|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999
TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 6
1 Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 27 Foxbar Road (Midtown)
2 Maintenance of Fence - 33 Gloucester Street (Downtown)
3 Maintenance of Fence - 314 Vesta Drive (Midtown)
4 Construction of Wooden Fence - 197 Argyle Street (Trinity-Niagara)
5 Maintenance of Fence - 195 and 197 Wellesley Street East (Don River)
6 Maintenance of Wooden Fence and Constructionof Wrought Iron Fence - 102 Macdonell Avenue (High Park)
7 Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59
and 61 De Lisle Avenue (Midtown)
8 Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - Yorkville Triangle Area (Midtown)
9 Draft Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Sign By-law - Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars(All
Wards in the former City of Toronto)
10 Proposal by the Balmy Beach Rugby Club to erect two groundsigns in the City's road allowance adjacent to
Ashbridges Bay Park (East Toronto)
11 Tree Removal - 63 Wolfrey Avenue (Don River)
12 Appeal of Denial of Application for Commercial BoulevardParking - 373 Front Street East (Don River)
13 Application for Demolition - 905 Queen Street West (Farr House)(Trinity-Niagara)
14 Tree Removal - 523 Davisville Avenue (North Toronto)
15 Draft By-law - Alteration of Shaw Street - Speed Humps(Trinity-Niagara)
16 Draft By-law - Alteration of Adelaide Street West - Road Narrowing and Realignment (Trinity-Niagara)
17 Draft By-law - Alteration of Euclid Avenue andPalmerston Boulevard - Speed Humps (Trinity-Niagara)
18 Draft By-law - Alteration of Elm Ridge Drive - Speed Humps(North Toronto)
19 Draft By-law - Alteration of Dufferin Grove Area - Speed Humps (Trinity-Niagara)
20 Realignment of Permit Parking Area Boundary -- Areas 3L and 5A (Davenport and Midtown)
21 Application for Commercial Boulevard Parking Privileges- 18 Lower Jarvis Street, Market Street Rear
(Downtown)
22 Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing - 387 Bloor Street East(Downtown)
23 Appeal of Driveway Widening at 723 Coxwell Avenue(East Toronto)
24 Railway Lands Central and West (Downtown)
25 Urban Design Guidelines for Parking Facilitiesin The Kings (Downtown, Don River)
2686 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre)- Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan (Midtown)
27 Application for Consent under Chapter 276, Article I, Ravinesof the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -
Retention ofa Deck - 5 Castle Frank Crescent (Midtown)
28 79 Highland Avenue: Application No. 098064 for consentunder Chapter 276, Ravines - Article I of the
Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (Midtown)
29 Maintenance of Wood Trellis - 105B Gough Avenue (Don River)
30 Maintenance of Wood Trellis - Fronting 71 Rainsford Road(East Toronto)
31 Installation of a Sign Case - 12 Alexander Street (Downtown)
32 Decorative Sidewalk Plaque/Star and Monument Installation- Canada's Walk of Fame - John Street, Simcoe
Street andFront Street West (Downtown)
33 Elizabeth Street, West Side, from Dundas Street West to HagermanStreet (in the Vicinity of the Rear
Entrance/Exit Doors at City Hall) - Provision of an On-street Loading Zone forDisabled Persons (Downtown)
34 Jarvis Street, West Side, between Shuter Street and Dundas StreetEast Fronting Premises No. 178
(Hazelburn Housing Co-op) -Provision of an On-street Loading Zone for Disabledand Other Persons
(Downtown)
35 Installation of On-Street Disabled Persons ParkingSpaces (High Park, Trinity-Niagara, Davenport,
Downtown and East Toronto)
36 Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Bowood Avenue, betweenYonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road
(North Toronto)
37 Amendments to Parking Regulations near PremisesNo. 2155 Danforth Avenue (East Toronto)
38 Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Bowood Avenue, between Mount Pleasant Road and Ronan Avenue
(North Toronto)
39 Woodycrest Avenue from Gertrude Place to Selkirk Street- Introduction of a one hour maximum parking
restrictionand extension of the permit parking hours (Don River)
40 Winona Drive, West Side, from Tyrrel Avenue to Benson Avenue- Implementation of a One Hour Maximum
Parking Limitfrom 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday(Davenport)
41 Widmer Street, from Adelaide Street West to Richmond StreetWest - Reversal of the One-way Southbound
TrafficOperation to Operate One-way Northbound (Downtown)
42 Wheeler Avenue, between Queen Street East andNorway Avenue - Extension of the Maximum Parking
Duration(East Toronto)
43 Logan Avenue, West Side, between Eastern Avenueand Queen Street East - Restriction of Parking to
aMaximum Period of One Hour and Extension of thePermit Parking Hours (Don River)
44 Narrowing of the Pavement on Dundas Squarebetween Yonge Street and Victoria Street - Yonge-Dundas
Redevelopment Project (Downtown)
45 Eglinton Avenue West and Duplex Avenue - Proposed Exemptionfor Police Vehicles from the Existing
Westbound Left-turnProhibition (North Toronto) 3.1490
46 University Avenue at Adelaide Street West - Proposed Designation of an Exclusive Southbound Left Turn
Lane (Downtown)
47 John Street at Adelaide Street West - Proposed Designationof an Exclusive Northbound Right Turn Lane
(Downtown)
48Intersection of Keystone Avenue and Beck Avenue - Installationof a Northbound "Stop" Sign (East Toronto)
49 Intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue - Impact on All-Way "Stop" Sign Control on TrafficOperation
(East Toronto)
50 Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road- Installation of Speed Humps (North
Toronto)
51 Lane System Bounded by St. Clair Avenue West, Arlington Avenue,Benson Avenue and Greensides
Avenue - ProposedInstallation of Speed Bumps (Davenport)
52 Extension of Stadium Road southerly, thence westerly(Trinity-Niagara)
53Once Per Week Daytime Curbside Garbage and Recycling Collection Rescheduling in the Toronto
Community Council Area
54 Tree Removal - 322 Glen Road(Midtown)
55 Designation of 2 Strachan Avenue (Stanley Barracks)(Trinity-Niagara)
56 Liquor Licence Application - Lion on the Beach - 1958 Queen Street East (East Toronto)
57 Liquor Licence Application - 5 St. Joseph Street (Downtown)
58 Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision - 148 Borden Street (Downtown)
59 Request for Improved TTC Service in Parkdale (High Park)
60 Requests for Endorsement of Events forLiquor Licensing Purposes
61 Parking for Persons with Physical DisabilitiesFronting Joseph J. Piccininni Community Recreation Centreat
1369 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)
62 "No Standing" Prohibition - Dufferin Street,Just South of St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)
63 Metered Parking Spaces - North Side of Dundas Street West,Between Keele Street and Heintzman Street
(Davenport)
64 "No Standing" Zone - North Side of St. ClairAvenue, East of Prescott Avenue (Davenport)
65 Installation of Parking Meters - Lower Jarvis Street,East Side, from Lake Shore BoulevardEast to The
Esplanade (Downtown)
66 Prohibition of Standing - Lane First North of Danforth Avenue Extending Between DonlandsAvenue and
Caithness Avenue (East Toronto)
67 Parking on the North Side - Front Street East, fromTrinity Street to Cherry Street - Provision of Parking on
theSouth Side and Longer Term (Don River)
68 Installation of a "Commercial Loading Zone" Queen Street East, South Side, Between a Point 15.0 Metres
West of Kenilworth Avenue and a Point10 Metres Further West - (East Toronto)
69 Amendment to Parking Regulations - Danforth Avenue,Between Bowden Street and Langford Avenue (Don
River)
70 Adjustment of "School Bus Loading Zone" - Evelyn Avenue, East Side, South of Annette Street (High Park)
71 Heritage Easement Agreement - 173, 177 and 181 Yonge Street and 16 Queen Street East (Downtown)
72 Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue Westto Rockwell Avenue - Proposed pavement narrowings
(Davenport)
73 Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Palmerston Avenuebetween College Street and Dundas Street West
(Trinity-Niagara)
74 Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - (Davenport and
Downtown)
75 Leasing of Additional Space - 160 Eglinton Avenue East(North Toronto)
76 Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit - Leslie Street, east side, 190 metres south of
Commissioners Street (East Toronto)
77 Other Items Considered by the Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 6
OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on March 30, 1999,
submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999
1
Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 27 Foxbar Road (Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council:
(1)waive the requirement for a poll respecting the appeal for front yard parking at 27 Foxbar Road; and
(2)approve the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 27 Foxbar Road, subject to
the applicant paying the fees prescribed by the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and the applicant agreeing
to pay the City the cost of planting a shade tree on municipal property in the neighbourhood.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way
Management, District, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for front yard parking at 27 Foxbar Road, which does
not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal
Code. As this is an appeal and a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
(1)That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 27 Foxbar Road, as
such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;
OR
(2)That, should the Toronto Community Council consider this proposal, this report be deferred to the May 26, 1999 meeting
of the Toronto Community Council, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report at that
time on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations.
Background:
Councillor John Adams, in his communication of January 26, 1999, together with a communication dated January 11, 1999
from Ms. Kimberley Moldaver and Mr. Adam Carr, owners of 27 Foxbar Road, requested an appeal to staff's decision to
refuse the application for front yard parking at this location, and requested me to report to the Toronto Community Council.
Similarly, Councillor Ila Bossons, in her communication of January 22, 1999, together with the same communication dated
January 11, 1999 from the owners of 27 Foxbar Road, requested that their appeal be placed on the agenda of the March 30,
1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council.
Comments:
City Council, at its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, approved a number of amendments to former City of Toronto
Municipal Code Chapter 400, governing front yard parking. However, Ward 23, Midtown, was deferred back to Toronto
Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.
Under the circumstances, the regulations, in part, governing front yard parking as existed prior to October 1998, are still in
effect in Ward 23, Midtown. Specifically, the current criteria for the Midtown Ward prohibits front yard parking where
permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking.
Ms. Kimberley Moldaver and Mr. Adam Carr, owners of 27 Foxbar Road, Toronto, Ontario M4V 2G5, submitted an
application for front yard parking on November 5, 1998. The application was refused since permit parking is authorized on
the even side of this portion of Foxbar Road.
Given that the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking, no public poll was conducted for this location.
Conclusions:
As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking, this location is not eligible for front yard parking as it
does not meet the front yard parking regulations as it pertains to Ward 23, Midtown.
For the Committee's information, the location was also reviewed under the new regulations of front yard parking as it
pertains to some of the former City of Toronto Wards and the property does meet the new regulations because permit
parking is not authorized on the same side of the street.
Under the circumstances, this request should be denied by Council.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778
The Committee also submits the communication (February 15, 1999) from the City Forester, Economic
Development, Culture & Tourism, addressed to Councillor Bossons:
Thank you for your January 22, 1999, letter regarding front yard parking at 27 Foxbar Road. The property was inspected by
staff from our Department who advise that a small diameter tree located on private property may be impacted by the
proposed front yard parking.
The tree in question is less than thirty centimetres in diameter and does not qualify for protection under Article III, Chapter
331 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code. A permit is not required to injure or destroy the tree in question.
Any proposed front yard parking should include adequate growing space for tree planting.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of
the foregoing matter, the communication (Undated) from Ms. Kimberley Moldaver and Mr. Adam Carr, the applicants, and
a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Kimberley Moldaver, Toronto, Ontario; and
-Mr. Adam Carr, Toronto, Ontario.
2
Maintenance of Fence - 33 Gloucester Street (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 26, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on a request to maintain a 1.2 m high wrought iron fence within the public right-of-way fronting 33 Gloucester
Street, which exceeds the maximum height of 1.0 m permitted under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal
Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the maintenance of the 1.2 m high wrought iron fence within the public right-of-way fronting 33
Gloucester Street, 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. Manny Marcos, Marcos Developments Inc., 222 Brock Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6K 2L9, on behalf of the owner,
Ms. Mabel Hedley, 33 Gloucester Street, Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1L8, submitted an application on December 4, 1998,
requesting permission to maintain a 1.2 m high wrought iron fence within the public right-of-way fronting 33 Gloucester
Street.
Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property. As there are similar fences in the area, it was
determined that the fence, as constructed, does not negatively impact the public right-of-way.
Details of the fence are retained on file with my Department.
Conclusions:
As the fence does not negatively impact on the public right-of-way, this installation should be permitted.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
3
Maintenance of Fence - 314 Vesta Drive (Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 26, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
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 wrought iron fence within the City's right-of-way fronting 314 Vesta Drive,
subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former
City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Comments:
Ms. Marilena Fuda, co-owner of 314 Vesta Drive, Toronto, Ontario M5P 3A3, submitted an application dated November 4,
1998, requesting permission to maintain a wrought iron fence within the City's right-of-way fronting 314 Vesta Drive.
The fence ranges in height from 1.02 m to 1.2 m rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m permitted in Chapter 313 of the
former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The fence is constructed adjacent to the existing driveway servicing the property to
the north but does not obstruct visibility of oncoming pedestrian or vehicular traffic as it is sufficiently setback from the
City sidewalk and constructed of wrought iron.
In a letter dated November 17, 1998, the owner has requested an exemption to the Municipal Code as she feels that the
fence will provide security and protection from trespassers.
We have also received a letter dated November 10, 1998 from the owner of 316 Vesta Drive whose driveway is adjacent to
the fence. The neighbour objects to the fence because it creates a problem for passengers exiting a vehicle stopped within
his driveway. More specifically, the resident has outlined his difficulty in transporting his father, who uses a wheelchair, to
and from the car, noting there is insufficient space to open both the passenger and driver's door without the door hitting the
fence.
