatives of the Don River Task Force, Waterfront Regeneration Trust, TEDCO, and the then Ward 6 and 7 Councillors in order to review the East Bayfront planning framework. One of the objectives of the study was to identify where additional non-residential land uses could be permitted in the East Bayfront while promoting a stable business environment.

As a result of the study, a new zoning was proposed, a mixed industrial and commercial zoning called IC D3 N1.5. The amount of non-residential floor area for commercial and institutional uses was raised from .5 to 1.5 times the area of the lot and retail development east of Jarvis Street was capped at 4,500 square metres of new floor space. Retail uses beyond that size were not contemplated as being appropriate for this area, which was intended to be a mixed industrial commercial district, not a major shopping destination centre. It should be noted that there is a trend for big box retailers to locate close to each other, and that the overall size limitation in the East Bayfront would help to support the industrial commercial mix deemed desirable. The recommendations of this Working Committee were adopted by Council and incorporated into revised Official Plan policies and zoning by-law amendments for the East Bayfront. It would be inappropriate, given the extensive work and deliberation involved in this public process to ignore these recommendations.

d)Policies regarding Economic Activity

Section 9.9 of the Part I Official Plan of the former City of Toronto identifies the importance of retail activity in the city and describes how this activity should be strengthened. In order to support this section of the Plan, there is a restriction on the amount of new retail floor space that may be constructed in most areas of the former city (Section 9.15). Official Plan Amendment No. 643, passed on August 29, 1994, establishes specific policies in the Part I Official Plan to prohibit big box retail stores throughout the city.

Despite OPA No. 643, big box retail stores, including The Home Depot, have been permitted in the Stockyard District (OPA 63, passed on July 5, 1996). In order for a big box retail store to be permitted here, the owner was required to apply for a rezoning and in doing so to respond to a variety of conditions related to economic impact, capacity of existing roads and transportation systems, and compliance with Council's general design guidelines for warehouse format stores. Previously I had reported that the same conditions should be applied to a review of the East Bayfront Home Depot application. However, I have since concluded that while both districts are redevelopment districts, they exist within different contexts. Even if these conditions could be met in the East Bayfront, they will not succeed in satisfying the previously mentioned conditions of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for waterfront development in this location.

The City also has policies to protect its traditional pattern of retail strips and puts considerable effort into doing so. Section 9.10 of the Plan recognizes that retail strips are important not only for purposes of providing viable shopping districts, but also as centres of community activity and animated public spaces.

In response to concerns about the cumulative impact of big box retailing on the former City of Toronto's retail strips and downtown, a research study was authorized by Council at its meeting of June 24 and 25, 1998, to be prepared by the Centre of Commercial Activity at Ryerson University. The results of this study are being reported on separately by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture.

For all of the reasons outlined above, I believe that the proposed retail warehouse use is not in conformity with the goals and objectives set out for development in Sections 9 and 14 of the Official Plan.

(e)Site Planning and Urban Design

As a result of considerable discussion with representatives of Home Depot Canada, changes were made to their initial proposal in an attempt to address many of the transportation, environmental and urban design issues pertinent to the site. The changes which Home Depot agreed to consider included breaking down the visual obtrusiveness of the building by an improved massing scheme, providing a "living roof" demonstration to deal with vast expanses of a tar roof, providing a significant tree canopy throughout the site and a well landscaped water's edge. However, in spite of all of the attempts to improve the site plan, the fact remains that the use of the site as a retail warehouse is not appropriate.

For this reason I have informed representatives of The Home Depot that I do not believe that further site development would be helpful in overcoming the fundamental planning issues.

(f)Gateway Site and Future Development

The proposed Home Depot site is situated at the entrance to the Port Industrial District. As a gateway site, I believe that any use located here should contribute to the image and future potential of adjacent lands.

In addition to the applications for the Cherry Street corridor and for the Port Centre, there are other development pressures and opportunities. The Port is being considered as a possible location for an Athletes' Village for the 2008 Olympics. The City is also examining the ramifications of proposals to take down the Gardiner Expressway. Should this occur, there will be extensive study of the system of streets and blocks within the vicinity of the corner of Lake Shore Boulevard and Cherry Street. While the site is cut off from the normal street and block pattern of the city because of Lake Shore Boulevard, the elevated portions of the Gardiner and the rail lines, I believe that these problems should be more fully addressed prior to development in order to realize the full potential of this site on the waterfront at the mouth of the Keating Channel.

I am also aware that TEDCO believes that development of this site is critical in resolving the current significant traffic congestion and signalling problems at the corner of Cherry Street and Lake Shore Boulevard, which it believes will worsen with additional development and be a deterrent to potential users of the Port.

(g)Retail Policy Study and Part II Official Plan Study of the Port Industrial District

In the context of the many, often conflicting proposals in the Port Area and vicinity, the Cherry Street corridor and Port Centre applications, a potential Olympic Athletes' Village, and the possible taking down of the Gardiner Expressway- I will be recommending in a future report to Council that I undertake a Part II Official Plan Study for the Port Industrial District.

As a result of the Home Depot analysis and the findings of the retail research, it has become clear that the city should develop an approach to big box retail which goes beyond the policies set out in the current Official Plan and begins to address where such uses might be appropriately located, including an assessment of the Port Centre in the Port Industrial District. I believe that this would provide assurances to both retail strip merchants as well as big box developers about the precise nature of the city's position. For this reason I am recommending that a study of big box retail policy be undertaken and that I report back to Toronto Community Council in 1999.

Conclusion

That the Home Depot application be refused as it contradicts many current city policies and objectives and sets an undesirable precedent for other important development sites in the area.

Contact:

Elyse Parker

Telephone:392-0069

Fax:392-1330

E-Mail:eparker@city.toront.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Lake Shore/ Cherry Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Lake Shore/ Cherry Street

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (November5, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

This report discusses the results and implications of a study that was requested by Council at is meeting on July 29 to 31, 1998 to contribute towards the consideration of an application for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning permitting a Home Depot store to locate at 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street (Application No. 197019). The planning recommendations are set out in a companion report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no funds required and no financial implications.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested to provide economic development input to the study on the implications of permitting additional big box retail development within the South District that has been recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting on July 29 to 31, 1998, City Council authorized the undertaking of a research study on the cumulative impact of big box retailing on Toronto retail strips and downtown in consultation with the Toronto Association of BIAs (Clause 59 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 10). The study was undertaken by purchasing data and research services from the Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity. The CSCA is a non-profit research organization that facilitates industry-based research, communication, interaction and applied education for the retail and commercial industry. It operates on a self-supporting, not-for-profit basis. Its revenue is received from Ryerson Polytechnic University, the Province of Ontario, membership fees and research grants. Its membership includes retailers, banks, the shopping centre industry, private consultants and municipalities, including the City of Toronto.

As was noted in the report adopted by Council on July 29-31, 1998, a full assessment of the impact of big box retailing ideally would include a large-scale survey of households within Toronto to determine the extent to which people are shopping in big box retail stores versus the downtown, shopping centres and retail strips. Such a survey would cost in excess of $100,000, and therefore was not considered to be feasible for the City to undertake.

The Toronto Association of BIAs (TABIA) was consulted in developing the terms of reference for the study, and the results were presented to a meeting organized by TABIA on November 4, 1998.

Comments:

Summary of Study Results

The CSCA completed the requested study within the tight frame required, and provided a draft report to staff on November 2. Final editing of their report currently is in progress.

The results of the study are summarized below:

Definition of Big Box

1. "Big Boxes" are large format stores that typically range in size from 20,000 to over 150,000 square feet, depending on the product category sold. The key point is that "big box category killer" stores are several times the size of a traditional outlet in their category. The definition includes large "flagship" stores in multi-story, intensive formats (e.g. William Ashley China, the Bloor Street Chapters Books) as well as single story "warehouse" format stores. Wal-Mart is not included in the definition (it is a discount department store), but information about Wal-Mart is included in the CSCA report.

Scale of Big Box Retailing

2. In the Greater Toronto Area, 320 Big Boxes are in operation (Spring 1998) that collectively house 13.2 million square feet of floor space. There are also 17 Wal-Mart Stores that house 2.1 million square feet of space.

3. One third of the big boxes are located in the City of Toronto (the 416 area code), two thirds in the outlying municipalities (the 905 area code). Big box development is more concentrated in the 905 municipalities relative to the population distribution, which is divided approximately 50:50 between the City and the 905 regions.

4. Big box development in the grocery, toys and furniture fields dates from the early 1970's, and 27% of the GTA's big boxes opened prior to 1990. The rate of growth during the 1990's has been explosive. 46% of the stores in operation today opened since 1995.

Cumulative Impact

5. Despite the significant expansion of big box retailing during the 1993-1997 period, total retail employment in the City of Toronto decreased slightly from 91,469 to 90,260.

6. For the five types of stores most affected by big box development (supermarkets, electronics, hardware, toys/sports, and books/office), total employment increased by 1064 between 1993 and 1997 (4.4%). Big box employment in these categories increased 1516, implying a 452 job loss in other stores.

7. An analysis of the available retail sales data indicated that a significant concentration of retail sales has occurred in the postal code districts including big box development. Whereas total non-automotive retail sales in the GTA increased 9.2% between 1989 and 1995, sales in the twenty postal code districts with the greatest concentrations of big-box retailers (these districts accounted for 47.4% of the GTA's total big box outlets in 1995) increased 18.6%. Sales in the remainder of the GTA outside of the 20 selected postal code districts increased only 6.8%.

8. Overall, the CSCA estimates that big boxes currently are receiving between 16 and 20% of the total non-automotive retail sales made in the GTA. They account for about 5% of the GTA's total commercial floor space.

9. During the period between 1994 and 1997, Toronto's retail strips experienced an overall increase in occupied commercial establishments, but a shift in functional composition. There was a decrease in the proportion of establishments accounted for by retail stores (retail stores accounted for 54% of occupied establishments in 1994 and 50% in 1997). The number of financial service establishments also decreased (by 6.5%) whereas service establishments increased 24%. The vacancy rate remained fairly stable at 9.6% although the number of vacant establishments increased by 10.6%.

10. Retail strips began to experience an increase in service activity and decrease in retail activity during the 1970's in response to the development of shopping centres. However, it is possible that the growth in big boxes since 1992 has contributed towards this trend. This link is suggested by two analyses. First, in the eight merchandise categories most affected by big box development (supermarkets, sporting goods, books, office products, hardware, toys, electronics and pet stores), the number of streetfront locations increased only 2.9% compared with a 10.9% increase in total occupied commercial establishments. The number of streetfront hardware outlets and office products outlets decreased by 7% over these three years. This was coincidental with the rapid development of Home Depot and Business Depot stores.

11. The second analysis compared the rate of store closure in Toronto's retail strips within different distance bands from big boxes. The average rate of business closure/relocation on Toronto's retail strips across all merchandise categories was 14.8% a year between 1994 and 1997 (i.e. 14.8% of businesses present in 1994 were no longer at the same locations a year later). The rate of store closure/relocation in the eight merchandise categories impacted the most by big box development (listed in point 10) was 16.2% -- somewhat higher than this average rate. Within a 2 km band of big box development, the rate of closure for these eight types of stores was considerably higher in both 1994-5 and 1995-6 (18.5% and 21.7% respectively).

12. In 1996-7, both the average rate of closure and the rate within a 2 km band decreased to 13.9% and 13.1% respectively for stores in the eight merchandise categories. The CSCA speculated that this could be attributed to a number of possible causes -- an improvement in the health of the retail economy, the maturation of the big-box system in most categories, the competitive response of street-based retailers, or a slight shift in consumer preferences and behaviours away from big-box retailing. However, within this generally improved context, hardware stores continued to experience a very high rate of closure in the bands within 2 km (19%) and 4 km (14%) of big boxes.

Property Taxes:

13. Based on a sample of 200 retail strip properties and the total number (27) of freestanding big boxes for which data was available, it was found that stores in Toronto's retail strips currently pay a slightly lower rate of property tax per square foot of floor area (on average, $4.77) than big box retailers ($5.09).

14.But Current Value Assessment per square foot of floor area in retail strips is almost double the assessment per square foot in big boxes ($171 versus $93). This implies that if tax policy is changed in the future to implement full CVA, stores in retail strips will pay almost double the amount of property tax per square foot as stores in Big Box format.

Attraction to Other Retailers

15. The CSCA documented the attraction that locations near big boxes have for other retailers and restaurants. The twenty postal code districts that contained the greatest concentrations of big box development in 1995 have continued to act as big box magnets. By 1998 these twenty areas accounted for 53.4% of the GTA's big box locations versus 47.4% in 1995. Twelve major power centre nodes have developed in the GTA, and about twenty retail chains are aggressively seeking locations in or near power centres. The report identifies 524 retail outlets that have located within one kilometre of one of these twelve power centres.

The Future

16. There is evidence that the rate of big box development in the GTA may have peaked. The number of people per big box outlet in Toronto is now similar to that in comparably sized American cities (Atlanta, Dallas-Fort Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul) where development occurred earlier, and is more mature. This suggests that saturation in the Toronto market is being approached. Future big box development probably will be driven primarily by new chains entering the market, and by stores seeking locations in communities relatively underserved (such as the inner city).

Big Boxes in the Port

17. Industrial areas in the inner city are likely to be under pressure for big box development since they satisfy the locational requirements of relatively cheap land, large sites, and arterial road access, and since the inner city market is still relatively unserved by big boxes. The Port area is a particularly prime target .

18. If a power centre were to be developed in the Port, impact on other retailers selling similar merchandise could be anticipated, especially those located within a 2 and 4 km radius. The two kilometre radius includes the south eastern portion of the downtown and East Toronto south of Dundas. The four kilometre radius extends up to about Bloor/Danforth, east to the Greenwood Race Track and west to Spadina (exact boundaries would depend on the specific site.) There are 761 streetfront retailers and 366 shopping centre tenants located within 2 kilometres of the proposed Home Depot site at Cherry and Lakeshore. An additional 3707 streetfront retailers and 1679 shopping centre tenants are located in the 2-4 kilometre band.

19. Based on the analysis of average store closure rates by distance band from big boxes described under points 11 and 12, the CSCA estimates that about twelve stores might close in one year within a two kilometre band of a power centre selling a range of typical "big box" goods. However, it should be emphasized that stores also will close due to normal competitive pressures and dynamics in the marketplace if a power centre is not developed. A power centre development might increase the closure rate by about 25% within a two kilometre distance band -- adding perhaps three or four outlets a year.

Implications and Conclusions:

The CSCA has made effective use of the data available to document the extent of big box development in the GTA and the impact it is having on the rest of Toronto's retail structure, particularly its retail strips. The analysis cannot be more definitive because retail sales data for small geographic areas are not available from any source. A detailed survey of merchants asking them to report on current sales levels and trends would be the only way of collecting this information, and such an undertaking would both be extremely expensive and probably would produce suspect results since many businesses are reluctant to divulge accurate sales information. A consumer survey tracking market share shifts and expenditure levels would be technically feasible, but as was noted in the Background section of this report, was not included within the study's terms of reference because of the associated expense.

The CSCA study indicates that in the space of a relatively few years, big box retailing in the GTA has grown to become a significant force in the marketplace. As much as 20% of the GTA's retail sales may be taking place in its 320 big box outlets. There has not been a commensurate amount of growth in either the GTA's retail sales or in Toronto's retail employment, implying that the development of big boxes has shifted business and jobs away from traditional retailers.

Evidence of such a shift was found in the analysis of store closures and changes in the mix of businesses on Toronto's retail strips. Retailing is decreasing its presence on retail strips. Strips within two kilometres of big box locations experienced a noticeably higher than average rate of store closure in the categories of goods most affected by big box development. Anecdotal information contributed by the business representatives who attended the November 4 TABIA meeting indicated that they also had noticed a decrease in the quality of retailing in strips near big box locations. Unfortunately these qualitative changes are almost impossible to document without retail sales information since they often occur within merchandise categories (e.g. a second hand clothing store and designer clothing boutique are both classified as clothing stores). The TABIA representatives also noted that the employment numbers do not differentiate between the quality of jobs available in big boxes versus traditional retailers and owner-occupied businesses.

Big box retailers act as magnets for other retailers, restaurants and service outlets vying to benefit from the customers they attract. This attraction has significant implications for Toronto's traditional shopping districts since most big box retailers prefer large and inexpensive sites in former industrial areas. Unless planning controls are implemented, entirely new shopping districts tend to develop with the potential to capture significant business away from established shopping districts. The potential for sales transfers is particularly great in mature urban areas not experiencing rapid population growth, such as the City of Toronto.

Should the City of Toronto permit big box development in the central city?

The CSCA study suggests caution in approaching this question. Inner city retailers will be more severely impacted by big box development in the central city than they currently are experiencing from the stores in the outlying areas of the City and Region. The extent of impact and implications for the planned commercial structure of the City and the quality of life in its neighbourhoods warrants a thorough evaluation.

Big box development in "flagship" store format located within or nearby the downtown, established retail strips or shopping centre sites is less likely to result in a negative impact on the planned commercial structure and more likely to result in positive sales transfers to existing businesses than development on industrially designated sites isolated from established shopping districts. Toronto already is seeing a resurgence in flagship store development on downtown Yonge Street and Bloor Street. This trend is strongly supported by planning policy, and seems to be having a net positive impact on the health of the downtown and the strength of its shopping functions.

If big box development is permitted on formerly industrial lands, the City can anticipate pressure from the market place to build additional retail space on nearby sites. Strong planning policies and controls will be necessary if retail development on other nearby non-commercial sites is to be curbed and the marketplace redirected so that positive "spin-off" sales strengthen the downtown and established retail strips instead of contributing to "retail sprawl".

The City's current planning policy does not permit big box development in the central city but evaluates specific applications for official plan amendments and rezonings. This approach limits the City's ability to consider the cumulative effect of big box development or to guide development pressures in such a way that the potential for negative impact on the downtown and retail strips can be minimized and the potential for positive impact maximized if big boxes are indeed permitted. The significant interest the private sector is expressing in developing big boxes in the Port and East Bayfront areas makes this a strategic time to re-evaluate the associated land use, economic development and policy implications. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services concurs with this conclusion, and is recommending that such a study be undertaken.

Contact Name:

Judy Morgan,

Phone 392-1003;

Fax 392-1380;

e-mail jmorgan1@city.toronto.on.ca

Brenda Librecz,

Managing Director, Economic Development;

Phone 397-4700;

fax 397-0906;

e-mail blibrecz@city.toronto.on.ca

(Report (November 1998) from K.G. Jones and M.J. Doucet

respecting The Impact of Big-Box Retailing on

Toronto's Retail Structure)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 8

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 9

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 10

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 11

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 12

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 13

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 14

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 15

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 16

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 17

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 18

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 19

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 20

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 21

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 22

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 23

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 24

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 25

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 26

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 27

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 28

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 29

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 30

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 31

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 32

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 33

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 34

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 35

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 36

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 37

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 38

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 39

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 40

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 41

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 42

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 43

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 44

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 45

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 46

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 47

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 48

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 49

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 50

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 51

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 52

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 53

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 54

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 55

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 56

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 57

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 58

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 59

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 60

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 61

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 62

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 63

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 64

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 65

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 66

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 67

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 68

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 69

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 70

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 71

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 72

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 73

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 74

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 75

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 76

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 77

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 78

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 79

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 80

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 81

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 82

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 83

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 84

Big-Box Retailing

Insert Table/Map No. 85

Big-Box Retailing

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Recommendation:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services prepare a further report on this application to be forwarded as a deputation item to the Community Council meeting of November12, 1998.

Comments:

Home Depot submitted an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application on June 27, 1997 to build a store at 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street. In my preliminary report on the application I identified a number of issues to be addressed including the economic impact. The City has retained a consultant to assist with this study and it is expected to be complete by the end of October. Upon receipt of this study staff will be able to complete a report on the Home Depot application and forward it to the Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998.

As there has been considerable public interest in this item, I am requesting that it be heard as a deputation item.

Contact:

Elyse Parker

Telephone: (416) 392-0069

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

--------

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

-(November 6, 1998) from Councillor McConnell;

-(November 6, 1998) from Mr. Stephen Willis, TEDCO;

-(November 10, 1998) from Mr. John Wakulat, Roncesvalles Village BIA;

-(November 10, 1998) from Mr. D.F. Given, President, Malone Given Parsons Ltd.;

-(November 11, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Blair, Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

-(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas T. Macos, Morrison Brown, Sosnovitch;

-(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Mark Crowe, Chair, Parkdale Village BIA;

-(undated) Photographs and plans of Cherry Street Quays;

-(November 12,1998) from Ms. Marilyn Churley, M.P.P. Riverdale;

-(November 10, 1998) from Mr. John Ha, Vice-President and Sammun Kim, General Manager, Ontario Korean Businessmen's Association;

-(undated) from Mr. David E. Tyson;

-(November 12, 1998) from Helene St. Jacques, Board of Directors, Queen East Business Association; and

-(November 11, 1998) from Mr. Stephen Kauffman, Director of Real Estate, The Home Depot Canada.

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

-Mr. Paul Dineen, Old Cabbagetown B.I.A. - Chair & Chair of TABIA Committee on Big Box Retail;

-Mr. Dalton C. Shipway, Watersheds United;

-Mr. Peter Smith, Portlands Citizen Action Committee;

-Ms. Lena Badhwar, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Alex Ling, Chair, TABIA;

-Mr. Don Given, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Nicholas Macos, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Stephen Kauffman, The Home Depot;

-Mr. Barry Lowe, Weston B.I.A.; and

-Mr. Stephen Longo, Goodman and Carr.

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage

Properties - 359-361 Ontario Street

(James McMillan Houses)

(Don River)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October26, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the properties at 359-361 Ontario Street (James McMillan Houses) be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council include the properties at 359-361 Ontario Street (James McMillan Houses) 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 August, 1998, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 361 Ontario Street for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. Because the building is a semi-detached house, the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (October 13, 1998) recommended that the adjoining property at 359 Ontario Street also be recommended for inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The owners of both properties provided letters supporting the recommendation.

Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the properties according to the Board's criteria; they are worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as Neighbourhood Heritage Properties (Category C).

