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@toronto.ca.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 4

1Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning- 86 and 100 Bloor Street West (Midtown)

2Draft Zoning By-law Amendment - Performing Arts Theatre/Lecture Hall, Victoria University, Part of 73 Queen's Park Crescent (Downtown)

3Draft By-laws - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval - 195 - 253 Merton Street (North Toronto)

4Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 2300 Yonge Street (North Toronto)

5Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 130 Gerrard Street East (Jarvis Street Baptist Church) (Downtown)

6Intention to Designate Under Part IV of theOntario Heritage Act - 337 Jarvis Street(Samuel Platt House) (Downtown)

7Maintenance of Fence - Fronting 72 Ascot Avenue- Boon Avenue Flankage (Davenport)

8Maintenance of Wall and Wrought Iron Gate - 38 Brookfield Street (Trinity-Niagara)

9Extension of Permit Parking Hours onClendenan Avenue, Between Annette Street and Dundas Street West (High Park)

10Draft By-law - Alteration of Sorauren Avenue, Westminster AvenueFermanagh Avenue and Wright Avenue (High Park)

11Tree Removal - 21 Burton Road (Midtown)

12Tree Removal - 378 Russell Hill Road (Midtown)

13Interim Control By-law Respecting Properties Abutting theVale of Avoca Ravine (Midtown)

14Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - (North Toronto, Downtown and Davenport)

15Introduction of "No Heavy Trucks" Regulation -Public Lane North of Ryding Avenue Between Runnymede Road and Cobalt Avenue (Davenport)

16Removal of the Temporal "No Right Turn" Prohibition - Davenport Road at Alberta Avenue (Davenport)

17Installation of a "Stop" Sign - Hirons Street, at its Intersection with Cawthra Avenue (Davenport

18Provision of a "Daycare Pick-Up and Drop-Off Area"With a Fifteen Minute Maximum Parking Limit - Bay Street, West Side, South of Hagerman Street (Downtown)

19Implementation of a "Student Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zone","School Bus Loading Zone" and Temporal "No Stopping"Prohibitions - North Side of Turnberry Avenue in the Vicinity of General Mercer Public School - (Davenport)9

20Rescindment of Parking Prohibition from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. from Monday to Friday Tracy Street from Sydenham Street to a Point -36.5 Metres South (Don River)

21Restriction of Parking to Maximum Period of One Hour and Extension of Permit Parking Operational Hours - Millbrook Crescent, Between Broadview Avenue and East End - (Don River)4

22Adjustment to Parking Regulations -Adrian Avenue, North Side (Davenport)

23Changes to Parking Regulations and Introduction of Southbound Turn Prohibition - Charlotte Street, from Adelaide Street West to King Street West (Downtown)

24Prohibition of Non-Resident Overnight Parking -Dewbourne Avenue, South Side, from Glenayr Roadto Old Forest Hill Road (Midtown)

25Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled PersonsParking Spaces (Davenport, East Toronto and Midtown)

26Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (Davenport, East Toronto, Trinity-Niagara, Midtown, North Toronto)

27Examination of Feasibility of Installing Speed Humps-Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue (Midtown)

28Realignment of Intersections - College Street from Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street (Trinity-Niagara)

29Boulevard Cafe Application - 581-583 Markham Street(Trinity-Niagara

30Operation of Boulevard Cafes During the 1997 and 1998 Cafe Seasons (Midtown and Downtown)

31Removal of Two City Owned Trees -159 and 161 Beatrice Street (Trinity-Niagara)

32Requests for Endorsement of Events forLiquor Licensing Purposes

33Prohibition of Vehicles Over 2.0 Metres in Width -Laneway First South of Liberty Street Between Atlantic Avenue and Jefferson Avenue(Adjacent to Premises No. 58 Atlantic Avenue)(Trinity-Niagara)

34Parking Regulations - Richmond Street West ,Adjacent to Queen West Community Health Centre (Premises No. 168 Bathurst Street)(Trinity-Niagara)

35Traffic and Parking Regulations in the Vicinity of Air Canada Centre - Bay Street, from Lake Shore Boulevard West to the Railway Underpass (Downtown)

36Refinements to Approved Roadway Narrowing Plan - Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street (Davenport and Midtown)

37Extension of Parking Duration and Hours of Parking Operation - "Student Pick-Up/Drop-Off Area"- Jackman Avenue, West Side, from Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue (Don River)

38Installation of Speed Humps - Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychrest Avenue (Davenport)

39Installation of Speed Humps - Prescott Avenue from Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue (Davenport)

40Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 8 South Kingsway(High Park)

41Implementation of Two Sided Parking -Kewbeach Avenue Between Waverley Road and Kenilworth Avenue(East Toronto)

42Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Refusal - 373 Clinton Street (Midtown)

43Technical Amendments - Parking Regulations -Bloor Street West, Between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street (Trinity-Niagara)

44Committee of Adjustment Appeal -184 Sherbourne Street (Downtown)

45Introduction of Pay-and-Display Parking Machines Where Parking is Currently Allowed - Queen Street East, Both Sides, from Coxwell Avenue, to Woodbine Avenue (East Toronto)

46Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 56 Blue Jays Way (Downtown)

47Front Yard Parking - 4 Kingswood Road (East Toronto)

48Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending - College Street, South Side,42 Metres East of McCaul Street (Downtown)

49Draft By-law - Alteration of Yarmouth Road (Davenport

50Tree Removal - 9 Pote Avenue (North Toronto

51Implications of Permitting Front Yard Parking Where There are More Permit Parking Spaces Available than Permits Issued, on the Side of the Street Where Permit Parking is Authorized (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)

52Commercial Boulevard Parking - Edwin Avenue Flankage of 1635 Dupont Street(Davenport

53Commercial Boulevard Parking - Mark Street Flankage - 25 Defries Street (Don River)

54Commercial Boulevard Parking -8 and 10 Brock Avenue (High Park)

55Boulevard Cafe Operation - Via Italia Flankage - 1239A St. Clair Avenue West

56Narrowing and Realignment of the Pavement on Sudbury Street Between King Street West and Dovercourt Road (Trinity-Niagara)

57Status Report: Revised Application -Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments andSite Plan Approval - 9 Jackes Avenue

58Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of theFormer City of Toronto Municipal Code -126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond Street West (Downtown)

59Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 4

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on February 17, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999

Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning

- 86 and 100 Bloor Street West (Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the developer of this site be required to install and fund three commemorative plaques through Heritage Toronto, at suitable locations on the new building, such plaques to commemorate:

(1)the Physicians and Surgeons Building;

(2)the University Theatre; and

(3)Pearcy House.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (February 15, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto which introduction is subject to receipt of:

(a)an Agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act securing the matters described in the report (September 1, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with the Commissioner;

(b)a Heritage Easement Agreement to secure the incorporation of the facade of the former University Theatre and relocation and incorporation of the stone portal of the former Pearcy House in the proposed mixed use building in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto;

(c)postponements of all encumbrances on title to ensure the S. 37 and Heritage Easement Agreements constitute first and second charges against title;

(d)a letter or letters of credit to secure the cash contributions of $800,000.00 for local area improvements and $8,000.00 for a traffic monitoring study called for by the s. 37 Agreement;

(e)submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services the following:

(i)a strategy to keep neighbourhood streets free from dirt from excavation, hauling and construction activities;

(ii)a noise impact statement; and

(iii)at least three weeks before introduction of bills, 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 appurtenant rights of way and dimensioned plans of the development;

(f)submit to and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health

(i)a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which may include but is not limited to a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects on the site and a site and building audit for identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings; and

(ii)a soil and groundwater management plan;

(2)Council resolve that no further notice be given in respect of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment;

(3)the report (February 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted; and

(4)funds raised through the Parks levy for this development be expended in the Midtown Ward.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, to report directly to Council on

(a)how individuals will access the subway from the proposed development;

(b)whether such access is friendly to people with special needs; and

(c)how a weather-controlled subway connection could be achieved, should Council require it from this development;

(2)prior to the issuance of an Architectural permit, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(a)to report to the Toronto Community Council on the possibility of implementing innovative transit use incentives in conjunction with the Toronto Transit Commission for the theatre component of the development;

(b) to investigate the possibility of district heating and/or cooling for this site;

(c)through the Energy Efficiency Office, to report to the Toronto Community Council on the energy efficiency features in the construction of the project; and

(d)to report to the Toronto Community Council on waste reduction and diversion strategies incorporated in the development;

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, where any future opportunities exist to link a proposed development to public transport, on the possibility of incorporating an elevator at the subway into the development plans, such report to examine the possibility of a special levy for this purpose;

(4)the General Manager, Toronto Transit Commission to advise the Ward Councillors on the probable cost of installing an escalator or elevator at the subway entrance on Bellair Street, and of redesigning the Cumberland Street entrance to facilitate access; and

(5)the developer to consider incorporating some of the historic elements of the Physicians and Surgeons' Building into the design of the new development.

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 February 17, 1999, and the following persons addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Mr. Chris Barnett, Genest Murray DesBrisay Lamek;

-Ms. Jean Cuddy, Co-Chair, Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-Ms. Maureen Whelton, Teplitsky, Colson;

-Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird & Berlis;

-Mr. Carl Baar, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. William Phillips, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Jane Beecroft, President, Community History Project;

-Ms. Adrienne Clarkson, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Budd Sugarman, Toronto, Ontario.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 15, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a mixed-use building containing a movie theatre, retail space and residential dwelling units at 86 and 100 Bloor Street West.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Enacting the Draft By-laws does not require any expenditure by the City. The planning report recommends an agreement under section 37 of the Planning Act calling for the payments to the City of $800,000.00 for local area improvements and $8000 for a traffic study.

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 Planning 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-laws attached to the report (February 15, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto which introduction is subject to receipt of:

(a)an Agreement under s. 37 of the Planning Act securing the matters described in the report (September 1, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development in form satisfactory to the City Solicitor in consultation with the Commissioner;

(c)postponements of all encumbrances on title to ensure the S. 37 and Heritage Easement Agreements constitute first and second charges against title;

(d)a letter or letters of credit to secure the cash contributions of $800,000.00 for local area improvements and $8,000.00 for a traffic monitoring study called for by the .s 37 Agreement;

(e)submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services the following:

(i)a strategy to keep neighbourhood streets free from dirt from excavation, hauling and construction activities;

(ii)a noise impact statement; and

(f)submit to and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health

(ii)a soil and groundwater management plan;

(3)Council resolve that no further notice be given in respect of the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of October 1 and 2, 1998, Council adopted without amendment Clause 87 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, thereby requesting the City Solicitor to report on draft amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit a mixed use building containing a movie theatre, retail uses and residential dwelling units at 86 and 100 Bloor Street West.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

When Council considered this matter in October 1998, the proposal included a certain amount of off-site parking and a four-level below grade garage, part of which would be constructed under the City-owned Critchley Lane. The proponent would have had to purchase the land below the lane and enter into appropriate agreements to ensure reconstruction of the lane and support of the soil above the garage and paved surface, which would have remained in the City's hands.

The proponent still intends to construct a four-level garage, but wholly within the lands it currently owns. The required total parking remains the same, but a higher proportion will be provided off site. If the project is to be approved, Council should resolve that no further notice be given respecting the proposed amendments.

Because the proponent no longer wishes to construct under Critchley Lane, there will be no need of a construction phasing plan or pedestrian plan to address the reconstruction of the lane and temporary access to the abutting property at 102 Bloor Street West. The conditions for introduction of the bills set out in Recommendation No. 2 of this report have been revised accordingly.

Draft Heritage Easement and S. 37 Agreements have been prepared and are undergoing revision, and the owner is working toward satisfying other conditions that would have to be fulfilled before introduction of the Bills, should Council approve the Draft By-laws.

The Draft By-laws attached to this report will, if enacted, give effect to Council's approval of this project.

Contact Name:

John Paton, Solicitor, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-7230

Fax: (416) 392-0024

E-mail: jpaton@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

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

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

BY-LAW No. -1999

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto respecting lands known as Nos. 86 and 100 Bloor Street West.

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 former City of Toronto.

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No. 136.

--------

SCHEDULE "A"

1.Section 18.486 of the Official Plan, for the former City of Toronto is hereby amended by adding the following Section 18.486 and the attached Map 18.486;

"18.486Lands known as 86 and 100 Bloor Street West

86 and 100 Bloor Street West

See Map 18.486 at the end of this Section.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands known as 86 and 100 Bloor Street West and delineated by heavy lines on Map 18.486, to permit the erection and use of a mixed-use building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(1)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33 675 square metres, of which:

(a)not more than 20 020 square metres of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(b)not more than 6 070 square metres of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(c)not more than 7 585 square metres of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes; and

(2)the owner of the lands enters into an agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to provide the following facilities, services and matters at its expense and in accordance with the said agreement:

(a)retention in its current location and incorporation of the facade of the former University Theatre into the mixed-use building and relocation of the portal of the former Pearcy House to Bellair Street and its incorporation into the mixed-use building;

(b)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $800,000.00 for the purposes of off-site local area improvements;

(c)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8,000.00 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements in the vicinity of the lands;

(d)provision and maintenance of works of public art in publicly accessible portions of the lands or on adjacent lands owned by the City of a value not less than one percent of the cost of construction of the mixed-use building on the lands;

(e)reconstruction and maintenance of the publicly accessible pedestrian walkway at grade over the lands labelled Right-of-Way on Map 18.486 providing pedestrian access between Bloor Street West and Critchley Lane;

(f)provision and maintenance of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated for required approved Plans respecting Construction Phasing; Noise Impact; Soil and Groundwater Management; Demolition and Excavation Dust Control; Pedestrian; Loading Management; and Parking Information;

(g)that the owner have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development had been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(h)that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within twelve months of the opening cinema/theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan; and

(i)provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development.

(Map to be attached)

2.Amendment No. 497 is repealed upon the coming into force of the balance of this Amendment."

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

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

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, as amended,

respecting 86 and 100 Bloor Street West

and to repeal By-law No. 435-89 of the former City of Toronto,

respecting lands known as 96 and 100 Bloor Street West.

AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of a municipality may in a By-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in height or density of development beyond those otherwise permitted by the By-law 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 height and density of development, the municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the municipality dealing with the facilities, services or matters;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increases in density and height permitted hereunder, beyond those otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands by By-law No. 438-86, as amended, are to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law and are to be secured by one or more agreements between the owner of such lands and the City of Toronto;

AND WHEREAS Council has required the owner of the aforesaid lands to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increases in height and density in connection with the aforesaid lands as permitted in this By-law.

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

1.None of the provisions of Sections 4(2), 4(5)(b), 4(14)(a), 8(3) Part I, and 8(3) Part III 1(a) of By-law No. 436-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other mattes 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 on the lands delineated by heavy lines on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this By-law of a mixed-use building, including below-grade parking, containing not more than 33 675 square metres of combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area, provided:

(1)the lot on which the 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 located above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the areas delineated by heavy lines on Plan 2 attached to and forming part of this By-law;

(3)the height of the building does not exceed the heights or penetrate the "Angular Plane Area A" or "Angular Plane Area B" for the various portions of the building as shown on the attached Plan 2, such heights shown being inclusive of the structural elements referred to in sections 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, for the "Angular Plane Area A" and "Angular Plane Area B" and such heights being exclusive of structural elements referred to in section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, for the remainder of the building except that any parapet may only exceed the heights shown 0.4 metres;

(4)not more than 20 020 square metres of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(5)not more than 13 655 square metres of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for non residential purposes, of which not more than 6 070 square metres non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes and not more than 7 585 square metres of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes;

(6)there are not more than 160 residential dwelling units in the building;

(7)parking spaces are provided and maintained to serve the mixed-use building in accordance with the following:

(a)parking spaces are provided on the subject lot for the exclusive use of residents of the building at a minimum rate of :

(i)0.7 parking space for each one bedroom dwelling unit;

(ii)1 parking space for each two bedroom dwelling unit; and

(iii)1.2 parking spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling unit;

(b)parking spaces are provided on the subject lot for the exclusive use of visitors to the residents of the building at a minimum rate of .06 parking space for every dwelling unit;

(c)parking spaces are provided on the lot, or off-site within 300 metres thereof, at a minimum rate of:

(i)1 parking space for every twelve theatre seats or fraction equal to or greater than one-half thereof;

(ii)1 parking space for each 100 square metres of net floor area, or fraction equal to or greater than one-half thereof, of retail uses;

provided that not more than 48 per cent of the total number of parking spaces required by the By-law for the non-residential portion of the building are provided off-site; and

(d)parking spaces provided on the lot shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended, save and except for the parallel parking spaces, located on the east side of the below-grade garage, which are required to have a minimum length of 7.0 metres, and up to 5 per cent of the parking spaces in the below-grade garage, which may have an unobstructed area of not less than 2.3 metres in width and not less than 5.0 metres in length;

(8)one loading space - Type G and two loading spaces - Type B are provided on the lot in the below-grade garage, with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the lot in a forward motion;

(9)notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4(5)(i)(ii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, the driveway which provides access to and from the parking facilities in the building may have a minimum width of 3.0 metres at the parking control areas;

(10)the owner reconstruct and maintain the publicly accessible walkway at grade labelled Right-of-Way on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this By-law to provide pedestrian access between Bloor Street West and Critchley Lane.

(11)the owner of the lot, at its expense and in accordance with and subject to the agreement referred to in Subsection 1(11)(k) of this By-law:

(a)retains in its current location and incorporates the facade of the former University Theatre into the mixed use building and relocates the portal of the former Pearcy House to Bellair Street and incorporates it into the mixed-use building;

(b)pays to the City the sum of $800,000.00 for off-site local area improvements;

(c)pays to the City the sum of $8,000.00 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions and for traffic related improvements in the vicinity of the subject lot;

(d)provides and maintains works of public art in publicly accessible portions of the lot or on adjacent lands owned by the City of a value not less than one per cent of the cost of construction of the mixed-use building erected on the lot;

(e)reconstructs and maintains the publicly accessible pedestrian walkway at grade over the lands labelled Right-of-Way on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this By-law providing pedestrian access between Bloor Street West and Critchley Lane;

(f)provides and maintains the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated for in required approved Plans respecting Construction Phasing; Noise Impact; Soil and Groundwater Management; Demolition and Excavation Dust Control; Pedestrian; Loading Management; and Parking Information;

(g)has 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)submits and has approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within 12 months of the opening of the cinema/theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the lot and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 p.m., and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan;

(i)provides space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with the development of the lot pursuant to this By-law; and

(j)enters into an agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in subsections 1(11)(a) - (j) of this By-law.

2.For the purposes of this By-law:

(1)"Angular Plane Area A" means a plane at an angle of 45 degrees measured horizontally over the lot adjacent and parallel to Critchley Lane at a height of 35.0 metres above grade through which no part of the building may penetrate;

(2)"Angular Plane Area B" means a plane at an angle of 54 degrees measured horizontally over the lot and parallel 9.3 metres south of Critchley Lane at a height of 71.4 metres above grade through which no part of the building may penetrate exclusive of a 0.4 metre tall parapet;

(3)"lot" means the lands delineated by heavy lines on the attached Plan 1; and

(4)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 the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

3.By-law No. 435-89 is repealed upon the coming into force of the balance of this By-law.

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 87 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council headed, "Final Report - Application No. 197027 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) (Midtown)":

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council support Application 197027, which proposes to retain and incorporate the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(2)the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto), for lands known in the year 1998 as 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West, substantially as set out below:

"86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West

See Map 18. at the end of this Section.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map , to permit an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted, for the erection and use of a mixed commercial and residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(a)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,675 m2, of which:

(i)not more than 20,020 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(ii)not more than 6070 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(iii)not more than 7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes; and

(b)the owner of the lands enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

(i)retention and incorporation of the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(ii)a contribution to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, such contribution to be reported on to the Toronto Community Council and finalized prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council;

(iii)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements;

(iv)provision and maintenance of One Percent for Public Art on publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(v)provision and maintenance, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West, of the publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane;

(vi)provision and maintenance of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated for required approved Plans respecting Construction Phasing; Noise Impact; Soil and Groundwater Management; Demolition and Excavation Dust Control; Pedestrian; Loading Management; and Parking Information;

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

(viii)that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within twelve months of the opening of the cinema/ theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan; and

(iv)provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development."

(3)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, a draft by-law to amend the City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) as it affects the lands known as 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West so as to:

(a)exempt the lands shown on the Key Map attached to this report from the following Sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

4 (2) Height Limits: Buildings and Structures;

4 (5) Parking Spaces (b);

4 (14) Setbacks from the centre line of a Public Lane (a);

8 (3) Part I - Density;

8 (3) Part III - Open Space 1. (a); and

(b)permit, on the lands shown on the Key Map attached to this report, the erection and use of a mixed commercial and residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(i)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,675 m2, of which:

(a)not more than 20,020 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(b)not more than 6070 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(c)not more than 7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes;

(ii)the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed 160;

(iii)the height of such building does not exceed the heights and angular planes as shown on the plans and drawings submitted with this application, which is 84.4 metres at its tallest, exclusive of a 0.4 metre tall parapet and the mechanical penthouse. This provision is not intended to prevent the erection or use of other structural elements permitted by Sections 4 (2) Height Limits (a) (I) and (ii) of the Zoning By-law which may extend vertically beyond such building envelope;

(iv)not less than 445 parking spaces are provided and maintained to serve the building, provided:

(a)not less than 122 parking spaces are provided on-site for the exclusive use of the residents of the building;

(b)not less than 323 parking spaces are provided for the use of visitors to the residential building (10) and for the commercial uses (313), of which not more than 88 parking spaces of the 313 parking spaces required for the commercial uses may be provided off-site, within 300 metres of the site; and

(c)the on-site parking spaces shall comply with the dimensional requirements of the Zoning By-law, save and except for the parallel parking spaces, located on the east side of the underground garage, which are required to have a minimum length of 7.0 metres;

(v)one Type G and two Type B loading spaces are provided on-site in the below-grade garage, with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(vi)a publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway, located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane, is provided and maintained, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West;

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

(aa)retention and incorporation of the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(bb)a contribution to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, such contribution to be reported on and finalized prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council;

(cc)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements;

(dd)provision and maintenance of One Percent for Public Art on publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(ee)provision and maintenance, with the owner of 102 Bloor Street West, of the publicly-accessible at-grade pedestrian walkway located between the site and 102 Bloor Street West, which connects Bloor Street West to Critchley Lane;

(ff)provision and maintenance of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated for required approved Plans respecting Construction Phasing; Noise Impact; Soil and Groundwater Management; Demolition and Excavation Dust Control; Pedestrian; Loading Management; and Parking Information;

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

(hh)that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within twelve months of the opening of the cinema / theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan; and

(ii)provision of space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes, sewer maintenance holes and any other collateral matters which are required in connection with this development.

(4)Site-specific By-laws 434-89, 435-89 and 436-89 be repealed, on the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended in Recommendations 4 and 5 above.

(5)Prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)the owner enter into the above-referenced Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b)the owner provide the City Solicitor with any postponements as required; and

(c)the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure the contributions to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, and $8000 to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements.

(6)(i)The owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division), prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Construction Phasing Plan, to address interim access to 102 Bloor Street West, and which will include, but is not limited to, a requirement that the owner fully reconstruct Critchley Lane or any other affected public lands, and a provision that the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure that obligation; and

(ii)The owner submit a strategy aimed at keeping neighbourhood streets free from dirt due to excavation, haulage and construction activities; specifically, that the proponent maintain street cleaning equipment, and the necessary operating skills, on the construction site, to be deployed as needed;

(7)The owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Noise Impact Statement, and be required to:

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

(b)provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(8)The owner submit, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, at least three weeks prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto; and

(b)dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing the site-specific by-laws.

(9)Prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, the owner be required to amend the existing Heritage Easement Agreement or execute a new Heritage Easement Agreement with the City to replace the existing Agreement, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, for the conservation of the former University Theatre facade and the relocated portal of the Pearcy House facade, in consultation with Heritage Toronto.

(10)The owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, which may include, but is not limited to:

(a)a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects on the site; and

(b)a Site and Building Audit for identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings.

(11)The owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

(12)The owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the entering into of the Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, a Grading and Drainage Plan.

(13)The owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

(14)The owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Pedestrian Plan, detailing signage, pavement treatment and other physical conditions needed to ensure safety for pedestrians entering and exiting the site across Critchley Lane, and be required to provide, maintain and operate the pedestrian measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Pedestrian Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(15)The owner submit, and have approved by the Toronto Transit Commission, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, Site and Foundation Plans, which include:

(a)shoring drawings, showing calculations;

(b)a plot plan, showing the subway structure;

(c)structural calculations showing loads;

(d)a soils / geotechnical report; and

(e)excavating, de-watering and landscape plans.

(16)The owner enter into a Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, delegated to me under Chapter 165, Article IV, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to secure Site Plan Approval, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

(17)In connection with the construction of the underground parking garage, the owner be required to:

(a)acquire title to the land below the public lane, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, while the surface lands (with minimum depth of 0.5 metres from the finished grade) would remain with the City;

(b)submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a detailed design prepared by a qualified municipal engineer showing the manner in which the underground garage will be constructed below the public lane;

(c)construct the roof of the parking structure to Bridge Code Standards;

(d)pay for the cost of reconstruction of the public lane to existing conditions, and in this regard, provide security in the form of a Letter of Credit in an amount satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e)indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims, or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges, and expenses that may result from the construction of the garage beneath the public highway;

(f)maintain the structure in good and proper repair and in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g)indemnify the City from and against any loss or damage to the waterproofing and structure resulting from the maintenance and reconstruction of the lane pavement, unless such loss or damage is caused by negligence of the City; and

(h)include additional conditions as the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interests of the Corporation.

(18)The owner be advised of the Comments of Civic Officials appended to this report, including:

(a)the requirement to pay a Parks Levy, in lieu of a conveyance of land, pursuant to Chapter 165, Development of Land, Article I, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit;

(b)the comments of the Manager, Development Approval, Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting their Zoning review and required approvals;

(c)the comments and requirements of the Toronto Transit Commission for approval of the development;

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

(e)to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to submission of an application for a Building Permit.

(f)that the Bloor Street West boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g)the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits as well as potentially other permits, such as hoarding, piling / shoring etc. from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to construction; and

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

(19)The construction plan be formulated in consultation with the two Ward Councillors and the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(20)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Ward Councillors facilitate an agreement with 110 Bloor Street West on construction-related access to Cumberland Street;

(21)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services consider and report to the Toronto Community Council on the facilitation of an archeologist on site during the excavation phase of the project, as suggested by Ms. Jane Beecroft in her deputation; and

(22)The proponent meet with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to pursue entry/exit to the construction site from Bloor Street West.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council having requested:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, to report directly to Council regarding the social needs of residents of this development, and to comment on the capacity of nearby schools, child care centres and community centres to serve the new residents; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on the possibility of a tow-away zone or no-stopping zone on Critchley Lane.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations respecting an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a new mixed-use development for 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That, if City Council supports the continued conservation of the existing Pearcy House facade, at 96 Bloor Street West, in accordance with the Heritage Easement Agreement registered on title, then Application 197027 should be refused in its current form and/or

(2)That, if City Council supports the preservation of the existing Physicians and Surgeons Building, at 86 Bloor Street West, pursuant to the recommendations of the Board of Heritage Toronto, then Application 197027 should be refused in its current form or

(3)That, if City Council supports Application 197027, which proposes to retain and incorporate the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development, then City Council should adopt Recommendations 4 to 20 below.

(4)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto), for lands known in the year 1998 as 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West, substantially as set out below:

"86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West

See Map 18. at the end of this Section.

(a)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,675 m2, of which:

(I)not more than 20,020 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(ii)not more than 6070 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(iii)not more than 7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes; and

(b)the owner of the lands enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

(i)retention and incorporation of the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(ii)a contribution to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park, such contribution to be reported on and finalized prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council;

(iii)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements;

(iv)provision and maintenance of One Percent for Public Art on publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(viii)that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within twelve months of the opening of the cinema / theatre complex, a Monitoring Report, which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6:00 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan; and

(5)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, a draft by-law to amend the City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) as it affects the lands known as 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West so as to:

(a)exempt the lands shown on the Key Map attached to this report from the following Sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

4 (2) Height Limits: Buildings and Structures;

4 (5) Parking Spaces (b);

4 (14) Setbacks from the centre line of a Public Lane (a);

8 (3) Part I - Density;

8 (3) Part III - Open Space 1. (a); and

(b)permit, on the lands shown on the Key Map attached to this report, the erection and use of a mixed commercial and residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(i)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,675 m2, of which:

(a)not more than 20,020 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(b)not more than 6070 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(c)not more than 7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for motion picture or other theatre purposes;

(ii)the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed 160;

(iv)not less than 445 parking spaces are provided and maintained to serve the building, provided:

(a)not less than 122 parking spaces are provided on-site for the exclusive use of the residents of the building;

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

(aa)retention and incorporation of the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed mixed-use development;

(cc)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for traffic related improvements;

(dd)provision and maintenance of One Percent for Public Art on publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(6)That site-specific By-laws 434-89, 435-89 and 436-89 be repealed, on the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended in Recommendations 4 and 5 above.

(7)That, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(b)the owner provide the City Solicitor with any postponements as required; and

(8)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division), prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Construction Phasing Plan, to address interim access to 102 Bloor Street West, and which will include, but is not limited to, a requirement that the owner fully reconstruct Critchley Lane or any other affected public lands, and a provision that the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure that obligation.

(9)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Noise Impact Statement, and be required to:

(b)provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(10)That the owner submit, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, at least three weeks prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(b)dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing the site-specific by-laws.

(11)That, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, the owner be required to amend the existing Heritage Easement Agreement or execute a new Heritage Easement Agreement with the City to replace the existing Agreement, pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act, for the conservation of the former University Theatre facade and the relocated portal of the Pearcy House facade, in consultation with Heritage Toronto.

(12)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, which may include, but is not limited to:

(a)a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects on the site; and

(b)a Site and Building Audit for identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings.

(13)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

(14)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the entering into of the Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, a Grading and Drainage Plan.

(15)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

(16)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a Pedestrian Plan, detailing signage, pavement treatment and other physical conditions needed to ensure safety for pedestrians entering and exiting the site across Critchley Lane, and be required to provide, maintain and operate the pedestrian measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Pedestrian Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(17)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Toronto Transit Commission, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, Site and Foundation Plans, which include:

(a)shoring drawings, showing calculations;

(b)a plot plan, showing the subway structure;

(c)structural calculations showing loads;

(d)a soils / geotechnical report; and

(e)excavating, de-watering and landscape plans.

(18)That the owner enter into a Statement of Approval of Plans / Undertaking, delegated to me under Chapter 165, Article IV, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to secure Site Plan Approval, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

(19)That, in connection with the construction of the underground parking garage, the owner be required to:

(c)construct the roof of the parking structure to Bridge Code Standards;

(f)maintain the structure in good and proper repair and in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(h)include additional conditions as the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interests of the Corporation.

(20)That the owner be advised of the Comments of Civic Officials appended to this report, including:

(b)the comments of the Manager, Development Approval, Urban Planning and Development Services, respecting their Zoning review and required approvals;

(c)the comments and requirements of the Toronto Transit Commission for approval of the development;

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

(e)to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to submission of an application for a Building Permit.

(f)that the Bloor Street West boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(h)the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection.

Background:

1.Applicant and owners:

The application and revised plans were submitted by Kim Kovar, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, BCE Place, Suite 1800, Box 754, 181 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5J 2T9, on behalf of B.C. Pacific Capital Limited and 695146 Ontario Limited (Gentra).

2.Site:

Nos. 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West are located on the north side of Bloor Street West, west of Bellair Street. The combined site area is 3579.5 m2, with approximately 71 metres of frontage along Bloor Street West and Critchley Lane to the north.

Currently, 86 Bloor Street West contains a 7-storey commercial-office building, known as the Physicians and Surgeons Building, and Flo's Diner, a one-storey Neo-Art Moderne style restaurant which fronts on Bellair Street. The Physicians and Surgeons Building, which was built in 1922, is listed on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties. No. 96 Bloor Street West, which is currently used together with 100 Bloor Street West as a commercial parking lot, contains the three-storey front facade of the former Sanderson Pearcy House. The Lothian Mews, well-remembered for its retail shops and courtyard complex, was once located behind the Pearcy House facade. The Pearcy House facade was listed in 1974 and designated under the Ontario Heritage Act by By-law by City Council in 1976. No. 100 Bloor Street West contains the front portion and facade of the former 1328-seat University Theatre, built in 1947. The University Theatre facade was listed in 1986 and designated in 1987.

3.Surrounding area:

A 16-storey, 120-unit, residential building is located immediately west of the site at 102 Bloor Street West. A public lane, known as Critchley Lane, and the Village of Yorkville Park are located immediately north of the site. The Village of Yorkville Park was formerly known as Cumberland Park. A variety of lower scale retail uses, and some residential uses, are located farther north in the Village of Yorkville.

4.Revised proposal:

The revised proposal, received August 12, 1998, is a 25-storey, 9.4 times density, mixed-use development containing:

(a)6067 m2 of non-residential gross floor area (or 1.7 times coverage) for retail uses;

(b)7585 m2 of non-residential gross floor area (or 2.1 times coverage) for nine Famous Players' movie theatres, containing a total of 3090 seats;

(d)a four-level underground parking garage containing 395 parking spaces and three loading spaces.

5.History:

Application 197027 was received November 19, 1997.

The Preliminary Report, dated February 2, 1998, was adopted by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting on February 18, 1998.

6.Public review:

The public meeting in the community was held at Jesse Ketchum Public School on May 19, 1998. Approximately 35 people attended the public meeting. While the proposal was well-received by some in attendance, others expressed concerns. Concerns included that: the proposal is too big and too tall; the shadow impacts on the Village of Yorkville Park will be too excessive; the Pearcy House (Lothian Mews) facade should be saved; and area parking and traffic problems will be worsened.

Comments:

7.Planning Controls:

7.1Applicable Official Plan policies:

The Official Plan designates the site a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area 'A'. As discussed in Section 13.12 of the Plan, a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area is largely built up with tall, high density commercial and residential buildings. According to the Plan, these areas should be developed to help realize the housing intensification objectives of the Plan and high density residential buildings in these areas generally contain retail uses at grade. In a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area 'A', the maximum permitted total gross floor area is 6.0 times the area of the lot.

The site is also within the North Midtown Part II Plan area, and is affected by the provisions of the related Design Guidelines for North Midtown.

7.2Applicable Zoning:

The City's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) zones the site CR T6.0 C4.5 R6.0. This high density mixed-use zone permits a mixed-use building with a maximum density of 6.0 times coverage. The governing Height Limit is 46 metres.

8.Planning considerations:

8.1Historic facades and the Physicians and Surgeons Building:

In 1989, Council adopted Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 17-storey, 7.8 times density, hotel and cinema complex at 96 and 100 Bloor Street West. At the time, the applicant was Cineplex Odeon. Council supported the amendments, subject to a Heritage Easement Agreement to preserve and incorporate the facades of the former Pearcy House and the University Theatre. The Heritage Easement Agreement was entered into and is registered on title. The Physicians and Surgeons Building site, at 86 Bloor Street West, was not part of the 1989 proposal, but is included in the current application. The Physicians and Surgeons Building was listed on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties for architectural reasons in 1982.

The current proposal retains and restores the historic University Theatre facade and appropriately incorporates it into the development as the main entrance to the new cinemas. The applicant has also advised Heritage Toronto that the canopy will be restored and a new vertical sign will be reconstructed to match the original "University" sign which was once attached to the front facade. Planning staff and Heritage Toronto support the proposed re-use of the former University Theatre facade.

However, the owner proposes to retain only a small element of the Pearcy House facade. The revised plans relocate the main entrance limestone portal of the Pearcy House facade into the Bellair Street lobby entrance for the proposed residential tower. The remainder of the facade is proposed to be demolished. According to Heritage Toronto, the Pearcy House facade provides an important view terminus to the top of St. Thomas Street, and could be incorporated into the development to accommodate retail shops on Bloor Street.

The Physicians and Surgeons Building is also proposed to be demolished. Heritage Toronto advises that the Physicians and Surgeons Building is the only building between Avenue Road and Sherbourne Street on Bloor Street which reflects the professional and commercial development of the medical practice between World War I and II, and it should be saved.

The applicant submitted to the City a Heritage Assessment, dated March 1998, and later, submitted to Heritage Toronto a Statement of Attributes and Public Benefits, dated June 3, 1998. According to the applicant, the design and the structural and floor space requirements of their project precludes retention of the Pearcy House facade and the Physicians and Surgeons Building.

At its meeting held on June 17, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto adopted the recommendations of the report of their Managing Director, dated June 9, 1998, respecting the current application. Heritage Toronto's support is conditional upon: revisions to the proposal to include the Pearcy House facade and the Physicians and Surgeons Building; the owner agreeing to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement to preserve the Physicians and Surgeons Building; and the owner posting a Letter of Credit with the City in an amount and form satisfactory to secure the restoration of all the historic components of this development.

In light of the conditions of Heritage Toronto and the position of the applicant, I am requesting that Council provide direction on this matter. If Council supports the continued conservation of the facade of the former Pearcy House, in accordance with the existing Heritage Easement Agreement registered on title, then Application 197027 should be refused in its current form. If Council supports the preservation of the existing Physicians and Surgeons Building, pursuant to the recommendations of the Board of Heritage Toronto, then Application 197027 should be refused in its current form. If Council supports Application 197027, which proposes to retain and incorporate the former University Theatre facade and the portal of the Pearcy House facade into the proposed development, as described above, then it should approve the recommended amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

8.2Density, height and massing:

The maximum total density permitted on this site by the Official Plan and base Zoning By-law provisions is 6.0 times coverage. The applicant proposes to construct a 33,667 m2 mixed-use building on a 3579.5 m2 site. The total density is 9.4 times coverage.

The total densities of several buildings on Bloor Street West within the High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area 'A' are greater than the density of the proposed building. As examples: 102 Bloor Street West (immediately west of the subject site) has a density of 13 times coverage; 110 Bloor Street West is 12.8 times coverage; and 101 Bloor Street West (on the south-west corner of Bloor and St. Thomas Streets) is 12 times coverage. The new Windsor Arms development, a mixed hotel and residential building under construction on the north-west corner of Sultan and St. Thomas Streets, which is within the same zone as the subject site, has a density of 7.3 times coverage.

The base Height Limit applicable to the site is 46 metres. Existing buildings on Bloor Street in this area vary in height, but several buildings exceed the base Height Limit. For example, 102 Bloor Street West, which is immediately west of the subject site, is 59 metres in height. The tallest building within this zone is the terraced Renaissance Plaza, at 150 Bloor Street West, which reaches a height of 81.5 metres.

The height and massing of the proposed building can be described in two parts. First, the primarily non-residential component of the building, which contains the retail uses, nine cinemas and the main entrance to the residential tower, is 38 metres in height. This 'base' component of the building has also been notched-out on the north-west corner, and a lower 35-metre high street-edge, with a 45-degree angular plane, has been incorporated on the north elevation to increase sunlight access to the Park and Cumberland Street. The residential tower component, which is situated on the south-east end of the site, is 84.4 metres (or 25 storeys) tall at its main roof line. The upper floors of the tower have been stepped back to reduce the visual impact of the bulk of the building and to improve sunlight access to the north. At its most northerly point, the tower is set back 9.3 metres from the north property line. While the tower component of the proposed building is relatively tall, it covers less than half of the site. The base of the building is eight metres below the height limit and will be lower than most of the larger buildings on Bloor Street in this area. It should be noted that the elevations submitted with the revised plans, dated August 12, 1998, label the overall height at 83 metres. This is an error. Departmental review, including submitted sun/shadow studies, was based on a building which is 84.4 metres tall, with a 0.4 metre tall parapet. The project architect confirms their error. Prior to Site Plan Approval, corrected elevations will be submitted.

The applicant submitted a Pedestrian Level Wind Study, dated March 25, 1998, for review. The study finds that pedestrian level winds around the site will be acceptable.

Section 10.3 © of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown states that "New buildings should be located and designed to minimize overshadowing of the public sidewalk on the north side of Cumberland Street by ensuring that 60 percent of the sidewalk is in sunlight at noon on March 21/September 23." The current application was not revised to strictly adhere to this recommendation in the Design Guidelines for North Midtown. Instead, Parks staff compared the shade/shadow conditions illustrated in their Cumberland Park Design Competition report against the current proposal. Parks and Planning staff together assessed shadow impact analyses to ensure that sunlight access to the Park, and the sidewalks on Cumberland and Bellair Streets, would be satisfactory for various months and times. Staff are now satisfied that the massing of the current proposal allows for acceptable sunlight conditions.

Overall, the density and height of the proposal generally reflect the surrounding context, and its massing addresses wind and sunlight access concerns.

8.3Section 37:

Not unlike other large projects which require amendments for significant increases in density and height, this application will include a contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and existing Official Plan policies. The applicant has proposed to provide the funds required to re-design and reconstruct the existing Bay Subway station entrance within the Village of Yorkville Park; however, the preliminary estimates provided by the applicant for this contribution are less than an amount consistent with policies on these types of Section 37 benefits. Negotiations are on-going, and the appropriate Section 37 contribution has not been finalized. I am recommending that the applicant be required to enter into a Section 37 Agreement to secure a contribution and those facilities, services and matters referenced in Recommendations 4 and 5, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council. I will report further on this matter.

8.4Streetscape:

The project has four frontages: Bloor Street West, Bellair Street, Critchley Lane/Village of Yorkville Park and the pedestrian walkway between the site and 102 Bloor Street West. In the Preliminary Report, I stated that highly animated street-edges, and an appropriate at-grade relationship with the Village of Yorkville Park and along the length of the pedestrian walkway are important planning objectives.

As discussed, the Bloor Street frontage appropriately incorporates the University Theatre facade. The south elevation also shows a very large window element or curtain wall, approximately 30 metres by 30 metres in size, which is on axis with the St. Thomas Street view terminus. Escalators and interior circulation areas will be visible to the street, which will make for an interesting and very animated street-edge.

A similar, but smaller curtain wall is shown on the north elevation. The latest plans show secondary exit doors for the cinemas to an on-site sidewalk along a portion of the north edge of the site. Doors to the ground floor retail areas are also included along the north side of the building. Notwithstanding, I am concerned that most of the north side of the north elevation of the building is blank and unanimated. I am requiring that revised plans be submitted to show improvements in the animation and articulation of the north elevation. Such revisions will be necessary to obtain Site Plan Approval.

While the base of the building has been satisfactorily set back from 102 Bloor Street West, I am also concerned with the lack of animation on the west elevation. Materials and detailing are undefined. Significant improvements to the west elevation, in terms of animation, are required.

The Bellair Street elevation includes the entrance to the residential building and access to the below-grade parking and loading areas. As discussed, the applicant is proposing to relocate the main entrance limestone portal of the Pearcy House facade into the Bellair Street lobby entrance for the proposed residential tower.

8.5Setback from 102 Bloor Street West:

No. 102 Bloor Street West, located immediately west of the subject site, is a 16-storey building which was converted from office uses to residential uses in 1996, and it contains dwelling units which face east toward the subject site. In my Preliminary Report, I commented that the west elevation of the proposal should be set back no less than 5.5 metres from the property line and should, if possible, angle farther away towards the north and south property lines. This recommendation was made to ensure minimally acceptable light and view conditions for the east facing units of 102 Bloor Street West.

The first two floors of the base of the proposed building are set back 2.2 metres from the west property line. At the third floor, the west elevation is set back 4.0 metres and 5.5 metres, and arcs away slightly at the south and north property lines. The fourth floor is set back a minimum 5.5 metres. At the fourth floor mezzanine level, and for all floors above, the base is notched-out towards the south and north property lines, which increases the setback by another 3.0 metres.

The revised plans satisfactorily address this Department's concerns respecting the setback from 102 Bloor Street West.

8.6Parking:

The applicant proposes 395 below-grade parking spaces; however, the current plans do not delineate the number of spaces allocated to the residential dwelling units, and the retail and movie theatre uses. The applicant's parking and traffic consultant has advised me that their building garage will contain 160 parking spaces for the 160 residential dwelling units; 10 parking spaces for visitors to the residential building; and 225 parking spaces for the commercial uses. The applicant and the Parking Authority of Toronto are in discussions respecting management of the on-site commercial parking spaces. The applicant also proposes to provide 100 off-site parking spaces.

Buildings' officials have advised me that the Zoning By-law requirements for parking for this application are as follows: 90 parking spaces for the residential dwelling units; 10 parking spaces for visitors to the residential building; 61 parking spaces for the retail uses; and 627 parking spaces for the cinema uses. The total Zoning By-law parking requirement is 788 parking spaces. It should be noted that Buildings' staff have applied the more restrictive 'Not-in-force' Place of Assembly parking requirement to the cinema uses.

However, staff of Works and Emergency Services have reviewed the application, including area traffic and parking information provided by the applicant's traffic and parking consultant, and concluded that the proposed provision of 395 on-site parking spaces and 100 off-site parking spaces satisfies the estimated demand generated by the project for 445 parking spaces. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services recommends that the applicant be required to provide 445 parking spaces to serve the project, with a minimum of 122 on-site parking spaces for the residents of the building, and 235 on-site parking spaces for the visitors to the residential component of the building and for the commercial uses. I am recommending that 10 of the required 235 parking spaces be provided on-site within the below-grade garage for the exclusive use of visitors to the residential component. Eighty-eight of the 445 parking spaces required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may be provided off-site, which would allow for the applicant to provide 160 parking spaces on-site for the exclusive use of the residents.

While the applicant's proposal to lease off-site parking spaces is acceptable in principle to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, he advises that this arrangement be monitored, and is recommending that the applicant be required to submit, and have approved, within twelve months of the opening of the theatres, a Monitoring Report, detailing parking utilization on the site and in the off-site facility.

8.7Traffic:

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed traffic forecast information supplied by the applicant's consultant. According to submitted information, the peak of vehicular traffic activity associated with uses on this site is forecast to occur during the weekday evening, and will generate 100 and 110 net new vehicles inbound and outbound, respectively. Given that the project will include parking in an underground garage to serve residents, retail customers and a portion of theatre customers, as well as providing arrangements in an off-site facility to accommodate the remaining theatre parking, traffic activity will be dispersed, rather than concentrated entirely at the site.

The consultant's information indicates that the new development will not create any significant changes in traffic operations within the area. Notwithstanding, in order to respond to any potential measures which may be required as a result of this project, or any other traffic management measures identified by the businesses and residents in Yorkville and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to mitigate traffic impacts caused by the project, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is recommending that the applicant be required to partially off-set the cost of monitoring traffic and pedestrian activity and the implementation of possible measures through a one-time cash contribution of $8,000.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises me that the analysis of pedestrian activity indicates pedestrian volumes will increase significantly at peak times, in particular, on the sidewalk on the north side of Bloor Street West. This is partially off-set by the proposed entrance/exit onto Critchley Lane, which will redistribute some activity away from Bloor Street West and Bellair Street. The issue of safety for pedestrians exiting to Critchley Lane will be examined in further detail to establish additional warning and safety elements to minimize potential conflicts between vehicular traffic and pedestrians.

8.8TTC Subway connection:

When the application was first submitted, the owner proposed a below-grade walkway connection to the Bay TTC Subway station. The connection would have been made beneath the now complete Village of Yorkville Park. The applicant has since abandoned this proposal because of the close proximity of the site to the existing ground level entrances to the Bay TTC Subway station, which will maintain a higher level of pedestrian activity at grade and through the park.

8.9Loading:

The revised plans show one Type G and two Type B loading spaces on the Concourse Plan. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises me that the proposed number of loading spaces satisfies estimated loading demand generated by the project and the requirements of the Zoning By-law.

8.10Bicycle parking:

Buildings' staff have advised me that the Zoning By-law requirements for bicycle parking are 96 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 24 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. The proposal does not meet the requirements. The current bicycle parking provisions are not onerous, and I am not recommending that the application be exempted from the requirements. I am recommending that, prior to Site Plan Approval, the applicant submit revised plans which meet the bicycle parking requirements.

8.11Amenity space:

The revised plans, date stamped August 12, 1998, show 320 m2 of Indoor Amenity Space and 320 m2 of Outdoor Amenity Space on the 11th Floor and on the roof above the cinemas. The proposed amount of Indoor and Outdoor Amenity Space meets the requirements of the Zoning By-law.

8.12Public Art:

Section 10.11 of the Official Plan states that it is the policy of Council to enhance opportunities for establishing public art by achieving a contribution of public art in all development proposals exceeding 20,000 m2 of gross floor area, the cost of which is equal to one percent of the project's gross construction costs. The gross floor area of the applicant's proposal exceeds 20,000 m2, and is therefore subject to this provision.

8.13Construction phasing:

In order to increase the on-site parking supply and improve the layout of the below-grade plans, the applicant is proposing to encroach and build a portion of the underground garage beneath Critchley Lane. This proposal will require the temporary closing of a portion or all of Critchley Lane during the construction of the building. Parking and loading access to 102 Bloor Street West, which is located immediately west of the subject site, is achieved via Critchley Lane.

In a letter, dated August 13, 1998, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services requested the applicant to submit a Construction Phasing Plan to demonstrate how access to the parking and loading facilities for 102 Bloor Street West will be maintained during construction of the project, if the Lane or a portion of it has to be closed. Interim access arrangements for 102 Bloor Street West could not only affect Critchley Lane but the Village of Yorkville Park itself.

Accordingly, I am recommending that the owner submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division), prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Construction Phasing Plan, which will include, but is not limited to, a requirement that the owner fully reconstruct Critchley Lane or any other affected public lands, and a provision that the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the City Treasurer, to secure that obligation.

Conclusions:

Subject to Council's direction on the Pearcy House facade and the Physician and Surgeons Building, I believe that the revised proposal should be supported. It will improve the area and appropriately return movie theatre uses to the former University Theatre site. I am satisfied that the current massing will minimize shadow impacts on the Village of Yorkville Park and Cumberland Street.

Some revisions to the plans will be necessary to respond to required modifications, including increased animation on the north and west elevations, which can be addressed through delegated Site Plan Approval.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi

City Planner, City Planning Division, North

Telephone: 392-1324

Fax: 392-1330, E-mail: mmizzi@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval: Y Application Number: 197027

Rezoning: Y Application Date: November 19, 1997

O. P. A.: Y Date of Revision: August 12, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West

Nearest Intersection: North side of Bloor Street West, west of Bellair Street.

Project Description: To construct a mixed residential, retail and cinema building.

Applicant:

B.C. Pacific Capital / 695146

Ontario Ltd. (Gentra)
Agent:

Aird and Berlis (Kim Kovar)

BCE Place, Suite 1800

865-7769
Architect:

Au and Graham Architects

26 Dalhousie St., Suite 200

368-1941

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

OP Designation: HDMCRA 'A' Site specific by-laws: 434-89, 435-89, 436-89

Zoning District: CR T6.0 C4.5 R6.0 Historical Status: 86 Listed, 96 and 100 Designated

Height Limit (m): 46.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area:
3579.5 m²
Height: Storeys: 25 + Mechanical

Frontage: 70.9 m Metres: 84.4

Depth:

Indoor:

Ground Floor: Parking: 395

Residential GFA: 20015.4 m² Loading: 1 G

Commercial GFA: 13651.3 m² (number, type) 2 B

Total GFA: 33666.7 m²

Dwelling Units Floor Area Breakdown

Tenure: Condo Land Use Above Grade Below Grade

1 Bedroom: 129 Residential 19973.9 m² 41.5 m²

2 Bedroom: 27 Retail 5361.5 m² 705.1 m²

3 Bedroom: 4 Cinemas 7488.1 m² 96.6 m²

Total Units: 160 Indoor Amenity Space 320.0 m²

Proposed Density

Residential Density: 5.59 Non-Residential Density: 3.81 Total Density: 9.41

Comments

Status:

Application revised. Note: This application replaces Site Plan Approval Application 397121.