For your Committee's information, the driveway at 316 Vesta Drive measures approximately 2.6 m in width. On the north
side of the driveway, there is a retaining wall which ranges in height from 0.61 m to 0.9 m. On the south side of the
driveway, there is a 0.31 m wide strip of grass between the driveway and the new fence on the property line. The total width
between the retaining wall and the fence is approximately 2.9 m.
While this may not provide sufficient space between the fence and the retaining wall to fully open the doors of a vehicle on
both sides at the same time, the Municipal Code permits the installation of fences along property lines and does not require
any setbacks or allowances to be made for locations where driveways are immediately adjacent to the property line.
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.
Details of this fence and the letters from the owner and area resident are retained on file with this Department.
Conclusions:
As this fence does not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, the fence should be permitted to be maintained.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of
the foregoing matter, the communication (March 25, 1999) from Mr. Barry A. Cohen, in support of the application, and a
copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
4
Construction of Wooden Fence
- 197 Argyle Street (Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the homeowner's request to replace an existing chain link fence with a 1.9 m high wooden fence within the
City's right-of-way on the Northcote Avenue flank of 197 Argyle Street. The proposed fence would be situated immediately
back of the City sidewalk rather than at a point 0.46 m back as required 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 construction of a 1.9 m high wooden fence within the City's right-of-way, subject to the
owner providing a 1.8 m vision splay adjacent to the driveway and entering into a new agreement with the City of Toronto,
as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
Councillor Pantalone has requested me to report to the Toronto Community Council on this application.
Comments:
Ms. Gina Lubin, owner of 197 Argyle Street, Toronto, Ontario M6J 1P5, submitted a request on August 27, 1998, for
permission to replace a chain link fence with a 1.9 m high wooden fence within the City's right-of-way, which will be
situated immediately back from the rear edge of the City sidewalk on the Northcote Avenue flankage of the subject
premises.
Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code requires a 0.46 m setback to be provided, however, in this
instance, the proposed fence would replace an existing fence at this location. In addition, there are existing hedges
immediately back of the existing fence that prevent the new fence from being set back.
The new fence will be constructed adjacent to the existing driveway servicing the property. To ensure visibility of
approaching pedestrians and vehicular traffic, a 1.8 m vision splay is to be provided adjacent to the driveway.
Staff have inspected the area and have determined that this fence will not impact negatively on the public right-of-way.
Conclusions:
As the fence will not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, it should be permitted.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon - 392-7894
5
Maintenance of Fence -
195 and 197 Wellesley Street East (Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on a request to maintain a 1.2 m high wrought iron fence within the City's right-of-way fronting 195 and 197
Wellesley Street East which exceeds the maximum height of 1.0 m permitted under Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of
the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a
deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the maintenance of the 1.2 m high wrought iron fence within the City's right-of-way fronting 195
and 197 Wellesley Street East, 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.
Background:
On September 23, 1997, Street Allowance Construction Permit No. 97-5824 was issued to Mr. Wayne Rosberg, Hilditch
Architect, to install a 1.0 m high wrought iron fence within the public right of way fronting 195 and 197 Wellesley Street
East. Upon completion of the fence installation, site inspection determined that the fence had been constructed to a height of
1.2 m rather than the 1.0 m permitted.
Comments:
Mr. Wayne Rosberg, Hilditch Architect, 401 Richmond Street West, Suite 139, Box 122, Toronto, Ontario M5V 3A8, on
behalf of the owner, TNRC Community Properties Cooperative Inc., Ernescliffe Non-Profit, 477 Sherbourne Street,
Toronto, Ontario M4X 1K5, submitted an application on November 4, 1998, to maintain a 1.2 m high wrought iron fence.
In a supporting letter from Mr. Charles Rosberg of Hilditch Architect, it was noted that the fence provides added security
and privacy for the residential units. It also noted that the fence design matches the new gates that were installed and
provides a unified facade.
Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property. As there are similar fences in the area, it was
determined that the fence, as constructed, does not negatively impact the public right-of-way.
Details of the fence are retained on file with my Department.
Conclusions:
As the fence does not negatively impact on the public right-of-way, this installation should be permitted.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
6
Maintenance of Wooden Fence and Construction
of Wrought Iron Fence - 102 Macdonell Avenue (High Park)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the homeowners' request to maintain a wooden fence ranging in height from 1.68 m to 2.0 m, and to construct
a 1.2 m high wrought iron fence which exceed the maximum height permitted under Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of
the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a
deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the maintenance of the 1.68 m to 2.0 m high wooden fence and permit the construction of a 1.2
m high wrought-iron fence within the public right of way fronting 102 Macdonell Avenue, subject to the owners entering
into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto
Municipal Code.
Comments:
Ms. Maria Trombacco, co-owner of 102 Macdonell Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6L 2B3, submitted an application on
November 24, 1998, requesting permission to maintain a wooden fence ranging in height from 1.68 m to 2.0 m and to
construct a 1.2 m high wrought iron fence within the public right of way fronting 102 Macdonell Avenue.
Both fences exceed the 1.0 m height permitted in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.
In letters dated July 23 and November 24, 1998, the applicant has noted that they have obtained the consent and support of
the two neighbours abutting their property.
Staff have also inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that there are other similar
installations in the area and that these fences do not impact negatively on the public right-of-way.
Conclusions:
As these fences do not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, the fences should be permitted.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
7
Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -
56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and
55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 De Lisle Avenue (Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (March 9, 1999) of the Solicitor be approved and that authority be
granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto, subject to:
(a)receipt of an executed Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act;
(b)receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of the
Bills in Council, of drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior
walls of the dwellings to enable the preparation of building envelope plans; and
(c)receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an approved Noise Impact Statement in
accordance with City Council requirements.
(2)recommendation no. (19) of the report (February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services be amended to read:
"(19)in order to mitigate the impacts of site traffic on streetcar operations, the owner shall, by means satisfactory to
the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, restrict inbound left-turn movements from eastbound St.
Clair Avenue West into the site Monday through Friday, 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m."
(3)the report (February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended
by her further report dated (February 16, 1999) and by Recommendation No. (2) above, be adopted;
(4)the report (January 4, 1999) from Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism be adopted;
(5)the funds raised from the parks levy for this development be expended in the Midtown Ward.
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 March 30, 1999, and Ms. Daphne E.M. Wagner,
Barrister & Solicitor, on behalf of the applicant, addressed to the Toronto Community Council.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 9, 1999) from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit the construction of two 12-storey towers at 56 and 60
St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 DeLisle Avenue.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions
of the Planning Act.
Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it
could recommend:
(2)that the Draft By-laws attached to the report (March 9, 1999) of the Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to
introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto, subject to:
(a)receipt of an executed Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act;
(b)receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of the Bills in
Council, of drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the
dwellings to enable the preparation of building envelope plans; and
(c)receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an approved Noise Impact Statement in accordance
with City Council requirements.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of February 17, 1999 adopted the recommendations contained in the Report
of the Commissioner Urban Planning and Development Services (February 3, 1999), as amended by the report of the
Commissioner (February 16, 1999) concerning the above-noted subject. This report recommends the amendment of the
Official Plan for the former City of Toronto, together with an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment which will permit
the construction of two 12-storey towers at 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 DeLisle Avenue.
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.
Conclusions:
N/A
Contact Name:
Raymond M. Feig
Solicitor
Telephone: (416) 392-7224
Fax: (416) 392-0024
E-mail: rfeig@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
with respect to lands known as 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West
and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 DeLisle Avenue
The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.The text and map annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the former
City of Toronto.
2.This is Official Plan Amendment No. 142.
SCHEDULE "A"
1.Section 18 of the Official Plan is amended by adding Section 18.491 and Map 18.491, as follows:
"18.491Lands known as 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 DeLisle Avenue
Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws with respect to the lands shown on Map 18.491 to
permit the phased erection and use of a building comprised of two towers and containing residential and non-residential
uses and a below-grade parking garage, provided that:
(a)the residential gross floor area on Parcel A does not exceed 10,300 square metres;
(b)on Parcel B, the total gross floor area does not exceed 5,400 square metres, of which the maximum non-residential
gross floor area does not exceed 600 square metres and the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 4,800
square metres;
(c)the gross floor area of the building at 60 St. Clair Avenue West does not exceed that which existed in the year 1998; and
(d)not less than 18 of the dwelling units erected or used in the building are low-end-of-market dwelling units.
For the purpose of this section "low-end-of-market" dwelling units means dwelling units which are subject to the following
size restrictions:
(i)the maximum residential gross floor area for a bachelor or one-bedroom dwelling unit shall be 62 square metres;
(ii)the maximum residential gross floor area for a two-bedroom dwelling unit shall be 82 square metres; and
(iii)the maximum residential gross floor area for a three-bedroom dwelling unit shall be 98 square metres."
(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 the lands known as
56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West
and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 DeLisle Avenue
The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.None of the provisions of Sections 4(2)(a), 4(6)(c), 6(1)(a), 6(3) Part I 1, 6(3) Part II 3 G, 6(3) Part II 4, 6(3) Part II 5(i),
6(3) Part II 7(ii) B, 6(3) Part III 1(a), 6(3) Part III 1(b), 8(3) Part I 3(a), 8(3) Part XI 2(1), 2(2) and 2(3), 12(2)262(a)(II),
12(2)263(ii), (iii) and (iv) of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk,
height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection
and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the
phased erection and use of a mixed-use building comprised of two towers and a below grade parking garage on the lot
described below, provided:
(1)the lot on which such mixed-use building is to be erected or used comprises at least the lands shown outlined by heavy
lines on the attached Plan 1;
(2)no part of the mixed-use building above grade, including all rooftop structures and elements, extends beyond the area
outlined by heavy lines shown on the attached Plans 2A and 2B;
(3)the height above grade of the mixed-use building does not exceed the heights shown on the attached Plans 2A and 2B;
(4)the mixed-use building contains not more than 154 dwelling units, a total residential gross floor area of 15,100 square
metres and a total non-residential gross floor area of 600 square metres of which:
(i)not more than 105 dwelling units and 10,300 square metres of residential gross floor area are accommodated in Tower A
shown on Plan 2A;
(ii)not more than 49 dwelling units, 4,800 square metres of residential gross floor area and 600 square metres of
non-residential gross floor area are accommodated in Tower B shown on Plan 2B;
(iii)not more than 50 square metres of the non-residential gross floor area in Tower B is devoted to uses permitted by
Section 8(1)(f)(b)(iv) RETAIL AND SERVICE SHOPS and not more than 550 square metres of the non-residential gross
floor area in Tower B is devoted to uses permitted by Section 12(2)262(a)(II)-Area B;
(iv)not less than 18 of the dwelling units erected or used in the mixed-use building shall be low-end-of-market dwelling
units;
(5)not less than 159 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot to serve the project of which at least 133 parking
spaces are for the exclusive use of the residents, 19 parking spaces are for visitors, and 7 parking spaces are for the
non-residential component of the mixed-use building;
(6)not less than one loading space - type G is provided on the lot; and
(7)vehicular ingress and egress to the below grade parking garage and the loading space - type G is provided from both St.
Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue.
2.None of the provisions of this by-law shall prevent the mixed-use building from being built in two phases provided that
Phase I consists of the erection and use of Tower A, a below grade parking garage, a loading space - type G and the
maintenance of the existing office building known municipally in the year 1998 as 60 St. Clair Avenue West and also
provided that:
(1)not more than 105 dwelling units and 10,300 square metres of residential gross floor area are accommodated in Tower
A;
(2)not less than 116 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot to serve Tower A of which at least 91 parking
spaces are for the exclusive use of the residents, 13 parking spaces are for visitors and 12 parking spaces are for the
existing office building known municipally in the year 1998 as 60 St. Clair Avenue West;
(3)vehicular ingress and egress to the parking garage and the loading space - type G is provided from both St. Clair Avenue
West and DeLisle Avenue; and
(4)the non-residential gross floor area of the existing office building known municipally in the year 1998 as 60 St Clair
Avenue West, does not exceed that which was existing in the year 1998;
3.For the purpose of this by-law:
(1)"low-end-of-market" dwelling units means dwelling units which are subject to the following size restrictions:
(a)the maximum residential gross floor area for a bachelor dwelling unit or one-bedroom dwelling unit shall be 62 square
metres;
(b)the maximum residential gross floor area for a two-bedroom dwelling unit shall be 82 square metres;
(c)the maximum residential gross floor area for a three-bedroom dwelling unit shall be 98 square metres; and
(2)each other italicized word or expression shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression as defined in
By-law 438-86, as amended.
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 3, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To recommend approval of this 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, 59 and 61 DeLisle
Avenue.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the former City of
Toronto's Official Plan, for the lands know in the year 1998 as 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61
DeLisle Avenue, substantially as set out below:
"56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 DeLisle Avenue
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 indicated on Map __,
to permit the phased erection and use of a mixed use building comprised of two towers and a below grade parking garage,
provided that:
(a)for Tower A, the residential gross floor area does not exceed 10,300 square metres;
(b)for Tower B, the total gross floor area does not exceed 5,400 square metres, of which the maximum non-residential gross
floor area does not exceed 600 square metres and the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 4,800 square
metres;
(c)the non-residential gross floor area of the existing building at 60 St. Clair Avenue does not exceed that which exists in
the year 1998; and
(d)not less than 18 of the dwelling units erected or used on the lands shall be"low end of market"
For the purpose of this Official Plan amendment "low end of market" means dwelling units which are subject to the
following size restrictions:
(i)the maximum residential gross floor area for a bachelor or one-bedroom unit shall be 62 square metres;
(ii)the maximum residential gross floor area for a two-bedroom unit shall be 82 square metres; and
(iii)the maximum residential gross floor area for a three-bedroom unit shall be 98 square metres.