Comments:

At its meeting of October 21, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto recommended that the properties be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The properties at 359-361 Ontario Street (James McMillan Houses) are identified for architectural and historical reasons. Their mixed Gothic and Romanesque Revival features were popular in late 19^th century Toronto neighbourhoods.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the properties at 359-361 Ontario Street (James McMillan Houses) 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

--------

(Communication (October 13, 1998) from Managing Director, Heritage Toronto)

Recommendation:

That the properties at 359-361 Ontario Street be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments:1. Background:

In a letter dated August 21, 1998, the owners of the property at 361 Ontario Street requested that their property be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. Because the building is a semi-detached house, this report recommends that the adjoining property at 359 Ontario Street also be recommended for inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The owner of the property at 359 Ontario Street was notified in a letter dated October 7, 1998; no response has been received to date.

2.Discussion:

The properties at 359-361 Ontario Street were evaluated according to the Board's criteria which indicates that they are Neighbourhood Heritage Properties (Category C) and merit inclusion.

A Property Research Summary is attached.

--------

Heritage Toronto

Property Research Summary

Basic Building Data:

Address:359-361 Ontario Street (east side of Ontario Street between Dundas Street East and Gerrard Street East)

Ward:25

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: James McMillan Houses

Construction Date:1881-1882

Architect: none found

Contractor/Builder: none found

Additions/Alterations:#359: brick painted; south wall reclad

#361: brick painted; stained glass transoms removed

Original Owner: oseph C. McMillan

Original Use: Residential (semi-detached houses)

Current Use*:Residential (semi-detached houses)

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: October 1998

Recorder: HPD:KA

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

Property Research Summary

Description:

The properties at 359-361 Ontario Street are identified for architectural and historical reasons. The semi-detached houses were completed in 1882 for Joseph C. McMillan. William Case, a plasterer, was the original occupant of #359, while Daniel Cox was his neighbour at #361.

The semi-detached houses are constructed of wood, clad with brick, and trimmed with brick, stone and wood. The 2�-storey building is covered by a hipped gable roof with a central brick chimney. The principal (west) facades are arranged as mirror images with entrances flanked by gabled frontispieces. The entrances contain panelled wood doors with glass panels and separate transoms. Above, the second storey has round-headed window openings with brick voussoirs and keystones. The frontispieces contain segmental-arched window openings with transoms and voussoirs with label stops in the first and second stories. Half-round window openings light the attic level beneath gables with moulded bargeboard. All of the window openings display sandstone sills with brick panels beneath. On the side (north and south) walls, the openings are arranged according to the interior layout. The rear (east) tails are not identified as important heritage elements.

The properties at 359-361 Ontario Street are located on the east side of the street between Dundas Street East and Gerrard Street East. The semi-detached houses are characteristic of the residential buildings with mixed Gothic and Romanesque Revival features popularized in late 19^th century Toronto neighbourhoods.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

359-361 Ontario Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

359-361 Ontario Street

Construction of a Wrought Iron Fence and Stone Pillars -

16 Highland Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October27, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request to construct a 1.2 m high wrought iron fence with 1.2 m high stone pillars within the City street allowance which will exceed the maximum height permitted under Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of the 1.2 m high wrought iron fence and stone pillars within the City street allowance fronting 16 Highland Avenue and that the owner enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

Mr. Darrell Bankes, Janet Rosenberg & Associates, acting on behalf of the owner, Lucia Molnar Wing, 16 Highland Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4W 2A3, submitted an application on September 10, 1998, requesting permission to construct a 1.2 m high wrought iron fence and stone pillars within the City boulevard fronting 16 Highland Avenue.

The fence and pillars would be 1.2 m high rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed for in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property. As there are similar fences and pillars in the area, it was determined that the proposal would not negatively impact the City boulevard.

Details of the fence and posts are retained on file with my Department.

Conclusions:

As the fence and posts will not negatively impact the City boulevard, these installations should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Maintenance of A Fence -

136 Heddington Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request to maintain a fence within the City street allowance which exceeds the maximum height permitted under Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the maintenance of a wrought iron fence within the City street allowance fronting 136 Heddington Avenue, subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

Ms. Julia Sherman, owner of 136 Heddington Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5N 2K8, has requested permission to maintain a wrought iron fence within the City street allowance fronting 136 Heddington Avenue.

The fence is 1.47 m high rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed for in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and is set back 0.23 m from the rear edge of the City sidewalk rather than 0.46 m as prescribed in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The fence is constructed adjacent to the existing driveway servicing the property to the south but does not obstruct visibility of oncoming pedestrian or vehicular traffic as it is constructed of wrought iron.

In a letter dated August 24, 1998, the owner has requested an exemption to this by-law as she feels that a higher fence will be more effective in preventing people from walking on her garden. She has also indicated that in the past two years she has had intruders in her front and back yards and this fence provides her with added security and peace of mind.

We have also received a letter dated September 28, 1998 from an area resident who objects to the fence because it is not consistent with the general streetscape of the neighbourhood and it creates a hazard for vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that this fence does not impact negatively on the public right-of-way. However, there are no other similar fence installations in the immediate area.

Details of this fence and the letters from the owner and area resident are on file with this Department.

Conclusions:

As this fence does not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, the fence should be permitted to be maintained.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Curblane Vending Permit -

James Street, East Side, 84.5 Metres North of

Queen Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a permit not be issued to Mr. Kancho Kolev, for curblane vending on James Street, east side, 84.5 metres north of Queen Street West, and that the applicant be invited to reapply once the development in the surrounding area is complete.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a curblane vending application, which was denied because a written objection was received. 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 a permit be issued to Mr. Kancho Kolev, for curblane vending on James Street, east side, 84.5 metres north of Queen Street West, notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner.

Background:

Mr. Martin Z. Goose, Barrister, Solicitor, Notary Public, acting on behalf of Mr. Kancho Kolev, in his letter of October 7, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse Mr. Kolev's application for a curblane vending permit on James Street, east side, 84.5metres north of Queen Street West.

Comments:

Mr. Kancho Kolev, 100 Cavell Avenue, Apartment #712, Etobicoke, Ontario M8V 3V6, applied on July 15, 1998 for a curblane vending permit on James Street, east side, 84.5 metres north of Queen Street West, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). Mr. Kolev proposes to vend hamburgers, hot dogs, sausages, ice cream, chips and drinks.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their comments, if any. Mr. Eamon Kelly, Vice President & General Manager, Toronto Eaton Centre, 220 Yonge Street, Suite 110, Box 511, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2H1, on behalf of Cadillac Fairview, has submitted a letter of objection dated July 30, 1998 (Appendix 'C') regarding this location.

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

Staff have met with Mr. Kolev and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, because we have received a letter of objection.

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

Concern # 1:The proposed vending location will adversely effect existing businesses in the immediate vicinity

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

The proposed vending location is 28.2 m from The Duke of Richmond Restaurant and Cafe on James Street.

Concern # 2:The proposed vending location would create more garbage in the area

Staff Response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a trash receptacle be provided by the vendor for food vending permits.

Concern # 3:The proposed vending location would mean an additional vendor in the vicinity of their building

Staff Response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a minimum separation of 25 metres from other vendors.

The proposed vending location is 52.8 m from the licensed vendor at the north west corner of Albert Street and James Street.

Conclusions:

As this application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal Code, the application should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it Appendix A & B - Regarding Application for Curblane Vending, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

Tree Removal - 314 St. Clarens Avenue

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for the removal of one City-owned tree at 314 St. Clarens Avenue be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 15, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Emil Stadnyk, 314 St. Clarens Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6H 3W3, for City Council to consider removal of one City owned tree because he is concerned that the tree roots are uplifting his walkway and that the tree is taking away from the appearance and value of his home. Mr. Stadnyk also reports that tree roots are damaging his drains.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be denied.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Not applicable.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 62 cm diameter Norway Maple which is in fair condition and is valued at $4,057.73. Staff inspected the tree on October 8, 1998 and found that the tree does not qualify for routine removal.

With respect to the walkway, the applicant was advised that if the pavement is lifted to expose roots, Forestry staff will reinspect the site to determine the possibility of cutting or shaving roots which appear to be causing damage, provided that such work will not cause damage to the tree.

Regarding the damage to the drains, roots do not cause pipes to break. Tree and shrub roots normally grow in the uppermost 60 cm of soil. Roots only enter pipes through existing cracks or breaks. Water will leak from the openings, attracting roots to a greater than normal depth in the soil. The only permanent solution is to have broken pipes replaced. Removal of the tree may not solve the problem of blocked pipes as water will still leak into the soil and the opening could allow soil and roots from other trees or shrubs into the pipe. If the drains are properly repaired and newer plastic pipes are properly sealed and installed, the drains should not deteriorate.

Conclusions:

Removal of City trees suspected of causing damage to private walkways and drains is neither practical nor advisable and would set an undesirable precedent for removing thousands of City trees. Furthermore, trees would not be replaced as the new trees would be seen to cause the same problem. I therefore recommend that this request for tree removal be denied.

However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, it should be with the condition that the applicant be required to pay all costs involved, including the tree value of $4,057.73, removal costs of $1,053.83 and the cost to plant a replacement tree, $475.01, for a total of $5,586.56.

Contact Name:

Paulette Mullings

Email: pmulling@city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-6640

Fax: 416-392-6657

Tree Removal - 40 Alexander Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for the removal of two trees situated on private property at 40 Alexander Street be approved, conditional on:

(1)the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(2)the applicant planting a minimum of ten (10) 200 cm replacement trees in accordance with Landscape Plan L-1a prepared by Terraplan Landscape Architects, received by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services on October 20, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

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 the private property of the above noted address.

Recommendations:

That if Toronto Community Council approves the request for the removal of the two trees situated on private property indicated in this report, that such approval be conditional on:

Background:

This request for tree removal has been received in connection with a proposal to construct a cooling tower and an elevator hoist on the property of 40 Alexander Street. The new cooling tower will service the three existing buildings at 40 and 50 Alexander Street and 55 Maitland Street, while the elevator hoist will service the three existing buildings and a new residential condominium building to be constructed at 500 Church Street which is currently in the process of Site Plan Approval. The cooling tower and elevator hoist proposal received Committee of Adjustment approval on August26, 1998.

Comments:

We are in receipt of a request from Mr. Paul H. Northgrave of Northgrave Architect Inc., 66 Gloucester Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 1L5, acting on behalf of Greenrock Investments Limited/The Second

Greenrock Corporation, the owner of 40 Alexander Street, that the City consider the removal of two trees situated on the private property of 40 Alexander Street near the existing building with the convenience address of 55 Maitland Street.

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. Just prior to the end of the 14 day posting period, two calls from residents living in the vicinity of 40 Alexander Street were received by Forestry Services staff expressing concern with respect to the visibility of the 'Notice' of application sign. Forestry Services staff confirmed that the 'Notice' was posted in an inappropriate location and as such, the posting period was extended by 7 days. Two (2) letters were received in response to the notice of application to remove the trees in question.

The two trees in question are as follows:

1.31 cm diameter Austrian Pine in fair condition; and

2.34 cm diameter Austrian Pine in fair condition.

Both trees require City Council approval to permit their removal.

The trees in question are of a size which does not permit their relocation. The proposed accessory structures in their present form preclude the retention of the two trees proposed for removal due to the size, scale and placement of the accessory structures.

The landscape plan which was filed with Forestry Services indicates the planting of ten (10) new 200cm Colorado Blue Spruce trees to the north of the proposed cooling tower and to the south of the proposed elevator hoist.

Should Toronto Community Council recommend that the request to remove the trees in question be approved, such approval should meet the conditions outlined in the recommendations above.

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, also having had before it a communication (October 14, 1998) from Ms. Elisa Amsterdam, President, Village Green Tennants' Association, which was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with agenda for its meeting on November 12, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communication (undated) from Paul McSherry; and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Mr. Matthew Bernstein, Landscape Architect, Terraplan Landscape Architects appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (November 10, 1998) from Ms. Elisa Amsterdam, President, Village Green Tenants, forwarding the Association's concerns with respect to the removal of trees at 40 Alexander Street (Downtown).)

(Councillor Rae, at the meeting of City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns property adjacent to 40 Alexander Street.)

Closing Time Restriction - Boulevard Cafes

on Commercial Frontages -

Queen Street East, Between Coxwell Avenue

and Victoria Park Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (October 28, 1998) from Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services be adopted; and

(2)the Alcohol and Gaming Commission be requested to apply the same conditions to those patios on private property as the City applies to patios on the City boulevard in the area of Queen Street East, between Coxwell Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To clarify City Council's action of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 that a general 11:00 p.m. patio closure and clearance policy be applied to those cafes with no time restrictions on Queen Street East, between Coxwell Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue, except on special event days.

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.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That all licensed and approved cafe operators on Queen Street East, between Coxwell Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue, as listed in Appendix 'A', be notified of the proposed change in their operating hours to 11:00 p.m., where no time restrictions previously existed, and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council;

(2)That, after hearing of deputations, Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended, substantially in the form of a draft by-law (Appendix 'B'), by adding a new subsection to � 313-36; and

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

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, in considering Clause No. 82 of Report No.10 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Whitlock's Restaurant - Extension of Hours of Operation - Boulevard Cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue Flankage of 1961 Queen Street East" adopted the report, without amendment, and in so doing, directed a general 11:00 p.m. patio closure and clearance policy be applied to those cafes with no time restrictions, on Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue, except on special event days.

Comments:

The Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1993, provide City Council with the authority to issue licences for the purpose of boulevard cafes and impose terms and conditions upon the use of such licensed areas. As indicated in our earlier report (July 9, 1998), in keeping with the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, where licensed boulevard cafe locations will be affected, the license holders will be required to be notified of the proposed change in their operating hours and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council. It has become apparent that the affected cafe operators were not notified and given the opportunity to appear before the Toronto Community Council prior to City Council's decision to implement a general 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction for all cafes on Queen Street East, between Coxwell Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue.

Conclusions:

Under the circumstances, it is necessary to notify all licensed and approved cafe operators listed in Appendix 'A' of City Council's intention to implement a general 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction, where no closing time restriction existed previously, and that Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to restrict the operating hours for boulevard cafes located on Queen Street East, between Coxwell Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7654

--------

Copies of Appendices A & B referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with agenda for its meeting on November 12, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Hearing - Installation of Speed Humps -

on Bartlett Avenue North

Between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road

(Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 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 40 contained in Report No. 11 of The Toronto Community Council headed "Traffic Calming Measures-Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its regular meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on October 23, October 28, November 4 and November 11, 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. 11, Clause No. 40, as adopted by Council on October 1, 1998

Enacted 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 Bartlett Avenue North by the installation of speed humps between Geary Avenue and Davenport Road.

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

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)

Bartlett Avenue North

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps

Geary Avenue

Davenport Road

421F-5253

dated

September, 1998

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

MayorCity Clerk

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 40 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "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 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 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.

Hearing - Proposed Closing and Conveyancing of

Public Lane - North of Scollard, Easterly from

Hazelton Avenue, Between Nos. 35 and 37 Hazelton Avenue

(Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 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 25, contained in Report No. 24 of The Executive Committee of the Former City of Toronto headed "Proposed Closing and Conveyancing - Public Lane North of Scollard Street, Extending Easterly from Hazelton Avenue, Between Nos. 35 and 37 Hazelton Avenue (Ward 13)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its Regular Meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on October 23, October 28, November 4 and November 11, 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. ( ), as adopted

November 25, 1998

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To stop up and close the public lane north of Scollard Street, extending easterly from Hazelton Avenue, between Nos. 35 and 37 Hazelton Avenue and to authorize the conveyance thereof.

WHEREAS by Clause of Toronto Community Council Report No. , adopted by Council at its meeting held on November 25, 1998, it is recommended that the public lane north of Scollard Street, extending easterly from Hazelton Avenue, between Nos. 35 and 37 Hazelton Avenue, be stopped up and closed as a public lane and that the public lane so stopped up and closed be conveyed to Seniority Investments Limited and the Toronto Heliconian Club upon the terms and conditions contained in Clause 25 of Executive Committee Report No. 24, adopted by Council at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997;

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

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

1.The public lane north of Scollard Street, extending easterly from Hazelton Avenue, between Nos. 35 and 37 Hazelton Avenue, described by W. Kowalenko, Esq., O.L.S., City Surveyor, as follows:

In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of the Public Lane dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 2520 (Instrument 2520) being part of Lot 15 on Plan 302-York designated as Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 64R-15882, both said Plans being in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64)

is hereby stopped up and closed as a public lane.

2.The soil and freehold of the public lane stopped up and closed by Section 1 of this By-law shall be sold to Seniority Investments Limited and the Toronto Heliconian Club, upon the terms and conditions contained in Clause 25 of Executive Committee Report No. 24, adopted by Council at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997.

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

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 25 of Report No. 24 of the Executive Committee of the Former City of Toronto, headed "Proposed Closing and Conveyancing - Public Lane North of Scollard Street, Extending Easterly from Hazelton Avenue, Between Nos.35 and 37 Hazelton Avenue (Ward 13)":

--------

(City Council on October 6 and 7, 1997, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Executive Committee recommends the adoption of the report (October 3, 1997) from the Commissioner of City Works Services:

Origin: Commissioner of City Works Services (p:\1997\ug\cws\ipt\ex970322.ipt) - ja

Recommendations:

1.That City Council declare the proposed conveyance of the subject lane shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2866, dated September 1997, to be in compliance with Section 3.3 of the Official Plan Part 1 - Cityplan;

2.That City Council, by By-law, declare as surplus the public lane owned by the Corporation of the City of Toronto, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2866, dated September 1997;

3.That City Council set the price for the public lane to be conveyed to Seniority Investments Limited and the Toronto Heliconian Club, at the rate of $200.00 per square metre;

4.That the lane shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2866, dated September 1997, be stopped-up and closed upon compliance by the applicants with the following terms and conditions:

(a)Indemnify the City, together with such other persons as the City Solicitor may require, against all loss, cost, damage or action arising as a result of the closing;

(b)Pay the price of $33,000.00 for the fee in the land comprising the lane to be closed and conveyed, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2866, dated September 1997;

(c)Agree to allow public pedestrian access over the entire area and maintain the surface of the lands in a condition suitable for such access;

(d)Accept conveyance of the fee in the land comprising the lane to be closed, subject to easements over the entire area thereof, in favour of the City, Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro, for access, operation, use, inspection, repair, maintenance, reconstruction or alteration of the existing utilities, and for the construction of additional or new services, with the City's easement allowing access by municipal vehicles to Ketchum Park;

(e)Pay all out of pocket expenses that will be incurred by the City as a result of the closing and conveyancing, estimated to be in the amount of $1,500.00, and any such expenses paid by the applicants will not be refunded in the event that the transaction is not completed;

(f)Provide a Reference Plan of Survey for the lane to be closed, integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, showing as separate Parts thereon, the portion of the lane to be conveyed to each applicant; and

(g)Comply with such other terms and conditions as the City Solicitor may deem advisable to protect the City's interests.

All costs listed above are to be shared proportionately by each applicant.

5.That upon compliance with the terms and conditions set out in Recommendation No. 4 above, the land comprising the public lane, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2866, dated September 1997, be conveyed to Seniority Investments Limited and the Toronto Heliconian Club, at the price set by Council;

6.That prior to the conveyancing of the lands, easements be retained by the City and granted to Bell Canada and Toronto Hydro;

7.That a right-of-way be retained over the lane to be closed to allow City vehicles to access Ketchum Park; and

8.That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required, including the necessary Bill to amend Schedule "A" of By-law No. 1995-0194, and provide notice to the public.

Comments:

City Works Services has received and evaluated an application from Seniority Investments Limited in conjunction with the Toronto Heliconian Club, for the closing and conveyancing of the public lane north of Scollard Street, extending easterly from Hazelton Avenue, between Premises Nos. 35 and 37 Hazelton Avenue, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2866, dated September 1997. The proposal is feasible, provided that the applicants comply with the terms and conditions set out under Recommendation No. 4 above.

The closing is requested by the applicants in order to resolve private access and parking problems in the area. Seniority Investments Limited and the Toronto Heliconian Club have agreed to keep the lane open as a pedestrian link for public use from Hazelton Avenue to Ketchum Park and Jesse Ketchum Public School.

The conveyance will be subject to easements in favour of the City, Bell Canada, Toronto Hydro and the adjacent private property owners. I have been advised by City Parks officials, that satisfactory arrangements have been made with Seniority Investments Limited and the Toronto Heliconian Club, to allow City service vehicles to access the park as necessary.

This undertaking is exempt from Environmental Assessment in accordance with the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Applications of this type are normally considered by the City Services Committee, however, that Committee does not have any more meetings scheduled. As a result, I am reporting on this item directly to Executive Committee. Pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Act, the intent of Council to enact a By-law to authorize the closing of a public highway must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. Given the limited time left in this term of Council, it will not be possible to complete the process this year. However, approval of this matter by Council on October 6, 1997, will enable the statutory advertising to proceed and a hearing to be held early in the term of the new Council.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act, 1994, (Bill163), Council must explicitly declare any real property owned by the City but intended to be disposed of as surplus by By-law and give notice to the public of the proposed disposition. The recommendations noted above ensure that this lane closing and conveyancing will fulfil the statutory requirements and accordingly will conform to the process set out in By-law No. 1995-0146.

(A copy of the foregoing communication (November 19, 1997) was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with agenda for its meeting on November 12, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

plan sye2866

Hearing - Closing of the Portion of Eastern Avenue -

Linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/

Kingston Road Extension and the Public Lane -

1641 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause, to the first meeting of City Council to be held in January, 1999, in order to provide sufficient time for the Minister of Environment to issue his decision on the "bump-up" request by the owner of Premises No. 1641 Queen Street East.