Data valid:

August 12, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

--------

Appendix

Comments of Civic Officials

1.Urban Planning and Development Services (Buildings Section), dated August 18, 1998:

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct mixed-use building comprising 25 storeys plus a mechanical penthouse, for retail stores, place of amusement (cinemas) and 160 dwelling units.

Zoning Designation:CR T6.0 C4.5 R6.0Map:50J-313

Applicable By-laws:438-86, as amended

Plans prepared by:Au and Graham ArchitectsPlans dated:August 12, 1998

Residential GFA:20015.4 m2

Non-Residential GFA:13651.3 m2

Zoning Review

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

1.The height of the proposed building (86.0 metres) exceeds the maximum permitted by 40.0 metres. (Section 4(2)(a))

2.The 225 parking spaces proposed for non-residential uses are deficient of the minimum required 688 by 433. (Note: 61 parking spaces are required for the retail uses and 627 parking spaces are required in conjunction with the proposed cinemas.) (Section 4(5)(b))

3.The proposed parking spaces for visitors to the residential units are not designated or clearly identified. (Section 4(5)(h))

4.The by-law requires the indoor residential amenity space in rooms, one of which contains a kitchen and washroom. No kitchen and/or washroom are shown. (Section 4(12))

5.The by-law requires at least 96 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the occupants of the building and 24 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. The proposed building will contain bicycle parking spaces in a room at the mezzanine level. The number of proposed spaces for occupants is not shown. No bicycle parking spaces for visitors is proposed (Section 4(13)(a) and (c))

6.The by-law requires a building or structure to be set back 3.5 metres from the centre line of the public lane. The proposed building or structure is set back 2.59 metres from the centre line of the public lane. (Section 4(14)(a))

7.The by-law requires that the combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area be not more than 6.0 times the area of the lot: 21477 square metres. The proposed building has 33666.7 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

8.The by-law requires the provision of at least 644.3 square metres of common outdoor space. The proposed common outdoor space is 0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART III 1(a))

n/bAll parking spaces must be minimum 2.6 m by 5.9 m and parking for the handicapped must be included.

n/bAccess to commercial spaces and the level of the main floor must be designed in accordance with Section 8(3) PART XI 2. of the Zoning By-law.

n/bAll encroachments will require the approval of the City Works Services Department.

n/bSeparate approvals will be required for signage, pursuant to Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

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

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

3.The property is designated historical, and the proposal requires the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

4.The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code."

2.Works and Emergency Services, dated August 27, 1998:

"Recommendations:

1.That the owner be required to:

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

(b)Provide and maintain a minimum of 445 parking spaces to serve the project, including at least 122 parking spaces on site for the exclusive use of the residents and at least 323 spaces for residential visitors and the commercial components of the project, of which 88 spaces may be provided off-site, within 300 m of the site;

(c)Provide and maintain a physical separation between the residents' and the residential visitors/commercial portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the residents' parking;

(d)Submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within 12 months of the opening of the cinema/theatre complex, a monitoring report which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site parking facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6 pm, and the need for any additional elements in the Parking Information Plan;

(e)Provide, maintain and operate the parking information measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Parking Information Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f)Pay a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $8,000 for costs to monitor traffic and pedestrian conditions, and for any traffic related improvements;

(g)Comply with the parking space dimensional requirements of the general Zoning By-law, save and except for the parallel parking spaces located along the east side of the underground parking garage which should have a minimum length of 7.0 m;

(h)Provide and maintain minimum widths of 3.5 m and 5.5 m for the access ramp/driveway system serving one-way and two-way traffic, respectively;

(i)Construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5 percent within 6 m of the property line and not exceeding 15 percent along the remaining portions;

(j)Construct those sections of the access ramp/driveway system which provide direct access to the parking spaces with a slope not exceeding 5 percent;

(k)Submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Pedestrian Plan which details signage, pavement treatment and other physical conditions needed to ensure safety for pedestrians entering and exiting the site across Critchley Lane;

(l)Provide, maintain and operate the pedestrian measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Pedestrian Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(m)Provide and maintain a minimum of two Type B and one Type G loading spaces on the site with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(n)Provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6 m and 13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading spaces;

(o)Provide maintain and operate the loading management measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Loading Management Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(p)Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 30 square metres in size and a recycling room at least 15 square metres in size, each equipped with overhead or double doors to accommodate the movement of container bins, to serve the residential component of the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(q)Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2 percent adjacent to, and level with, the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 5 compactor containers on collection day;

(r)Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

(s)Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

(t)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i)A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto;

(ii)Dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

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

(v)Eliminate the door encroachment, when open, from the Bloor Street West road allowance;

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

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

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

(z)In connection with the construction of the underground parking garage:

(i)acquire title to the land below the public lane prior to the issuance of a building permit, while the surface lands (minimum depth of 0.5 m from the finished grade) would remain with the City;

(ii)submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a detailed design prepared by a qualified municipal engineer showing the manner in which the underground garage will be constructed below the public lane;

(iii)construct the roof of the parking structure to Bridge Code Standards;

(iv)pay for the cost of reconstructing the public lane to existing conditions and in this regard, provide security in the form of a letter of credit in an amount satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(v)indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims, or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges, and expenses that may result from the construction of the garage beneath the public highway;

(vi)maintain the structure in good and proper repair and in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(vii)indemnify the City from and against any loss or damage to the waterproofing and structure resulting from the maintenance and reconstruction of the lane pavement, unless such loss or damage is caused by negligence of the City; and

(viii)include additional conditions as the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interests of the Corporation;

(aa)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, construction phasing plans addressing interim access for Premises No. 102 Bloor Street West during construction of this project;

(bb)Submit a grading and drainage plan and revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(c), 1(g), 1(h), 1(I), 1(m), 1(p), 1(q) and 1(v), above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2.That the owner be advised:

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

(b)That the Bloor Street West boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of this Department;

(c)Of the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits as well as potentially other permits, such as hoarding, piling/shoring etc. from this department prior to construction; and

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

Comments:

Location:

Northwest corner of Bloor Street West and Bellair Street.

Proposal:

Construction of a mixed-use project comprising 160 residential condominium dwelling units, 6067 m� of retail space and a 3134-seat cinema facility.

Parking and Access:

The proposed provision of 395 on-site parking spaces in a four-level underground parking garage and 100 off-site parking spaces (for a total of 495 spaces) satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 445 spaces, including 122 spaces for the residents, 10 residential visitor spaces, 52 spaces for the retail component and 261 spaces for the cinema component. The total estimated parking demand is based in part on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units and a review of the parking requirements for various cinema/theatre projects. As far as can be ascertained, the general provisions of the Zoning By-law would require a minimum of 779 parking spaces.

The owner's transportation consultant, BA Group, has indicated in supplemental technical information dated August 18, 1998, to their Traffic Impact Assessment which is discussed in more detail below, that the owner proposes to provide 160 parking spaces (one space per unit) for the residents. This is acceptable as it satisfies the estimated resident demand. An additional 323 spaces would be required to satisfy the demand for residential visitor and commercial parking, including the balance of 235 on-site parking spaces and a minimum of 88 off-site spaces.

The supplemental technical information dated August 18, 1998 proposes an arrangement for the lease of the off-site parking spaces, which is acceptable in principle. The proposal is for the applicant to lease up to 100 parking spaces from the Parking Authority of Toronto facility at Premises No. 50 Cumberland Street, daily after 6 pm. The parking facility would be monitored by the parking operator and if it is found to be fully occupied on a recurring basis, the applicant would secure a suitable alternate off-site arrangement. The term "recurring basis", as it relates to the frequency of full parking lot conditions (i.e. at-capacity), shall be defined as any four observations in a two month period or, any six observations within a six month period or, any lesser frequency of at-capacity conditions mutually agreed to by the City, the parking lot operator and the owner. An "at-capacity" event shall be defined as one or more observations occurring on a survey day in which the parking lot demand meets or exceeds the parking lot supply. In this regard, the applicant's consultant should be required to submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, within 12 months of the opening of the cinema/theatre complex, a monitoring report which details parking utilization on the site and in the off-site facility, including the number of days that the off-site facility achieved capacity after 6 pm.

Supplemental information to the Traffic Impact Assessment dated June 25, 1998 proposes a parking information plan to inform theatre users of the off-site parking facility. This plan is acceptable. Also, the monitoring report referenced above should address the need for any additional elements in the parking information system.

The general layout of the parking spaces is acceptable, however, the plans for all levels must show the dimensions of the spaces and the widths of the driveway aisles. The parking spaces should have minimum dimensions of 2.6 m x 5.9 m, except the parallel spaces located along the east side of the underground parking garage which should have a minimum length of 7.0 m, and the driveway aisles should have a minimum width of 3.5 m for one-way traffic and 5.5 m for two-way traffic. The plans must also indicate that there will be a physical separation between the residential and non-residential portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the resident parking spaces. Although control gates are shown on Level 1, it is not clear if they are intended to separate a portion of the underground parking garage or how they relate to traffic movements.

Access to the underground garage is proposed via a ramp from Bellair Street at the north end of the site. The plans must show the width of the ramp. The slope should not exceed 5 percent within 6 m of the street line (the plans show 3 percent and 7 percent) and not exceed 15 percent along the remaining portions. Also, the slope of any sections of the access ramp/driveway aisle system providing direct access to parking spaces should not exceed 5 percent.

The plans show the construction of the underground parking garage under Critchley Lane, which abuts the site on the north. This is acceptable in principle. However, it will be necessary to submit construction phasing plans to demonstrate how access to the parking and loading facilities for Premises No. 102 Bloor Street West will be maintained during construction of this project. Given the possible implications of the interim access arrangements on the Village of Yorkville Park, the construction phasing plans will also require the review and approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Traffic Impact Assessment:

A Traffic and Parking Study dated May 22, 1998, including supplementary material dated June 25 and August 18, 1998, has been submitted by BA Consulting Group Ltd. on behalf of the owner. This documentation outlines the pedestrian, traffic, parking and loading activity forecast to occur as a result of the project.

The peak of vehicular traffic activity associated with uses on this site is forecast to occur during the weekday evening, and will generate 100 and 110 net new vehicles inbound and outbound, respectively. Given that the project will include parking in an underground garage to serve residents, retail customers and a portion of theatre customers, as well as providing arrangements in an off-site facility to accommodate the remaining theatre parking, traffic activity will be dispersed, rather than concentrated entirely at the site.

The consultant's information indicates the site "will not result in any significant changes in traffic operations within the district". Nevertheless, in order to respond to any potential measures that may be required as a result of this project or any other traffic management measures identified by the Yorkville community and Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to mitigate the impact of site activity (e.g. changes to traffic regulations, signage or pavement marking modifications, installation of bollards, etc.), the applicant is required to partially offset the cost of monitoring traffic and pedestrian activity and the implementation of possible measures through a one-time cash contribution of $8,000.00.

Pedestrian Analysis:

The analysis of pedestrian activity indicates pedestrian volumes will increase significantly at peak times, in particular on the sidewalk on the north side of Bloor Street West. This is offset to some extent by the proposed entrance/exit onto Critchley Lane, which redistributes some activity away from Bloor Street West and Bellair Street. The consultant has indicated in Figure 3 of the August 18, 1998 submission that a railing could be provided to direct pedestrians using Critchley Lane. The issue of safety for pedestrians exiting to Critchley Lane will need to be examined in further detail, prior to the issuance of a building permit in order to establish additional warning and safety elements to minimize potential conflicts between vehicular traffic and pedestrians.

Loading:

The provision of 2 Type B and 1 Type G loading spaces within the concourse level of the building satisfies the estimated loading demand generated by this project for 2 Type B and 1 Type G loading spaces and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like amount. The proposed loading area and loading spaces are configured such that trucks using the loading spaces would be able to enter and exit the loading area in a forward motion, which is acceptable, however, the plans must show the dimensions of the loading spaces.

There is a need to control and regulate the loading activity in order to minimize its impact on the residences and commercial uses in the area, and on traffic operations on Bellair Street, Critchley Lane and Bloor Street West. In this regard, the applicant's traffic consultant identifies a number of signage/operational elements to reduce the impact of the loading activity, which are acceptable.

Refuse Collection:

The City will provide the residential component of this project with the bulk lift method of refuse collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a Type G loading space and the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(p) to 1(s), above, which must be identified and clearly shown on the plans.

It is the policy of City Council to levy a service charge on all new residential developments, payment of which is a condition for receiving City containerized garbage and recycling collection. The levy is currently $34.50 per month, including taxes, multiplied by the number of garbage containers on site. The levy includes the provision and maintenance of City garbage and recycling containers. Should the owner choose to provide private garbage containers, the levy will still be charged and the containers must meet City specifications and be maintained privately at the expense of the building owner. Further information regarding the above can be obtained by contacting the Operations and Sanitation Division at 392-1517.

The refuse generated by the commercial component will require the services of a private refuse collection firm.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management:

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

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

Encroachments:

The plans show that a door will encroach, when opened, onto the Bloor Street West road allowance. This is not acceptable and this encroachment must be eliminated.

Work Within the Road Allowance / Permits:

It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department for a permit(s) in respect of any work proposed or required within the road allowance. In regard to streetscape work within the Bloor Street West road allowance, the design of the boulevard must meet this Department's guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. Clarification on how these standards will apply to this site can be obtained from the Streetscape Program at 392-3808. Building location, access and other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, piling/shoring, etc.) may also be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the applicable permits and should be advised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (RACS) at 392-2984 regarding the site specific permit/licence requirements for Bloor Street West and the By-law Administration Division at 392-7877 for Bellair Street."

3.Toronto Transit Commission, dated August 7, 1998:

"The comments in my letter to the former Metro Planning Department, dated December 24, 1997 (copy attached), still apply, with the exception of the requirements associated with the previously proposed direct pedestrian connection to the Bay subway station. By letter dated May 12, 1998 (copy attached), Mr. K.C. Au, Au and Graham Architects Inc., indicated that the applicant would not be pursuing the direct subway connection. We encourage the applicant to reconsider this decision since a direct connection would provide a convenient alternative to accessing the site by car."

4.Toronto Transit Commission to Metro Planning, dated December 24, 1997:

"It is noted that the Bloor-Danforth subway line is adjacent to the subject site. It will, therefore, be necessary for the developer to obtain approval of site and foundation plans (5 sets) from the TTC (Attention: Domenic Garisto - Property Management Department) prior to receiving a building permit. The following supporting documentation is also requested:

(i)shoring drawings showing calculations;

(ii)plot plan showing the subway structure;

(iii)structural calculations showing loads;

(iv)soils / geotechnical report;

(v)excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans; and

(vi)detailed plans of entrance connection.

Subsequent approval of the foregoing development is subject to any conditions that may be specified to the applicant by Mr. Garisto. As the proposed development may encroach on the subway easement, and encroachment agreement may be required between the applicant, Metro and the TTC.

As the developer is proposing a subway entrance connection, he should be aware that both escalators and elevators from the street to the platform will be required. The provision and maintenance of such facilities will be the responsibility of the developer as part of a development agreement. In this regard, the developer should again contact Mr. Garisto.

Please inform the applicant that the Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants. Since noise and vibration may be transmitted from the street traffic and from our transit operations, the developer should apply attenuation measures so that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest level technically feasible. The developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, though a clause in the purchase or rental agreements, of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such effects."

5.Fire Department, dated June 26, 1998:

"Please be advised that when the pertinent requirements of the Ontario Building Code have been applied relative to this project, our Department may be deemed as satisfied."

6.Public Health, dated June 16, 1998:

"Thank you for your request of March 30, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments:

The application proposes to construct condominiums on this site. A review of our files indicates that we have no information on the subject site.

Additional information is required by EHS staff in order to adequately conduct a review of the environmental conditions at the subject site. This should include an Historical Review, Site and Building Audit, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, and a Dust Control Plan, details of which are included in the enclosed attachment. This information will help to identify any environmental concerns with respect to the subject property.

Recommendations:

1.That the owner shall immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site. This report should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for review prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

2.That the owner shall conduct a site audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and Ministry of Environment and Energy Guidelines. A report on the site audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

3.That the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes remediation options to be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

4.That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

5.That the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Medical Officer of Health for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

6.That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

By copy of this letter, I will inform the applicant in respect to this matter. If you have any questions, contact me at 392-7685."

7.Heritage Toronto, dated June 9, 1998:

"Recommendation:

That Heritage Toronto support this proposal on the following conditions:

1.That the proposal be revised to include the Lothian Mews facade and the Physicians and Surgeons Building at 86 Bloor Street West.

2.That the owner agree to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreements to preserve the historic building at 86 Bloor Street West.

3.That the owner post a letter of credit with the City in an amount and form satisfactory to the Managing Director, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to secure the restoration of all the historic components of this development.

Comments:

Background:

The owners are B.C. Pacific Capital Corporation and 69516 Ontario Ltd., c/o Brookfield Commercial Properties Ltd. The project architect is Colin Graham of Graham and Au Architects. The proposal is for a 26 storey (85 metres) mixed use commercial-residential building that will incorporate the facade of the University Theatre as the main entrance to a new cinema complex. The remaining facade of the former Lothian Mews and the historical building known as the Physicians and Surgeons Building, at the corner of Bloor and Bellair, would be demolished.

In October 1997, staff of Heritage Toronto wrote to Urban Development Services in response to the initial circulation of plans for this proposal. Staff expressed support for restoring the theatre facade, but concern for the proposed demolitions. Subsequently, in November, the applicant submitted a Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment. Staff of Heritage Toronto have met with the applicants on several occasions who have recently submitted an illustrated Statement of Attributes and Public Benefits, dated June 3, 1998 (copy attached).

Discussion:

This application seeks an increase in height and in density. Six times coverage is the permitted density; the proposal is for 9.9 times coverage. The permitted height is 46 metres; they are proposing 85 metres.

There is a Heritage Easement Agreement registered on title to ensure that the facades of the University Theatre and Lothian Mews would be preserved and eventually incorporated into a new development. City Council recognized the adjacent Physicians and Surgeons Building, constructed in 1922, as an historic building in 1982.

Staff of Heritage Toronto has reviewed the plans and the architect's recent Statement of Attributes and Public Benefits.

The positive aspect of this proposal is that it incorporates the University Theatre facade into the new development as a main entrance to the new cinemas. The canopy will be restored and a new vertical projecting sign will be reconstructed to match the original. All the stone will be repaired and other details will be either repaired or new elements made to match the original high quality detail and finishes.

The proponents suggest that the Lothian Mews cannot be incorporated into the new building. Staff disagree. The Lothian Mews facade forms a terminus to the top of St. Thomas Street. The brick wall with stone highlights could easily be adapted to form shop fronts for Bloor Street. There are other older buildings immediately across the Street that are fully occupied with commercial tenants. There is considerable merit to retaining this facade.

The 1922 Physicians and Surgeons Building at the corner is the only building between Avenue Road and Sherbourne Street that reflects the professional/commercial development of the medical practice between the two wars. Nearby examples include the Medical Arts Building at Bloor and St. George and the former Mount Sinai Hospital on Yorkville Avenue.

In conclusion, staff supports the applicant's intent to restore and bring back to life the University Theatre. We would also expect them to apply similar efforts to the other two historic components on the site. The Official Plan policy supporting historic preservation must be respected. Given the huge increase in height and density, our heritage should benefit - the project should include the retention of the Lothian Mews facade and the Physicians and Surgeons Building. Staff urges the owners to continue to explore options that would retain more of the heritage character of this portion of Bloor Street."

--------

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

-(undated) from Perry and Rae Dellio, Perry's Colonnade;

-(September 11, 1998) from Ms. Jane Beecroft, President, Community History Project;

-(September 15, 1998) from Mr. David J. Whalen;

-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert Sheridan and Ms. Jane Cuddy, The Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-(September 16, 1998) from Ms. Kim M. Kovar, Aird & Berlis; and

-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert W. Korthals.

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

-Ms. Kim M. Kovar, Aird & Berlis;

-Mr. Robert Sheridan, Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-Mr. Budd Sugarman, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Jane Beecroft, President, Community History Project;

-Mr. John S. Bailey, President, Famous Players;

-Mr. Colin P. Stevenson, Teplitsky, Colson, obo Nicolas Manowear;

-Mr. J. Viscoff, Brookfield Property Management;

-Mr. Rowland Douglas, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Maxwell Leveson, Toronto, Ontario.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 4

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 5

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 6

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 7

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 8

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 9

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 10

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 11

86, 96, 100 Bloor Street West

(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (September 28, 1998) from the General Manager, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the feasibility of introducing a "No Stopping Anytime" zone or a tow-away zone in Critchley Lane.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, in considering a report (September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development entitled, "Final Report - Application No. 197027 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) (Midtown)", recommended the adoption of this report and requested, among other things, that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services submit a report to City Council for its meeting of October 1, 1998, on the possibility of establishing a tow-away zone or no-stopping zone on Critchley Lane (Clause 87 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

Critchley Lane, from Bay Street to its terminus approximately 93 metres west of Bellair Street, is a public lane with a pavement width of approximately 5 metres. In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 400-33F of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, which prohibits parking in any lane where signage to that effect is posted, signs are currently posted in this lane prohibiting parking.

Under the provisions of Section 170(15) of the Highway Traffic Act of Ontario, any vehicle found by a police officer (or any other person authorized to enforce the provisions of the Act) to be parked on any public highway (which includes a public lane) so as to interfere with the movement of traffic or snow removal activities or to be parked contrary to a municipal by-law (in this case, the posted "No Parking in this Lane" signage), may be subject to tagging, towing and impoundment. Signage is not required on any public highway to give effect to this regulation. Notwithstanding, arrangements will be made to have "Vehicles Subject to Towing" tabs added to the existing "No Parking in this Lane" signage as soon as practicable in order to enhance motorists' awareness of the possibility that illegally parked vehicles may be towed.

With respect to the suggestion that stopping be prohibited in Critchley Lane, I would not suggest that this regulation be implemented at this time as this would preclude all loading activities within the laneway (in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code and the Highway Traffic Act, a vehicle may temporarily stand in a parking prohibited area while actively engaged in loading activities). As there is a shortage of on-street loading space on adjoining streets, the implementation of a stopping prohibition on Critchley Lane would cause considerable problems in terms of facilitating deliveries to the abutting properties. On the other hand, if vehicles are staying illegally for extended periods, the existing "No Parking" regulation, augmented with the above-noted "Tow-Away" advisory signage, should enhance the ability to enforce the regulation and keep the lane passable.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Koropeski, Director, Transportation Services, District 1, 392-7711.)

(City Council also had before it the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide City Council with a summary of social services in the vicinity of 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting held September 16, 1998, the Toronto Community Council considered the Final Report (September 1, 1998) of Urban Planning and Development Services on an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a new mixed-use development for 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause No. 87).

At their meeting, Toronto Community Council requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, report directly to City Council regarding the social needs of residents of this development, and to comment on the capacity of nearby schools, child care centres and community centres to serve the new residents.

Comments:

(1)Schools:

The application and plans were circulated to the Toronto Board of Education and the Toronto Separate School Board. Neither Board expressed opposition to the proposal.

Staff of the School Boards have advised me that the following schools are the primary facilities serving the proposed development site:

The public elementary school serving the area (at both junior and senior levels) is Jesse Ketchum Public School, which is located at 61 Davenport Road. During the 1997/1998 academic year, there was a total of 569 pupils served (including 98 junior and senior kindergarten students) at Jesse Ketchum Public School. The boundaries for public secondary schools are more flexible, with an expectation that high school students will be travelling to school facilities on public transit. Relevant secondary schools include: Central Technical School (725 Bathurst Street); Jarvis Collegiate Institute (487 Jarvis Street); and Northern Secondary School (851 Mount Pleasant Road).

The Catholic elementary school serving the area is Holy Rosary Separate School at 308 Tweedsmuir Avenue, which is in the St. Clair Avenue and Spadina Road area. The catholic secondary school serving the area is the new Marshall McLuhan Separate School located on Avenue Road north of Eglinton Avenue.

Capacities for each of these facilities are being reviewed by the Ministry of Education and Training and are not yet available. Furthermore, both School Boards are in the process of undertaking a comprehensive review of their facilities. The impact on local communities is not known at this time. Planning staff are working with officials of the School Boards on this matter.

(2)Daycare:

The Jesse Ketchum Public School houses a daycare facility with a capacity of 95 children (infant, toddler, pre-school and school age). Currently, enrolment is 81 children. There are 76 children on the waiting list for daycare at Jesse Ketchum Public School. However, the waiting list is comprised of families waiting for a publicly-funded fee subsidy. Full fee paying parents could access vacant spaces. Church of the Messiah Daycare (240 Avenue Road) has 29 toddler and pre-school spaces, and an enrolment of 18. Three children are on the waiting list for a subsidized space. Friends Daycare Centre (60 Lowther Avenue) has a capacity of 24 pre-school children, and a current enrolment of 22. Four children are on the waiting list for a subsidized space.

(3)Community Centres:

The 519 Church Street Community Centre, which is a City community centre, is operated by a volunteer Board of Management. Programs include drop-in programs for parents and children, seniors and the homeless; summer camps for school aged children; and a family resource centre. All of these programs are well-subscribed, however, capacities are flexible given their informal nature. Some of the residents of the proposed development could access these services. As well, the Centre provides extensive programs and services to the gay and lesbian community. The Central YMCA is located at 15 Breadalbane Street. While the Central YMCA requires a membership fee, subsidies for low income participants are available. The facility has extensive recreation and fitness-oriented programs.

(4)Libraries:

Both the Yorkville Public Library and the Metro Toronto Reference Library are within two blocks of the development site.

Conclusions:

In general, residents of the proposed building will have access to a wide range of community services and facilities in the area. However, not unlike other areas in downtown, there continues to be a demand in this area for infant and toddler daycare spaces.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi, City Planner, City Planning Division

Telephone: 392-1324

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: mmizzi@toronto.ca)

(City Council also had before it a communication (September 4, 1998) from Mr. V. Nitti, Harry Rosen Inc., addressed to Councillor Adams, expressing the company's interests and concerns regarding the manner in which the proposed development proceeds; and requesting to be notified of all decisions and meetings with respect to this project.)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To report on the recommended contribution for this project pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act.

Source of Funds, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

With this development, the City achieves public benefits as described in this report and in the draft by-laws.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The City Solicitor be authorized to enter into a Section 37 Agreement to secure an $800,000 cash contribution, made by the owners to the City, as generally described in this report, and to be used for the following services, facilities and matters:

(a)for the construction of a replacement entrance to the Bay Subway station within the Village of Yorkville Park, in the amount of $400,000, to be used on or before the fifth anniversary of the site-specific By-laws coming into full force and effect; and

(b)for other off-site local area improvements, in the amount of $400,000, to include monies for:

(i)Bloor Street streetscape improvements, subject to City Council support for a Bloor Street Transformation Plan, as proposed by the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area, and to be used on or before the fifth anniversary of the site-specific By-laws coming into full force and effect;

(ii)a Heritage Conservation District Study in the area, subject to consultation with Heritage Toronto; and

(iii)non-profit community, cultural and institutional facilities, services and matters;

(2)The expenditure of the Section 37 contribution for the facilities, services and matters identified in Recommendation 1 above be reported on and require the approval of City Council; and

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

Background:

On September 16, 1998, the Toronto Community Council considered my Final Report (September 1, 1998) on an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a new mixed-use development for 86 and 100 Bloor Street West (Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause No. 87). The Toronto Community Council and City Council approved the project in principle.

Recommendation 7 of my Final Report required that, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

(a)the owner enter into a Section 37 Agreement;

(b)the owner provide the City Solicitor with any postponements as required; and

(c)the owner provide to the City a Letter of Credit, satisfactory to the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer, to secure the approved Section 37 contribution to the City for the purposes of off-site area or streetscape improvements in the vicinity of the lands and/or improvements to the Village of Yorkville Park.

In the Final Report I noted that, like other large projects involving significant increases in density and height, this application would result in a contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and existing Official Plan policies. At the time of the drafting of the Final Report, the applicant proposed to provide the funds required to redesign and reconstruct the existing Bay Subway station entrance within the Village of Yorkville Park. However, City staff believed that additional local area improvements were required given the increases in density and height being sought.

Comments:

After a number of meetings between the owner and staff of this Department, including consultation with the Ward Councillors' offices, the applicant agreed in writing to provide a range of off-site local area improvements through the provision of an $800,000 cash contribution.

The applicant has made their proposed contribution contingent on the project not being subjected to development charges, should the City enact a Development Charges By-law prior to the project proceeding to construction. In April 1998, City Council directed that the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer commence background studies and policy formulation to lead to introduction of a city-wide Development Charges By-law. The report of the Chief Financial Officer and City Treasurer is expected to be available this spring. The timing of the negotiations and discussions respecting 100 Bloor Street West would support that this project not be subject to a Development Charges By-law levy.

Local area improvements recommended to be secured include the following:

New Bay Subway Entrance:

The Village of Yorkville Park was built in the early 1990s. A significant planned feature of the Park was the reconstruction of the existing Bay Subway entrance to better integrate it into the Park. However, budgetary constraints at the time prevented its reconstruction. While present day detailed cost estimates have not been determined, estimates provided by the applicant's architect indicate that the costs to reconstruct the entrance would be approximately $350,000 to $400,000.00. The expenditure of funds to build a new entrance in the Park would, in my opinion, be consistent with the intent of Section 16.21 of the Official Plan. Renewed discussions with the Toronto Transit Commission are required on this matter, and it could take some time to work out the details respecting construction of the entrance. Therefore, I am recommending that the funds allocated to this use be used within five years of the By-laws coming into full force and effect. If the project is not underway or complete within this time frame, this matter should be revisited and reported on at that time.

Bloor Street Streetscape Improvements:

In 1998, the Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area (BIA) presented a plan to the Ward Councillors, Planning staff and representatives of the community to revitalize the Bloor Street streetscape, generally between Avenue Road and Church Street, including a widening of sidewalks. The Bloor-Yorkville BIA has retained consultants and are preparing detailed plans and cost estimates to undertake the project, with the objective of achieving Council support for the proposal. Allocation of a portion of the Section 37 contribution to this cause can be supported, subject to City Council support for the Bloor Street Transformation Plan proposed by the Bloor-Yorkville BIA, because it enhances the public realm, promotes public sector involvement and represents an improvement which cannot otherwise be required by City Council. I am also recommending that the funds allocated to this use be used within five years of the By-laws coming into full force and effect. If the project is not underway or complete within this time frame, this matter should be revisited and reported on at that time.

Heritage Preservation:

Section 16.21 ii) of the Official Plan stipulates that, pursuant to a Section 37 Agreement, increases in density and/or height can be authorized in exchange for heritage preservation of designated properties. Councillor John Adams has suggested that a Heritage Conservation District Study be considered for the Yorkville Triangle and possibly the larger Yorkville area. When the land use study now being undertaken for the Yorkville Triangle pursuant to Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998 is complete, I expect to recommend that Heritage Toronto report to Toronto Community Council on the appropriateness of considering the Yorkville Triangle and possibly an even larger area for designation as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and on the staffing and funding resources required to undertake the necessary study.

For the Community Council's information, the East Annex Heritage Conservation District Study undertaken in the early 1990s cost approximately $100,000 to complete, exclusive of staff time. Should it be determined that a heritage study, and eventual guidelines, for the Yorkville area are supportable, improved heritage preservation would result based on the identification and protection of heritage properties. In this context, allocating a portion of the Section 37 contribution to a Heritage Conservation District Study in this area would be appropriate.

Other:

Non-profit community, cultural and institutional facilities, services and matters in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.21 of the Official Plan.

Conclusions:

I am recommending that City Council approve the $800,000 cash contribution, to be made by the owners of 86 and 100 Bloor Street West to the City, as an acceptable Section 37 contribution in this case. Further, I am recommending that the secured funds be used for the services, facilities and matters described in Recommendation 1 above. All of the recommended matters are consistent with the general purpose and intent of Section 16.21 of the Official Plan. Recommendation 2, above, will require that any specific expenditure will be reported on for City Council approval.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi

Telephone: 416-392-1324

E-mail: mmizzi@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request of the Toronto Community Council to report on the facilitation of an archaeologist on site during the excavation phase of this project.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

On September 16, 1998, the Toronto Community Council considered this Department's Final Report (September 1, 1998) on an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a new mixed-use development for 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause No. 87). The Toronto Community Council and City Council approved the project in principle.

At that meeting, the Toronto Community Council requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services consider and report back on the facilitation of an archaeologist on site during the excavation phase of the project, because the lands were once part of Potter's Field Cemetery and human bones may still be uncovered, as suggested by Ms. Jane Beecroft in her deputation before the Toronto Community Council. Ms. Beecroft is President of the Community History Project, an affiliate of the Ontario Historical Society. Ms. Beecroft also provided her comments on the development proposal in a letter, dated September 11, 1998. I have appended to this report that portion of Ms. Beecroft's correspondence which relates to this issue.

Comments:

Planning staff have consulted with Heritage Toronto on this matter. Heritage Toronto does not believe it will be necessary that an archaeologist be on site at all times during excavation. According to Heritage Toronto, the cemetery was closed nearly 150 years ago and many of the remains were moved. Since that time, several generations of construction have occurred on these lands.

The Ontario Ministry of Commercial and Consumer Relations has issued regulations governing procedures for handling unexpected finds of human remains. Heritage Toronto advises that the applicant should be reminded of their obligation to comply with the regulations and that it would be prudent to have an archaeologist on retainer should the need for those services arise.

Planning staff have advised the applicants' solicitor of their obligations respecting this matter.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi

Telephone: 416-392-1324

E-mail: mmizzi@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix

Excerpt of a letter, dated September 11, 1998, from Jane Beecroft, President, Community History Project, to the meeting of Toronto Community Council held September 16, 1998 (Item 39 (b)):

"... Of even deeper heritage significance is the fact that all three addresses were built on land that was once the Potter's Field Cemetery. The founder of the cemetery was Thomas Carfrae whose day-old daughter was the first burial. Among those who helped to establish the cemetery was William Lyon Mackenzie. Open in 1826, the six-acre cemetery had more than 6000 burials in it by the time it was closed in 1855-6. For the next twenty-five years, relatives were invited to move graves to other locations, and just over 1000 graves were moved. This means that there are, technically, still more than 5000 burials still at Potter's Field! The cemetery lands were subdivided and houses were built along Bloor and along Cumberland Street. During the 1920s, when the houses were being replaced by low-rise commercial blocks, human bones were still being uncovered in the excavations. It is of very great concern to us that an archaeologist be on site at all times during any further disturbance of the area, and that the Medical Officer of Health be advised of any disturbance since many of the burials resulted from epidemics...."

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, which were forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover:

-(undated) from Perry and Rae Dellio, Perry's Colonnade;

-(September 11, 1998) from Miss Jane Beecroft;

-(September 15, 1998) from Mr. David J. Whalen;

-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert Sheridan and Ms. Jane Cuddy, The Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-(September 16, 1998) addressed to the President of the Bloor Yorkville Business Improvement Area from Ms. Kim M. Kovar, Aird & Berlis, obo Gentra Inc.;

-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert W. Korthals;

-(January 21, 1999) addressed to Councillors Adams and Bossons from Mr. William Stevenson, ABC Residents' Association;

-(February 10, 1999) addressed to Mr. John Fillipetti, Gentra Inc. from Ms. Nadia Iafrate, Benetton;

-(February 10, 1999) from R.S. Saunderson, Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A.;

-(February 12, 1999) from Ms. Maureen L. Whelton, Teplitksy, Colson obo Nicolas Menswear;

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. Budd Sugarman;

-(February 11, 1999) from Ms. Jean Cuddy, The Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-(February 16, 1999) from B. H. Tavner, MTCC No. 626;

-(February 16, 1999) from Ian Wookey; and

-(February 17, 1999) from Mr. William Phillips.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (February 18, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Attached are submissions received by the City Clerk respecting the foregoing matter:

-(undated) from Perry and Rae Dellio, Perry's Colonnade;

-(September 11, 1998) from Miss Jane Beecroft;

-(September 15, 1998) from Mr. David J. Whalen;

-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert Sheridan and Ms. Jane Cuddy, The Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-(September 16, 1998) addressed to the President of the Bloor Yorkville Business Improvement Area from Ms. Kim M. Kovar, Aird & Berlis, obo Gentra Inc.;

-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. Robert W. Korthals;

-(January 21, 1999) addressed to Councillors Adams and Bossons from Mr. William Stevenson, ABC Residents' Association;

-(February 10, 1999) addressed to Mr. John Fillipetti, Gentra Inc. from Ms. Nadia Iafrate, Benetton;

-(February 10, 1999) from R.S. Saunderson, Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A.;

-(February 12, 1999) from Ms. Maureen L. Whelton, Teplitksy, Colson obo Nicolas Menswear;

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. Budd Sugarman;

-(February 11, 1999) from Ms. Jean Cuddy, The Greater Yorkville Residents' Association;

-(February 16, 1999) from B. H. Tavner, MTCC No. 626;

-(February 16, 1999) from Ian Wookey; and

-(February 17, 1999) from Mr. William Phillips.)

(Copies of the attachments referred to in the above communication are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (March 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide City Council with information regarding access to the Toronto Transit Commission Subway system in the immediate vicinity of 86 and 100 Bloor Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

At its meeting held February 17, 1999, the Toronto Community Council considered the Draft By-laws for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for a new mixed-use development for 86 and 100 Bloor Street West (Toronto Community Council Report No. 4, Clause No. 1).

Toronto Community Council requested, on a Motion of Councillor Joseph Pantalone, that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Toronto Transit Commission, report directly to City Council on how individuals will access the Subway system from 86 and 100 Bloor Street West; whether such access if friendly to people with special needs; and how a weather-controlled subway connection could be achieved, should Council require it from this development.

Comments:

The Bay Subway station on the west-east Bloor-Danforth line is the closest station to the proposed development. There are three at-grade entrances to the Bay station: in the Village of Yorkville Park; on east side of Bellair Street, south of Cumberland Street; and on the west side of Bay Street, south of Cumberland Street. The Bellair Street entrance is located across the street and only a few metres to the north of the Bellair Street frontage of 100 Bloor Street West. The station entrance in the Village of Yorkville Park is located approximately 80 metres from the publicly-accessible pedestrian walkway which runs along the west side of 100 Bloor Street West. In general, the development site is well located in terms of its proximity to the Bay Subway station.

I have consulted with the Toronto Transit Commission. At the present time, the Bay Subway station does not contain elevator access and is therefore not fully accessible to people with special needs.

Pedestrian walkways and pathways to develop the underground concourse networks are encouraged by the Official Plan. Should Council require a weather-controlled connection to the Bay Subway station, such connection might take the form of a below-grade link to the station to the north beneath Critchley Lane and the Village of Yorkville Park. This type of below-grade connection, or other similar connection, would be costly and require a significant redesign of the below-grade plans for the current proposal.

This type of connection was originally considered for this application. However, as noted above, the site is very close to existing at-grade entrances to the Subway system. Further, the Village of Yorkville Park is now complete and maturing, and it is highly desirable to maximize grade related pedestrian activity and utilization of the park. Also, except for a small component of retail activity located beneath 110 Bloor Street West (two buildings to the west of the site) and at the Cumberland Terrace (east of Bay Street), all retail activity in the immediate area is located at the street level. For these reasons, a below-grade connection to the Bay station was not required in this case. For similar reasons, an underground link was not required when, in 1989, the former City of Toronto Council adopted amendments for an earlier proposal for a 17-storey hotel and cinema complex on this site.

Contact Name:Michael Mizzi

Telephone: 416-392-1324

E-mail: mmizzi@toronto.ca)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

86 and 100 Bloor Street West (Ward 23 - Midtown)

Draft Zoning By-law Amendment - Performing Arts

Theatre/Lecture Hall, Victoria University, Part of

73 Queen's Park Crescent (Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report (February 2, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the recommendations of the report (January 26, 1999) 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 February 17, 1999, and the following persons addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Ms. Susan Stock, Metals Conservator, Royal Ontario Museum;

-Ms. Margaret Robertson, Academy for Lifelong Learning;

-Mr. Larry Kurtz, Bursar, Victoria University;

-Ms. Roseann Runte, President, Victoria University; and

-Mr. Koray Salih, Victoria University Students Administrative Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Draft By-law to implement a Zoning By-law amendment to permit the erection of a 500-seat performance arts theatre/lecture hall, with ancillary administrative offices, on the south side of Charles Street West on the campus of Victoria University, an affiliated college of the University of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-law 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-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 that:

(2)the Draft By-law attached to the report (February 2, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(3)the recommendations of the report (January 26, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council will have before it the final report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (January 26, 1999) at its meeting to be held on February 17 and 18, 1999, concerning the above noted subject. This report recommends, inter alia, that a Draft By-law be prepared by the City Solicitor to amend the General Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto to permit the erection of a 500-seat performance arts theatre/lecture hall, with ancillary administrative offices, on the south side of Charles Street West on the campus of Victoria University, an affiliated college of the University of Toronto.

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.

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor

Telephone: 392-7237

Fax: 392-0024

E-mail: whawryli@toronto.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. -1999

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

in respect of a part of No. 73 Queen's Park Crescent.

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

1.Section 12(2)310(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, is further amended by:

(1)deleting Map 29 and substituting the attached Map 30;

(2)adding the attached Map 29;

(3)deleting the number "29" and substituting the number "30";

(4)deleting from paragraphs (1)(a) and (1)(d)(I), the number "28" and substituting the number "29";

(5)deleting from paragraph (2)(a) the number "29" and substituting the number "30";

(6)deleting from paragraph (3) the word and number "and 28" and substituting ", 28 and 29"; and

(7)deleting from paragraph (4) the word and number "and 24" and substituting ", 24 and 29".

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To consider and recommend the approval of amendments to the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law to permit the development of a 500-seat performing arts theatre/lecture hall on the south side of Charles Street West on the campus of Victoria University, an affiliated college of the University of Toronto.

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit draft by-laws to amend Zoning By-law 438-86 to add a new building envelope, identified as "Map 29" and shown on Map 3 to this report, to Section 12(2)(310)(a) and amend the numerical references in that section accordingly, so as to permit the construction of a lecture hall/performing arts theatre within the new building envelope;

(2)That the owner enter into an undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council; and

(3)That Council adopt the Site Development Guidelines, attached as Appendix 1 to this report, as the substantial basis for any Section 41 undertaking on this development site.

Background:

(1)The Site:

The proposed development site is on the south side of Charles Street West, east of Queen's Park Crescent, and is currently occupied by tennis courts. The development lot, including service roads, would have a frontage of 50.9 metres on Charles Street West, a depth of approximately 40 metres and a lot area of approximately 2050 square metres.

There are buildings that are on the City's list of Heritage Structures surrounding the proposed development site in every direction: the Birgie Carnegie Library to the west, Annesley Hall to the north, Burwash Hall to the east, and Victoria College to the south. The Victoria College Quadrangle, an important heritage open space, is located to the south of the development site.

(2)The Proposal:

Victoria University has applied to construct a 500-seat auditorium that would function as both a performing arts theatre and a lecture hall, with small ancillary administrative offices. A new pedestrian tunnel is proposed to link the theatre/lecture hall with the main Victoria University building to the south. The theatre is to be set back five metres from the Charles Street property line in order to line up with the front wall of Burwash Hall, and this setback area is primarily occupied by an outdoor terrace for students and theatregoers. The theatre building is sunk into the ground and the base podium height is only 12 metres, rising to 15 metres in the centre of the building to accommodate access stairs, the upper stage and ancillary offices.

(3)Planning Background:

The Victoria University By-laws, repealed in June 1997 as part of the new zoning for the University of Toronto Area, had permitted a 'floating' permission for up to 5450 square metres of development anywhere on the Victoria University lands. In 1997, an exception clause was added to the Official Plan, as part of the University of Toronto Part II Plan, enabling Council to enact by-laws to permit new development of up to 5450 square metres on the Victoria University lands, provided that the existing heritage buildings remain, and that any new building is subject to a development undertaking or agreement that implements site development guidelines approved by Council. This process is applicable to 28 other development sites previously identified in the University of Toronto area.

Once Victoria University informed civic staff of their intention to apply for the development of a new lecture hall/theatre, staff reviewed the planning context for the site and prepared draft site development guidelines to be forwarded to Council together with the application. These draft site development guidelines, found in Appendix 1 to this report, were part of the preliminary report on this application and were available for public scrutiny as part of the public consultation on this application. It is recommended that Council adopt the proposed site development guidelines as the basis for the Section 41 development undertaking on this site.

(4)Current Zoning and Official Plan:

The lands are currently designated University Area in the Official Plan. The proposed performing arts theatre/lecture hall with ancillary offices is a permitted use. As stated above, Section 18.358 of the Official Plan permits new development for university purposes of up to 5450 square metres on the site provided the building is subject to a site plan undertaking or agreement that implements site development guidelines approved by Council for that site. The proposed gross floor area of the theatre is 2068 square metres.

A lecture hall/theatre is a permitted use in a "Q", institutional, zone district. However, because the lands are located in the University's Area of Special Identity, defined in Section 12(2)(309), new development is restricted to minor additions to existing buildings. To permit the theatre/lecture hall, a zoning by-law amendment is required to add a proposed building envelope for the theatre to Section 12(2)310 in a process similar to the other 28 University area development sites. The building envelope that the applicant is proposing to add to Section 12(2)(310) is shown on "Map 29" attached as Map 3 to this report.

(5)The Public Meeting:

A public meeting, attended by approximately 70 persons, was held at Alumni Hall, Victoria College on the evening of November 19, 1998. The minutes of the public meeting are attached as Appendix 2 to this report. There was divided sentiment over the proposed construction of the lecture hall/theatre on the site of the existing tennis courts. Faculty members, students, and representatives of other area institutions were virtually unanimous in their views that the lecture hall and theatre were very needed facilities on this eastern portion of the campus. Some regretted that the tennis courts would be lost in the process, and others were of the opinion that the tennis courts were not used by the students for eight months of the year and would not be missed by the students.

Members of the Victoria Tennis Club were unanimous in their opposition to the disappearance of the tennis courts, citing the loss of a longstanding athletic facility for the broader community and the loss of open space on campus.

Other issues raised at the public meeting include: the view of the historic Victoria College building from Charles Street being diminished, and the potential for traffic congestion in the area given all of the developments under construction or approved in the Sultan/St. Thomas/Charles Street area.

Planning Discussion:

(1)Open Space and the Loss of the Tennis Courts:

The lecture hall/theatre is proposed to be constructed on a site currently occupied by two tennis courts that are leased to a private tennis club from early May until Labour Day weekend, and are used by students and staff of the University in the early spring and fall. The tennis courts would be displaced by the new development, and this has been the primary concern raised in the public consultation, primarily by the members of the private tennis club who have used the courts for many years.

There is no open space deficiency in this portion of the University. There is an abundance of landscaped green open space on the Victoria University grounds. Both the historic Victoria Quadrangle, to the immediate south of Burwash Hall, and the Victoria Athletic field, on the north side of Charles Street opposite Burwash Hall, have been rezoned to "University Open Space", with the assent of Victoria University. This zoning does not permit above-grade buildings. There are also important green spaces on the Queen's Park Crescent frontage of Annesley Hall and the Birgie Carnegie Library, on the Charles Street frontage of the Birgie Carnegie Library, and to the south of the proposed theatre between Victoria College and the Birgie Carnegie Library. Queen's Park is one block south of the proposed development site. The university open space, and particularly the Victoria athletic field on the north side of Charles St., is used by area residents and schoolchildren from La Lycee and Rosedale primary schools.

The tennis courts are not public open space in the traditional sense, as they are: hard-surfaced, surrounded by a frost fence, unusable in the winter months, restricted to private club members from the beginning of May until August, have a maximum occupation of eight persons when in use for tennis and are empty and are uninviting when no tennis game is going on. However, the tennis courts have been a valuable longstanding recreational facility for club members, many of whom work or live in the area, and for university students who may use them in April, September and October. While there is excess capacity at the nearby Trinity Tennis Club on Devonshire Place, if the Victoria tennis courts disappear many club members would likely have to join more expensive, and, in some instances, more distant private tennis clubs.

Victoria University and their architects did examine the possibility of erecting the theatre on other portions of their lands, but concluded that this was the only feasible site. Replacement tennis courts on the roof of the new lecture hall/theatre were also investigated but could not fit because of the required mechanical penthouse and the mandatory access stairs.

Comments at the public meeting from faculty, students, alumni and representatives of other area institutions indicated that a lecture hall of this size and a new performing arts theatre were both very needed facilities on this portion of campus. Victoria University wishes to construct these necessary year-round academic and cultural facilities in place of tennis courts that are not usable in the winter months and are leased to a private club in the prime summer tennis months. Victoria University has also sincerely explored alternative sites for the development and alternative accommodation for the tennis courts to no avail. In these circumstances, the loss of the tennis courts, while regrettable, is not a sufficient reason to contemplate refusal of the application to construct the theatre/lecture hall.

(2)Compatibility With Heritage Structures:

The scale of the proposed development is consistent with the existing historic buildings to the east and west that range between 12 and 18 metres in height. The lecture hall/theatre has a podium building height of 12 metres along most of the Charles Street frontage that is similar to the west end of Burwash Hall, and has a maximum height of 15 metres. The main north wall of the new building will be set back five metres from the Charles Street property line to line up with Burwash Hall and the northerly edge of the Birgie Carnegie Library.

An 8.5 metres wide opening, consisting of a service laneway and a landscaped setback, will be retained between Burwash Hall and the new building to expose the view of the rounded tower on the north face of Victoria College from the vantage point of Charles Street. The views of Victoria College from Charles Street are currently marred by the existing frost fence around the tennis courts.

However, the spires of Victoria College will be less visible from the sidewalk on the south side of Charles Street as a result of the construction of the theatre/lecture hall. The staff of Heritage Toronto have reviewed the proposal and conclude that the new building is well set back from the historic Victoria College building and will not materially or visually diminish the presence of any of the historic buildings on the campus.

The materials and detailing of the north facade of the new theatre will pick up some of the architectural elements of historic Burwash Hall to the west.

(3)Parking and Loading:

Under Section 3.1.3 of the Part II Official Plan for the University of Toronto Area, Council recognizes public transit, cycling and walking as the important modes of access to and throughout the University of Toronto Area. City policy is to maintain the amount of automobile parking at current levels and to encourage greater use of the extensive transit system, bicycle routes and pedestrian paths as new development occurs on campus.

Under Section 12(2)310(b)(2) of the Zoning By-law, Victoria University is required to maintain 175 parking spaces on the Victoria campus east of Queen's Park Crescent. Currently Victoria University has 185 parking spaces, 150 of which are located in the underground garage below Rowell Jackman Hall, on the south side of Charles Street, two buildings east of the theatre site. No additional parking spaces would be required to serve the theatre/lecture hall. The lecture hall would serve students and faculty who are already on campus, and any non-university theatregoers could park in the Rowell Jackman garage that is used by Victoria University staff in the daytime but available to the public in the evening.

The site is very well served by public transit. The Museum subway station is located 50 metres to the west, and the Bay Street and St. George subway stations are three blocks away from the theatre site. The Bay Street bus line is two blocks to the east.

A Type B loading space is to be located at the south-east corner of the building, which will not be visible from Charles Street. The loading space access is from the existing driveway and meets the requirements of the Zoning By-law and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(4)Traffic:

Several area residents have expressed concern over the amount of development occurring in the Sultan/St. Thomas/Charles area at present and the potential for excessive traffic loads. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has committed to monitor traffic in the area as development proceeds, to ascertain whether St. Thomas Street needs to be widened and whether Charles St. W. to east of St. Thomas St. should be widened and changed to a two-way street.