(2)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning
and Development Services and the Chief Building Official to amend the former City of Toronto's Zoning By-law 438-86, as
amended, as it affects the lands known as 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 DeLisle Avenue,
shown on Map 1, so as to:
(a)exempt the site from Section 4(2)(a), Section 4(6)(c), Section 6(1)(a), Section 6(3) Part I 1, Section 6(3) Part II 3 G,
Section 6(3) Part II 4, Section 6(3) Part II 5(I), Section 6(3) )Part II 7(ii) B, Section 6(3) Part III 1(a), Section 6(3) Part III
1(b), Section 8(3) Part I 3(a), Section 8(3) Part XI 2(1), Section 8(3) Part XI 2(2), Section 8(3) Part XI 2(3), Section
12(2)262(a)(II), Section 12(2)263(ii), Section 12(2)263(iii) and Section 12(2)263(iv);
(b)permit the phased erection and use of a mixed-use building comprised of two towers and a below grade parking garage,
provided that:
(i)the lot on which such building is to be erected or used comprises at least the lands shown delineated by heavy lines on
Map 1 attached to this report;
(ii)no part of the building above grade extends beyond the area shown on Map 1 attached to this report;
(iii)the height of the building does not exceed the heights shown on Map 2a attached to this report;
(iv)the building contains not more than 153 dwelling units and a residential gross floor area of 15,100 square metres and a
non-residential gross floor area of 600 square metres of which;
(a)not more than 105 dwelling units and 10,300 square metres of residential gross floor area are accommodated in Tower A;
(b)not more than 49 dwelling units, 4,800 square metres of residential gross floor area and 600 square metres of
non-residential gross floor area are accommodated in Tower B;
(c)not more than 50 square metres of floor area for uses listed in Section 8(1)(f)(iv) Retail and Service Shops and not more
than 550 square metres of floor area for uses permitted by Section 12(2)262(a)(II)- Area B are accommodated in Tower B;
(d)not less than 18 of the dwelling units erected or used on the site shall be "low end of market";
(v)not less than 159 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot to serve the project including at least 133
parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents; 19 parking spaces for visitors; and 7 parking spaces for the
non-residential component of the development;
(vi)not less than one Type G loading space is provided on the lot; and
(vii)vehicular ingress and egress to the below grade parking garage and the Type G loading space is provided from both St.
Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue.
(c)None of the provisions above shall prevent the development to be built in two phases provided that Phase I consists of
the erection and use of Tower A, a below grade parking garage, a Type G loading space and the maintenance of the existing
office building known municipally in the year 1998, as 60 St. Clair Avenue West and provide that:
(i)not more than 105 dwelling units and 10,300 square metres of residential gross floor area are accommodated in Tower A;
(ii)not less than 116 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot to serve the project including at least 91 parking
spaces for the exclusive use of the residents; 13 parking spaces for visitors; and 12 parking spaces for the existing
non-residential component of the development;
(iii)vehicular ingress and egress to the parking garage and the Type G loading space is provided from both St. Clair Avenue
West and DeLisle Avenue;
(iv)the non-residential gross floor area of the existing office building know municipally in the year 1998, 60 St Clair
Avenue West, does not exceed that which existing in the year 1998;
(d)Notwithstanding Clause (b)(ii) above, the existing office building know municipally in the year 1998, as 60 St. Clair
Avenue West, can exist outside the building envelop, provide that there are no additions.
For the purpose of this Zoning By-law amendment "low end of market" means dwelling units which are subject to the
following size restrictions:
(i)the maximum residential gross floor area for a bachelor or one-bedroom unit shall be 62 square metres;
(ii)the maximum residential gross floor area for a two-bedroom unit shall be 82 square metres; and
(iii)the maximum residential gross floor area for a three-bedroom unit shall be 98 square metres.
(3)That City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely Plan Nos.
A1aSite Plan- Phase I
A3Third Basement Plan- North Building Phase I
A4Second Basement Level- North Building Phase I
A5First Basement Plan-North Building Phase I
A5aFirst Basement Plan- North Building Phase II
A6Ground Floor Plan- North Building Phase I
A7Second Floor Plan- North Building Phase I
A8Typical Floor Plan- North Building Phase I
A9Eleventh Floor Plan- North Building Phase I
A10Twelfth Floor Plan- North Building Phase I
A11Roof Plan- North Building Phase I
A12aWest Elevation- North Building Phase I
A13Cross Section- North Building Phase I
A15Second Basement Plan- South Building Phase II
A16First Basement Plan- South Building Phase II
A17Ground Floor Plan- South Building Phase II
A18Second Floor Plan- South Building Phase II
A19Third Floor Plan- South Building Phase II
A20Typical Floor Plan- South Building Phase II
A2111th & 12th Floor Plan- South Building Phase II
A22Roof Plan- South Building Phase II
A23South Elevation- South Building Phase II
A24West Elevation- South Building Phase II
A25Cross Section- South Building Phase II
date stamped as received on October 23, 1998, prepared by Paul H. Northgrave, Northgrave Architects Inc.;
A1Site Plan- Phase I and II
A12North/South Elevations- North Building Phase I
A12bEast Elevation- North Building Phase I
A24aEast Elevation- South Building Phase II
date stamped as received on November 19, 1998, prepared by Paul H. Northgrave, Northgrave Architects Inc.; and
L1Landscape Plan and Tree Inventory- North Building Phase I and South Building Phase II
L1aLandscape Plan and Tree Inventory- North Building Phase I
L2Details- North Building Phase I and South Building Phase II
date stamped as received on December 11, 1998, prepared by Mary Jane Lovering, Vertechs Design Inc., all as on file with
the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and as a condition of City Council approval, the owner
enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council, requiring that:
A.Develop and Maintain Substantially in Accordance with Plans
(1)the proposed phased development, including all landscaping related thereto, shall be undertaken and maintained
substantially in accordance with the drawings referred to above;
B.Garbage
(2)the owner shall provide and maintain garbage rooms at least 20 square metres in size and recycling rooms at least 10
square metres in size to serve the residential building in Phase I and the mixed-use building in Phase II, and install and
maintain a stationary compactor unit in each garbage room;
(3)the owner shall install and maintain double or overhead doors of sufficient size to accommodate the transport of
container bins between each garbage and recyclable storage room and the Type G loading space;
C.Loading
(4)the owner shall provide and maintain one Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access
designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion, to serve the residential building in Phase I and then
to jointly serve Phase I and Phase II upon completion of Phase II of this project;
(5)the owner shall provide and designate a fully trained employee to assist the garbage truck driver to correctly position the
truck below the overhead clearance and to manoeuvre the container bins from the garbage and recycling rooms to the front
of the garbage truck for loading, at all times during collection periods, upon completion of Phase II of this project;
(6)the owner shall provide and maintain a concrete base pad, with a slope not exceeding 2%, adjacent to the front of the
Type G loading space for the storage of at least 4 compactor containers to serve the residential building in Phase I on
collection day, and a concrete pad for 7 compactor containers to jointly serve Phase I and Phase II on collection day upon
the completion of Phase II of this project;
(7)the owner shall construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the
requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading
with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;
(8)the owner shall construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space
with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and
outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;
(9)the owner shall construct the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 4.0 m and a vertical clearance of at least
6.1 m over at least the first 8.0 m of the loading space, measured from the end of the loading space opposite the entrance to
it, and delineate the location of the overhead clearance on the floor of the loading space;
(10)the owner shall construct the decorative unit paver surface, to be used within any portion of the Type G loading space or
areas used to access the loading space, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and indemnify the City against
any damages that may be caused to the decorative unit pavers through the regular use of the areas by City garbage trucks;
D.Parking
(11)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 116 parking spaces on the site to serve Phase I of this project,
including at least 91 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, 13 residential visitor spaces and 12 spaces for the existing
office building, and a minimum of 159 parking spaces on the site to serve both Phase I and Phase II of this project,
including at least 133 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, 19 residential visitor spaces and 7 spaces for the
non-residential component;
(12)the owner shall provide and maintain a physical separation between the residential and commercial portions of the
underground parking garage to secure the availability of the resident parking spaces;
(13)the owner shall provide and maintain a stop sign for exiting drivers at the top of the access ramp serving the
underground garage;
(14)the owner shall designate the visitor parking spaces by means of clearly visible signs;
(15)at least 5 parking spaces of those required to be provided by the Zoning By-law shall be located as shown on above
reference Plans Nos. A4, A5, A5a, A15 and A16, and shall be clearly designated for the exclusive use by people with
disabilities, by means of the International Symbol of Accessibility for the Handicapped;
E.Access to Underground Parking
(16)the owner shall construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of its
intersection with the driveway extending between Delisle Avenue and St. Clair Avenue West, along the east property line,
and not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;
F.Traffic Control
(17)the owner shall provide, maintain and operate a control gate access system on the driveway extending between Delisle
Avenue and St. Clair Avenue West as set out in a report prepared by Tedesco Engineering, dated October 6, 1998, and
locate the control gate to the north of the access ramp to the underground parking garage to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner or Works and Emergency Services;
(18)the owner shall provide and maintain signage to the north and south of the control gate, in a location satisfactory to the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services indicating "No Entry 7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m./Card Access
Only at All Other Times";
(19)in order to mitigate the impacts of site traffic on streetcar operations, the owner shall, by means satisfactory to the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, restrict inbound left-turn movements from eastbound St. Clair Avenue
West into the site Monday through Friday, 7a.m. to 7 p.m.;
G.Landscaping
(20)the owner shall provide and maintain sufficient soil depth and loading bearing capacity above the roof slab of the
underground garage to permit the installation and mature growth of all proposed plant material;
(21)the owner shall submit an application for improvements to the public sidewalk/boulevard generally as shown on above
referenced Plan No. L1, L1a and L2 to the Commissioner Works and Emergency Services and carry out the improvements
within a reasonable period of time or at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services make a cash
contribution to the City equal to the value of the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part
of a comprehensive program;
H.Reference plan of survey and dimensioned plans for site specific by-laws
(22)the owner shall submit, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, dimensioned plans of the development
for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to
the introduction of bills in Council;
I.Transformer Vaults
(23)the owner shall 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;
J.Studies Required by Civic Officials
(24)the owner shall 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;
(25)the owner shall 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;
(26)the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan
approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;
(27)the owner shall prepare a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Commissioner of
Urban and Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any
building permit;
(28)the owner shall implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical
Officer of Health;
K.Grading Plan
(29)the owner shall submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a grading and drainage plan for the entire site for the
review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and
L.Other
(30)the owner shall include a clause in the purchase or rental agreements informing prospective purchasers and lessees
about the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and that the Toronto Transit Commission accepts no responsibility for
any such effects.
(4)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;
(d)that all recyclable materials generated by this project eligible for collection under the City's recycling programs must be
set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables;
(e)that it may be necessary to arrange for alternative refuse collection service for the Phase I residential building during the
construction of the new building and underground garage in Phase II and until access to the Type G loading space is
restored ; and
(f)of the need to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to
filing a formal application for a building permit.
1.0Applicant
The original application was filed on December 18, 1992 by 56 St. Clair West Holdings Ltd., 542 Eglinton Avenue East,
Toronto, Ontario, M4P 1N9. The ownership of the site has changed and the new owner and applicant is J.G. Cordone
Investments Limited, 542 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario, M4P 1N9.
2.0Site and Surrounding Area
The site is located on the north side of St.Clair Avenue West a half block west of Yonge Street. The site has an area of
approximately 3478 square metres. It currently contains a 3 storey apartment building and a 3 storey office building on the
St. Clair Avenue West frontage and four detached houses on DeLisle Avenue. All the residential buildings on the site are
currently vacant.
Along St. Clair Avenue West there is a 6 storey apartment to the west of the site and a 4 storey commercial building to the
east. Along DeLisle Avenue there is a 19 storey residential building to the west and a parking lot which has approvals for an
11 storey residential building to the east. On the north side of DeLisle Avenue there are apartment buildings of 10 and 12
storeys.
3.0History
This application has a long history and has gone through a number of changes. To help understand the evolution of this
application, a brief summary of the main events is provided below.
3.1Original Application
This application was originally filed on December 18,1992. The application was for a 12 storey office building on the St.
Clair Avenue frontage and a 7 storey apartment building on the DeLisle Avenue frontage. The residential building would
have contained 39 units and had a density of 1.16 times the area of the lot. The commercial building would have had a
density of 2.67 times the area of the lot. The overall density of this development would have been 3.83 times the area of the
lot.
3.2Preliminary Report
A Preliminary Report was submitted to the former City of Toronto Land Use Committee. The report identified a number of
planning issues such as: the commercial density; the proposed demolition of the two existing historic buildings on St. Clair
Avenue West; compatibility with adjacent buildings of architectural and historic value; Rental Housing Protection Act
considerations; below grade setback to permit planting and growth of shade trees; location of parking and loading areas; and
potential traffic impacts.