Council also adopted the following motion:

Moved by Councillor Jakobek:

"Recognizing that the elimination of the jogged intersection of Eastern Avenue and Kingston Road at Queen Street East by means of extending Eastern Avenue easterly has resulted in safer and more efficient traffic operations; and

That the planning of this project was ongoing over a three-year period through the land exchange, Rezoning and Plan of Subdivision processes, with public notice provided throughout; and

That the proposed closing of the redundant section of Eastern Avenue is the final stage in the implementation of this longstanding initiative and the closing in itself does not affect traffic patterns, and may arguably improve the urban environment and pedestrian conditions; and

That, with the construction of the proposed motion picture cinema on the property fronting Queen Street East on the east side of the road section to be closed, the business at Premises No. 1641 Queen Street East (Harvey's restaurant) will be exposed to a substantial increase in people in the area; and

That the owner and lessee of Premises No. 1641 Queen Street East did not respond to notice of the proposed road closure sent to them in early July, 1998, pursuant to the screening procedures established under Schedule B of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects until November, 1998; and

That the property also has direct driveway access from Queen Street East that is not affected by the proposed closure and the City has offered to maintain vehicular access to the current side driveway of the site by means of granting a right-of-way over a portion of the closed road allowance from Queen Street East;

Therefore be it resolved that Toronto City Council:

(1)respectfully advise the Minister of Environment that it feels the request for 'bump-up' of this Schedule B undertaking as set out in the letter of November 17, 1998, from Mr. Stephen F. Waque, Borden & Elliot, Barristers and Solicitors, is without basis, and further that Council strongly objects to the attempts to secure compensation for the proposed road closure;

(2)respectfully request the Minister to rule on this matter as expeditiously as possible; and

(3)direct the appropriate City staff to forward to the Minister the necessary background materials to refute the matters raised in the above-noted November17, 1998 letter.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)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; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services maintain access to the driveway at 1631 Queen Street East and side access to 1641 Queen Street East by way of Queen Street East.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 43, Contained in Report No. 10 of The Toronto Community Council headed "Proposed Closing of the Portion of Eastern Avenue Linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road Extension and Public Lane - 1641 Queen Street East (East Toronto)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its Regular Meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on October23, October 28, November 4 and November 11, 1998, and the following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. J. Pitman Patterson, Borden & Elliot obo Campos Holdings Ltd.; and

-Mr. John Pitcher, Solicitor.

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

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. ( ), as adopted

November 25, 1998.

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To stop up and close parts of the public highways Queen Street East and Eastern Avenue and the public lane south of Queen Street East extending westerly from Eastern Avenue

WHEREAS by Clause of Toronto Community Council Report No. , adopted by Council at its meeting held on November 25, 1998, it is recommended that parts of the public highways Queen Street East and Eastern Avenue and the public lane south of Queen Street East extending westerly from Eastern Avenue be stopped up and closed as public highways;

AND WHEREAS notice of Council's intention to stop up and close the said parts of Queen Street East and Eastern Avenue and the said public lane was advertised in a daily newspaper on .

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

1.Parts of the public highways Queen Street East and Eastern Avenue and the public lane south of Queen Street East extending westerly from Eastern Avenue, described by W. Kowalenko, Esq., O.L.S., City Surveyor, as follows:

In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of parts of the Public Highways Queen Street East and Eastern Avenue opened and extended by City of Toronto By-law 1127 (unregistered) and dedicated by City of Toronto By-law 5347 (21327T) and By-law 16981 (23303ES), part of the said Eastern Avenue being the remainder of Instrument20896T, being part of Block W on Plan 326-E and parts of Lots 7 and 8, in the Broken Front Concession, in the Geographic Township of York, and part of the Public Lane on Plan 652-E, designated as PARTS 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 on Plan 64R-16041 all of the said Plans being in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No.64)

are hereby stopped up and closed as public highways.

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

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 43 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Proposed Closing of the Portion of Eastern Avenue Linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road Extension and Public Lane - 1641 Queen Street (East Toronto)":

--------

(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 (July8,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To obtain authority for the stopping-up and closing of the portion of Eastern Avenue linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension, and the public lane at the rear of Premises No. 1641 Queen Street East, as public highway, in conjunction with the opening of the new portion of Eastern Avenue which will connect directly to Kingston Road at Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in connection with the statutory processing of the proposal are accommodated in Capital Fund Account No. 296802.

Recommendations:

(1)That the portion of Eastern Avenue and the public lane shown hatched on the attached PlanSYE2891, be stopped-up and closed as public highway and placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(2)That easements be reserved as necessary for the Utility Companies, over the entire portion of Eastern Avenue and the public lane to be closed, for access, operation, use, inspection, repair, maintenance, reconstruction or alteration of the existing utilities and for the construction of additional or new services;

(3)That the City-owned strip of land, shown cross-hatched on the attached Plan SYE2891, be laid out, dedicated and declared to form part of Eastern Avenue; and

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

Background:

As part of the development of the Woodbine Park subdivision (former Greenwood Racetrack site), a key transportation component was the acquisition by the City of the necessary lands to extend Eastern Avenue from its present terminus at Queen Street East in order to eliminate the current jog configuration and form a normalized intersection with Kingston Road. The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, authorized the construction of the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension and the necessary alterations to Kingston Road and Queen Street East to accommodate the new intersection (Clause 17 in City Services Committee Report No. 11).

The extension of Eastern Avenue to the Queen Street East/Kingston Road intersection is under construction with completion scheduled for the late summer/early fall of this year. At the time the new route is opened, the existing link to Queen Street East as shown schematically on the attached Plan SYE2891, will become largely redundant and can be closed to eliminate the jog condition. A dead-end lane midway between Queen Street East and Eastern Avenue with access only to this section of Eastern Avenue should also be closed.

Comments:

Works staff have received a request from Councillor Tom Jakobek to initiate the formal process to stop-up and close the portion of Eastern Avenue linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension, and conclude that the proposal is feasible. This existing portion of Eastern Avenue and the public lane, shown on the attached Plan SYE2891, although closed as public highway, should remain under City ownership at this time.

The entire portion of Eastern Avenue and the public lane to be closed, will be subject to easements in favour of various Utility companies. Due to time constraints associated with meeting the deadline for the City Council meeting of July 29, 1998, it has not been possible to establish specific utility requirements, however, the usual Departmental circulation will be carried out and the necessary information obtained over the next few weeks.

I note that two properties take access from this portion of Eastern Avenue and more particularly, the public lane also proposed to be closed, which on the ground is not well defined and appears to be a portion of the paved parking area. The owners/operators of the properties, which comprise a Harvey's Restaurant and a City Community and Neighbourhood Services Department site will be advised. Although both properties currently have alternate access, these discussions may identify other access adjustments or requirements that can be reported if necessary to the meeting of Toronto Community Council when deputations are heard.

Notice of the proposed street closing will be given pursuant to the screening process set out in Schedule "B" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects under the Environmental Assessment Act.

On a related matter, the new Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension was laid out and dedicated by Registered Plan 66M-2311. However, a City-owned strip of land, shown cross-hatched on the attached Plan SYE2891, must also be laid out and dedicated to form part of the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road alignment.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Laurie Robertson, Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings (392-7711)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for a "bump-up" to the Minister of Environment respecting the proposal to stop-up and close, as public highway, the redundant section of Eastern Avenue, from the new Eastern Avenue extension to Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications related to the deferral of the closings.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that consideration of the by-law and the introduction of the Bills to give effect to the closing, as public highways, of the redundant portion of Eastern Avenue linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension, and the public lane at the rear of Premises No. 1641 Queen Street East, be deferred until such time as the Minister of Environment and Energy has issued his decision on the "bump-up" request by the owner of Premises No. 1641 Queen Street East.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of November 12, 1998, in considering the draft by-laws for the closing of the portion of Eastern Avenue linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road Extension, recommended, among other things, that a by-law be enacted and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto. This matter is scheduled to be considered by City Council at its meeting of November 25, 1998 (Clause No. 17 of Report No.14 of The Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

The closing of the subject portion of Eastern Avenue is the final step in the process of eliminating the jogged intersection of Eastern Avenue and Kingston Road at Queen Street East. With the recent opening of the new extension, the subject portion of Eastern Avenue has become largely redundant, in terms of its traffic carrying function, and its closing has been proceeding in accordance with Schedule "B" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects under the Environmental Assessment Act. This included notification in July of this year of the proposed closing to the abutting property owners and tenants.

This Department did not receive any response to the notifications issued in July from any of the affected parties. Nevertheless, at the Toronto Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, Mr. Pitman Patterson of Borden and Elliot, on behalf of the owner of Premises No. 1641 Queen Street East (Lampos Holdings Limited) which is located at the southwest corner of Queen Street East and the subject section of Eastern Avenue, and Mr. John Pitcher, on behalf of the tenant Dinecorp. Hospitality Inc. (Harvey's restaurant), made deputations expressing their concerns with the proposed closing.

Consequently, staff met with Messrs. Patterson and Pitcher on November 19, 1998 to discuss the details of the proposed closing including the recommendation by The Toronto Community Council that vehicular access to their site be maintained over the portion of Eastern Avenue to be closed, to Queen Street East. At the meeting, which was conducted in a co-operative and amiable manner, it appeared that a resolution to the physical access issues could be developed. However, at the end of the meeting, staff was provided with a copy of a November 17, 1998 letter from Borden and Elliot, on behalf of Lampos Holdings Limited, to The Honourable Norman W. Sterling, Minister of Environment and Energy, requesting a "bump-up" of the project, under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, from a "Class Environmental Assessment" to an "Individual Environmental Assessment". Among other things, the property owner has cited "serious business losses" as a result of the loss of exposure to through traffic on Eastern Avenue, should it be closed. It is important to note, however, that the reduction in the traffic volumes on this section of Eastern Avenue resulted from the construction of the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension which, as indicated, is already in place and operational. The closing of the redundant section of Eastern Avenue which currently experiences minimal traffic volumes, in itself, is not the cause of the decrease in the through traffic volumes, nor do staff consider that the proposal would have any negative environmental impacts.

Under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ministry has 45 days to review the request for the "bump-up" and prepare a report for the Minister's consideration. The Minister then has 21 days within which to make a decision. In the meantime, staff of the Legal Services Division of Corporate Services have advised that a by-law cannot be enacted for the closing of a public highway or to implement any part of it. Accordingly, it will be necessary to defer this item at City Council at this time. My staff is preparing a submission to the Ministry of the Environment, in response to the bump-up request by Lampos Holdings Limited, to counter the complaints and claims made on behalf of the owner. If appropriate, staff from this Department, as well as staff of Corporate Services (Legal Services Division and Real Estate Division), will continue to meet with the representatives of the owner and tenant in an attempt to address their concerns to the satisfaction of all parties.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Koropeski, Director

Transportation Division, District 1

392-7711.)

(A copy of the communication, dated November 17, 1998, from Borden and Elliot, Barristers and Solicitors, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Hearing - Installation of Speed Humps -

Prescott Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to

Rockwell Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 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 11, Contained in Report No. 11 of The Toronto Community Council headed "Prescott Avenue, from St.Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue - Implementation of Alternate Side Parking (Davenport)", which was amended and adopted by City Council at its Regular Meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on October 23, October 28, November 4 and November 11, 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. 11, Clause No. 11, as adopted by Council on October 1, 1998

Enacted 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 Prescott Avenue by the installation of speed humps from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue.

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

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

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)

Prescott Avenue

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps

St. Clair Avenue West

Rockwell Avenue

T555-2

dated

June, 1998

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

MayorCity Clerk

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 11 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "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.

Hearing - Installation of Speed Humps -

Eastwood Road from Bellhaven Road to

Woodbine Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 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 42, Contained in Report No. 42 of The Toronto Community Council headed "Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Eastwood Road from Woodbine Avenue to Bellhaven Road (East Toronto)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its Regular Meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on October 23, October 28, November 4 and November 11, 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. 11, Clause No. 42, as adopted by Council on October 1, 1998

Enacted 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 Eastwood Road by the installation of speed humps from Bellhaven Road to Woodbine Avenue.

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

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

(Column 1

Street)

(Column 2

Side/Corner)

(Column 3 Alteration/

Repair)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)

Eastwood Road

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps

Bellhaven Road

Woodbine Avenue

421F-5200

dated

April, 1998

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

MayorCity Clerk

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 42 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Traffice 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.

Eastwood Road from Kingsmount Park Road to Glenmore Road

Summary of Speed and Volume Count

Direction of

Travel

Total Vehicles

40 km/hour or less

41 - 50 km/hour

51 km/hour or more

Eastbound

2,130

(100%)

376

(17.7%)

328

(15.4%)

1,426

(66.9%)

Westbound

2,525

(100%)

368

(14.6%)

603

(23.9%)

1,554

(61.5%)

Total

4,655

(100%)

744

(16.0%)

931

(20.0%)

2,980

(64.0%)

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

Injury of Two Trees - 3256 Yonge Street

(North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for injury to the two Norway Maples at 3256 Yonge Street, on the condition that during construction of the parking pad, the applicant agrees to hire an arborist to implement a tree preservation plan prepared by Shady Lane Expert Tree Care Inc., dated September 11, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 23, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to injure two trees on private property in order to build a parking pad between the trees has been filed by Mr. Christopher Barre, Christopher Barre Architect Inc., 1912 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4L 1H5, agent for the owner of 3256 Yonge Street.

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below.

1)Issue a permit for injury to the two Norway maples on the condition that during construction of the parking pad, the applicant agrees to hire an arborist to implement a tree preservation plan prepared by Shady Lane Expert Tree Care Inc., dated September 11, 1998.

2) Refuse to issue a permit for injury requiring the applicant to abandon plans for the parking pad.

Comments:

The trees in question are forty and ninety centimetre diameter Norway maples in fair condition. A third forty-one centimetre diameter Norway maple will also be affected by the proposed parking pad, it is in poor condition and therefore exempt from the private tree bylaw. The proposed parking pad will impact approximately fifty percent of both root systems resulting in injury to both trees. The arborist report prepared by Shady Lane Expert Tree Care Inc., that accompanies this application recommends the implementation of several steps to lessen the impact of the construction on the health of the trees. The construction of the parking pad will injure the two Norway maple trees and if a permit is issued for injury it is essential that an arborist be contracted to implement the recommendations put forth in the arborist's report to minimize this injury.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. Two written objections were received in response to the application to injure the trees in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Toronto 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

Tree Removal - 10 & 20 Avoca Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for removal of the four trees situated on private property at 10 and 20 Avoca Avenue, conditional on:

(1)the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(2)the applicant planting one eighty millimetre caliper, large growing nursery stock tree for each tree that is approved for removal.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 22, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove four trees on private property in order to repair and waterproof the garage roof deck of the west parking lot has been filed by Mr. Davide Carnevale, The Tree Specialists Inc., 1151 North Service Road W., Oakville, Ontario, L6L 6K4, agent for the owner of 10 & 20 Avoca Avenue.

Recommendations:

That Toronto Community Council approve the request for removal of the four trees situated on private property indicated in this report conditional on:

(2)the applicant planting one eighty millimetre caliper, large growing nursery stock tree for each tree that is approved for removal.

Comments:

The trees in question are thirty-one, thirty-two, thirty-four and thirty-eight centimetre diameter Austrian pines, all in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by The Tree Specialists Inc., that accompanies this application states that to effectively apply a waterproofing membrane to the roof of an underground parking garage, excavation will have to occur in close proximity to the trees mentioned above. The application for tree removal also includes a letter from a Professional Engineer stating that sections of the garage roof cannot be repaired or waterproofed completely unless the trees are removed. The letter recommends that the trees close to the garage roof deck be removed prior to the start of the work so that concrete repair and waterproofing can be continuous over the area of the garage roof deck most subject to water and salt ingress.

In a letter from the Resident Property Manager of the Avoca Apartments Limited, it states that they agree to plant one nursery stock tree for each tree that is approved for removal. In the opinion of Urban Forestry staff this would be an acceptable option if the species chosen for replacement planting are large growing shade trees.

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

Conclusion:

Since repair and waterproofing of the underground garage roof cannot be undertaken without removal of these trees and the applicant will plant four new large growing trees to replace the existing trees after construction is complete, I recommend that approval be granted for removal of these trees in accordance with the recommendations of this report.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

Commercial Boulevard Parking -

232 Christie Street (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Yarmouth Road flankage of 232 Christie Street, notwithstanding the business having a legal non-conforming use status, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Yarmouth Road flankage of 232 Christie Street, because the property has a legal non-conforming use status. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Yarmouth Road flankage of 232 Christie Street;

(2)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Yarmouth Road flankage of 232 Christie Street, notwithstanding the business having a legal non-conforming use status, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14, 1998, had before it a communication (October 2, 1998) from Councillor Disero, respecting Commercial Boulevard Parking - 232 Christie Street.

The Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the request for commercial boulevard parking at 232 Christie Street.

Comments:

Mr. Fenrnando Cordeiro, owner of Moises Grocery, 232 Christie Street, Toronto, Ontario M6G 3B8, submitted an application on November 6, 1997, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Yarmouth Road flankage of 232 Christie Street for the parking of 1 motor vehicle positioned parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').

This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in � 313-39 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.

Applications for commercial boulevard parking are governed by the criteria set out in � 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. One of the provisions of the Municipal Code requires that reference shall be made to the applicable zoning by-law with respect to a commercial boulevard parking application to ensure the current use is either permitted under the applicable zoning by-law or as a legal non-conforming use.

According to Urban Planning and Development Services, the current use of the premises as a retail store is permitted in a residential zone as a legal non-conforming use.

Section 313-42 (F) of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313 states that parking on boulevards in residential areas where property is used for non-residential uses does not apply to any property in an area that is in a residential use district under the applicable zoning by-law which is not used as a residential property by reason of a legal non-conforming non-residential use.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Cordeiro a licence for a commercial boulevard parking space on the Yarmouth Road flankage because the business has a legal non-conforming use status.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

Mr. Fernando Cordeiro, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

232 Christie

Boulevard Cafe -

718 College Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause, by striking out Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3) of the Toronto Community Council, viz.:

"(2)the licensed boulevard cafe area at 720 College Street be reduced to 2.3 m in width, consistent with the width of the cafe area proposed for 718 College Street; and

(3)the cafe operator at 720 College Street be notified of the proposed reduction in the width of the cafe area and be given the opportunity to appear before the Toronto Community Council.".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe at 718 College Street, notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(2)the licensed boulevard cafe area at 720 College Street be reduced to 2.3 m in width, consistent with the width of the cafe area proposed for 718 College Street; and

(3)the cafe operator at 720 College Street be notified of the proposed reduction in the width of the cafe area and be given the opportunity to appear before the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe at 718 College Street, because a written objection was received in response to the public notification. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

(1)That City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 718 College Street;

(2)(a)That City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe at 718 College Street, notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b)That, should City Council approve a boulevard cafe application at 718 College Street, the licensed boulevard cafe area at 720 College Street be reduced to 2.3 m in width, consistent with the width of the cafe area proposed for 718 College Street; and

(c)That the cafe operator at 720 College Street be notified of the proposed reduction in the width of the cafe area and be given the opportunity to appear before the Toronto Community Council.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone, in his communication of September 24, 1998, requested us to report directly to the Toronto Community Council on the denial of the boulevard cafe application at 718College Street.

Comments:

Mr. David DaCosta Alves, 676830 Ontario Ltd., o/a Bocas Cafe, 718 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1C3, submitted an application on June 26, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe at 718 College Street for an area approximately 9.5 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 2 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 9 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes as set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code requires that where the cafe proposal is located on a commercial frontage, a notice must be posted on the property for not less than 14 days to determine neighbourhood support. If a written objection is received, the application must be refused by staff, but such refusal is subject to an appeal by the applicant.

A notice was posted on July 29, 1998, with an expiry date of August 11, 1998, to determine neighbourhood support. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, one letter of objection (Appendix 'B') was received in opposition to the proposed cafe.

Mr. Alves was advised in writing that because of the negative response, we could not issue a licence.

In response to the complainant's concerns pertaining to sidewalk congestion, I advise that there is an in-ground City-owned tree fronting 718 College Street and a transit pole. There is also a transit shelter situated at the curb which fronts both 718 and 720 College Streets. Of note, a boulevard cafe licence has been issued to the abutting business operator at 720 College Street on April 9, 1998. In addition, the cafe operator at 720 College Street has been licensed for cafe privileges on the Crawford Street flankage of the property. On Appendix 'A', I have indicated the licensed cafe area fronting 720 College Street, the proposed cafe area fronting 718 College Street and the physical characteristics of the location (i.e. in-ground tree, transit shelter, etc.) in relation to the proposed and licensed cafe areas.

One of the provisions of � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code is that boulevard cafes located within the City street allowance shall not extend beyond a line located 0.46 m back of and parallel to the sidewalk and that is not less than 2.1 m from the curb. The Department's policy is to provide a minimum 2.13 m clearance from the curb and/or any street furnishings (i.e. trees, utility poles, benches, etc.) in order to maintain adequate pedestrian space.

Given the position of the in-ground tree in relation to the transit shelter and taking into consideration the clearance requirements as described above, the proposed cafe at 718 College Street will therefore be required to be set back further than the licensed cafe at 720 College Street. As such, a meandering sidewalk path for pedestrians results, thus making it more difficult for people with disabilities.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue a licence for a boulevard cafe at 718 College Street due to the negative response to the public posting.

Should the Toronto Community Council decide to recommend approval of the cafe at 718 College Street, it may be appropriate to reduce the width of the licensed cafe at 720 College Street to 2.3 m to be consistent with the width of the proposed cafe at 718 College Street. The resultant straight line of boulevard cafe fences would afford a more amenable walking environment.

As licence holders must be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee or Council prior to cancellation or amendment of their licence, it will necessary to notify the cafe operator at 720College Street of the proposed change in the width of their cafe area fronting 720 College Street.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

Mr. Edgar Aguiar, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Natural Garden Exemption -

56 Gilmour Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code, Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 56 Gilmour Avenue; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services ensure that the ragweed is removed, as the growth of ragweed is contrary to the Noxious Weeds Act.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 5, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide information to Toronto Community Council regarding a request from the owner for a natural garden exemption for 56 Gilmour Avenue in Ward 19, submitted in response to a notice served requiring that long grass and weeds be cut.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code, Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 56 Gilmour Avenue;

(2)That City Council confirm the served notice and direct that a second notice be given under Municipal Code, Chapter 202, Section 202-2D requiring the cutting of grass and weeds, as prescribed in the regulations.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 202 regulates Atall grass and weeds@, requiring same to be cut upon receipt of a served notice. This regulation also provides for an exemption which may be requested on receipt of such a notice, on the basis that the lands form a natural garden. This exemption is required under the regulation to be reported on for decision by City Council. Background information is set out in this report to assist Council.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

A notice was served to the owner of the property known as 56 Gilmour Avenue in Ward 19 to require that grass and weeds be cut, in accordance with Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 202. A letter was received, dated September 23rd, 1998, from the owner requesting exemption from grass and weed cutting requirements on the basis that the property contains a natural garden.

On September 29th, 1998, Parks staff reported that this garden included native perennials which had been planted and were observed as being well taken care of, with the exception of the presence of some ragweed. The growth of ragweed is contrary to the Noxious Weeds Act. Parks staff advise that they will follow up to ensure the removal of the ragweed. This information is included to assist Council in rendering their decision.

Conclusions:

This report is submitted for information to Council in deciding whether or not to exempt the subject lands as a natural garden.