Contact Name:

Paul Bain

Telephone: (416) 392-7622

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: pbain@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	298004
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	September 23, 1998
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:73 Queen's Park Crescent.

Nearest Intersection:	East side of Queen's Park Crescent; south of Charles Street West.

Project Description:	To construct a theatre and an office building.

Applicant:

Peter John Smith

39 Donino Av.

544-0353

Agent:

Peter John Smith

39 Donino Av.

544-0353

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: Site Specific Provision: No

Zoning District: Q UOS Historical Status: Listed

Height Limit (m): 14.0; 18.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area:
2050.0 m²
Height: Storeys: 3

Frontage: Metres: 15.00

Depth:

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: 1041.0 m² Parking Spaces:

Residential GFA: Loading Docks: 1 B

Non-Residential GFA: 2068.0 m² (number, type)

Total GFA: 2068.0 m²

Floor Area Breakdown

Land Use
Above Grade
Below Grade

Theatre/Office 2068.0 m²

Proposed Density

Residential Density: Non-Residential Density: 1.01 Total Density: 1.01

Comments

Status:

Preliminary Report dated September 28, 1998 adopted by TCC on October 14, 1998.

Data valid:

September 23, 1998

Section:

CP West

Phone:

392-7333

--------

Appendix 1: Design Guidelines

Site 29 (73 Queen's Park Crescent)

Context:

1.1Location:

The site is located on the south side of Charles Street West, 50 metres east of Queen's Park Crescent and two blocks west of Bay Street. To the west of the site is Birgie-Carnegie Library, part of the Victoria College Campus and to the south, St. Michael's Campus.

1.2Heritage Issues:

The site is located on Charles Street West near several historic buildings:

Burwash Hall of Victoria College 73 Queen's Park Crescent - listed

Birgie-Carnegie Library 75 Queens Park Crescent - listed

Victoria College - listed

Annesely Hall 95 Queen's Park Crescent - listed

New construction should be compatible with existing structures in the immediate area in the following ways: scale, building location and organization, height and setback of structures; relationship of the structure to the open space between it and neighbouring structures; exterior features, such as window sills or header lines, the proportion of window or door openings to the overall facade, and the horizontal or vertical emphasis of the major building elements; and building materials, when relevant, will be important in the City's review of the project.

1.3Open Space:

Directly to the south is the significant open space known as the Victoria College Quad and south and east of the site is the St. Michael's Campus with large open spaces.

Design Guidelines:

2.0General Site Plan Issues:

Development on this site provides the opportunity to complete the street edge, hide and consolidate the servicing for several buildings in the immediate neighbourhood and further enhance the access to the Victoria Quadrangle.

2.1Setback and Build to Line, Projection Zone:

On this site a five metres front yard setback is required, consistent with setbacks on the south side of Charles Street West, west of Bay Street.

A side yard setback from the east and west buildings should accommodate pedestrian movement and vehicular traffic for drop off and servicing. A minimum sidewalk of 1.5 metres next to each existing building is recommended. The additional setback of 3.5 metres on the east portion of the lot should allow for pedestrian viewing of the north face of the Victoria College Building. Accommodating a notch on the south-east corner of approximately five metres x four metres (see drawing) will allow for the concealment of garbage and allow for better viewing of the north facade of Victoria College.

A projection zone allowing architectural articulation of the Charles Street facade consisting of minor elements similar to the buildings to the east and west may project up to 1 metre in front of the main building wall, for not more 40 percent of the facade length.

2.2Open Space:

None required on this site, however the surrounding open spaces are to be maintained and enhanced where possible. A landscape plan will be required.

2.3Pedestrian Routes:

Both the east and west sides of this site already encourage and allow pedestrian access to the quadrangle and connect into several existing pedestrian routes from Bloor Street to the University of Toronto west of Queen's Park Crescent. A sidewalk should be encouraged adjacent to the buildings on the east and west of the site for the safety of pedestrians and to prevent any damage to the historic buildings. The service routes should be integrated into the pedestrian system and read as primarily pedestrian routes. On the west side of the site an entrance pavilion is encouraged with a height of not more than 17 metres.

2.4Address and Grade-Related Uses:

Semi-public and common uses should be located on the ground floor, facing and opening onto Charles Street and the rear portion of the site to promote the safe use and informal overlook of these areas.

2.5Streetscape:

Improvements to sidewalks on Charles Street shall include planting, street trees, hard and grassed areas, decorative paving, and pedestrian lighting where appropriate that are consistent with any existing integrated landscape plan for the college. Access from Charles Street to the Quadrangle should be celebrated by an architectural feature.

2.6Height and Massing:

The base building height of the proposed development should be compatible with the existing buildings to the east and west which range in height from 12 metres to 18 metres. The building height on the Charles Street facade should not exceed 12 metres (similar to the west end of Burwash Hall). After the 12 metres heigh a 6 metres setback is required to then allow for a maximum height of 15 metres including the mechanical penthouse. At the south the height should not exceed 12 metres with an eight metre setback. Within this zone a height of 15 metres is allowed in the centre of the building to allow for a separate access to the offices above the theatre.

Articulation of the facade and materials similar to Burwash Hall are encouraged.

Attention of the view to the spires of the Victoria College Building is important in the placing of the building massing above the theatre or above the 12 metres height zone.

2.7Servicing:

The existing servicing for Burwash Hall and Victoria College Building is to be consolidated with the servicing of the new theatre building and hidden as much as possible from view.

--------

Appendix 2

Minutes of Public Meeting, November 19, 1998

Alumni Hall, Victoria College, 7 p.m. to 9:10 p.m.

Subject: Proposed 500-seat Theatre/Lecture Hall at 73 Queens Park Cres. (Tennis Court Site)

Approximately 70 persons were in attendance. Paul Bain called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. and gave regrets on behalf of Councillor Chow who had been called away to an emergency meeting in another part of the ward.

Paul Bain introduced his colleague, Denise Gendron, and Peter Smith, the theatre's architect. By way of overview, it was explained that the proposal was for a 500-seat theatre/lecture hall with second floor balconies and ancillary third floor offices. The theatre would be set back 5 metres from the northerly property line to line up with the north face of Burwash Hall. The base height of the theatre is 12 metres, rising to 15 metres in the centre. This is in keeping with the scale of the surrounding heritage buildings-Annesley Hall, Burwash Hall, and Birgie Carnegie Library. The theatre would be serviced by the existing laneway that provides servicing for Victoria College.

Peter Smith, the theatre's architect, presented a detailed description of the proposal. This included a computerized video tour of the general design of the exterior and the interior of the theatre. Mr. Smith also pointed out the detailing of the Charles Street frontage of the theatre to pick up some of the architectural texture of Burwash Hall and the tunnel proposed to connect the theatre with Victoria College.

The Director of the Gardiner Museum stated her strong support for the theatre proposal. The Museum frequently sponsors lectures, many in the evenings, and needs a larger theatre/lecture hall as a venue.

A Colonnade resident noted the many developments in the area and asked how the increased traffic could be handled in the Sultan-St. Thomas area. Paul Bain reviewed the status of the developments at 1 St. Thomas, 23 St. Thomas, 5-9 Sultan, 16 St. Thomas and the Victoria College Hotel site. The Works and Emergency Services department was monitoring the traffic to see if the widening of Charles and St. Thomas Streets and traffic directional changes on Charles Street are warranted.

A gentleman stated that he was a theatre-lover but was concerned that the tennis courts were disappearing and the open space in the area would be diminished. He hoped that other opportunities would present themselves for additional tennis courts, and that other open spaces would be preserved in the area.

Larry Kurtz, the Bursar of Victoria College, pointed out that the Victoria Quadrangle and the Athletic Field were both zoned UOS in recent years, with the consent of Victoria College, which stripped those open spaces of all above-grade development permissions. The athletic field was used by the local community, La Lycee French School, and the Rosedale School as well as the students of Victoria College.

A Victoria student recalled that at the time the Victoria gymnasium was being torn down, the students had been assured that the tennis courts would remain. He was happy that a wonderful theatre was being built at the College, but expressed disappointment over the loss of athletic open spaces on campus over the years.

A representative of the Victoria Tennis Club asked about the future of the Robert Street Playing Field and why this site was chosen for the theatre and not alternative sites.. Mr. Bain explained that the playing field had been rehabilitated this summer for both university and community usage. The tennis courts and ice rink were to remain, but the entire site would be looked at again by the University after the completion of the new Varsity Arena and Stadium in the future. Peter Smith explained that the tennis courts was one of three possible sites considered for the new theatre. The site adjacent to St. Michaels College was not available because of fire routes and land ownership issues, and the theatre would not be a 'fit' buried under the athletic field. This was the only workable site on the Victoria campus for the theatre.

A Victoria faculty member stated that the 500-seat lecture hall was very much needed for academic purposes, as there is no space that size on this side of the campus. It was regretful that the tennis courts had to be sacrificed for this very necessary academic facility.

A member of the Vic Drama Society pointed out that there were other tennis courts on campus at Trinity College and Wycliffe College, but there is no other adequately sized affordable theatre for student theatre. This theatre presents a tremendous opportunity for student theatre on campus as the existing theatre in Northrop Frye is inadequate for current needs.

A member of the Victoria Alumni Association stated that this $6 million gift for a new state-of-the art theatre was a landmark gift-one of the largest gifts in the university's history. The theatre being donated was a very necessary facility. He asked what we needed more, the theatre or the tennis courts. He pointed out that the tennis courts were only in use for five to six months of the year and for most of that period the courts were leased for non-university purposes to a private club.

A woman identified herself as a Vic graduate, a theatre designer and a member of the Victoria Tennis Club. She regretted that the removal of the tennis courts would be an irreparable loss of open space, and that part of the view of the Victoria Tower and the stained glass windows in Vic College would be lost.

Another woman regretted the disappearance of the tennis courts, but supported the proposal because of the longstanding need for the theatre particularly if student needs for open space were to be balanced by their academic and artistic needs. She expressed concern over the 12 to 15 metre height of the theatre, and asked whether the offices on the third floor were necessary.

Peter Smith explained that the theatre massing has been stepped down at the edges and an opening left between Burwash Hall and the theatre to preserve some views of the spire and the Vic College bay window. The offices were also set back from all edges of the building to lessen the massing impact.

A representative of the Academy for Lifelong Learning said that she and her organization welcomed the proposed facility as a venue for lectures. She said that the tennis courts are a hard surface surrounded by a link fence and were not an attractive open space.

A student stated his support for a theatre for student use. He said that the tennis courts are covered by snow four months of the year, and are leased to a private club for four months of the year. The theatre in Northrop Frye is not an adequate theatre space in his opinion. He has spoken to a lot of the students and the loss of the tennis courts are not an issue for most students because they have such limited use of them right now. There is much more support for the theatre in his opinion.

A Victoria faculty member asked why replacement tennis courts could not be put on the roof. Peter Smith stated that safety was not the issue, as much as the fact that the courts could not be fit in given the smaller area of the upper storey and the space required for the mechanical penthouse and the access.

A member of the tennis club spoke in favour of retaining the tennis courts and suggested that indoor tennis facilities might be constructed as an alternative.

A Victoria University faculty member spoke of the $6 million campaign for the library of the future. She asked whether the donation for the theatre/lecture hall included monies for future maintenance? The Bursar of Victoria College responded that some monies from the donation would go towards facility maintenance, but that there will be ongoing maintenance costs.

The Principal of Victoria College described all of the activities of the College that would make good use of a lecture hall/theatre of this size: the convocation of the College, the annual awards ceremony, welcoming address for new students, as well as large-course lectures and theatre productions. He also pointed out that Victoria College had made great efforts to improve their grounds, enjoyed by the general population as well as the university community.

A student from the Victoria Drama Society stated that some of the cost of maintenance of the building might be paid for by outside theatre rentals.

A Victoria Faculty member stated that he had mixed feelings about the proposal. As a teacher he has longed for such a theatre and does support the proposal. However he was worried that the theatre might be used largely for outside commercial theatre. He emphasized that student theatre had to be at the heart of the usage of the facility. He asked if the theatre proposal has the work space and storage space that is needed for a resident theatre company.

The Bursar of Victoria College stated that ultimately the Board of Victoria will have to find funds for add-ons such as the tunnel and special needs for the Vic theatre community. Victoria is in the 'academic business' not 'show business' and the academic and student theatre use will be the priority. The theatre is not being proposed as a money-making enterprise.

The Principal of Emmanuel College stated that his institution needs the lecture hall for courses, convocation and occasional public lectures and conferences. He strongly supports the development of the proposed facility.

A long-time member of the Victoria Tennis Club stated that the club has a long history on this site and it would be a shame to lose both the open space and the traditional presence of the club.

A Vic student described a theatre co-op she did at the University of Western Ontario and that a theatre would mean similar programs could be run at Victoria. She stated that this theatre would mean a tremendous amount to many present and future students at Victoria.

Paul Bain thanked everyone for coming and for the polite and civilized nature of the discussion.

--------

Appendix 3 - Comments from Civic Officials

(1)Heritage Toronto (January 12, 1999):

Staff have reviewed the plans for a new performing arts theatre to be located along Charles Street West within the Victoria University campus. The new building is set well behind the historic building known as Victoria College. It is our belief that this new building will not materially or visually diminish the presence of any of the historic buildings on the campus.

(2)Toronto Transit Commission (November 3, 1998):

It is noted that the University subway line is near the subject site. Therefore, please inform the applicant that it is possible for noise, vibration, and electro-magnetic fields to be transmitted from transit operations into any structure constructed over or adjacent to the transit facilities or structures. We suggest that the developer consider applying attenuation measures so that the levels of noise, vibration, and magnetic fields that could be transmitted to the subject development will be at the lowest levels technically feasible. The developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, through a clause in the purchase or rental agreements, of the potential for noise, vibration, and/or electro-magnetic fields and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such effects.

(3)Urban Planning and Development Services (December 9, 1998):

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct Theatre Building

Zoning Designation:QMap: 50H 323

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

Plans prepared by:Lett/Smith ArchitectsPlans dated: September 23, 1998

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 proposed height of the building and the elevator shaft must be clearly shown on the north elevation drawing; (Section 4(2)(a))

(2)The by-law requires 1 loading space - type B. 0 loading spaces are proposed;. (Section 4(8))(b))

(3)The non-residential gross floor area of the proposed building is more than 5 percent of that which existed on June 3, 1998; and (Section 12(2)309)

(4)The minimum required setback of 5.0 metres from Charles St. has not been provided. Proposed is 4.0 metres. (Section 12(2)310(a)(2)

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals:

(1)The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act;

(2)The property is listed historical, and the proposal requires the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act; and

(3)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.

(4)Works and Emergency Services (January 21, 1999):

Recommendations:

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 Council's 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 measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e)Provide and maintain 1 Type B loading space on the site;

(f)Provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6 and 13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading space;

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

(h)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(i)Provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(j)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i)a Reference Plan of survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario Co-ordinate System delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any appurtenant rights-of-way;

(ii)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 plan should be submitted at least three weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(k)Designate the driveway for one-way operations;

(l)Submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Parking Assessment undertaken by a qualified Transportation Planning/Engineering Consultant addressing the issues outlined in more detail in the body of this report;

(m)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;

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:

South side of Charles Street, east of Queen's Park Crescent.

Proposal:

Construction of a 2068 square metre, 500-seat theatre and approximately 220 square metres of office space.

Parking and Access:

No parking is proposed with this project whereas the estimate of the parking demand by this project is for 100 parking spaces.

As far as can be ascertained, 175 parking spaces are required to be provided and maintained by Victoria University within the portion of the University of Toronto Area located east of Queen's Park Crescent. The current project does not eliminate or provide additional parking. Although your Department's Preliminary Zoning Notice confirms that the current parking supply on the Victoria University lands falls within the range specified in the Zoning By-law, it is not clear how the parking demand generated by the theatre will be accommodated. As a result, the owner is required to submit a Parking Assessment undertaken by a qualified transportation consultant for my review which should include, among other things, an estimate of the parking demand generated by the proposed theatre and an indication of the utilization of the existing off-street parking facilities in the area which may be used by theatre patrons.

The existing driveway along the perimeter of the site varies in width from 3.5 metres to 5.0 metres. Given the varying driveway width and that the driveway can only accommodate one lane of traffic, the driveway system has been clearly designated to operate as a one-way system. This driveway configuration is acceptable.

Loading:

The estimated loading demand generated by this project is for 1 Type B loading space and, as far as can be ascertained the Zoning By-law requirement for a like amount. The Type B loading space is shown on the plans at the south-east corner of the building. It appears that trucks using the loading space will be required to utilize the existing service area serving the building to the east (Burwash Hall), which is also owned by the University of Toronto, for maneuvering purposes. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection:

The City does not collect refuse from institutions and, as a result, the owner must secure the

services of a private refuse collection firm.

Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plans:

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

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

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

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

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

The owner is advised that staff of the Solid Waste Management Services Division, District 1 (telephone no. 392-1040) will assist in the format and content requirements in the preparation of the plan.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management:

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development.

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Services Section, Districts 1 and 2 (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 Allowance:

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received by this Department.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

73 Queen's Park Crescent

Insert Table/Map No. 2

73 Queen's Park Crescent

Insert Table/Map No. 3

73 Queen's Park Crescent

Insert Table/Map No. 4

73 Queen's Park Crescent

-(February 8, 1999) from Mr. Kingsley Joblin; and

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. John N. Distin, Victoria Tennis Club.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (February 18, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Attached are submissions received by the City Clerk respecting the foregoing matter:

-(February 8, 1999) from Mr. Kingsley Joblin; and

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. John N. Distin, Victoria Tennis Club.)

(Copies of the attachments referred to in the above communication are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Draft By-laws - Official Plan and Zoning By-law

Amendments and Site Plan Approval -

195 - 253 Merton Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (February 5, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto which introduction is subject to receipt of:

(a)an executed agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

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

(c)an executed undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(2)the recommendations of the report (September 3, 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 February 17, 1999, and Mr. Sal Vitiello, E.I. Richmond Architects Ltd. addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 5, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft official plan amendment and zoning by-law to permit three 12-storey apartment buildings proposed as condominium at Nos. 195 and 253 Merton Street.

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 that:

(2)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (February 5, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto which introduction is subject to receipt of:

(a)an executed agreement under Section 37 of the Planning Act satisfactory to the City Solicitor;

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

(c)an executed undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(3)the recommendations of the report (September 3, 1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council will have before it the final report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (September 3, 1998) at its meeting to be held on February 17 and 18, 1999 concerning the above noted subject. Such report recommends, inter alia, that Draft By-laws be prepared by the City Solicitor to permit three 12-storey apartment buildings proposed as condominium at Nos. 195 and 253 Merton Street.

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.

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor

Telephone: 392-7237

Fax: 392-0024

E-mail: whawryli@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

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

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

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

respecting lands known as Nos. 195 and 253 Merton Street.

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 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 hereby amended by adding as Section 18.___ the following text and map:

"18.___Lands known as Nos. 195 and 253 Merton Street

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lot shown delineated by heavy lines on Map 18.___ attached hereto to permit the erection and use of three apartment buildings provided:

(1)the total residential gross floor area of all buildings does not exceed 32 103 square metres;

(2)each building contains not more than 125 dwelling units;

(3)the owners of the lot are required by by-law to:

(a)pay to the City of Toronto $473,000.00, being the park contribution prior to the issuance of the first building permit;

(b)provide details of the park improvements in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism;

(c)ensure that the City has permanent access over a 4.7 metre wide right-of-way next to the easterly lot line to allow a public walkway connection between Merton Street and the Beltline park;

(d)repair, replace and maintain the retaining wall within the right-of-way;

(e)provide a letter of credit satisfactory to the City, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, to cover the costs of implementing the Environmental Remediation Plan and Program and Basic Park Construction;

(f)pay for improvements to the public sidewalk and boulevard including paving materials and tree planting;

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

(h)provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(i)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;

(j)conduct a detailed historical review of the lot to identify all existing and past, on-site and surrounding land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site, such report to be submitted for approval of the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(k)conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on the lot, such report to be submitted for approval of the Medical Officer of Health. The removal of all these materials to be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines;

(l)conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes remediation options which are satisfactory to the Medical Officer of Health;

(m)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, and certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan;

(n)prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan satisfactory to the Medical Officer of Health; and

(o)implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health; and

(p)take measures to protect significant trees on the lot; and

(q)identify and secure in as much detail as possible, obligations relating to the establishment of a park on the Beltline, including conveyance to the City, indemnification, insurance, legal descriptions and plans of survey, interim maintenance of Beltline Park lands, park improvements, letters of credit, public consultation, park utilities and services, design and construction drawings, changes, grading and fill, inspection, certifications, default, warranties, remedial work, preparation and implementation of a tree plan, access and lighting of pathways, construction and maintenance of a park on Area B, park design, park design changes, fill and topsoil quality and depth, above ground structures, drainage, the restoration of Area B, rough grading, ground and storm water management, the phasing of park improvements, maintenance of abutting Building walls, finished elevations, lighting of the park, condition of abutting lands and structures, and linkage of the park to Mount Pleasant Road; and

(4)the owners enter into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City of Toronto, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required to be provided by subsection (3) and such agreement or agreements have been appropriately registered against the title to the lot."

(Map to be inserted)

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

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

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former

City of Toronto with respect to lands known as Nos. 195 and 253 Merton Street.

WHEREAS pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of a 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 and 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 lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as are hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increase in the density of development permitted hereunder, beyond that otherwise permitted on the aforesaid lands 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 such lands and the City of Toronto;

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

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

1.None of the provisions of Section 2 respecting the definition of the word "lot" and of Sections 4(2)(a), 4(4)(b), 4(16) or Section 8(3) PART I 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 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 any of up to three apartment building on the lot, provided:

(1)the lot comprises the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on the attached Plan 1;

(2)no portion of any building is erected and used on the lot above grade otherwise than wholly within the areas delineated by heavy lines as shown on the attached Plan 2;

(3)at least 107 parking spaces for the exclusive use of residents, and at least 15 parking spaces for visitors to the residents, for each building, are provided and maintained in an underground garage on the lot;

(4)no portion of any building is erected or used on the lot within Area B;

(5)each building contains not more than 125 dwelling units;

(6)the combined residential gross floor area of all buildings does not exceed 32 103 square metres; and

(7)no building, exclusive of rooftop elements and facilities permitted in Section 4(2)(a) of By-law No. 438-86, is erected or used on the lot above the height in metres specified by the numbers following the symbol H within the areas delineated by heavy lines on the attached Plan 2;

2.The density of development and height of development permitted by Section 1 is permitted subject to compliance with the conditions set out therein and in return for the provision by the owner of the lot of the following facilities, services or matters to the City of Toronto, being that the owner:

(1)pay to the City of Toronto $473,000.00, being the park contribution prior to the issuance of the first building permit;

(2)provide details of the park improvements in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism;

(3)ensure that the City has permanent access over a 4.7 metre wide right-of-way next to the easterly lot line to allow a public walkway connection between Merton Street and the Beltline park;

(4)repair, replace and maintain the retaining wall within the right-of-way;

(5)provide a letter of credit satisfactory to the City, prior to the issuance of the first building permit, to cover the costs of implementing the Environmental Remediation Plan and Program and Basic Park Construction;

(6)pay for improvements to the public sidewalk and boulevard including paving materials and tree planting;

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

(8)provide, maintain and operate the development in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(9)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;

(10)conduct a detailed historical review of the lot to identify all existing and past, on-site and surrounding land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site, such report to be submitted for approval of the Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of a building permit;

(11)conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on the lot, such report to be submitted for approval of the Medical Officer of Health. The removal of all these materials to be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Environment and Energy guidelines;

(12)conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes remediation options which are satisfactory to the Medical Officer of Health;

(13)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, and certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan;

(14)prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan satisfactory to the Medical Officer of Health; and

(15)implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health; and

(16)take measures to protect significant trees on the lot; and

(17)identify and secure in as much detail as possible, obligations relating to the establishment of a park on the Beltline, including conveyance to the City, indemnification, insurance, legal descriptions and plans of survey, interim maintenance of Beltline Park lands, park improvements, letters of credit, public consultation, park utilities and services, design and construction drawings, changes, grading and fill, inspection, certifications, default, warranties, remedial work, preparation and implementation of a tree plan, access and lighting of pathways, construction and maintenance of a park on Area B, park design, park design changes, fill and topsoil quality and depth, above ground structures, drainage, the restoration of Area B, rough grading, ground and storm water management, the phasing of park improvements, maintenance of abutting Building walls, finished elevations, lighting of the park, condition of abutting lands and structures, and linkage of the park to Mount Pleasant Road; and

(18)enter into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City of Toronto, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required to be provided by subsections 2(1) - 2(17) inclusive with such agreement or agreements appropriately registered against the title to the lot.

3.For the purposes of this by-law,

(1)the lot upon which the buildings are erected and used shall continue to comprise the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on the attached Plan 1 notwithstanding a conveyance of part of Area B to the Corporation for public parks purposes; and

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

(Maps to be inserted)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of this application to permit three 12-storey residential condominium buildings on this 14,417 square metre parcel, 6,193 square metres of which form part of the Beltline and are to be acquired by the City as part of the Beltline linear park.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to amendments to the former City of Toronto Official Plan substantially as set out below:

add to Section 18 a new subsection as set out below:

"Lands known as 195 to 253 Merton Street - Parcel 3

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 three buildings containing residential uses provided:

(i)the total residential gross floor area does not exceed 32, 103 square metres;

(ii)the total number of dwelling units does not exceed 375; and

(iii)none of the three buildings contains more than 125 dwelling units;"

(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 195 to 253 Merton Street, shown on Map 1 attached to this report, so as to:

(a)permit the construction and use of three residential buildings on the site provided that:

(i)none of the three residential buildings contains more than 125 dwelling units;

(ii)the total residential gross floor area of all three residential buildings does not exceed 32,103 square metres;

(iii)no part of any of the three residential buildings above grade extends beyond the building envelopes shown on the roof plan on Map 4;

(iv)a minimum of 112 parking spaces plus a minimum of 15 visitor parking spaces will be provided for each of the three residential buildings;

(vi)none of the three residential buildings exceeds 39.3 metres in height, excluding any mechanical penthouses; and

(vii)a minimum of 75 bicycle parking spaces will be provided for the occupants of all of the buildings and 19 bicycle parking spaces for visitors for all of the buildings;

(b)exempt the site from the provisions of Zoning By-law 438-86 , as amended, identified by the Chief Building Official in the letter dated July 3, 1998, and forming part of Appendix C to this report;

(3)That prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, the owner shall have entered into an agreement authorized under the provision of Section 37 of the Planning Act. The Section 37 Agreement should contain provisions which

(a)acknowledge the increase in height and density which permit Council to require the Section 37 Agreement;

(b)require the owner to provide on the day before issuance of the first building permit for the proposed development a Park Contribution of $ 473,000.00- (value as of June 1998, the agreement will provide for escalation to the current dollars depending on timing of construction), such Park Contribution shall be used for the purposes of permanent improvements to the Beltline Park, as well as parkland acquisitions and improvements within the boundaries of Ward 22, in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Area Parks and Recreation;

(c)require that the details of the Park Contribution shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Area Parks and Recreation, and shall be set out in the Section 37 Agreement in accordance with existing arrangements for former CN properties on the south side of Merton Street;

(d)require the owner to ensure that the City has permanent access over the right-of-way as described in Section 9.3 of this report, and such right-of-way be in accordance with the terms and conditions of a typical right-of-way for public access. The owner will be responsible for all costs and work associated with maintaining the retaining wall located within the right-of-way, including repair, replacement and maintenance of the wall. Further, any work on the development site which necessitates closure of the right-of-way shall occur between October and April and all efforts shall be made to minimise the length of the closure. The right-of-way shall be returned to its original condition on completion of any work; and

(e)require the owner to provide on the day before issuance of the first building permit for the proposed development a Letter of Credit in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of implementing the Environmental Remediation Plan and Program in accordance with the Report on the Environmental Site Assessment for Lots Nos. 154 and 160 Merton Street, prepared by Candec Consultants Limited, dated June 18, 1997 as augmented by the letters from Candec Consultants Limited, Reference No. 97/0188, dated May 29, 1998 and June 24, and undertaking the Basic Park Construction as shown on Landscape Plan L-1 through L-3, prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, dated March 21, 1997, dated-stamped received by Urban Planning and Development Services on June 19, 1998;

(4)Subject to execution of the Section 37 Agreement, and in view of agreements made therein securing the provision of a Parkland Contribution referred to in recommendation 3(b) above, that City Council authorize an amendment to Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to exempt therefrom the development of lands to the extent permitted by the By-law Amendment;

(5)That the owner be requested to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for building permit;

(6)That the owner be advised:

(a)that the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of 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;

(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; and

(d)of the need to revise his application at least three weeks prior to introduction of Bills in Council, so as to comply with the minimum bicycle parking requirement of the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended.

(7)That the owner be required to 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 three weeks prior to the introduction of Bills in Council;

(8)That as a condition of City Council approval, the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act requiring that:

(a)Develop and maintain substantially in accordance with plans:

(i)the proposed development (including all landscaping related thereto) shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely Plans No. A1 to A5, date stamped received on April 20, 1998, prepared by E.I. Richmond Architects, and Landscape Plans L-1, L-2 L-3, and L-5 dated March 21, 1997, date-stamped received on June 19, 1998, and Landscape Plan L-4, date stamped received on April 20, 1998, prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(b)Garbage:

(i)that the owner be required to provide and maintain in each of Buildings A, B and C a garbage room at least 25 square metres in size and a recycling room at least 10 square metres in size and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit, to City specifications, in each garbage room;

(c)Loading:

That the owner be required to

(i)provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site to serve each of Buildings A, B and C, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(ii)provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2 percent adjacent to the front of each Type G loading space for the storage of at least four compactor containers on collection day;

(iii)construct a 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;

(iv)construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 metres (4 metres where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 metres and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 metres and 16 metres; and

(v)provide and maintain level service connections between garbage and recycling rooms and the Type G loading space for the transporting of container bins;

(d)Parking:

That the owner be required to:

(i)provide and maintain a minimum of 122 parking spaces on the site to serve each of Buildings A, B and C, including at least 107 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of each building and at least 15 spaces for the residential visitors to each building, for a total minimum of 366 spaces; and

(ii)construct the access ramps to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding five percent within six metres of their intersection with the driveways from Merton Street and not exceeding 15 percent along the remaining portions;

(e)Transformer Vaults:

(i)that the owner be required to 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;

(f)Studies required by Civic Officials:

(i)that the owner be required to submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(ii)that the owner be required to 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;

(iii)that the owner be required to 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

(iv)that the owner be required to 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;

(g)Other Conditions for Approval:

(i)that the owner be required prior to the release of or clearance from any agreements registered against the subject property:

(1)to implement the Environmental Remediation Plan and program in accordance with the Report on the Environmental Site Assessment for Lots Nos. 154 and 160 Merton Street prepared by Candec Consultants limited, dated June 18, 1997, as augmented by the letters from Candec Consultants Limited, Reference No. 97/0188, dated May 29, 1998, and June 24 and Landscape Plan L-1 through L-3, prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited dated March 21, 1997, date stamped received by Urban Planning and Development Services on June 19, 1998;

(2)to implement the Tree Management and Protection Plan and Measures, set out on Landscape Plans L-1 through L-3, prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associate Limited, dated March 21, 1997, date stamped received by Urban Planning and Development Services on June 19, 1998; and

(3)to implement the Soil and Groundwater Plan set out on Landscape Plans L-1 through L-3 prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, dated March 21, 1997, date stamped received by Urban Planning and Development Services on June 19, 1998; and

(ii)that the owner be required prior to entering onto the Beltline Park, to obtain an Occupation Permit from the Commissioner of Community and Economic Development Services.

Background:

1.Application:

Application received April 9, 1997, from E.I. Richmond Architects on behalf of the owner, Orchid Hills Construction Ltd., 80 Tiverton Court No. 300, Markham, Ontario, L3R 0G4.

2.Public Meeting:

On July 17, 1997, a Public Meeting was held , notes of which are attached to this report as Appendix A. The meeting was attended by 16 area residents whose concerns focussed on building height, density and site design, as well as the proposal's impact on traffic.

3.Revised Application:

In response to concerns raised at the public meeting and by civic officials, the applicant has revised his proposal as follows:

(a)The proposed density has been reduced from 4.14 x to 3.9x the developed area of the lot (ie. the "development parcel" which excludes the area of the lot to be conveyed to the City to complete the Beltline Park);

(b)In keeping with the discussions contained in the preliminary report (May 22, 1997), the density bonus assumed for the belt line portion of the site has been reduced from the originally proposed 1.54x to 1.2x;

(c)The number of proposed dwelling units has been reduced from the a total of 399 to 375 units;

(d)The number of parking spaces has been reduced from 432 to 381;

(e)The building and site design have been changed as follows to comply with the Merton Street Urban Design and Development Guidelines, adopted by City Council on October 28/29, 1996 (see Appendix B):

(i)the building has been set back above the fifth floor;

(ii)setbacks from the side lot lines have been increased to 7.5 metres;

(iii)a two metre front yard setback and a 3 metre rear yard setback has been achieved; in addition, the setback from the Merton Street property line has been increased to three metres above the fifth floor of all three apartment buildings;

(iv)the facade has been changed to include expression lines;

(v)taller building elements have been redesigned to maximize high level views from the north;

(vi)the number of curb cuts to permit access to the buildings has been reduced from 11 to two; and

(f)Landscape plans have been revised and submitted to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Area Parks and Recreation.

4.Site and Surrounding Area:

The site fronts on the south side of Merton Street, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road. The parcel consists of 14,417.05 m2 in total, of which the 6,193 m2 rear portion forms part of the Beltline and is to be conveyed to the City as part of the Beltline linear park. The remainder of 8,223.43 m2 has frontage on Merton Street and is to accommodate the proposed development.

Merton Street between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road is in the process of transformation from an industrial and office commercial street to one predominantly residential in character.

Mount Pleasant Cemetery abuts the site to the south. For the property immediately to the west, a site plan approval application for 17 townhouses has recently been approved. Immediately adjacent to the east are two commercial properties followed by the City's public works yard and the Dominiom Coal lands. To the north are a number of low and medium rise commercial structures and an approved 8-storey (21 m) residential development at 260 Merton Street (formerly known as 254 Merton Street).

5.Planning Controls:

5.1Official Plan:

The 8,223.43 m2 development portion of the site along Merton Street is designated by the former City of Toronto Official Plan as "Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area" where commercial and residential uses up to three times the lot area are permitted. This part of Merton Street is also subject of Section 18.367 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan which requires that any development be in accordance with Development Guidelines adopted by City Council on October 28/29, 1996 and attached hereto as Appendix B.

The Beltline portion of the site is designated "Open Space" where no residential uses are permitted.

5.2Zoning By-law:

The development portion of the site is zoned CR T3.0 C2.0 R2.0 which permits a mix of commercial and residential uses at a density of up to 3.0 times, provided neither the commercial nor the residential use exceeds 2.0 times the lot area. The height limit is 21.0 metres. An amendment to this Zoning is in process, as discussed in Section 5.5 below.

The Beltline portion of the site is zoned G for park purposes.

5.3Site Plan Control:

This application is subject to site plan control. The applicant has applied for Site Plan Approval.

5.4Beltline Agreement:

The Beltline Agreement between the City and the owner of the Beltline, originally the Canadian National Railway, identifies the portion of the subject parcel with frontage onto Merton Street as "Merton Street Development Property Three" and the portion to its rear as "Merton Street Beltline Lands Three". In return for conveying the Beltline Lands Three to the City, thereby facilitating the completion of the Beltline linear park, the Agreement permits the owner to "include the Merton Street Beltline Lands Three in the calculation of lot area in development applications respecting Merton Street Development Property Three". Owners whose properties do not include part of the Beltline, may not use the adjacent Beltline in calculating the density permitted on their lot.

The Agreement also stipulates that the owner undertake certain improvements to the Beltline before it is assumed by the City for park purposes.

5.5Merton Street Study and Development Guidelines:

Following extensive public consultation and detailed examination of potential impacts of future redevelopment of this part of Merton Street, Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting on October 28/29, 1996, adopted the recommendations of the final report (dated August 23, 1996) to amend the Official Plan to permit residential as well as commercial development at a maximum density of 3.0 times , provided such development is consistent with a comprehensive set of Urban Design and Development Guidelines which were adopted by Council of the former City of Toronto at the same time (see Appendix B).

With respect to the Zoning By-law, Council of the former City of Toronto endorsed my recommendations to change the current CR T 3.0 C2.0 R2.0 to CR 2.0 C2.0 R2.0 while maintaining the current height limit of 21 metres for both sides of the street. This will, in effect, limit single-use as well as mixed use development to an as-of-right density of two times. By-law 1997-0551 implementing Council's decision in this regard was passed by Council of the former City of Toronto on October 6 and 7, 1997, but was subsequently appealed to the OMB by the applicant. To date, no hearing date has been set.

6.Recent Planning Approvals and Applications on the South Side of Merton Street:

In recent years, site specific by-laws were passed by City Council to permit the development of a 15 storey apartment building on 35 Merton Street and two 12 storey apartment building on 117-147 Merton Street. A site plan approval application was approved in 1997 for 151 Merton Street permitting 17 townhouses on the land immediately adjoining the subject site to the west.

Comments:

7.Reasons for this Application:

The application requires amendments to both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law because:

(a)the proposed residential density of 3.9 x on the development portion of the site is not permitted in the Official Plan and exceeds the two times residential density permitted in the Zoning By-law; and

(b)the proposed height of 12 storeys or 39.3 metres (excluding the proposed five metres high mechanical penthouse) exceeds the 21 metre height limit of the Zoning By-law.

8.Comments from Public Officials:

The application has been circulated among public officials whose comments are attached to this report as Appendix C. No negative comments or concerns have been received.

As pointed out in the letter from the City's Building Section (dated July 3, 1998), the current plans do not show sufficient bicycle parking to comply with existing Zoning By-law requirements. The applicant should be requested to revise his plans to comply with existing bicycle parking standards. Such revised plans should be received by the City at least three weeks prior to the introduction of Bills in Council permitting this application.

9.Reasons for Approving the Revised Application:

The application has been revised substantially to meet the intent of the Official Plan as well as comply with the Urban Design and Development Guidelines which were adopted by Council as a framework for future development on Merton Street between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road. Accordingly, I am in a position to support this proposal.

9.1Density:

The site has a split Official Plan and Zoning designation, ie. a low density mixed commercial-residential designation for the northerly portion with frontage onto Merton Street with a permitted maximum density of up to 3x the lot area, and a greenbelt designation for the southerly portion which forms part of the Beltline and has no density permission. As mentioned previously, the Beltline Agreement does allow for an unspecified density bonus if, as is anticipated in connection with this application, the Beltline is conveyed to the City for linear park purposes.

In approving a similar application for development west of the site, namely the former CN lands Parcel Two (117-147 Merton Street), a residential density bonus of 1.2 x the area of the Beltline was accepted by the former City of Toronto. The applicant has revised his application accordingly, in that the current proposal is for 3 x density on the development portion of this site plus a density bonus of 1.2x the Beltline portion of these lands. This results in a net density of 3.9x the development portion of the lot.

The applicant's revised density scenario can be supported as it is consistent with densities recently approved elsewhere along the south side of Merton Street west of Mount Pleasant Road.

9.2Built Form and Site Design:

As detailed in the Background Section three of this report, the application has been revised substantially with respect to building setbacks, building height, terracing, facade treatment and number of vehicular access points. As a result, the proposal is within the development parameters adopted by City Council in 1996 for development on the south side of Merton Street.

9.3Integrity of the Beltline Lands:

A three metre setback has been provided between the south side of the proposed apartment buildings and the northerly boundary of the Beltline linear park. The proposed landscape plan provides for generous planting within this space to enhance the recreational amenity of the abutting public park area.

As well, a total separation distance of 15 metres will be provided between apartment buildings to facilitate visual access to the Beltline from Merton Street.

In keeping with the Beltline Agreement executed in 1990 between the City and CNRail, a 4.7 metre wide right-of-way next to the easterly lot line is to allow for a public walkway connection between Merton Street and the Beltline park .

The Beltline portion of the site is to remain free and clear of any above or below grade development, is to be landscaped at the applicants' expense to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, and to be conveyed to the City in accordance with the Beltline Agreement.

It will be necessary for the owner to enter onto the Beltline Park in order to construct this project and to remove existing vegetation, including trees. The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has indicated that these tree removals are acceptable since the owner will be planting replacement trees and plant material as part of the park improvement program which will constitute an improvement over the existing trees and vegetation.

Conclusions:

The original application has been revised to satisfy the planning concerns identified in the Preliminary Planning report and to meet the built form and development parameters of the Merton Street Urban Design and Development Guidelines adopted by the former City of Toronto Council in 1996. Development of this site will result in conveyance of a significant portion of the former Beltline to the City and contribute to the completion of the Merton Street portion of the Beltline linear park. 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@toronto.ca

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197011
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	April 9, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	February 17, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:195, 253 Merton Street (Parcel C).

Nearest Intersection:	South side of Merton St., between Yonge St. and Mount Pleasant Rd.

Project Description:	Build 3 apartment buildings.

Applicant:

E. I. Richmond, Architect.

21 Bedford Road

961-1567

Agent:

E. I. Richmond, Architect.

21 Bedford Road

961-1567

Architect:

E. I. Richmond, Architect.

21 Bedford Road

961-1567

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official):

Official Plan Designation: LDMCRA + Open Space Site Specific Provision: No

Zoning District: CR T3.0 C2.0 R2.0 Historical Status: No

Height Limit (m): 21.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information:

Site Area:
14417.1 m²
Height: Storeys: 12 + Mech. Penthouse + 4 basements

Frontage: Metres: 39.30

Depth:

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: Parking Spaces: 381

Residential GFA: 32102.6 m² Loading Docks: 3 G

Non-Residential GFA: (number, type)

Total GFA: 32102.6 m²

Dwelling Units Floor Area Breakdown

Tenure:
Condo
Land Use Above Grade Below Grade

1 Bedroom: 192 Residential 32102.6 m²

2 Bedroom: 159

3 Bedroom: 24

Total Units: 375

Proposed Density:

Residential Density: 2.23 Non-Residential Density: Total Density: 2.23

Comments:

Status:

Preliminary Report dated May 22, 1997 requesting applicant to revise application - adopted by LUC on June 5, 1997. Application revised.

Data valid:

February 17, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

--------

Appendix A

Notes of Public Meeting

195 Merton Street

July 17, 1997

Davisville Public School

Present:

Sid Tennenbaum, Chair, Planning Advisory Committee

JoAnne.Simonetta, member, Planning Advisory Committee

Feodora Steppat, Urban Development Services (Planning)

Bob Duguid, Community Services (Parks and Recreation)

The meeting commenced at 7:35 p.m with 16 members of the public in attendance.

The Chair explained the role of the PAC in the planning process and the purpose of the meeting as an opportunity for area residents to make known their concerns about this application.

Feodora Steppat, the area planner, outlined the most important aspects of this application and the reasons why amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law were needed if the application was to proceed.

The architect for the project, Sal Vitiello, explained the building and site design details of the proposal.

Area residents' concerns focussed on building height, density and site design, and the proposal's impact on traffic and social services.

Concerns were raised about the proposed 12 storey height as this exceeds not only the Zoning Height limit of 21 metres but also the 7 storey height limit for the south side of Merton Street set out in the Urban Design Guidelines approved in 1996 .The proposed height was seen as incompatible with the town houses approved on the parcel adjoining to the west, and expected to have a negative impact on the street scape and on the abutting Beltline park. A resident of the apartments on Davisville Avenue noted that the new towers would likely block current spectacular views to the south.

The density also was seen as too high as it results in buildings of the height such as those proposed. Also of concern was the number of residents added to this area and the increases in demand on the social services and the road network.

With respect to the need for traffic studies, the recent efforts toward traffic calming in the South Eglinton Area were noted, and it was pointed out that a transportation impact study will likely be required of the applicant. The potential for a traffic light at Pailton Crescent was raised by a member of the audience.

Several clarification questions were put to the applicant's architect with respect to the circulation pattern on site including servicing and loading as well as the location of the common below grade garage in relation to the Beltline corridor above. It was explained that the Beltline corridor will have to be conveyed to the City and that nothing can be built below it.

A question was raised with respect to the Beltline Agreement and how it affects the proposal. It was explained that the Agreement grants a bonus density in return for the Beltline being turned over to the City for park purposes.

The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

--------

Appendix B

Urban Design and Development Guidelines

For Merton Street

Between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road

(Adopted by City Council on October 28/29, 1996)

North Side:

(1)The north side of Merton Street should be developed as a generally continuous and articulated, street related building wall of 5-storeys, fronting a well landscaped streetscape, with the highest portion of the building not exceeding 7 storeys;

(2)Street related building walls should be set back up to 4 metres from the property line in order to create a well landscaped streetscape. Portions of buildings may be built to the property line to reduce the impact of the development on properties to the north;

(3)A street-related expression line of 2 storeys should be incorporated into the design of the facade;

(4)In vertically stacked, mixed commercial-residential development, a setback should occur at the height of the change in use to mark the change;

(5)Only under exceptional circumstances and where the reconfiguration of a building, without exceeding the permitted density, could better achieve these development guidelines, Council may consider applications to permit taller building elements;

(6)Taller building elements (above the 5-storey height) should be set back from the street-related building; and should be massed toward the street line; and should be designed and oriented to maximize southward views from existing heigh rise development to the north. Building heights should be stepped down towards the north in order to reduce the shadowing effect over the properties to the north;

(7)East and west sides of buildings should be articulated, and not consist of blank walls;

(8)Building entries should be street and grade related, and where appropriate, building frontages should include street-related uses at grade; and

(9)Servicing should occur from the side or the rear of buildings. If several adjacent parcels are to be developed at once, the possibility of shared service access from the street should be explored.

South Side:

(1)The south side of Merton Street should be developed as a series of individual buildings set within a continuous landscaped open space that visually and spatially connects the street to the Beltline park and cemetery to the south;

(2)Larger building parcels should contain several buildings along the street frontage, with significant at-grade open spaces between buildings permitting views to the south;

(3)East/west buildings should not exceed 5-storeys in height in order to maximize sunlight on the northern side of the street;

(4)Street-related buildings should have a side yard setback of approximately 7.5 metres on each side to permit views to the south and sunlight penetration to the street;

(5)Street-related building walls should be generally set back approximately 3-4 metres from the property line in order to create a well landscaped streetscape;

(6)As a general principle, building heights should step up from the Beltline park, with setbacks at the 5-storey base building height and at the top of the building;

(7)A street-related expression line of 2-storeys should be incorporated in the design of the facade of buildings;

(8)Building facades facing the Beltline should be designed as a front of the building, and have a minimum setback at grade of three metres;

(9)East and west sides of buildings should be articulated and not consist of blank walls;

(10)Only under exceptional circumstances and where the reconfiguration of a building, without exceeding the permitted density, could better achieve these development guidelines. Council may consider applications to permit taller building elements;

(11)Taller building elements (above the 5-storey height) should not exceed 7 storeys and should be set back from the street and designed and oriented on a north-south axis to permit and maximize high level views from the north. In general, as building height increases, the amount of sky view should increase;

(12)All entries to buildings should be grade related;

(13)Street-related building frontages should include street-related uses at grade;

(14)Street-related building walls should be designed to demarcate public access locations between Merton Street and Beltline park;

(15)Future development on the south side of Merton Street adjacent to the historic coal towers should be set back with open space from the Dominion Coal Towers. Open space should have a strong public character and create a strong visual relationship from the corner to the Beltline park. The building setback from the Beltline should be established at three metres at the westerly boundary and be extended parallel to Merton Street rather than following the Beltline in order to preserve easterly landmark views along the Beltline which could otherwise be obscured by buildings; and

(16)Vehicular access to buildings should occur at the openings between buildings and be shared to serve adjacent buildings wherever possible.

Streetscape and Open Space:

(1)Sidewalks should be created on the south side of the street;

(2)A streetscape concept plan should be prepared for Merton Street;

(3)Generous open space access points between Merton Street and the Beltline should be created at Pailton Crescent, at the east side of 119 Merton Street and at the public lane between 25 and 35 Merton Street. Pailton Crescent should be visually extended south to the Beltline park;

(4)The open space gaps between buildings along the southerly frontage at grade should be designed and planted to permit landscaped views through to the Beltline park and Mount Pleasant Cemetery beyond; and

(5)Private open space directly adjacent to the Beltline should be designed in a manner that is complementary to the Beltline and clearly articulates the differences between public and private spaces.

--------

Appendix C

Comments from Civic Officials

(1)Works and Emergency Services, dated June 9, 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;

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

(e)Provide and maintain a minimum of 122 parking spaces on the site to serve each of Buildings A, B and C, including at least 107 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of each building and at least 15 spaces for the residential visitors to each building, for a total minimum of 366 spaces;

(f)Construct the access ramps to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding five percent within six metres of their intersection with the driveways from Merton Street and not exceeding 15 percent along the remaining portions;

(g)Provide and maintain in each of Buildings A, B and C a garbage room at least 25 square metres in size and a recycling room at least 10 square metres in size and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit, to City specifications, in each garbage room;

(h)Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site to serve each of Buildings A, B and C, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(i)Construct the Type G loading spaces 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;

(j)Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading spaces with a minimum width of 3.5 metres (four metres where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 metres and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 metres and 16 metres;

(k)Provide and maintain level service connections between the garbage and recycling rooms and the Type G loading spaces for the transporting of container bins;

(l)Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding two percent adjacent to the front of each Type G loading space for the storage of at least four compactor containers on collection day;

(m)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 three weeks prior to the introduction of a bill in Council;

(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 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;

(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; and

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

Comments:

Location:

South side of Merton Street, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road.

Proposal:

Construction of three residential condominium buildings, each comprising 106 residential units for a total of 318 units. The site area shown on the application and site plan as being 14,417.05 m� should be corrected to 13,925.5 m�.

The proposal was dealt with in Departmental reports dated November 17, 1997 and February 16 and March 23, 1998. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous reports, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Previous Application:

This site was previously the subject of Rezoning Application No. 2385 (Parcel 3).

Parking and Access:

The proposed provision of 127 parking spaces for each building in a 3-level underground garage (for a total of 381 spaces), consisting of 112 resident spaces and 15 residential visitor spaces satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by each building in this project, based in part on the surveyed demand of residential condominium units, for 122 spaces, consisting of 107 resident spaces and 15 residential visitor spaces (for a total of 366 spaces). The Zoning By-law requirement, as far as can be ascertained, is for a total of 411 spaces.

The parking spaces are located in a 3-level underground parking garage which is designed such that there is a common first level for the visitor parking and the entrance to the resident parking serving Buildings A and B. Gates physically separate the resident spaces for all three buildings from the residential visitor spaces. The plans indicate that the access driveways will have a typical width of 5.5 metres and that the typical dimensions of the parking spaces will be 2.6 metres x 5.9 metres. The dimensions and general layout of the parking spaces are acceptable. The plans also show that ingress to and egress from the parking spaces will be from a sloped ramp/driveway system having a maximum slope of three percent, which is satisfactory.

Access to the portion of the underground parking garage serving Buildings A and B is provided via a driveway from Merton Street between Buildings A and B to a ramp located on the east side of Building A. Access for Building C is via a second driveway from Merton Street between Buildings B and C to a ramp located on the west side of Building C. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection:

The City will provide this project with the bulk lift method of refuse collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(g) to 1(l) above.