3.3First Public Meeting
Two public meetings were held on this application. The first public meeting was held to discuss the original application.
Approximately 17 people attended that meeting.
3.4Revised Application
The site has changed hands and the new owner submitted a revised application for a mixed use building consisting of two
towers, which is to built in two phases.
The first phase of the development would have been the demolition of the four detached houses along DeLisle Avenue and
the construction of the portion of the building fronting onto DeLisle Avenue (Tower A), while maintaining the two historic
buildings on St. Clair Avenue West. It was proposed that Tower A be 12 storeys in height and contain 105 residential units.
It was also proposed that 127 parking spaces be provided to serve the new and existing buildings. Access to the loading area
and underground parking garage was proposed from DeLisle Avenue. A temporary loading space was proposed in the front
of Tower A.
It was proposed that the second phase of the development, would have been the demolition of the two historic houses on St.
Clair Avenue West and the construction of the second 12 storey tower of the building, fronting onto St. Clair Avenue West
(Tower B). It was proposed that Tower B would have contained 49 residential units and a non-residential gross floor area of
600 square metres. It was proposed that the loading space be relocated to between the towers of the building and that the
temporary loading space in Tower A be converted into a residential unit. An additional 52 parking spaces were proposed. In
Phase II a private lane was proposed to be constructed providing access to the loading area and under ground parking garage
from both St.Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue.
The two towers would have a density of 4.5 times the area of the lot and contain 153 residential units. Tower B would have
contained 600 square metres of retail and office uses. The development would contain a total of 179 parking spaces upon
completion of both Phase I and Phase II.
3.5Revised Preliminary Report
A Revised Preliminary Report (dated March 30, 1998) was submitted to the April 1, 1998 meeting of Toronto Community
Council. The Preliminary Report identified a number of planning issues such as: the proposed demolition of the two
existing historic buildings on St. Clair Avenue West; the servicing of the new and existing buildings in each phase of the
development; the size and quality the outdoor recreation space; and the loss of rental units.
3.6Second Public Meeting
The second public meeting was held on May 26, 1998 and attended by 37 persons. The primary concerns raised were
potential traffic impacts; potential for cut through traffic across the site, between DeLisle and St. Clair Avenues; access to
both the parking garage and loading space; potential impact on the existing trees; the density of the project; the shadow
impact of the proposed building on DeLisle Avenue the proposed demolition of the heritage buildings; and construction
phasing of the development.
3.7Residents' Working Group
An informal working group made up of local residents was established by the local Councillors to try and resolve the issues
that were raised at the public meeting. The working group met with the local Councillors, the applicant and City
representatives. The main issues raised were:
-that in Phase I all traffic would be from DeLisle Avenue. The residents requested that in Phase I that the proposed laneway
be constructed from DeLisle Avenue to St. Clair Avenue West to allow for an even distribution of site traffic. This
connection would require the demolition of 56 St. Clair Avenue West in Phase I, which otherwise would not be demolished
until Phase II;
-that the applicant hire an arborist to supervise the health and safety of two mature trees at the north end of the site and that
the applicant intensify the landscaping on the site; and
-that the City accelerate the comprehensive traffic analysis of the area.
The resident working group concluded that the proposed massing and height of the development was acceptable.
3.8Modifications to the Revised Proposal
In response to concerns raised at the second public meeting, by the working group and by Civic Officials, the applicant
further revised the proposal as follows:
(a)the loading area will be relocated behind the Phase I building (Tower A);
(b)access to the loading space and parking garage will be provided from St. Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue in both
Phase I and Phase II;
(c)the number of curb cuts on DeLisle Avenue has been reduced from two to one;
(d)the historic building at 58 St Clair Avenue West will be demolished in Phase I to permit the construction of the through
driveway in Phase I and to allow for the loading space to be located in the rear of Tower A in Phase I;
(e)a control gate and signage will be provided to control on-site circulation so as to reduce the amount of traffic on DeLisle
Avenue and discourage through traffic;
(f)the drop off and pick up area for Tower A has been incorporated into the building and a new drop off and pick up area
has been provided for Tower B;
(g)the below grade setback on DeLisle Avenue has been increased to permit the planting and growth of shade trees;
(h)Tower A has been setback above the 10th floor to reduce shadow impact on DeLisle Avenue;
(i)a three storey base has been incorporated into the St. Clair Avenue West building to address concerns regarding the
building's relationship to the smaller adjacent historic buildings.
(j)the landscaping has been intensified as requested by the resident working group; and
4.0Planning Controls:
4.1Official Plan
The Part II Official Plan for Yonge - St. Clair, as amended, designates the site of the two existing apartment buildings on St.
Clair Avenue West as "Special Residence Area C". This restricts the density of commercial and institutional uses to a
maximum of 1.0 times the lot area. Residential uses are permitted and restricted to a maximum density of 3.0 times the lot
area. The maximum density permitted for buildings which mix commercial and residential development together is 4.0 time
the lot area.
The site of the four houses on DeLisle Avenue is designated High Density Residence Area by the Part II Plan. This permits
residential uses to a maximum density of 2.0 times the lot area.
4.2Zoning By-law
The area occupied by the two apartment buildings on St. Clair Avenue West is zoned CR T4.0 C1.0 R3.0 by the former City
of Toronto's Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86. This permits commercial and institutional uses at a density no greater than 1.0
times the lot area and residential uses at a density no greater that 3.0 times the lot area. This zoning permits a mixed use
building with a density no greater that 4.0. The maximum height permitted is 46.0 metres.
The area currently occupied by the four houses is zoned R2 Z2.0 by the former City of Toronto's Zoning By-law, By-law
438-86. This permits residential uses at a maximum density of 2.0 times the lot area. The height limit is 16.0 metres.
4.3Site Plan Control
This development is subject to site plan control.
4.4Historical Listing
On February 25, 1992 City Council adopted the Toronto Heritage recommendation that the buildings at 56 and 60 St. Clair
be included in the inventory of Heritage Properties. The staff report stated that the two buildings were built in 1913, are
characteristic of "Edwardian classicism" and were identified for architectural reasons. The buildings are in Heritage
Category "C" which denotes buildings of local community interest (i.e. buildings which retain their original character but
which are not of City, provincial or national significance).
5.0Reasons For This Application
The proposed development requires amendments to both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law because;
(a)the proposed density of 4.5 times the area of the lot exceeds the maximum permitted in both the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law of 2 times for the DeLisle Avenue frontage and 4 times for the St. Clair Avenue West frontage;
(b)the proposed height of both towers (Tower A- 38.5 metres and Tower B-39.2 metres) exceeds the maximum permitted
16.0 metre and 46.0 metre height limits respectively; and
(c)other zoning variances as identified in the Chief Building Official comments contained in Appendix A.
The applicant has also applied for Site Plan Approval.
6.0Comments from Civic Officials:
The application has been circulated to Civic Officials whose comments are attached to this report as Appendix A.
The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has identified various requirements in respect to the provision of
access, parking, loading and garbage handling facilities.
Heritage Toronto has indicated that they do not support the loss of the two listed, historic buildings and are unable to
support the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Applications. Heritage Toronto has further indicated that they would
not object to the proposed Phase I, (Tower A) proceeding, if vehicular access were solely from DeLisle Avenue and if
parking spaces for the retained historic buildings at 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue were provided.
The Toronto Transit Commissioner has recommended that in order to mitigate the impacts of site traffic on streetcar
operations, that inbound left-turn movements from eastbound St. Clair Avenue West into the site should be prohibited
Monday through Friday, 7a.m. to 7 p.m.. The applicant does not agree with this recommendation and would like to have full
turning movements permitted into the site from St. Clair Avenue West at all times of the day.
The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the applicant is required to submit the
necessary tree removal applications for the proposed removal of 2 City owned trees to facilitate the proposal.
7.0Comments:
As discussed below, the revised application responds successfully to the concerns raised by public officials, with the
exception of Heritage Toronto and consequently, I am recommending its approval.
7.1Density and Massing
The site has a split Official Plan and Zoning designation, which would permit a maximum density of 4 times coverage for
the portion of the site fronting onto St. Clair Avenue West and 2 times coverage for the portion of the site fronting onto
DeLisle Avenue. The total density of the proposed project is 4.5 times the lot area.
The density of the proposal generally reflects the surrounding context including the development recently approved by the
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) at 48-50 St. Clair Avenue West and 33 DeLisle Avenue. The OMB approved project is for
a new 11 storey residential building with an overall density of 4.5 times the area of the lot.
In addition this site is located near the transportation node at Yonge and St. Clair (Yonge subway line and St. Clair
streetcar) and provides the opportunity to add to the housing stock with minimal effects on the surrounding neighbourhood.
The proposed building has been designed so as to have frontage on both St. Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue. The
proposed setbacks on both frontages are consistent with the setbacks of the adjacent properties thereby maintaining the
rhythm of buildings and open spaces along the street. As detailed in Section 7.2 of this report the tower on DeLisle Avenue
has been setback above the 10th floor to ensure appropriate sunlight access on the boulevard and Tower B has been
designed with a tree storey base, consisted with height of the adjacent historic building at 50 St. Clair Avenue West.
7.2Height and Shadow
At the public meeting concern was raised about the height of the proposed development as it relates to potential shadowing
on DeLisle Avenue. The proposed development with a height of 12 storeys would be consistent with existing and approved
developments in the immediate area. To the west is a 17 storey residential building and across the street there two apartment
buildings of 10 and 11 storeys. The Ontario Municipal Board has recently approved a development for the property
immediately to the east for a new 11 storey residential building.
In response to the concern of shadowing on DeLisle Avenue, Tower A has been setback above the 10th floor. Sunlight
testing of the proposed development shows that the revised proposal would ensure that the north sidewalk on DeLisle
Avenue will receive a minimum of 4 hours of sunlight on the equinox (September 21/March 21).
7.3Parking
The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed the proposed parking for the project and finds it
satisfactory. The Commissioner advises that the provision of 125 parking spaces in a three level underground parking
garage and 8 spaces at grade (a total of 133 spaces) satisfies the estimated demand generated by Phase I for 116 parking
spaces, including 91 spaces for the residents, 13 spaces for the residential visitors and 12 spaces for the existing office
building. The Commissioner further advises that the provision of 173 spaces upon the completion of Phase II, satisfies the
estimated combined parking demand generated by Phase I and Phase II for 159 spaces, including 133 spaces for the
residents, 19 residential visitor spaces and 7 spaces for the office and retail component. The Commissioner also advises the
locations and physical separation between the residential parking spaces and the residential visitor and commercial spaces
in both Phase I and Phase II are satisfactory.
7.4Loading
The applicant has revised the location of the loading space in Phase I to address concerns raised by staff and the local
residents. It was originally proposed that a temporary loading space be located in the front of Tower A, with access directly
off DeLisle Avenue. In Phase II, this loading space would been relocated between the two towers of the building, with
access from both St. Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue. The concerns raised about the Phase I loading arrangements
were: that access would only be from DeLisle Avenue; and the location, in the front of Tower A would have created an
unattractive condition along DeLisle Avenue, even as an interim condition. The applicant has revised the application so that
the loading space would be located between the two towers in both Phase I and Phase II, with access from St. Clair Avenue
West and DeLisle Avenue.
The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has review the proposed loading for the project and finds its
satisfactory. The Commissioner indicated that the provision of one Type G loading spaces satisfies the estimated loading
demand generated by both Phase I and Phase II of the project. The Commissioner further advices that the location of
loading space between the towers of the proposed building is acceptable.
During the construction of Tower B and the remainder of the underground garage in Phase II, the loading space will not be
available for City garbage trucks to collect refuse and recyclables Therefore, it will be necessary for the owner to arrange for
alternative refuse collection service for the Phase I residential building during the construction period and until access to the
loading space is restored.
7.5Traffic
One of the primary concerns raised by the local residents was the potential impact of the proposed development on traffic.
The proposed development has been designed so as to provide a private laneway along the entire east side of the site
connecting St. Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue. This laneway would
provide access to the below grade parking garage, the loading space and the drop-off/pick-up areas for each tower from both
St. Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue. This lane would allow site traffic to be distributed to both St. Clair Avenue
West and DeLisle Avenue, which was a major objective of local residents. No parking will be allowed in this laneway,
which is to be well landscaped along its entire east side to provide a buffer for the abutting property.
The Commissioner of Works and Emergency services has reviewed the Traffic Impact Assessment study submitted by the
applicant's consultant. According to submitted information, upon completion of Phase II, the project will generate 45 and 63
total two-way vehicle trips in the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The capacity analysis indicates
that the project will have a nominal impact on traffic flow on St. Clair Avenue West. With respect to DeLisle Avenue, the
owners's traffic consultant has recommended measures to control on-site traffic circulation to reduce the amount of site
traffic flow on DeLisle Avenue. These measures include restricting access to the underground parking garage from DeLisle
Avenue during the weekday morning and evening peak periods and limited north-south movements through the site at all
other times. The Commissioner has indicated that the forecast traffic generated by this development can be accommodated
on the area road network subject to the implementation of the mitigation measures referred to above.
In response to concerns raised by the area residents and to help minimize the traffic impact on DeLisle Avenue, the
applicant has modified the proposal so as to provide the north-south private laneway between St. Clair Avenue and DeLisle
Avenue in Phase I. Previously access to the loading and parking facilities for Phase I would have only been from DeLisle
Avenue. Concerns were expressed by the local neighbourhood that all traffic generated by Phase I would have to use
DeLisle Avenue. This revision would require the demolition of the historically listed building at 58 St. Clair Avenue West
in Phase I.