Contact Name:

Judi McBurney

Technical Advisor, Urban Planning and Development

392-7963

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communication (November 9, 1998) from Ms. Susan Meurer, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Natural Garden Exemption -

98 Castlefield Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code, Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 98 Castlefield Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 2, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide information to Toronto Community Council regarding a request from the owner for a natural garden exemption for 98 Castlefield Avenue in Ward 22, submitted in response to a notice served requiring that long grass and weeds be cut.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code, Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 98 Castlefield Avenue;

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 202 regulates "tall grass and weeds", requiring same to be cut upon receipt of a served notice. This regulation also provides for an exemption which may be requested on receipt of such a notice, on the basis that the lands form a natural garden. This exemption is required under the regulation to be reported on for decision by City Council. Background information is set out in this report to assist Council.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On June 18^th, 1998, a notice was served to the owner of the property known as 98 Castlefield Avenue in Ward 22 to require that grass and weeds be cut, in accordance with Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 202. A letter was received on June 22^nd, 1998, from the owner requesting exemption from grass and weed cutting requirements on the basis that the property contains a natural garden.

On September 25^th, 1998, Parks staff advised that at the time of their inspection, there were no noxious weeds or tall grass on the property. They also advised that some of the plant growth encroaching over the sidewalk needed to be pruned back and that the front stone retaining wall needed to be raised up in order to prevent future erosion onto the sidewalk. Information from Parks staff concluded that provided the homeowners continue to remove noxious weeds and tall grass that they had no objection to the contents of the rest of their garden. This information is included in this report for the information of Council in rendering their decision.

Conclusions:

This report is submitted for information to Council in deciding whether or not to exempt the subject lands as a natural garden.

Contact Name:

Judi McBurney

Technical Advisor

Urban Planning and Development

392-7963

--------

Mr. Peter Kemerer, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Natural Garden Exemption -

699 Markham Street (Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 5, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide information to Toronto Community Council regarding a request for a natural garden exemption for 699 Markham Street in Ward 23, received in response to a notice served requiring that long grass and weeds be cut.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council grant an exemption under Municipal Code, Chapter 202, Section 202-2D to cancel the served notice and to allow a natural garden to remain at 699 Markham Street;

Council Reference/Background/History:

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On September 10th, 1998 a notice was served in reference to the property known as 699 Markham Street in Ward 23 to require that grass and weeds be cut, in accordance with Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 202. A letter was received, dated September 10th, 1998, from the occupant of the subject property requesting exemption from grass and weed cutting requirements on the basis that the property contains a natural garden.

On September 29th, 1998, Parks staff reported that at the front of the property an eclectic mix of native and hybrid perennials had been planted, and at the rear there was a small arboretum of trees planted along a walkway, both of which are in keeping with a natural area. No noxious weeds were observed. This information is included to assist Council in rendering their decision.

Conclusions:

This report is submitted for information to Council in deciding whether or not to exempt the subject lands as a natural garden.

Contact Name:

Judi McBurney

Technical Advisor, Urban Planning and Development

392-7963

Appointments to Board of Management -

The 519 Church Street Community Centre

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Mr. Lewis Pearsal, Mr. Fred Hahn, Mr. Markus C. Wilson and Ms Mary Roddy be appointed to the Board of Management of the 519 Church Street Community Centre to replace Ms. Mary Louise Reddick, Ms. Monique Paquin and Mr. Bill Turner, on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (October 21, 1998) addressed to the City Clerk's Department, City Hall, from Ms. Alison Kemper, Executive Director, The 519 Church Street Community Centre:

I would appreciate it if you could bring forward to Community and City Councils the following names of new board members:

Fred Hahn

Markus C. Wilson

Mary Roddy

to replace

Mary Louise Reddick

Monique Paquin

Bill Turner

Thanks for your assistance in this regard.

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Downtown, High Park, Don River, Midtown, North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 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:

(October 21, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variance to permit five encroaching, non-illuminated, projecting, banner signs on the King Street elevation at 18 King Street East.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

That City Council approve Application No. 998080 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit five encroaching, non-illuminated, projecting, banner signs at 18 King Street East.

Comments:

The property is located on the northwest corner of King Street East and Victoria Street, in a mixed use district. The property accommodates a 17-storey commercial building with retail stores on the first floor.

The applicant is requesting permission to install five encroaching, non-illuminated, projecting, banner signs on the south elevation of the building for decorative purposes (see Figure 1). Each of the signs will have a length of 0.74 metres and a height of 0.66 metres, with an area of 0.49 m�.

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

(1)The projecting banner signs will be located above the second storey of the building.

The variance occurs because the banner signs would be installed higher than permitted by the Municipal Code, extending above the second storey level of the building. Signs are permitted to be located only within the first two storeys of a building. This provision restricts signs to their traditional location in order to minimize the impact of signage on the building and on the streetscape. In this instance, the proposed 0.49 m� signs form an integral part of new light fixtures proposed to be erected on the building's south elevation and will be located only 0.8 m above the second floor level. It is my opinion, because of their small size, the five proposed banner signs will not negatively impact the streetscape and surrounding uses.

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

18 King Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

18 King Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

18 King Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

18 King Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 5

18 King Street East

(October 27, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated, fascia sign for identification purposes at 227 Church Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That City Council approve Application No. 998075 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated, fascia sign at 227 Church Street.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Church Street, between Dundas Street East and Shuter Street, in a mixed-use district. The property accommodates a two storey building with a restaurant at grade. The applicant is requesting permission to replace an existing illuminated, canopy sign with a back-lit, illuminated, fascia sign consisting of individual letters for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 5.4 metres and a height of 0.61 metre, with an area of 3.3 m�.

The proposed sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

(1)The proposed sign does not meet the definition of a fascia sign.

The variance occurs because the proposed sign does not meet the definition of a fascia sign. As defined by the Municipal Code, a fascia sign is to be mounted wholly against the wall or parapet wall of the building. The intent of this provision is to prevent and limit the possible negative impact of signage on the appearance of buildings to which they are attached and on adjacent uses. In this instance, the proposed sign, which is comprised of individual letters, though not directly attached to the wall of the building, will be mounted on top of a 0.2 metre wide decorative moulding, which is mounted against the front wall of the building. It is my opinion, that the sign closely resembles a fascia sign and it will not negatively impact the building, streetscape or the surrounding uses.

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) 392-7536E-Mail: ngirdhar@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

227 Church Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

227 Church Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

227 Church Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

227 Church Street

(October 28, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one

non-illuminated, projecting, banner sign for identification purposes at 366 Adelaide Street East.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendation:

That City Council approve Application No. 998083 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one non-illuminated, projecting, banner sign at 366 Adelaide Street East.

Comments:

The property is located on the northeast corner of Adelaide Street East and Sherbourne Street, in the King-Parliament Reinvestment Area. The property accommodates a five storey commercial building with a restaurant and an office furniture showroom at grade. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one non-illuminated, projecting, banner sign, having a length of 0.81 metre and a height of 5.1 metres, with an area of 4.1 m� for identification purposes (see Figure 1).

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

(1)The proposed projecting, banner sign will be located above the second storey of the building.

The variance occurs because the banner sign would be installed higher than permitted by the Municipal Code, extending above the second storey level of the building. Signs are permitted to be located only within the first two storeys of a building. This provision restricts signs to their traditional location in order to minimize the impact of signage on the building and on the streetscape. In this instance, the top end of the proposed banner sign would be slightly above the second floor level. It is my opinion that the proposed sign will not negatively impact the building, streetscape and surrounding uses.

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

366 Adelaide East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

366 Adelaide East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

366 Adelaide East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

366 Adelaide East

(October 28, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated pedestal sign at 110 Bloor Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998078 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated pedestal sign on condition that the owner agree not to erect or authorize an application for any additional freestanding signage on the premises other than the recommended pedestal sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998078, 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 Bloor Street West, west of Bay Street, in a mixed-use (commercial residential) district. The property accommodates a 21 storey mixed-use building with residential uses on the upper storeys and commercial uses at grade. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated pedestal sign within the Bloor Street frontage of the property (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 1.6 metres and a height of 2.5 metres, with an area of 4.0 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will be located 0.8 metres from the streetline 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 amend Chapter 297, Signs of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to increase the separation and setback requirements for ground and pedestal signs in mixed-use commercial/residential districts throughout the City. These regulations are aimed at ensuring that, where possible, commercial streetscapes and view corridors are preserved and enhanced and sightlines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved.

The pedestal sign would be installed immediately opposite the front entrance of the building. In the initial proposal the pedestal sign was proposed adjacent to the streetline. However, I was concerned that a sign this high might block the views of pedestrians resulting in potential conflicts between pedestrians entering and exiting the site in close proximity to the sign. Consequently, I have requested, and the applicant has agreed to set back the sign 0.8 metres from the streetline in order to ensure adequate sightlines. The sign would be located well behind the exterior support columns of the building and a sufficient distance away from the revolving doors of the main entrance and would not endanger nor inconvenience pedestrians. Further, there are no driveways within this block from which motorists' views would be impaired.

I am recommending approval of this application, on condition that no other freestanding signage be erected on the premises. 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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

110 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

110 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

110 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 4

110 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 5

110 Bloor Street West

(October 26, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain two illuminated fascia signs for identification purposes at 2114 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998072 respecting a minor variance from Chapter297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain two illuminated fascia signs at 2114 Yonge Street on the condition that:

*the existing inflatable Michelin / Uniroyal advertising sign placed near the public sidewalk on the south side of Hillsdale Avenue West be removed prior to the issuance of the necessary permits.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998072, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permit from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the southwest corner of Yonge Street and Hillsdale Avenue West, in a mixed-use district. The property accommodates a one-storey automobile service centre. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain two illuminated fascia signs for identification purposes (see Figure 1). Each of the signs have a length of 3.68 metres and a height of 1.47 metres, with an area of 5.4 m�.

The sign on the north elevation does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.The sign does not meet the definition of a fascia sign.

The variance relates only to the sign on the north elevation which does not meet the definition of a fascia sign. As defined by the Municipal Code, a fascia sign is to be mounted wholly against the wall or parapet wall of a building or a sign mounted between the columns of an arcade. The intent of this provision is to prevent and limit the possible negative impact of signage on the appearance of buildings to which they are attached and on adjacent uses. In this instance, though the sign is not mounted wholly against the wall of the building, it is mounted against the column on one side and being supported by a steel frame and brackets on the other side. It is my opinion that the sign closely resembles a fascia sign and it will not negatively impact the building, streetscape and surrounding uses. Further, the owner has agreed that as a condition of approval he will remove the existing inflatable advertising sign near the public sidewalk.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application with a condition respecting the removal of the existing inflatable advertising sign, 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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2114 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2114 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2114 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

2114 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

2114 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

2114 Yonge Street

(October 20, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated pedestal sign, one non-illuminated ground sign and one non-illuminated fascia sign at

100 Queen's Park Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998076 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated pedestal sign, one non-illuminated ground sign and one non-illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998076, 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 Queen's Park Avenue and Bloor Street, in an institutional (Q) district. The property accommodates the Royal Ontario Museum. The property is listed on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties. The applicant is requesting permission to install signage in conjunction with a new theatre entrance that has recently been constructed on the north elevation of the building (see Figure 1).

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

1.the area of the proposed pedestal sign (4.0 m�) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 2.5m� by 1.5 m�;

2.the proposed pedestal sign will have a height of 2.4 metres instead of the maximum permitted 2.0 metres;

3.the proposed ground sign will not be wholly supported by uprights or braces;

4.there will be more than one identification sign within the Queen's Park frontage of the lot; and

5.the proposed fascia sign will be mounted against the door of the building instead of the wall of the building.

The first two variances occur because the proposed pedestal sign will be larger and higher than permitted by the Municipal Code. The size and height 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. The proposed pedestal sign would be used to advertise the current performance in the theatre. The sign would be similar in size and height as the four existing display cabinets north of the building's main entrance and would be installed 2.7 metres from the front lot line in approximately the same location as other already existing signs.

The third variance occurs because the ground sign will not be supported by uprights or braces. The sign consists of 0.4 metre high individual stainless steel letters anchored to a 0.6 metre high decorative concrete wall which would identify the new theatre entrance.

The fourth variance occurs because there will be more than one identification sign within the Queen's Park Avenue frontage of the lot. In this instance, however, the proposed signs would be used for theatre purposes and would not duplicate the function of the existing signs along this building frontage.

The last variance occurs because the proposed fascia sign would be mounted on the door of the new theatre entrance instead of on the wall of the building. In this instance, however, the sign would be used as a directory for visitors to the theatre and its location is appropriate for its intended function. Heritage Toronto staff have advised that they have no objections to this application.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

100 Queen's Park Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

100 Queen's Park Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

100 Queen's Park Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

100 Queen's Park Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 5

100 Queen's Park Avenue

Exemption from Part Lot Control - 150 to 172 King Street East,

61 and 63 Jarvis Street, 199 and 207 Adelaide Street East,

and 80 George Street (Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To initiate the forwarding of a Bill to Council by the City Solicitor, pertaining to properties at 150 to 172 King Street East, 61 and 63 Jarvis Street, and 80 George Street, but excluding 199 and 207 Adelaide Street East, to implement a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor be authorized to submit a Bill to Council exempting from part lot control, pursuant to Section 50(7) of the Planning Act, lands located at 150, 156, 158, 160, 168 and 172 King Street East, 61 and 63 Jarvis Street, and 80 George Street, which were the subject of

Site Plan Approvals under Application Nos. 195026 and 397152, with an expiry date of 7 years from the date of adoption by Council.

Background:

These lands were the subject of Rezoning Application No. 195026 for a mixed use development involving the retention of 3 existing historic commercial buildings and a new mixed use development containing retail and office uses and 120 residential condominium units, resulting in site-specific zoning By-law No. 1997-0233. A Section 37 agreement and an Undertaking were executed, as were Heritage Easement Agreements for the 3 historic buildings.

An amendment to the original Site Plan Approval was approved on October 15, 1998 under Application No. 397152, which revised the layout of the new mixed use development and increased the number of residential units to 156. Minor variances to facilitate such amendments were granted by the Committee of Adjustment on December 17, 1997 and September 2, 1998. Although 199 and 207 Adelaide Street East were originally part of Rezoning Application No. 195026, they were later excluded and were not included in the rezoning boundaries, the Section 37 agreement or the Site Plan Approvals.

Comments:

The current application for an exemption for part lot control included the properties at 199 and 207 Adelaide Street East as well as the rest of the site. Because such lands were excluded, at the applicant's request, from the rezoning, site plan approvals and resulting agreements, it would not be appropriate to include them in a part lot control exemption by-law. The applicant has agreed to their exclusion.

The reasons for the request for a part lot control exemption by-law are threefold, as stated in the application, in that an exemption from part lot control would avoid the need for numerous consent applications to Committee of Adjustment for:

(a)technical boundary adjusting conveyances to improve efficiency of the new building and its construction;

(b)the numerous easements and rights-of-way which will be required to secure the expectations of the commercial and residential occupants of the various buildings; and

(c)separate financing and transfers of the 3 existing heritage buildings prior to registration of a Plan of Condominium, and thereafter while the owners of such buildings continue to own units in the abutting condominium.

These are valid reasons for a part lot control exemption by-law. Inclusion within a registered plan of subdivision is a requirement of Section 50(7) of the Planning Act for the adoption of such a by-law, and the lands are within the Town of York Plan, which the City Surveyor has confirmed is a registered plan of subdivision within the meaning of Section 50 of the Planning Act. The preservation of the 3 existing heritage buildings is secured by means of registered Heritage Easement Agreements, and the proposed new mixed use development is subject to an agreement under Section 41 (Site Plan Approval) of the Planning Act. The new mixed use development will also be subject to a Plan of Condominium and associated agreement(s).

The applicant has agreed that an expiration date of 7 years from the date of adoption is appropriate. That date can be extended through future amendment to the by-law if necessary. The application originally requested that no expiry date be included, but there would not appear to be a valid reason for putting in place a by-law with an indefinite term.

Conclusions:

A part lot control exemption by-law for the site, excluding the lands at 199 and 207 Adelaide Street East, with a 7 year expiry date, is appropriate, and it is recommended that the City Solicitor forward a Bill to Council to implement such a by-law.

Contact Name:

Peter Langdon, Toronto City Hall

Telephone: (416) 392-7617 ; Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

150-172 King Street East, 61 and 63 Jarvis Street and 80 George Street

Naming of Lanes - St. James Court (Don River)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October20, 1998) from the Executive Director of Technical Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the lanes north of Wellesley Street East and east of Wellesley Avenue be officially named "St. James Court".

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

1.That the lanes within the block bounded by Wellesley Street East, Wellesley Avenue, Parkview Avenue and St. James Cemetery, illustrated on Map A attached, be officially named "St. James Court"; and

2.That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

The lane at the rear of premises No. 6 to 16 St. James Court has been laid out by By-law and will soon be dedicated as public highway. In order to facilitate street name based parking at this location, all the lanes within the block should be officially named. It is therefore appropriate to officially name this lane system "St. James Court".

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831

Fax:(416)392-0081

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Map A - Wellesley/St. James /Parkview

Tree Removals - 909-931 Bay Street,

36 and 38 Breadalbane Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October22, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Alexander J. Topps, MBTW, 240 Duncan Mill Road, Suite 500, Toronto, Ontario, M3B 1Z4, for City Council to consider removal of three City owned trees.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be approved on the condition that:

1.the applicant submit a certified cheque in the amount of $5,214.26 to cover the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement costs of three City owned trees;

2.the applicant plant six trees in tree pits on Bay Street City street allowance upon completion of the project; and

3.the Landscape Plan L-1 and D-1, prepared by MBTW dated September 18, 1998 be revised to be in accordance with the City of Toronto Standard Continuous Tree Pit Planting Detail Nos. 103, 103-1, 103-2 & 103-3.

Background:

This request for tree removal forms part of a Site Plan Approval application filed with Urban Planning and Development Services for the purpose of facilitating construction of a mixed use residential/commercial condominium (Phase 3).

Comments:

There are four City owned trees involved with this project. One Norway Maple is in poor condition and will be removed and replaced at no cost to the applicant. Three trees are in fair to good condition and are the subject of this application for removal. The trees in question are one Green Ash and two Honey Locust trees which have diameters ranging from 12 to 24 centimetres.

The applicant reports that Urban Planning & Development Services has requested that the boulevard along Bay Street be reconstructed to conform with the City standards for sidewalk boulevard design and this requires removal of three City owned trees.

These three trees have a combined value of $1,416.29. The costs to remove these trees is $129.36 and the costs to replace three City owned trees in sidewalk are $3,668.61, for a total of $5,214.26.

The applicant proposes to plant six trees in sidewalk tree pits along Bay Street. In addition there will be eight new tree plantings on private property as part of the landscape improvements associated with this project.

Conclusion:

Since the proposed tree plantings on City and private property will be a substantial improvement over existing conditions, I therefore recommend approval for removal of these three trees subject to conditions set out in this report.

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, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (November 11, 1998) from Mr. A.J. Topps, Principal, MBTW, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Tree Removal - 18 Foxbar Road (Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the request to remove one City-owned tree at 18 Foxbar Road be denied; and

(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and/or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be directed to refuse any application to construct a driveway between the two existing city trees.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 22, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Robert J, McCrea, Robert J. McCrea Architect, 31 Chaplin Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M5P 1A2, for City Council to consider removal of one City owned tree. Mr. McCrea reports that the tree is in direct conflict with a proposed driveway and integral garage addition. In addition, the applicant proposes to plant a 150 mm caliper Red Oak on City street allowance as a replacement tree.

Source of Funding:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this request for tree removal be denied.

Background:

On August 5, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment heard the application for a proposed driveway and integral garage for this property. The Committee's decision was to grant the application conditional on the revised proposal satisfying the requirements of Forestry Services with respect to protecting the two City owned Silver Maples.

Comments:

There are two large Silver Maples fronting this property. Both trees are in fair condition. The tree in question is a 78 cm diameter Silver Maple which is valued at $5,004.34. Forestry inspected the tree on October 21, 1998 and found that the tree does not qualify for routine removal.

The applicant points out that removal of the tree would permit construction of a garage and a straight driveway out to the street. The alternative would be construction of a driveway between the two existing trees which would damage approximately 25% of the root systems of both trees and result in a curved and humped driveway. Neither option is good for the City trees although the trees would survive the second option.

Should Council deny the tree removal request, the applicant will pursue the second option outlined above installing the driveway between the two trees. In this case the applicant would be required to post a letter of credit or certified cheque for the tree values, removal costs and replacements costs. This letter of credit or certified cheque would be held for three years after completion of construction. If the trees are in fair condition at the end of a three year period, the monies will be released. However, should the trees require removal within three years, the City of Toronto will collect, and use the funds to remove and replace the trees.

Conclusions:

Since the Silver Maple is a large and significant tree on the street and the tree is not structurally unsound, dead or dying, I recommend that the request for tree removal be denied.

However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, I recommend that the applicant pay all costs involved; this includes the tree value of $5,004.34, the removal costs of $653.27, and the costs to plant a replacement, $475.01, for a total of $6,132.62.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

Email: wquan@city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-1940; Fax: 416-392-6657

Tree Removal - 585 Balliol Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request to remove one City-owned tree at 585 Balliol Street be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 6, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Janko Naglic, 585 Balliol Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4S1E1, for City Council to consider removal of one City owned tree because he is concerned that the tree might fall and damage his house.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 64 cm diameter Norway maple which is in good condition and is valued at $4,656.33. Staff inspected the tree on September 22, 1998 and found that the tree does not qualify for routine removal and is a significant tree in this neighbourhood.

Since there are very few large canopy trees in the proximity of this tree, and the removal of this tree would significantly affect the aesthetics of the area, there is no staff support for the removal of this tree.

However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, it is recommended that the owner be required to pay all costs involved, this includes the tree value of $4,656.33, removal costs of $1,024.42 and the cost to plant a replacement tree, $475.01, for a total of $6,155.76.

Contact Name:

Paulette Mullings

Email: pmulling@city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-6640; Fax: 416-392-6657

Tree Removal - 220 Prescott Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request to remove one City-owned tree at 220 Prescott Avenue, subject to the owner paying all costs involved, including the tree value of $982.27, removal costs of $290.51 and the cost to plant a replacement tree of $475.01, for a total of $1,747.79.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 6, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Luis Pacheco, 220 Prescott Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M6N 3B1, for City Council to consider removal of one City owned tree for parking on the City street allowance.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 35 cm diameter Hawthorn tree which is in good condition and is valued at $982.27. Staff inspected the tree on September 21, 1998 and found that the tree does not qualify for routine removal.