The plans show the provision of service areas, each with a Type G loading space, at the southeast corner of Building A and the southwest corners of Buildings B and C. The Type G loading spaces are configured such that trucks using the loading spaces would be able to enter and exit Merton Street in a forward motion. This is acceptable. As an alternative, one Type G loading space, strategically located on the site, for the shared use of two or all three buildings would also be 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.

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

(2)Urban Planning and Development Services, (Buildings Section), dated July 3, 1998:

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct two apartment buildings (3 towers) with 3 levels of sub-grade parking and 375 dwelling units

Zoning Designation:CR T2.0 C2.0 R2.0 *Map:51K 311

Applicable By-law(s):97-0551*, as amended

Plans prepared by:E.I. Richmond ArchitectsPlans dated: April 20, 1998

Residential GFA:32102.6 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 each principal building to be assigned a defined part of the parcel of land. The proposed buildings have not been assigned their own parcel of land. (Section 2, definition of "lot".)

Building A and Building B are connected at the basement floor level.

Lot lines have not been shown and corresponding statistics have not been provided.

(2)Each of the proposed towers exceed the maximum height limit of 21.0 m. (Section 4(2)(a))

(3)The by-law requires a minimum of 93 parking spaces to be provided for visitors. The number of proposed parking spaces for visitors is 45. (Section 4(4)(b))

(4)The by-law requires at least 75 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of all the buildings and 19 bicycle parking spaces for visitors to all the buildings. No bicycle parking spaces are proposed. (Section 4(13)(a) and (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 such driveway is proposed for any of the buildings. (Section 4(16))

(6)The by-law requires that the residential gross floor area be not more than 2.0 times the area of the lot: 16 446.86 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 32 102.6 square metres. (Section 8(3) Part I 3(a))

(7)The by-law requires a building containing more than 100 dwelling units to have an average floor area of all dwelling units of at least 50 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(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)The proposal does not require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act;

(4)The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code."

(3)Community and Economic Development Services (Parks Section), dated July 16, 1998:

"I am in receipt of the above-noted application for permission to construct a residential development on the subject property. The site abuts the north edge of the Beltline Park, a linear park under the jurisdiction of Toronto Parks and Recreation.

This site is subject to the requirements set out in the Beltline Agreement executed on April 11, 1990 between the City and CN Rail. This agreement requires the provision of a 4.75 metre wide right-of-way over the easterly portion of this site and requires the resolution of various issues, including but not limited to, park improvements, access, drainage, restoration of City property and construction relating to the Beltline Park in conjunction with this application. The agreement also contains conditions and requirements of an ongoing nature, the Owner is advised that it is the owners responsibility to be aware of these conditions and to ensure that they are complied with.

It is my understanding that a Section 37 Agreement will secure matters related to the parkland improvements contributions, Beltline Park access and long term maintenance of the right-of-way . With respect to the proposals around the Beltline Park and the parkland design and improvement contributions, the following draft terms and conditions generally represent the agreements that have been reached with the owners representatives. The detailed wording of the various provisions for the agreement will be generally consistent with those set out in the Section 37 Agreements executed with the respective developers of the properties adjacent to Beltline Parcels 1 and 2, we will work closely with legal and planning staff over the next few weeks to resolve the final details. The following recommendations should be included in your report:

That the provisions of the Section 37 Agreement include the following broad terms and conditions:

(a)the owner will provide on the day before issuance of the first building permit of the proposed development a Parks Contribution of $473,000.00 (value as of June 1998, the agreement will provide for escalation to then current dollars depending on timing of construction), such Park Contributions shall be deposited in Parks and Recreation Account 216459 40300 C1401 Beltline, such funds shall be used for the purposes of permanent improvements to the Beltline Park, as well as parkland acquisitions and improvements within the boundaries of Ward 22, in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Area Parks and Recreation;

(b)the details of the Park Contributions shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Area Parks and Recreation, and shall be set out in the Section 37 Agreement, in accordance with existing precedent arrangements;

(c)the owner shall ensure the City has permanent access over the right-of-way as shown on Landscape Plan L-2 (referred to below) and such right-of-way shall be in accordance with the terms and conditions of a typical right-of-way for public access and the owner will be responsible for all costs and work associated with maintaining the retaining wall located within the right-of-way, including repair, replacement and maintenance of the wall, further any work on the development site which necessitates closure of the right-of-way shall occur between October and April and all efforts shall be made to minimise the length of the closure, the right-of-way shall be returned to its original condition on completion of any work; and

(d)the owner will provide on the day before issuance of the first building permit of the proposed development a Letter of Credit in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer in an amount sufficient to cover the costs of implementing the Environmental Remediation Plan and Program in accordance with the Report on the Environmental Site Assessment for Lots Nos. 154 and 160 Merton Street prepared by Candec Consultants Limited, dated June 18, 1997 as augmented by the letters from Candec Consultants Limited, Reference No. 97/0188, dated May 29, 1998 and June 24 and undertaking the Basic Park Construction as shown on Landscape Plan L-1 through L-3 , prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, dated March 21, 1997, date-stamped received by Urban Development Services on June 19, 1998.

That the Planning report include the following recommendations with respect to the parks levy:

(__)Subject to execution of the Section 37 Agreement, and in view agreements made therein securing the provision of Parkland Contributions referred to in (__) above, that City Council authorize an amendment to Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Land for Parks Purposes, of the Toronto Municipal Code, to exempt therefrom the development of lands to the extent permitted by the Subject By-Law Amendment.

With respect to the Application for Site Plan Approval submitted in conjunction with the application for O.P.A. and Rezoning, I advise that Landscape Plans prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, dated March 21, 1997, denoted as L-1, L-2, L-3 and L-5, date-stamped received by Urban Development Services on June 19, 1998 and L-4 date-stamped received by Urban Development Services on April 20, 1998 are acceptable. It will be necessary for the owner to enter onto the Beltline Park in order to construct this project. In order to access the Beltline, it will be necessary for the owner to remove the existing vegetation, including the trees. These removals are acceptable since the owner will be planting replacement trees and plant material as part of the park improvement program which will be an improvement over the existing trees and vegetation. The owner has also agreed to undertake improvements and carry out work within the Beltline Park, I request that the following recommendations be included in your report, that the owner be requested to:

(1)Implement the Environmental Remediation Plan and Program in accordance with the Report on the Environmental Site Assessment for Lots Nos. 154 and 160 Merton Street prepared by Candec Consultants Limited, dated June 18, 1997 as augmented by the letters from Candec Consultants Limited, Reference No. 97/0188, dated May 29, 1998 and June 24 and Landscape Plan L-1 through L-3 , prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, dated March 21, 1997, date-stamped received by Urban Development Services on June 19, 1998;

(2)Implement the Tree Management and Protection Plan and Measures, set out on Landscape Plans L-1 through L-3, prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, dated March 21, 1997, date-stamped received by Urban Development Services on June 19, 1998;

(3)Implement the Soil and Groundwater Plan set out on Landscape Plans L-1 through L-3 prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, dated March 21, 1997, date-stamped received by Urban Development Services on June 19, 1998; and

(4)Obtain an Occupation Permit from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism prior to entering onto the Beltline Park.

Please contact Rob Watson at 392-0582 should you have any questions or require further information regarding this project."

(4)Works and Emergency Services (Fire Prevention Office), dated May 6, 1998:

"Please be advised that when the pertinent requirements of the Ontario Building Code have been applied relative to this project, our Department may be deemed as satisfied."

(5)Metro Planning, dated October 9, 1997:

"We have reviewed the above revised application according to Metropolitan planning policies and the provision of Metropolitan services and advise that we have no objections."

(6)Metropolitan Separate School Board, dated May 21, 1998:

"Further to your request for comments regarding the above-noted proposal, please be advised that children emanating from this project could be accommodated in permanent facilities at the following Schools:

St. Monica Catholic School (JK-8);

St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School (9-OAC);

Ecole elementarie catholique Sacre Coeur; and

Ecole secondaire catholique Mgr-de-Charbonnel.

It should be noted that Loretto Abbey Catholic Secondary School which also serves the subject area is oversubscribed and could not accommodate additional students.

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

(7)Metropolitan Separate School Board, dated November 14, 1997:

"The Metropolitan Separate School Board would like to advise you of its inability to accommodate secondary students generated by this application at Loretto Abbey Catholic Secondary School.

An official response will be available after the Board has had an opportunity to review this proposal."

Insert Table/Map No. 1

195, 253 merton street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

195, 253 merton street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

195, 253 merton street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

195, 253 merton street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

195, 253 merton street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

195, 253 merton street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

195, 253 merton street

Insert Table/Map No. 8

195, 253 merton street

Insert Table/Map No. 9

195, 253 merton street

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto

Municipal Code - 2300 Yonge Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report addresses the concerns respecting the sign on the east elevation of the building and consolidates the recommendations contained in my two previous reports.

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the recommendations contained in my two previous reports dated November 26, 1998 and January 13, 1999 be replaced as follows:

(1)City Council adopt Application No. 998091, as revised, respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated "blade" signs at 2300 Yonge Street;

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998091, as revised, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(3)City Council grant authority to:

(i)allow a minor variance from the former Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the erection of the illuminated "blade" sign, as revised, on the east elevation of the building subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the "blade" sign; and

(ii)direct the appropriate City of Toronto Officials to give effect thereto;

(4)The applicant pay all legal costs of the City of Toronto in the preparation and registration of the agreement; and

(5)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.

Background:

On December 9, 1998, Toronto Community Council had before it my report dated November 26, 1998 requesting approval to install two illuminated "blade" signs. Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this item until its meeting on January 20, 1999, to permit Councillor Walker to have a meeting in the community.

The meeting was held on January 14, 1999. Concerns were raised by neighbouring residents respecting the proposed sign on the east elevation in that the portion of the sign projecting above the roof level as well as the proposed semi-circular screen would block their views of Yonge Street. Modifications to the sign were recommended by the residents and staff were requested to consult with the sign company and appropriate civic officials on these modifications and report back to Toronto Community Council.

Revised Application:

The revised proposal differs from the original proposal as follows:

(i)the height of the sign above grade has been reduced from 27 metres to 24 metres;

(ii)the overall area of the sign has been reduced from 100.9 m� to 73.4 m�;

(iii)the sign has been re-positioned on the building so that only the top portion of the sign, the non-illuminated sphere, will extend above the building roof line (2.7 metres instead of 5.3 metres);

(iv)the name "Silvercity" has been reduced from 13.4 m� to 4.9 m�; and

(v)the projection of the sign from the building has been reduced from 4.9 metres to 4.8 metres.

Comments:

The size of the sign has been substantially reduced and the sign has been re-positioned on the building so that only the top portion of the sign, being the non-illuminated sphere, would project above the building roof line. The revised proposal represents a significant improvement over the original proposal and, in my opinion, its smaller size and lower height adequately address the concerns raised by the neighbouring residents.

I am therefore recommending approval of this application as revised.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2300 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2300 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2300 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

2300 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

2300 yonge street

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

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit two illuminated "blade" signs at 2300 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No.998091 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated "blade" signs; and

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998091, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the north-west corner of Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial residential) district. The property accommodates the Yonge-Eglinton Centre. The applicant is requesting permission to install two illuminated "blade" signs on the south and east elevations of the building in order to identify the new movie theatres (see Figures 1-4). The signs each have a length of 5.6 metres and a height of 18.02 metres, with an area of 100.9 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that they are not a defined sign type and therefore are not permitted.

The cone-shaped signs would be attached to the south and east building facades to identify the new theatres. The signs would be internally illuminated with fluorescent lighting and only the upper portion of the sign would contain the theatre name "Silvercity". Given that a portion of the sign on the Yonge Street elevation will project above the building parapet, I was concerned about the impact of the illuminated sign on the adjacent residential uses north and west of the site and requested the applicant to address this concern. Consequently, the applicant has proposed to install an aluminum semi-circular screen behind the signs in order to prevent any light from being visible by the adjacent residential uses, which I believe satisfactorily addresses my concerns.

The signs have been designed as decorative elements to complement the exterior facade of the newly renovated building and, in my opinion, will not negatively impact the streetscape or the surrounding uses.

I am therefore recommending approval of this application as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2300 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2300 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2300 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

2300 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

2300 yonge street

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report forwards the comments and recommendations from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the encroachment of the illuminated "blade" sign on the east elevation of the building onto the Yonge Street road allowance. I am including these recommendations as part of the new procedures to streamline the approval process for signs encroaching over Metro roads.

Recommendations:

That the recommendations contained in the report dated November 26, 1998 from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended to include the following:

"3.City Council grant authority to:

(i)allow a minor variance from the former Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the erection of the illuminated "blade" sign on the east elevation of the building subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the "blade" sign; and

(ii)direct the appropriate City of Toronto Officials to give effect thereto;

(4)The applicant pay all legal costs of the City of Toronto in the preparation and registration of the agreement; and

(5)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."

Background:

On December 9, 1998, Toronto Community Council had before it my report dated November 26, 1998 requesting approval to install two illuminated "blade" signs. Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this item until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999, to permit the Ward Councillor to have a meeting in the community.

The "blade" sign when completed will be located at a distance of " 83.0 metres north of the curb line of Eglinton Avenue at Yonge Street, and will overhang on the Yonge Street road allowance by 4.54 metres. Clear space between the west curb line of Yonge Street to the closest part of sign being 0.36 metres. Minimum clearance between the existing sidewalk to lowest portion of sign being 10.4 metres.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Recommendation:

That this matter be deferred until the meeting of Toronto Community Council to be held on February 17, 1999, in order to consider the requested modifications arising from the community meeting held on January 14, 1999.

Comments:

On December 9, 1998, Toronto Community Council had before it my report dated November 26, 1998, recommending approval to install two illuminated "blade" signs. Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this item until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999, to permit the Ward Councillor to have a meeting in the community.

The meeting was held on January 14, 1999. Concerns were raised by the residents respecting the proposed sign on the east elevation in that the portion of the sign projecting above the roof level as well as the proposed semi-circular screen would block their views of Yonge Street. Modifications to the sign were recommended by the residents and staff is consulting with the sign company and appropriate civic officials on these modifications. To consider modifications to the sign, the matter should be deferred to the February 17, 1999, meeting of Toronto Community Council.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (December 2, 1998) from Mr. David Y. Green, Yonge-Eglinton Centre, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the

Ontario Heritage Act - 130 Gerrard Street East

(Jarvis Street Baptist Church) (Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following statement be added to the end of the 'Short Statement of Reasons for Designation':

'The 2-storey rear (east) addition is not included in the Reasons for Designation.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 130 Gerrard Street East (Jarvis Street Baptist Church) be designated for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 130 Gerrard Street East (Jarvis Street Baptist Church) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and

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

Background:

At its meeting of October 23, 1996, the Toronto Historical Board (now known as Heritage Toronto) adopted a report recommending the designation of the property at 130 Gerrard Street East (Jarvis Street Baptist Church). The designation of the adjoining properties at 130 Gerrard Street East (Jarvis Street Baptist Church) and 337 Jarvis Street (Samuel Platt House) is being brought forward in relation to amendments being made to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. As part of an agreement between the City of Toronto and the owner, the owner does not object to the designation of the properties provided that the rear portions of the buildings (newer additions) are not included in the designation.

The Board's report was deferred at the November 6, 1996 meeting of the Neighbourhoods Committee of the former City of Toronto Council to allow the Land Use Committee to deal with the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application. On March 27, 1997, the Land Use Committee adopted the report from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

At its meeting of January 20, 1999, the Toronto Community Council approved an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law for the properties. The adoption of these by-laws will be considered by City Council concurrently with this report recommending the designation of the property at 130 Gerrard Street East (Jarvis Street Baptist Church).

Comments:

The Short Statement of Reasons for Designation, designed for publication, follows. The Heritage Property Report (Long Statement of Reasons for Designation) is attached.

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

Jarvis Street Baptist Church, 130 Gerrard Street East:

The property at 130 Gerrard Street East is designated for architectural and historical reasons. Jarvis Street Baptist Church was built in 1874-1875 for the successor to the first Baptist congregation in Toronto (formed in 1829). Designed by the important Toronto architectural firm of Langley, Langley and Burke, its construction was largely funded by Senator William McMaster, the prominent Toronto merchant and Baptist philanthropist.

esigned in the Gothic Revival style, Jarvis Street Baptist Church features a nearly-square plan covered by a steeply-pitched gable roof with cross-gables. Clad with mottled brownstone and trimmed with Ohio sandstone and granite, the focal point of the design is the canted tower and spire at the southwest corner of the building. The buttresses, quoins, lancet windows, pointed-arch window openings with tracery, and the gabled frontispieces with entrance portals and stone trim, are found on the south, west and north facades of the building. Important interior features are the U-shaped auditorium, with a horseshoe-shaped gallery supported on columns and a plaster ceiling with a stained-glass skylight.

Located on the northeast corner of Jarvis Street and Gerrard Street East, Jarvis Street Baptist Church is an important neighbourhood landmark. The church was the first home of the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir, founded by A. S. Vogt, organist and choirmaster at Jarvis Street Baptist Church. The building is an important example of Gothic Revival styling as interpreted by the foremost designers of churches in late-19th century Ontario.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 130 Gerrard Street East (Jarvis Street Baptist Church) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239Fax: 392-6834

--------

(Heritage Property Report dated October 1996

Jarvis Street Baptist Church - 130 Gerrard Street East)

Table of Contents:

Basic Building Data:

Historical Background

Architectural Description

Context

Summary

Sources Consulted

Attachments:

IShort Statement of Reasons for Designation

IILocation Map

IIIPhotographs

--------

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address:130 Gerrard Street East (northeast corner of Gerrard Street East and Jarvis Street)

Ward:6

Current Name:Jarvis Street Baptist Church

Historical Name:Jarvis Street Baptist Church

Construction Date:1874-1875

Architect:Langley, Langley and Burke

Contractor/Builder:none found

Additions/Alterations:1938-1939, alterations following fire, Horwood and White, architects

Original Owner:Jarvis Street Baptist Church

Original Use:religious

Current Use*:religious

Heritage Category:Notable Heritage Property (Category B)

Recording Date:October 1996

Recorder:HPD:KA

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

Historical Background:

With the founding of Toronto as the Town of York in 1793, the area north of Queen Street was divided into park lots which were distributed to government officials. Originally the setting of the country estates of Toronto's founding families, by the mid 19th century the parcels directly north of the townsite were divided into residential lots along tree-lined avenues named Church, Jarvis and Sherbourne Streets. In Toronto's most fashionable neighbourhood, substantial houses were interspersed with churches.

The first Baptist congregation in Toronto was formed in 1829. After meeting in temporary facilities on present day Colborne and Lombard Streets, a church was constructed on Bond Street (on the site of present-day St. Michael's Hospital) in 1848. This congregation was important in the development of other Baptist churches in Toronto, opening facilities on Beverley, Parliament, Bloor and Alexander Streets as missions under the Bond (later Jarvis) Street church.

In 1874, following the acquisition of a vacant lot on the northeast corner of Jarvis and Gerrard Streets, construction of the present church began. Senator William McMaster, a prominent Toronto wholesale merchant and the founder of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, contributed $60,000.00 toward the building costs. McMaster was an important Baptist philanthropist who funded McMaster Hall for the Toronto Baptist College (the forerunner to McMaster University in Hamilton). As an original member of the Bond Street congregation, McMaster took a special interest in the development of the Jarvis Street Baptist Church.

The prominent Toronto architectural firm of Langley, Langley and Burke was engaged to design the church. In a practice spanning over 40 years, Henry Langley designed more than 70 churches and altered, enlarged or completed many others. Following his apprenticeship with architect William Hay (who designed St. Basil's Roman Catholic Church at 50 St. Joseph Street), Langley formed a partnership with Thomas Gundry in 1862. Their projects included the reconstruction of St. Stephen's-in-the-Field Anglican Church on Bellevue Avenue (damaged in a fire in 1865) and the design of St. Peter''s Anglican Church on Carlton Street (1866). Working on his own, Langley designed Metropolitan Methodist Church at Queen and Church Streets (completed in 1872). In 1873, Henry Langley formed a new partnership with his brother, Edward Langley and his nephew, Edmund Burke (this firm was succeeded by Langley and Burke, Burke and Horwood, Burke Horwood and White, and Horwood and White). Jarvis Street Baptist Church was among the first commissions received by the partnership. Coincidentally, Burke was a member of the congregation.

Jarvis Street Baptist Church was the first church in Canada designed with a U-shaped galleried auditorium, described by J. R. Robertson as "the more modern method of seating which bends the audience around the chancel" (Landmarks, 423). The church was extended by a 2-storey school building to the rear (east), containing a church parlour, library, classrooms and, on the second floor, a Sunday School room with a capacity of 500 seats.

The building opened for services in December, 1875. The size of its weekly prayer meetings, with 400 to 500 participants, attracted local attention. According to J. R. Robertson, writing in 1903, "there is no church in Canada or the United States that can secure, in proportion to its membership, an attendance so large as this at its regular prayer meeting" (Landmarks, 424). In 1894, Augustus

Stephen Vogt (1861-1926), organist and choirmaster at Jarvis Street Baptist Church, formed the Toronto Mendelssohn Choir, using the church choir as the nucleus of a choral group whose membership soared to 100 voices. The Mendelssohn Choir was based at the church until the completion of Massey Hall.

Following a disastrous fire in 1938, Jarvis Street Baptist Church was substantially altered by architects Horwood and White, successors to the firm responsible for the original designs.

Architectural Description:

Jarvis Street Baptist Church is designed with Gothic Revival features, the most popular style for churches in the late 19th century. The style evolved in mid-19th century England, largely influenced by the publication of The True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture by the architect and theorist A. W. Pugin. His book advocated the renewal of the Gothic style of the English Middle Ages, specifically the Decorated English style of the 14th century. Ideal compositions featured natural materials, buttresses, steeply-pitched roofs, gables, and pointed-arch window openings. The movement was further influenced by the writings of English art critic John Ruskin, who espoused the application of colour in architectural design. By the mid-19th century, Gothic Revival designs combined medieval prototypes with increasingly complicated floor plans and asymmetrical compositions. The style was introduced to Toronto in 1858 with the construction of the Chapel of St. James-the-Less in St. James' Cemetery by architects Cumberland and Storm. Its design, which included the relocation of the tower from the end wall of the nave to a side elevation, influenced the next generation of churches.

Jarvis Street Baptist Church is constructed of mottled brownstone and trimmed with Ohio sandstone and granite. Measuring 80 by 90 feet (24 by 27 metres), the church is almost square in plan and incorporates a similarly-shaped auditorium. The building is covered by a steeply-pitched gable roof, originally clad with ornamental slate shingles and trimmed with iron cresting. Cross-gables project from the north, west and south faces of the roof. The tower with its metal-clad spire is canted on a diagonal at the southwest corner of the plan, overlooking the intersection of Jarvis and Gerrard Streets. This element is balanced on the northwest corner by a hip-roofed projection, similarly angled.

The tower remains the focal point of the composition, with its buttressed walls, quoins, narrow lancet windows, pointed-arch openings with trefoil motifs and louvres, and stone corbels. The octagonal broach spire displays pinnacles, lucarnes, crockets and iron cresting. A gabled frontispiece at the base of the tower has label stops decorated with gargoyles. A compound compressed-arch portal contains double wood entrance doors (added in 1939) and a transom with quartrefoil and trefoil motifs. The entrance is flanked by polished granite columns with stiff-leaf capitals. A similarly-detailed entrance is found on the northwest corner of the building.

he motifs introduced on the tower are repeated on the west wall facing Jarvis Street, where a monumental pointed arch window opening with quatrefoil tracery is placed above paired gabled frontispieces with entrances. On either side, lancet openings are found. A name band marks the south end of this wall. On the south (Gerrard Street) and north facades, two cross-gables each display a monumental pointed arch window and multiple lancet openings. On the south wall, between the cross-gables, an entrance repeats the detailing found on the tower entry. The east end of the church has a three-sided apse, which is partially concealed by a 2-storey brick-clad addition (this addition is not included in the Reasons for Designation).

Important interior elements are the nearly-square auditorium, rising 45 feet (13.5 metres) to a groined plaster ceiling with a monumental skylight in the shape of a stained-glass rose window. The horseshoe-shaped gallery is supported on iron piers.

Context:

Jarvis Street Baptist Church occupies a prominent location on the northeast corner of Jarvis Street and Gerrard Street East. Its neighbour to the north, built as the Samuel Platt House in 1849-1850, is now occupied by the Toronto Baptist Seminary. Further north, at the southeast corner of Jarvis and Carlton Streets, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church was completed in 1878 to the designs of architects Langley, Langley and Burke. East of the church, the remainder of the block bounded by Jarvis, Gerrard, Sherbourne and Carlton Streets is filled by Allan Gardens. All of the above-noted properties are included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

On the opposite side of Jarvis Street, between Gerrard and Carlton Streets, the semi-detached house form buildings at No. 280 (1891), No. 288-290 (1890) and No. 314 (1865) and the Frontenac Arms Hotel (1930) at No. 300 are also listed on the Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Summary:

The property at 130 Gerrard Street East is identified for architectural and historical reasons. Jarvis Street Baptist Church was completed in 1875 for the successor to the first Baptist congregation in Toronto and as the flagship Baptist church in Ontario. It was designed by the important Toronto architectural firm of Langley, Langley and Burke, the foremost practitioners of ecclesiastical architecture in the Province during the late 19th century. Its Gothic Revival styling is highlighted by a canted corner tower, mottled brownstone cladding, and a profusion of pointed-arch openings and decorative stone trim. Located on the northeast corner of Jarvis and Gerrard Streets, Jarvis Street Baptist Church is a prominent neighbourhood landmark.

Sources Consulted:

Assessment Rolls. City of Toronto. 1874 ff.

Carr, Angela. Toronto Architect Edmund Burke. McGill-Queen's University, 1995.

Caulfield, John. 'The Growth of the industrial city and inner Toronto's vanished church buildings". Urban History Review (March 1995), 3-19.

"Choirmaster's dream led to musical fame for Toronto" (Toronto Star, 31 December 1976).

City of Toronto Directories. 1874 ff.

MacRae, Marion, and Anthony Adamson. Hallowed Walls. Church Architecture in Upper Canada. Clarke Irwin, 1975.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2nd ed. McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

Robertson's Landmarks of Toronto. Vol. 5. J. R. Robertson, 1903.

Thompson, Austin Seton. Jarvis Street. Personal Library Publishers, 1980.

"Toronto was the first home of McMaster University" (Toronto Star, 6 January 1979).

Kathryn Anderson

October 1996

--------

Attachment I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Jarvis Street Baptist Church

130 Gerrard Street East

Designed in the Gothic Revival style, Jarvis Street Baptist Church features a nearly-square plan covered by a steeply-pitched gable roof with cross-gables. Clad with mottled brownstone and trimmed with Ohio sandstone and granite, the focal point of the design is the canted tower and spire at the southwest corner of the building. The buttresses, quoins, lancet windows, pointed-arch window openings with tracery, and the gabled frontispieces with entrance portals and stone trim, are found on the south, west and north facades of the building. Important interior features are the U-shaped auditorium, with a horseshoe-shaped gallery supported on columns and a plaster ceiling with a stained-glass skylight.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

attachment II - 130 Gerrard Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

attachment II - 130 Gerrard Street East

Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the

Ontario Heritage Act - 337 Jarvis Street

(Samuel Platt House) (Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the following statement be added to the end of the 'Short Statement of Reasons for Designation':

'The 2-storey rear (east) addition is not included in the Reasons for Designation.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 337 Jarvis Street (Samuel Platt House) be designated for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 337 Jarvis Street (Samuel Platt House) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and

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

Background:

At its meeting of October 23, 1996, the Toronto Historical Board (now known as Heritage Toronto) adopted a report recommending the designation of the property at 337 Jarvis Street (Samuel Platt House). The designation of the adjoining properties at 337 Jarvis Street (Samuel Platt House) and 130 Gerrard Street East (Jarvis Street Baptist Church) is being brought forward in relation to amendments being made to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. As part of an agreement between the City of Toronto and the owner, the owner does not object to the designation of the properties provided that the rear portions of the buildings (newer additions) are not included in the designation.

Comments:

The Short Statement of Reasons for Designation, designed for publication, follows. The Heritage Property Report (Long Statement of Reasons for Designation) is attached.

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

Samuel Platt House, 337 Jarvis Street:

The property at 337 Jarvis Street is designated for architectural and historical reasons. The house was constructed in 1849-1850 for Samuel Platt, a brewer and politician whose family retained the property until 1916. The Toronto Baptist Seminary has occupied the site since 1927.

The Samuel Platt House is a surviving example of the Neoclassical style. Rising two stories beneath a truncated hip roof with extended eaves and four end chimneys, the house is constructed of brick with stone detailing. Important exterior elements are the segmental-headed window openings on all walls, the entrances with transoms and sidelights on the principal (west) and rear (east) facades and, on the west wall, the tripartite window openings and Classical detailing of the window enframements and pilasters. Important interior features are the cornice mouldings in the centre hall and two principal rooms on the first floor.

Located on the east side of Jarvis Street, north of Gerrard Street East, the Samuel Platt House is one of the earliest surviving buildings on Jarvis Street. Its age and Classical appearance reflect the early development of the street as Toronto's most fashionable mid-19th century neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 337 Jarvis Street (Samuel Platt House) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

--------

(Heritage Property Report dated October 1996

Samuel Platt House - 337 Jarvis Street)

Table of Contents:

Basic Building Data

Historical Background

Architectural Description

Context

Summary

Sources Consulted

Attachments:

IShort Statement of Reasons for Designation

IILocation Map

IIIPhotographs

--------

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address:337 Jarvis Street (east side of Jarvis Street, north of Gerrard Street East)

Ward:6

Current Name:Toronto Baptist Seminary

Historical Name:Samuel Platt House

Construction Date:1849-1850

Architect:none found

Contractor/Builder:none found

Additions/Alterations:porch and one-storey wing added; window sash altered

Original Owner:Samuel Platt

Original Use:residential

Current Use*:educational

Heritage Category:Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date:October 1996

Recorder:HPD:KA

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

Historical Background:

When Toronto was founded as the Town of York in 1793, the area north of Queen Street was divided into a series of park lots which were distributed to government officials. William Jarvis, the first Provincial Secretary for Upper Canada, received a lot directly north of the townsite where his heirs developed a country estate called "Hazelburn". In 1845, architect John Howard was engaged to divide Jarvis's lot into a residential subdivision entered via a tree-lined avenue named Jarvis Street. While the upper reaches of the street attracted the leading Toronto families of the period, the area to the south was developed by successful, but less prominent residents.

In 1849, Samuel Platt acquired a vacant site on the east side of Jarvis Street, one lot north of Gerrard Street East. Born in Northern Ireland in 1812, Platt immigrated to Canada in 1827. After working as a clerk at Enoch Turner's brewery for four years, Platt erected a distillery at Berkeley and Front Streets. Platt served as a councillor for St. Lawrence Ward from 1845 to 1851, followed by a two-year stint as an alderman for St. David's Ward in 1853 and 1854. In 1872, Platt was one of four citizens appointed to the Water Commission, which supervised the construction of the City's waterworks before disbanding in 1877. As a Conservative candidate, Platt was elected to represent the federal riding of East Toronto in 1873 and 1878. During the 1870s, Platt also served as a director of the Consumer' Gas Company. James Austin, president of the gas company, was Platt's neighbour on Jarvis Street (south of Gerrard) prior to constructing a new house, "Spadina", on the Davenport Hill.

The Platt House was completed in 1850 and occupied by Samuel Platt until his death in 1886. His widow, Elizabeth Lockett Platt, resided there until 1916 when the property was acquired by Frank D. Read, a clerk for the Canadian National Railway. The Toronto Baptist Seminary began its continuing occupancy of the site in 1927. The Samuel Platt House is significant as one of the oldest remaining buildings on Jarvis Street.

Architectural Description:

The Samuel Platt House displays features identified with the Neoclassical style, which was prominent in Ontario residential architecture during the mid 19th century. Incorporating forms based on Antiquity, the style was inspired by the archaeological finds in 18th century Italy and the adaptation of Roman motifs in the architectural pattern books of English architect Robert Adam.

The Samuel Platt House rises two stories above a stone foundation with a brick base course. Constructed of brick and trimmed with stone, the building is covered by a low-pitched truncated hip roof with extended eaves and four end chimneys. The principal (west) facade is symmetrically organized with three bays. In the lower storey, the central entrance features a flat-headed opening with a flat multi-paned transom and three-quarter-length sidelights. The Classical porch, with a gable roof, columns and a name band, is a later addition. On either side of the entrance, a single three-part flat-headed window opening has a sliding sash window, lintel and corbelled sill. The windows and doors are decorated with banded Classical pilasters. In the upper floor, three windows are set in segmental-headed openings with moulded enframements and a continuous sill.

The side walls (north and south) have segmental-headed window openings. On the rear (east) wall, a large semi-circular window opening is centred above a ground-level entrance with a transom and sidelights. The other window openings are flat-headed. A two-storey addition is attached to the northeast corner of the building (this addition is not included in the Reasons for Designation).

Important interior features are the cornice mouldings in the centre hall and two principal rooms (north and south) on the first floor.

Context:

The Samuel Platt House is located on the east side of Jarvis Street, directly north of Gerrard Street East. On the south, Jarvis Street Baptist Church (1874-1875) occupies the northeast corner of Jarvis and Gerrard Streets. To the east, Allan Gardens fills most of the block bounded by Jarvis, Gerrard, Sherbourne and Carlton Streets. North of the Samuel Platt House and beyond the park, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church (1878) stands at the southeast corner of Jarvis and Carlton Streets. All of the above-noted properties are listed on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

On the opposite (west) side of Jarvis Street, between Gerrard and Carlton Streets, the semi-detached house form buildings at No. 280 (1891), No. 288-290 (1890) and No. 314 (1865) and the Frontenac Arms Hotel (1930) at No. 300 are also included on the Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Summary:

The property at 337 Jarvis Street is identified for architectural and historical reasons. Completed in 1850 for Samuel Platt, a brewer and politician, the former residence is one of the earliest surviving buildings on Jarvis Street. Located on the east side of Jarvis Street, north of Gerrard Street East, the Samuel Platt House is distinguished by its Neoclassical design.

Sources Consulted:

Assessment Rolls, City of Toronto. 1849 ff.

City of Toronto Directories. 1850-1851 ff.

Goad's Fire Insurance Atlas. 1894.

History of Toronto and the County of York. Vol. II. C. Blackett Robinson, 1885.

MacRae, Marion, and Anthony Adamson. The Ancestral Roof. Domestic Architecture of Upper Canada. Clarke Irwin, 1963.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2nd ed. McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

Middleton, J. E. The Municipality of Toronto. Vol. II. Dominion Publishing Company, 1923.

Thompson, Austin Seton. Jarvis Street. Personal Library Publishers, 1980.

Kathryn Anderson/October 1996

--------

Attachment I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Samuel Platt House

337 Jarvis Street

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Attachment II - 337 Jarvis Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Attachment II - 337 Jarvis Street

Maintenance of Fence - Fronting 72 Ascot Avenue

- Boon Avenue Flankage (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request to maintain a fence within the City's right-of-way which exceeds the maximum height permitted under the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the maintenance of a chain-link fence within the City's right-of-way fronting 72 Ascot Avenue and on the Boon Avenue flankage, subject to the owner entering into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

Mr. Arcanjo Chegancas, owner of 72 Ascot Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6E 1E7, has requested permission to maintain a chain-link fence within the City's right-of-way fronting 72 Ascot Avenue and on the Boon Avenue flankage.

The fence is 1.2 metres high rather than the maximum height of 1.0 metres permitted in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

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.

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

Maintenance of Wall and Wrought Iron Gate -

38 Brookfield Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

Purpose:

To report on the property owner's request to maintain a decorative brick wall with pillars and wrought iron gate within the City's right-of-way which exceed the height permitted under Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and is situated immediately back of the sidewalk rather than 0.46 metres as required. As this is a request for a variance from the by-laws, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the maintenance of the decorative wall and pillars and wrought iron gate within the City's right-of-way fronting 38 Brookfield Street, 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:

s. Zeza Amorim of InterArch Inc., Architect, 1351 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6J 1Y3, submitted an application on November 3, 1998, on behalf of the owner, Oliveira Maria Rodrigues, requesting permission to maintain a decorative wall and pillars within the City's right-of-way fronting 38 Brookfield Street.

The 0.7 metres high decorative brick wall with 1.4 metres high pillars and the 1.3 metres high wrought iron gate exceed the maximum height requirement of 1.0 metres permitted, and are situated immediately back from the rear edge of the City sidewalk instead of the required 0.46 metres as specified in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and it was determined that the decorative wall would not impact negatively on the public right-of-way as fences of similar heights are existing adjacent to this property on either side.

Conclusions:

As the decorative wall with pillars and wrought iron gate will not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, this installation should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Extension of Permit Parking Hours on

Clendenan Avenue, Between Annette Street and

Dundas Street West (High Park)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to consult with the Humberside Montessori School and the area residents with a view to improving the traffic situation in the area.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 6, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way, Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West, from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.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 Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski to have the permit parking hours extended on Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West, from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, within permit parking area 1F, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The extension of permit parking hours on Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West, is an administrative procedure.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

--------

-(February 11, 1999) from Ms. Victoria Chippindale-Bakker;

-(February 11, 1999) from Mr. Harold and Ms. Jacqueline Abell; and

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. Felix Bednarski, Humberside Montessori School Limited.

Draft By-law - Alteration of Sorauren Avenue, Westminster Avenue

Fermanagh Avenue and Wright Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, 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 submits the following Draft By-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, Clause No. 23, as adopted by Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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 Sorauren Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Fermanagh Avenue and Wright Avenue by the installation of speed humps on Sorauren Avenue from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster Avenue and Fermanagh Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue and on Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1999 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)

Fermanagh Avenue

    Sorauren Avenue
Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps

Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps
Roncesvalles Avenue

    Grenadier Road
Sorauren Avenue

    Wabash Avenue
421F-5261 dated September 1998

  421F-5243

dated

August 1998



Westminster Avenue Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps Roncesvalles Avenue Sorauren Avenue 421F-5261 dated September 1998

Wright Avenue Alteration consisting of the installation of speed humps Roncesvalles Avenue Macdonell Avenue 421F-5267 dated October 1998

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 23 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council headed, "Proposed Speed Humps - Sorauren Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Fermanagh Avenue, Wright Avenue (High Park)":

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 13, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on the subject streets 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 $30,000.00 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Sorauren Avenue, from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues, from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue, and on Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council;

"The construction of speed humps on Sorauren Avenue, from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues, from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue and on Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue, generally as shown on the attached prints of Drawing No. 421F-5243 dated August 1998, Drawing No. 421F-5261 dated September 1998 and Drawing No. 421F-5267 dated October 1998, respectively";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Sorauren Avenue from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue and Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Sorauren Avenue from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue and on Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on these streets. A plan was forwarded to the area Councillors and the traffic committee of the Roncesvalles Macdonell Residents' Association and is shown on the attached prints of Drawing No. 421F-5243 dated August 1998, Drawing No. 421F-5261 dated September 1998 and Drawing No. 421F-5267 dated October 1998.

estminster, Fermanagh and Wright Avenues have the highest traffic volumes of any of the local east-west residential streets in the Roncesvalles-Macdonell area. As well, area schools abut these streets, and thus, they are the focus for the current proposal to install speed humps. The proposal related to Sorauren Avenue includes the section fronting the large park, north of Wabash Avenue where Sorauren Avenue traffic is not controlled by "Stop" signs and exhibits relatively higher traffic speeds. The proposal includes 3 speed humps on Sorauren Avenue, 4 on each of Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues and 7 on Wright Avenue.

Sorauren Avenue between Grenadier Road and Wabash Avenue is a two-way collector street having a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit. Parking is permitted on the west side and the permit parking system is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. This portion of Sorauren Avenue carries in excess of 6,000 vehicles daily of which 43 percent travel in excess of the 40 kilometres per hour speed limit and 10 percent travel at more than 10 kilometres per hour over the limit.

The intersection of Wabash Avenue and Sorauren Avenue at the south-west corner of the park was made an all-way stop in March of 1997. However, as is often the case when the amount of traffic on one street is high and the other relatively low (Wabash Avenue carries about 1,100 vehicles per day) there are concerns that non-compliance with the "Stop" sign may become an issue and pedestrians may be lulled into a false sense of security.

Westminster, Fermanagh and Wright Avenues are one-way local residential streets having pavement widths of 6.5 metres, 7.3 metres and 7.3 metres, respectively, and 40 kilometre per hour speed limits. Of major concern to the local traffic committee is the safety of pedestrians, particularly children using the park and around the area schools (Fern Avenue Public School and St. Vincent De Paul Catholic School). These three streets have daily traffic volumes between 1,150 and 1,300 vehicles with between 22 percent and 36 percent travelling in excess of the posted speed limit of 40 km/h. and between two percent and eight percent travelling at more than 10 km/h.

As stipulated in the policy, once it has been determined that the primary criteria for speed humps have been satisfied, a City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street. The policy notes that 60 percent of valid responses to the poll should support the plan in order to authorize the installation.

The changes proposed to Sorauren, Westminster, Fermanagh and Wright Avenues as set out above constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Mike Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Sorauren Avenue, Roncesvales, MacDonell, Wright

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Sorauren Avenue, Roncesvales, MacDonell, Wright

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Sorauren Avenue, Roncesvales, MacDonell, Wright

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 10, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a speed hump poll of residents and to advise that the conditions for the installation of speed humps on Wright Avenue (from Macdonell Avenue to Roncesvalles Avenue), Sorauren Avenue (from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue), Westminster Avenue and Fermanagh Avenue (from Sorauren Avenue to Roncesvalles Avenue) have been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, in adopting Clause 23 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, entitled "Sorauren Avenue from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue and Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue - Proposed speed humps (Ward 19, High Park)", approved the alterations of the pavement on the above noted streets, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above was advertised in a daily newspaper on January 26, February 2, February 9 and will again be placed on February 16, 1999.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations and that at least 60 percent of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.

The locations and results of the poll undertaken on sections of Wright Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Fermanagh Avenue and Sorauren Avenue, are denoted in Table "A" below:

--------

Table "A"

STREET	LOCATION	SUPPORT SPEED HUMPS	OPPOSE SPEED HUMPS	% OF ELIGIBLE VOTERS
Wright Ave	Macdonell Ave to Sorauren Ave	49 (88%)	7 (12%)	40%
Wright Ave	Sorauren Ave to Roncesvalles Ave	60 (70%)	26 (30%)	41%
Westminster Ave	Sorauren Ave to Roncesvalles Ave	88 (79%)	24 (21%)	53%
Fermanagh Ave	Sorauren Ave to Roncesvalles Ave	86 (72%)	33 (28%)	39%
Sorauren Ave	Grenadier Rd to Wabash Ave	6 (60%)	4 (40%)	26%

As indicated in the above table, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, has been satisfied on all of the subject sections of roadway.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Michael J. Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7771

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a copy of Clause No. 23 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Proposed Speed Humps - Sorauren Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Fermanagh Avenue, Wright Avenue (High Park)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 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, that pursuant to Clause No. 23 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, titled, "Proposed Speed Humps - Sorauren Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Fermanagh Avenue, Wright Avenue (High Park)" which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on January 26, February 2, February 9, and February 16 1999, Mr. Roman Pokidko, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Tree Removal - 21 Burton Road (Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council issue a permit for the removal of the thirty-five centimetre diameter American elm at 21 Burton Road, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a minimum of two 80 millimetre caliper large growing native shade trees; and

(2)the applicant make a contribution to the Urban Forestry Program for the planting of one tree on the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (February 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to injure one tree on private property to allow for construction of a new house has been filed by Mr. David Good, Dama Investments Ltd., 176 Cortleigh Blvd, Toronto, Ontario, M5N 1P5, owner of 21 Burton Road.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

That the Toronto Community Council issue a permit for the removal of the thirty-five centimetre diameter American elm conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a minimum of two 80 millimetre caliper large growing native shade trees.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-five centimetre diameter American elm in fair condition located on the property of 36 Vesta Drive. The arborist report prepared by Thomson, Bruce and Associates, that accompanies this application states that the tree is in good health with no deadwood in the crown and normal growth increments for 1998. The report states that the proposed new house will require excavation within two metres of the base of the tree, contrary to the minimum construction specifications of 2.4 metres required by the City. The report also states that the construction of the house within the 2.4 metre limit will have an effect on the health of the American elm but the impact can be reduced if the tree protection measures proposed in the report are implemented. The elm tree has already lost approximately fifty percent of its root system as a result of construction for the house at 36 Vesta Drive, which occurred several years ago. The construction activity proposed for 21 Burton Road will be extensive and the tree will sustain root damage that will result in dieback of the tree crown such that the tree will require remedial pruning for several years following construction.

It should be noted that the owner's of 36 Vesta Drive requested permission from Urban Forestry staff to remove the tree in October 1998 and they were advised to complete an application form and that the consent of City Council was required prior to the removal of the tree. The request did not proceed beyond this point.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection was received in response to the application to injure the tree in question. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

392-6644

--------

(A copy of an objection, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 17, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Mr. David Good appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Tree Removal - 378 Russell Hill Road (Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign plans for the driveway and garage construction.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove three trees on private property to allow for construction of a driveway and rear garage has been filed by Mr. Egils J. Didrichsons, Curr Didrichsons Designs Limited, 44 Banff Road, Toronto, M4S 2V5, agent for the owner of 378 Russell Hill Road, Ms. Karen Applebaum, 1 Graywood Avenue, Thornhill, Ontario, L4S 7W4.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on:

(i)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 property commence which warrant the destruction of the trees, and the concerns of the objectors with respect to water flow being dealt with during the building permit process; and

(ii)the applicant providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism; or

(2)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign plansfor the driveway and garage construction.

Comments:

The trees in question include an eighty-six centimetre diameter Manitoba maple and two Carolina poplars with diameters of eighty-four and ninety-six centimetres. The three trees are in fair condition. The Manitoba maple is located on the south property line and its removal is required to facilitate the construction of the proposed new driveway. The two poplar trees are located on the west property line and require removal to allow for the proposed garage construction.

The arborist report prepared by Thomson, Bruce & Associates that accompanies the application states that the Manitoba maple is in good condition with a large spreading crown and no visible deadwood. The report states that the two Carolina poplars are in good condition but have possible structural defects as a result of the trees being previously topped. The report indicates that the entire crown of both trees consists of secondary growth and that decay has entered into the main stem and branches at sites where the topping cuts were made.

The property owner has retained the agent mentioned above to prepare and implement a landscape plan. The three trees involved with this application are weak wooded, fast growing specimens and their removal conditional on replacement planting with several large growing native shade trees is an acceptable option in the opinion of Urban Forestry staff.

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

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

--------

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

-(January 12, 1999) from Mr. Jim Urquhart and Family;

-(January 19, 1999) from Mr. Brian Mirsky;

-(January 12, 1999) from Ms. Jean and Mr. Bernard Zinman;

-(January 19, 1999) from Mr. David Griff;

-(January 19, 1999) from Ms. Shirley Powis; and

-(February 2, 1999) from Mr. Jim Urquhart and Family.

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

-Mr. Egils Didrichsons, Curr Didrichsons Designs Limited Landscape Architect;

- Mr. Wayne Swadron, Wayne Swadron Architect; and

-Mr. Jim Urquhart, President, CHR Inc. Renovations/Restorations.

Interim Control By-law Respecting Properties Abutting the

Vale of Avoca Ravine (Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that City Council request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue a study of policies appropriate for the lands abutting the Vale of Avoca Ravine, pursuant to Section 38 of the Planning Act. The report also recommends Council approve an extension of the Interim Control By-law (By-law 44-1998, passed by Council on March 6, 1998) for lands within 10 metres of the Vale of Avoca Ravine, as shown on the attached map, and that this By-law be in force for a further period of one year.

Financial Implications:

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

Recommendations:

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

(2)That, in connection with the review of the land use policies recommended above, Council pass a By-law extending the Interim Control By-law No. 44-1998, for lands within the Vale of Avoca Ravine for a further period of one year; and

(3)That the authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary bill in Council to implement Recommendation No. (2) above.

Background:

As I previously reported on March 4, 1998, the lands to the south of the Vale of Avoca Ravine and generally abutting the Park Drive Ravine were subject to restrictions imposed by By-law 1997-0369, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council. This By-law imposed a 10 metre wide Ravine Impact Boundary generally adjacent to the limits of the Park Drive Ravine.

The Vale of Avoca Ravine is the northerly extension of the same geographic landform as the Park Drive Ravine running from its southerly boundary at the CPR bridge north to its northern terminus on the south side of the Mount Pleasant Cemetery. The ravine abuts approximately 64 privately owned residential properties.

I am proposing to continue the requested study required by By-law 44-1998 for the lands within the first 10 metres of lands abutting the Vale of Avoca Ravine. Given the constraints of staff resources within the last year it has been impossible to complete the study within the first year of the study.

However, Council should be aware that I have been working closely with the owner of the current house at 40 Summerhill Gardens to resolve concerns associated with a development proposal for this property which would result in the construction of a pair of semi-detached houses partially within the 10 metre strip adjacent to the Ravine which is subject to this Interim Control by-law, but outside of the designated Ravine. It is anticipated that issues pertaining to this development proposal will be resolved within the next six months and that I will be able to report on this development in conjunction with my recommendations pertaining to the lands subject to the Interim Control By-law.

Conclusions:

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

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone (416)392-0425

Fax: (416-392-1330)

E-Mail: acransto@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

The Vale of Avoca Ravine

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(North Toronto, Downtown and Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, 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:

(January 25, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one illuminated projecting sign for identification purposes at 40 Eglinton Avenue East.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 999002 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated projecting sign at 40 Eglinton Avenue East; and

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999002, 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 Eglinton Avenue East, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road, in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a nine storey office building with a "Summit Grill House" restaurant / tavern on the first floor.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated projecting sign for identification purposes for the restaurant. The sign will have a length of 1.37 metres and a height of 1.68 metres, with an area of 2.30 m�, (see Figure 1).

The proposed sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1)the area of the proposed sign (2.30 m�) exceeds by 0.90 m� the maximum 1.40 m� sign area permitted; and

(2)the sign will project 1.37 metres over the public walkway instead of the permitted 1.0 metre.

he first variance occurs because the area of the proposed sign (2.30 m�) exceeds by 0.90 m� the maximum 1.40 m� sign area permitted. The size of signs above grade is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. The maximum area for a projecting sign is based on the amount of frontage the commercial unit has on the street. In this instance, the sign exceeds the permitted size because the frontage of the unit is relatively narrow (14.0 metres). However, the frontage of the building in which the unit is accommodated is 37.2 metres long and therefore, the size of the proposed sign is, in my opinion, appropriate.

The second variance results from the extent of the sign's projection from the building face. The proposed sign would project 1.37 metres over the walkway which exceeds by 0.37 metre the maximum 1.0 metre projection permitted by the Municipal Code. In this case, however, the building is set back 1.37 metres from the lot-line. The proposed sign, although extending over the pedestrian walkway, will be located wholly within the applicant's property and will therefore not encroach into the public sidewalk. It is my opinion, that the sign is in keeping with other signs along this segment of Eglinton Avenue East and its extent of projection will not endanger or inconvenience pedestrians.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application., as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

40 Eglinton Avenue East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

40 Eglinton Avenue East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

40 Eglinton Avenue East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

40 Eglinton Avenue East

Insert Table/Map No. 5

40 Eglinton Avenue East

Insert Table/Map No. 6

40 Eglinton Avenue East

(January 15, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes on the front elevation at 687 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998089 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes on the front elevation at 687 Yonge Street; and

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998089, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Yonge Street, in a mixed-use zoning district. The property accommodates a two-storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 3.41 metres and a height of 1.78 metres, with an area of 6.07 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1)the fascia sign identifying the commercial unit located on the first storey is projecting more than the permitted 0.8 metre above the second floor level;

(2)the aggregate area of the sign exceeds the permitted 30% of the building face of the first storey commercial unit; and

(3)the sign obstructs and interferes with a window of the building.