7.6Toronto Transit Commission Comments
The Toronto Transit Commission has reviewed the proposed application and traffic impact analysis and have recommended
that, in order to mitigate the impacts of site traffic on streetcar operations, the inbound left-turn movements from eastbound
St. Clair Avenue West into the site should be prohibited Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.. The TTC have further
requested that once the development is in place and should the streetcars be delayed from autos turning left into the site
driveway on St. Clair Avenue West, that the turn prohibition be extended accordingly.
The Commissioner of Works and Emergency advises that this restriction would increase traffic on Deer Park Crescent and
DeLisle Avenue by approximately 4% or 14 cars per hour, during peak times. The Commissioner further advises that the
propose turning restrictions will have no significant impact on the operations of the local road network.
The applicant has indicated that they do not agree with the turning restrictions recommended by the TTC and would like to
have permission for full turning movements into the site from St. Clair Avenue West at all times.
Given that the proposed turning restriction will minimize the impact of the proposed development on the streetcar
operations and will only generate a slight increases the traffic on Deer Park Crescent and DeLisle Avenue, I am
recommending the inbound left-turn movements from eastbound St. Clair Avenue West into the site be prohibited Monday
through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m..
7.7Area Traffic Study
At the request of the local Councillors staff of Works and Emergency Services are currently undertaking an area wide traffic
study (the Yonge/St. Clair Traffic Study). It is anticipated that this study will be completed mid-1999. At the public meeting
it was suggested by the area residents that no final decision be made on this application until the larger traffic study has
been completed.
As stated above the applicant has submitted a traffic impact statement which shows that the forecast traffic generated by this
development can be accommodated on the area network and this conclusion has been accepted by the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services. In addition, it is unlikely that the proposed development would restrict the implementation
of any recommendations that may come out of the area wide traffic study. Further, the results of the site specific traffic
study for this project will be incorporated into the project traffic conditions, in the area wide traffic study. Therefore, it is
not necessary to wait until the larger traffic study has been completed.
7.8Heritage
Heritage Toronto have expressed a concern with the proposed demolition of the two listed, historic buildings at 56-60 St.
Clair Avenue West.
The applicant has meet several times with Heritage Toronto staff to explore several different options for redevelopment of
this site. These options included the introduction of some representative elements of the existing buildings into the proposed
building design. Heritage Toronto did not support this approached and felt that the two buildings should be retained for
adaptive reuse.
The properties on which the two heritage buildings are located are currently zoned CRT4.0 C1.0 R3.0 which would permit
an as-of-right development with a total density of 4.0 times the area of the lot. The height limit for this portion of the site is
46 metres and would permit a 12 storey building. The existing density of the two 3 storey buildings is only approximately
1.5 times the area of the lot.
The owner made an application to build one building comprised of two towers on 7 lots. Planning staff agreed there were
advantages in treating these lots as one development parcel. Developed as one parcel, a through lane from St. Clair Avenue
West to DeLisle Avenue could be provided, allowing for even distribution of site traffic, which was a major concern of area
residents and the Toronto Transit Commission. Also the pick up/drop off areas could be located along the through lane and
could function in a way as to reduce the need for additional curb cuts along St. Clair Avenue West and DeLisle Avenue or
the need for large turning circles in front of the towers. Planning staff had to acknowledge that an as of right development at
4.0 times coverage on the St. Clair lots would have had resulted in the demolition of these two listed buildings, while not
achieving the benefits described above.
In Phase I of the development, 60 St. Clair Avenue West would be retained and continue to be used for office purposes. As
a condition of approval the applicant will be required to retain the existing building, provide parking and a loading area for
the commercial tenants and landscape the adjacent area until such time Phase II is ready to proceed.
For these reasons, I am recommending that the demolition for the two heritage buildings be permitted to allow for the
construction of the proposed development.
7.9Loss of Rental Units
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing buildings which had contained 18 rental units and replace them with a
153 unit residential condominium building. The applicant advises that the residential units have been vacant since 1996.
The City is currently considering a new Official Plan policy regarding the conversion to condominium and the demolition of
rental housing. The draft policy would require the replacement of rental units in the new building on the site or elsewhere.
This policy is scheduled to be discussed at the February 8, 1999, Urban Environment and Development Committee.
However, at the time of resolving the major planning issues related to this application, the City's draft policy on
condominium conversion and demolitions did not exist. To address the loss of the 18 rental units the applicant is proposing
to provide "low end of market units". The Official Plan Amendment and Site Specific Zoning By-law for this site would
contain provisions which would require a minimum of 18 units to be provided, as "low end of market". The maximum size
of these units would be 62 square metres for bachelor and one bed room units, 82 square metres for two bedroom units and
98 square metres for three bedroom units.
Given that resolution of the major planning issues related to this application predated Council's consideration of the policy
regarding the replacement of rental units, the provision of "low end of market units" is acceptable in this instance.
7.10Tree Removal
The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the applicant is required to submit the
necessary tree removal applications for the proposed removal of two City owned trees to facilitate the proposal. Toronto
Community Council, on January 20, 1999 had before it a report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture
and Tourism, respecting the applicants request for the removal of one City owned tree and three trees situated on private
property. Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of the report until the final report from the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the development application was before Toronto Community
Council.
Conclusion:
The application has been revised with a view to satisfying the built form and traffic concerns raised by area residents and
civic officials. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to satisfy the request of Heritage Toronto to preserve the two listed
buildings at 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West. As set out in Section 7.8 of this report the retention of these buildings would
have precluded the proposed laneway, between DeLisle Avenue and St. Clair Avenue West, which permits the even
distribution of site traffic, which was a major concern of area residents and the Toronto Transit Commission. Treating the
developments lands as one parcel allows for consolidated loading and drop-off areas, reduces the number of required curb
cuts and achieves other similar efficiencies. Lastly, the density and height permissions existing on the lands occupied by the
heritage buildings would have permitted an as-of-right development which would have resulted in the demolition of the
listed buildings without achieving the benefits described above. Planning staff are of the view that these outcomes would be
undesirable and therefore support the demolition of the two buildings. Accordingly, I am recommending approval of this
application subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendations Section of this report.
The applicant has indicated that they do not support the turning restrictions requested by the TTC. Given that the
recommended turning restrictions will minimize the impact of cars exiting the site on the St. Clair streetcar operations, I am
recommending the turn prohibition requested by the TTC.
Contact Name:
Gregory Byrne
e-mail: gbyrne@toronto.ca
--------
Application Data Sheet Phase 1
| Site Plan Approval: |
Y |
|
Application Number: |
12372 Phase I |
| Rezoning: |
Y |
|
Application Date: |
December 18, 1992 |
| O. P. A.: |
Y |
|
Date of Revision: |
October 23, 1998 |
Confirmed Municipal Address:56, 60 St. Clair Av. W. and 55, 55R, 57, 59, 61 DeLisle Av.
| Nearest Intersection: |
On the north side of St. Clair Av. W., west of Yonge St. |
| |
|
| Project Description: |
To construct two 12 storey residential buildings. Phase I and Phase II.
Data below for Phase I. |
| Applicant:
J G Cordone Investments Ltd
542 Eglinton Ave. E.
489-1332 |
Agent:
J G Cordone Investments Ltd
542 Eglinton Ave.
489-1332 |
Architect:
Northgrave Architect Inc
66 Gloucester St.
929-9495 |
Planning Controls(For verification refer to Chief Building Official)
| Official Plan
Designation: |
Special Residence Area
C |
Site Specific
Provision: |
No |
| Zoning District: |
CR T4.0 C1.0 R3.0 ; R2
Z2.0 |
Historical Status: |
56, 60 St. Clair Av.
W. listed |
| Height Limit (m): |
46.0; 16.0 |
Site Plan Control: |
Yes |
Project Information
| Site Area: |
3479.0 m2 |
|
Height: |
Storeys: |
12 + 3 basements |
| Frontage: |
70.0 m |
|
|
Metres: |
38.50 |
| Depth: |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Indoor |
Outdoor |
|
|
| Ground Floor: |
575.0 m2 |
|
Parking
Spaces: |
125 |
2 |
|
|
| Residential
GFA: |
10290.0
m2 |
|
Loading
Docks: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Non-Residential GFA: |
|
|
(number,
type) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total GFA: |
10290.0
m2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dwelling Units |
|
Floor Area Breakdown |
| Tenure: |
Condo |
|
|
|
Land Use |
Above
Grade |
Below
Grade |
| 1 Bedroom: |
52 |
|
|
|
Residential |
10290.0 m2 |
|
| 2 Bedroom: |
43 |
|
|
|
Indoor Amenity Space |
210.0
m2 |
|
| 3 Bedroom: |
10 |
|
|
|
Outdoor Amenity Space |
210.0
m2 |
|
| Total Units: |
105 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Proposed Density |
|
|
| Residential Density: 4.30 |
Non-Residential Density: 0.20 |
Total Density: 4.50 |
| Comments |
Values for Residential and Total Density, and Site Area are for Phase I and Phase II. |
| Data
valid: |
February 3, 1999 |
Section: |
CP North |
Phone: |
392-7333 |
--------
Application Data Sheet Phase II
| Site Plan Approval: |
Y |
|
Application Number: |
12372 Phase II |
| Rezoning: |
Y |
|
Application Date: |
December 18, 1992 |
| O. P. A.: |
Y |
|
Date of Revision: |
October 23, 1998 |
Confirmed Municipal Address:56, 60 St. Clair Av. W. and 55, 55R, 57, 59, 61 DeLisle Av.
| Nearest Intersection: |
On the north side of St. Clair Av. W., west of Yonge St. |
| |
|
| Project Description: |
To construct two 12 storey residential buildings. Phase I and Phase II.
Data below for Phase II. |
| Applicant:
J G Cordone Investments Ltd
542 Eglinton Ave. E
489-1332 |
Agent:
J G Cordone Investments Ltd
542 Eglinton Ave. E
489-1332 |
Architect:
Northgrave Architect Inc
66 Gloucester St.
929-9495 |
Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)
| Official Plan
Designation: |
Special Residence Area
C |
Site Specific
Provision: |
No |
| Zoning District: |
CR T4.0 C1.0 R3.0 R2
Z2.0 |
Historical Status: |
56, 60 St. Clair Av.
W. listed |
| Height Limit (m): |
46.0; 16.0 |
Site Plan Control: |
Yes |
Project Information
| Site Area: |
3479.0 m2 |
|
Height: |
Storeys: |
12 + 2 basements |
| Frontage: |
|
|
|
Metres: |
39.20 |
| Depth: |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Indoor |
Outdoor |
|
|
| Ground Floor: |
396.0 m2 |
|
Parking
Spaces: |
46 |
|
|
|
| Residential
GFA: |
4683.0 m2 |
|
Loading
Docks: |
1 |
G |
|
|
|
|
| Non-Residential GFA: |
682.0 m2 |
|
(number,
type) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total GFA: |
5365.0 m2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dwelling Units |
|
Floor Area Breakdown |
| Tenure: |
Condo |
|
|
|
Land Use |
Above
Grade |
Below
Grade |
| 1 Bedroom: |
24 |
|
|
|
Residential |
4683.0
m2 |
|
| 2 Bedroom: |
23 |
|
|
|
Retail |
682.0
m2 |
|
| 3 Bedroom: |
2 |
|
|
|
Indoor Amenity |
98.0 m2 |
|
| Total Units: |
49 |
|
|
|
Outdoor Amenity |
98.0 m2 |
|
| Proposed Density |
|
|
| Residential Density: 4.30 |
Non-Residential Density: 0.20 |
Total Density: 4.50 |
| Comments |
Values for Residential and Total Density, and Site Area are for Phase I and Phase II. |
| Data
valid: |
February 3, 1999 |
Section: |
CP North |
Phone: |
392-7333 |
--------
Appendix A
Comments from Civic Officials
1.Works and Emergency Services, dated November 3, 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 116 parking spaces on the site to serve Phase 1 of this project, including at least 91
spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, 13 residential visitor spaces and 12 spaces for the existing office building, and
a minimum of 159 parking spaces on the site to serve both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this project, including at least 133 spaces
for the exclusive use of the residents, 19 residential visitor spaces and 7 spaces for the non-residential component;
(c)Provide and maintain a physical separation between the residential and commercial portions of the underground parking
garage to secure the availability of the resident parking spaces;
(d)Construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of its intersection with
the driveway extending between Delisle Avenue and St. Clair Avenue West, along the east property line, and not exceeding
15% along the remaining portions;
(e)Provide and maintain a stop sign for exiting drivers at the top of the access ramp serving the underground garage;
(f)Provide, maintain and operate a control gate access system on the driveway extending between Delisle Avenue and St.