Since this street already has on-street parking, and the tree stands in good condition, there is no staff support for the removal of this tree.

However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, it is recommended that the owner be required to pay all costs involved, this includes the tree value of $982.27, removal costs of $290.51, and the cost to plant a replacement tree, $475.01, for a total of $1,747.79.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

Email: wquan@city.toronto.on.ca

Tel: 416-392-1940

Fax: 416-392-6657

Boulevard Cafe - De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street

Koo Koo Roo Canada Limited (Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street, during the 1998 cafe season.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council approve the continuation of the existing boulevard cafe licence on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, i.e. 10:00 p.m. closing time, 7 days a week; and

2.That, should City Council approve the continuation of the boulevard cafe licence, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back after the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, approved the application for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue Flankage of 1510 Yonge Street on a temporary basis for the 1998 cafe season, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and the patio being closed at 10:00 p.m. and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to review this matter at the end of the 1998 cafe season.

Comments:

Licences for boulevard cafes are governed by the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The provisions of the Municipal Code require the applicant approved for a boulevard cafe, prior to receiving a licence or permission to operate a boulevard cafe, to pave the area for cafe purposes, provide a third party liability insurance policy to indemnify the City, pay in advance an annual rental fee for the use of the City boulevard used for cafe purposes and enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Paving of the City boulevard was completed on or about August 21, 1998 and on September 8, 1998, the requisite insurance documentation was received. Subsequently, a licence was issued on September 24, 1998 to Mr.CraigFindlay, President & COO, Koo Koo Roo Canada Partners Ltd. to operate the cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street.

Conclusions:

Given that the cafe season was well underway before the boulevard cafe licence was issued for the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street, it would be appropriate for us to monitor the cafe over the 1999 cafe season and report back to the Toronto Community Council at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe. All conditions of previous approval will continue to be applied.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Boulevard Cafe - Ossington Avenue flankage of

832 College Street - Coffee Time (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the Ossington Street flankage of 832 College Street during the 1998 cafe season.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Ossington Avenue flankage of 832 College Street, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, i.e. Sunday to Thursday 10:30 p.m. closing time and Friday and Saturday 11:30 p.m. closing time, since there were no complaints received from the neighbourhood.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, approved the application for a boulevard cafe on the Ossington Avenue flankage of 832 College Street, 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 patio being closed and cleared by 10:30 p.m. from Sunday to Thursday and by 11:30 p.m. on Friday and Saturday;

and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Comments:

A licence for the cafe on the Ossington Avenue flankage of 832 College Street (Coffee Time) was issued on July 23, 1998.

During the 1998 cafe season, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Inspections confirmed that the proprietor complied with the restrictions and the other requirements of � 313-36 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, including the closing time restrictions.

In addition, we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

Conclusions:

Given that the cafe operated during the 1997 cafe season without any incidents, I am recommending that the licence be renewed annually under the present terms and conditions.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Boulevard Cafe - Holly Street flankage of

45 Eglinton Avenue East

Fran Restaurants (North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the Holly Street flankage of 45 Eglinton Avenue East, during the 1998 cafe season.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Holly Street flankage of 45 Eglinton Avenue East, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, i.e. 11:00 p.m. closing time, 7 days a week, since there were no complaints received from the neighbourhood.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, approved the application for a boulevard cafe on the Holly Street flankage of 45 Eglinton Avenue East, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with criteria set out in �313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the patio to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998.

Comments:

As outlined in the Department's earlier report (April 22, 1998), Mr. Deck's proposal was modified at staff's request to ensure that the cafe area was wide enough to accommodate patrons in wheelchairs. Mr. Deck paid for the reconstruction of a portion of the sidewalk to meet this requirement and the work was completed on August 17, 1998.

Subsequently, a boulevard cafe licence was issued to Mr. Deck on August 25, 1998.

Periodic inspections show that the proprietor has complied with the requirements of � 313-36 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, including the closing time restriction of 11:00p.m.

In addition, we have not received any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

Conclusions:

Given that there were no complaints received regarding the operation of the cafe during the 1998 cafe season, I would recommend the continuation of the licence.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (November 10, 1998) from Councillor Johnston:

I am writing in support of the recommendation that City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Holly Street flankage of 45 Eglinton Avenue East, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, i.e. 11:00 p.m. closing time, 7 days a week, since there were no complaints received from the neighbourhood.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (November 9, 1998) from Mr. G. Francis Deck, Fran Restaurants Ltd., and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Boulevard Cafe - Kenilworth Avenue flankage of

1961 Queen Street East - Extension of Hours -

Whitlock's Restaurant (East Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extended hours of operation from 10:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, for the boulevard cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage of 1961 Queen Street East, during the 1998 cafe season.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage of 1961 Queen Street East, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, i.e. 11:00 p.m. closing time, 7 days a week, since there were no complaints received from the neighbourhood.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, approved the extended hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage of 1961 Queen Street East from 10:00p.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, to continue until the end of the 1998 cafe season, subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Street and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back to the Toronto Community Council at the end of the 1998 cafe season.

Comments:

Periodic inspections show that the proprietor has complied with the conditions as approved by City Council and other requirements of � 313-36 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter313, including the closing time restriction of 11:00p.m.

In addition, we have consulted with a representative from Toronto Police Service who advised that they have no complaints on file pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

Conclusions:

Given that the proprietor has complied 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 the conditions imposed by City Council, I am recommending that the licence be renewed annually under the present terms and conditions.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Boulevard Cafe - Roxborough Street West flankage of

1094 Yonge Street - Extension of Hours -

Espressimo Caffebar (Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extended hours of operation from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, for the boulevard cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street, during the 1998 cafe season.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, i.e. 11:00 p.m. closing time, 7 days a week, since there were no complaints received from the neighbourhood.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, approved the extension of the boulevard cafe operating hours from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week for the boulevard cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street, 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 requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours.

Comments:

A licence to extend the boulevard cafe operating hours from 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, was issued on August 12, 1998.

During the 1998 cafe season, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Inspections confirmed that the proprietor complied with the restrictions and other requirements of � 313-36 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, including the closing time restrictions.

In addition, we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

Conclusions:

Given that the cafe operated during the 1998 cafe season without any incidents, I am recommending that the licence be renewed annually under the present terms and conditions.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Reduction of Speed Limit - Oak Park Avenue

to Newmarket Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October13, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the operating speed of vehicles on this section of Oak Park Avenue and improve operational safety.

Funding Sources:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the maximum speed limit on Oak Park Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Newmarket Avenue be reduced from 50 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Tom Jakobek and in consultation with Councillor Sandra Bussin, staff of Works and Emergency Services have reviewed a speeding complaint on Oak Park Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Newmarket Avenue with a view to reducing the operating speeds of traffic.

Oak Park Avenue between Danforth Avenue and Newmarket Avenue is a residential street operating two-way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres and a 50 kilometres per hour maximum speed limit. Alternate side parking and overnight permit parking regulations are in effect on this section of Oak Park Avenue.

A 24-hour speed and volume survey carried out on August 12, 1998 on Oak Park Avenue between Gates Avenue and Newmarket Avenue recorded a total of 887 vehicles travelling on this street of which 102 vehicles (11.5%) exceeded the speed limit. Only 1 vehicle was recorded traveling at an excessive rate of speed in excess of 10 km/h over the speed limit.

The previous City of Toronto Council, at its meeting on August 21, 1997 adopted, as amended, Clause 28 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 the primary criteria stipulates among other things that the current posted speed limit should be 40 km/h and that the daily traffic volume should be between 1,000 and 8,000 vehicles on the street being evaluated for speed hump installation, Oak Park Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Newmarket Avenue does not presently satisfy the installation criteria for speed humps.

As an alternative, the maximum speed limit on Oak Park Avenue between Danforth Avenue and Newmarket Avenue should be reduced from 50 km/h to 40 km/h. This would be consistent with the policy within the Toronto Community Council's area to reduce the speed limit to 40 km/h on local/residential streets to enhance operational safety and reduce incidence of speeding.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, 392-7771

Installation of Speed Humps - Shaw Street from

Bloor Street West to College Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to consult with the affected Ward Councillors and submit a report to the Toronto Community Council on alternative ways to address the cycling demands in the Shaw Street area resulting from the loss of bicycle lanes.".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidence of speeding vehicles on Shaw Street between Bloor Street West and College Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $20,000, funds for which are available in Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That in order to proceed with the installation of speed humps on Shaw Street from Bloor Street West to College Street, the traffic calming plan which was previously approved (but yet to be implemented) by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of July 14, 1997 (Clause 2 in City Services Committee Report No. 9) should be rescinded as follows:

(a)By-law No. 1997-0350 respecting pavement narrowings at specified locations on Shaw Street, from Bloor Street West to College Street, be rescinded;

(b)By-law No. 1997-0343 respecting the installation of a southbound bicycle lane on the west side of Shaw Street, from Bloor Street West to Dewson Street and from a point 70 metres south of Dewson Street to College Street, be rescinded; and

(c)the parking regulations which existed prior to the approval of the traffic calming plan be reinstated by approving the amendments to Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code identified in Appendix A attached to this report;

(2)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Shaw Street, from Bloor Street West to College Street 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 SHAW STREET from Bloor Street West to College Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5277, dated October, 1998."

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

(4)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 may be required.

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of July 14, 1997 approved a traffic calming plan for the section of Shaw Street from Bloor Street West to College Street (Clause 2 of City Services Committee Report No. 9) consisting of selected road narrowings using precast concrete islands and a bicycle lane in order to reduce traffic speeds. This plan was developed over a period of two years and was endorsed by area resident representatives prior to approval of the current speed hump policy by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997. Area residents upon having seen the use of speed humps on other streets, requested Trinity-Niagara Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva to revisit this matter with a view to implementing speed humps in place of the previously approved traffic calming plan, which has not yet been implemented.

Comments:

At the request of Councillors Pantalone and Silva on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Shaw Street between Bloor Street West and College Street. A speed hump plan was prepared and presented at a public meeting held on September 22, 1998 attended by both Councillors, residents of Shaw Street and staff of Works and Emergency Services. It was agreed that the previously approved traffic calming plan should not be pursued but rather that Works staff prepare the necessary report to implement a speed hump plan.

The subject section of Shaw Street operates one-way southbound with a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Speed surveys conducted in 1996 indicate typical daily traffic volumes of approximately 2,500 vehicles of which over 60% exceeded the speed limit south of Bloor Street West and 40% south of Harbord Street. In addition, Shaw Street is part of a designated bicycle route extending from Hallam Street in the north to King Street West in the south.

The traffic calming proposal is illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5277 dated October, 1998 and consists of 12 speed humps spaced approximately 40 to 90 metres apart. In addition a reduction of the speed limit to 30 kilometres per hour is also appropriate to maintain safe operating speeds for motorists to travel over the humps. With the reinstatement of the parking regulations noted in Recommendation No. 1(c) and identified in Appendix A, there will be no impact on current parking arrangements and any impact 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 meets technical criteria, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. 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 results at a deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to Shaw Street, as described 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 Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin, Manager of Transportation Operations, 392-7773

--------

Appendix A

Municipal Code Chapter 400 Article VII - Schedules, Parking Amendments Required to rescind the Shaw Street, from Bloor Street West to College Street, Traffic Calming Plan

1. �400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
INSERT

Shaw Street	East	Harbord Street and the lane first north of College Street	Anytime, from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year.
Shaw Street	West	Bloor Street West and Harbord Street	Anytime, from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive.
Shaw Street	West	Dewson Street and a point 73 metres south of it.	8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Mon. To Fri.
DELETE
Shaw Street	East	32 metres north of College Street	81 metres further north
Shaw Street	West	118 metres north of College Street	Dewson Street
Shaw Street	East	Dewson Street	110 metres further north
Shaw Street	East	90 metres south of Harbord Street	Harbord Street
Shaw Street	East	85 metres north of Harbord Street	123 metres further north
Shaw Street	East	117 metres south of Bloor Street West	Bloor Street West

2.�400-79B - Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking, Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
INSERT
Shaw Street	Even	From Harbord Street to Bloor Street West	47	All times, except no parking first day to the 15^th day of each month from Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive, and no parking anytime from Dec. 1.of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive
Shaw Street	Odd	From Harbord Street to Bloor Street West	47	All times, except no parking 16^th day to the last day of each month from Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive.
DELETE
Shaw Street	Odd	From Harbord Street to 85 metres further north	9	All times
Shaw Street	Even	From 110 metres north of Harbord Street to 78 metres further north	13	All times
Shaw Street	Odd	From 182 metres south of Bloor Street West to 66 metres further north	12	All times
Shaw Street	Even	From 100 metres south of Bloor Street West to 59 metres further north	11	All times

--------

3.�400-79B - Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking, Part P: 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
INSERT
Shaw Street	Even	From College Street to Harbord Street	63	All times, except no parking first day to the 15^th day of each month from Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive; no parking 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Mon. to Fri. from Dewson St. to a point 73 metres south of it.
Shaw Street	Odd	From College Street to Harbord Street	61	All times, except no parking 16^th day to the last day of each month from Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive, no parking anytime from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive
DELETE
Shaw Street	Odd	From College Street to 32 metres further north	3	All times
Shaw Street	Even	From 45 metres north of College Street to 41 metres further north	9	All times
Shaw Street	Odd	From 75 metres south of Dewson Street to Dewson Street	12	All times
Shaw Street	Even	From Dewson Street to 93 metres further north	15	All times
Shaw Street	Odd	From 156 metres south of Harbord Street to 66 metres further north	12	All times
Shaw Street	Even	From 75 metres south of Harbord Street to Harbord Street	11	All times

--------

4.�400-81 - Schedule XXVIII - Alternate Side Parking.

Highway	Side	Between	Parking Restrictions	Hours/Days
INSERT
Shaw Street	West	Bloor Street West and a point 15 metres north of College Street	No parking; from Apr. 1 to Dec. 1	First day to the 15^th day of each month, inclusive
Shaw Street	East	Bloor Street West and a point 15 metres north of College Street	No parking; from Apr. 1 to Dec. 1	16^th day to the last day of each month, inclusive

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (November 11, 1998) from Mr. Bruce A. McKinnon, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Shaw Street

Installation of Speed Bumps - Lane bounded by

Davenport Road, Laughton Avenue,

Uxbridge Avenue and Pelham Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on a request for the installation of speed bumps in the subject public lane.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation of speed bumps in the public lane bounded by Davenport Road, Laughton Avenue, Uxbridge Avenue and Pelham Avenue, as shown on Drawing Nos. 421F-5251 and 421F-5252, 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 received a request from Councillor Betty Disero, regarding the feasibility of installing speed bumps in the public lane bounded by Davenport Road, Laughton Avenue, Uxbridge Avenue and Pelham Avenue. This laneway satisfies the criteria for the installation of speed bumps.

The type and design of the speed bumps to be installed are shown on attached Drawing Nos.421F-5251 and 421F-5252.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin, Manager of Transportation Operations, 392-7773

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Uxbridge/Pelham/Laughton Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Uxbridge/Pelham/Laughton Avenue

Reduction of Speed Limit - Alexander Street,

between Yonge Street and Church Street (Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on all local streets within the Community Council's boundaries which have a speed limit of 50 km per hour, with a view to examining where the speed limit should be reduced to 40 km per hour.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to enhance operational safety for pedestrians and vehicular traffic on this street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the speed limit be reduced from fifty kilometres per hour to forty kilometres per hour on Alexander Street, between Yonge Street and Church 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 Councillor Kyle Rae, I have investigated reducing the speed limit on Alexander Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street to enhance operational safety for pedestrians and vehicular traffic on this street.

Twenty-four hour traffic speed and volume surveys were conducted for a three day period (September 25-27, 1998 inclusive) on Alexander Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street. On average, this section of Alexander Street carried 2,324 vehicles daily of which 85.2% travelled at or below the maximum speed limit, 12.1% travelled between 51 km/h and 60 km/h and 2.7% travelled at an excessive rate of speed greater than 10 km/h over the speed limit.

Although there does not appear to be a significant speeding problem on Alexander Street, between Yonge Street and Church Street, considering the residential nature of this street and in keeping with the policy adopted by the previous City of Toronto Council to implement a reduced maximum speed limit on local/residential streets, the maximum speed limit should be lowered to 40 km/h.

This might reduce incidents of "top end" speeding on the street and is an appropriate means of addressing residents concerns respecting safety.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771

Installation of "Stop" Sign Control -

Intersection of Glen Gordon Road and Indian Grove (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October27, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To implement "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Glen Gordon Road and Indian Grove.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for westbound traffic on Glen Gordon Road at its intersection with Indian Grove; 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 Keele Street/Parkside Drive Traffic Safety Committee, Works staff investigated the feasibility of installing a westbound "Stop" sign at the intersection of Glen Gordon Road and Indian Grove.

Glen Gordon Road in the vicinity of Indian Grove operates one-way westbound with a pavement width of 6.0 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Indian Grove in the vicinity of Glen Gordon Road operates one-way southbound with a pavement width which varies between 6.7 and 7.0 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Both streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection and there is currently no "Stop" sign control in any direction of travel at this intersection.

An examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection revealed that from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997, there were no reported collisions.

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the criteria governing the installation of a "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 a "Stop" sign control have been satisfied.

Specifically, the installation of "Stop" sign control for motorists westbound on Glen Gordon Road would clearly establish right-of-way for vehicular traffic at the subject intersection and would enhance safety for pedestrians.

Davenport Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fotinos have been advised of this proposal and have no objections to this request.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

Parking Conditions - Walmer Road, from Bloor Street West

to a point 70 metres north (Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the frequency of illegal parking on both sides of Walmer Road, north of Bloor Street West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That stopping be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Walmer Road from Bloor Street West to a point 70 metres 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:

In response to a request from the Toronto Police Service, Parking Enforcement Unit, Works staff investigated the feasibility of implementing a "No Stopping" zone on Walmer Road, north of Bloor Street West, to reduce the incidence of illegal parking on both sides of the street.

Walmer Road from Bloor Street West to Lowther Avenue operates two-way and has a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on both sides of the street.

The Toronto Transit Commission is currently undertaking modifications to the Spadina Station to accommodate the Spadina Light Rail Transit and more specifically are constructing a new automatic entrance to the station on the east side of Walmer Road approximately 70 metres north of Bloor Street West. After consultation with staff of the Toronto Transit Commission, it has been determined that this construction should be completed within a twelve month period.

During the construction period, Walmer Road from Bloor Street West to a point 70 metres north will be operating one-way southbound to accommodate pavement width restrictions associated with the construction.

A review of the parking conditions has revealed that motorists are parking and/or stopping on the roadway, and sometimes over the sidewalks, on both sides of Walmer Road in proximity to Bloor Street West to shop at the various retail stores. This parking practise creates a bottleneck for vehicles attempting to access/egress the intersection and compromises the safety of pedestrians crossing Walmer Road.

To rectify this situation, stopping should be prohibited on both sides of Walmer Road, from Bloor Street West to a point 70 metres north thereof. This proposal, if implemented, should not interfere with current retail loading operations which can now take place from Bloor Street West during non-rush period times.

Accordingly, should Recommendation No. 1 above be implemented, signs to give effect to

the stopping prohibition on both sides of Walmer Road will be posted upon completion of the scheduled work. In addition, as requested by Councillor Ila Bossons, bollards will be installed in conjunction with the "No Stopping" zone to further deter illegal parking north of the intersection.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Thomas L. McCulloch, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

Parking Prohibition - Wood Street, North Side -

East of Yonge Street (Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to enhance loading/unloading operations for patrons of the Howard Johnson Hotel, Premises No. 475 Yonge Street, during current renovations at the hotel.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the stopping prohibition at anytime on the north side of Wood Street, from a point 189.0 metres west of Church Street to a point 20.5 metres further west and from a point 220.5 metres west of Church Street to a point 22.0 metres further west, be rescinded;

(2)That the standing prohibition at anytime on the north side of Wood Street, from Yonge Street to a point 51.8 metres further east, be rescinded;

(3)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Wood Street, from a point 189.0 metres west of Church Street to Yonge Street; 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 the management of the Howard Johnson Hotel (Premises No. 475 Yonge Street), and in consultation with staff of the Toronto Police Service, Parking Enforcement Unit and Councillor Kyle Rae, Works staff have investigated temporarily relaxing the stopping/standing prohibition at anytime on the north side of Wood Street, east of Yonge Street on the flankage of the Howard Johnson Hotel to allow guests and taxicabs to legally stop and pick-up/drop-off passengers and luggage at the curb during renovations at the hotel, which have temporarily eliminated access to off-street facilities where these operations took place.

Wood Street, from Church Street to Yonge Street operates two-way on a pavement which ranges in width from 7.3 metres (near Church Street) to 14.6 metres (near Yonge Street). Stopping and/or Standing are prohibited at anytime on the north side of the street from a point 189.0 metres west of Church Street to Yonge Street, which encompasses the area fronting the pedestrian entrance/exit to the Howard Johnson Hotel. Stopping also is prohibited at anytime on the south side of Wood Street across from the hotel.

Although, a vehicle while actually engaged in loading/unloading passengers may legally do so in the area where standing is prohibited (between Yonge Street and a point 51.8 metres east), this is about 30 metres away from the hotel entrance and technically, luggage or other merchandise may not legally be unloaded anywhere along the flankage of the hotel. Consequently, patrons of the hotel experience some inconvenience. Parking Enforcement staff are aware of the situation and have been giving some consideration to hotel patrons and taxicabs. Nevertheless, some vehicles are receiving parking tags at times when officers that are less familiar with the current situation are working in the neighbourhood.

Our site inspections have revealed that vehicles stopped on Wood Street in the vicinity of the pedestrian entrance/exit to the Howard Johnson Hotel do not adversely impact on safety or traffic operation. In fact, the current stopping/standing regulations were essentially implemented many years ago to enhance traffic operation and discourage illegal parking that often occurred when events were taking place at Maple Leaf Gardens or at the Odeon Carlton Theatre (which has been closed for several years).