The first variance occurs because the sign is projecting 1.42 metres above the second floor level, and exceeds by 0.62 metre the maximum 0.80 metre projection which is permitted. The purpose of the By-law is to ensure that each tenant has an opportunity to display adequate signage. In this case, the applicant has confirmed that only one tenant is occupying the entire building and the second floor is being used for office and storage use. Therefore, no one is denied the opportunity to display signage.

The second variance relates to the maximum sign area permitted on the first floor. The maximum area permitted for a fascia sign on the first floor level and which also extends onto the second floor level is not more than 30 percent of the building face of the first storey commercial unit. The area of sign (6.07 m�) exceeds by 2.06 m� the maximum 4.01 m� sign area permitted. The size of signs is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. In this instance, the sign exceeds the maximum permitted area because the frontage of the building is relatively narrow (3.81 metres). However, the size of the fascia sign is consistent with many of the other existing signs that have been erected along this portion of Yonge Street and is not, in my opinion, excessive.

Respecting the third variance, the sign does obstruct a portion of a window, however, the obstruction of this window does not affect any residential views nor light access, as the applicant has advised that this space is used for associated storage and office functions.

Staff of the Toronto Historical Board have no comments on this application and they have advised that the property is not included on the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties or designated under the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

687 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

687 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

687 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

687 Yonge Street

Introduction of "No Heavy Trucks" Regulation -

Public Lane North of Ryding Avenue Between

Runnymede Road and Cobalt Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 26, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit "heavy trucks" from using the public lane extending between Runnymede Road and Cobalt Avenue, north of Ryding Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary posting of signs in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That a "No Heavy Trucks" regulation be introduced for the public lane north of Ryding Avenue between Runnymede Road and Cobalt Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of introducing a regulation to prohibit "heavy trucks" from using the subject lane as a "shortcut" between Runnymede Road and Cobalt Avenue.

The public lane north of Ryding Avenue, extending between Runnymede Road and Cobalt Avenue, operates two-way with a pavement width of 3 metres. This lane serves both commercial and residential properties.

Runnymede Road is not prohibited to "Heavy Trucks" while Ryding Avenue and Cobalt Avenue are prohibited to "Heavy Trucks" at anytime. The subject lane is not prohibited to "Heavy Trucks" under Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code.

Given that the width of the lane is 3 metres for a two way traffic operation, it is not appropriate that it be used as a thoroughfare by heavy trucks using the lane as an alternate to St. Clair Avenue West. Accordingly, it is recommended that a "No Heavy Trucks" prohibition be introduced for this lane.

I note that contravention of this regulation carries a set fine of $90.00 under Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code. However, trucks delivering to or picking up from locations abutting the lane would be exempt from this regulation.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Removal of the Temporal "No Right Turn" Prohibition -

Davenport Road at Alberta Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 26, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency:

Purpose:

To rescind the existing "No right turn from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition

for westbound traffic on Davenport Road at Alberta Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds for the removal of the existing signs in the amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the "No right turn from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition

for westbound traffic on Davenport Road at Alberta Avenue be rescinded; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of area residents, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of rescinding the "No right turn from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition for westbound traffic on Davenport Road at Alberta Avenue.

Councillor Disero requested that the signs for the above-noted turn prohibition be covered over on a trial basis and a traffic count be undertaken of the volume of vehicles executing right turns from Davenport Road to Alberta Avenue during the afternoon peak period.

Accordingly, the signs were covered on February 10, 1998. A traffic count was subsequently conducted by Works staff on May 13, 1998, which recorded a total of 58 vehicles westbound on Davenport Road turning right onto Alberta Avenue during the period from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Given the low volume of vehicles turning onto Alberta Avenue from Davenport Road during the afternoon peak period, the removal of the right turn prohibition should have a minimal impact on the traffic volume on Alberta Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Installation of a "Stop" Sign - Hirons Street,

at its Intersection with Cawthra Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 29, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To install a "Stop" sign for eastbound traffic on Hirons Street at its intersection with Cawthra Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary pole and sign installation in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for eastbound traffic on Hirons Street at Cawthra Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Davenport Councillor Betty Disero, Works staff have investigated installing a "Stop" sign for eastbound traffic on Hirons Street at its intersection with Cawthra Avenue.

Hirons Street intersects with Cawthra Avenue to form a T- type intersection. There is currently no "Stop" sign control at this intersection. A check of Toronto Police Service collision records from September 30, 1995 to September 30, 1998 (the most recent data available) revealed no reported collisions at the subject intersection. As a means of establishing right-of-way at this intersection, a "Stop" sign should be posted for eastbound traffic on Hirons Street at its intersection with Cawthra Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Provision of a "Daycare Pick-Up and Drop-Off Area"

With a Fifteen Minute Maximum Parking Limit -

Bay Street, West Side, South of Hagerman Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 29, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide short term parking for parents picking-up and dropping-off children attending the Hester Howe Daycare Centre located in the northeast corner of City Hall at street level.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $800.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the west side of Bay Street, from a point 16.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 12.0 metres further south, be rescinded;

(2)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the west side of Bay Street, from a point 53.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 21.5 metres further south, be rescinded;

(3)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of fifteen minutes from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Bay Street, from a point 16.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 12.0 metres further south;

(4)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of fifteen minutes from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Bay Street, from a point 53.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 21.5 metres further south;

(5)That parking be prohibited from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. of the next following day, Monday to Friday and at anytime Saturday and Sunday, on the west side of Bay Street, from a point 16.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 12.0 metres further south;

6)That parking be prohibited from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and from 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. of the next following day, Monday to Friday and at anytime Saturday and Sunday, on the west side of Bay Street, from a point 53.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 21.5 metres further south; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a representative of the Hester Howe Daycare Centre and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Olivia Chow, staff have investigated adjusting the existing parking regulations on the west side of Bay Street, from Hagerman Street to the entrance ramp for the City Hall Underground Parking Garage, to provide for short term parking for parents picking-up and dropping-off children attending the daycare.

Bay Street is a four lane arterial road operating two-way on a variable pavement width. The Bay Street Urban Clearway utilizes both curb lanes of Bay Street, from Wellington Street West to Cumberland Street (reserved for use by transit vehicles and taxicabs from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday).

The Hester Howe Daycare Centre is situated in the northeast corner of City Hall at street level. A lay-by is located on the west side of Bay Street, from Hagerman Street to a point approximately 74.5 metres south (the entrance ramp to the City Hall Underground Parking Garage). A "Wheeltrans Stop" is located within the lay-by where standing is prohibited at anytime from a point 28.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 25.0 metres further south. Parking is prohibited at anytime from Hagerman Street to a point 28.0 metres south and from a point 53.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 21.5 metres further south.

A "Daycare Pick-up and Drop-off Area" could be delineated in the lay-by from a point 16.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 12.0 metres further south and from a point 53.0 metres south of Hagerman Street to a point 21.5 metres further south which would function separately and in harmony with the existing "Wheeltrans Stop".

As the proposed "Daycare Pick-up and Drop-off Area" is a short distance from the Hester Howe Daycare Centre, parents may require more than ten minutes to accompany the infant/toddler to/from the daycare. In this instance, a fifteen minute maximum parking limit should be implemented from 7:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday (those times when there is the greatest demand for this provision), to ensure equitable use of the pickup/dropoff area and provide sufficient time for parents or guardians to accompany the infant/toddler directly to/from the daycare. The parking prohibition within the defined area of the "Daycare Pick-up and Drop-off Area" would be maintained at other times.

Since the pick-up/drop-off area would be limited to the lay-by, implementation of this suggestion would not adversely affect the safe and efficient operation of traffic on the travelled portion of Bay Street but would provide about 6 short term parking/loading spaces.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Implementation of a "Student Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zone",

"School Bus Loading Zone" and Temporal "No Stopping"

Prohibitions - North Side of Turnberry Avenue in the Vicinity

of General Mercer Public School - (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, to provide that the parking regulations on the north side of Turnberry Avenue, from Rosethorn Avenue to the first lane west thereof, remain unchanged.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To improve traffic flow and enhance pedestrian safety on Turnberry Avenue, in the vicinity of General Mercer Public School, Premises No. 30 Turnberry Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in the estimated amount of $1,200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the recommendations contained in Appendix "A" of this report be adopted; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Davenport Councillor Betty Disero on behalf of area residents and in consultation with the principal of General Mercer Public School, staff have investigated measures to improve traffic flow and enhance pedestrian safety on Turnberry Avenue, in the vicinity of General Mercer Public School.

Turnberry Avenue and Chambers Avenue meet to form a T-type intersection that is regulated by an all-way "Stop" sign control. The roadways operate east/west and north/south respectively with two-way traffic operations and pavement widths of 8.5 metres. Parking on the north side of Turnberry Avenue is prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, from a point 39.5 metres west of Rosethorn Avenue to a point 35.0 metres east of Old Weston Road and otherwise 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. Parking on the south side is prohibited at anytime.

During a site meeting attended by Transportation Services staff and the principal of General Mercer Public School, a number of motorists were observed parking their vehicles within the T-type intersection while engaged in pick-up/drop-off activities. The parked vehicles obstructed motorists' visibility of students making north/south street crossings and created a potentially dangerous situation. Vehicles were also observed to be parked across the pedestrian crossing lines at the east branch of the intersection, forcing students to walk around them to reach either the north or south curb. A number of vehicles were also observed to be illegally parked on the south side of Turnberry Avenue. Traffic flow and pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the school could be improved by implementing the following measures:

(a)Establishing a "No Stopping, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday" area on the north side of Turnberry Avenue, within the T-type intersection to improve motorists' sight lines of children as they engage in north/south street crossings. Contravention of a "No Stopping" prohibition (which prohibits the pick-up/discharge of passengers and the loading/unloading of merchandise) carries a set-fine of forty dollars and generally serves as an effective deterrent to illegal parking activities;

(b)Introducing a "School Bus Loading Zone" on the north side of Turnberry Avenue at a location approximately 35 metres east of Old Weston Road to a point 15 metres further east. The provision of an exclusive loading area for school buses engaged in the pick-up/discharge of students at a location somewhat removed from other pick-up/drop-off activities, should improve traffic flow on Turnberry Avenue and reduce loading/unloading delays often incurred by school bus drivers as they wait for access to the curb. To discourage motorists from parking within the proposed loading zone, a "No Stopping" prohibition should be implemented to replace the 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday "No Parking" prohibition; and

(c)Establishing a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" on the north side of Turnberry Avenue from Rosethorn Avenue to the east limit of the proposed "School Bus Loading Zone" (excluding the area within the T-type intersection). This measure would allow parents to temporarily park their vehicles for a period of up to ten minutes during the designated time periods to escort their children into the school. Parking would be prohibited at other times. In this case, the ten minute parking provision should also assist in reducing the incidence of illegal parking on the south side of Turnberry Avenue, thereby improving the operational efficiency and safety of the roadway in general.

Implementation of the above measures and the application of pedestrian crossing lines on the pavement at all branches of the Turnberry Avenue/Chambers Avenue intersection, should result in improved traffic flow and enhanced pedestrian safety in the vicinity of General Mercer Public School.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

--------

Appendix "A"

Recommendations:

(1)That the "No Parking, 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition on the north side of Turnberry Avenue from a point 39.6 metres west of Rosethorn Avenue to a point 25.9 metres east of Old Weston Road, be rescinded;

(2)That parking be permitted for a maximum period of ten minutes from 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Turnberry Avenue, from Rosethorn Avenue to a point 82.5 metres further west and from a point 52.0 metres east of Old Weston Road to a point 17.0 metres further east;

(3)That parking be prohibited from 9:15 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Turnberry Avenue, from Rosethorn Avenue to a point 82.5 metres further west and from a point 52.0 metres east of Old Weston Road to a point 17.0 metres further east;

(4)That stopping be prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Turnberry Avenue from a point 82.5 metres west of Rosethorn Avenue to a point 8.6 metres further west and from a point 35.0 metres east of Old Weston Road to a point 15.0 metres further east; and

(5)That a "School Bus Loading Zone" be implemented on the north side of Turnberry Avenue, from a point 35.0 metres east of Old Weston Road to a point 15.0 metres further east.

Rescindment of Parking Prohibition

from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. from Monday to Friday

- Tracy Street from Sydenham Street to a Point

36.5 Metres South (Don River)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 8, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to increase the number of on-street parking spaces on Tracy Street from Queen Street East to Sydenham Street and remove a redundant parking regulation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing parking prohibition from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., from Monday to Friday, on the east side of Tracy Street from a point 36.5 metres south of Sydenham Street to Sydenham Street, be rescinded; and

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

Comments:

During the course of a recent site investigation in response to a complaint about inadequate signage on Tracy Street, it was noted that a parking prohibition from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., from Monday to Friday on a section of the east side of Tracy Street is no longer required.

The following regulations are currently in effect on Tracy Street from Queen Street East to Sydenham Street:

East side:

(i)Parking is prohibited from 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., from Monday to Friday, from a point 36.5 metres south of Sydenham Street to Sydenham Street;

(ii)Parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.; and

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

West side:

(i)Parking is prohibited at anytime.

The parking prohibition 12:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m., from Monday to Friday on the east side of Tracy Street, was implemented about ten years ago to provide a suitable turning radius for sanitation trucks servicing disposal facilities in the early morning hours by way of an entrance from the west side of Tracy Street to the rear of Premises No. 412 Queen Street East. However, this entrance has been closed and the parking prohibition is now redundant.

Rescinding the above-noted parking prohibition will provide 5 additional parking spaces on Tracy Street and in Permit Parking Area 7C from Monday to Friday .

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (February 16, 1999) from Councillor McConnell:

I suggest that Toronto Community Council reject the recommendations. The Community is opposed to the changes, and feels they would contribute to the already severe drug and prostitution problems in the area.

Restriction of Parking to Maximum Period

of One Hour and Extension of Permit Parking

Operational Hours - Millbrook Crescent, Between

Broadview Avenue and East End - (Don River)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 8, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To deter long term non-resident parkers on Millbrook Crescent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $800.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the regulation prohibiting parking except by permit from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily on both sides of Millbrook Crescent, between Broadview Avenue and the east end, be rescinded;

(2)That parking be prohibited except by permit from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily on both sides of Millbrook Crescent, between Broadview Avenue and the east end;

(3)That parking be restricted to a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Millbrook Crescent, between Broadview Avenue and the east end; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Pam McConnell on behalf of her constituents, staff have investigated the feasibility of implementing a one hour maximum parking restriction from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and extending the permit parking hours of operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, to operate from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily on both sides of Millbrook Crescent to reduce the occurrence of long term non-resident parking.

Millbrook Crescent, between Broadview Avenue and the east end operates two-way and has a pavement width of 8.5 metres. The permit parking system is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily, and parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours on both sides of the street.

Our investigation confirmed that long term parking is occurring on the subject section of this street and that much of this parking is by vehicles which do not display a valid area parking permit.

Although there are a number of options which have been considered to resolve the residents' concern, the most viable option to discourage non-resident parking would be to restrict parking duration and extend the permit parking hours of operation, as outlined in the above noted Recommendations.

These regulations would be consistent with those in effect on the majority of residential streets in the area. I noted that these parking amendments might cause some inconvenience for residents without parking permits and persons visiting on the street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, 392-7771

Adjustment to Parking Regulations -

Adrian Avenue, North Side (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 20, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide additional on-street parking during daytime hours by rescinding the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation and implementing a one hour maximum parking limit to operate 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation on the north side of Adrian Avenue be rescinded;

(2)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Adrian Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero on behalf of area residents, staff have investigated the feasibility of rescinding the existing "No parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking regulation to provide additional on-street parking during daytime hours.

Adrian Avenue, from Symington Avenue to Wiltshire Avenue, operates two-way on a variable pavement width of 7.3 to 11.6 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of Adrian Avenue and on the north side of the street from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Parking is otherwise permitted on the north side of Adrian Avenue to a maximum period of three hours outside the hours of permit parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily.

The existing "No Parking 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" parking prohibition on the north side of Adrian Avenue was implemented to enable large trucks to maneuver into the loading docks serving the industrial building located on the south side of Adrian Avenue. This industrial building is now vacant and in view of this the parking prohibition is no longer required.

To remain consistent with the parking regulations on neighboring streets such as Wiltshire Avenue and Kingsley Avenue and to discourage long-term employee parking from area industries such as N.R.I. Industries located at Premises No. 394 Symington Avenue, it is recommended that a one hour maximum parking limit be introduced to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Adrian Avenue. As you are aware, residents displaying a valid on-street parking permit on their vehicle are exempt from the one hour maximum parking limit.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Changes to Parking Regulations and Introduction of

Southbound Turn Prohibition - Charlotte Street, from

Adelaide Street West to King Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To allow relatively unimpeded streetcar operations on Charlotte Street while at the same time retaining maximum accessibility to those abutting properties that rely on Charlotte Street for access.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $800 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing "No Parking, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m." regulation, on the east side of Charlotte Street be rescinded;

(2)That the existing "No Parking at Anytime" regulation on the west side of Charlotte Street be rescinded;

(3)That the existing parking meter operation on the east side of Charlotte Street from a point 17 metres north of King Street West to a point 13 metres further north be rescinded;

(4)That stopping be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Charlotte Street from Adelaide Street West to King Street West;

(5)That southbound left turns from Charlotte Street to King Street West be prohibited at all times, except for TTC vehicles; and

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

Comments:

In conjunction with the installation of streetcar tracks on Charlotte Street between Adelaide Street West and King Street West to accommodate short-turning of the Spadina 510 service, Transportation staff were requested by the Toronto Transit Commission to assess traffic and parking measures to maximize the efficiency of streetcar operations while accommodating other traffic on the street.

The above-noted section of Charlotte Street operates two-way on a pavement width of 9.8 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of the street and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the east side of the street. A site inspection has revealed that there are two parking meter posts and shells for the mechanisms installed on the east side of the street; however the meters are currently not in operation (They are authorized by Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to operate between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from a point 17 metres north of King Street West to a point 13 metres further north). Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours at other times on the east side of the street.

Charlotte Street will continue to operate two way with the streetcar track in the middle of the road, effectively creating a median, with northbound and southbound driving lanes on either side. Given the width of the street, this operation will necessitate the prohibition of on-street stopping on both sides of Charlotte Street and the removal of the two parking meter spaces on the east side of the street.

Staff conducted counts with respect to mid-block left turning vehicles in order to assess the impact of left-turning vehicles on streetcar operations. Based on peak and daily traffic volumes observed on Charlotte Street it would appear that left turning vehicles from or across the streetcar tracks would experience little opposing traffic and that any delays to streetcars would be minimal. Consequently, left turn restrictions mid-block on Charlotte Street do not appear necessary, at least at the outset of this short-turn streetcar service.

In order to keep the streetcar tracks clear of other traffic and to minimize delays to streetcar operations, southbound left turns from Charlotte Street to eastbound King Street West should be prohibited at all times, TTC vehicles excepted. In this regard, it may become necessary to remove two metered spaces on the south side of King Street West to provide adequate turning space for streetcars making this south left turn. The Toronto Transit Commission will be carrying out trial runs on Charlotte Street in the near future and making recommendations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Mike Harris, 392-7711

Transportation Planner

Prohibition of Non-Resident Overnight Parking -

Dewbourne Avenue, South Side, from Glenayr Road

to Old Forest Hill Road (Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)parking be prohibited from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday - Friday, except holidays, on the south side of Dewbourne Avenue from Glenayr Road to Old Forest Hill Rd; and

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To eliminate non-resident overnight parking from Monday to Friday on Dewbourne Avenue, from Glenayr Road to Old Forest Hill Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $800.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be prohibited from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the south side of Dewbourne Avenue from Glenayr Road to Old Forest Hill Rd; and

Comments:

At the request of Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons on behalf of area residents, staff have investigated the feasibility of prohibiting overnight parking on the south side of Dewbourne Avenue, from Glenayr Road to Old Forest Hill Road, to deter non-resident overnight parking from Monday to Friday.

Dewbourne Avenue from Glenayr Road to Old Forest Hill Road, operates two-way on a pavement width of 7.4 metres. Parking is prohibited anytime on the north side of Dewbourne Avenue from Bathurst Street to Old Forest Hill Road and parking is permitted on the south side between Rosemary Road and Old Forest Hill Road to a maximum period of three hours.

In order to address the concerns of the residents regarding non-resident overnight parking on the street during the weeknights, parking should be prohibited from 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, on the south side of the street. This same prohibition could also be extended in the future to cover the block of Dewbourne Avenue between Rosemary Road and Glenayr Road and the block of Glenayr Road between Dewbourne Avenue and Ava Road which may become necessary as the parking prohibition on the block of Dewbourne Avenue from Glenayr Road to Old Forest Hill Road may shift non-resident overnight parking to these blocks. Staff will monitor this situation and will report further on same should the situation warrant.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Randy Hillis, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons

Parking Spaces (Davenport, East Toronto and Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January 6, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $900 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

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

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878

Table "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

21Chandos Avenue, north side, from a point 128 metres west of Lightbourne Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. A. Raposo, a resident of Premises No. 126 Chandos Avenue).

23Palmerston Avenue, west side, from a point 14 metres north of Vermont Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. A. Stefanos, a resident of Premises No. 862 Palmerston Avenue).

26Wheeler Avenue, east side, from a point 46 metres north of Queen Street East to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. B. Sneyd, a resident of Premises No. 7 Wheeler Avenue).

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

21Harvie Avenue, west side, from a point 133.5 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 5.5 metres further north and from a point 139 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Councillor Betty Disero).

26Ashland Avenue, south side, between a point 60 metres east of Coxwell Avenue and a point 7 metres further east.

(Source: the original applicant has moved).

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled

Persons Parking Spaces (Davenport, East Toronto,

Trinity-Niagara, Midtown, North Toronto)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,200.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878

Table "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

21Auburn Avenue, north side, 69.7 metres west of Via Italia to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. G. Collisson, a resident of Premises No. 84 Auburn Avenue).

21Randolph Avenue, north side, 48 metres west of Perth Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Ms. Mary Thomas, a resident of Premises No. 2 Randolph Avenue).

23Davenport Road, south side, from a point 82.5 metres west of Dufferin Street to a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Sergio Condotta, a resident of Premises No. 1421 Davenport Road).

26Felstead Avenue, north side, from a point 89.0 metres east of Greenwood Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east

(Source: Ms. Barbara Simpson, a resident of Premises No. 22 Felstead Avenue).

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

20Dovercourt Road, west side, from a point 41 metres north of Northumberland Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: Mr. Candido Matos of Premises No. 790 Dovercourt Road has advised that space is no longer required).

21Lappin Avenue, north side from a point 32.9 metres east of Lansdowne Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. Joaquim Pereira of Premises No. 176 Lappin Avenue has advised that space is no longer required).

22Tilson Road, north side, from a point 48 metres west of Forman Avenue to a point 7 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. J. Mackasey of Premises No. 28 Tilson Road the original applicant has deceased).

23Manning Avenue, west side, from a point 87 metres south of Mansfield Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Mr. Artur Raposo of Premises No. 262 Manning Avenue has moved).

Examination of Feasibility of Installing Speed Humps-

Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue

(Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton 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 ALBANY AVENUE, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5274, dated October 1998";

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

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request to consider the installation of speed humps on Albany Avenue between Bloor Street West and Barton Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Should Council decide to pursue the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Albany Avenue, the estimated cost would be $6,600.00. Funds in this amount are accommodated in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Capital Budget request.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

At the request of Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, on behalf of area residents, staff undertook an investigation on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, to determine if the implementation of speed humps would be an appropriate traffic calming measure on this section or roadway.

Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue operates one-way northbound with a pavement width of 6.7 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Staff recently conducted twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys over a six day period from November 27 to December 2, 1998 inclusive.

The subject section of Albany Avenue carries an average daily volume of approximately 1,050 vehicles (volumes ranged from 973 to 1,182 vehicles). These volumes marginally satisfy the minimum requirement of 1,000 vehicles per day necessary for further consideration to implement speed humps.

In terms of vehicular speed, the above studies have revealed that the average daily speed on this section of Albany Avenue was 31.6 kilometres per hour and the average operating speed (the speed at which 85 percent of the traffic volume operates at or below) was 43 kilometres per hour. Incidents of excessive speeding (vehicles travelling in excess of 55 kilometres per hour) represented less than two percent of the average daily traffic volume. It should also be noted that the above data is consistent, if not somewhat lower than previous data that was obtained on the same section of Albany Avenue in April/May of 1997, following the reversal of the one-way traffic operation on the section between Barton Avenue and Wells Street.

As requested by the Councillors and interested residents, staff prepared a plan consisting of three speed humps with spacings that range from 70 to 90 metres, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5274, dated October 1998. It is not anticipated that this plan would impact on existing on-street parking spaces, garbage collection, street cleaning or winter operations.

Implementation of this proposal, in conjunction with other speed hump installations and current investigations on sections of Barton Avenue, Howland Avenue and Brunswick Avenue, could result in increased response times for emergency vehicles into the local residential community. Accordingly, copies of the above plan, if approved, will be circulated to emergency services agencies for comment.

In the event that Council wishes to proceed with the installation of speed humps on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, then the following recommendations would have to be approved:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton 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 Albany Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5274, dated October 1998";

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

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

The terms of the Speed Hump Policy require that a formal poll be conducted of all adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed humps, of which 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposed implementation.

Further, the changes to Albany Avenue as described above would constitute an alteration to the 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. The project would be pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Conclusions:

In evaluating the section of Albany Avenue from Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue for the installation of speed humps, it has been determined that although such a course of action is technically feasible, the guidelines for installation are only marginally met. In addition, as the incidence of excessive speeding represents less than 2 percent (approximately 13 vehicles per day) of the daily traffic volume, the overall impact that speed humps would have on this street would be minor, compared to a number of other locations where excessive speeding constitutes a much greater percentage of the total daily traffic volume.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Albany Ave. Barton Ave - Bloor st. W.

-February 11, 1999) from Mr. Niels Petersen;

-(July 15, 1998) addressed to Councillors Adams and Bosson from Mr. Niels Petersen and Ms. Wendy Martin; and

-(February 14, 1999) from Mr. Niels Petersen.

Realignment of Intersections - College Street from

Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize a minor realignment of the pavement on College Street between Manning Avenue and Bathurst Street, at intersecting streets, enhance pedestrian amenities through wider sidewalks and boulevards, decrease pedestrian crossing distances, deter the unlawful entry of vehicles onto one-way streets, and facilitate the planting of in-ground trees.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the reconstruction of the College Street sidewalks and curbs have been accommodated in the Transportation Services 1999 Capital Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to realign the intersections of College Street with Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Avenue, Palmerston Boulevard and Markham Street, described as follows:

(a)The narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 20.3 metres to a width varying from 16.3 metres to 20.3 metres on College Street at various locations from Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999;

(b)The narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 6.1 metres to 7.3 metres on the east side of Manning Avenue from College Street to 15.0 metres south of College Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999;

(c)The narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 6.1 metres to 7.3 metres on the west side of Euclid Avenue from College Street to 15.0 metres south of College Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999;

(d)The narrowing and realignment of the pavement from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 6.1 metres to 7.3 metres on the east side of Markham Street from College Street to 9.0 metres north of College Street, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999; and

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

Comments:

The implementation of a revitalization concept for College Street in the vicinity of Bathurst Street has been the subject of considerable discussion between the local merchants, resident groups, the local BIA and City staff since about 1996, at which time the character of the area began undergoing a transformation due largely to the opening of a number of eating establishments, cafes, etc.

College Street from Manning Avenue to Bathurst Street has a pavement width of 20.3 meters and was reconstructed in 1974. The pavement is presently in good condition not requiring any work at this time. The thoroughfare functions as an arterial road and carries TTC streetcar service. The sidewalks on both sides of the street vary in width from 4.0 metres to 5.5 metres, are approximately 40 years old and for the most part are in need of reconstruction.

The current parking regulations on College Street between Manning Avenue and Bathurst Street are as follows:

North Side-One hour metered parking allowed, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday; and

-No Parking Anytime between Markham Street and a point 23.5 metres west thereof.

South Side-One hour metered parking allowed, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday;

-No Parking Anytime between Manning Avenue and a point 23 metres east thereof; and

-No Parking Anytime between Palmerston Avenue and a point 30 metres west thereof.

In 1996, Toronto Hydro completed an extensive underground and conversion program along College Street in the adjoining area between Crawford and Manning Avenues that presented an excellent opportunity for the City to reconstruct the sidewalks in this area and introduce various sidewalk amenities and improvements. This year, Toronto Hydro will also be working within the Euclid-Manning block in the Spring and Summer months. The planned work by both Toronto Hydro (Manning to Euclid) and the City's planned sidewalk work (Manning to Bathurst) presents a good opportunity to address some of the community's needs in a timely and cost effective manner.

The 1999 Transportation Services Capital Programme includes the reconstruction of the sidewalks and curbs on College Street between Manning Avenue and Bathurst Street scheduled to commence in early Fall of this year. The feasibility of providing intersection realignments in connection with programmed work has been assessed with due regard to the functionality of the local streets. Factors considered included traffic operation and direction of flows, on-street parking, pavement width and adjacent land use. The recommended modifications at the intersecting thoroughfares of Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Avenue/Boulevard and Markham Street are described in Recommendation No. 1, above, and shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5317 dated February, 1999.

College/Manning intersection:

Manning Avenue operates one-way southbound both south and north of College Street. In keeping with the overall objectives of the community initiatives, there is an opportunity to narrow the roadway south of College Street from a width of 7.4 metres to a width of 6.1 metres. Parking is prohibited on both sides of Manning Avenue to the first lane south of College Street and so existing parking regulations on Manning Avenue will not be affected. The realignment along the College Street flankage will be configured in a way so as to maximize metered parking along College Street.

College/Euclid Intersection:

Euclid Avenue operates one-way northbound for that portion south of College Street and in two-way for that portion north of College Street up to the first lane. Euclid Avenue at the south-west corner can be narrowed from 7.3 metres to 6.1 metres without affecting the functionality of the thoroughfare. There is ample opportunity to narrow portions of College Street at all four corners by 2 metres so as to align with existing parking stalls in order that the travelled portion of College Street is not compromised. Consideration on the length of the build-outs took into account TTC operations and local merchant concerns regarding loading provisions. Again, realignment along College Street will be configured in a way so as to maximize metered parking.

College/Palmerston Intersection:

Palmerston Boulevard/Avenue operates two-way both north and south of the intersection at College Street. Given that Palmerston operates in two directions on both sides of this intersection, there is no opportunity to narrow the pavement. There is however opportunity to narrow the College Street pavement to the extent of the existing bike lane, as in other cases above, at all four corners. The lengths of the build-outs were kept to a minimum so as to maximize on-street parking.

College/Markham Intersection:

Markham Street operates two-way south of College Street and one-way southbound immediately north of the intersection at College Street. All four corners can be altered to produce wider sidewalks on the College sides of the street with the lengths of the build-outs kept to a minimum so as to maximize on-street parking.

Consideration will also be given to the planting of trees where permitted by underground utilities and the installation of post and ring bike stands. In addition, the paving of concrete crossing areas across the local streets will be included in the proposed work and none of the proposed work will impact on the existing bike lanes which will only be shifted somewhat while maintaining lane widths. On the basis of the preliminary work done to date, it appears that 20 to 30 new trees could be planted and about 20 bike stands installed, depending on demand.

With respect to on-street parking, the existing configuration and size of parking stalls were re-examined with a view to maximizing available space to produce up to 15 additional parking spaces.

The realignment of the curbs and narrowing of the pavements at the intersections of Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue, Palmerston Avenue/Boulevard and Markham Street constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

J. Condarcuri, Programmes Engineer

392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

college street - manning ave - bathurst st. - proposed pavement

Boulevard Cafe Application - 581-583 Markham Street

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)a licence be granted for the operation of a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street during the 1999 cafe season, on the condition that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services monitor the operation of the cafe and report back to the Toronto Community Council as a deputation item, at the end of the 1999 cafe season; and

(2)City Council defer consideration of the application with respect to the Lennox Street flankage until the cafe on the Markham Street frontage has operated for a season.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 28, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street and on any problems which might arise with respect to the boulevard cafe operation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend:

(1)That should a licence be obtained for the operation of a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street during the 1999 cafe season, I be requested to monitor the operation of the cafe and report back to the Toronto Community Council as a deputation item, at the end of

the 1999 cafe season; and

(2)That City Council defer consideration of the application with respect to the Lennox Street flankage until the cafe on the Markham Street frontage has operated for a season.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted, without amendment, Clause 81 contained in Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council entitled "Appeal of Denial of an Application for a Boulevard Cafe - 581-583 Markham Street and Lennox Street Flankage", and by so doing:

(1)Approved the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street, extending on the southerly/east-west property line only, notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, and that such approval be for the 1998 cafe season and 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;

(b)the patio being closed at 10:00 p.m;

(2)Deferred consideration of the application with respect to the Lennox Street flankage until February 1999; and

(3)Requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, in February 1999, on any problems which might arise with respect to the boulevard cafe on the Markham Street flankage.

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 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.

In consideration of the above, Mr. Paul Kellogg was advised in our letter of September 11, 1998 that his application for permission to operate a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street was approved subject to providing a third party liability insurance policy indemnifying the Corporation, and that if the documentation was not received within 60 days his file would be closed. To date, the required insurance has not been received. According to Mr. Solomon, solicitor for Mr. Kellogg, the insurance will be provided by February 11, 1999.

Conclusions:

Given that a boulevard cafe license has not been issued to-date, it would be appropriate for us to monitor the operation of the cafe during the 1999 cafe season and report back to the Toronto Community Council on the operation of the cafe for consideration as a deputation item. All conditions of previous approval will continue to be applied.

In consideration of the above, it may be appropriate for City Council to defer any future consideration of Mr. Kellogg's request to use the boulevard for cafe purposes on the Lennox Street flankage until the end of the 1999 boulevard cafe season.

lthough there are clear criteria surrounding the physical design, setback, location and hours of operation of boulevard cafes, these technical criteria alone cannot address all public concerns which may also relate to the quality of the operation of a boulevard cafe or the behaviour of current or future clientele. Cafes do introduce a new level of activity in an area. Generally, if complaints are received regarding boulevard cafes, the concerns relate to noise, foot and car traffic and garbage.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Operation of Boulevard Cafes During the

1997 and 1998 Cafe Seasons (Midtown and Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the extended hours of operation of the boulevard cafes, as approved by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of May 12, 1997, during the 1997 and 1998 cafe seasons.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council allow the continuation of the extended hours of operation for the following boulevard cafes:

(i)400 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue flankage, closing hours of operation, to 2:00 a.m.;

(ii)440 Bloor Street West, Howland Avenue flankage, closing hours of operation, to 1:00 a.m.;

(iii)509 Bloor Street West, Borden Street flankage, closing hours of operation, to 2:00 a.m.;

(iv)511 Bloor Street West, Borden Street flankage, closing hours of operation, to 2:00 a.m.; and

(v)483 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue flankage (including 298 Brunswick Avenue), closing hours of operation, to 2:00 a.m.

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of May 12, 1997, adopted, without amendment, Clause 27 contained in the former City Services Committee Report No. 6, and in so doing, approved, subject to a number of provisions, the extension of the hours of operation of the boulevard cafes and requested the former Commissioner of City Works Services to report back after the end of the 1997 cafe season.

Comments:

uring the 1997 and 1998 cafe seasons, the operation of the following boulevard cafes was monitored periodically. Inspections confirmed that the proprietors complied with the requirements set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code:

(i)By the Way Cafe, 400 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue flankage, closing hours of operation, to 2:00 a.m.;

(ii)Montreal's Delicatessen, (previously Pizzedelic) 440 Bloor Street West, Howland Avenue flankage, closing hours of operation, to 1:00 a.m.;

(iii)Kilgour's Bar Meets Grill, 509 Bloor Street West, Borden Street flankage, closing hours of operation, to 2:00 a.m.;

(iv)Dooney's Cafe, 511 Bloor Street West, Borden Street flankage, closing hours of operation, to 2:00 a.m.; and

(v)Future Bakery, 483 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue flankage (including 298 Brunswick Avenue), closing hours of operation, to 2:00 a.m.

In addition, this Department had received no complaints from the public or the Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances.

With respect to 483 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue flankage (including 298 Brunswick Avenue), complaints were received according to a representative from Toronto Police Service, Division 14, and a number of charges were issued in February 1997, relating to alcohol and rowdiness. In addition, staff of By-law Enforcement had issued notices to the boulevard cafe operator for operating beyond the closing time restriction. However, the property has since changed ownership and to this date no complaints have been received.

Conclusions:

The cafes operated during the 1997 cafe season without any problems, with the exception of 483 Bloor Street West and 298 Brunswick Avenue. Given the fact that there is a new cafe operator at 483 Bloor Street West and 298 Brunswick Avenue and that the cafes had operated without any incidents during the 1998 cafe season, I am recommending that the extended hours of operation for the cafes be allowed to continue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Removal of Two City Owned Trees -

159 and 161 Beatrice Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for removal of two City-owned trees at 159 and 161 Beatrice Street be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Ms. Kristen Forsythe, Joseph Messina Designer Builders, 275 Macpherson Avenue, Suite 100, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1A4 for City Council to consider removal of two City owned trees. Ms. Forsythe reports that the trees are in direct conflict with a proposed new driveway and multi-unit condominium complex.

Source of Funding:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this request for tree removal be denied.

Comments:

There are three City trees involved with this project. The plans submitted with this application indicate that a red maple tree will be protected during the construction work, however forestry staff have determined that the proposed new multi-unit condominium proposal will negatively impact this tree. The remaining two trees which are in healthy condition, do not qualify for removal and are the subject of this application. The two trees in question are a 52 centimetre diameter Tree-of-heaven and a 60 centimetre diameter Silver maple. These trees are in fair condition and have a combined value of $3,824.23.

The applicant's plans contemplate planting of two replacement trees. However, if the project were built, the configuration of the proposed driveway and the close proximity of a large red maple on the City street allowance will not leave sufficient room for any replacement trees.

Conclusions:

Since the silver maple and tree-of-heaven are large and significant trees on the street and the trees are not structurally unsound, dead or dying and the proposed driveway entrance would permanently eliminate two planting sites, Forestry recommends that this request for tree removal be denied. Such a decision would require the applicant to abandon his plans and design an alternate proposal where existing trees could be protected according to forestry standards.

However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, I recommend that the applicant pay all costs involved; this includes the value of the trees $3,824.23, the removal costs of $1,127.92, and the costs to plant two replacement trees at another location, $950.02, for a total of $5,902.17. Additionally, the applicant should be required to post a letter of credit to cover the value, removal and replacement costs of the red maple which would be damaged by construction. This letter of credit or certified cheque would be held for three years after completion of construction. If the tree would be in fair condition at the end of a three year period, the monies would be released. However, should the tree require removal within three years, the City of Toronto would collect, and use the funds to remove and replace the tree.

Contact Name:

Warren Quan

392-1940

--------

Ms. Kristen Forsythe, Joseph Messina Designer Builders, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Requests for Endorsement of Events for

Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes:

(1)declare the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a)Toronto's Festival of Beer to be held in Historic Fort York, August 6, 1999 from 2:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. August 7, 1999 from 12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. and August 8, 1999 from 12:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.; and

(b)Senhor Santo Cristo Festival, to be held on May 8 and 9, 1999;

(c)Sante: the Bloor-Yorkville Wine 1999 Festival to be held on April 22, 1999 - April 25, 1999, at various times and locations set out in the proposal appended to the communication (February 15, 1999) from Councillor Adams; and

(2)advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the EMI Music Canada's 50th Anniversary Event, to be held Palais Royale on Lakeshore Boulevard on March 7, 1999 from 12:00 midnight to 4:00 a.m. and has no objection to it taking place.

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

-(January 22, 1999) from Councillor Silva;

-(undated) from Mr. Greg Cosway, The Cottage Creek Corporation;

-(February 3, 1999) from Ms. Liz Graham; and

-(February 15, 1999) from Councillor Adams.

Prohibition of Vehicles Over 2.0 Metres in Width -

Laneway First South of Liberty Street Between

Atlantic Avenue and Jefferson Avenue

(Adjacent to Premises No. 58 Atlantic Avenue)

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 4, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit the use of the subject lane by large trucks.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $320.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That vehicles over 2.0 metres in width be prohibited from travelling in the lane first south of Liberty Street between Atlantic Avenue and Jefferson Avenue; and

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

Comments:

At the request of the owner of Premises No. 58 Atlantic Avenue and in consultation with Trinity-Niagara Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva, Transportation staff have investigated the feasibility of prohibiting large trucks from using the first laneway south of Liberty Street between Atlantic Avenue and Jefferson Avenue to reduce the incidence of property damage allegedly caused by large trucks. The subject lane is 3.0 metres wide and extends for a distance of 64 metres.

Field investigation conducted by Transportation Services staff has confirmed that Premises No. 58 Atlantic Avenue appears to have experienced damage caused by large vehicles travelling in the lane. It would appear that there are no properties taking access from this lane for loading purposes and accordingly, the implementation of a "No Vehicles Over 2 Metres In Width" prohibition, as noted in Recommendation No. (1) above, would not negatively impact adjoining properties.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Parking Regulations - Richmond Street West,

Adjacent to Queen West Community

Health Centre (Premises No. 168 Bathurst Street)

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 4, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide convenient short term parking for individuals attending the Queen West Community Health Centre and various businesses in the immediate vicinity.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $280.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Richmond Street West, from Bathurst Street to a point 58.5 metres west, be adjusted to apply from Bathurst Street to a point 15.0 metres west;

2)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of sixty minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday, on the north side of Richmond Street West, from a point 15.0 metres west of Bathurst Street to a point 43.5 metres further west;

(3)That the Parking Authority of Toronto be requested to install parking meters/machines, to operate for a maximum period of sixty minutes from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday, at a rate of $1.00 for sixty minutes, on the north side of Richmond Street West, from a point 15.0 metres west of Bathurst Street to a point 43.5 metres further west; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, Transportation Services has investigated allowing parking on the north side of Richmond Street West, west of Bathurst Street to provide parking for people attending the Queen Street Community Health Centre.

The intersection of Richmond Street West and Bathurst Street is controlled by traffic control signals.

Richmond Street West, west of Bathurst Street operates one-way eastbound while east of Bathurst Street, it operates one-way westbound. In addition, eastbound left turns at Bathurst Street are prohibited at all times. Therefore all Richmond Street West traffic west of Bathurst Street must turn right onto Bathurst Street which only requires a single lane of traffic. The normal 30.5 metres to corner parking prohibition on the north side west of Bathurst Street adjacent to the traffic signals could be reduced in this case without adversely affecting the operational safety of the intersection.

The following parking regulations are currently in effect on Richmond Street West, immediately west of Bathurst Street:

North Side:

(i)Parking is prohibited at anytime from Bathurst Street to a point 58.5 metres west; and

(ii)Parking is prohibited between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday from 58.5 metres west of Bathurst Street to a point 76.2 metres further west (school zone).

South Side:

(i)Parking is prohibited at anytime; and

(ii)Traffic volumes recorded on Richmond Street West between Tecumseth Street and Bathurst Street are relatively low (less than 1,000 vehicles per eight hours), which is common on many residential streets in the City of Toronto.

The current "No Parking Anytime" regulation on the north side of Richmond Street West from Bathurst Street to a point 58.5 metres west (adjacent to the Queen West Community Health Centre), allows for picking-up/dropping-off of passenger(s) or goods in addition to the normal 30.5 metre parking prohibition adjacent to traffic signals. Consultation with Queen West Community Health Centre personnel revealed that this space is rarely used for such purposes and the implementation of several parking spaces would be more beneficial to patients attending the Centre than curb side loading space.

In light of the above, the length of the parking prohibition on the north side of Richmond Street West can be reduced from 58.5 metres to 15 metres west of Bathurst Street creating six parking spaces without adversely affecting operational safety. In addition, the installation of six parking meters to operate from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday for a maximum period of one hour is the best method of deterring commuter parking, ensuring parking turnover and providing equitable use of on-street parking spaces.

Parking meters are to be installed by the Parking Authority of Toronto.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Traffic and Parking Regulations in the

Vicinity of Air Canada Centre - Bay Street, from

Lake Shore Boulevard West to the

Railway Underpass (Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to implement more stringent parking regulations and prohibit U-turns on Bay Street, in the vicinity of the Air Canada Centre, to enhance operational safety.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the east side of Bay Street from Lake Shore Boulevard West to Front Street West, be rescinded;

(2)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the west side of Bay Street from Front Street West to Lake Shore Boulevard West, be rescinded;

(3)That the stopping prohibition from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, on the west side of Bay Street from Lake Shore Boulevard West to Front Street West, be adjusted to apply from a point 30.5 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard West to Front Street West;

(4)That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Bay Street from Lake Shore Boulevard West to a point 30.5 metres north;

(5)That standing be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Bay Street from Lake Shore Boulevard West to the railway underpass;

(6)That standing be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Bay Street from a point 30.5 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard West to the railway underpass;

(7)That parking be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Bay Street from the railway underpass to Front Street West;

(8)That U-turns be prohibited at anytime by northbound and southbound traffic on Bay Street between Lake Shore Boulevard West and Front Street West; and

(9)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 and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of January 20, 1999 recommended that the report (January 6, 1999) entitled Bremner Boulevard, from York Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West - Implementation of enhanced parking/standing regulations (Downtown), be adopted. This matter will be considered by City Council at its meeting of February 2, 3 and 4, 1999 (Clause 33 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 2).

As indicated in the aforementioned report, Transportation Services staff have been examining options which might enable passenger pick-up/drop-off areas on Bay Street at the east side of the Air Canada Centre. We have completed an investigation on this section of Bay Street and note as follows.

Bay Street from Lake Shore Boulevard West to the railway underpass, a distance of about 120 metres, is an arterial road with two-way traffic operation and a 19.5 metre cross-section with traffic lanes delineated at widths of 5.0 metres (southbound curb lane), 3.5 metres (southbound centre lane), 4.0 metres (northbound centre lane), 4.5 metres (northbound curb lane) and a painted median 2.5 metres in width. The southbound curb lane is designated as a right turn lane from Lake Shore Boulevard West to a point 30.5 metres north and TTC bus service operates on this street.

Stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the east side and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the west side. Parking is prohibited at other times on both sides of Bay Street between Lake Shore Boulevard West and the railway underpass.

Transportation Services staff have had discussions with representatives of the Air Canada Centre and the Toronto Police Service. It has been mutually agreed with respect to Bay Street that measures should be taken to restrict pedestrian crossings of Bay Street immediately south of the railway underpass where sight lines between pedestrians and motorists are reduced by the piers supporting the underpass and that motorists should be permitted to stop momentarily on the west side of Bay Street near the north end of the Air Canada Centre to drop-off or pick-up passengers.

Based on our assessment, a concrete barrier will be placed on the painted median of Bay Street, extending south from the centre pier of the railway underpass to a point about 40 metres south. This will discourage pedestrian crossings of the street while still enabling motorists to turn to and from the gate at the Parking Authority of Toronto carpark on the east side of the street. Signs will also be placed on the barrier facing the opposing sidewalks advising pedestrians to Cross Bay Street at Lake Shore Boulevard West, where traffic control signals operate.

Given the anticipated pedestrian and vehicular traffic generation to and from the Air Canada Centre, parking or standing by any vehicle for any length of time on Bay Street will impede traffic operation and create a potential safety problem. The current parking prohibition outside the rush periods on Bay Street enables motorists to legally stop to drop-off or pick-up passengers. However, this regulation also allows vehicles displaying a valid disabled persons parking permit to legally park at times when parking would normally be prohibited by all other vehicles. Although, numerous off-street disabled persons parking spaces are delineated on the Air Canada Centre site and other nearby parking facilities, on-street parking occurrences are likely to occur.

Therefore, staff are recommending that:

(i)the parking prohibition on the entire east side of this section of Bay Street and on the west side from a point 30.5 metres north of Lake Shore Boulevard West to the railway underpass be replaced with a more stringent standing prohibition; and

(ii)stopping be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Bay Street from Lake Shore Boulevard West to a point 30.5 metres north.

The standing prohibition would allow motorists, including taxicabs, buses and vehicles transporting disabled persons, to stop while actually engaged in dropping off or picking up passengers but provide enforcement officers with the legal mechanism to encourage motorists to "move along". In this regard, Works staff have been advised by representatives of the Toronto Police Service that officers will be advised to stringently enforce the traffic regulations on Bay Street. The stopping prohibition will discourage motorists from stopping in the southbound right turn lane on Bay Street at Lake Shore Boulevard West.

Considering the heavy pedestrian flows that will occur, before and after events at the Air Canada Centre, staff also recommend that U-turns be prohibited at anytime on Bay Street between Lake Shore Boulevard West and the railway underpass to minimize potential conflict between pedestrians and traffic and generally enhance operational safety.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton, Coordinator of Transportation Operations, 392-1806

Refinements to Approved Roadway Narrowing Plan -

Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street

(Davenport and Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)permit parking be permitted on the west side of Christie Street within the Davenport ward; and

(2)the following report (February 5, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 be adopted, as amended by Recommendation No. (1) be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 5, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on minor amendments to an approved roadway narrowing plan for Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street, to be built in conjunction with planned road reconstruction this year. These refinements are recommended in conjunction with a parking plan which would alternate parking from one side of the street to the other along various segments to further calm traffic and increase the supply of on-street parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The minor amendments to the roadway narrowing plan for Christie Street are not expected to significantly impact the cost of existing contract. As noted in previous reports, funds to cover the cost of the planned reconstruction work on Christie Street were accommodated in the 1998 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That 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", amended by City Council on October 2, 1998, to authorize the alteration of Christie Street by narrowing the pavement between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street, be further amended to incorporate the design refinements noted in the text of this report and shown in the attached Drawing Nos. 421F-5310, -5311 and -5312, all dated January, 1999, and detailed in Appendix A attached hereto;

(2)That in order to implement the parking scheme described herein the parking regulation changes outlined in the schedules contained in Appendix B attached hereto, be approved; and

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

Background:

City Council at its meeting of October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted Clause 10 in Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Alteration of Christie Street", and enacted By-law 702-1998 authorizing the alteration of Christie Street by narrowing the pavement between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street. The contract to undertake this reconstruction work was tendered and subsequently awarded to Ferma Construction Ltd., by City Council at its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, 1998. It is intended that work on this project will commence in April, 1999.

The proposal to narrow Christie Street was presented at a neighbourhood meeting held in September, 1998, at which time Works and Emergency Services staff were requested to examine the opportunity to introduce a parking plan whereby the parking would alternate from one side to the other along various sections of the street. The objectives of this were twofold: one, to introduce a visual narrowing breaking up Christie Street's long and broad sight lines, resulting in a change in motorist perception and ultimately effect a further reduction in motorist operating speed; and two, to increase the available supply of parking in the area.

Comments:

A plan has been developed which would result in each of the above-noted objectives being met. This plan is detailed on the three attached prints entitled "Christie Street (Bloor Street West. - Dupont Street) Proposed Road Narrowing and Parking Meter Stall Layout Plan" Parts 1, 2 and 3, Drawing Nos. 421F-5310, 421F-5311 and 421F-5312, respectively.

The plans show a one-side-of-the-street parking scheme, alternating by block, between four stretches of Christie Street, resulting in a net gain of 12 parking spaces. With this configuration in those areas where parking is permitted, the peak period 'No Stopping' regulations would be rescinded and parking would be made available 24 hours per day. In those sections of the street opposite parking areas, in order to complement the improved parking opportunities on the street and facilitate traffic flow through peak hours, peak period 'No Stopping' regulations will be introduced during the morning and afternoon peak periods. On all other portions of the street, the existing 'No Stopping' regulation through the peak period in the peak direction of traffic flow, will remain in effect.