Clair Avenue West as set out in a letter report prepared by Tedesco Engineering, dated October 6, 1998, and locate the
control gate at an appropriate location to the north of the access ramp to the underground parking garage;
(g)Provide and maintain signage at appropriate locations to the north and south of the control gate indicating "No Entry
7:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:00-6:00 p.m./Card Access Only at All Other Times";
(h)Provide and maintain garbage rooms at least 20 square metres in size and recycling rooms at least 10 square metres in
size to serve the residential building in Phase 1 and the mixed-use building in Phase 2, and install and maintain a stationary
compactor unit in each garbage room;
(i)Install and maintain double or overhead doors of sufficient size to accommodate the transport of container bins between
each garbage and recyclable storage room and the Type G loading space;
(j)Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks
can enter and exit the site in a forward motion, to serve the residential building in Phase 1 and then to jointly serve Phase 1
and Phase 2 upon completion of Phase 2 of this project;
(k)Provide and designate a fully trained employee to assist the garbage truck driver to correctly position the truck below the
overhead clearance and to manoeuvre the container bins from the garbage and recycling rooms to the front of the garbage
truck for loading, at all times during collection periods, upon completion of Phase 2 of this project;
(l)Provide and maintain a concrete base pad, with a slope not exceeding 2%, adjacent to the front of the Type G loading
space for the storage of at least 4 compactor containers to serve the residential building in Phase 1 on collection day, and a
concrete pad for 7 compactor containers to jointly serve Phase 1 and Phase 2 on collection day upon the completion of
Phase 2 of this project;
(m)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;
(n)Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading spaces 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;
(o)Construct the Type G loading spaces with a minimum width of 4.0 m and a vertical clearance of at least 6.1 m over at
least the first 8.0 m of the loading space, measured from the end of the loading space opposite the entrance to it, and
delineate the location of the overhead clearance on the floor of each loading space;
(p)Construct the decorative unit paver surface, to be used within any portion of the Type G loading spaces or areas used to
access the loading spaces, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and indemnify the City against any
damages that may be caused to the decorative unit pavers through the regular use of the areas by City garbage trucks;
(q)Submit, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose
of preparing site specific exemption by-laws;
and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;
(r)Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal
application for a building permit;
(s)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;
(t)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;
(u)Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;
(v)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;
(c)Of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage
collection; and
(d)That all recyclable materials generated by this project eligible for collection under the City's recycling programs must be
set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables.
Comments:
Location
Between St. Clair Avenue West and Delisle Avenue, west of Yonge Street.
Proposal
A phased project comprising the existing 1150 mē office building fronting on St. Clair Avenue West and a 105 unit
residential building fronting on Delisle Avenue in Phase 1. In Phase 2, the existing office building will be demolished and
replaced with a new mixed-use building fronting on St. Clair Avenue West comprising 49 residential units, 50 mē of retail
space and 550 mē of office space.
The proposal was dealt with in Departmental reports dated July 4, 1995 and April 6, 1998. The above consolidated
recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring
revised plans, which has been satisfied.
Parking and Access
The provision of 125 parking spaces in a three level underground parking garage and 8 spaces at grade, for a total of 133
spaces in Phase 1, satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by Phase 1 for 116 spaces, including 91 spaces for the
residents, 13 spaces for residential visitors and 12 spaces for the existing office building. As far as can be ascertained, the
requirements of the Zoning By-law are for 140 spaces. The provision of a total of 173 spaces upon the completion of Phase
2, satisfies the estimated combined parking demand generated by Phase 1 and Phase 2 for 159 spaces, including 133 spaces
for the residents, 19 residential visitor spaces and 7 spaces for the office and retail component. The Zoning By-law
requirement for Phase 1 and Phase 2, as far as can be ascertained, is for 183 spaces. The proposed parking supply, which
includes one substandard space at grade for small cars, is acceptable. The locations of the physical separation between the
resident parking spaces and the residential visitor and commercial spaces in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 are satisfactory.
In order to provide adequate visibility, the slope of the access ramp serving the underground parking garage should not
exceed 5% within 6 m of its intersection with the access driveway extending between Delisle Avenue and St. Clair Avenue
West. Also, a stop sign should be installed for exiting drivers at the top of the ramp.
Traffic Impact Assessment
A Traffic Impact Assessment dated May 11, 1998, including supplementary material dated September 23 and October 7,
1998 has been submitted by Tedesco Engineering on behalf of the owner.
This study indicates that upon completion of Phase 2, the project will generate 45 and 63 total two-way vehicle trips in the
weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively. The parameters and assumptions applied in the study are generally
acceptable. The capacity analysis indicates that the project will have a nominal impact on traffic flow on St. Clair Avenue
West. With respect to Delisle Avenue, the owner's traffic consultant has recommended measures to control on-site traffic
circulation to reduce the amount of site traffic flow on this street. These measures include restricting access to the
underground parking garage from Delisle Avenue during the weekday morning and evening peak periods and limited
north-south movements through the site at all other times. In conclusion, the forecast traffic generated by this development
can be adequately accommodated on the area road network subject to implementation of the mitigating measures referred to
in Recommendation Nos. 1(f) and (g), above.
Loading
The proposed provision of one Type G loading space, discussed in more detail below, for the shared use of the residential
and non-residential components of this project satisfies the estimated loading demand generated by both Phase 1 and Phase
2 of the project.
Refuse Collection
The City will provide the residential component of this project in Phase 1, and the residential and non-residential
components of this project upon completion of Phase 2, with bulk lift garbage collection and recyclable materials collection
in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste provided that all recyclable materials generated by this
project are set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables. Refuse
and recyclables generated by the existing office building to be retained in Phase 1 will be collected curbside on St. Clair
Avenue West. This will require the provision of the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(h)
to 1(p), above.
The plans show the provision of a Type G loading space, located at the rear of the proposed mixed use building to be
constructed in Phase 2, with a concrete container bin storage pad for 4 bins to serve Phase 1 and a pad for 7 bins to serve
both Phase 1 and Phase 2. The configuration of the Type G loading space allows trucks to enter and exit the site in a
forward motion, which is acceptable. However, upon the completion of Phase 2, a building employee would be required to
assist the driver to correctly position the truck below the required 6.1 m overhead clearance (which should be delineated on
the floor of the loading space) and to transport container bins to and from the front of the garbage truck for loading.
It appears that it will not be possible for City garbage trucks to collect refuse and recyclables during the construction of the
new building and underground garage in Phase 2. Therefore, it will be necessary for the owner to arrange for alternative
refuse collection service for the Phase 1 residential building during the construction period and until access to the Type G
loading space is restored.
It is the policy of City Council to levy a service charge on all new developments, payment of which is a condition for
receiving City containerized garbage and recycling collection. The levy is currently $34.50 per month. The levy includes the
provision and maintenance of City garbage and recycling containers, including taxes, multiplied by the number of garbage
containers on site. Should the owner choose to provide private garbage containers, the levy will still be charged and the
containers must meet City specifications and be maintained privately at the expense of the building owner. Further
information regarding the above can be obtained by contacting the Operations and Sanitation Division at 392-1517.
Storm Water Management
It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings,
whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated
that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by
contacting the Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787).
2.Urban Planning and Development Service (Buildings), dated October 13, 1998.
Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:Construct 12 storey mixed-use building comprising two towers (north and south) with 105 and 49 dwelling
units respectively, 3 and 2 basement parking levels respectively
Zoning Designation:CR T4.0 C1.0 R3.0, CR T4.5 C2.0 R3.0, R2 Z2.0Map:50K 313
Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by:Northgrave Architect IncPlans dated:Jan 16, July 15, Oct 5, 1998
Residential GFA:15655 m2
Non-Residential GFA: 600 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 proposed height of both towers exceed the maximum permitted 46.0 m and 16.0 m respectively. (Section 4(2)(a))
2.The by-law requires one loading space - type G (3.5 metres by 11 metres with a vertical clearance of at least 4 metres).
One loading space(s) - type G is proposed. (Section 4(6)(c))
Where this development is done in stages, the Phase 1 proposal will not comply in that the proposed loading space will not
be located on the same lot.
3.No bicycle parking spaces for visitors are proposed. (Section 4(13)(c))
4.The proposed use, mixed-use building, is not permitted in a district zoned R2 Z2.0. (Section 6(1)(a))
5.The by-law limits the residential gross floor area in an area zoned R2 Z2.0 to 2.0 times the area of the lot. The proposed
residential gross floor area of the building exceeds the maximum permitted. (Section 6(3) PART I 1)
6.The by-law requires the building to have a minimum side lot line setback of 7.5 metres. The proposed side lot line setback
is 5.95 metres on the east and west sides. (Section 6(3) PART II G)
7.The by-law requires a building to have a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The proposed rear yard setback is 0
metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 4)
8.The by-law limits a building in a (0.35, 0.6, 1.0, 2.0) zone to a maximum depth of 14.0 metres. The proposed depth is
43.625 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 5(I))
9.The by-law requires an accessory building or structure to be located no closer to the front lot line than the distance at
which the main building is located. The proposed accessory structure is located closer to the front lot line than the main
building. (Section 6(3) PART II 7(ii) B.)
10.The by-law requires in an area zoned (R2 Z2.0) a minimum landscaped open space equal to 35% of the area of the lot.
The proposed landscaped open space on the portion of the lot zoned R2 Z2.0 is deficient. (Section 6(3) PART III 1(a))
11.The by-law requires an apartment building to provide a minimum landscaped open space of 50% of the area of the lot.
The proposed landscaped open space is deficient. (Section 6(3) PART III 1(b))
This requirement applies where the proposal is developed is stages and applies to Phase 1.
12.The by-law requires that the residential gross floor area be not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot. The proposed
residential gross floor area of the building exceeds the maximum permitted. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))
13.The by-law requires the main floor level of every commercial use to be within 0.2 metres of the level of the sidewalk
opposite the door to such commercial use. The level of the floor of the proposed commercial use must be shown to be
within 0.2 metres of the level of the sidewalk. (Section 8(3) PART XI 2(1))
14.The by-law requires the main floor level used for commercial purposes to have a depth of at least 7.5 metres, measured
from the main front wall and a width of at least 60% of the building's frontage. The proposed commercial use has a width of
less than 60%. (Section 8(3) PART XI 2(2))
15.The by-law requires all exterior commercial entrance doors to be directly accessible from the sidewalk by a level surface
or a ramp having a slope not greater than 1 in 25 (4%). Any proposed ramp must be shown to have a slope of 4% maximum.
(Section 8(3) PART XI 2(3))
16.The by-law requires all exterior commercial entrance doors to be directly accessible from the sidewalk by a level surface
or a ramp having a slope not greater than 1 in 25 (4%). The proposed entrances are accessible by a step. (Section 8(3) PART
XI 2(3))
17.The proposed retail store use is not permitted. (Section 12(2)262(a)(II))
18.The lowest 4.5 metres of the proposed south tower is proposed to be less than 3.0 metres from the limit of the street, St.
Clair Avenue West. (Section 12(2)263(ii))
19.The portion of the building above the lowest 4.5 metres of the proposed south tower is proposed to be more than 0.3
metres from the limit of the street, St. Clair Avenue West. (Section 12(2)263(iii))
20.The portion of the building more than 17.0 metres above the average level of the sidewalk is proposed to be set back less
than 6.0 metres from the limit of the street. (Section 12(2)263(iv))
Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals
1.The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.
2.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the
Planning Act.
3.This property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In accordance with Section 34, Part IV of the Act,
an owner wishing to demolish a designated building must receive consent in writing from City Council.
4.The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all
relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.
3.Toronto Parks and Recreation Division, dated August, 5, 1998.
This will acknowledge your Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning Circulation Form which was circulated on July 15,
1998 and contained revised plans for the above noted application. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:
(i)There are two City owned trees involved with this project which are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the
development site. The plans filed appear to indicate that the applicant intends on removing (and replacing) the City owned
trees. A written request to remove the trees in question must be filed by the applicant which outlines the reasons why they
intend to undertake the removal. A written request for tree removal should be filed only once that it is determined that no
significant changes to the Site Plan for the subject development will occur. If City Council approves the request to remove
the trees in question, the applicant will be responsible for covering the monetary value of the trees, removal costs and
replacement costs. If an adequate number of replacement trees are proposed for planting within the City road allowance as
part of the development, funds to cover replacement costs do not have to be provided to the City.
(ii)Trees indicated for planting on the City road allowance must be planted in accordance with the Tree Details Section of
the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an
investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not
possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to
the City.
Street Trees in Turf:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 101 for Balled and Burlapped Trees in Turf Areas.
Street Trees in Raised Planters:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 102 for Raised Tree Planter - Concept.
Street Trees in Tree Pits:In accordance with Planting Detail No.'s 103, 103-1, 103-2, & 103-3 for 1.2 m x 2.4 m Tree Pit.
Tree pits must be constructed in accordance with the Continuous Tree Pit details outlined in the Construction Details
Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as Drawing No.'s RE-1833M-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -6, 1 of 2 & 2 of 2.
(iii)There appear to be trees situated on private property which may be impacted by this development. On May 16, 1995,
City of Toronto Council passed an amendment to the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, to
preserve trees on private property having a diameter of 30 cm or more. Trees which may be affected could be located on the
subject site or on the lands adjacent to the site. A detailed plan must be provided which indicates the exact location of all
existing trees situated on private property which meet the diameter criteria under Chapter 331 and all City owned trees,
regardless of diameter which are involved with this project. For all existing trees situated on private property that are to be
protected and preserved, the plan noted above should indicate appropriate tree protection measures as determined by the
arborist or 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 Landscape Plan L-1 prepared by Vertechs Design Inc., date stamped as received on July 10, 1998 by Urban
Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services is not
acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.
dated, November 24, 1998
This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to
Forestry Services on November 9, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:
(vi)There are three (3) City owned trees involved with this project which are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to
the development site. One (1) of the three City owned trees qualifies for routine removal by Forestry Services given its poor
health and condition and as such, will be scheduled for removal by Forestry Services.