Based on our assessment, the current stopping/standing prohibitions on the north side of Wood Street from a point 189.0 metres west of Church Street to Yonge Street should be rescinded and in place thereof, parking should be prohibited at anytime. Loading Only tabs would be affixed to the regulatory signs required to give effect to the parking prohibition. Implementation of this proposal would legally allow motorists to stop and drop-off/pick-up passengers and luggage or other merchandise. However, this arrangement should be temporary in nature and re-evaluated later in the summer of 1999 when the renovations at the Howard Johnson Hotel are expected to be complete.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771

Permit Parking - Rosewell Avenue,

between Lawrence Avenue West and Cheritan Avenue

(North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October29, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To report on the permit parking hours of operation on Rosewell Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue West and Cheritan Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That Rosewell Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue West and Cheritan Avenue, be deleted from Schedule 'F' (12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.) of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(2)That Rosewell Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue West and Cheritan Avenue, be included in Schedule 'A' (12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.) of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

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

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14, 1998, had before it a communication (October 14, 1998) from Councillor Anne Johnston, respecting the change in parking regulations on Rosewell Avenue from Lawrence Avenue West to Cheritan Avenue and:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the change in the parking regulations on Rosewell Avenue from Lawrence Avenue West to Cheritan Avenue; and

(2)requested that, in the meantime, the parking signs formerly in place on Rosewell Avenue, from Lawrence Avenue West to Cheritan Avenue, be replaced immediately, as requested by residents.

Comments:

Rosewell Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue West and Cheritan Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on both sides of the street on a street name basis and has a total of 28 permits issued against 104 on-street parking spaces.

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of March 21, 1988, passed a by-law to amend the former City of Toronto Permit Parking By-law No. 21333, to extend the hours of operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The by-law was amended, however, due to an error, the actual permit parking signs in the field remained 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Acting on a complaint from a resident of the street on long-term, non-resident parking, on May 6, 1997, staff of this department in a field inspection confirmed that the by-law did not correspond to the permit parking signs posted in the field. Given that the posting of the permit parking signs to indicate the appropriate permit parking hours would have resulted in a major change to the parking conditions on the street, in a communication to the former Councillor Kay Gardner, staff advised of the discrepancy and requested the Councillor's comments.

Since no comments were received, regrettably the file was closed without rectifying the mistake.

On April 16, 1998, while staff were reviewing a Site Plan Control application from the Havergal College Lower School, detected the discrepancy again. On May 11, 1998, a work order instruction was issued and the signs were changed to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on May 20, 1998. Regrettably, no consultation was done with the residents of the street or the Council members.

Any reduction of permit parking operating hours constitutes a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders.

However, given that the residents of Rosewell Avenue have enjoyed the permit parking hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. since 1988, the reduction of permit parking hours is not considered as a deprivation to permit holders.

Under the circumstances, I would recommend that a technical amendment be made to Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to amend the permit parking hours on Rosewell Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue and Cheritan Avenue, to indicate permit parking between 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Arrangements have been made to revert the permit parking signs on the street back to 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Conclusions:

Even though the Permit Parking By-law was amended in 1988 to indicate the extended hours on Rosewell Avenue, between Lawrence Avenue West and Cheritan Avenue, to 12:01 a.m. to 6:00p.m., the permit parking signs on the street remained 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. until May 20, 1998.

The reduction of permit parking hours will have no impact on the parking privileges enjoyed by these residents insofar as for the past 10 years they adhered to the permit parking hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Given that the residents wish to maintain the 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. permit parking hours, I would recommend that Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to reflect the permit parking hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

Installation of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces

(High Park, Trinity-Niagara and Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October22, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

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

All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits as issued by the Ministry of

Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878

--------

TABLE "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

19Earnbridge Street, south side, from a point 59.5 metres east of Brock Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. Ross McDonald, a resident of Premises No. 16 Earnbridge Street).

20Adelaide Street West, north side, from a point 9 metres east of Shaw Street to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Ms.Kyra Justine Levy, a resident of Premises No. 926 Adelaide Street West).

20Margueretta Street, west side, from a point 44.5 metres north of Dundas Street West to a point 5.5 metres further north..

(Source: Mr. Manuel Sousa, resident of Premises No. 11 Margueretta Street).

21Somerset Avenue, east side, from a point 61 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 5.5 metres further south..

(Source: Ms. Elvira Furlano, resident of Premises No. 87 Somerset Avenue).

Front Yard Parking for Disabled Persons -

26 Ascot Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council permit the excess concrete paving fronting 26 Ascot Avenue to remain in place.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To comment on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the excess concrete paving to remain in connection with the disabled front yard parking application.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council request the removal of the excess concrete paving fronting 26 Ascot Avenue and that permeable materials such as gravel, turf stone or ecostone be installed at 2.4 m from the base of the tree.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14 and 15, 1998, had before it a communication (September 24, 1998), from Councillor Betty Disero, requesting that the disabled front yard parking application at 26 Ascot Avenue be reconsidered.

The Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report at that time.

Comments:

Mr. Mario Rummo and Mrs. Concetta Rummo, co-owners of 26 Ascot Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6E 1E7, applied for disabled front yard parking fronting their residence. The application was approved and subsequently a construction and paving permit No. SACP 97-P202 was issued.

One of the provisions of the issuance of the permit required that no paving in concrete be permitted for a distance of 4.0 m from the base of the City owned tree and that the concrete pad cannot exceed a maximum of 2.5 m.

There is a large 70 cm diameter Norway Maple City owned tree fronting the adjacent property to the east at 24 Ascot Avenue and it is in fair condition. The specifications for trees over 50 cm in diameter require that no impermeable paving be installed within 4.0 m from the base of the tree and semi-permeable paving is permitted between 2.4 m and 4.0 m.

Prior to paving the area, Mr. Rummo called our office and enquired if he could pave the entire front yard in concrete. He was advised not to use concrete due to the tree next door and to keep the concrete area to the maximum allowed as per permit No. SACP-97-P202. He was also advised that if he wished to pave using brick pavers, the area could be expanded to accommodate a walkway adjacent to the parking area to be used for the wheelchair.

Inspection by Urban Forestry staff and staff of this Department determined that most of the front yard was paved in concrete, in excess of and in contravention to the permit issued. The concrete paving is 4.1 m in width and within 2.4 m from the base of the tree. Cement paving will not permit air and water penetration to the roots of the tree, and will eventually cause the tree to die back. Installing any impermeable materials within 2.4 m of the bases of City trees is in contravention of this Department's specifications and Article 1 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331. The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism is requesting the permeable materials such as gravel, turf stone or ecostone be installed at 2.4 m from the base of the tree instead of the cement paving.

Mr. Rummo was advised to remove the paving by letter dated February 11, 1998, and again advised directly by Urban Forestry staff on March 18, 1998.

In our subsequent letter of September 14, 1998, Mr. Rummo was advised that his file has been closed and that any parking taking place is considered unauthorized and subject to by-law enforcement.

Conclusions:

The Norway Maple tree adjacent to 26 Ascot Avenue, fronting 24 Ascot Avenue is 70 cm in diameter and is in fair condition. The specifications for trees over 50 cm in diameter require that no impermeable paving be installed within 4.0 m from the base of the tree and semi-permeable paving is permitted between 2.4 m and 4.0 m. To ensure the continuous health of this tree, the excess paving must be removed and permeable materials such as gravel, turf stone or ecostone be installed at 2.4m from the base of the tree.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778Warren Quan, 392-1940

Works and Emergency ServicesEconomic Development, Culture & Tourism

--------

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (September 24, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Mario Rummo of 26 Ascot Avenue, with respect to his application for disabled front yard parking privileges fronting his premises.

I am taking the liberty of enclosing copies of letters from Works and Emergency Services dated February 11, 1998 and September 14, 1998, respectively.

As you will note in the letter dated February 11, 1998, a construction and paving permit was issued to Mr. Rummo for the paving of the approved disabled front yard parking area. One of the provisions of the issuance of the permit required that no paving in concrete be permitted for a distance of 4.00 m from the base of the City-owned tree and also, that the concrete pad cannot exceed a maximum of 2.50 m.

According to Works and Emergency Services, inspection revealed that Mr. Rummo deviated from the conditions of the permit, in that the amount of paving exceeds the maximum permitted. At this point, Mr. Rummo was informed to remove the excessive paving, as required by City specifications, as indicated on the attached map. A follow-up inspection of the property revealed that the excessive paving was not removed and Mr. Rummo's file was subsequently closed. Furthermore, Mr. Rummo has been informed that any further parking will be subject to by-law enforcement of curbstones.

As Mr. Rummo's wife is disabled and in a wheelchair, they require the pavement area to be larger, in order to accommodate the vehicle and the wheelchair.

In view of this, I would appreciate if you could please reconsider allowing Mr. Rummo to maintain the existing paved front yard parking area and subsequently approve his application for disabled front yard parking.

--------

(A copy of the letters (February 11, 1998 and September 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services referred to in the foregoing communication was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on November 12, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Installation of Traffic Control Devices -

Gainsborough Road

from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the operating speed of motorists using this section of Gainsborough Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $6,000.00 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Gainsborough Road, from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road 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 GAINSBOROUGH ROAD from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5283 dated October 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road, 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:

At the request of Councillor Sandra Bussin and in consultation with Councillor Tom Jakobek, a staff investigation has been conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road to reduce the number of speeding motorists on this street.

Gainsborough Road from Gerrard Street East to Eastwood Road operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.53 metres and has a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A recent twenty-four hour speed and volume survey conducted on Gainsborough Road between Gerrard Street East and Eastwood Road indicates typical daily traffic volume of approximately 2,300 vehicles, of which about 35% exceed the speed limit.

Councillors Jakobek and Bussin had conducted, in September of this year, an informal poll of area residents to determine their desire to have speed humps installed on Gainsborough Road. The result of this poll was favourable. At the time, residents were advised that the speed humps would be installed in front of Premises Nos. 185 and 105 Gainsborough Road. Subsequent evaluation by staff determined that speed humps cannot be installed at these locations due to the existing road configuration (driveways, maintenance hole covers, catch basins, etc.).

Staff have developed an alternative plan which is illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5283 dated October 1998 and consists of four speed humps located approximately 54 to 84 metres apart.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that a speed hump installation meets technical criteria, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. 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 results at a deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the Gainsborough Road 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. 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

Gainsborough Road

Retention of Sign - Casa do Alentejo

(Portuguese Community Centre) - 1130 Dupont Street

(Davenport)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that permission be granted for the sign at 1130 Dupont Street to be replaced and be permitted to remain in place.".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the sign located on the northeast corner of Dufferin Street and Dupont Street for Casa Do Alentego (Portuguese Community Centre) at 1130 Dupont Street remain in place.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 28, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To respond to a request to allow a sign recently posted on the northeast corner of Dufferin Street and Dupont Street by Casa do Alentejo, identifying same, to remain all year long.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14 and 15, 1998, in considering a communication dated October 13, 1998 titled "Casa do Alentejo, 1130 Dupont Street" from Councillor Betty Disero, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on this matter to its meeting of November 12, 1998 (Clause 70, Item (n) in Toronto Community Council Report No. 12).

Comments:

Staff have reviewed the request to retain the above noted sign for a one year period on the existing utility pole on the northeast corner of Dufferin Street and Dupont Street and have no objection to same.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin,

Manager of Transportation Operations

392-7773

Stop Up and Closing - Portions of Public

Highway adjacent to Lawrence Subway Station

(North Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To obtain authority for the stopping-up and closing of the portions of the public highway currently dedicated to form part of Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue East by Metropolitan By-law No.161-74, and designating the lands as park lands in order to accommodate landscaping in the area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the out of pocket expenses for the statutory processing of the stopping-up and closing in the estimated amount of $3,500.00, are accommodated in Capital Fund Code No. 294-800.

Recommendations:

1.That the portions of the public highway shown as Areas A, B and C on the attached PlanSYE2896, dated October 19, 1998, be stopped-up and closed as public highway and placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

2.That the portion of the public highway shown as Area B on the attached Plan SYE2896, once stopped-up and closed as public highway, continue to be maintained as a taxi turnaround and stand;

3.That easements be reserved, if necessary, for the City and Utility Companies, over the entire portion of the public highway to be closed, for access, operation, use, inspection, repair, maintenance, reconstruction or alteration of the existing utilities and for the construction of additional or new services; and

4.That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services has received a request from Councillor Michael Walker, to stop-up and close the portions of the public highway, shown as Areas A, B and C on the attached PlanSYE2896, and to declare this land as "open space". Areas A and C will be landscaped, including the planting of trees, grading the lands and the installation of benches, while Area B, which is currently used as a taxi turnaround and stand to serve the subway station will be maintained. Although the lands were dedicated many years ago, they have never served a public highway purpose, and thus, it is appropriate that they be formally assigned for parkette purposes.

Due to time constraints associated with meeting the deadline for the Toronto Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, it has not been possible to determine in detail the extent of municipal services or utilities within these lands, or to give the required notice pursuant to the screening process set out in "Schedule B" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). In this instance, since the lands are to remain in City ownership and any improvements would be landscaping, there will be no immediate impacts on utilities.

The Departmental identification of municipal services and utilities and EAA notice will be completed prior to the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Laurie Robertson, Project Technician

Street and Lane Closings (392-7711)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Yonge/Lawrence

Request for Endorsement of Event for

Liquor Licensing Purposes (Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, declare the 1999 Picnic of the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association to be held July 9, 1999 - July ll, 1999 inclusive at Crombie Park, to be an event of municipal significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission that it has no objection to it taking place.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (November 2, 1998) from Councillor Rae:

Please find enclosed a request from the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association for their 1999 picnic to be declared a "festival" and an event of "municipal significance" for liquor licensing purposes.

It would be very appreciative if you would see that this item comes forward to the next meeting of the Toronto Community Council so that it can be transmitted to City Council for approval.

If you have any questions about this issue, please do not hesitate to give me a call.

--------

Communication (August 24, 1998) from Ms. Gail Lacroix,

St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association)

The St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association has had yet another wildly successful picnic. Thank you for your support and your attendance on the day. We have set the date for next year's picnic. It will be Saturday, July 10, 1999.

As the picnic has grown, it has become increasingly difficult to handle the logistics and preparations in the time allowed. We have therefore decided to request that the Annual St. Lawrence Neighbourhood picnic be designated a festival by the city. The dates for the festival would be Friday, July 9 through Sunday, July 11. I understand that this request should come to your office and will be handled by it through the City process. If you require further documentation or information, please contact me.

Provision of a "Student Pick-up and Drop-off" area

Bond Street, East Side, from Dundas Street East

to Shuter Street (Vicinity of St. Michael's Choir School)

(Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November2, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide short term parking for parents picking-up and dropping-off children attending the St. Michael's Choir School located at Premises No. 66 Bond Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the standing prohibition and the parking prohibition, which both operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the east side of Bond Street, from a point 35.1 metres north of Shuter Street to a point 77.7 metres further north, be rescinded;

(2)That standing be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday on the east side of Bond Street, from a point 58.4 metres north of Shuter Street to a point 54.4 metres further north;

(3)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of ten minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 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 east side of Bond Street, from a point 16.7 metres north of Shuter Street to a point 41.7 metres further north;

(4)That parking be prohibited from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 p.m., from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. of the next following day, Monday to Friday and at anytime Saturday and Sunday, on the east side of Bond Street, from a point 16.7 metres north of Shuter Street to a point 41.7 metres further north; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Kyle Rae on behalf of staff of the St. Michael's Choir School, located at Premises No. 66 Bond Street, I have investigated adjusting the existing parking regulations on the east side of Bond Street, from Shuter Street to Dundas Street East, to provide short term parking for parents picking-up and dropping-off students attending the school.

Bond Street, from Dundas Street East to Shuter Street operates two-way on a pavement width 8.5 metres with a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Standing and parking are prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, on both sides of Bond Street from a point 35.1 metres north of Shuter Street to a point 77.7 metres further north. On the west side of the street, parking is otherwise prohibited at anytime and on the east side, parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily (controlled by 8 parking meters) and for a maximum period of three hours at other times. A mid-block pedestrian crossover is located on Bond Street about 100.0 metres south of Dundas Street East to enhance crossing safety for students of St. Michael's Choir School and a statutory stopping prohibition at anytime applies within 9.0 metres of the crossover.

St. Michael's Choir School has been involved in the "School Patroller Program" since September of 1996. This program enhances safety for children being picked up/dropped off in the vicinity of the school; however, parents/guardians, who stand their vehicles momentarily to escort their children into the school, are receiving parking tags as Parking Enforcement staff stringently enforce the parking/standing regulations.

In order to ameliorate this problem, a "Student Pick-up and Drop-off" area should be established on the east side of Bond Street across the school frontage, from a point 16.7 metres north of Shuter Street to a point 41.7 metres further north to facilitate parents picking up/dropping off students attending the St. Michael's Choir School.

In conjunction with the above, parking should be allowed for a maximum period of 10 minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 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 (those times when there is the greatest demand for this provision), to ensure equitable use of the pick-up/drop-off area and provide sufficient time for parents/guardians to accompany the children directly to and from the school. Implementation of this suggestion would provide about 8 short term parking/loading spaces but would require the removal of 3 parking meters and the prohibition of parking at times other than during the operational hours of the parking/loading area on the east side of Bond Street.

This is a high demand parking area which generates about $9,000.00 annually in parking meter revenue for the City and the removal of the parking meters might create some inconvenience for patrons of commercial businesses on this street. Nevertheless, emphasis should be placed on enhancing safety for children over these relatively minor concerns. Although sight lines between pedestrians on the east side of Bond Street and northbound motorists theoretically would be reduced, realistically, despite the current level of enforcement, stopping takes place in this area on a regular basis and the impact of providing short term parking/loading spaces on advance sight lines and operational safety in general would likely be negligible.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Status Report - 2230, 2324 & 2336 Gerrard Street East

(East of Main) (East Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the report dated November 23, 1998, from the City Solicitor, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)City Council adopt Recommendations Nos. (1) to (4) of the report dated November 23, 1998, addressed to the City Solicitor, from the planning firm of Urban Strategies Inc., containing the recommended concept plan and Official Plan provisions to be placed before the Ontario Municipal Board at the hearing to commence January 11, 1999, viz:

"It is recommended that City Council:

(1)adopt the attached plan Map 1, as the basis for the new Official Plan for the subject lands, north of Gerrard Street East and east of Main Street, to replace the Special Development Area designation, and redesignate the subject lands to a Low Density Residence Area designation with a general maximum density of 1.0 times the lot area;

(2)authorize its consultants to prepare, in consultation with the City Solicitor, an Official Plan and Zoning By-law to implement the plan shown on Map 1 to place before the Ontario Municipal Board at the hearing which is to commence on January 11, 1999, based upon the following principles:

(a)integrate the new community with the existing neighbourhood to the south to the extent possible:

(i)through reflecting the pattern of streets and blocks of the existing neighbourhood within the new development;

(ii)through permitting a similar form and scale of residential development; and

(iii) through ensuring that the lands along Gerrard Street, immediately abutting the subject lands to the south, form a logical extension of the new development and create opportunities forneighbourhood-appropriate development along Gerrard Street, should those properties be redeveloped in the longer term;

(b)requiring that all streets and lanes be publicly owned and encouraging the majority of parking to be accessed from rear laneways. Tightening up the slope of the berm required adjacent to the rail corridor, and incorporating it into the public right-of-way along the new public laneway;

(c)requiring that all dwelling units be 'house-form', and have front doors facing directly onto public streets. Making the intensity of development similar to that found in the existing community:

(i)through an appropriate mix of housing types, as follows: a minimum of 20percent of lots for single detached houses; if only 20percent of the lots are for single detached houses, then at least 25percent of the remaining lots are to be for semi-detached houses; the remaining lots may be for row houses; and

(ii)providing for 30percent of the new housing units to be intrinsically affordable by satisfying the City's maximum unit size requirements. These units may be created by duplexing row houses, so that the number of units created is equivalent to a total of 30percent of the overall units in the development;

(d)provide a total of approximately 6.65 acres of parkland, of which 1.5 acres is to be purchased by Canada Lands Corporation from the land owner:

(i)adding approximately 2.2 acres to the north end of the existing park at the corner of Main and Gerrard Streets, and creating a new park block of approximately 4.45 acres at the east end of the new community;

(ii)ensuring that the new park is visible along Gerrard Street by extending a portion of it out to Gerrard Street; and

(iii)providing at least three public street frontages around each of the park blocks; and

(e)include in the Official Plan a Section 37 policy to secure the park dedication and park improvements, an agreement between the owner and the Toronto School Board regarding a contribution to school improvements in the area, off-site traffic improvements and other public benefits, as appropriate;

(3)authorize staff of the City Solicitor, Works and Emergency Services, Urban Planning and Development Services, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and the Medical Officer of Health, to assist in the preparation of the policies in Recommendation No. (2) above and to attend as necessary at the Ontario Municipal Board to provide expert testimony; and

(4)request the Ontario Municipal Board to refer the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Conditions back to staff for resolution of appropriate conditions and to implement the Official Plan and Zoning By-law."; and

(2)funds in the amount of $148,000.00 be provided from the Corporate Contingency Account to extend the retainer of Urban Strategies Inc., in connection with the East of Main Ontario Municipal Board hearing.' ".)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the City Solicitor to report further to Council, for its meeting to be held on November 25, 1998, as required, on the Official Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Referral appeals in connection with the East of Main subdivision, and the extension of the outside planning retainer.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 30, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To advise Council on the status of the Official Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Referral appeals in connection with the East of Main subdivision and to seek authority to report further on the City's position.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable in connection with this status report, however, a further report will deal with the necessary funding to extend the retention of planning consultants.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1)That the City Solicitor report further to the City Council meeting to be held on November 25 and 26, 1998, as required on the above-noted referral appeals and extension of the outside planning retainer.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, City Council authorized the retention of outside planning consultants in connection with the above-noted OMB hearing for the purposes of initial preparation and attendance at the August 17, 1998 prehearing. Funding to cover such services was made available in the Legal Services Division Operational Budget. Since that time the planning firm of Urban Strategies Inc. was duly retained and has provided effective assistance in connection with the prehearing conference and thereafter in developing an alternative subdivision proposal which has provided the basis for continuing discussions with the Ward Councillors, internal City staff and members of the public. The alternative subdivision plan will also be used in discussions with the property owner exploring the possibility of a settled result. If a settlement cannot be reached, the Ontario Municipal Board will proceed with the hearing commencing January 11, 1999, for which four weeks of Board time have been reserved.