With respect to permit parking, the west streetline of Christie Street forms the west limit of permit parking area 5A and as such, this alternate side of street parking scheme impacts only one area. Following a February 3, 1999, meeting with Councillors Adams, Bossons, Disero and Fotinos and staff it was agreed, amongst other things, that consideration should be given to making the centreline of Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street the permit parking area boundary between the adjoining residential areas. Given that there may be residents of the east side of Christie Street who possess a parking permit, have enjoyed the privilege of parking on the west side and who would be denied this privilege if the boundary change is implemented, in keeping with Council policy they must be granted the opportunity to speak to this matter. Accordingly, I will make the necessary arrangements to have a Notice of Permit Parking Deprivation Hearing prepared. It is anticipated that the Hearing date would be set for the March 30, 1999, meeting of Community Council. Should this matter be favourably received at that time, I will make every effort to implement the change in time for the next issuing period when parking permits will take effect June 1, 1999.

The plans also show the one metre narrowing between Essex Street and Yarmouth Road being shifted to the west side of the street from the east side as per the original plans. Although the road narrowing switchover would result in the potential loss of opportunity to place trees north of Follis Avenue, east side, for the first 70 metres, it would address operational concerns of the owner of the Fiesta Farms store at Premises No. 200 Christie Street, respecting store access, loading and unloading activities. Also, this would improve upon the commercial streetscape frontage in this area.

Two tables summarize the principal proposed changes to the original Christie Street plan. Table 1, attached, entitled "Summary of Key Street (by block) Alteration and Operational Amendments", presents an itemized list of key amendments to the approved Christie Street Alteration Project. Table 2, attached, entitled "Comparison of Proposed vs. Existing Parking Meter Spaces by Street Section", summarizes the proposed parking related changes.

ince this proposed plan involves the relocation of three bus stops and given that bus operation is within the purview of the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), staff met with TTC officials to review this matter. TTC staff have been generally supportive of the Christie Street Project and with respect to the bus stop relocations, have recognized the operational safety gains which would accompany their movement to the 'farside' of the pedestrian crossovers as well as service improvements which would follow the placement of the bus stops at more regular intervals. They have been requested to review this matter and advise of concerns, prior to the February 17, 1999, meeting of Community Council.

The proposed amendments to the plan do not affect the minor reconfiguration and enlargement of the existing traffic island just north of Bloor Street West, accomplished by the narrowing of the northbound leg of Christie Street. Additionally, with regard to Rezoning Application No. 197028 which includes Premises No. 9-17 Christie Street, and specifically with reference to driveway access from this site directly onto Christie Street, Urban Planning and Development Services staff have advised that consideration of such access would only follow a detailed assessment of impacts on the streetscape, sightlines, and pedestrian movements. Only after a favourable consideration of this, would access be permitted at the north limit of the site which would allow for free uncontrolled movement into and out of the site from the north and south on Christie Street, unobstructed by the enlarged traffic island to the south of the site. Further, we have been advised that ultimately, access to the site will be resolved at the site plan level and at this time, the applicant is not seeking such approval.

Staff of the Urban Design Division of Urban Planning and Development Services have been consulted on the proposed changes and they concur with the recommendations contained herein.

Since this proposed plan varies, albeit slightly, from that originally adopted by City Council, it will be necessary for Council to approve the proposed changes to the plan and to amend the alteration by-law. If this matter is recommended by your Community Council at its February 17, 1999, meeting and subsequently endorsed by City Council at its March 2, 1999, meeting, there would be sufficient time for final design changes to be made to the reconstruction drawings, and thereby enable the City to meet its contract obligations and the contractor's desire to begin work in a little more than two months.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Paul A. Sabo, Transportation Engineer

Transportation Services

392-7775

--------

Table 1

Summary of Key Street (by block) Alteration and Operational Amendments

   Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue

a)

b)

c)

   d)

e)

f)
On the southbound leg, approximately 35-65 m north of Bloor St. W., west curb, introduce 5 parking meter spaces.

On the southbound leg, approximately 95-120 m north of Bloor St. W., west curb, remove 4 parking meter spaces to improve sight lines around curve.

On the southbound leg, approximately 65-120 m north of Bloor St. W., 'smooth' west curve (approximately 90 m north) by extending curb along the curve. This would also serve to delineate this area for no parking thereby maintaining sight lines around the curve.

Reconfigure size of existing stock of parking meter stalls to provide for 3 additional spaces.

At the Barton Av., south approach, maintain full 11 m pavement width to accommodate existing traffic operations at the signalized intersection.

Rescind 'No Stopping' regulation through the morning peak period on the west side and introduce this regulation on the east side.

Barton Avenue to Follis Avenue

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)
At the Barton Av. intersection, north approach, maintain full 11 m pavement width to accommodate existing traffic operations at the signalized intersection.

Switch parking from west side to east side, thereby increasing parking supply by 1 space.

Immediately south of Follis Av., east side, remove bus stop to allow for parking here. (Relocate bus stop to approximately 54 m north of Follis Av.).

At the Pendrith St. intersection, in the absence of parking, remove curb extensions north and south of intersection.

Rescind 'No Stopping' regulation through the evening peak period on the east side and introduce this regulation on the west side.

   Follis Avenue to Yarmouth Road

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)

h)

I)

j)

k)
Remove 1 m narrowing on east side.

Introduce 1 m narrowing on west side, Essex St. to Yarmouth Rd.

Approximately 54 m north of Follis Av., east side, introduce bus stop (relocated from south of Follis Av.).

From Garnet Av. and Yarmouth Rd. move parking from west side to east side thereby increasing parking supply by 3 spaces.

Immediately south of Yarmouth Rd., east side, remove bus stop to allow for parking here. Relocate bus stop to approximately 22 m north of Yarmouth Rd.

At Garnet Av., in the absence of parking, remove curb extension immediately north and south of the intersection.

At Yarmouth Rd., west side, in the absence of parking, remove curb extension immediately south of the intersection.

Approximately 18 m south of Yarmouth Rd., west side, introduce bus stop. (relocated from north of Yarmouth Rd.).

Introduce surface texture (concrete) for PXO crossing at Essex St. (north side).

From Essex St. to Garnet Av., rescind 'No Stopping' regulation through the morning peak period on the west side and introduce this regulation on the east side.

From Garnet Av. to Yarmouth Rd., rescind 'No Stopping' regulation through the evening peak period on the east side and introduce this regulation on the west side.

   Yarmouth Road to Dupont Street

a)

b)

c)

d)

e)

f)

g)
Approximately 22 m north of Yarmouth Rd., east side, introduce bus stop (Relocated from south of Yarmouth Rd.).

Immediately north of Yarmouth Rd., west side, remove bus stop and relocate south of Yarmouth Rd.

Switch parking from west side to east side, north of relocated bus stop, thereby increasing parking supply by 4 spaces.

At Melville Av., west side, in the absence of parking remove curb extension immediately south of intersection.

Introduce surface texture (concrete) for PXO crossing at Yarmouth Rd. (north side).

Increase length of left-turn storage lane for up to 6 northbound vehicles at Dupont St..

Rescind 'No Stopping' regulation through the evening peak period on the east side and introduce this regulation on the west side.

--------

Table 2

Comparison of Proposed vs. Existing Parking Meter Spaces by Street Section

Section	Existing No. Of Parking Spaces	Proposed No. of Parking Spaces	Proposed Net Gain in Parking Spaces	Proposed Side of Street for Parking
Bloor - Barton	29	33	4	west
Barton - Follis	15	16	1	east
Follis - Garnet	10	10	0	west
Garnet-Dupont	12	19	7	east
Total	66	78	12	----

Notes:

Existing parking at parking meters on west side only.

ii)The Christie St. west streetline forms the west limit of permit parking area 5A where as of January 28,1999 there were 866 parking permits issued (9 to residents of Christie St.) for the 943 permit parking spaces available.

--------

Appendix A

Amendment to 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", required to implement the alteration of Christie Street as noted in Drawing Nos. 421F-5310, 421F-5311 and 421F-5312, all dated January, 1999, as follows,

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

(Column 1

Side or Street)
(Column 2

Location)
(Column 3

Width)
(Column 4

From)
(Column 5

To)
(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)

Christie Street from: 11m to: 8m -10m Bloor Street West Dupont Street SK-2200 dated

July 6, 1998

Christie Street northbound leg from: 9m

to: 7m - 8 m
north of Bloor Street SK-2200 dated

July 6, 1998

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

(Column 1

Side or Street)
(Column 2

Location)
(Column 3

Width)
(Column 4

From)
(Column 5

To)
(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)

Christie Street from: 11m to: 8m -11m Bloor Street West Dupont Street 421F-5310,

421F-5311 &

421F-5312 all dated

January,1999

Christie Street northbound leg from: 9m

to: 6m -7.5m
north of Bloor Street 421F-5310,

421F-5311 &

421F-5312 all dated

January,1999

--------

Appendix B

Municipal Code Chapter 400 Amendments Required to Implement the Alteration of Christie Street as noted in Drawing Nos. 421F-5310, 421F-5311 and 421F-5312.

(1)Schedule XXIV: No Stopping:

Delete

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times
Christie Street	East	Bloor Street West and Davenport Road	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	West	Bloor Street West and Davenport Road	7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	West	Garnet Avenue and a point 15 metres north thereof	Anytime
Christie Street (East Roadway)	West	Bloor Street West and a point 30 metres north thereof	Anytime

Add

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times
Christie Street	East	A point 68 m south of Dupont Street and Davenport Road	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	West	Dupont Street and Davenport Road	7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	West	Dupont and a point 23 m south thereof	Anytime
Christie Street	West	A point 23 m south of Dupont and Garnet Avenue	7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	East	Bloor Street West and a point 75 m north thereof	Anytime
Christie Street (East Roadway)	West	Bloor Street West and a point 70 m north thereof	Anytime
Christie Street (East Roadway)	East	Bloor Street West and a point 29 metres north thereof	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	East	A point 91 m north of Bloor Street West and Barton Avenue	7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	East	From a point 6.4 m north of the north curb line of Garnet Avenue and Follis Avenue	7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	West	Essex Street and Barton Avenue	7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sat., Sun., and public holidays
Christie Street	West	A point 74.5 metres north of Bloor Street West and a point 53 metres further north	Anytime

(2)Schedule XXIII: No Parking Certain Times:

Delete

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Christie Street	East	Bloor Street West and Dupont Street	Anytime
Christie Street	West	Dupont Street and a point 67.6 metres south	Anytime

Add

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Christie Street	East	A point 91 metres north of Bloor Street West and Barton Avenue	Anytime
Christie Street	East	Follis Avenue and a point 6.4 metres north of the north curb line of Garnet Avenue	Anytime
Christie Street	East	Dupont Street and a point 68 m south thereof	Anytime
Christie Street	West	Dupont Street and Garnet Avenue	Anytime
Christie Street	West	Essex Street and Barton Avenue	Anytime

(3)Schedule XXV: Time Limit Parking:

Delete

Highway	Side	Between	Time or Days	Maximum Period Permitted
Christie Street	West	Dupont Street and Bloor Street West	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.	60 minutes

Add

Highway	Side	Between	Time or Days	Maximum Period Permitted
Christie Street	East	Barton Avenue and Follis Avenue	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.	60 minutes
Christie Street	East	A point 6.4 metres north of north curb line of Garnet Avenue and Dupont Street	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.	60 minutes
Christie Street	West	Garnet Avenue and Essex Street	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.	60 minutes
Christie Street	West	Barton Avenue and Bloor Street West	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.	60 minutes

(4)Schedule XXVI: Permit Parking - Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.:

Delete

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Christie Street	Even	From Bloor Street West to Barton Avenue	37	All Times

Add

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Christie Street	Even	From Barton Avenue to Bloor Street West	33	All Times

(5)Schedule XXVI: Permit Parking - Part H: 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.:

Delete

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Christie Street	Even	From Barton Avenue to Dupont Street	39	All Times

Add

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Christie Street	Odd	From Follis Avenue to Barton Avenue	16	All Times
Christie Street	Even	From Essex Street to Garnet Avenue	10	All Times
Christie Street	Odd	From Garnet Avenue to Yarmouth Road	10	All Times
Christie Street	Odd	From Yarmouth Road and Dupont Street	9	All Times

(6)Schedule XXX: Parking Meters:

Delete

Highway	Side	Between	Hours (daily except Sun. & public holidays	Fee; Time Limit	Maximum Parking Period
Christie Street	West	A point 37 m north of Bloor Street West and a point 30.5 m south of Dupont Street	9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Mon. to Fri.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	60 mins
Christie Street	West	A point 37 m north of Bloor Street West and a point 30.5 m south of Dupont Street	6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Mon. to Fri.; 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sat. and Sun.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	3 hrs.

Add

Highway	Side	Between	Hours (daily except Sun. & public holidays	Fee; Time Limit	Maximum Parking Period
Christie Street	East	Barton Avenue and Follis Avenue	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Mon. To Fri.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	60 mins
Christie Street	East	Barton Avenue and Follis Avenue	6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Mon. to Fri.; 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sat. and Sun.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	3 hrs.
Christie Street	East	A point 6.4 m north of the north curb line of Garnet Avenue and Dupont Street	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Mon. To Fri.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	60 mins.
Christie Street	East	A point 6.4 m north of the north curb line of Garnet Avenue and Dupont Street	6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Mon. to Fri.; 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sat. and Sun.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	3 hrs.
Christie Street	West	Garnet Avenue and Essex Street	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Mon. To Fri.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	60 mins.
Christie Street	West	Garnet Avenue and Essex Street	6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Mon. to Fri.; 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sat. and Sun.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	3 hrs.
Christie Street	West	Barton Avenue and Bloor Street West	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Mon. To Fri.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	60 mins.
Christie Street	West	Barton Avenue and Bloor Street West	6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Mon. to Fri.; 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sat. and Sun.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	3 hrs.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

christie street - bloor st. W. - dupont st.

Insert Table/Map No. 2

christie street - bloor st. W. - dupont st.

Insert Table/Map No. 3

christie street - bloor st. W. - dupont st.

Extension of Parking Duration and Hours of

Parking Operation - "Student Pick-Up/Drop-Off Area" -

Jackman Avenue, West Side, from Danforth Avenue to

Hurndale Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 5, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To extend the hours of operation of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area" in front of Danforth Montessori School to accommodate parents/guardians picking up children from afternoon classes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m., except Sunday and Public Holidays, and on Saturdays from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., on the west side of Jackman Avenue, be rescinded:

(a)from Danforth Avenue to a point 27.6 metres north;

(b)from a point 45.7 metres north of Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue;

(2)That the 10 minutes maximum parking restriction from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, except Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays on the west side of Jackman Avenue, be rescinded:

(a)from Danforth Avenue to a point 27.6 metres north;

(b)from a point 45.7 metres north of Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue;

(3)That parking be prohibited from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., from 1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Sunday and Public Holidays, and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays on the west side of Jackman Avenue:

(a)from Danforth Avenue to a point 36.6 metres north;

(b)from a point 45.7 metres north of Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue;

(4)That parking be permitted for a maximum period of 15 minutes from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., from 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., except Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays:

(a)from Danforth Avenue to a point 36.6 metres north;

(b)from a point 45.7 metres north of Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue; 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 Jack Layton on behalf of the Danforth Montessori School (Premises No. 310 Danforth Avenue), staff have investigated the feasibility of extending the hours of operation and parking duration in the "Student Pick-up Drop-off Area" on the west side of Jackman Avenue north of Danforth Avenue (flankage of Premises No. 310 Danforth Avenue), to enable parents/guardians to park for short periods while picking up or dropping off students at the Danforth Montessori School.

Jackman Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue operates two way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres. Parking is regulated as follows on this section of Jackman Avenue.

East Side:

(i)Parking is prohibited at anytime.

West Side:

(i)Parking is allowed for a maximum period of 10 minutes, from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., and from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, except Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, from Danforth Avenue to a point 27.6 metres north and from a point 45.7 metres north of Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue;

(ii)Parking is prohibited at anytime from a point 36.6 metres north of Danforth Avenue to a point 45.7 metres north of Danforth Avenue;

(iii)Parking is prohibited from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m., except Sunday and Public Holidays, and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 Saturdays, from Danforth Avenue to a point 27.6 metres north and from a point 45.7 metres north of Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue; and

(iv)Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

Permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on the west side of Jackman Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Hurndale Avenue on the sections where parking is allowed. Staff note that the distance indicated at "27.6 metres" in above-noted regulations is wrong and that the actual distance should be 36.6 metres. This anomaly will be rectified with the approval of the Recommendations contained in this report.

Based on our assessment, the periods when parking is allowed in the "Student Pick-up and Drop-off Area" on the west side of Jackman Avenue could be extended to include from 4:00 p.m. to 6:0 p.m., Monday to Friday. This would accommodate parents/guardians picking up children following afternoon classes at the Danforth Montessori School.

In conjunction with the above, the 10 minute maximum parking restriction could be extended to a maximum period of 15 minutes. This would provide parents/guardians with greater time to accompany children to or from the school. It should be noted that given the proximity of the Danforth Avenue retail district and the high demand for parking that occurs in the immediate area, extending the maximum parking duration in the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Area" might encourage parking in this area by shoppers.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Installation of Speed Humps - Shaw Street from

Marchmount Road to Wychrest Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (February 5, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1 be adopted; and

(2)a poll also be conducted of the residents of Marchmount Road, between Shaw Street and Ossington Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following (February 5, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $2,700.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of 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 Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5313, dated January 1999";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero and area residents, Works staff conducted an investigation to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Shaw Street from Marchmount Road to Wychcrest Avenue to reduce vehicle speeds.

Shaw Street from Wychcrest Avenue to a point 58.0 metres south of Marchmount Road has a pavement width of 9.8 metres, and 7.4 metres for the remaining portion closest to Marchmount Road. This portion of Shaw Street has a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour, and operates two-way. The following parking regulations are in effect on this block:

East Side:

(i)Parking is prohibited at all times.

West Side:

(i)Parking is prohibited from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday; and

(ii)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.

A 24-hour speed and volume survey revealed that of the approximately 2600 vehicles travelling on the street during a typical weekday, about 36 percent exceeded the speed limit and about nine percent were travelling in excess of 10 kilometres per hour over the speed limit.

A suitable speed hump plan for this block would consist of two speed humps as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5313 dated January 1999. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

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

The changes proposed to Shaw Street 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 should be noted that emergency services are being 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

shaw street - marchmount road - wychrest ave

Installation of Speed Humps - Prescott Avenue

from Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Prescott Avenue, from Rowntree Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue for traffic calming purposes 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 Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue;"

(2)the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Prescott Avenue, from Rowntree Avenue to Rockwell Avenue, coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

(3)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 communication (February 12, 1999) from Councillor Disero:

Please find attached a report from staff to permit speed humps on Prescott Avenue.

Some time ago, Toronto Community Council approved a recommendation to poll Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, on the installation of the speed humps.

Could Toronto Community Council, please request that Prescott Avenue, from Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue also be polled.

--------

(Communication dated December 10, 1998, addressed to Councillor Disero

from Director, Transportation Services,

District 1, Works and Emergency Services)

I refer to your December 3, 1998 letter regarding the above.

Please refer to my letter of July 13, 1998 (copy attached) which addresses this matter.

--------

(Communication dated July 13, 1998, addressed to Councillor Disero

from Director, Transportation Services,

District 1, Works and Emergency Services)

Further to my May 4, 1998 letter acknowledging your April 17, 1998 letter (with a petition attached) regarding the above, I comment as follows.

Prescott Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to Rowntree Avenue has a pavement width of 7.3 metres, a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates two-way. A 24-hour speed and volume survey on June 6, 1997 (Prescott Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West Rockwell Avenue) recorded approximately 2200 vehicles during a typical weekday, and of these about 28 percent exceeded the speed limit, with about 1 percent in excess of 10 km/h over the limit. Further, a 24-hour speed and volume survey on February 11, 1997 (Prescott Avenue from Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue) recorded approximately 900 vehicles during a typical weekday, and of these about 38 percent exceeded the speed limit with about 1 percent in excess of 10 km/h over the limit.

The parking regulations are as follows:

West Side:

(i)Parking is prohibited anytime.

East Side:

(i)Parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from St. Clair Avenue West to East Avenue;

(ii)Parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours; and

(iii)Permit parking is not in effect on Prescott Avenue.

Prescott Avenue satisfies the City's primary criteria for speed humps south of Rockwell Avenue. North of Rockwell Avenue, Prescott Avenue satisfies all of the primary criteria except volumes, which is close, as measured in February which is typically a lower traffic volume month. A suitable speed hump plan for this street would consist of nine speed humps, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. T555-2 dated June, 1998, entitled "Prescott Avenue - St. Clair Avenue West to Rowntree Avenue".

However, due to the high number of driveways that exist on Prescott Avenue in the Rockwell Avenue to Rowntree Avenue block, it is very difficult to find locations for speed humps while also trying to maintain optimum spacings (60-90 metres apart). As a result, two of the five speed humps on this block will be situated directly in front of driveways (Premises Nos. 133A/138 and 163).

It is recommended that the proposed speed humps on Prescott Avenue be 7.5 cm in height as opposed to 10 cm as in the Earlscourt Area. This height reduction will help access and egress for those residents where speed humps are situated directly in front of their driveways, and should result in more even speeds on the street with less braking and accelerating at each hump.

I will be pleased to receive your comments on the above before proceeding, and will be pleased to arrange for staff to meet with you or residents to discuss this proposal further if necessary.

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former

City of Toronto Municipal Code - 8 South Kingsway

(High Park)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Purpose:

To report on the agreement between two local ratepayer groups and Petro-Canada. The agreement supports the recommendations of my (October 27, 1998) report, as amended by this report so as to reduce the overall number of illuminated signs, increase the number of non-illuminated signs, and require that the roof of the gas bar canopy be painted a specified colour.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That the recommendations of my October 27, 1998 report be deleted and be replaced with the following:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998050 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 15 illuminated signs and three non-illuminated signs;

(2)That 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; and

(3)That City Council require the applicant to have the top of the gas bar canopy, which is normally white, painted with Pittsburgh paint No. 4454 - Spanish Moss colour.

Background:

oronto Community Council at its meeting of November 12, 1998, heard a deputation from a Ripley Avenue Residents' Group representative regarding the possible negative effect of additional signage at the approved gas bar and car wash project. Toronto Community Council deferred further consideration of this item until the January 1999 meeting to allow for further discussion.

Comments:

Meetings were held between Petro-Canada and the Ripley Avenue Residents' Group/Swansea Area Ratepayer Association representative on November 30, 1998 and December 11, 1998. At the second meeting it was agreed that the resident/ratepayer groups would pose no objection to the inclusion of the Petro-Canada signage provided that the "Store" sign would be unlit and the top of the gas bar canopy would be painted a specified colour.

This revised proposal represents a further improvement to the original signage application and provides for more camouflaging of the gas bar canopy roof, especially for the nearby condominium owners.

I am recommending approval of this revised application for 15 illuminated and three non-illuminated signs.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks

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

E-Mail: name@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (October 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To implement a Settlement Agreement for 8 South Kingsway to permit 14 illuminated signs and two non-illuminated, and to recommend approval of a variance to permit an additional two illuminated signs.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended 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 two non-illuminated signs; and

(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.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of February 4, 5 and 6, 1998, refused the sign application to permit 21 illuminated signs and three non-illuminated signs of varying types for a new gas bar, car wash and retail store that was proposed to replace the existing gas station on the site.

On March 17, 1998, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) held a hearing on the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting variances to permit the gas bar, car wash and retail store on this site. After initial arguments, Petro-Canada withdrew their proposal and presented a revised scheme involving less signage.

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, requested Urban Planning and Development Services staff to convene a public meeting on the new proposal and report back to Toronto Community Council before the continuation of the OMB hearing on June 15, 1998.

A public meeting was held on May 4, 1998, to discuss the revised proposal and to deal with local residents' concerns respecting signage, among other things. The revised proposal and a Settlement Agreement were approved by City Council on June 3, 1998, and subsequently by the Ontario Municipal Board in its decision dated July 17, 1998.

The Settlement Agreement was endorsed by two local residents groups and includes, among other things, a total of 16 signs as per the schedule of signs prepared by the applicant.

Comments:

Since June 3, 1998, the applicant has contacted planning staff to advise that the schedule of signs was incorrect and the total number of signs being proposed was 18.

The two additional signs include an illuminated "Store" identification sign at the retail store entrance, as well as an illuminated "Car Wash Safety Sign" just west of the car wash entrance. The two signs will not be visible from the adjacent residential neighbourhood.

The variance remains unchanged in that the signs are not permitted in a "G" parks district. Illuminated signs in parks districts are only allowed in conjunction with uses that are permitted in these districts. Automobile service stations are not permitted, hence the variance. However, an automobile service station is existing in this location and therefore the use is legal non-conforming.

The proposed signs will replace existing signs currently on the property and will be used for safety and directional purposes as well as for building identification. The revised proposal represents a meaningful improvement over the applicants' original proposal and is unchanged from the proposal approved by City Council and the OMB on June 3, 1998 and July 17, 1998 respectively, with the exception of the two identification signs originally not included in the schedule of signs.

I am recommending approval of this application for 16 illuminated and two non-illuminated signs.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 2

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 3

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 4

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 5

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 6

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 7

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 8

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 9

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 10

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 11

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 12

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 13

8 south kingsway

Insert Table/Map No. 14

8 south kingsway

Implementation of Two Sided Parking -

Kewbeach Avenue Between Waverley Road and

Kenilworth Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 15, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To increase parking opportunity and help alleviate parking congestion in the area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $600.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Kewbeach Avenue between Waverley Road and Kenilworth Avenue be rescinded;

(2)That permit parking be introduced on the north side of Kewbeach Avenue from Waverley Road to Kenilworth Avenue on an area basis within permit area 9C to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.;

(3)That Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto, be amended to incorporate the north side of Kewbeach Avenue between Waverley Road and Kenilworth Avenue; 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 an area resident and in consultation with East Toronto Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, staff of Transportation Services have investigated allowing parking on the north side of Kewbeach Avenue between Waverley Road and Kenilworth Avenue to increase parking opportunity in this area.

Kewbeach Avenue between Waverley Road and Kenilworth Avenue operates one-way westbound with a pavement width of 12.2 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the north side and is allowed by permit only between the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. and for a maximum period of three hours at other times on the south side on this section of Kewbeach Avenue.

This section of Kewbeach Avenue is sufficiently wide enough to accommodate two-sided parking. This would increase the number of parking spaces on this block by approximately 8 spaces without adversely affecting traffic operation or safety. The north side of Kewbeach Avenue from Waverley Road to Kenilworth Avenue should also be incorporated into the 9C Permit Parking allotment as noted in Recommendation No. (2) above.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard 392-7771

Traffic Investigator

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment

Refusal - 373 Clinton Street (Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the City of the Toronto Committee of Adjustment decision of January 5, 1999, regarding 373 Clinton Street, and that he be authorized to retain independent planning advice and evidence for the hearing.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 15, 1999) from Councillor Adams:

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board to defend the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment decision of January 5, 1999, regarding 373 Clinton Street, and be authorized to retain independent planning advice and evidence for the hearing.

Background:

At its meeting of January 5, 1999, the City of Toronto Committee of Adjustment refused an application to sever the property at 373 Clinton Street into four parcels of land and to construct four row houses with four rear attached garages. This refusal has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board with a hearing date pending.

This matter was deferred sine die at the Committee of Adjustment's hearing of July 7, 1998, at the request of Urban Planning and Development Services department, citing that the proposal was subject to site plan approval and that the Urban Planning and Development Services department had not received an application for that purpose. It was later noted by the Committee of Adjustment in its decision of January 5, 1999 that "it has been determined that the proposal is not subject to Site Plan Control".

In her July 3, 1998, submission to the Committee of Adjustment, the Director of Urban Planning and Development Services and Deputy Chief Building Official, noted concern about "the number of houses proposed in relation to densities and lot frontages prevailing in this area and; that the proposed setbacks from the front lot lines are atypical of this area and contribute substantially to the applicant's need for depth variances".

The Committee of Adjustment in its refusal decision noted "the application as not being minor, appropriate or within the intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and; is of the view that closer compliance with the gross floor area, and building depth provisions of the by-law can be achieved, since the development involves new construction". The application for consent to sever also failed as being premature.

--------

(A copy of the Decision of the Committee of Adjustment dated January 5, 1999, referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Technical Amendments - Parking Regulations -

Bloor Street West, Between Bathurst Street and

Dufferin Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)parking regulations allow parking on Bloor Street West from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. on the north side, at the existing parking meters only, and from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on the south side, at the existing parking meters only, between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street during weekdays; and

(2)other parking regulations such as taxicab stands, 1-hour parking and the parking meter by-law be amended accordingly.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 15, 1999) from Councillor Pantalone:

Recommendation:

That parking regulations allow parking on Bloor Street West from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. on the north side, at the existing parking meters only, and from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on the south side, at the existing parking meters only, between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street during weekdays. Other parking regulations such as taxicab stands, 1-hour parking and the parking meter by-law should be amended accordingly.

Background:

Council at its December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted Clause 23 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 16. Staff have advised that the Clause failed to incorporate parking regulations other than for existing parking meters. The above recommendation allows the inclusion of other parking regulations such as taxicab stands and has been brought forward by staff.

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 23 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, entitled "Parking Regulations - Bloor Street West, Between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street (Trinity-Niagara)":

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)parking regulations be changed to allow parking on Bloor Street West from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on the north side and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the south side between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street during weekdays; and

(2)the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (December 1, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone:

Recommendation:

(1)That parking regulations be changed to allow parking on Bloor Street West from 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. on the north side and from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on the south side between Bathurst Street and Dufferin Street during weekdays.

(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.

Attached please find a copy of a Transportation report on the introduction of parking during peak hours on Bloor Street West between Dufferin Street and Montrose Avenue. The report does not recommend the introduction of such parking. Please be advised that staff have filed similar reports for Bloor Street between Montrose Avenue and Bathurst Street.

However, at a recent meeting with the Korean Business Association, Bloorcourt Village BIA, Councillors Silva, Disero, Bossons and Adams all expressed support for introducing of staggered parking during peak periods with a six month review.

As you can see, the Commissioner does not support the introduction of parking on Bloor Street West. Yet, the introduction of such parking would not impede the flow of public transit (due to the existing subway corridor under Bloor Street). In addition, this type of parking arrangement is in existence on other major streets such as King Street West, College Street, and Dundas Street West without the negative consequences suggested in the attached report. Councillors Silva, Disero, Fotinos, Bossons and Adams support the introduction of parking along Bloor Street West with a six month review by the Transportation Section.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

--------

(Communication (May 6, 1998) from the Acting Manager,

Central Traffic Region, City Works Services, addressed to Councillor Pantalone)

Further to your memorandum of February 3, 1998, in which you requested comments on the feasibility of allowing parking on the above-noted section of Bloor Street West during the weekday afternoon peak period, we advise that our review of this matter is complete. Based on our results, we do not recommend any changes to the parking regulations. A summary of our investigation is provided below.

Bloor Street West, in this section, is a four-lane arterial roadway having a combined east-west daily traffic volume of 20,000 vehicles. The width of this section of Bloor Street West is generally 13.6 metres and each lane is approximately 3.1 metres wide. When parking is permitted there is only one lane of travel per direction.

The parking regulations on this section of Bloor Street West are generally as follows:

Bloor Street West Dufferin Street and Montrose Avenue
	North Side	South Side
No Stopping	4-6 p.m., M-F	7-9 a.m., M-F
No Parking	-	4-6 p.m., M-F
Parking Meter Operation	9-4, M-F, 8-6, Sat., 1-HR. Max	9-4, M-F, 8-6, Sat., 1-HR. Max

Three-hour parking is permitted during the times not listed in the above table.

The peak hour and average off-peak hour vehicular volumes are represented in the following table:

	Average Vehicular Traffic Volume (per hour)
	Eastbound	Westbound
Morning Peak	1150	470
Afternoon Peak	720	920
Average Off-peak	665	625

On this section of Bloor Street West, 650 vehicles per hour per lane is a reasonable estimate of through capacity, given the road characteristics and the high level of pedestrian and loading activity which occur in this vicinity. On-street parking is currently permitted on the north side of Bloor Street West, between Dufferin Street and Montrose Avenue, during the morning peak period and on both sides of Bloor Street West during off-peak periods. However, on-street parking does not cause any significant negative impacts to the operational efficiency of Bloor Street West during these periods because the affected traffic flows are relatively low.

During the afternoon peak period, permitting parking on either the north or south side of Bloor Street West would result in westbound and eastbound Bloor Street West being over-capacity. There is a high demand for parking on the above-mentioned section of Bloor Street West related to the numerous commercial establishments in the immediate area. As a result, motorists periodically park illegally during the peak periods. Observations by Department staff confirm that during the afternoon peak period, vehicle delays and queues increase significantly on these infrequent occasions when illegal parking does occur. If parking were to be permitted in the afternoon peak period, we would expect this type of congestion to occur routinely.

In addition to the arterial road capacity concerns, allowing parking in the peak periods may contribute to increased neighbourhood infiltration in this area. Typically, as congestion along an arterial increases, motorists seek alternative routes to reduce their total trip time.

Based on the above, we do not recommend allowing parking on either side of Bloor Street West during the afternoon peak period.

By copy of this letter, we are advising those Councillors whose wards are affected by this inquiry.

Please contact Vince Suppa, Investigations Supervisor, at 397-5436 if you have any additional concerns regarding this matter.

Committee of Adjustment Appeal -

184 Sherbourne Street (Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council confirm to the Ontario Municipal Board, the City of Toronto's position of opposing the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision refusing Application No. A199800854 respecting 184 Sherbourne Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To seek reaffirmation of Council's adoption of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council at its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, instructing the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in defence of the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting 184 Sherbourne Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council confirm to the Ontario Municipal Board, the City of Toronto's position of opposing the appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision refusing Application No. A199800854.

Background:

The City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services attended the Ontario Municipal Board hearing to defend the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting 184 Sherbourne Street. The one day hearing commenced on November 30, 1998, and was adjourned at the request of the appellant to January 26, 1999, with four days set aside to allow more time for proceedings. On January 26, the hearing was further adjourned at the request of the appellant, with the Ontario Municipal Board issuing an order dated February 2, 1999, allowing four days for the hearing April 13, 14, 15 and 16, 1999, [Appendix "A"]. The Board member, M.A. Rosenberg, is seized of the matter.

In granting the second adjournment, the Board found that the elected Council of the City of Toronto should be given an opportunity to consider and debate the January, 1999 Report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force, Recommendation Number 103 and to consider whether in fact some, all or none of the recommendations in the report should be adopted and incorporated into Council policy. In addition, the Board found that the elected Council should be given extra time to consider the appeal and whether or not any compromise can be reached and/or whether or not appropriate conditions are warranted.

Comments:

The appellant's proposal:

The appellant is seeking to increase the number of dwelling rooms in an existing, licensed rooming house from 25 to 34. The appellant is seeking three variances:

proposed number of dwelling rooms - 34, permitted - 12;

proposed number of parking spaces - nine, required - 11, and;

proposed gross floor area in square metres - 906, permitted - 696.

This latest proposal should be seen in the context of earlier activity by the appellant from the late 1980's to the present time. In 1989, the appellant commenced consolidation and enlargement of the original pair of semi-detached houses on this site without a building permit and with the apparent purpose of establishing a rooming house. Following prosecution by the former City of Toronto, the appellant obtained approval from the City for a rooming house with 25 dwelling rooms by means of a favourable decision from the Committee of Adjustment, supported by the then Planning and Development Department, and a development agreement between the appellant and the City. Throughout these processes, the appellant represented the proposal with an "unexcavated basement".

This rooming house has also been licensed annually three times between 1995 and 1997 by the City, on the same basis, and has been the subject of regular fire prevention and buildings inspections ever since. City inspectors recorded unapproved occupancy in the basement in January and February, 1998. They noted nine dwelling rooms in a basement area previously dry-walled shut. Subsequently, the Licensing Commissioner granted a conditional license for six months on May 19, 1998, to expire December 9, 1998. This license was conditional upon the basement being vacated by July 1, 1998 and the standards of the Fire Code being met. To date, these basement premises have not been vacated. The current application being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board proposes a total of 34 dwelling rooms, with seven such rooms in the basement, along with two bathrooms, a kitchen and a storage room at that level.

The Report of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force:

Recommendation No. 103 of this report states:

"Council should permit rooming houses as-of-right in commercial zones and multiple-unit residential zones on arterial roads throughout the City. Existing rooming houses that comply with health and safety standards should be legalized."

This report is an extensive exploration of the conditions that homeless people face and represents a passionate advocacy of their cause. This report does not deal with the planning and zoning standards appropriate for rooming houses, beyond recommending liberalization. The City of Toronto's standards for rooming house size were originally identified in planning reports considered by City Council in the 1970's, dealing with the general topic of bachelorettes . In May, 1970, City Council passed By-law 321-78 which amended the Zoning By-law and specified the number of twelve dwelling rooms to be permitted within a rooming house within an "R" district in the Central Area. This standard remains unchanged to the present time and may remain so in the future. Any new standards for rooming house size will be identified within the newly constituted City of Toronto, in due course and after studies, reports and Council deliberations. In the meantime, the existing standard is the only one to be observed and is more liberal than that of many other municipalities.

The four tests required for minor variances:

The appeal before the Ontario Municipal Board pertains to an intensification of use in a specific instance, raising the issue of the appropriate planning and zoning standards to be applied for this particular proposal. The applicant chose to pursue this proposal by means of an application to the Committee of Adjustment and, upon refusal, an appeal to the Board. The issue before the Board is whether the proposal meets the four tests required by the Planning Act. Failure to meet any one of the tests should mean that the appeal will be dismissed. The position of the City of Toronto is and should remain that this proposal does not meet these tests. These tests and the City's position relating to them are described below.

Are the variances minor in nature:

The proposed variances are not minor in nature. Thirty-four dwelling rooms represent almost three times the upper limit permitted by the Zoning By-law in an "R" district, in the Central Area, (twelve dwelling rooms). In this instance, the establishment of living space below grade, in direct contravention of City conditions agreed to by the appellant, represents the direct cause for non-compliance with the Zoning By-law with respect to gross floor area and the number of parking spaces required. The proposed number of dwelling rooms is only accompanied by an amount of amenity/recreation space that is both nominal and inadequate.

Are the variances desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land and building:

The applicant requires variances to maintain a development that, in size, greatly exceeds the norm prevalent for house-form buildings converted for use as rooming houses. A rooming house on this site represents a legitimate use, but not on a scale that sets an undesirable precedent, so as to potentially displace other legitimate users of these house-form buildings such as families with children.

Is the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law maintained:

The Zoning By-law permits rooming houses in "R3" districts in the Central Area while restricting their size to twelve dwelling units. The Zoning By-law does not place any constraints as to the number of rooming houses in a given area nor does it impose distancing requirements between them. The intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law is to permit rooming houses of a reasonable size while preventing other forms of residential uses catering to a wide mix of residents in terms of age, income and household size from being displaced. The Zoning By-law pertains to the South District of the City of Toronto and is, by comparison, generally more accommodating of the rooming house use than zoning by-laws of many other jurisdictions.

The Zoning By-law's numerical limit of twelve dwelling units has usually only been exceeded where the original house-form building was very large or where the original building had been established for other purposes such as a hotel or an apartment building. The applicant proposes to maintain an establishment with a number of dwelling rooms that greatly exceeds the norm within "R" districts for both the South District of the City of Toronto and the Central Area and is not within the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law.

Is the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan maintained:

The site is located within an area designated as Medium Density Residence Area by the Official Plan Part I and the South of Carlton Official Plan Part II. This proposal does not maintain the intent and purpose of the Official Plan, particularly, the Part II Plan with reference to Sections 2.1 and 3.3.1. In combination, these sections state City Council's policy to maintain and preserve the character of the South of Carlton area as a predominantly low rise residential area accommodating a wide mix of residents in terms of age, income and household size, including families with children, in low to medium rise building forms.

The proposed development represents a cumulation of practices which for the most part were illegally initiated and remain only partially legitimized. The appellant's practices have resulted in a development that appropriated existing housing stock and would create a facility of excessive scale for one particular use. This proposal does not maintain the character of the South Carlton area as it diminishes the potential for variety in the residential mix. This proposal does not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan.

Conclusion:

The appellant has, to date, through successive applications, received approvals to operate a rooming house of 25 dwelling rooms with beds on floor levels above grade. The current, approved scale of operations on the site represents a practical limit as to what should be permitted on the site. The appellant is free to operate rooming houses elsewhere in the City of Toronto and already does so at two other establishments of this kind.

Contact:

Bruce Gray

Tel. No. 392-0426

Email:bray@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

184 Sherbourne Street

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 17, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To update Toronto Community Council on the Ontario Municipal Board ("the Board") Hearing held on January 26, 1999 regarding a minor variance application made by the owner ("the applicant") of 184 Sherbourne.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on October 1 and 2, 1998, Toronto City Council adopted, without amendment, Clause No. 60 contained in Report No. 11 of Toronto Community Council, entitled "Committee of Adjustment Appeal- 184 Sherbourne Street (Downtown)". In so doing Council instructed the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services ("the Commissioner") to attend the Board hearing in defence of the Committee of Adjustment ("the Committee") Decision respecting 184 Sherbourne Street.

The premises is operated as a licensed rooming house. The Committee, in its decision of July 21, 1998 denied the applicant's proposal to increase the number of dwelling rooms to 34, from its present permitted level of 25, by using the basement of the building for additional living space. The Committee unanimously held that the proposal would result in an over intensification of the use of the premises.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

he appeal of the Committee decision was originally scheduled to be heard on November 3, 1998, but was adjourned by the Board to January 26, 1999 in order that sufficient time- four days- could be set aside to hear all of the evidence at once. At the rescheduled hearing, legal counsel for the applicant requested a further adjournment on the basis that Council should have a chance to (1) examine the Mayor's Homelessness Task Force recommendations, particularly Recommendation No. 103, which states that Council should permit rooming houses as-of-right on arterial roads, and (2) consider his settlement proposal, set out in a letter faxed to the City on January 25, 1999. That settlement offer is to "restrict" the number of dwelling rooms to 34 and to restrict the occupancy of those rooms to one person per room.

The City Solicitor opposed the adjournment request on the basis, in part, that:

(1)the settlement offer amounts to the same proposal opposed by Council at its October 1998 meeting;

(2)the City has long considered and debated the issue of homelessness and affordable housing;

(3)this particular hearing concerns a Planning Act application to increase the number of rooms in a rooming house which is already licensed; and

(4)the rooms at issue are occupied in contravention of an "Order to Comply" and the conditions attached to the applicant's Rooming House License such that an adjournment would permit the applicant to continue to operate illegally with impunity.

The Board adjourned the hearing on the basis that City Council should be given an opportunity to consider and debate the Task Force Report and to "consider whether in fact some, all or none of the recommendations in the report should be adopted and incorporated into council policy". Further, that Council should consider whether "any compromise can be reached and/or whether or not any appropriate conditions are warranted".

Toronto Community Council has before it for consideration the February 16, 1999 report of the Commissioner, entitled "Deferral of Committee of Adjustment Appeal hearing- 184 Sherbourne Street (Downtown)". In that report the Commissioner recommends that the City reaffirm its position with respect to this particular application and sets out planning reasons in support of this recommendation. Should Council adopt the Commissioner's Report, the City Solicitor and the Commissioner will attend the rescheduled hearing, set for April 13 to 16, 1999 in support of the Committee's decision that this specific proposal represents over intensification of the property.

Conclusions:

The Board has twice adjourned the hearing into an application to increase the number of dwelling rooms in the subject premises from 25 to 34. Most recently, the Board adjourned the matter to allow City Council time to consider (1) the Task Force recommendations and (2) its position on the specific application made by the owner of 184 Sherbourne Street. Should Council adopt the February 16, 1999 report of the Commissioner on this matter, the City will proceed with its original position at the rescheduled Board hearing.

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer, Solicitor, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-1228

Fax: (416) 392-7224

E-mail: mkemerer@toronto.ca

--------

(A copy of Appendix A referred to in the report dated February 16, 1999 from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and background material appended to the report dated February 17, 1999 from the City Solicitor, is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (January 22, 1999) from Mr. Michael Vaughan, Barrister and Solicitor, requesting that his communication be referred to the Director and Chief Planner, City Planning Division and the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services for a report back to Council on a recommended settlement with respect to the rooming house at 184 Sherbourne Street.)

Introduction of Pay-and-Display Parking Machines

Where Parking is Currently Allowed - Queen Street East,

Both Sides, from Coxwell Avenue to

Woodbine Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (February 17, 1999) from Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services be adopted;

(2)a poll be conducted of the residents of Queen Street East with respect to the introduction of permit parking on the north side of Queen Street East between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road; and

(3)the City Solicitor be requested to submit the appropriate by-law amendment, should permit parking be approved on Queen Street East between Rainsford Road and Kingston Road, at the same time as the by-law is submitted respecting the introduction of Pay-and-Display parking machines where parking is currently allowed on Queen Street East, both sides, from Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 17, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To enact the appropriate parking regulations on Queen Street East, from Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue and enable the installation of pay and display control as requested by the Toronto Parking Authority.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition from 12:00 noon to 6:00 p.m., during the race meets, on the south side of Queen Street East, from Coxwell Avenue to Eastern Avenue, be rescinded;

(2)That the parking prohibition from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Queen Street East, from Rainsford Road to Woodbine Avenue, be rescinded;

(3)That the two hour parking restriction from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, on the south side of Queen Street East, from Kingston Road to Kippendavie Avenue, be rescinded;

(4)That the two hour parking restriction from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, on the north side of Queen Street East, from Rainsford Road to a point 85 metres east of Kingston Road, be rescinded;

(5)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the north side of Queen Street East, from Kingston Road to a point 165 metres further west be rescinded;

(6)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Queen Street East from Kingston Road to Orchard Park Boulevard;

(7)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Queen Street East, from Rainsford Road to Woodbine Avenue;

(8)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Queen Street East, from Woodbine Avenue to Kippendavie Avenue;

(9)That Pay-and-Display parking machines operate from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum period of two hours, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday for a maximum period of two hours and from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. daily, for a maximum period of three hours, at the rate of $1.25 per hour, on the north side of Queen Street East:

(a)from Coxwell Avenue to Orchard Park Boulevard;

(b)from Rainsford Road to a point 85 metres east of Kingston Road;

(10)That Pay-and-Display parking machines operate from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum period of two hours, from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday for a maximum period of two hours and from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. daily, for a maximum period of three hours, at the rate of $1.25 per hour, on the south side of Queen Street East:

(a)from Coxwell Avenue to a point 200 metres west of Kingston Road;

(b)from Kingston Road to Woodbine Avenue; and

(11)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 its meeting of November 24, 1998, the Board of the Toronto Parking Authority approved in principal the installation of Pay-and-Display parking machines on both sides of Queen Street East, from Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue (where parking is currently allowed) to enhance parking opportunities for visitors and business patrons in this area. In order to facilitate this installation, it is necessary to make the necessary amendments to these Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code.

Queen Street East, from Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, is a two-way arterial road with streetcar service and a pavement width that varies from 12.8 metres to 15.2 metres The following parking regulations are in effect:

North Side:

(i)stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., except Saturday, Sunday and public holidays;

(ii)standing is prohibited at anytime, from Kingston Road to the Toronto Transit Commission loop, located west of Lark Street;

(iii)parking is prohibited at anytime, from Kingston Road to a point 165 metres west thereof;

(iv)parking is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays, from Rainsford Road to Woodbine Avenue;

(v)parking is allowed for a maximum period of two hours, from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., on Saturdays, from Rainsford Road to a point 85 metres east of Kingston Road; and

(vi) parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum period of three hours.

South Side:

(i)stopping is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays;

(ii)standing is prohibited at anytime from Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road to a point 200 metres west;

(iii)parking is allowed for a maximum period of two hours, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., on Saturdays, from Kingston Road to Woodbine Avenue; and

(iv)parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum period of three hours.

Permit parking is not in effect on Queen Street East, from Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue

A total of 12 Pay-and-Display parking machines would be installed by the Parking Authority on both sides of Queen Street East, from Coxwell Avenue to Woodbine Avenue in the areas where parking is currently allowed and would operate daily as indicated in Recommendations Nos. (9) and (10) of this report.

Recommendations Nos. (7) and (8) above are essentially "house-keeping" alterations as no legal parking spaces currently exist on the north side of Queen Street East, from Rainsford Road to Woodbine Avenue or on the south side of Queen Street East, from Woodbine Avenue to Kippendavie Avenue.

The existing parking prohibited at anytime regulation on the north side of Queen Street East from Kingston Road to a point 165 metres further west was required to ensure efficient traffic flow and reduce congestion created by westbound vehicles turning off Queen Street East onto Eastern Avenue.

However, with the extension of Eastern Avenue to Kingston Road/Queen Street East, this regulation is no longer required. Implementing this regulations will provide an additional 8 on-street parking spaces.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Gary O'Neil, 392-7771

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of

Toronto Municipal Code - 56 Blue Jays Way (Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated March 1, 1999, from the City Solicitor, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)should City Council wish to approve the variance application and accept the proposal made by the owner of 56 Blue Jays Way, it do so on the condition that the owner enter into an agreement with the City in substantially the form attached to this report;

(2)City Council authorize the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor and Councillor Olivia Chow, to negotiate an annual budget to be provided by the owner for the purposes of the agreement, provided that in the event that agreement is not reached by September 1, 1999, City Council's approval of the variance application shall be rescinded; and

(3)the assistance to be provided by the City as requested by the owner in developing and fulfilling its public art obligation be provided by Urban Planning and Development Services staff and the Public Art Commission.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)Application No. 998095 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to erect one illuminated ground sign at 56 Blue Jays Way be approved;

(2)the City accept the proposal from Beutel Goodman Real Estate Group to provide a minimum of one month during the winter season on its 40 metre mural on the south side of its building at 56 Blue Jays Way for public art, and to provide the full funding necessary to design and install this public art mural; and

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services assist the Beutel Goodman Real Estate Group in developing its public art, such assistance to be at no charge for City staff time.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to submit the appropriate agreement for the consideration of City Council at its meeting to be held on March 3, 1999.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to erect one illuminated ground sign for identification purposes at 56 Blue Jays Way.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council refuse Application No. 998095 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to erect one illuminated ground sign at 56 Blue Jays Way.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Blue Jays Way, south of King Street West, in the King-Spadina Reinvestment Area. The property accommodates a historically designated three storey building. A restaurant, "Papa Leoni's" is located on the first floor with its entrance at the south end of the building. The "Second City" live theatre has its lobby in the centre of the building on the ground floor with its live theatre space on the second floor. It is proposed that a new live theatre tenant, "Toni and Tina's Wedding" would share a second live theatre space on the second floor with an existing live theatre tenant "Tim Sims Playhouse". The "Second City" entrance lobby is also used for these shared space tenants.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect one illuminated ground sign for identification purposes for the proposed new live theatre tenant, "Toni and Tina's Wedding" (see Figure 1). The proposed ground sign will have a length of 2.6 metres and a height of 1.5 metres, with an area of 3.9 m�. The applicant's objective is to maximize exposure to persons exiting Skydome one block south on Blue Jays Way.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1)only one ground sign for the purpose of identification is permitted within any frontage of a property; and

(2)the sign will not be set back 2.0 metres from the street line.

I have serious concerns with the first variance respecting the number of ground signs. The number of signs permitted within a single frontage is regulated so as to prevent clutter and to minimize the negative visual impact of excessive signage on the streetscape and the surrounding area.