(vii)The plans filed appear to indicate that the applicant intends on removing (and replacing) City owned tree(s). A written
request to remove the tree(s) in question must be filed by the applicant which outlines the reasons why they intend to
undertake the removal. A written request for tree removal should be filed only once that it is determined that no significant
changes to the Site Plan for the subject development will occur. If City Council approves the request to remove the tree(s)
in question, the applicant will be responsible for covering the monetary value of the tree(s), removal costs and replacement
costs.
(viii)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.
(ix)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.
(x)I advise that Landscape Plans L1, L1A and L2 prepared by Vertechs Design Inc., date stamped as received on November
6, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development
Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.
4.Heritage Toronto, dated October 19, 1998.
Thank you for circulating the revisions to the above-noted application. The properties at 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West
were included int he City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage properties by Toronto City Council on February 24 and 25,
1992.
The proposal is predicated on demolishing the two listed buildings. Heritage Toronto staff has met several times with the
applicant and acknowledges that several difference options were explored. However, the project objectives do not include
reusing either or both of the low-scale apartment buildings. Saving one or both is even more difficult given the desire for
the driveway to exit on the St. Clair Avenue.
We understand that the redevelopment of the subject property is slated to occur in two phases. The first phase will occupy
the northern portion of the site, fronting on DeLisle Avenue. The demolition of the historic apartments at 56 and 60 St.
Clair would occur at the onset of Phase 1. The sole purpose would be to provide the driveway and long-term access for
parking for Phase 2.
Heritage Toronto does not support the loss of the two historic buildings. We are very concerned that the historic buildings
would be demolished in anticipation of future development rather than at the time a project is ready to proceed. We are
therefore unable to support the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application. We would not object to the northerly
portion proceeding if vehicular access were solely from DeLisle Avenue and if parking spaces for 56 and 60 St. Clair
Avenue were included.
dated May 5, 1998
As discussed at our meeting on March 24, 1998, Heritage Toronto can not approve the demolition of 50 and 60 St. Clair
Avenue West, buildings that are listed on the Inventory of Heritage Properties, and therefore can not support any Official
Plan Amendment and / or Rezoning without Board approval.
The purpose of our last meeting was to discuss possibilities for partial retention of the heritage buildings, retention of one of
the buildings, keeping the facades of the buildings and moving them closer to the street and finally incorporating features of
the heritage buildings into the new development. These suggestions did not imply approval but were approaches that would
inform the Board of Heritage Toronto about the possibilities of integration policy with your proposal.
Although each of the issues were tested, with alternate building elevations and plans provided through our meeting an
subsequently you office, it was felt by Heritage Toronto staff, that either the buildings should be retained for adaptive reuse
or a development based on the architects best design should be implemented.
Heritage Toronto staff will recommend to the Board that the heritage buildings be retained. The Board will review this item
on May 20, 1998. If you choose to make a presentation to the Board we must know by May 13, 1998.
5.Toronto Transit Commission, January 12, 1999
Further to my letter dated January 8, 1999 (copy attached), and in response to a specific request from the applicant, we have
reviewed our previous requirement for prohibiting, at all times, the inbound left-turns from eastbound St. Clair Avenue
West into the above-noted development site. We have concluded that this left-turns from prohibition can be restricted to
Monday through Friday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. only. Based on existing information, delays to streetcars from autos turning left
into the site driveway on St. Clair Avenue, outside of these times, are not expected to be significant. However, should actual
experience be otherwise, once the development is in place, then we would request that the turn prohibition be extended
accordingly.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 2
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 3
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 4
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 5
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 6
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 7
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 8
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 9
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
Insert Table/Map No. 10
56 & 60 St. Clair & 55, 55R, 57, 59 & 61 DeLisle Ave
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (February 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To recommend amendments to my final report on the 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, 59 and 61
DeLisle Avenue.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Recommendation 2 (b) (iv) of the Final Report on the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan
Approval, Application No. 12372, dated February 3, 1999, be amended to read as follows:
"(iv)the building contains not more than 154 dwelling units and a residential gross floor area of 15,100 square metres and a
non-residential gross floor area of 600 square metres of which;
(a)not more than 105 dwelling units and 10,300 square metres of residential gross floor area are accommodated in Tower A;
(b)not more than 49 dwelling units, 4,800 square metres of residential gross floor area and 600 square metres of
non-residential gross floor area are accommodated in Tower B;
(c)not more than 50 square metres of floor area for uses listed in Section 8(1)(f)(iv) Retail and Service Shops and not more
than 550 square metres of floor area for uses permitted by Section 12(2)262(a)(II)- Area B are accommodated in Tower B;
(d)not less than 18 of the dwelling units erected or used on the site shall be "low end of market";".
(2)Recommendation 3 F(18) of the Final Report on the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan
Approval, Application No. 12372, dated February 3, 1999, be amended to read:
"(18)the owner shall provide and maintain signage at appropriate locations to the north and south of the control gate, in a
location satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services indicating "Card Access Only";".
Comments:
In my Final Report on the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval, Application No. 12372,
dated February 3, 1999, my recommendations incorrectly identified the total number of units in the project as 153. The
correct number of units is 154. I am recommending Recommendation 2 (b) (iv) be amended to reflect the correct number of
units.
Since the preparation of the final report staff have been contacted by the applicant's transportation consultant. The
consultant has indicated the recommended measures to control on-site traffic circulation and the turning prohibition
requested by the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) would create circuitous travel route due to the proposed access
restriction from DeLisle Avenue (i.e. no entry 7-9 a.m. and 4-6 p.m. /card access only at all other times). With the current
proposed measures, vehicles would only be able to enter the site from St. Clair Avenue West, by way of a right turn
movement during the morning and afternoon peak periods. In order to provide an even distribution of site traffic while
maintaining the turn restrictions requested by the TTC, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has requested
that Recommendation 3 F (18) be amended so as to permit card access only at all times from DeLisle Avenue.
Contact Name:
Gregory Byrne - 392-0881
E-mail: gbyrne@toronto.ca
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
An application has been filed under the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article I and III,
for permission to remove one City owned tree and three trees situated on private property in connection with the
development of the above noted properties.
Source of Funding:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
That if Toronto Community Council approves the request for the removal of one City owned tree and three trees situated on
private property indicated in this report, that such approval be conditional on:
(1)the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance
with plans approved under Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 12372 commence which warrant the
destruction of the trees;
(2)the applicant submitting a certified cheque in the amount of $5,823.54 to cover the value of the City owned tree, its'
removal and replacement costs; and
(3)the applicant planting a minimum of thirty-three (33) trees in accordance with Landscape Plans L1A, L1 and L2 prepared
by Vertechs Design Inc., date stamped as received by Urban Planning & Development Services on December 11, 1998 and
on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services.
Background:
This request for tree removal has been received in connection with Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No.
12372 which is a proposal to construct a two phase development of two 12 storey buildings containing residential and
commercial units.
Comments:
We are in receipt of a request from Mr. Charles Aquilina of Cordone Investments Limited, 542 Eglinton Avenue East,
Toronto, Ontario, M4P 1N9, the owner of the above noted properties, that the City consider the removal of one City owned
tree and three trees situated on private property.
Mr. Aquilina reports that one of the City owned tree is in direct conflict with a proposed underground garage. The tree in
question is an 83 cm diameter Norway maple which is in fair condition and is valued at $4,614.94. This tree cannot be
protected during the construction of the two 12 storey buildings. The cost to remove the tree is $733.59 and the cost to
replace the tree in turf is $475.01, for a total of $5,823.54.
Two of the three private trees which are the subject of this application are situated on properties adjacent to the
development site at 9 Deer Park Crescent and 64 St. Clair Avenue West and in close proximity to the property lines of the
development site. Given that extensive excavation must take place along the property line of the development site in close
proximity to the two trees on the adjacent properties in order to facilitate the construction of an underground parking
structure which is proposed as part of the subject development, the trees in question must be removed due to the impact on
the root system of the trees.
At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998 City Council passed By-law No. 900-1998 which amended City of Toronto
Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, to allow the owner of either property where the base of a tree staddles the
property line or where a property is physically impacted by the roots or crown of a tree on an adjacent property to make an
application to injure or destroy such a tree. As such, the applicant of the development filed the permit application to remove
the trees on the adjacent properties which the applicant does not own.
As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was
posted on the property for the minimum 14 day posting period. Two (2) letters were received in response to the notice of
application to remove the trees in question.
The three trees situated on private property are as follows:
1.47 cm diameter Black Locust in good condition -
This tree is situated on the private property of 55 DeLisle Avenue which forms part of the development site;
2.41 cm diameter Norway Maple in good condition -
This tree is situated on the private property of 9 Deer Park Crescent which is adjacent to the development site;
3.49 cm diameter Elm in fair condition -
This tree is situated on the private property of 64 St. Clair Avenue West which is adjacent to the development site.
The applicant requires City Council approval to permit the removal of all three of these privately owned trees.
The trees in question are of a size which does not permit their relocation. The proposed development in its present form
precludes the retention of all four trees which are the subject of this report and are proposed for removal due to the size,
scale and placement of the development.
The landscape plan which has been filed with development application indicates the planting of thirty-three (33) new trees
on the DeLisle Avenue city road allowance, the private property of the development site and the adjacent private property of
9 Deer Park Crescent.
Should Toronto Community Council recommend that the request to remove the trees in question be approved, such
approval should meet the conditions outlined in the recommendations above.
Contact Name:
Gary R. Le Blanc
Telephone: (416) 392-0494Facsimile: (416) 392-6657E-mail: gleblanc@toronto.ca
--------
(A copy of the letters in opposition, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto
Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on March 30, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the
City Clerk).
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (February 24, 1999) from the City
Clerk, Toronto Community Council:
The Toronto Community Council, on February 17, 1999 had before it a report (February 3, 1999) from Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 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 also had before the following reports:
-(January 4, 1999) from Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting Removal of One
City-Owned Tree and Three Trees situated on Private Property; and
-(February 16, 1999) from Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Further Report
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.
The Toronto Community Council:
(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.
The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (March 29, 1999) from the Director, Transportation
Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To identify the impacts associated with the TTC's request to restrict the inbound left-turn movement from eastbound St.
Clair Avenue West into the driveway serving 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West, from Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to
7:00 p.m., and suggest an appropriate course of action.
Financial Implications:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Background:
Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of February 17, 1999, in considering the Final Report (February 3, 1999)
respecting the above noted development application, among other things requested the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services, in consultation with the General Manager of the TTC, to report when the draft by-laws are submitted,
on the request to restrict eastbound left-turns from St. Clair Avenue West to the site at 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West
from Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. (Clause 59 (a) in Toronto Community Council Report No. 4)
Comments:
The site at 56/60 St. Clair Avenue West has an existing driveway which serves a surface public parking facility with
approximately 45 parking spaces. The estimated eastbound left-turn traffic volume entering the parking lot is 15 vehicles in
the a.m. peak hour and 12 vehicles in the p.m. peak hour. These figures are based on Toronto Parking Authority information
on trip generation, and on
trip distribution information contained in the traffic impact study for the proposed development submitted by Tedesco
Engineering dated September 1998. In comparison, the proposed development is estimated to generate 7 eastbound left-turn
trips in the a.m. peak hour and 19 in the p.m. peak hour. Based on this assessment, the proposed development would likely
result in minimal change in the eastbound left-turn movement. Consequently, it is concluded that the overall impact on
transit and traffic operations would be negligible compared to existing conditions.
The TTC's objective in requesting the turn restriction as I understand it, is to minimize both existing and anticipated delay
to streetcars whenever the opportunity is available do so. By minimizing delay, the benefits of TTC infrastructure
improvements are maximized, and patrons receive improved service, which in turn may encourage ridership. In this
particular case, the TTC has invested funds to improve transit priority for streetcars on St. Clair Avenue West, and any
opportunity taken to restrict left-turns at non-signalized intersections or driveways would generally result in reduced delay
and improved service. The TTC has also secured similar left-turn restrictions at a carwash on Bathurst Street, a restaurant
on King Street, and the left-turn restrictions on Spadina Avenue.
Implementing the eastbound left-turn restriction from St. Clair Avenue West, as requested by the TTC, would likely result
in the following:
(a)some drivers would use alternative routes to the site in order to enter from westbound St. Clair Avenue West;
(b)other drivers would turn left from St. Clair Avenue West onto Deer Park Crescent and then enter the site from De Lisle
Avenue;
(c)it would single out one property owner on the north side of the block, a block which has other driveways which serve
higher traffic volumes; and
(d)it would set a precedent for restricting left-turn access for future developments on St. Clair Avenue, which may in turn
encourage more traffic into adjacent residential neighbourhoods.
Staff of Transportation Services have consulted with TTC officials in the preparation of this report.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nigel Tahair, 392-7711
--------
(A copy of the letter (March 29, 1999) from the Manager - Service Planning, Toronto Transit Commission, addressed to the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the
Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on March 30, 1999, and a copy thereof has been forwarded to
Council under separate cover).
8
Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -
Yorkville Triangle Area (Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)recommendation No. 2(b)(b)(ii) of the report (March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services be amended to read:
"2(b)(b)(ii)where the height of the building or structure is greater that 7.0 metres, for any portion of the building or
structure having a depth greater that 14 metres; and"
(2)recommendation No. 2(c)(ii) of the report (March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services be amended to read:
"2(c)(ii)where the height of the building or structure is greater than 7.0 metres, for any portion of the building or
structure having a depth greater than 11 metres; and"
(3)the report (March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended
by Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2), be adopted.