The major issues which have been defined focus upon the overall street and block plan of the proposed subdivision, the quantity of parkland to be provided, the environmental condition of soils and both the density of development and building form to be utilized in the subdivision. While it is proposed to continue the discussions with relevant stakeholders, it will be necessary to report further to receive Council endorsement of a revised plan prior to commencement of the above-noted Board hearing. A further report will consist of a description, together with planning justification, of an alternate scheme as well as recommendations concerning the form of Official Plan amendment which will provide the appropriate principles to guide the development of this site.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7225

Fax:392-0024

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

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 23, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To provide to Council a recommended planning position in respect of the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on the East of Main Official Plan, Zoning and Subdivision referral appeals and to provide funding for the extended retainer of Urban Strategies Inc. in respect of such Hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in the amount of $148,000.00 will be required to be provided from Corporate Contingency Account in order to extend the existing retainer of Urban Strategies Inc. to prepare for, and act as expert witnesses at the scheduled four week OMB hearing in connection with this matter.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council adopted Recommendations Nos. (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Report (November23, 1998) addressed to the City Solicitor from the planning firm of Urban Strategies Inc. containing the recommended concept plan and Official Plan provisions to be placed before the OMB at the Hearing to commence January 11, 1999; and

(2)funds in the amount of $148,000.00 be provided from Corporate Contingency Account to extend the retainer of Urban Strategies Inc., in connection with the East of Main OMB Hearing.

Council Reference/Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting held on November 12, 1998 had before it my previous report on this matter (October 30, 1998) containing a recommendation that I report directly to Council at its meeting to be held on November 25 and 26, 1998 on the above-noted referral appeals and an extension of the consultant retainer. This timing is required as a result of the Hearing Date of January 11, 1999 and the attendant need to serve documents 30 days in advance.

Comments:

At its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, Council authorized the retention of outside planning consultants in connection with the series of appeals on the East of Main lands. Funding in the amount of $10,000.00 was provided from the Legal Services Division Operational Budget and these funds have been applied to work required in connection with the pre-hearing conference and initial design critique of the proposed subdivision. While efforts have been made through meetings with the residents, the developer and City staff from various civic departments to foster a settled approach to the subdivision site, it now appears that such efforts will not be successful as the property owner, Perrington Developments Limited, has recently indicated its unwillingness to alter its proposal for a 480-unit subdivision which is currently at the Board.

As will be apparent from the attached consultant's report, Urban Strategies Inc. has now prepared a concept plan together with the necessary Official Plan language for the purposes of conducting a full hearing. I am recommending in this report that Council consider the strategic approach put forward by Urban Strategies Inc. as being appropriate from a planning standpoint to form the basis for the development of the East of Main lands. The attached report contains within it the proposed concept plan for the subdivision, and draft Official Plan language, which, if adopted, would be pursued as the preferred City position before the Board. The consultant's report was prepared as a result of consultation with the appropriate civic staff, the Ward Councillors and residents in the area who are actively participating in the OMB process.

Continued Retention of Urban Strategies Inc:

Urban Strategies Inc. has provided to me an acceptable and comprehensive Work Plan which details the hearing preparation work and expert witness services which will be necessary in connection with the upcoming hearing. The work consists of preparation of witness statements for the two senior partners who will give evidence, utilizing as much as possible the services of more junior staff in support. Urban Strategies Inc. will also provide all necessary exhibits for the hearing including draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law instruments. The consultants have proposed a fixed fee for a full hearing in the amount of $125,000.00 to which amount will be added an estimated 10 percent for disbursements and a further amount for GST. The overall amount required would be approximately $148,00.00. The professional fees will be recorded on an actual time basis such that should a settlement be reached on some or all issues related to the hearing, the overall fees would be reduced.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour

Telephone:(416) 392-7335

Fax:(416) 392-0024

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

(Communication dated November 25, 1998, addressed

to the City Solicitor from

Urban Strategies Inc.)

We respectfully submit our report to City Council concerning the above mentioned development.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)adopt the attached plan Map 1, as the basis for the new Official Plan for the subject lands, north of Gerrard Street East and east of Main Street, to replace the Special Development Area Designation, and redesignate the subject lands to a Low Density Residence Area designation with a general maximum density of 1.0 times the lot area;

(a)integrate the new community with the existing neighbourhood to the south to the extent possible:

(i)through reflecting the pattern of streets and blocks of the existing neighbourhood within the new development;

(ii)through permitting a similar form and scale of residential development;

(iii)through ensuring that the lands along Gerrard Street, immediately abutting the subject lands to the south, form a logical extension of the new development and create opportunities for neighbourhood-appropriate development along Gerrard Street, should those properties be redeveloped in the longer term;

(b)requiring that all streets and lanes be publicly owned and encouraging the majority of parking to be accessed from rear laneways. Tightening up the slope of the berm required adjacent the rail corridor, and incorporating it into the public right-of-way along the new public laneway;

(c)requiring that all dwelling units be "house-form", and have front doors facing directly onto public streets. Making the intensity of development similar to that found in the existing community:

(i)through an appropriate mix of housing types, as follows: a minimum of 20 percent of lots for single detached houses; if only 20 percent of the lots are for single detached houses then at least 25 percent of the remaining lots are to be semi-detached houses; the remaining lots may be for row houses;

(iii)provide for 30 percent of the new housing units to be intrinsically affordable by satisfying the City's maximum unit size requirements. These units may be created by duplexing row houses, so that the number of units created is equivalent to a total of 30 percent of the overall number of units in the development;

(d)provide a total of approximately 6.65 acres of parkland, of which 1.5 acres is to be purchased by Canada Lands Corporation from the land owner:

(ii)ensuring that the new park is visible along Gerrard Street by extending a portion of it out to Gerrard Street;

(iii)providing at least three public street frontages around each of the park blocks;

(e)to include in the Official Plan a Section 37 policy to secure the park dedication and park improvements, an agreement between the owner and the Toronto School Board regarding a contribution to school improvements in the area, off-site traffic improvements and other public benefits, as appropriate;

Council Reference/Background/History:

Discussions regarding the appropriate parameters for development of a new community on the subject property have been going on for many years. On October 6 and 7, 1997, the former City Council adopted the recommendations contained within the Commissioner of Urban Development Services Final Report, dated September 30, 1997, giving conditional approval to a community plan comprising 290 single detached semi-detached and row houses, and a total of 3.49 hectares (8.54acres) of public parkland. Because the specified conditions to approval were never satisfied, by-laws to implement this plan were not able to be introduced.

On November 12, 1997, the owner, Perrington Developments, appealed the file to the Ontario Municipal Board. In January of 1998, the owner began discussions regarding the first of a series of new concept plans which showed a significantly increased total unit count, comprised of the original 290 single, semi-detached and row houses, and a new block of multiple housing units on a portion of the lands which had formerly been presented as public parkland. Despite ongoing discussions between the owner, the City and the community, no satisfactory resolution has been found; the local community and its elected representatives remain deeply dissatisfied with the current proposals for this property.

In August of 1998, from the former City of Toronto retained Urban Strategies Inc., to prepare for and attend at the Ontario Municipal Board and to critique the appealed plan of subdivision, from the perspectives of urban planning and design. This review identified a number of concerns regarding the character of the new proposed plan and the original plan set out in the September 30, 1997 report. After consultation with the area Councillors, members of the community and City departments, Urban Strategies has prepared a new concept plan for the subject lands, which is being recommended to Council as the basis for the development of the subject community, and to place before the Ontario Municipal Board at the upcoming hearing.

Principles for the new Community Plan:

The September 30, 1997 report sets out a number of key principles for development of an appropriate new community in this location. Based upon these principles and the analysis undertaken by Urban Strategies regarding the elements which underpin successful new neighbourhoods within established urban settings, Urban Strategies has prepared the plan which forms Map 1 to this report. Its primary characteristics can be described as follows:

It achieves neighbourhood integration by introducing a pattern of streets and blocks which are oriented in a north-south direction and are relatively short in length. This reflects the pattern which exists in the community south of Gerrard, and throughout most of the east end of Toronto. It establishes the context for fully integrating the new community into the surrounding urban fabric over time. As individual blocks fronting Gerrard Street East are redeveloped over the long term, the rhythm of streets and blocks can be simply extended south to meet Gerrard Street. It provides a known and understandable neighbourhood-appropriate planning solution for the properties fronting Gerrard Street, which would otherwise not easily lend themselves to such a solution.

It achieves compatibility by:

(i)Requiring that all dwelling units be "house-form" and have front doors directly onto a public street.

(ii)Focussing on the quality of the streetscape, by requiring that all streets and lanes be publicly owned and by encouraging the majority of parking to be accessed from rear laneways to allow for high levels of frontyard landscaping.

(iii)Ensuring that the intensity of new development is similar to that found in the existing community, at a density of 1.0 times the lot area.

(iv)Seeking an appropriate mix of housing types which reflects that found in the existing community. The recommended unit mix requires a minimum of 20 percent of lots to be for single detached houses. If only 20 percent of the lots are for single detached houses then at least 25 percent of the remaining lots are to be for semi-detached houses. The remaining lots may be for row houses.

(v)Providing for 30 percent of the new housing units to be intrinsically affordable by satisfying the City's maximum unit size requirements. The existing community south of Gerrard Street provides a substantial supply of affordable housing through the internal division of houses and house-form structures into smaller units. The new community should match this pattern, satisfying the City's requirements for 30 percent of the units to be affordable by duplexing row houses (creating the equivalent of "stacked townhouses", so that the number of units created is equivalent to a total of 30 percent of the overall number of units in the development.

(vi)This proposal allows for more units than the original application, but far less than the 480 units placed before the Ontario Municipal Board.

The proposed plan continues the history of parkland provision established through negotiations between the City and the previous industrial land owners of the property, Canada Lands Corporation, based upon an understanding that a major parkland contribution was a key component of converting all of the subject lands to residential use. This is achieved by providing a total of approximately 6.65 acres of parkland, a portion of which would be added to the north end of the existing park surrounding the East Toronto Playing Field, and the remainder of which would be used to create a significant new neighbourhood park at the east end of the new community. This level of parkland contribution will allow the City to qualify for the funds the federal government is offering to contribute to purchase 1.5 acres of the proposed parkland.

It designs the parks to serve the needs of both the new and existing communities, by:

(i)providing at least three public street frontages around each park block, to maximize their visibility and accessibility, and to ensure that they are safe and desirable places; and

(ii)extending a portion of the new park at the east end of the community out to Gerrard Street, so that is visible to and feels a part of the broader community.

It promotes efficiency, by tightening up the slope of the berm required adjacent the rail corridor, and incorporating it into the right-of-way of a new public laneway.

Conclusion:

The plan before City Council will ensure that the new development created on the subject lands provides for a new neighbourhood which is compatible and sympathetic with the character and scale of the surrounding community.)

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

Rescindment of Regulations

to Provide a Loading Area Adjacent to

111 Carlton Street (Downtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November6, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To resolve problems related to noise, street solicitation and unlawful parking occurring on Jarvis Street south of Carlton Street in the area delineated for motor coach loading and unloading.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That the stopping prohibition from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday except Public Holidays, be rescinded:

a)on the west side of Jarvis Street between Carlton Street and Charles Street East;

b)on the west side of Jarvis Street between Lake Shore Boulevard and a point 56.5 metres south of Carlton Street;

(2) That the standing prohibition at anytime on the west side of Jarvis Street between a point 30.5 metres south of Carlton Street and a point 26 metres further south thereof, be rescinded;

(3) That stopping be prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., except Saturdays, Sundays and Public Holidays on the west side of Jarvis Street between Charles Street East and Lake Shore Boulevard; 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 to amend the appropriate Schedules of the Uniform Traffic By-law.

Comments:

City Council at its meeting of June 3, 4 and 5, 1998 adopted, as amended, the recommendations in a report dated March 27, 1998 entitled, Designation of Loading Areas and On-Street Parking Spaces in Downtown Toronto for Use by Motor Coaches from the Interim Functional Lead, Transportation and in doing so, authorized the delineation of site-specific motor coach parking and/or loading spaces in the Toronto Community Council area. The west side of Jarvis Street from a point 30.5 metres south of Carlton Street to a point 26 metres further south, adjacent to the Best Western Primrose Hotel (Premises No. 111 Carlton Street) was one of the locations approved for a delineated motor coach loading area. Signs adjusting the stopping/standing/parking regulations and delineating the motor coach loading area (of a size suitable for 2 buses) were installed at this location on October5, 1998.

Monitoring by City staff has revealed that the loading area is frequently occupied by buses which are "parked", some for extended periods of time including overnight, precluding other buses from dropping off or picking up passengers and/or luggage, which is the function of the loading area. Additionally, nearby residents have advised staff that the buses create a convenient shield to cover illegal drug transactions and prostitution activity occurring on the sidewalk in front of Premises Nos.312-314 Jarvis Street and hotel staff have indicated that the loading area is not located close enough to the lobby entrance of the hotel to make it convenient to load/unload luggage.

Based on discussions between Works staff, Councillor Kyle Rae, representatives of the Best Western Primrose Hotel, residents of Jarvis Street south of Carlton Street and Toronto Police Service parking enforcement staff, the general consensus is that given the undesirable activities that are occurring, the provisions made for motor coach loading and unloading on the west side of Jarvis Street from a point 30.5 metres south of Carlton Street to a point 26 metres further south, should be rescinded and the parking and stopping regulations that existed prior to the implementation of the loading/unloading area should be reinstated. This will include reinstalling 4 parking meters which were removed to accommodate the motor coach loading area and re-establishing the stopping prohibition during the rush periods.

The current entry in the Uniform Traffic By-law respecting parking meter operation on Jarvis Street will not require any amendment to enable the reinstallation of the parking meters on this section of the street. Approval of the recommendations listed above will re-establish all parking/stopping regulations that existed prior to the implementation of the motor coach loading area.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton, 392-1806

Dogs Off Leash Hours - Jean Sibelius Park

(Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following off leash hours be instituted in Jean Sibelius Park for a period of six months:

Weekdays : 7:00 a.m - 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

Weekends:8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

(2)the Park Users' Committee of the Annex Residents' Association be recognized as the "dog watch community group" for the Jean Sibelius Park, as requested by City policy on leash-free areas in City parks.

--------

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (November 12, 1998) from Councillor Adams:

At its meeting of October 14, 1998, the Toronto Community Council forwarded to the Board of Health, as part of the discussion on Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation, the following recommendations:

(1)That the following off leash hours be instituted in Jean Sibelius Park for a period of six months:

Weekdays : 7:00 a.m - 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

Weekends:8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

(2)That the Park Users' Committee of the Annex Residents' Association be recognized as the "dog watch community group" for the Jean Sibelius Park, as requested by City policy on leash-free areas in City parks.

It has come to my attention that the Board will not be considering these recommendations until its special meeting to be held on December 1, 1998, and residents have expressed concerns about the delay. As a result, I would like these recommendations to be forwarded by the Community Council on November 12, 1998, to Council for its meeting on November 25, 1998 in order that they can be enacted as quickly as possible.

Thank you for your attention in this regard.

Interim Control By-Law Exemption -

45 Berryman Street (Midtown)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received this Clause.)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council, for its meeting to be held on November 25, 1998, on the status of the building permit application for 45 Berryman Street, and an exemption to Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998, to permit immediate completion of the construction.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (November 12, 1998) from Councillor Ila Bossons:

Whereas Toronto City Council, at its meeting on October 30, 1998, passed an Interim Control By-law pursuant to Section 38(3) of the Planning Act, enacting that: No person shall erect any building or structure or construct any addition to and/or enlarge any existing building or structure within the lands residentially zoned fronting Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue, Berryman Street and Bishop Street.

Whereas the owners of 45 Berryman Street, were already in the process of restoring their historic (1871) property and building an addition, and the following steps had already occurred:

1.July 3Made application for Preliminary Zoning By-law Review

2.July 21Committee of Adjustment Application

3.July 27Permit Application, Demolition (Permit No. 415106) to removed wooden rear addition - granted in part at Jesse Ketchum School request to complete demolition prior to school beginning in September

4.August 18Committee of Adjustment Hearing, File No. A199801085, Granted Approval

5.September 16Final and Binding Decision of Committee of Adjustment

6.October 10Building Permit Application Permit No. 418118

7.October 30Buildings Department Examiner's Notice on status of Building Permit, indicated approximately 10 items requiring clarification prior to issuance of Building Permit; and

Whereas on November 4 the owners were notified by City staff that the Interim Control By-law prevented the issuance of the Building Permit; and

Whereas the only concerns raised by neighbours were that the historic character of the area be preserved and the density be similar to other houses and not excessive; and

Whereas this project is, in my view, in keeping with the spirit of the Interim Control By-law in that it preserves the heritage nature of the building while making improvements which only exceed the maximum permitted square metres by approximately 45.45 square metres;

Therefore be it Resolved that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report directly to City Council on November 25, 1998 on the status of the building permit application and an exemption to Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998 to permit the immediate completion of this construction.

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide Council with direction on whether a building permit application for an addition for 45 Berryman Street should be exempted from Interim Control By-law 726-1998.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting held October 1 and 2, 1998, City Council adopted a Notice of Motion by Councillor John Adams to impose Interim Control in the Yorkville Triangle. As adopted, Interim Control By-law 726-1998 states that no person shall erect any building or structure or construct any addition to and/or enlarge any existing building or structure in the Yorkville Triangle for six months. When Council enacted and passed By-law 726-1998, it directed Planning staff to conduct a land use planning study to assess the existing zoning provisions, and to amend, add to or delete those performance standards that might better reflect the heritage character of the study area.

At its meeting held November 12, 1998, the Toronto Community Council considered a communication (84) from Councillor Ila Bossons respecting 45 Berryman Street. The Toronto Community Council requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report directly to Council, for its meeting to be held on November 25, 1998, on the status of a building permit application for 45 Berryman Street, and an exemption to Interim Control By-law726-1998, to permit immediate completion of construction of the addition.

Comments:

On August 26, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment granted minor variances for 45 Berryman Street, for relief from the applicable density, depth, setback and parking provisions of the Zoning By-law, to permit a three-storey, two-storey and basement addition to the rear of the existing house. The Decision of the Committee of Adjustment became final and binding on September 16, 1998.

On October 9, 1998, the owner applied for a building permit. On October 30, 1998, an Examiner's Notice from the Buildings Division was sent to the owner and his architect listing deficiencies in the submitted building permit drawings. The Examiner had a further conversation with the architect on November 23, 1998. During that conversation, the architect indicated that revised drawings will be submitted by November 27, 1998 to resolve all the concerns listed in the Notice. It is expected that the deficiencies listed in the Examiner's Notice will be resolved by the architect in the near future. In this circumstance, other than the issue related to the Interim Control By-law, the application for building permit will have met all requirements necessary for issuance.

The Interim Control By-law, enacted and passed by City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, was in effect before the owner of 45 Berryman Street applied for a building permit for the approved addition. The Interim Control By-law states that no person shall construct any addition to and/or enlarge any existing building. An exemption to permit an addition to an existing building in the study area would conflict with and possibly undermine the Interim Control By-law, and therefore, should not be granted.

I have consulted with Legal Department staff on this matter.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi, City Planner, City Planning Division

Telephone: 392-1324; Fax: 392-1330

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

Committee of Adjustment Process -

1661 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council express its displeasure to the Committee of Adjustment respecting

(1)the process undertaken by the Committee respecting 1661 Queen Street East, and;

(2)the acceptance of the Committee that the application respecting 1661 Queen Street East was minor in nature, when the application was to permit a development 17.5 times larger than the zoning by-law permits.

The Toronto Committee Council submits the following communication (November 12, 1998) from Councillor Bussin:

This letter confirms my protest of the Committee of Adjustment decision made on September 9, 1998 by Chair Douglas Lee, and Committee members David Daniels and Michael Haughton to deal with the above matter as a minor variance of the zoning by-law.

I have serious concerns that the C of A should feel comfortable in modifying our zoning bylaw to accommodate a significant development 17.5 times larger than the bylaw allows, or 1,750 percent larger. It is clear that the impact of this development will extend well beyond the immediate neeighbourhood. However, the C of A notice covers an area of only 60 metres around the proposed development. This is minimal community disclosure, appropriate for a minor variance only. This should have been a rezoning application so area residents could have had the opportunity to comment on an important zoning decision that will affect their community.

The property owner and developer of the theatre have conceded that this new cinema will need to draw on clientele from an area several kilometres beyond the theatre. The property owner demonstrates that this will be the case by adding 187 new parking spaces to an existing lot of 500 spaces. Obviously, there is an expectation that there will be an influx of cars into this already traffic-congested neighbourhood.

This letter of concern is not intended to argue the merits of the development of a cinema complex in our community. There may be many beneficial aspects. The point I am making is that the C.ofA should not be allowed to substitute its opinion; however, well intentioned, in the place of the standards set by Council regarding City planning matters. Even the Chair, in delivering the decision of the committee, stated that he had "serious reservations" in granting a development application variance that exceeds the bylaw by 17.5 times, as a minor variance. However, since his colleagues on the panel "could see their way to approve this application" he would therefore agree.

In my respectful opinion and in the interest of the Queen Street East/Coxwell Avenue community, I move that Council express its concern and displeasure to the C. of A. panel for its decision in this case.

--------

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

-Notice of Public Hearing - 1661 Queen Street East; and

-Notice of Decision - 1661 Queen Street East.

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Toronto's Bid for the 2008 Olympics (from the Community Council's special meeting of October 22, 1998).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee on:

(1)the possibility of the Olympic Village site being in the area south of South Parkdale, in such a way which would relink South Parkdale to Lake Ontario;

(2)the bid from the City of Toronto supporting a policy that a certain percentage of contracts be awarded to minority-owned companies, such report to consider other methods of achieving the desired goals, such as requiring all employers to be Employment Equity employers and also other purchasing practices that should be implemented for the Olympic process; and

(3)the Olympic games process being fully bilingual from beginning to end.

The request to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to report on Part No. (3) of the recommendation was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bussin, Chow, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, McConnell, Pantalone, - 8

Nays:Councillors Miller and Walker - 2

The Chair ruled the following motion by Councillor Walker out of order:

"That City Council endorse the holding of a referendum prior to City Council considering the final bid submission to the I.O.C."