At its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Toronto City Council approved an application (No. 998061) for four additional ground signs for this frontage of the property: two for "Papa Leoni's and two for "Second City". Prior approvals permitted the erection of two further ground signs: one for "Papa Leoni's" and one for "Tim Sims Playhouse". This application, if approved, would result in seven ground signs on this property.

I recognize that this property is located in the Downtown West entertainment district where extensive signage is common. However, this is a historic building and, in my opinion, the signage for tenants could be better coordinated to achieve the objectives of the Municipal Code.

My staff advised the applicant that the proposal is not supported and suggested four more acceptable alternatives:

(a)add a sign component for "Toni and Tina's Wedding" to the existing ground sign for "Tim Sims Playhouse";

(b)re-use the northernmost existing ground sign now allocated to "Second City" to advertise "Toni and Tina's Wedding";

(c)re-use the existing projecting sign so that one side advertises the new theatre tenant, "Toni and Tina's Wedding", with the other side continuing to advertise "Second City"; or

(d)remove all four ground signs approved in October, 1998 and erect the proposed new ground sign for "Toni and Tina's Wedding" with a sign for the new tenant.

In response, the applicant countered with a fifth alternative, suggesting that two of the four ground signs approved in October 1998 be removed in compensation for the new "Toni and Tina's Wedding" ground sign. The agent's rationale is that the combined face area of these two ground signs is about double the area of the proposed sign.

While, I understand the objective of providing signage for each tenant, this suggestion does not adequately resolve my concern that there will continue to be excessive ground related signage on this property. In conclusion, I consider the additional ground sign proposed for 56 Blue Jays Way to be unnecessarily obtrusive which would negatively impact the streetscape and the surrounding area.

I am recommending that this application be refused, as I consider the variances requested to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 2

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 3

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 4

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 5

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 6

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 7

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 8

56 Blue Jays Way

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (March 1, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report to City Council as requested by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of February 17, 1999, on an appropriate agreement between the City and the owner of 56 Blue Jays' Way with respect to the proposal put forward by the owner in applying to City Council for approval of a sign variance.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that,

(1)Should City Council wish to approve the variance application and accept the proposal made by the owner of 56 Blue Jays Way, it do so on the condition that the owner enter into an agreement with the City in substantially the form attached to this report.

(3)The assistance to be provided by the City as requested by the owner in developing and fulfilling its public art obligation be provided by Urban Planning and Development Services staff and the Public Art Commission.

Background:

At its meeting of February 17, 1999, the Toronto Community Council had before it a report (February 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending that sign variance Application No. 998095, made on behalf of the owner of 56 Blue Jays Way, be refused.

After consideration of this matter, the Toronto Community Council recommended that the application be approved and also that:

(2)the City accept the owner's proposal to provide a minimum of one month during the winter season on its 40 square metre mural on the south side of its building at 56 Blue Jays Way for public art, and to provide the full funding necessary to design and install the public art mural; and

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services assist the owner in developing the public art, with no charge to the owner for this "in kind" staff time.

The Toronto Community Council also requested that I bring forward an appropriate agreement for the consideration of Council at its meeting to be held on March 2, 1999.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

I have consulted with Urban Planning and Public Art Commission staff and prepared a draft agreement which was submitted to the owner for its consideration. In short, this agreement would:

1.Make clear that the sign variance approval is conditional upon the owner's entering into and complying with the terms of the agreement.

2.Allow the City to remove or require the removal of the approved sign in the event that the owner does not meet its obligations under the agreement.

3.Establishes the term of the agreement as the life of the approved sign.

4.Require the owner to provide an annual budget for the design, creation, installation and maintenance of the public art mural to be increased by the annual increase in the Consumers' Price Index.

5.Require the owner to hold an annual design competition in a manner satisfactory to the City.

6.Require that the owner maintain the artwork during the display period to the satisfaction of the artist(s) and the City.

7.Make clear that in the event that the mural area is obscured by development on the lands to the south of 56 Blue Jays Way which is beyond the control of the owner, the owner's obligations under the agreement shall be at an end.

Given the short time frame for reporting to Council with respect to this matter, staff have not yet been able to finalize with the owner's representatives the amount of the minimum annual budget to be provided to finance its annual public art obligation. It is therefore recommended that any Council approval be conditional upon an agreement being reached by September 1, 1999.

In addition, I am recommending that any assistance to be provided to the owner in developing and fulfilling its public art obligation be done through staff and the Public Art Commission.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that, if City Council wishes to approve the sign variance application on the basis of the owner's proposal, the City enter into an agreement with the City in the form attached and that any approval be conditional upon final agreement being reached by September 1, 1999. Any assistance to be provided to the owner should be done through Urban Planning staff and the Public Art Commission.

Contact Name:

Edward Earle

Legal Services

397-4058

DRAFT AGREEMENT

This Agreement made as of the 4th day of March, 1999,

B E T W E E N :

CITY OF TORONTO

(hereinafter called the "City")

OF THE FIRST PART

- and -

__________________________________,

a company incorporated under the laws

of Ontario, with its head office located at the

City of Toronto

(hereinafter called the "Owner")

OF THE SECOND PART

WHEREAS the Owner, by its authorized agent, Svetlana Levant/Pride Services Ltd., made an Application No. 998095 (the "Application") to the City for a variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Municipal Code of the former Corporation of the City of Toronto to permit the erection of an illuminated ground sign measuring 2.6 metres (length) by 1.5 metres (height), with an area of 3.9 square meters (the "Sign") at the building and lands known municipally as 56 Blue Jays' Way (the "Property"); and

WHEREAS the Owner has proposed that the City approve the variance application on the condition that the Owner be required to provide certain public art benefits; and

WHEREAS by the adoption, as amended, of Clause ___ of Report No. ___of the Toronto Community Council, the Council of the City, at its meeting held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, approved the application and accepted the Owner's proposal, subject to the Owner entering into an Agreement with the City upon the terms and conditions set out in the said clause and as are hereinafter described;

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH that in consideration of the mutual covenants and other terms and conditions hereinafter contained and the sum of Two Dollars ($2.00) of lawful money of Canada now paid by each of the parties hereto to the other (the receipt and sufficiency whereof is hereby acknowledged), the parties hereby covenant, promise and agree each with the other as follows:

1.The Owner agrees that:

(a)The approval of the Application by the City is conditional upon the Owner fulfilling its obligations under the terms and conditions of this Agreement and that the continued erection, installation and maintenance of the Sign shall be conditional upon the Owner's compliance with this Agreement.

(b)In the event that the Owner fails to comply with its obligations under this Agreement, the building permit issued for the Sign may be revoked by the City and the Owner shall, at its expense, immediately remove the Sign from the Property. In the event that the Owner fails, upon revocation of the permit by the City, to remove the Sign, the City may enter onto the property and remove the Sign at the Owner's expense and may recover such expense in like manner as taxes.

(c)Every year during the term of this Agreement, the Owner shall undertake the design, creation, installation and maintenance of an annual mural (the "Public Art") and, between September 1 of that year and May 1 of the next following year, make available for a minimum of 31 days (the "Display Period") the use of the entire forty (40) square metre mural area on the south side of the building located on the Property for the purposes of the display of the Public Art.

(d)The Owner's obligations under clause 1(c) shall include the following:

(i)All design, creation, installation and maintenance of the Public Art shall be done at the expense of the Owner.

(ii)The Owner shall provide and spend an annual budget for the Public Art in the amount of not less than _________________ Dollars ($__________.00), which minimum amount shall be increased on January 1st in each year during the term of this Agreement by the percentage increase in the All Items Index of the Consumer Price Index (not seasonally adjusted) for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, published by Statistics Canada, during the 12-month period ending on October 1 of the year immediately preceding the year of the increase.

(iii)The Owner shall hold and administer an annual design competition, in accordance with the Public Art Guidelines to be provided by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development for the City, to choose an Artist(s) with respect to the design of the Public Art, and supervise the creation and installation of the Public Art.

(iv)The Owner shall ensure that, during the Display Period, the Public Art is maintained to the satisfaction of the Artist(s) and the City.

(v)Prior to the removal or covering up of the Public Art at the end of the Display Period, the Owner shall allow the Artist(s) and the City all reasonable opportunity to document the Public Art.

2.The City agrees that the Sign is permitted on the Property for the term of this Agreement.

3.This Agreement shall terminate upon the removal of the Sign from the Property.

4.If, as a result of actions beyond the control of the Owner, a building or other structure is erected on the lands to the south of the Property which obscures the mural area, the Owner's obligations under this Agreement shall be at an end.

5.This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Owner and the City, their heirs, executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns. Provided, however, that the Owner shall not assign this Agreement or any interest herein without the prior written consent of the City, and for the purposes of this Agreement, assignment shall include any transfer in the majority ownership or controlling interest in the Owner, whether through the sale of shares, direct acquisition of assets or otherwise.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have hereunto affixed their corporate seals attested to by the hands of their respective proper signing officers in that behalf duly authorized.

CITYOF TORONTO

___________________________________

Name: Jeffrey A. Abrams For Novina Wong, City Clerk

___________________________________

Name: A.C. Shultz,

For Wanda Liczyk, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

______________________________(the "Owner")

___________________________________

Name:

Title:

c/s

___________________________________

Name:

Title:

I/We have authority to bind the corporation.)

Front Yard Parking -

4 Kingswood Road (East Toronto)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for front yard parking, as the result of the further poll was again not favourable, as per the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of the further poll conducted in connection with front yard parking at 4 Kingswood Road. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council deny the application for front yard parking, as the result of the further poll was again not favourable, as per the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, had before it my report dated September 14, 1998, respecting a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to permit front yard parking at 4 Kingswood Road.

The Toronto Community Council deferred the report until its meeting held on November 12, 1998, for deputations and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the physical requirements of the by-law related to 4 Kingswood Road and on the results of the poll.

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of November 12, 1998, had before it my report dated November 9, 1998, respecting the result of the polling conducted to determine neighbourhood support to the front yard parking application at 4 Kingswood Road.

The Toronto Community Council again deferred the matter until a further poll has been conducted, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the results of the further poll.

Comments:

Ms. Elizabeth Keenan, owner of 4 Kingswood Road, Toronto, Ontario M4E 3N5, submitted an application for front yard parking on September 19, 1998.

The current front yard parking criteria of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400:

(a)prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the same side of the street; and

(b)prohibits front yard parking where the installation of the curb ramp for the proposed parking area will result in the loss of an on-street permit parking space.

Ms. Keenan's application was refused as the property did not meet these two criteria of the Code.

The initial poll was conducted in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 90, Polling and Notifications Procedures, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The area polled was on both sides of Kingswood Road, from Nos. 1 to 37 on the east side and between Nos. 2 to 38 on the west side, including 2318 Queen Street East. The deadline for receiving the ballots was November 4, 1998. The majority of the ballots cast were opposed to the parking proposal.

A second poll was conducted, as requested by the Toronto Community Council. The polling area was the same as the first poll, and the deadline for receiving ballots was January 14, 1999.

Second Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed8 in favour4	12
No response	49
Returned by post office	0
Total ballots issued	61

The majority of the ballots cast were again opposed to the parking proposal.

Conclusions:

This property is not eligible for front yard parking because:

(1)permit parking is situated on the same side of the street;

(2)the installation of a proper ramp to service this location would result in the loss of one on-street parking space; and

(3)the result of the second poll for front yard parking was again negative.

In view of the above, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending - College Street, South Side,

42 Metres East of McCaul Street (Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on College Street, south side, 42 metres east of McCaul Street.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to meet with the applicant to find an appropriate site for the applicant in the area, possibly on McCaul Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 29, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard 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:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)That City Council approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on College Street, south side, 42 metres east of McCaul Street, notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner; and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; or

(2)City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on College Street, south side, 42 metres east of McCaul Street.

Background:

Mr. Krassimira Tabakova, in his letter of November 9, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on College Street, south side, 42 metres east of McCaul Street.

Comments:

Mr. Krassimira Tabakova, 1 Landor Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M6M 4J3, applied on September 15, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on College Street, south side, 42 metres east of McCaul Street, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). Mr. Tabakova proposes to vend hot dogs, sausages and cold drinks.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their comments, if any. Mr. Gil Nefsky, Senior Planning Officer, Toronto District School Board, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M5T 1P6, has submitted a letter of objection dated October 15, 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, we are 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. Tabakova 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. Nefsky's concerns, they are summarized below along with the staff's response.

Concern No. 1:The proposed vending location will result in pedestrian congestion across the frontage of the building as well as at the front doors

Staff Response:Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a minimum clear paved passable space of 3.66 metres for safe pedestrian movement, and requires the proposed vending location not be situated in front of any entrance or exit.

A minimum of 4 metres of paved passable space will be maintained at the requested location. The proposed vending location is 2.2 lineal metres south from the entrance/exit to the building. Further, the entrance to 155 College Street is set back 7.8 metres from the proposed vending location.

Concern No. 2:The proposed vending location is in an area already served by an existing hot dog vendor at College and University, and two at College and Beverley. In addition, a restaurant on the south side of College between McCaul and Beverley operates a hot dog stand

Staff Response:Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a 25 metre separation from other vendors, as well as a business selling similar products.

The proposed vending location is 167.5 metres from the licensed vendor at College Street and University Avenue. There are no licensed vending locations at College and Beverley Streets. In addition, the proposed vending location is 77.2 metres from the restaurant on College between McCaul and Beverley Streets.

Conclusions:

This application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal Code. Staff cannot issue Mr. Tabakova a permit because of the written objection to this application.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

--------

(A copy of Appendix A and C, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 17, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (February 15, 1999) from Mr. Gary M. Parkinson, Executive Officer - Facilities Services, Toronto District School Board, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix B - College Street

Draft By-law - Alteration of Yarmouth Road (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999,in its consideration of a Notice of Motion moved by Councillor Disero and seconded by Councillor Fotinos, adopted the following:

"NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT, in accordance with Section 46 of the Procedural By-law, Clause No. 3 of Report No. 12 of The Toronto Community Council, headed 'Staggered Parking and Island Parking - Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue (Davenport)' be reopened.")

Subject to Council adopting the notice of motion submitted by Councillor Disero respecting the reconsideration of Clause 3 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, titled, "Staggered Parking and Island Parking - Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue (Davenport)" which was adopted, without amendment by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, the Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the draft by-law submitted by the City Solicitor be received;

(2)the amendments to the parking regulations identified in Appendix A of the report (September 30, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, contained in Clause No. 3 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, be approved; and

(3)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.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause No. 3 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, titled, "Island Parking - Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue (Davenport)" , which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on January 26, February 2, February 9, and February 16 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, Clause No. 3, as adopted by Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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 Yarmouth Road by narrowing the pavement on the south side of Yarmouth Road west of Shaw Street.

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-3" (Pavement Narrowing) the following:

(Column 1

Street)
(Column 2

Side or Location
(Column 3

Width)
(Column 4

From)
(Column 5

To)
(Column 6 Drawing No./Date)

Yarmouth Road


south from: 7.3 m to: 4.8 m - 7.3 m

a point 80 m west of Shaw Street


a point 10 metres further west


421F-5254 dated September 1998

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 3 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, titled "Staggered Parking and Island Parking - Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue (Davenport)":

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue by the introduction of staggered parking and island parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $3,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Yarmouth Road between Shaw Street and Ossington Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below:

"The narrowing of the pavement on the south side of Yarmouth Road from a point 80 m west of Shaw Street to a point 10 metres further west, from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 4.8 metres to 7.3 metres, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5254 dated September 1998";

(2)That coincident with the pavement narrowing identified in Recommendation 1 above, the amendments to the parking regulations identified in Appendix A of this report to introduce staggered and island parking be approved;

(3)That implementation of this proposal be subject to a favourable poll of residents (carried out under the provisions of the Speed Hump Policy as approved by the former City of Toronto Council) ; 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 might be required.

Comments:

Councillor Betty Disero requested staff assistance in developing a staggered parking plan for Yarmouth Road between Shaw Street and Ossington Avenue in order to provide a measure of traffic calming and increase parking.

Existing Conditions:

This section of Yarmouth Road has a pavement width of 7.3 metres, a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates one-way westbound. The following regulations are in effect on this block:

North side:

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April 1 to November 30, inclusive.

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

South side:

-Parking is prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, April 1^st to November 30^th, 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. Under the current alternate side parking system there are 20 parking spaces on the north side of this block and 22 on the south side. As of September 15, 1998, 19 permits had been issued.

Staggered Parking Plan:

The traffic calming concept proposed for Yarmouth Road, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5254, dated September 1998 consists of a staggered parking configuration using one traffic calming island in front of Premises Nos. 197 and 199 in conjunction with "island parking" in the vicinity of Premises Nos. 185 to 189 and 206 to 208 Yarmouth Road. The traffic calming island will divert vehicles laterally across the street, providing an element of traffic calming year-round while providing protection for parked vehicles in the vicinity of Premises No. 199. The two parking islands would provide extra traffic calming during the non-winter months (April 2 to November 30) only, by narrowing the road. The proposal will result in a approximately 24 parking spaces year-round, and 4 additional parking spaces for the exclusive use of parking permit holders in the non-winter months (April 1 to November 30) only.

Whenever speed humps are being proposed, residents are polled under the provisions of the former City of Toronto speed hump policy. This leads to a general acceptance amongst residents of the outcome of the poll, and can prevent subsequent criticism of the public consultation process. While the installation of a traffic calming island as proposed on Yarmouth Road does not require a poll under existing policies, it would nevertheless seem prudent to poll residents. A City poll should be conducted of adult residents (18 years of age and older) of households directly abutting the affected street and 60 percent of those responding should support the plan in order to authorize the installation.

The island proposed onYarmouth Road to frame the parking as set out above constitutes an alteration 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

Appendix / Map

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix / Map

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix / Map

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 11, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a poll of residents and to advise that the conditions for the implementation of staggered and island parking on Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue have been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, in adopting Clause 3 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 12, entitled, "Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue - Proposed Implementation of Staggered Parking and Island Parking (Ward 21- Davenport)", approved the alteration of the pavement on the above-noted street, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents carried out under the provisions of the Speed Hump Policy as approved by the former City of Toronto Council. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above was advertised in daily newspapers on January 26, February 2, 9 and will again be placed on February 16, 1999.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations and that 60 percent of valid responses to the poll endorse the traffic calming proposal.

A mail-in poll of adult residents was conducted between January 7 and February 5, 1999. Approximately 30 percent of eligible voters returned responses, the results of which were as follows:

No. of

Valid Responses Percentage

(i)In support of the staggered and island parking proposal2560%

(ii)Opposed to the staggered and island parking proposal1740%

In light of the favourable response to the poll noted above, Works staff will undertake the installation of the staggered and island parking proposal as soon as practicable.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Joe Gallippi,

Transportation Technologist

Tel. No. 392-7711

--------

Tree Removal - 9 Pote Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 9 Pote Avenue, conditional on:

(ii)the applicant agreeing to plant replacement trees as indicated in the site plan prepared by Peter Higgins, Architect, most recently revised January 11, 1999.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property in order to construct a new house has been filed by Mr. Richard James Cavendish, owner of 9 Pote Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4N 2S6.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on:

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

( ii)the applicant agreeing to plant replacement trees as indicated in the site plan prepared by Peter Higgins, Architect, most recently revised January 11, 1999; or

(2)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign plans for the new house construction.

Comments:

The applicant is proposing to construct a new house on the property that would require the removal of two blue spruce trees. The trees in question are in fair condition and have diameters of thirty-one and thirty-three centimetres. The two trees are located in close proximity to the existing house. The construction activity proposed for this property will be extensive and it will not be possible to protect the spruce trees from injury. The landscape plan that accompanies the application indicates extensive replanting with seventeen coniferous trees. The implementation of the landscape plan will compliment the proposed new house and improve the tree canopy in the neighbourhood.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the trees in question. The application did include several letters from neighbours stating that they have no objection to the proposed new house construction.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

392-6644

Implications of Permitting Front Yard Parking

Where There are More Permit Parking Spaces Available

than Permits Issued, on the Side of the Street Where Permit

Parking is Authorized (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)with respect to Davenport, North Toronto and East Toronto, Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to permit front yard parking on the same side as permit parking, where there are more spaces than permits issued; and

(2)with respect to Trinity-Niagara, Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, not be amended to permit front yard parking on the same side as permit parking, notwithstanding that there may be more spaces than permits issued, except where there is no other on-site parking.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the implications of permitting front yard parking where there are more permit parking spaces available than permits issued, on the side of the street where permit parking is authorized. As this is a matter of public interest, this report is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council not consider amending Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit front yard parking on the same side of the street as permit parking, notwithstanding that there may be more spaces than permits issued.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14, 1998, had before it our report (September 8, 1998), respecting Ward Councillors' Views on Local Options for Front Yard Parking and Changes to the Current By-law and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the implications of permitting front yard parking where there are more permit parking spaces available than permits issued, on the side of the street where permit parking is authorized.

Comments:

General Information About Permit Parking:

The objective of the permit parking program is to provide a rational allocation of the on-street parking supply to residents in need of parking because of lack of on-site parking.

Permit parking was implemented in 1961 to respond to the needs of residents who did not have on-site parking available. Special legislation was obtained from the Province to allow the City to establish periods of time when only permit holders can park on the street. During non-permit parking times, permit holders can still park on the street, but parking is also available to the general public. Permit holders are also exempted from limited duration parking periods, such as one hour parking, and from paying fees at parking meters.

Currently, approximately 70 percent of the streets in Wards 19 through 26 are licensed for permit parking, with a total of 60,302 legal on-street permit parking spaces, of which, 52,602 legal on-street parking spaces are allocated in 70 permit parking areas and 7,700 legal on-street parking spaces are allocated on 174 streets authorized for permit parking.

An on-street permit parking space is considered a parking space when it is listed in the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, as the maximum number of available spaces to be issued on a street or portion of a street (average length of a space 5.5 metres).

Adequacy of Parking Supply:

At the end of the November 30, 1998 renewal term, there were 53,131 permit holders recorded on the permit holders file representing 88.1 percent space allocation in Wards 19 through 26 (the former City of Toronto). In addition, 1493 people were on the permit parking wait list for an on-street parking permit. Details of the space allocation is provided below:

No. of areas authorized for permit parking	70
No. of areas that reached over 80% space allocation	51
No. of streets authorized for permit parking	174
No. of streets that reached over 80% space allocation	65

The availability of on-street parking has almost reached its full capacity. There are currently 47 unique combinations of permit parking operating hours which were developed over time, in consultation with area Councillors and community representatives in response to specific concerns from resident permit holders of their inability to park on their street because of transient parkers, visitors, tradespeople etc.

Impact of Front Yard Parking on Permit Parking:

As indicated earlier, the availability of on-street parking almost reached its full capacity. Permitting front yard parking on the side of the street where permit parking is authorized further reduces the already congested streets/areas for resident permit holders. This Department already receives complaints from residents with on-street parking permits having to compete for parking with visitors, transient parkers, tradespeople etc. The 47 Schedules of permit parking hours is a reflection of the communities' needs.

Front yard parking is for the exclusive use of the homeowner whereas permit parking on-street is used by any resident of the street/area and the general public.

Permitting front yard parking on the same side of the street as permit parking would further burden these permit holders and it is not advisable.

Conclusions:

The amendments in 1996 to the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, preserved the Permit Parking Program as a public asset and the desirability of maintaining attractive streetscapes by having landscaped open space and trees. To preserve on-street parking spaces and to recognize the importance of maintaining the public parking supply, it is recommended that front yard parking not be permitted on the same side of the street as permit parking notwithstanding that there may be more spaces than permits issued.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

--------

-(February 14, 1999) from Mr. David Vallance;

-(February 15, 1999) from Ms. Diane B. Mitchell;

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. Storm McGregor;

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. Mark Gane; and

-(February 16, 1999) from Ms. Gladys Kirk.

Mr. Mark Gane appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Councillor Miller read a statement from Ms. Gladys Kirk respecting this matter.

Commercial Boulevard Parking -

Edwin Avenue Flankage of 1635 Dupont Street

(Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Edwin Street flankage of 1635 Dupont Street, notwithstanding the negative results of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Edwin Avenue flankage of 1635 Dupont Street because of a negative public poll. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Edwin Street flankage of 1635 Dupont Street; or

(2)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Edwin Street flankage of 1635 Dupont Street, notwithstanding the negative results of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Paul Genus, in his letter dated January 19, 1999 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his application for commercial boulevard parking on the Edwin Street flankage of 1635 Dupont Street.

Comments:

Mr. Paul Genus, owner of Boxes R Us, 1635 Dupont Street, Toronto, Ontario M6P 3S9, submitted an application on September 18, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Edwin Street flankage of 1635 Dupont Street for the parking of 2 motor vehicles positioned parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

We have examined this application and have determined that it meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in � 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

As the proposed boulevard parking flanks a residential district, the Municipal Code requires a public poll to be conducted of owners and tenants within 100 metres of the proposed parking. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated October 28, 1998 was conducted on the east side from 65 to 101 Edwin Avenue, including 1625 Dupont Street and on the west side from 84 to 106 Edwin Avenue, to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed1 in favour1	2
No response	116
Returned by post office	15
Total ballots issued	133

Mr. Genus was advised in writing on December 23, 1998 that given the response to the public poll did not indicate neighbourhood support of his application, a licence could not be issued.

While I can appreciate that the response to the poll was low in comparison to the total ballots issued, as Mr. Genus indicates, the Municipal Code stipulates that the if the majority of the ballots cast are not in favour of the application, the application must be denied.

For the information of Toronto Community Council, in response to concerns raised by Mr. Genus concerning the condition of a City-owned tree and boulevard on the Edwin Avenue flankage, arrangements were made with Community Services, Parks and Recreation to remove the dead tree and to undertake improvements to the area by City crews. These improvements included repaving of the boulevard in asphalt and the planting of 2 trees.

Given the negative response to the poll and because of on-going unauthorized parking and to protect the streetscape improvements, concrete bollards were installed to the rear of the City sidewalk by City crews on December 23 and 24, 1998.

On Appendix 'A', I have included the newly planted trees and position of the concrete bollards.

Our records show that a licence for commercial boulevard parking was issued on February 19, 1990 to a former business operator of 1635 Dupont Street for the parking of 1 passenger motor vehicle, positioned parallel to the travelled roadway. The licence was cancelled on April 9, 1992, as the occupant vacated the property.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Genus a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Edwin Avenue flankage of 1635 Dupont Street because the poll result was negative.

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

--------

(A copy of an appeal, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 17, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1635 Dupont Street

Commercial Boulevard Parking -

Mark Street Flankage - 25 Defries Street (Don River)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Mark Street flankage of 25 Defries Street, notwithstanding the location has insufficient depth to accommodate a vehicle parallel or right angled to the travelled roadway, and that such approval be subject to the applicant entering into an agreement and paying the applicable fees as set out in Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Mark Street flankage of 25 Defries Street, due to the location having insufficient depth to accommodate a vehicle parallel or right angled to the travelled roadway. 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 Mark Street flankage of 25 Defries Street; or

(2)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Mark Street flankage of 25 Defries Street, notwithstanding the location has insufficient depth to accommodate a vehicle parallel or right angled to the travelled roadway, and that such approval be subject to the applicant entering into an agreement and paying the applicable fees as set out in Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Lindsay Gillespie, President of Music Manufacturing Services, in his letter of December 10, 1998, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his application for commercial boulevard parking on the Mark Street flankage of 25 Defries Street.

Comments:

Mr. Lindsay Gillespie, President of Music Manufacturing Services, 25 Defries Street, Toronto, Ontario M5A 3R4, submitted an application on September 29, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Mark Street flankage of 25 Defries Street, for the parking of 6 motor vehicles positioned parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').

There is no sidewalk at this location and there is only 2.66 metres from the building wall to the curb. Taking into consideration the 0.91 metres "No Parking" zone back of the curb, the 1.75 metres of available width of boulevard would be insufficient to accommodate a vehicle positioned parallel or right angled to the travelled roadway without interfering with pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Gillespie was advised in writing on December 7, 1998, that given the lack of available space, the location was not eligible for consideration of commercial boulevard parking privileges.

To assist the Committee with the evaluation of the points raised by Mr. Lindsay Gillespie in his letter of December 10, 1998 (Appendix 'B'), they are summarized below along with staff's response.

Concern No. 1The exact parking applied for was permitted prior to taking possession of 25 Defries Street. As the previous owner did not post signs, I was unaware that a permit was required

Staff response:A commercial boulevard parking licence was issued in October 1989, to a former occupant of the property, for the parking of four passenger motor vehicles positioned parallel to the travelled roadway, notwithstanding that the location did not comply with the criteria of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalk. In reviewing the file, approval was given based on an executive decision. The licence was cancelled in October 1993, when the Department was notified that the property was vacated.

Concern No. 2Mark Street east of Defries Street, the stretch of road that runs parallel to the proposed boulevard parking area (Mark Street flankage), is a dead end street with no through traffic

Staff Response:Mark Street is a short street that extends from River Street easterly to the dead end of Mark Street (Appendix 'C'). If commercial boulevard parking was granted, this would not have a negative impact on the traffic movement on this street.

Concern No. 3A commercial neighbour on Mark Street has obtained permits for boulevard parking with the exact setback from the curb as my building

Staff Response:The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of February 4 and 6, 1980, approved commercial boulevard parking privileges to H.A. Kidd and Company Limited, fronting 2 Mark Street, for the parking of 8 passenger motor vehicles on the City sidewalk to be positioned parallel to the travelled roadway, notwithstanding that the parking did not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (formerly Streets By-law No. 12519). The width of the City sidewalk at this location is approximately 2.46 metres.

One of the provisions of the Municipal Code is that licences may not be issued for commercial boulevard parking on any portion of the boulevard between the curb and the sidewalk. There are no provisions within the Municipal Code to allow parking on the sidewalk.

Conclusions:

The proposed boulevard parking area is on the Mark Street flankage (south side). This section of the street is a dead end and there is no pedestrian traffic. The parking of vehicles on the boulevard at this location would not impact negatively on the City's right-of-way.

Staff cannot issue Mr. Gillespie a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Mark Street flankage of 25 Defries Street because the location does not comply with the criteria set out in � 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

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

--------

(A copy Appendix B, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for this meeting on February 17, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix "A" - mark street

Commercial Boulevard Parking -

8 and 10 Brock Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 8 and 10 Brock Avenue, subject to the applicant entering into an agreement and paying the applicable fees as set out in Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 8 and 10 Brock Avenue, because the properties have legal non-conforming use status. In addition, our review has determined that these locations have insufficient depth to accommodate vehicles parallel or right angled to the travelled roadway. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council recommend that City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 8 and 10 Brock Avenue.

Background:

Mr. John Colautti, acting on behalf of Mr. Sheldon Fainer, owner of Designer Fabrics, in his letter of December 5, 1998, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his client's application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 8 and 10 Brock Avenue. Furthermore, Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski, in his communication of December 15, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has also requested a report on the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 8 and 10 Brock Avenue.

Comments:

Mr. Sheldon Fainer, owner of Designer Fabrics, 1360 Queen Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6K 1C7, submitted an application on October 19, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking fronting 8 and 10 Brock Avenue for the parking of 2 motor vehicles.

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.

The properties are situated within an area zoned R4 Z1.0 which were used as dwelling units. Urban Planning and Development Services have advised that the proposed use of the premises as a retail store and office space are not permitted in a residential zone. However, under Building Permit No. 410479 and Committee of Adjustment decision A723-97, the alteration of the existing dwelling units at 8 and 10 Brock Avenue for use as retail store and office space will be permitted under 1360 Queen Street West address. Alterations to the existing dwelling units at 8 and 10 Brock Avenue have commenced and the work is on-going.

Section 313-42(F) of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313 states that parking on boulevards in residential areas where the property is used for legal non-conforming 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.

Accordingly, Mr. Fainer was advised in writing on November 12, 1998, that given the locations do not meet the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the locations were not eligible for consideration of commercial boulevard parking privileges.

In addition, the Municipal Code requires a 0.91 metre "No Parking" set back from the back of the City sidewalk. A review of the locations has determined that there is only 4.3 metres from the building wall to the back of the City sidewalk. Taking into consideration the 0.91 metre "No Parking" zone, the 3.39 metres of available depth of boulevard would be insufficient to accommodate a vehicle positioned right angled to the roadway. It should also be noted that due to the narrowness of the lots and the physical characteristics of the location (i.e. existing entrances, presence of a 0.7 metre diameter City-owned tree fronting 10 Brock Avenue), consideration cannot be given to the parking of vehicles in a parallel fashion.

For the information of the Toronto Community Council, on Appendix 'B', I have shown the frontages of 8 and 10 Brock Avenue, together with the physical limitations of the sites.

As another determining factor is the lack of available space, the locations are not eligible to have boulevard parking privileges. Regrettably, this was not conveyed to Mr. Fainer in our letter dated November 12, 1998.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Fainer a licence for commercial boulevard parking fronting 8 and 10 Brock Avenue because the use of the properties for retail and office space have legal non-conforming status. Furthermore, there is insufficient space to accommodate vehicles parked parallel to or right angled to the roadway and still meet the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

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

--------

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on February 17, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix "B" - Brock Avenue

Boulevard Cafe Operation - Via Italia Flankage -

1239A St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the applicant be informed that his establishment is to be closed and cleared by midnight, seven days a week.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the applicant's request to operate the boulevard cafe on the Via Italia flankage of 1239A St. Clair Avenue West, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's request to operate a proposed boulevard cafe on the Via Italia flankage of 1239A St. Clair Avenue West, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council deny the applicant's request to operate the boulevard cafe on the Via Italia flankage of 1239A St. Clair Avenue West, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; or

(2)(a)Should City Council approve the boulevard cafe application on the Via Italia flankage of 1239A St. Clair Avenue West, the cafe will be required to close and clear by 11:00 p.m., 7 days a week, as set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back at the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

Mr. Peter DeCicco, owner of 1294789 Ontario Ltd., o/a Pete's Donuts and Deli, 1239A St. Clair Avenue West, has requested permission to operate his boulevard cafe 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Comments:

Mr. Peter DeCicco, 1294789 Ontario Ltd., o/a Pete's Donuts and Deli, 1239A St. Clair Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario M6E 1B5, submitted an application on October 7, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Via Italia flankage of 1239A St. Clair Avenue West. In addition, Mr. DeCicco requested to operate the boulevard cafe 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 53.86 square metres, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 12 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 48 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafe privileges as set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

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

A poll dated November 4, 1998 to December 4, 1998 was conducted on the west side of Via Italia from 106 to 116, including 1239 and 1241 St. Clair Avenue West, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed0 in favour 1	1
No response	19
Returned by post office	5
Total ballots issued	25

Boulevard cafes on residential flankages are governed by the criteria set in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which requires that the owner or occupant shall ensure that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. or, where Council has authorized extended hours of operation, the closing time as authorized by Council.

For the information of the Toronto Community Council, Via Italia, between St. Clair Avenue West and Mackay Avenue, is comprised of commercial properties and a City of Toronto Parking Authority lot on the east side, and a bank directly across from the proposed cafe on the west side with series of 6 residential properties southerly thereafter, as shown on Appendix 'B'. The distance from the proposed cafe to the first residential property on the west side of Via Italia measures approximately 23.6 metres.

Our records indicate that a licence for a boulevard cafe was issued on May 24, 1996 with an 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction to a former restaurant operator of 1239A St. Clair Avenue West. The cafe licence was cancelled on March 24, 1997, as the occupant vacated the property.

The City Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 120 metres along both sides of Via Italia from the proposed cafe area advising of Mr. DeCicco's request.

Conclusions:

iven that the proposed boulevard cafe would be in close proximity of residential properties, 24 hours operation would not be advisable.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council should decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the extended hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Via Italia flankage of 1239A St. Clair Avenue West.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

--------

Mr. Peter DeCicco, applicant appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendices A & B - St. Clair Avenue West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendices A & B - St. Clair Avenue West

Narrowing and Realignment of the Pavement on

Sudbury Street Between King Street West and

Dovercourt Road (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that

(1)the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 be adopted; and

(2)the traffic lights, to be paid for by the developer, be installed concurrently with the opening of the project.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing and realignment of the pavement on Sudbury Street to provide improved pedestrian amenity and enhanced landscaping treatments in conjunction with the development of the adjacent properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the streetscape improvements and pavement realignment are to be borne by the developer of the abutting property pursuant to Site Plan Undertakings. Funds to cover the cost of the reconstruction of the Sudbury Street pavement have been accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to narrow and realign the pavement on Sudbury Street, described as follows:

"the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 11.7 metres to a width varying from 8.5 metres to 10.5 metres on Sudbury Street from King Street West to Dovercourt Road, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2211, dated December 30, 1998"; and

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

Comments:

The Statements of Approval in respect of the housing developments at Premises Nos. 12 and 15 Sudbury Street, issued on December 10, 1998 and October 29, 1998, respectively, provide that the owners shall be responsible for the costs of certain municipal services including among other things, the cost of realigning the pavement, reconstructing the curbs and sidewalks and providing streetscape improvements on both sides of Sudbury Street between King Street West and Dovercourt Road.

The existing pavement on Sudbury Street has a width of 11.7 metres within a right-of-way of 19.1 metres. The street functions as a two-way collector and parking is prohibited on the south side. One hour parking is allowed on the north side of the street between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. A minor narrowing of the pavement has been proposed in order to provide improved pedestrian amenities, facilitate on street lay-by parking on the south side as well as to introduce an element of traffic calming recognizing the changing nature of the street. The narrowing of the pavement as described in Recommendation No. 1 and shown on the attached print of sketch No. SK-2211, will not adversely affect the functioning of the street.

One key aspect of the functional plan is the realignment of the Sudbury Street pavement at its intersection with King Street West. This realignment is required in connection with the planned signalization of this intersection which is also to be paid for by the developer. I will be reporting further on this aspect as well as any necessary or associated operational changes on Sudbury Street (changes to traffic and parking regulations and the introduction of a bike lane) in due course.

In accordance with the obligations set out in the Statements of Approval, the developer is responsible for all costs associated with the Sudbury Street pavement narrowing and realignment as well as all associated streetscape improvements on both sides of the street. The work will be implemented by the City early in the 1999 construction season in connection with the planned pavement rehabilitation, funds for which have been included in the 1999 Capital Budget request.

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

The narrowing and realignment of the pavement on Sudbury Street constitutes 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.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra

Manager, Infrastructure Asset Management and Programming

392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

sudbury street

Status Report: Revised Application -

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and

Site Plan Approval - 9 Jackes Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the report dated March 1, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to settle, at the Ontario Municipal Board, substantially in accordance with this report, appeals made with respect to Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 198003 respecting 9 Jackes Avenue; and

(2)the City enter into a Section 37 Agreement with the owner to give effect to those provisions set out in Sections 3 and 4 and Appendix B of this report, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.")

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to:

(1)continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal;

(2)report directly to Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives and on the terms of a settlement, if any; and

(3)report directly to Council on the issues raised by the deputants, and in particular, the issue of compensation to be provided by the owner of 9 Jackes Avenue in exchange for increased density, having regard for other precedents in the area.

The Toronto Community Council further reports having taken the following action:

(1)deferred the following motion by Councillor Adams, and requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the Toronto Community Council on the proposed use of funds general from cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication in the former City of Toronto, such report to include the amount of monies generated by parks' levies on a ward-by-ward basis:

"That any parks levy funds raised from redevelopment of the site be expended in the Midtown Ward."

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor and the Chief Building Official, to report to the Toronto Community Council, and subsequently to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, on the procedures for ensuring compliance with all site plan planning and other requirements and agreements entered into or imposed during the development process, were met prior to the issuance of building permits in the former City of Toronto, and how these procedures are being continued, or amended, post-amalgamation.

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

-Ms. Karen Redner, Summerhill Tenants Association;

-Mr. John Tyacke, Summerhill Residents Association;

-Ms. Janice Merson, Summerhill Residents Association;

-Mr. Barry De Zwaar, Summerhill Residents Association;

-Ms. Margaret P. Campbell, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Betty Postill, President, Bretton Place Tenants Association; and

-Mr. Tim Crooks, Toronto, Ontario.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 2, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend City staff continue to work with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal; and

(2)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to report to the March 2, 1999 City Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives and on the terms of a settlement, if any.

Comments:

1.0Background:

At its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, Toronto City Council adopted the recommendations contained in my Final Report on the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application for 9 Jackes Avenue. In doing so, Council refused the application and requested the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Planning and Development Services to oppose the appeal and referral to the Ontario Municipal Board. Council also instructed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal and to report back to Toronto Community Council with the outcome of the discussions.

2.0OMB Appeal/ Referral:

As indicated in my October 26, 1998 report, the applicant has appealed both the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to the Ontario Municipal Board.

A pre-hearing was held on November 25, 1998 which, among other matters, identified the participants, issues to be considered and the starting date for a hearing. A second pre-hearing has been scheduled for March 29, 1999 to finalize the issues list. The hearing is to begin May 10, 1999 and has been scheduled 18 days.

3.0Revised Plans:

The applicant submitted revised plans on November 16, 1998. The revised proposal is for the construction of a 12 storey (38.5 metres) residential building containing 38 dwelling units. The proposed gross floor area for the building would be 4,355 square metres which represents a density 3.42 times the area of the lot. Parking for 43 cars (38 resident and 5 visitor spaces) would be provided in two levels of underground parking. Vehicle access would be via a driveway from Jackes Avenue.

Even though the applicant has made some positive improvements to the proposed development such as increasing the side yard setbacks; increasing the front yard setback; and reducing the density, the proposal continues to have negative impacts in regards to sun/shade, views and overlook. Therefore, I cannot support the revised proposal in its current form.

4.0Discussions on Alternative Development Concepts:

As requested by City Council discussions have continued with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives. The group has met four times to discuss alternative development concepts and to explore the opportunity for settlement. At these meetings various development concepts were discussed, including a townhouse scenario and modified tower proposal. The meetings so far have been productive and have given both sides the opportunity put forward their issues and concerns. At this time no final resolution has been reached, however, the applicant has been encouraged by area residents to continue to detail the modified tower proposal. Planning staff would be able to support, in principle, either the townhouse or modified tower proposals. I am recommending that discussions continue and that I report directly to the March 2, 1999 City Council meeting on the outcome of these meetings.

Conclusion:

The revised proposal is not acceptable in its current form. As the discussions with the applicant and the neighbourhood representatives are continuing and have a positive tone, I am recommending that these discussions continue. However, given the timing of the second pre-hearing date set by the OMB, I am recommending that I report directly to the March 2, 1999 City Council meeting on the outcome of these discussions, including any possible settlement and on the possible use of Section 37 of the Planning Act.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

E-mail: gbyrne@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

9 Jackes Avenue

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 54 of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Official Plan and Zoning By-law Application - 9 Jackes Avenue (Midtown)":

--------

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the report dated October 26, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)City Council refuse Application No. 198003 in its current form;

(2)City Council request the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant, for the reasons outlined in this report;

(3)City Council request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal; and

(4)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to report to the Toronto Community Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives, including possible terms of a settlement, if any.' ")

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report directly to Council on the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for 9 Jackes Avenue.

________

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

Purpose:

To advise City Council on the status of the Official Plan amendment, rezoning application and Ontario Municipal Board appeals for 9 Jackes Avenue and to seek authority to report directly to City Council on this application, if timing requires.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report directly to City Council, if required, on the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for 9 Jackes Avenue.

Background:

Shane Baghai Construction Contracting Inc., 1131A Leslie Street, Suite 220, Toronto, Ontario M3C 2K6 on behalf of Empire Jackes Properties Inc., 9104 Yonge Street, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4C 6Z9 made an application to the City of Toronto for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for 9 Jackes Avenue. The application, for the construction of a new 10 storey residential building containing 19 units was submitted February 25, 1998.

A preliminary planning report, dated March 18, 1998 was submitted to Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 1, 1998. Toronto Community adopted the recommendations contained in the preliminary report and requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to investigate the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure appropriate community benefits related to this development.

A public meeting was held on June 9, 1998 in the community to discuss the application. Approximately 80 people attended the meeting. The major issues raised at the meeting were the size of the proposed development and the potential impact on adjacent properties.

A notice of appeal was received by the City Clerk on July 14, 1998, from Murray H. Chusid, Solicitor for Shane Baghai Construction Contracting Inc. The applicant has appealed both the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. The appeals were made on the basis that the City had not made a decision within the statutory 90 days period set out in the Planning Act.

Comments:

The applicant has expressed a willingness to continue to work with the City on resolving the planning issues raised by both this Department and the local neighbours. Staff have recently met with the applicant's planner and architect to discuss the concerns with the current application. In the meeting the applicant proposed some revised concepts for discussion. These revised concepts are still preliminary and lack details required to undertake a proper analysis.

Staff will continue to work with the applicant and the local community to try and develop a project that is supportable.

Currently no date has been set by the Ontario Municipal Board. However according to discussions with OMB staff a pre-hearing could be scheduled for November or December of this year. To ensure that the City's interests are protected, I am recommending that, if required, I report directly to City Council on the original application or on any revised application that may be submitted. Otherwise, I will be reporting further on this application to the Toronto Community Council.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-0881

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: gbyrne@toronto.ca

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 26, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend refusal of the application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval for 9 Jackes Avenue, in its current form and to authorize City staff to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)refuse Application No. 198003 in its current form;

(2)request the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant, for the reasons outlined in this report;

(3)request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal; and

(4)direct the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to Toronto Community Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives and including possible and terms of a settlement, if any.

Comments:

(1)Site

The site is located on the south side of Jackes Avenue, just east of Yonge Street. The site has an area of approximately 1,272 square metres. The recently demolished three storey building that was located on the site was used as the offices of Boy Scouts Canada. (See Key Map)

The site is located two blocks north of the Summerhill subway station and three blocks south of the St. Clair subway station.

(2)Area

The property is located on the top of the east-west escarpment which marks the ancient shoreline of Lake Iroquois. The site is relatively flat, however, immediately to the south the lands slope down approximately 9 to 13 metres to Woodland Avenue East. (see Map 2)

Jackes Avenue is the boundary line between the High Density Residence Area to the north and the Low Density Residence Area to the south. Immediately to the north of the site are two apartment buildings at 44 Jackes Avenue (23 storeys) and 33 Rosehill Avenue (28 storeys). Abutting the site to the east is 33 Jackes Avenue, a 10 storey residential building and a 3 storey, historic building used as the offices for Frontier College, and to the west is 7 Jackes Avenue, a 28 storey residential building. To the south and on the bottom of the escarpment is a five storey residential building at 22 Woodlawn Avenue East. Other uses fronting onto the north side of Woodlawn Avenue East include the undeveloped rear yards of the apartments at 7 and 33 Jackes Avenue, a 4 storey residential building and 3 house-form buildings (immediately adjacent to David A Balfour Park). Properties on the south side of Woodlawn Avenue East primarily accommodate detached houses.

(3)Proposal

This application is for the construction of a 10 storey residential building containing 19 units. The proposed gross floor area for the building would be 5,162 square metres which represents a density 4.06 times the area of the lot. Parking for 50 cars (48 resident and 2 visitor spaces) would be provided in two levels of underground parking. Vehicle access would be via a driveway from Jackes Avenue. It is proposed that 8 bicycles parking spaces would be provided in the below grade lockers.

(4)Applicable Planning Controls

Under the Yonge-St.Clair Part II Official Plan the property is designated as a Low Density Residence Area. This designation permits residential uses at a maximum density of 1.0 times the area of the lot.

The north side of Jackes Avenue is the boundary line between the High Density Residence Area to the north and the Low Density Residence Area to the south. (See Map 1) The High Density Residence Area permits uses at a maximum density of 2.0 times the area of the lot.

Under the Zoning By-law the site is zoned R2 Z1.0. This zoning permits a full range of residential uses, including an apartment building, up to a maximum density of one times the area of the lot. The maximum height permitted on the site is 11.0 metres. (See Key Map)

The north side of Jackes is zoned R2 Z2.0 and has a height limit of 16.0 metres. This zoning would permit residential buildings with a maximum density of two times the area of the lot. The area to the south of the property and south of the Lake Iroquois shoreline is zoned R2 Z0.6 with a height limit of 11.0 metres. This zoning would permit residential uses up to a density of 0.6 times the area of the lot.

(5)OMB Appeal/Referral

The City was recently notified that the OMB has set aside November 25, 1998 for a Prehearing Conference respecting this application. Among other matters, the Prehearing Conference will deal with the identification of participants and issues and the starting date for a hearing.

(6)Public Meeting

On June 9, 1998, a public meeting was held in the community to discuss the application. Approximately 80 people attended the meeting. The majority of those in attendance were opposed to the development in its present form. The primary concerns were the proposal's height and density; loss of views; shadowing impacts; possible traffic impacts; and the location and amount of visitor parking.

(7)Civic Comments (Appendix A)

The application was circulated to the various Civic Service Areas for comments.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises that the 50 parking spaces proposed will meet the estimated parking demand generated by this building (21 spaces, including 19 for residents and 2 for visitors). However, a physical separation is required between the residents' and the residential visitor component of the parking garage in order to ensure the residents' spaces are available at all times. The Commissioner also advises that a garbage room/recycling room with a minimum size of 15 square metres and the installation of a carousel bagger in the garbage room will be required.

The Commission of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the landscape plan submitted with the application is not acceptable and has requested that the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan for review and approval. The Commissioner has recommended that the applicant be advised of their comments respecting City owned trees and of Chapter 331 of the Municipal Code regarding the preservation of significant trees on private property.

The Zoning Review, dated February 28, 1998, indicated that additional information was required in order to provide a detailed review. The additional information requested from the applicant has yet to be submitted.

(8)Planning Comments

As discussed in the Preliminary Report, the proposed density and height (4.2 times coverage and 32 metres respectively) significantly exceed the maximums permitted by current planning controls and must be assessed in the existing physical context and in terms of the City's planning and built form objectives.

(a)Siting and Landscaping

The building is set back 11.6 metres from the streetline which is consistent with the setback of the historic building to the east. However, the building covers virtually the full width of the lot and would not permit appropriate landscaping/screening. I would also note that the applicant has yet to provide detailed landscape/planting plans.

(b)Height and Density

The gross floor area of the proposed apartment building is 5,162 square metres or 4.06 times the area of the lot which exceeds the maximum permitted density of 1.0 times by 3.06 times the area of the lot. The height of the proposed building is 32 metres which exceeds the permitted height of 11 metres by 21 metres.

Adjacent buildings fronting onto Jackes Avenue range in height and density between 2.5 and 28 storeys and 1.31 and 3.65 times coverage (See Table 1). However, these developments are generally characterized by much larger lots and generous setbacks which help mitigate their potential negative impacts. The proposed development would occupy a comparatively small lot and the proposed density of 4.06 times the lot area would exceed the density of all other buildings in the immediate vicinity. As a result of its density, height and massing, the proposed building would cast undesirable shadows, block primary views and set an undesirable precedent, as discussed below.

Further, because the front wall of the proposed 10 storey building does not step back at any point along its front elevation, it is incompatible with the 3 storey designated historic building to the east.

c)Sun/Shade

The proposed massing and height of the building will have a negative impact on the public realm and on the adjacent property at 33 Jackes Avenue. Sunlight testing of the proposal, shows a significant shadow would be cast across the sidewalk on the north side of Jackes Avenue on the equinox (September 21 and March 21) during the midday. The building should be designed so that it would be under a 44 degree angular plane from the north curb of Jackes Avenue as this would ensure a 3 hour sunlight window on the north sidewalk on the equinox.

At the neighbourhood meeting the residents of 33 Jackes Avenue expressed concern that the building will cast a shadow on their building in the late afternoon. The north-west face of the building at 33 Jackes Avenue currently only receives direct sunlight in the late afternoon because of the north-west orientation of the windows and rooms and the shadow cast by the 22 storey building at 7 Jackes Avenue. Sunlight testing of the proposed development shows that the proposed building would cast further shadow on 33 Jackes Avenue in the late afternoon.

(d)Views

A major concern raised by the adjacent residents was loss of views due to the proposed 10 storey building. The building at 33 Jackes Avenue has a unique design in so far as the principal rooms and views are oriented at 45 degrees to the street and property line. Each floor has 4 apartments and one-quarter of the apartments have their primary window views to the north-west, over the subject site. The residents have argued that if the building was built within or in closer conformity to the current height restrictions existing views would not be as negatively impacted.

A computer model has been generated to help in the review of the proposed development. Specifically, the model helps analyse the impact of the proposed building on views from 33 Jackes Avenue. The model examines what a person would see if they were standing in the living room (approximately 1 metre from the window at a 45 degree angle) looking out at the 9 metre ( 3^rd floor) and 21 metre (9^th floor) levels. The results show that the proposed building has a negative relationship to the north-west facing units in 33 Jackes Avenue. Specifically, the analysis demonstrates that a large percentage of the sky views were blocked in each case.

The massing of the proposed building should be redesigned so as to minimize these negative impacts.

(e)Overlook

The proposed building would include balconies on both the east and west sides of the building. These balconies would be located in the middle of the building and project to the side lot lines. The location of these balconies would have a negative impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties.

(9)Development Guidelines

Although properties on the south side of Jackes Avenue are designated as Low Density Residence Area and zoned R2 Z1.0, existing developments do not, for the most part, reflect those designations. For example, 7 and 33 Jackes Avenue significantly exceed the permitted height and density limits (See Table 1). In terms of the physical characteristics of the properties and the buildings which they accommodate, properties on the south side of Jackes Avenue are generally comparable to those on the north side of the street, in the High Density Residence Area.

There is a significant downward slope, of between 9 and 13 metres, between Jackes Avenue and Woodlawn Avenue East. In terms of topography and to a lesser extent built form, the Low Density Residence Area properties on the north side of Woodlawn Avenue are arguably more closely related to the single family area to the south than to the apartments on top of the escarpment, on the south side of Jackes Avenue.

In light of the existing pattern of development and topography, I would be prepared to consider additional height and density on this site provided planning and built form issues discussed above are addressed. Generally stated, a building with a height and density above current permissions should have regard for the existing built form context, views from existing buildings, shadow impacts on the public sidewalk and on adjacent properties, privacy and potential influence on future development/redevelopment in the immediate vicinity.

Staff, in consultation with the applicant's representatives, have developed detailed guidelines for a potential tower development on the site which require some further testing. Staff have also begun work on guidelines to test the potential for a townhouse form of development. Staff are proposing to continue discussions with the applicant and area representatives to explore appropriate alternative development concepts.

(10)Possible Use of a Section 37 Agreement

At its meeting of April 1, 1998, the Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to investigate securing appropriate community benefits related to this development through section 37 of the Planning Act and to ensure that such agreement provides that benefits serve those in the neighbourhood in which the application is located. I will investigate the use of a section 37 Agreement for this application and report on this matter prior to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

Conclusion:

The application in its current form is not acceptable and should be refused. However, I would be prepared to consider a revised application with a density more typical of a development in a High Density Residence Area, provided certain planning and built form objectives are met. I am recommending that City Council refuse the application in its current form and instructed staff to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant.

I am also recommending that staff continue discussions with the applicant and area representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal for the site. I will report back to Council on the outcome of these discussions prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the original application.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-0881

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: Byrne@toronto.ca)

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	98003
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	February 25, 1998
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:9 Jackes Avenue.

Nearest Intersection:	South side of Jackes Avenue; east of Yonge Street.

Project Description:	To construct a residential condominium containing 19 units.

Applicant:

Shane Baghai Const. Inc.

1131A Leslie St. Unit #220

449-5994

Agent:

Shane Baghai Const. Inc.

1131A Leslie St. Unit #220

449-5994

Architect:

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: LDRA Site Specific Provision: No

Zoning District: R2 Z1.0 Historical Status: No

Height Limit (m): 11.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:
1272.8 m²
Height: Storeys: 10

Frontage: 22.5 m Metres: 32.28

Depth: 56.3 m

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: Parking Spaces: 50

Residential GFA: 5162.0 m² Loading Docks:

Non-Residential GFA: 5162.0 m² (number, type)

Total GFA:

DWELLING UNITS FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN

Tenure:
Condo
Land Use Above Grade Below Grade

2 Bedroom: 19 Residential 5162.0 m²

Total Units: 19

PROPOSED DENSITY

Residential Density: 4.06 Non-Residential Density: Total Density: 4.06

COMMENTS

Status:

Final Report.

Data valid:

October 16, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

(Appendix A)

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Parks, dated May 20, 1998.

This will acknowledge your Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning Circulation Form which was circulated on March 6, 1998 and contained new plans for the above noted application. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

(i)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.

(ii)If sufficient space exists, the applicant should provide large growing shade trees to be planted within the City road allowance as part of this application. A detailed landscape plan must be provided which indicates the exact location of all existing City owned trees and any proposed trees to be planted within the City road allowance including details with respect to proposed tree species, caliper and quantity. A planting plan should provide the best possible, natural, planting environment for trees. It is preferred that trees be planted in turf when possible. If no room exists for turf boulevards with trees, raised planting beds or continuous tree pits should be considered. Trees 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.

(iii)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.

(iv)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.

(v)I advise that the plans prepared by Rafael + Bigauskas Architects, date stamped as received on February 25, 1998 by Urban Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.

2.Buildings, dated July 7, 1998.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct 11 storey apartment building comprising 19 dwelling units and two levels of below grade parking.

Zoning Designation:R2 Z1.0Map:51J 321

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

Plans prepared by:Rafael + BigauskasPlans dated: February 28, 1998

Residential GFA:5162 m²

Zoning Review

The proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, however, additional information is required to provide a detailed review.

(1)Provide a fully dimensioned site plan that shows:

(a)the location of the proposed building in relation to the lot lines; and

(b)the proposed length and width of the subject building

(2)Provide a plan of survey that shows the distance the adjacent buildings are set back from their respective lot lines.

(3)Provide a plan of survey that shows "spot elevations" along the side lot lines.

(4)Indicate the amount of residential amenity space that is provided indoors and outdoors.

(5)Indicate if the proposed bicycle parking spaces are provided for both occupants and visitors.

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 the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

(4)The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

3.Works and Emergence Services, dated October 6, 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 Council's 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 measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e)provide and maintain a minimum of 24 parking spaces to serve the residential component of the project, including at least 19 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and at least 5 parking spaces for visitors;

f)provide and maintain a physical separation between the residents' and the residential visitor portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the residents' parking;

(g)construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5 percent within 6 m of the property line and not exceeding 15 percent along the remaining portions;

(h)provide and maintain a garbage/recycling room at least 15 square metres in size and install and maintain a carousel bagger in the garbage room;

(i)provide and maintain access to the garbage/recycling room to all residents in the building;

(j)designate a common garbage pick-up area adjacent to the sidewalk, within the Jackes Avenue road allowance;

(k)submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(i)a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario Co-ordinate System;

(ii)final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the building envelope plans and such plans should be submitted at least three weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council; and

(iii)a site servicing plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(l)submit and revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(e), 1(f), 1(h) and 1(j) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(2)That the owner be advised:

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

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

Comments:

Location

South side of Jackes Avenue, east of Yonge Street.

Proposal

Construction of a residential building containing 19 residential condominium units.

Parking and Access

two-level underground parking garage containing 50 parking spaces is proposed to serve this project, which satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this building for 21 spaces, including 19 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, based in part on the surveyed parking demand of residential condominium units, and 2 spaces for the residential visitors. As far as can be ascertained the Zoning By-law requirement is for 24 spaces, including 19 spaces for the residents and 5 for residential visitors.

The proposed parking supply and general layout and dimensions of the parking spaces are acceptable. However, a physical separation is required between the residents' (19 spaces) and the residential visitor component (5 spaces) of the parking garage in order to ensure the residents' spaces are available for their use at all times. The physical separation must be shown on the plans.

Access to the underground garage is proposed via a ramp from Jackes Avenue located at the east end of the site. The entrance to the underground garage is indicated on the plans as being level within the first 11.6 m of the streetline, increasing to a ramp slope of 15 percent thereafter. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with regular twice a week curbside refuse collection service on Jackes Avenue in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a garbage/recycling room with a minimum size of 15 m� for the storage of garbage and recyclable materials generated by the residents between collections and the installation and maintenance of a carousel bagger in the garbage room below the garbage chute. In addition, the plans should indicate a designated set out point within the Jackes Avenue road allowance, adjacent to the curb, where garbage bags and recyclable material can be placed on collection days.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development, however, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a site servicing plan to this Department for review and approval.

Work Within the Road Allowance

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received by this Department.

Appendix B

Table 1

Heights and Densities for Properties Fronting on Jackes Avenue

Address Use Height Density

7 Jackes Avenue residential 28.0 storeys 3.01

33 Jackes Avenue residential 10.0 storeys 2.51

35 Jackes Avenue non-residential 2.5 storeys 1.31

49 Jackes Avenue non-residential 3.5 storeys 1.54

44 Jackes Avenue residential 28.0 storeys 3.65*

Notes:*Density information for 44 Jackes Avenue was taken from a Preliminary Zoning Review notice dated February 13, 1998. All other use, height and density information was taken from the City's Central Property Register - Current Land Use File.)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

9 jackes avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

9 jackes avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

9 jackes avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

9 jackes avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 5

9 jackes avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 6

9 jackes avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 7

9 jackes avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 8

9 jackes avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 9

9 jackes avenue

-(February 14, 1999) from Mr. Matthias Schlaepfer;

-(February 15, 1999) from Ms. Karen E. Redner, Summerhill Tenants Association;

-(February 15, 1999) from Mr. John Tyacke, Summerhill Residents Association;

-(February 15, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Volk;

-(February 16, 1999) from Mr. Robert Campbell and Ms. Margaret Campbell-Pacsu;

-(February 17, 1999) from Ms. Janice Merson, President, Summerhill Residents' Association; and

-(February 17, 1999) from Mr. John Tyacke, Summerhill Residents' Association.

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (March 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend that the City Solicitor be authorized to settle, at the Ontario Municipal Board, appeals made with respect to Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 198003 respecting 9 Jackes Avenue, substantially in accordance with this report.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

1.That the City Solicitor be authorized to settle, at the Ontario Municipal Board, substantially in accordance with this report, appeals made with respect to Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 198003 respecting 9 Jackes Avenue.

2.That the City enter into a Section 37 Agreement with the owner to give effect to those provisions set out in Sections 3 and 4 and Appendix B of this report, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Comments:

1.0Purpose

The purpose of this report is two-fold:

i)To seek City Council's endorsement of a settlement with the applicant for 9 Jackes Avenue to be outlined at the March 29, 1999 Pre-hearing before the Ontario Municipal Board. This would involve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit an increase in height and density for the site. The appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board do not at this time include the Site Plan Application, but the settlement will establish the parameters within which a Site Plan Agreement would be concluded.

ii)To indicate to City Council that I support the proposed settlement since, I my view, it represents an appropriate development which minimizes negative impacts on adjacent properties.

2.0Background

2.1Site

The vacant, 1272 square metres site is located on the south side of Jackes Avenue, just east of Yonge Street. The site is two blocks north of the Summerhill subway station and three blocks south of the St. Clair subway station.

2.2Area

The property is located on the top of the east-west escarpment which marks the ancient shoreline of Lake Iroquois. The site is relatively flat, however immediately to the south the lands slope down approximately 9 to 13 metres to Woodlawn Avenue East. (Figure 2)

Jackes Avenue is the boundary line between the lands designated High Density Residence Area (to the north) and Low Density Residence Area (to the south). Immediately to the north of the site are two apartment buildings at 44 Jackes Avenue (23 storeys) and 33 Rosehill Avenue (28 storeys). Abutting the site to the east are 33 Jackes Avenue, a 10 storey residential building and 35 Jackes Avenue, a three storey, historic building used as the offices for Frontier College. Immediately to the west is 7 Jackes Avenue, a 28 storey residential building. To the south and at the foot of the escarpment is a five storey residential building at 22 Woodlawn Avenue East. Other uses fronting onto the north side of Woodlawn Avenue East include the undeveloped rear yards of the apartments at 7 and 33 Jackes Avenue, a four storey residential building and three house-form buildings (immediately adjacent to David Balfour Park). Properties on the south side of Woodlawn Avenue East primarily accommodate detached houses.

2.3Applicable Planning Controls

The north side of Jackes Avenue is the boundary line between the High Density Residence Area to the north and the Low Density Residence Area to the south. The High Density Residence Area permits uses at a maximum density of 2.0 times the area of the lot.

Under the Zoning By-law the site is zoned R2 Z1.0. This zoning permits a full range of residential uses, including an apartment building, up to a maximum density of 1 times the area of the lot. The maximum height permitted on the site is 11.0 metres.

The north side of Jackes Avenue is zoned R2 Z2.0 and has a maximum density of 2 times the area of the lot and a height limit of 16.0 metres. The area to the south of the property and south of the Lake Iroquois shoreline is zoned R2 Z0.6 which would permit residential uses up to a density of 0.6 times the area of the lot at a maximum height of 11.0 metres.

2.4Original Application

The original Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application filed with the City on February 5, 1998 was for a 10 storey residential building containing 19 units. The proposed gross floor area was 5,162 square metres which represents a density of 4.06 times the area of the lot. Parking for 50 cars (48 residents and 2 visitor spaces) was proposed in a two level underground parking garage.

2.5Public Meeting

On June 9, 1998, a public meeting was held in the community to discuss the original application. Approximately 80 people attended the meeting. The majority of those in attendance were opposed to the development. The primary concerns were the proposal's height and density; loss of views; shadowing impacts; possible traffic impacts; the location and amount of visitor parking; and the potential precedent that the proposal may set for the area.

2.6OMB Appeal/ Referral

The applicant appealed both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to the Ontario Municipal Board.

A pre-hearing was held on November 25, 1998 which, among other matters, identified the participants, issues to be considered and the starting date of the hearing. A second pre-hearing has been scheduled for March 29, 1999 to finalize the issues list. The full hearing is to begin May 10, 1999 and has been scheduled for 18 days.

The proposed development currently in front of the Ontario Municipal Board is for a 12 storey residential building containing 38 dwelling units. The proposed gross floor area for the building would be 4355 square metres which represents a density of 3.42 times the area of the lot. Forty-three parking spaces would be provided to serve the development.

2.7Working Group

City Council at its meeting of October 28, 1998 requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and area representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal for the site.

As stated in my October 26, 1998 report, given the existing pattern of development and topography in the area, I would be prepared to consider additional height and density on this site provided planning and built form issues are addressed. Generally stated, I would be willing to support a building with a height and density above current permissions provided regard is had for the existing built form context, views from existing buildings, shadow impacts on the public sidewalk and on adjacent properties, privacy and potential influence on future development. To ensure these issues are addressed in any proposed development, detailed guidelines for a potential tower development were developed for the site. These guidelines are set out in Appendix A of this report.

A committee comprised of representatives of the applicant, Summerhill Residents Association, Bretton Place Tenants' Association (44 Jackes Avenue), the owner of 7 Jackes Avenue, Summerhill Tenants' Association and the condominium at 33 Jackes Avenue has met five times to discuss alternative development concepts and to explore the opportunity for settlement. At these meetings various development concepts were discussed, including a townhouse scenario and modified tower proposal. At this time the group has not reached a consensus. However, the owner of 7 Jackes Avenue and representatives for the condominium at 33 Jackes Avenue have indicated that the siting, massing, height and density of a modified tower proposal presented to the committee are acceptable in principle. Others members of the committee still have concerns with the proposed height (10 storeys) and density (to 2.97 times coverage) of the proposed development.

3.0Proposed Settlement

This report recommends that City Council endorse the proposed 10 storey residential building containing 21 units. The gross floor area of the proposed building would be 3,781 square metres or 2.97 times the area of the lot. Parking for 46 cars (2 at grade visitor spaces, 7 below grade visitor spaces and 37 below grade owner spaces) would be provided to serve the development. The tenth floor would be set back 6 metres from the front building wall forming a private terrace. The detailed terms of the settlement are set out below. The applicant's proposal is substantially in accordance with terms specified in the guidelines developed by staff.

As stated above the applicant has not appealed the Site Plan Application to the Ontario Municipal Board and will be seeking the City's approval for the site plan. The settlement plans will be circulated to various civic agencies for review and comments. There may be additional requirements which will need to be addressed.

4.0Planning Comments

My report of October 26, 1998, on the application submitted in February of that year, expressed a number of concerns respecting density, height, siting, landscaping shadowing, views and overlook. At that time, I had recommended that the application be refused in its current form and that I continue discussions with the applicant and area representatives with a view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal for the site. In response to these concerns, and in order to direct discussions with the applicant and local residents, staff developed detailed guidelines for redevelopment of the site. As stated above these guidelines are attached in Appendix A and illustrated in Figures 4 and 5.

The applicant has responded in a positive way to the concerns raised in my October 26, 1998 report and to many of the concerns raised by area residents.

4.1Density

The density of the proposed apartment building would be 2.97 times the area of the lot which compares favourably to the density of 3.42 times coverage of the proposal appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. Although the south side of Jackes Avenue is designated as a Low Density Residence Area in the Official Plan, the character of existing development does not reflect this designation. There is a 28 storey apartment building, a ten storey apartment building, a three storey house form building containing offices of Frontier College and another three storey office building adjacent to David Balfour Park. The north side of Jackes Avenue is designated as a High Density Residence Area and accommodates apartment buildings with heights of 23 and 28 storeys. (Figure 3)

One of the prime physical characteristics of the area is the substantial difference in grade (9-13 metres) between Jackes Avenue and Woodlawn Avenue East. Because of this grade differential, the north side of Woodlawn Avenue relates more to the single family area to the south while the south side of Jackes Avenue has a more direct relationship to the High Density Residence Area on the north side of the street. In view of the above, an apartment building at a density of more than 1 times the area of the lot can, in my opinion, be justified.

4.2Setting A Density Precedent For Future Development

Area residents have expressed concern that approval of this proposal could set a density precedent for future redevelopment in the area at densities beyond the Official Plan limit.

Although I can understand the residents' concern I should mention that each site specific application for an Official Plan amendment is examined on the merits of its particular case. As explained above, the ancient shoreline of Lake Iroquois is the logical and natural boundary between the High Density Area to the north and the Low Density Area to the south.

Approval of the applicant's proposal, in my view, would not set a precedent for future redevelopment in the Low Density Residence Area. With respect to the potential redevelopment of the 3 storey office building at 49 Jackes Avenue, I would note that such redevelopment would be seriously constrained by the City's desire to (a) minimize shadow impacts on David Balfour Park located immediately to the east and (b) protect the views enjoyed by residents immediately to the west.

4.3Height

Of major concern to the neighbourhood has been the potential negative impacts of high rise development in terms of shadowing, views, privacy and lack of transition to the abutting low density neighbourhood. As discussed below the settlement proposal satisfactorily addresses these concerns.

The height of the proposed building has been revised from 12 storey (38.5 metres) to 10 storeys (31.85 metres plus mechanical penthouse). The height of the proposed building exceeds the permitted height of 11 metres, however, adjacent apartment buildings fronting onto Jackes Avenue range in height between 10 and 28 storeys. (Figure 2)

The settlement proposes a building with an articulated facade which breaks the building into three elements; the base, the tower and the cap, which will convey a sense of scale. In addition the 10^th floor would be set back 6 metres from the front wall to reduce the visual impact of the building from the street.

4.4Relationship to Low Density Area

Comments have been made that the height of the proposed building does not step down to the Low Density Residence Area to the south like the building at 33 Jackes Avenue. On development blocks such as 33 and 7 Jackes Avenue, were the site has frontage on both Jackes Avenue and Woodlawn Avenue East, the terracing of buildings is important in achieving an effective visual transition between density and height zones. However in this case the subject property is not a through lot and the proposed building would be buffered from the low density neighbourhood by the existing five storey building at 22 Woodlawn Avenue East. Further, Figure 2, clearly illustrates that the rear wall of the proposed building, located approximately 4 metres from the rear lot line, will be further removed from the Low Density Residence Area than either 33 or 7 Jakes Avenue.

4.5Sun/Shade

The massing and height of both the original application and the proposal at the Ontario Municipal Board would have had a negative impact on the public realm and on the adjacent property at 33 Jackes Avenue with regards to shadows cast.

The siting and design of the proposed building have been revised so that the building would be set back further and so that the 10^th storey is stepped back from Jackes Avenue. The revised siting and massing of the proposed building minimizes the shadow impact on 33 Jackes Avenue and ensures a 3 hour sunlight window on the sidewalk on the north side of Jackes Avenue, at the equinox.

4.6Views

A major concern raised by the adjacent residents was loss of views due to the original 10 storey proposal and the 12 storey proposal before the Ontario Municipal Board. The building at 33 Jackes Avenue has a unique design insofar as the principal rooms and views are oriented at 45 degrees to the street and property line. Each floor has 4 apartments and one quarter of the apartments have their primary window views to the north-west, over the subject site. (Figure 5)

The massing of the proposed building has been modified to protect views from the main windows of the units facing north-west. This has been achieved by having the building set back further and by designing the front of the building on an angle.

A computer model has been generated to help in the review of the modification to the massing and the siting of the proposed building. The model helps analyse the impact of the proposed building on views from 33 Jackes Avenue. The model examines what a person would see if they were standing in the living room (approximately 1 metre from the window at a 45 degree angle) looking out at the 9 metre ( 3^rd floor) and 21 metre (9^th floor) levels. The results show that the revised massing of the proposed building has greatly improved the relationship to the north-west facing units in 33 Jackes Avenue. Specifically, the analysis demonstrates that a large percentage of the primary views have been protected at both the 3rd and 9th floor levels.

The revised massing of the proposed building adequately addresses the issue of views.

4.7Overlook

The original proposal included balconies on both the east and west sides of the building. These balconies would have been located in the middle of the building and projected to the side lot lines. The proposal before the Ontario Municipal Board included balconies on the south-west and south-east corners of the building. The location of the balconies in both cases would have had a negative impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties.

The revised proposal would eliminate all balconies and principal windows that would create an overlook problem for adjacent buildings. The revised balcony and window locations satisfactorily address the issue of overlook.

4.8Siting

Given the desire to protect the views from 33 Jackes Avenue the building has been located further back on the lot and designed with a portion of the front wall on an angle. This design element allows the units on the north west face of 33 Jackes Avenue to substantially maintain their existing views. However in order to achieve this design and maintain a buildable floor plate the building had to be wider than contemplated by the guidelines prepared by staff. The proposed building would be set back from the west lot line 0.3 metres and from the east lot line 2.5 to 3.5 metres. (Figure 6)

4.9Street Edge and Relation to the Historic Building

In the guidelines developed by staff, it was suggested that the proposed building be considered in two parts, a base element and a tower element. (Figures 4 and 5) The base element would define the street and acknowledge the 3 storey historic building at 35 Jackes Avenue. The base element could have had a height of 12 metres or 3 storeys and been set back from the street approximately 18 metres.

In addressing the issues of shadowing and views the proposed building was set back further and the base element was removed. To ensure the building properly acknowledges the historic building and provides a proper street edge, the applicant has articulated the facade to define a base building element and proposed an iron and brick fence and landscaping along the front property line consistent with the adjacent property (33 Jackes Avenue).

4.10Landscaping

he applicant has yet to formally submit detailed landscape/planting plans. However, preliminary landscape plans have been discussed at length with the Working Group. Landscaping elements proposed by the applicant include: an iron and brick fence on the street line consistent with the fence on the adjacent property (33 Jackes Avenue); planting of trees along side lot lines; planting on the adjacent lot (7 Jakes Avenue); hard landscaping of all roof tops, screening of service areas and transformer vaults.

The landscape plan is generally acceptable and addresses the concerns raised by the adjacent property owners. The applicant will be required to submit detailed landscape and planting plans for the City's approval as part of the Site Plan Application. These plans should have regard for the principles identified in Appendix B.

4.11Other Requirements

As stated above the applicant has not appealed the Site Plan Application to the Ontario Municipal Board. The settlement plans will be circulated to various civic departments and additional requirements and studies may be identified.

Unless otherwise indicated above the proposed development should be in accordance with the provisions of the former City of Toronto's general Zoning By-law.

4.12Other Development in the Area

Some area residents and representatives of the Summerhill Residents' Association have expressed concern that the proposed settlement includes insufficient public benefits when compared to the benefits provided by other area projects where increases in height and density were involved. The projects identified were 44 Jackes Avenue, 7 Jackes Avenue and 33 Jackes Avenue (Table 1 - Development Statistics).

In the case of 44 Jackes Avenue, which was constructed in 1964, a large open space has been secured as a private recreation area for the tenants of the two buildings on the site. Specifically, By-law 22195 required 70% of the site to be maintained as landscaped open space. whereas the general zoning by-law would have required a minimum landscaped open space of 50% of the site.

In the case of 7 Jackes Avenue, which was constructed in 1970, the lands on which the building is located are leased from the Toronto Transit Commission for a period of 99 years. The lands south of Woodlawn Avenue and north of Summerhill Avenue are also leased from the Toronto Transit Commission. These lands are for the exclusive use of the tenants of 7 Jackes Avenue. A preliminary review of the history of this development reveals that the density of the lands south of Woodlawn Avenue was transferred to the northern parcel to permit the development of the existing tower. It should be noted that the City was not in support of this development or the transferring of the density, however it was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

In the case of 33 Jackes Avenue, which was constructed in 1988, the historically designated Laidlaw House was retained and preserved and the sole remaining piece of the escarpment on this block east of Yonge Street was preserved. The development was not supported by City Council, however it was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

For this particular development at 9 Jackes Avenue the owner has indicated that he is willing to contribute $20,000 to the City to be used for local park/ravine improvements. In addition, the owner has indicated that he is willing to design and construct the proposed building and landscaping elements in accordance with the discussions with the resident Working Group. This would include some matters not otherwise able to be required by Council through the Site Plan Approval process (such as building materials, fenestration and landscaping on adjacent properties).

The contribution of $20,000 and those provisions set out in Sections 3, 4 and Appendix B of this report will be secured through a Section 37 Agreement.

Conclusion:

his report recommends that City Council permit the development on 9 Jackes Avenue of a 10 storey residential building containing 21 dwelling units and having a maximum density of 2.97 times the area of the lot.

The settlement represents an acceptable development which minimizes negative impacts on adjacent properties. Specifically, the density of the building has been reduced and the building redesigned to minimize impacts of shadowing, on views and privacy.

Representatives for the applicant have agreed to formally submit a revised application to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

E-mail: gbyrne@toronto.ca

APPENDIX A

Development Guidelines Developed by Staff (October 1998)

(a)Height and Density

Building height and density above current permissions should generally have regard for the existing built form context, views from existing buildings (and in particular 33 Jackes Avenue), shadow impacts on adjacent properties, and potential impacts on future development/redevelopment in the immediate vicinity.

(b)Siting and Building Organization

The building , including balconies, should be set back from the front property line approximately 18 metres to allow for a landscaped front forecourt, an on-site auto drop off and servicing area and to maintain views of the historic house.

The building, including balconies, should be set back a minimum of 5.5 metres from the rear property line.

The building should be set back from the side property lines and organized in a manner that minimizes overlook to the neighbouring properties. Specifically, the building should be set back a minimum of 3 metres from the side property lines for no more than 50 percent of the length of the building. Balconies should be placed so as to minimize overlook.

The building's front door should face Jackes Avenue and be linked to the public sidewalk by an easily visible, hard surfaced walkway.

Servicing and access to the underground parking garage should be provided from the forecourt and should be designed in a way that minimizes the potential negative impact of these facilities on the public street and neighbouring properties. All vehicular parking should be provided below grade.

The underground parking structure should not at any point be exposed and adequate soil depth should be provided in areas to be landscaped.

(c)Massing

The building should be considered to be made in two parts: a base building and a tower:

Base building- the base element defines the street and acknowledges the two historic houses to the east of the site. The base can be sited as set out in (b) above and can have a height up to 12 metres and 3 storeys (including parapet). The front of the building at 8-9 metres should have an expression that harmonizes with the walls of the adjacent historical house; and

Tower - the tower element is designed to minimize the shading of adjacent street and to minimize the loss of skyviews from the adjacent apartment buildings. This part of the building should be under a 44 degree angular plane from the north curb of Jackes Avenue. This will maintain a 3 hour sunlight window on Jackes Avenue at the equinox. The building can have a height of 31.5 metres (excluding mechanical penthouse) and 10 storeys. The front of the tower should set back from a line drawn at approximately 45 degrees from the corner of the windows of the apartment at 33 Jackes Avenue to minimize lost skyviews from that building.

(d)Pedestrian and Residential Amenity

A landscape and streetscape plan should be provided to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services. These plans should:

-maintain existing street trees;

-extend the garden wall of the neighbouring property to the east to define the street and forecourt;

-minimize the width and number of curb cuts across the public sidewalk; and

-provide landscaping along the side and rear lot lines in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood and sufficient to ensure privacy between properties.

Residential amenity space should be provided as per Zoning Bylaw 438-86, as amended.

10.Other Requirements

Compliance with the requirements of Civic Officials respecting matters such as parking, loading and refuse collection would be required following a review of any revised proposal.

APPENDIX B

Framework for Site Plan Approval

In addition to the general guidelines contained in Appendix A, additional Site Plan requirements have been identified by staff and the Working Group which are listed below. The revised Site Plan application should have consideration for these matters.

Built Form

the building should have a maximum gross floor area of 3781 m2 (2.97x coverage) and a maximum height of 31.85m excluding the 5.0 m high mechanical penthouse
the building should be constructed of materials similar to 33 Jackes Avenue (predominantly brick)
the mechanical penthouse should be constructed of similar material as the building
the mechanical penthouse should be attractively designed and include faux windows
visual relief in the north portion of the west elevation of the building should be provided through the use of secondary windows, Juliette balconies and/or fenestration
the facade of the building should be articulated so that it breaks the building into three elements; the base, the tower and the cap, which will convey a sense of scale
the 10^th floor should be set back 6 metres to reduce the visual impact of the building from the street
entrance to the underground parking garage should be properly screened and buffered
to ensure the building properly acknowledges the historic building and provides a proper street edge the facade of the building should be articulated to define a base building element with a height of 1 to 2 storeys

Landscaping Elements

fencing should comprise brick columns, iron railings and should otherwise be consistent with the existing fencing on the adjacent property (33 Jackes Avenue)
a landscape buffer should be provide along both side lot lines
planting should be provided on 7 Jackes Avenue at no cost to the owner
street trees in front of 7 Jackes Avenue should be provided as/if required to replace dead or injured street trees
roof top areas should be surfaced in a pleasing and attractive material (i.e. pavers)
if the garbage collection area is required to be located outside, it should be properly screened
the transformer should be visually screened from the street and adjacent apartment buildings

Other

studies as required to assess the proposed development possibly including, but not limited to, an Arborist Report, Noise Impact Statement, and Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan.

TABLE 1

DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS:

9 Jackes Avenue and other buildings in the vicinity

PROPERTY	DATE BUILT	APPROVAL	UNITS	APPROXIMATE FLOOR AREA
7 Jackes Avenue	1970	OMB	278	20 576 m2
33 Jackes Avenue	1988	OMB	29	9 995 m2
44 Jackes Avenue	1964	City Council	629	47 026 m2
9 Jackes Avenue	N/A	N/A	21	3 781 m2

Insert Table/Map No. 1

9 Jackes Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

9 Jackes Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

9 Jackes Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

9 Jackes Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 5

9 Jackes Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 6

9 Jackes Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 7

9 Jackes Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 8

9 Jackes Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 9

9 Jackes Avenue

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications regarding the revised Official Plan and Zoning By-law application for 9 Jackes Avenue:

(i)(February 28, 1999) from Mr. Matthias Schlaepfer; and

(ii)(March 1, 1999) from Mr. John Tyacke, Summerhill Residents Association.)

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the

Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond Street West

(Downtown)

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the feasibility of charging a fee for sign applications which could be applied to fund public art in the City.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting applications for variances to permit signage at 126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond Street West, also known as Festival Hall.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Applications Nos. 998090 and 998094 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code on condition that:

(i)the LED display area of "Cube" Sign Type P facing Richmond Street West not exceed 24 m� and that it be used only for first party advertising;

(ii)the LED display area of "Cube" Sign Type P facing John Street not exceed 12 m� and that it be used only for first party advertising;

(iii)the Tri-vision Panel area of "Cube" Sign Type P not exceed 24 m� and that it be used only for first party advertising;

(iv)the aluminum inset panels of "Cube" Sign Type P be illuminated only by fibre-optic side glow cable;

(v)the LED display area of "Now Playing"Sign Type K not exceed 11m�;

(vi)the display area of the "Sloped Screen" Sign Type S not exceed 36 m� and that it be used only for first party advertising; and

(vii)all of the signs, except the "Now Playing" Sign Type K and "Cube" Sign Type P, be illuminated only between the hours of 4:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and that this be achieved by means of an automatic timing device;

(2)That prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the owner shall enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with respect to the erection of the "Cube" sign on John Street;

(3)City Council grant authority to :

(i)allow a minor variance from the former Metro By-law No. 118 to permit the erection and maintenance of the Encroaching Signage described within this report subject to the applicant entering into an encroachment agreement with the City covering both encroaching signs and the other various architectural building features that will be covered by a standard City of Toronto (former Metro) encroachment agreement as authorized by Metro By-law 54-81 to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(ii)direct the appropriate City of Toronto Officials to give effect thereto;

(4)The applicant pay all legal costs of the City of Toronto in the preparation and registration of the Encroachment Agreements authorised in Recommendations Nos. (2) and (3);.

(5)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 Works and Corporate Services and payable to the City of Toronto, Transportation Services Account, as of the installation date; and

(6)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Applications Nos. 998090 and 998094, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on John Street, Richmond Street West, and Widmer Street, in a reinvestment area (RA) district. The proposed development is known as Festival Hall.

At its meeting of December 9, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council and subsequently the Ontario Municipal Board on August 27, 1997 gave approval to permit the construction of a 30 metre high entertainment complex consisting of approximately 13,000 square metres of retail space on the first two floors, and a 14-theatre, 4,300 seat multiplex cinema on the uppermost floor. Parking for 370 vehicles will be provided underground.

The purpose of this report is to give consideration to a variance application to install signage related to the theatre and retail uses. A separate variance application for signage will be submitted by Playdium Entertainment which occupy the historical facades fronting on John Street.

The proposed signs can be grouped into categories and the location of each sign by category is illustrated on the attached Figures 1-3. In addition to the 20 signs that are part of this application, an additional 23 signs, which are permitted, will be installed on the building.

The areas of non-compliance with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code by sign type are described as follows:

John Street Elevation:

Illuminated Fascia Sign "Chapters" - Type C (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the sign will be located above the second storey and more than 10 metres above grade.

The Municipal Code requires that fascia signs be located within the first two storeys of buildings. The intent of this provision is to discourage excessive signage and to limit the possible negative impact of signage on the streetscape and on the appearance of buildings. The variance is supportable in this instance because the sign would be affixed to the aluminum clad sign band above the entranceway of the retail store. If the sign were placed any lower it would interfere with the windows of the commercial unit.

Illuminated Fascia Signs - Type D (total of 2 proposed):

(a)a portion of the proposed fascia signs will be erected above the second storey of the building.

The variance is supportable because the signs are needed to provide identification for the second floor commercial tenants.

Illuminated Roof Sign "Paramount IMAX Theatre " - Types V & U (total of 1 proposed):

(a)a roof sign is not permitted in a reinvestment area (RA) district.

The sign consists of 1.2 metre high internally illuminated individual letters and logo that would be anchored to the base of the roof on the east side of the building. Unlike the large vertical support structures typically associated with roof signs, the letters would be individually supported on 1.2 metre high steel poles. The theatres would provide a backdrop for the sign which, when viewed from the street, would more closely resemble a fascia sign. While the classification of a "roof" sign in this instance is arguably a technical matter in that the sign would be anchored to the roof of the building, the variance is supportable because the sign has none of the structural attributes associated with such signs and would not obstruct or otherwise interfere with significant views of the City's skyline.

Richmond Street Elevation

Illuminated Fascia Sign "Chapters" - Type C (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the sign will be located above the second storey and more than 10 metres above grade.

Illuminated LED Sign "Now Playing" - Type K (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the sign with electronic message display is not permitted in a reinvestment area (RA) district.

The sign would be located on the underside of the canopy above the entrance doors. The sign would have a message display area of 11m� and would be used to advertise movie features and showing times. The variance is supportable because of its modest size and its use in conjunction with a theatre. I am recommending approval of the sign subject to the conditions noted in Recommendations (v) and (vii) above. The applicant concurs with these conditions.

Illuminated "Quoins" - Type L (total of 2 proposed):

(a)the signs are not a defined sign type and are therefore not permitted.

The glass-faced signs would appear as illuminated columns on either side of the theatre entrance. The variance is supportable because the signs constitute decorative elements on the building.

Illuminated Canopy Sign "Paramount" - Type M (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the Municipal Code requires that a canopy sign not extend more than 1 metre above the uppermost point of the canopy on which the canopy sign is mounted. The sign will exceed 1 metre.

The sign consists of illuminated channel letters affixed to the marquee. The sign would extend 2.1 metres above the canopy instead of 1 metre. The variance is supportable because the sign has been positioned beneath the metal archway and if lowered would interfere with the glass canopy directly below.

Illuminated Fascia Sign "Full" - Type O (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the sign is not mounted wholly against the wall of a building.

The sign will be installed below the soffit of the underground parking garage entrance. The variance is supportable because the sign would be used to identify parking availability to motorists prior to entering the underground garage.

Animated "Cube" Sign - Type P (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the sign is not a defined sign type and is therefore not permitted.

The sign is located approximately 18 metres above grade on the north-east corner of the building. The "cube" is a three-dimensional object, aluminum clad with multicoloured inset panels which would be outlined in fibre-optic side glow cable. Recessed into the cube are two LED displays - one facing Richmond Street and the other facing John Street. On the top portion of the cube facing John Street is a front-lit Tri-vision sign. These animation features would be contained within specified dimensioned grids and would be used exclusively for first party purposes to advertise the current and upcoming movie features (see attached Figure 6). Care has been taken with LED display technology in recognition of its dynamic character which heightens visibility. I have only recommended approval of LED display signs for public theatres, stadiums and places of amusement, as well as in the Financial District where the scale of the buildings and/or intensity and nature of the commercial activity made such signs acceptable. In this instance, its use in conjunction with a movie theatre and its location in the entertainment district makes the sign acceptable. I am therefore recommending approval of the variance subject to the conditions noted in Recommendations 1(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above. The applicant concurs with these conditions.

Illuminated Fascia Sign "Famous Players Imax" - Types Q & R (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the sign will be erected above the second storey of the building and more than 10 metres above grade; and

(b)the area of the sign (27.48 m�) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 25 m�.

The sign consists of illuminated acrylic face channel letters and logo that run diagonally across the building face. The first variance occurs because the sign would be located higher than permitted by the Municipal Code. In this instance, however, the variance is supportable because the sign has been designed to complement the escalator and staircase enclosure located directly behind. The sign would be slightly larger than permitted by the Municipal Code. However, given that it consists of individual letters rather than an illuminated sign box I am prepared to support this modest increase in size.

Back-lit "Sloped Screen" Fascia Sign - Type S (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the sign will not be mounted wholly against the wall of a building:

(b)the sign will be erected above the second storey of the building and more than 10 metres above grade; and

(c)the area of the sign (76 m�) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 25 m�.

The sign is a front-lit vinyl billboard surrounded by aluminum cladding to match the building. The top portion of the billboard is sloped away from the building approximately 0.9 metres in order to provide better visibility to pedestrians. While the screen is larger than permitted, only the vinyl inset panel being 36 m� would display signage. The applicant proposes using stretched vinyl material in order that the sign can be easily changed to promote movie-related events. The variances are supportable for these reasons subject to the conditions noted in Recommendation 1(vi) and (vii) above. The applicant concurs with these conditions.

"Paramount 14" Marquee with Fibre Optic Bands - Type T and Element 4 (total of 1 proposed):

(a)the sign is not a defined sign type and is therefore not permitted.

The sign runs vertically on the north elevation of the building approximately 12 metres above the theatre's main entrance. The marquee is aluminum clad with acrylic face channel letters running vertically along each side. Fibre optic strips of continuous changing colours and horizontal fibre optic bands of set colours accentuate the sign. The marquee is integral to the theatre use and to the overall architectural design of the building. I am therefore recommending approval of the sign.

Illuminated "Star" Fascia Signs - Type Y (total of 2 proposed):

(a)the signs will be erected above the second storey of the building and more than 10 metres above grade.

The signs consist of aluminum "stars" affixed to a metal bar that forms an arch above the "Paramount" sign. The signs range in height from 6.4 metres to 11.4 metres above grade. The "stars" are self-illuminating and represent the company's logo. The variance is supportable because the stars are part of the company's registered trademark.

Projecting "Lighting Sconce" Signs - Element 2 (total of 2 proposed):

(a)the signs are not a defined sign type and are therefore not permitted.

These "torch-shaped" signs would be located on the uppermost storey of the building at the theatre level. The signs would be clad in aluminum with internal fibre-optic illumination that would give a banding effect. The signs would highlight the main entrance and in my opinion are acceptable.

Illuminated "Metal Ribbon" Fascia Signs - Element 9 (total of 2 proposed):

(a)the signs will be erected above the second storey of the building and more than 10 metres above grade.

The fibre optic band would run below the Famous Players Imax Sign on the north elevation of the building in the form of a wave. The variance is supportable because the sign constitutes a decorative element on the building.

Encroaching Signage:

The following are the comments and recommendations from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services respecting the signs as outlined below that when installed will encumber the air rights over the Richmond Street West road right-of-way. I am including these recommendations as part of new procedures to combine the approval processes for signs encroaching over roads subject to the former Metro signs bylaw and also subject to the former City of Toronto's Municipal Code signage provisions.

(a)a non-illuminated parking "Blade" sign located 24.16 metres east of the north east property corner on Richmond Street West. The sign to have a minimum clearance above the public sidewalk of Richmond Street by 1.75 metres. Clear space between the south curb line of Richmond Street West and the closest part of the sign between the existing sidewalk grade to the lowest portion of the sign being 3.4 metres.

(b)an illuminated "Sloped Screen" Type S located 46.74 metres east of the north east property corner on Richmond Street West and will overhang the road allowance by 1.0 metre. Clear space between the south curb line of Richmond Street to the closest part of the sign being 1.99 metres. Minimum clearance between the existing sidewalk grade to the lowest portion of the sign being 19.63 metres.

(c)an illuminated Canopy Sign Type M located 42.54 metres east of the north east property corner on Richmond Street West and will overlay the Richmond Street road allowance by 1.5 metres. Clear space between the south curb line of Richmond Street to the closest part of the sign being 1.49 metres. Minimum clearance between the existing sidewalk grade to the lowest portion of the sign being 3.93 metres.

(d)an illuminated Marquee Type T located 50.17 metres east of the north east property corner on Richmond Street West and will overlay the Richmond Street road allowance by 1.05 metres. Clear space between the south curb line of Richmond Street to the closest part of the sign being 1.94 metres. Minimum clearance between the existing sidewalk grade to the lowest portion of the sign being 2.95 metres.

(e)an animated "Cube" Sign Type P located 79.89 metres east of the north east property corner on Richmond Street West and will overlay the Richmond Street road allowance by 1.09 metres. Clear space between the south curb line of Richmond Street West to the closest part of the sign being 1.9 metres. Minimum clearance between the existing sidewalk to the lowest portion of the sign being 15.95 metres.

The signs are in keeping with the design negotiated through Urban Planning and Development Services and subsequently approved at the Ontario Municipal Board. Further, all of the above-noted signs, except for "Now Playing" Sign Type K and "Cube" Sign Type P, will have controlled hours of illumination to minimize the impact of illumination on adjacent commercial uses. The applicant has agreed to these controlled hours. In my opinion, the signs are appropriate for this theatre use and I am therefore recommending that this application be approved subject to the conditions noted above.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 4

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 5

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 6

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 7

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 8

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 9

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Insert Table/Map No. 10

126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond St West

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, as information, subject to striking out and referring Item (m), entitled "Intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue - Impact of All-Way 'Stop' Sign Control on Traffic Operation (East Toronto)", embodied therein, back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

(a)Final Report: 56 And 60 St. Clair Avenue West And 55, 55R, 57, 59 And 61 Delisle Avenue - Application No. 12372 - Official Plan And Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)adopted the report (February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by her further report dated (February 16, 1999);

(2)recommended the adoption of the report (January 4, 1999) from Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, such recommendation to be forwarded to Council for consideration when the draft by-laws are submitted to Council;

(3)recommended that the funds raised from the parks levy for this development be expended in the Midtown Ward, such recommendation to be forwarded to Council for consideration when the draft by-laws are submitted to Council;

(4)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, to report to the Toronto Community Council, when the draft by-laws are submitted, on Recommendation No. (19) contained in the report (February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(5)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report, at the same time as the submission of the draft by-laws to the Toronto Community Council, on:

(a)rents in the existing units to be lost; and

(b)the estimate of the range of rents and costs associated with the new development;

(6)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services, to report to the Toronto Community Council, at the same time as the submission of the draft by-laws to the Toronto Community Council, on the possible social, recreational and educational needs of residents in the 153 condominium units, and how the City and the developer plan to address those needs; and

(7)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue to discuss with the developer, strategies to assure the affordability of a portion of the units:

(i)(February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 DeLisle Avenue - Application No. 12372 - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval (Midtown) and submitting final recommendations respecting an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval for a building consisting of two 12 storey towers at 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57 and 61 DeLisle Avenue;

(ii)(February 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Further Report;

(iii)(January 4, 1999) from Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting Removal of One City-Owned Tree and Three Trees situated on Private Property (Midtown).

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

-Ms. Daphne E. M. Wagner, Barrister & Solicitor;

-Mr. George Miller, Outerbridge & Miller; and

-Mr. Michael Birchard, Executive Vice-President, Rolex Watch Company

(b)55 Lake Shore Boulevard East, Application No. 999001: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report sine die:

(February 1, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 55 Lake Shore Boulevard East, Application No. 999001: Request for Approval of Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Downtown), and recommending that City Council refuse Application No. 999001 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit six illuminated fascia signs and one (LED) fascia sign at 55 Lake Shore Blvd. East.

(c)Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -- 11 King Street West (Montreal Trust Tower) (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on April 28, 1999:

(i)(November 20, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board respecting Intention to Designate Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act - 11 King Street West (Montreal Trust Tower) (Downtown), and recommending:

(1)That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 11 King Street West (Montreal Trust Tower) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; and

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

(ii)(January 26, 1999) from Mr. John A. R. Dawson, McCarthy Tétrault obo OMERS Realty Management Corporation

(d)Removal of Tree - 63 Wolfrey Avenue (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on March 30, 1999:

(November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting Removal of Tree - 63 Wolfrey Avenue (Don River), and recommending that City Council:

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; OR

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

(e)Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - 481 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue Flankage (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on March 30, 1999:

(January 28, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - 481 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue Flankage (Downtown), and recommending:

(1)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West; OR

(2)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Brunswick Avenue flankage of 481 Bloor Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

(f)Appeal of Denial of Application for Commercial Boulevard Parking - 373 Front Street East (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on March 30, 1999:

(January 29, 1999) Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for Commercial Boulevard Parking - 373 Front Street East (Don River), and recommending that City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 373 Front Street East.

(g)Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - 1438A Gerrard Street East, Ashdale Avenue Flankage (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report and having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a further poll in the area in English, Chinese and Hindi:

(January 28, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - 1438A Gerrard Street East, Ashdale Avenue Flankage (East Toronto), and recommending that:

(1)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Ashdale Avenue flankage of 1438A Gerrard Street East; or

(2)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Ashdale Avenue flankage of 1438A Gerrard Street East, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

(h)Preliminary Report on Application No: 199002 to Amend By-law 1996-0278 to Permit an Increase in Maximum Building Height of the Townhouse Units in Blocks 169 to 173 in Phase 2 of the Woodbine Park Subdivision Plan (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(January 29, 1999) Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Application No: 199002 to Amend By-law 1996-0278 to Permit an Increase in Maximum Building Height of the Townhouse Units in Blocks 169 to 173 in Phase 2 of The Woodbine Park Subdivision Plan (East Toronto), and recommending that I be requested to hold a public meeting in the local area to discuss both applications and to notify tenants and owners within 120 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(i)Preliminary Report on Application No: 198019 to Amend By-law 438-86 and Site Specific Zoning By-law No. 1996-0279 to Permit Minor Modifications to the Site Plans and the Designs of all Single and Semi Detached Houses and Town Houses in Phases 1 and 2 of the Woodbine Park Subdivision (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(January 28, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Application No: 198019 to Amend By-law 438-86 and Site Specific Zoning By-law No. 1996-0279 to Permit Minor Modifications to the Site Plans and the Designs of all Single and Semi Detached Houses and Town Houses in Phases 1 and 2 of The Woodbine Park Subdivision (East Toronto), and recommending that I be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss both applications and to notify tenants and owners within 120 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(j)Traffic Study - Castlefield Avenue from Rosewell Avenue to Avenue Road (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council report having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a traffic management study on Castlefield Avenue from Rosewell Avenue to Avenue Road, and report thereon to the Toronto Community Council:

(January 27, 1999) from Councillor Walker

(k)Parking on Mulock Avenue (Davenport).

(1)moving permit parking to the west side of Mulock Avenue, north of Lloyd Avenue; or

(2)because of the nature of the street, exempting the east side of Mulock Avenue, north of Lloyd Avenue from the front yard parking by-law.

(January 29, 1999) from Councillor Disero

(l)Prohibiting St. Clair Avenue West from Dufferin Street to Caledonia Road from being Closed During the Summer Of 1999 (Davenport).

(January 20, 1999) from Councillor Betty Disero

(m)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 received the following report for information:

(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.

(n)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 received the following communication:

(September 1, 1998) from Councillor Disero

(o)Request for Traffic Counts.

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Service to submit to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on March 30, 1999, traffic counts for the following areas:

(1)block bounded by Dupont Street, Dufferin Street, Dovercourt Road and Bloor Street West;

(2)block bounded by Dupont Street, Dovercourt Road, Ossington Avenue and Bloor Street West; and

(3)block bounded by Dupont Street, Ossington Avenue, Shaw Street and Bloor Street West:

(February 11, 1999) from Councillor Disero

(p)Blackthorn Avenue - "One Way" Street Signage (Davenport).

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 March 30, 1999, on the possibility of installing a planter at the intersections of Rockwell Avenue and Blackthorn Avenue, and St. Marks' and Calvary Parking Lot and Blackthorn Avenue to prevent motorists from travelling the wrong way down Blackthorn Avenue:

(February 16, 1999) from Councillor Disero

(q)Extension of Fort York Blvd. - Amendments to the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan and Zoning By-law (Trinity Niagara)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)adopted the following report; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to report on the design and functionality of Fort York Boulevard, given the Queen's Quay streetcar line extension to Exhibition Place and the need to make the Lakeshore Boulevard/Bathurst Street/Fleet Street intersection an urban and transit friendly place.

(i)(February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Extension of Fort York Boulevard - Amendments to the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan and Zoning By-law (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that:

(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to conduct the studies and public consultation necessary to amend the Bathurst/Strachan Part II Plan and related Zoning By-laws to extend Fort York Boulevard between Fleet Street and Lake Shore Boulevard West; and

(2)the City Solicitor prepare the necessary by-law amendments;

(ii)(February 17, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva.

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE

Chair

Toronto, February 17, 1999

(Report No. 4 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)

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@toronto.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links