On a motion by Councillor Walker to challenge the ruling of the Chair, the ruling of the Chair was upheld on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bussin, Chow, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller, McConnell, Pantalone, - 8

Nays:Councillors Layton and Walker - 2

(i)(September 1, 1998) from Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting Toronto's Bid for the 2008 Olympics and recommending that the Toronto Community Council:

(1)receive the presentation from Mr. David Crombie regarding Toronto's bide for the 2008 Olympics; and

(2)refer any Community Council recommendations on this issue to staff for a consolidated report, with the recommendations from the other Community Councils, to Strategic Priorities and Policies Committee on November 17, 1998;

(ii)(July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting Toronto's Bid for the 2008 Olympics and outlining the public consultation process related to Toronto's bid to host the 2008 Olympics and specifically set out the details of Phase I of the process, and recommending that the report be received for information;

(iii)(October 21, 1998) from Ms. Joanna Kidd, Chair, Toronto Bay Initiative;

(iv)(October 22, 1998) from Mr. Gerald H. Parker, President, Beyond Ability International;

(v)(October 22, 1998) from Louise Verity, Director of Policy, The Toronto Board of Trade;

(vi)(Undated) from Mr. Charles Smedmor;

(vii)(October 22, 1998) from Mr. Kirk Shearer, President and CEO, Tourism Toronto;

(viii)(October 22, 1998) from Mr. Ira E. Greenspoon, Chairman of the Board, Toronto Construction Association;

(ix)(Undated) from Mr. Deniz Yazici, D.Z.Y. Drafting & Design Services;

(x)(October 1998) schedule of Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid Key Dates prepared by Toronto Olympic Bid Corp. for the City of Toronto Public Consultation Process; and

(xi)(Fall 1998) Map of Toronto and surrounding area respecting "An Emerging Vision: Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid " and "A Waterfront Olympic Concept".

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

-Mr. David Crombie, Chair of Board of Directors of T.O. Bid, the Olympic Bid Corporation;

-Mr. Kirk Shearer, President and CEO, Tourism Toronto;

-Mr. Gerald Parker, President, Beyond Ability International;

-Mr. Kevin Walters, CREGE;

-Ms. Filomena Canedo, Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees, Local 75;

-Ms. Lynne Hill, Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees, Local 75;

-Mr. Bruce Bryer, Transportation Planning Consultant;

-Ms. Marilyn Roy, Vice-Chair Toronto Bay Initiative;

-Mr. Norman W. Hayman, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Terence Tyers, Francophone Centre of Toronto;

-Mr. Richard Milgrom, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Kerri Mousseau, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Charles Smedmor, C. Smedmor & Associates;

-Mr. Bruce Kidd, Dean, Faculty of Physical Education and Health, University of Toronto;

-Dr. Helen Lensky, Bread Not Circuses;

-Mr. Ira Greenspoon, Chairman, Toronto Construction Association;

-Mr. Carl Georgevski, University of Toronto;

-Mr. Deniz Yazici, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Taodmg Burns, St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Association;

-Mr. Stig Harvor, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Daniel St. Louis, President, DSL Strategies and Communications;

-Mr. Viresh Fernando, New Voices in the New City;

-Mr. David Cooper, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Sheldon Bergson, Thornhill, Ontario;

-Ms. Kathy Chandler, CREGE;

-Mr. T. Harold Pidduck, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Joey Schwartz, Bread Not Circuses;

-Mr. John Thompson, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. James Alcock, Citizens for Retention of East Gardiner Expressway;

-Mr. George Teichman, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Amanda Jeans, Parkdale Village Residents Association;

-Mr. Glen Hastings, Lively Poets Society;

-Mr. Michael Kerr, Circle of Truth - Cirque De Vérite;

-Mr. George Carere, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Robert Barnett, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Stace Lum-Yip, Mississauga, Ontario.

(b)Options for Ward Boundary Changes (from the Community Council's special meeting of November 5, 1998)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that:

(a)with respect to High Park (Ward 19):

(i)Bloor Street West, west of Jane Street to the Humber River, and the area north of Bloor Street West up to and including the southern edge of the T.T.C. right-of-way, be added to the proposed west ward of High Park;

(ii)the Option set out in Map 19-1a, attached to the report (October26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(a)(i), be adopted;

(b)with respect to Davenport (Ward 21):

the Option set out in Map 21-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(a)(i), be adopted;

(c)with respect to Trinity-Niagara (Ward 20):

the Option set out in Map 20-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted;

(d)with respect to Midtown (Ward 23):

(i)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)the CN Rail Line be the dividing line between the ward and the area bounded by the East York Community Council, excluding the Governor's Road Bridge neighbourhood;

(b)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Heath Street West;

(c)the south side of Eglinton Avenue West, between Bathurst Street and the Belt Line remain in North Toronto (Ward22);

(d)both sides of Spadina Road, from St. Clair Avenue West to Heath Street West, remain in Midtown;

(e)the present status quo remain in place with respect to Lonsdale Road, Lonsmount Drive and Montclair Avenue;

(ii)the Option set out in Map 23-1a, attached to the report (October26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(d)(i), be adopted;

(e)with respect to North Toronto (Ward 22):

the Option set out in Map 22-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(d)(i)(c), be adopted;

(f)with respect to Downtown (Ward 24):

the Option set out in Map 24-1a, attached to the report (October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted;

(g)with respect to Don River (Ward 25):

(i)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Cherry Beach remain in the same new ward as the Leslie Street Spit;

(b)the north side of Fulton Avenue be included in the proposed east ward; and

(ii)the Option set out in Map 25-1a, attached to the report (October26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(g)(i), be adopted;

(h)with respect to East Toronto (Ward 26):

(i)the Option set out in Map 26-1a, attached to the report (October26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended to provide that:

(a)Coleman Avenue to Sibley Avenue be included in the proposed east ward;

(b)Maryland Boulevard and Avonlea Boulevard be included in their totality in the proposed east ward;

(c)the Shoppers' World Site be included in its totality in the proposed east ward;

(d)all of Eastwood Road, between Woodbine Avenue and Bellhaven Road be included in the proposed west ward;

(e)Victoria Park Avenue, south of Bracken Avenue, be located in the proposed west ward for Scarborough Bluffs (Ward 13);

(ii)the Option set out in Map 26-1a, attached to the report (October26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. 1(h)(i), be adopted;

(i)the proposed boundaries for the areas covered by the East York, York and Scarborough Community Councils be amended in accordance with Recommendation Nos. (1)(a) to 1(h);

(j)if the Legislature does not enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session, the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997;

(2)requested the Urban Environment and Development Committee to set aside a specific time at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998 to consider this matter; and

(3)requested the City Clerk, in consultation with appropriate officials, to:

(a)consolidate the recommendations of each of the Community Councils, for consideration by the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998;

(b)provide further notice of the special session of the Urban Environment and Development Committee on November 30, 1998, as set out in Recommendation No. (2), including direct notice to all resident and ratepayer groups, all BIAs and all historical societies within the City of Toronto; and

(c)report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its meeting to be held on November 30, 1998, with respect to the proposed west ward in East Toronto, on locating the northern boundary on Danforth Avenue, and the southern boundary on Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Kingston Road and from Kingston Road to Woodbine Avenue.

Recommendation No. (1)(j) was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Disero, Jakobek, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynksi, Layton, McConnell and Pantalone

Nays: Councillor Miller

(i)(October 26, 1998) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Options for Ward Boundary Changes, and recommending that:

(1)if the Legislature does not enact the necessary amendments to the City of Toronto Act, 1997 before the end of the current legislative session, the City Solicitor be authorized to commence a court application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure (R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, as amended) seeking a determination of City Council's right to enact a by-law changing the size and composition of Council under the Municipal Act and the City of Toronto Act, 1997;

(2)Community Councils recommend to the November 30, 1998, meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee a preferred option, within its Community Council jurisdiction, for divisions within City wards, based on minor refinements, to permit single member ward representation;

(3)the Urban Environment and Development Committee, at its November 30, 1998, meeting, consider this staff report, and the public input provided to and the recommendations submitted by each Community Council, and forward overall recommendations on ward boundary changes to City Council;

(4)City Council adopt a preferred option for ward boundary minor refinements and ward divisions as the basis for ward revisions for the municipal elections to be held in 2000;

(5)subject to City Council's decision to divide the wards to permit single member representation, the staff work team be requested to propose to City Council, through the Community Councils and with public input, recommendations for ward names that reflect the communities which make-up the new single member wards; and,

(6)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto;

(ii)(October 10, 1998) from Mr. Alan Heisey Sr, the Annex Residents Association;

(iii)(November 3, 1998) from Ms. Helen Ness and Ms. Nancy Heaney, Junction Community Police Liaison Committee;

(iv)(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Carolyn Riemer, Dundas West Residents Association;

(v)(November 5, 1998) from Mr. Norman McLeod, Swansea Historical Society;

(vi)(October 31, 1998) from Councillor Silva;

(vii)(November 4, 1998) from Mr. Bill Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

(viii)Revised Map 21-1a, submitted by Ms Lynn Daly; and

(ix)Revised Map 23-1a, submitted by Councillor Bossons.

Mr. Peter Fay, City Clerk's Division, made a presentation to the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

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

-Mr. William Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association;

-Ms. Fanny Patterson, Director, Annex Residents' Association;

-Mr. Zak Khan, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Dale Ritch, C.O.R.R.A.;

-Ms. Carolyn Riemer, Dundas West Residents' Association;

-Mr. Sid Bruyn, Chair, Parents Council;

-Ms. Lynn Daly, Christie/Ossington Neighbourhood Centre;

-Mr. William Phillips, Secretary, South Rosedale Ratepayers' Association;

-Ms. Hilary MacKenzie, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Marion Lewis, Toronto, Ontario.

(c)Residential Demolition Application - 79 Dunfield Avenue (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following reports until its meeting to be held on December 9, 1998:

(i)(October 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Residential Demolition Application - 79 Dunfield Avenue (North Toronto), and recommending

(1)That City Council refuse to extend the conditions attached to residential demolition permit 366234,

(2)That Council direct the City Clerk to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of $20,000.00, and that such sum shall, until payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permits to demolish the residential properties were issued; and

(ii)(November 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting O.M.B. Hearing Outcome - 2451 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(d)Alteration of Roxborough Drive by the Installation of Speed Humps from Mount Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue and to Reduce the Speed Limit from 40 Km/Hr to 30 Km/HR. (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following matter until its meeting to be held on December 9, 1998, at which time the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services will report on the results of the poll:

(i)City Solicitor submitting draft by-law respecting Alteration of Roxborough Drive by the Installation of Speed Humps from Mount Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue and to Reduce the Speed Limit from 40 Km/hr to 30 Km/hr. (Midtown); and

(ii)Clause 30, Contained in Report No. 11 of The Toronto Community Council headed "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Roxborough Drive from Mt. Pleasant Road to Highland Avenue (Midtown)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its Regular Meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998.

(iii)(undated) from Ms. Pat Faircloth; and

(iv)(November 10, 1998) from Ms. Kristen and Mr. Christopher Dingle.

(e)Request for Angled Driveway Widening - 228 Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on December 9, 1998:

(September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Request for Angled Driveway Widening - 228 Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport), and recommending that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto.

(f)Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to Permit Front Yard Parking At 4 Kingswood Road (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred the following matter until a further poll has been conducted; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the results of the further poll.

(i)(September 14, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to permit Front Yard Parking at 4 Kingswood Road (East Toronto), and recommending:

(1)City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 4 Kingswood Road, as such a request does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)Should the Toronto Community Council consider Ms. Keenan's proposal, that this report be deferred to the November 12, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, at which time I will report on the physical requirements of the by-law related to 4 Kingswood Road and the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations; and

(ii)(September 22, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, forwarding the Community Council's action of September 16, 1998; and

(iii)(November 9, 1998) from Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services.

(g)Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to Permit Front Yard Parking - 155 Silver Birch Avenue (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report; and

(2)having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a poll on the request for exemption, subject to the usual conditions and report back to the Toronto Community Council:

(October 28, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services respecting Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to Permit Front Yard Parking - 155 Silver Birch Avenue (East Toronto), and recommending:

(1)That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 155 Silver Birch Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; or

(2)That, should the Toronto Community Council consider this proposal, this report be deferred to the February 1999 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report at that time on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations.

(h)Harmonizing Recreation User Fees.

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)endorsed the recommendations of the User Fee Committee, contained in the communication (October 29, 1998 from the City Clerk, User Fee Committee; and

(2)strongly stated to the User Fee Committee that the Toronto Community Council does not support user fees in the City of Toronto:

The above recommendations were carried unanimously on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Disero, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller and Walker

(i)(October 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, Parks and Recreation respecting Harmonizing Recreation User Fees;

(ii)(October 29, 1998) from City Clerk, User Fee Committee, forwarding the Committee's action of October 17, 1998;

(iii)(November 12, 1998) from Ms. Anne Dubas, CUPE Local 79;

(iv)(undated) from Mr. Mike Zimmerman;

(v)(November 12, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Quance, Niagara Neighbourhood Association; and

(vi)Videotape submitted by Mr. Niels Cho, Parkdale Youth Video Productions

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

-Ms. Linda Pitney, Toronto, Ontario

-Ms. Ann Dembinski, CUPE Local 79

-Ms. Margaret Watson, Canadian Pensioners Concerned (Metro Chapter)

-Ms. Lillian Mitchell, Metro Labour Council

-Mr. Marsh Birchard, Bob Abate Advisory Council

-Mr. Mike Zimmerman, Bob Abate CRC - Adv. Council

-Mr. John Primeau, President, Toronto High Park Baseball

-Ms. Elizabeth Quance, Niagara Neighbourhood Association

-Ms. Gloria Holmes Parkin, Toronto, Ontario

-Ms. Madonna Mercer, Member-Board of Directors, Sherwood Park Residents' Association

-Ms. Polly Priebe O'Keefe, Parkdale Advisory Council; and

-Mr. Niels Cho, CPRK Technical Training

(i)275 Wallace Avenue - Preliminary Report on Application No. 298006 for an Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(October 22, 1998) Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services Respecting 275 Wallace Avenue - Preliminary Report on Application No. 298006 for an Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law (Davenport), and recommending that I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and residents within 120 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(j)8 South Kingsway - Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held in January, 1999:

(October 27, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 8 South Kingsway - Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (High Park), and recommending that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998050 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 16 illuminated signs and 2 non-illuminated signs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998050, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

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

-Ms. Victoria Masnyk, Ripley Area Ratepayers Group Ltd.; and

-Mr. Guy Bonney, Manager, Real Estate Development

(k)Status Report on the Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process (High Park).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following reports for information:

(i)(October 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Status Report on the Parkdale Conflict Resolution Process (High Park), and recommending that this report be received for information; and

(ii)(November 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Further Status Report recommending that this report be received for information.

(l)Proposals Report - Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars: Proposals for Zoning Amendments, Site Plan Approval, Design Guidelines and Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 297 - Signs, Former City of Toronto (All Wards in the former City of Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following proposals report:

(October 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars: Proposals for Zoning Amendments, Site Plan Approval, Design Guidelines and Amendments to the Municipal Code, Chapter 297 - Signs, Former City of Toronto (All Wards in the former City of Toronto), and recommending that:

(1)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services hold a public meeting to discuss the proposals contained in this report respecting proposed Zoning By-law amendments, proposed amendments to the Municipal Code, proposed amendments to the "Sign By-law" and proposed Design Guidelines for Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars.

(2)The draft by-law attached to the report (July 14, 1998) of the City Solicitor with respect to this matter be withdrawn pending the outcome of the process outlined in Recommendation No. 1.

(3)Copies of this report, including the attached Design Guidelines, be distributed to residents groups, gasoline retailers and other interested parties for their comment prior to the public meeting.

(4)I be requested to report back to Toronto Community Council on the outcome of the public meeting.

(5)The City Solicitor be requested to submit the necessary draft by-laws in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to implement the recommendations embodied in my final report.

(m)Ontario Municipal Board Decision - 30 and 40 Charles Street East and 35 Hayden Street (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(October 16, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting Ontario Municipal Board Decision - 30 and 40 Charles Street East and 35 Hayden Street (Downtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n)170 Roxborough Drive: Report on Committee of Adjustment Hearing (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(October 27, 1998) Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 170 Roxborough Drive - Committee of Adjustment Hearing (Midtown), and recommending that this report be received by Toronto Community Council for its information.

(o)Roof Top/ Rear Yard Patio Restriction By-law (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report:

(July 15, 1998) from the City Solicitor respecting Roof Top/ Rear Yard Patio Restriction By-law (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto), and recommending that this report be received.

(p)Intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue - Impact of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control on Traffic Operation (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on December 9, 1998:

(September 28, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting the Intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue - Impact of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control on Traffic Operation (East Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(q)Introduction of Permit Parking on Davenport Road, between Bathurst Street and Christie Street (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report;

(2)requested that a poll be conducted on Davenport Road between Bathurst Street and Christie Street;

(3)requested that a poll be conducted on Davenport Road between Christie Street and Ossington Avenue, to be reported on a block-by-block basis; and

(4)rescinded its action of October 14, 1998, in having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report further on how to alleviate the existing traffic problems in the Bathurst-Ossington-Davenport area:

(October 1, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 respecting Introduction of Permit Parking on Davenport Road, between Bathurst Street and Christie Street (Midtown), and recommending that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on Davenport Road, between Bathurst Street and Christie Street, within permit parking area 5C, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 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 Davenport Road, between Bathurst Street and Christie 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.

(r)Request for Speed Bumps - Area Bounded by Davenport Road, Dupont Street (Railway Tracks), Christie Street and Ossington Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following matter until its meeting to be held on December 9, 1998:

(September 1, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting Request for Speed Bumps - Area Bounded by Davenport Road, Dupont Street (Railway Tracks), Christie Street and Ossington Avenue (Davenport).

(s)Review of Impacts Related to Proposed Closings of Portions of Douro Street and Canniff Street - Massey-Ferguson Lands (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2) of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services, until the Site Plan for the development in the area is considered by the Toronto Community Council;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, to report further on the feasibility and implications of the proposed closing of Canniff Street, east of Crawford Street; and

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

(i)(September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services Review of Impacts Related to Proposed Closings of Portions of Douro Street and Canniff Street - Massey-Ferguson Lands (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending:

(1) That in order to address potential traffic operations problems at the intersection of King Street West/Douro Street in the vicinity of Sudbury Street while maintaining access, and in a less costly manner than a full street closure, the following be adopted:

(a)The intersection of Douro Street and King Street West be restricted to right turns in and right turns out only in conjunction with the installation of the traffic signals at the Sudbury Street/King Street West intersection;

(b)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services monitor the operation of this intersection after the implementation of the right-in/right out restriction and, if appropriate, designate the section of Douro Street, south of King Street West, for one-way southbound operations to address any operational problems at this intersection;OR

(2) That in the event Council decides a street closure of Douro Street, south of King Street West is appropriate, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to initiate the formal closing process and report back to the Toronto Community Council, with such report to address design details, property implications and costs related to the proposal;

(3) That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, report further on the feasibility and implications of the proposed closing of Canniff Street, east of Crawford Street; and

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

(ii)(October 8, 1998) from Mr. Patrick J. Devine, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Urbancorp;

(iii)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Ben Smith-Lea, President, Niagara Residents Association; and

(iv)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Robert A. Howald, Executive Vice President, Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO);

(v)(November 9, 1998) from Mr. Robert A. Howald, Executive Vice President, Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO); and

(vi)(November 12, 1998) from Ms. Elizabeth Quance, Niagara Neighbourhood Association.

(t)Drain Claim - 156 Felstead Avenue (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on December9, 1998;

(2)requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council on whether the policy respecting drain claims, as it relates to the limitations on the number of claims, should be interpreted as being at the same location along the pipe, or at a new break elsewhere in the pipe;

(3)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council on the question of income threshold for single parents and elderly persons, to ensure that the maximum benefit is available to those persons; such report to include (i) when the policy respecting income threshold was adopted and/or amended; and (ii) methods of providing relief to low-income persons;

(4)requested the City Forester to report to the Toronto Community Council on the impact on the urban forest of any proposed recommendations and/or actions; and

(5)requested City Council to refer this matter back to the Works and Utilities Committee (set out in Clause No. 2 of Report No. 10 of the Works and Utilities Committee), in order that the Toronto Community Council may forward its recommendations on this matter for the consideration of the Works and Utilities Committee;

(i)(November 5, 1998) from City Solicitor recommending that the letter dated September 18, 1998 from Councillor Bussin respecting 156 Felstead Avenue and this report be received; and

(ii)(September 18, 1998) Councillor Bussin.

(u)Future Use of Land Currently Occupied by Old Weston Road Bridge Abutments (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to hold a public meeting in the area on the future use of the City-owned lands near the Old Weston Road bridge abutments and report back to Toronto Community Council on land use options for these lands, including the possibility to granting an easement to the owners of the industrial building at 18 Hook Avenue in order to allow for the construction of a stair access to their second-story loading bay:

(October 22, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting Future Use of Land Currently Occupied by Old Weston Road Bridge Abutments (Davenport), and recommending that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to hold a public meeting in the area on the future use of the City-owned lands near the Old Weston Road bridge abutments and report back to Toronto Community Council on land use options for these lands, including the possibility to granting an easement to the owners of the industrial building at 18 Hook Avenue in order to allow for the construction of a stair access to their second-story loading bay.

(v)Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing.

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)endorsed the recommendations contained in the communication (November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, Urban Environment and Development Committee forwarding the Committee's actions of November 3, 1998 respecting Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing; and

(2)recommended to the Urban Environment and Development Committee that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to provide monthly reports to the Council Strategy Committee for People without Homes, and to all Members of Council on:

(a)units affected by condominium conversion applications, and the cumulative total of those units; and

(b)units affected by potential demolition applications, including units subject to rezoning applications and/or building permit applications, and the cumulative total of those units:

The above recommendations were carried unanimously as follows:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Disero, Layton, Miller and Walker-9

(November 3, 1998) from the City Clerk, Urban Environment and Development Committee forwarding the Committee's actions of November 3, 1998 respecting Official Plan Policies and Related By-laws regarding the Conversion to Condominium and Demolition of Rental Housing and requesting Toronto Community Council's comments to be made available for the meeting of the Urban Environment and Development Committee to be held on November30, 1998.

(w)Request from Residents to Review the Feasibility of Installing Speed Humps on Merton Street, Bayview Avenue to Mount Pleasant Road (North Toronto).

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 December 9, 1998, on the feasibility of installing speed humps on Merton Street, Bayview Avenue to Mount Pleasant Road:

(October 28, 1998) from Councillor Johnston respecting Request from Residents to Review the Feasibility of Installing Speed Humps on Merton Street, Bayview Avenue to Mount Pleasant Road (North Toronto).

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, October 22, November 5 and 12, 1998

(Report No. 14 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998.)

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links

� City of Toronto 1998-2001