(4)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (March 12, 1999) of the Solicitor, as amended, be approved and that
authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto; and
(5)there be no further notice of public meeting of the draft by-laws.
Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2) were carried on the following division of votes:
Yeas:Councillors Adams, Chow, Disero, Fotinos, Johnston, Layton, Silva - 7
Nays:Councillors Rae, Bossons, Korwin-Kuczynksi, Miller - 4
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 March 30, 1999, and the following persons addressed
the Toronto Community Council:
-Ms. Jane Beecroft;
-Ms. Nina Strait, Board of Director Member, MTCC No. 576;
-Ms. Stacy Sobkowski;
- Mr. Bill Stevenson, President, ABC Residents' Association;
-Ms. Adrienne Clarkson;
-Mr. William Rogers;
-Mr. Rory Finlayson; and
-Mr. Stephen R.S. Sabot, Real Estate Broker.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 12, 1999) from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to vary the planning controls respecting the Yorkville Triangle
Area of Special Identity in the North Midtown as recommended by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions
of the Planning Act.
Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it
could recommend:
(2)that the Draft By-laws attached to the report (March 12, 1999) of the Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted
to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto.
(3)that there be no further notice of public meeting of the draft by-laws.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The Toronto Community Council will have before it the report of the Commissioner Urban Planning and Development
Services (March 12, 1999), concerning the above-noted subject. This report recommends the amendment of the Official
Plan for the former City of Toronto, together with an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment which will vary the
planning controls. Pursuant to the report of the Commissioner, should Council approve the draft by-laws, the by-law
repealing Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998 should be adopted as well. The Commissioner has also indicated that a
technical stipulation should be added to the zoning by-law restricting the height of second-storey rooftop deck fences. That
amendment has been included in the draft by-law.
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.
Conclusions:
N/A
Contact Name:
Raymond M. Feig
Solicitor
Telephone: (416) 392-7224
Fax: (416) 392-0024
E-mail: rfeig@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 Section 19.34 (North Midtown Part II Plan) of the Official Plan for the former City of
Toronto
The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.The text 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. 143.
SCHEDULE "A"
1.Section 19.34 of the Official Plan is amended by deleting the existing Section 6.1 and replacing it with the following:
"Lands within the Low Density Residence Areas of North Midtown are designated as the Yorkville Triangle, Ramsden
Park, and Asquith-Collier Areas of Special Identity as shown on Map B, which forms part of this Amendment. In these
Areas, Council shall employ its available powers of regulation and review in order to seek to ensure that new development
respects the special character of these Areas, which Areas contain tree-lined streets and detached, semi-detached and row
houses that are close to each other and slightly set back from the street. In the Yorkville Triangle and Asquith-Collier Areas
of Special Identity houses are compatible with the predominant Victorian style. The Victorian style, evident in the Yorkville
Triangle, is characterized by one-and-a-half, two and three storey house form buildings, with rear additions generally set
back from side lot lines, and made predominantly of brick with a few early buildings made of wood. Decorative details
include brick bands and patterns, wood trim, iron cresting, porches, bay windows, centre gable, mansard and gable roof
lines, consistent cornice lines and building heights with a vertical emphasis."
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 the lands known as
the Yorkville Triangle
The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other
matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings
and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended as follows:
(1)by inserting the following definition and the attached map 1 in Section 2(1):
""Yorkville Triangle" means the part of the City of Toronto delineated by heavy lines and shown on the following map;"
(2)by adding to Section 12(2) the following exception:
"322. No person shall erect or use a building or structure:
(i)on any lot within the Yorkville Triangle having an integral private garage if vehicle access to the garage is located in a
wall of the building facing the front lot line;
(ii)on any lot with frontage on Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue, exclusive of lands with the flank of the lot on Webster
Avenue known municipally as 121 Avenue Road, or the south side of Berryman Street, within the Yorkville Triangle:
(a)where the building or structure has a depth greater than 17 metres;
(b)where the height of the building or structure is greater than 7.5 metres, exclusive of a deck fence and other rooftop
elements permitted by Section 4(2)(a)(i), for any portion of the building or structure having a depth greater than 14 metres;
and
(c)where:
A.in the case of a detached house on a lot with lot frontage of 6.5 metres or greater, any part of the building or structure
beyond a depth of 12 metres is closer than 1.2 metres to a side lot line; and
B.in the case of a semi-detached house or the end unit in a series of row houses, on a lot with lot frontage of 5.5 metres or
greater, any part of the unattached side of the building or structure beyond a depth of 12 metres is closer than 1.2 metres to a
side lot line.
(iii)on any lot with frontage on Bishop Street, New Street, or the north side of Berryman Street, within the Yorkville
Triangle:
(a)where the building or structure has a depth greater than 14 metres;
(b)where the height of the building or structure is greater than 7.5 metres, exclusive of a deck fence and other rooftop
elements permitted by Section 4(2)(a)(i), for any portion of the building or structure having a depth greater than 11 metres;
and
(c)where:
A.in the case of a detached house on a lot with lot frontage of 6.5 metres or greater, any part of the building or structure
beyond a depth of 9 metres is closer than 1.2 metres to a side lot line; and
B.in the case of a semi-detached house or the end unit in a series of row houses, on a lot with lot frontage of 5.5 metres or
greater, any part of the unattached side of the building or structure beyond a depth of 9 metres is closer than 1.2 metres to a
side lot line.
For the purposes of this exception, a deck fence means an open picket structure or railing on the roof not exceeding 1.1
metres in height, except in the case of the attached side of a semi-detached house or row house, where the deck fence may
be opaque and have a maximum height of 2 metres.
DRAFT BY-LAW (3)
Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,
as adopted by Council on
Enacted by Council:
CITY OF TORONTO
BY-LAW No. -1999
To repeal Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998
The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.By-law No. 726-1998 "To effect interim control on certain residentially zoned lands fronting on Hazelton Avenue,
Webster Avenue, Berryman Street and Bishop Street", as amended, is hereby repealed.
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To recommend amendments to the planning controls for the Yorkville Triangle in the North Midtown area to better reflect
the existing built form context and protect the heritage character of the area.
Existing planning controls were, for the most part, found to provide appropriate direction and protection subject to further
fine tuning. It was determined that, among other matters, existing regulations do not adequately control building depth, and
the heights and setbacks of the rear portions of buildings and additions, so as to better protect access to light, views and
privacy.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to Section 19.34 (North
Midtown Part II Plan) of the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto) to delete Section
6.1 and replace it with the following:
"Lands within the Low Density Residence Areas of North Midtown are designated as the Yorkville Triangle, Ramsden
Park, and Asquith-Collier Areas of Special Identity as shown on Map B, which forms part of this Amendment. In these
Areas, Council shall employ its available powers of regulation and review in order to seek to ensure that new development
respects the special character of these Areas, which Areas contain tree-lined streets and detached, semi-detached and row
houses that are close to each other and slightly set back from the street. In the Yorkville Triangle and Asquith-Collier Areas
of Special Identity houses are compatible with the predominant Victorian style. The Victorian style, evident in the Yorkville
Triangle, is characterized by one-and-a-half, two and three storey houseform buildings, with rear additions generally set
back from side lot lines, and made predominantly of brick with a few early buildings made of wood. Decorative details
include brick bands and patterns, wood trim, iron cresting, porches, bay windows, centre gable, mansard and gable roof
lines, consistent cornice lines and building heights with a vertical emphasis."
(2)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 Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, to:
(a)insert "Yorkville Triangle" and map into SECTION 2 - DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION, (1) DEFINITIONS;
(b)add, substantially, the following sub-section to SECTION 12 - EXCEPTIONS APPLYING TO SPECIFIC USE
DISTRICTS OR SPECIFIC LANDS, (2) RESTRICTIVE EXCEPTIONS:
"No person shall erect or use a building or structure:
(a)on any lot within the Yorkville Triangle having a below-grade, at-grade or above-grade integral private garage;
(b)on any lot fronting on Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue, exclusive of lands with flanking frontage on Webster Avenue
known as 121 Avenue Road, or the south side of Berryman Street, within the Yorkville Triangle:
(i)where the building or structure has a depth greater than 17 metres;
(ii)where the height of the building or structure is greater than 7.5 metres, for any portion of the building or structure having
a depth greater than 14 metres; and
(iii)where:
(a)in the case of a detached house, on a lot with a lot frontage of 6.5 metres or greater; and
(b)in the case of the unattached side of a semi-detached house or the end unit in a series of row houses, on a lot with a lot
frontage of 5.5 metres or greater,
the setback from the side lot line for any part of the building or structure beyond a depth of 12 metres is less than 1.2
metres;
(c)on any lot fronting on Bishop Street, New Street, or the north side of Berryman Street, within the Yorkville Triangle:
(i)where the building or structure has a depth greater than 14 metres;
(ii)where the height of the building or structure is greater than 7.5 metres, for any portion of the building or structure having
a depth greater than 11 metres; and
(iii)where:
(a)in the case of a detached house, on a lot with a lot frontage of 6.5 metres or greater; and
(b)in the case of the unattached side of a semi-detached house or the end unit in a series of row houses, on a lot with a lot
frontage of 5.5 metres or greater,
the setback from the side lot line for any part of the building or structure beyond a depth of 9 metres is less than 1.2 metres."
(3)That the 'Design Guidelines for North Midtown', dated May 5, 1983, as revised by the Further Report, dated June 5,
1985, all in 1987 Land Use Committee Report No. 1, Clause 23, as adopted by Council on December 15, 1986, be revised
as follows:
(a)replace the words "diverse parts of the area are retained and enhanced", in Section 2. Background, Sub-section 2.2 Goals
and Objectives, with the words "diverse parts of the area are preserved, restored and/or enhanced";
(b)replace the word "enhancement", in Section 2. Background, Sub-section 2.2 Goals and Objectives (c), with the words
"preservation and restoration";
(c)delete Section 3. General Guidelines, Sub-section 3.3 Streetscape and Built Form (f) and replace it with the following:
"In order to ensure the preservation and character of historic buildings included on the City of Toronto Inventory of
Heritage Properties, new construction should be compatible with existing structures in the immediate area in the following
ways: scale; building location and organization; height and setback; exterior features, including roof pitch and style; cornice
lines; window and door design; the proportion of window and door openings to the overall facade; and the horizontal or
vertical emphasis of major building elements, materials and colour and floor levels.";
(d)add, to Section 13. Low Density Residence Areas, Sub-section 13.3 Streetscape and Built Form, the following:
"(c)In order to preserve and maintain the character of historic buildings included on the City of Toronto's Inventory of
Heritage Properties a new addition should:
(i)preserve the character of the historic building in terms of materials, features and finishes, and limit the loss of historic
material;
(ii)be located to the rear, with limits on size, scale and setback from the walls of the historic building;
(iii)be distinguishable from and harmonious with the historic building in terms of mass and materials;
(iv)not alter the front facade, unless missing historic features such as entrances, windows and window openings, and
porches are being reintroduced, based on historical, pictorial and physical documentation; and
(v)generally not exceed the existing roof ridge line of the existing heritage building, except for restoration of original
roofing materials based on historical, pictorial and physical documentation."
(e)delete Appendix 1: Berryman Street Guidelines.
(4)That Interim Control By-law 726-1998 be repealed, upon the passage of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
amendments described in Recommendations 1 and 2 above.
(5)That Heritage Toronto be requested to report to Toronto Community Council on the appropriateness of considering the
Yorkville Triangle and possibly a larger area for designation as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario
Heritage Act and the staffing and funding resources required to undertake a study.
Background:
1.Origin:
At its meeting held October 1 and 2, 1998, City Council adopted a Notice of Motion by Councillor John Adams, seconded
by Councillor Ila Bossons, to impose interim control in the Yorkville Triangle area. As adopted, Interim Control By-law
726-1998 states that no person shall erect any building or structure or construct any addition to and/or enlarge any existing
building or structure on lands fronting on Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue, Berryman Street and Bishop Street.
When Council enacted and passed By-law 726-1998, it directed Planning staff to conduct a land use planning study to
assess the existing zoning provisions, and to amend, add to or delete those performance standards that might better reflect
the heritage character of the area. Interim Control By-law 726-1998 was to expire on April 1, 1999.
At its meeting held February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, Council passed By-law 11-1999 to extend the in-effect time period of the
Interim Control By-law to June 1, 1999, in order to allow for completion of the land use planning study and any Official
Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.
2.Description of the Study Area:
The boundary of Interim Control By-law 726-1998 was based on a map attached to the above-described Notice of Motion.
However, the boundary of the Interim Control By-law excludes certain properties which are currently in the Yorkville
Triangle, as described in the North Midtown Part II Plan, and it includes several properties which are not within the
Yorkville Triangle. The review and recommendations of this report affect only those lands within the Yorkville Triangle.
The affected lands are all zoned R3 Z1.0. See Map 1.
The Yorkville Triangle study area contains 169 properties. For analysis purposes, the characteristics of four of these
properties have been excluded from the review: namely, 121 Avenue Road, because it was recently subject to its own
site-specific interim control by-law and planning review; 121R Hazelton Avenue, which is a remnant piece of land behind
119, 121 and 123 Hazelton Avenue; and Jesse Ketchum Public School at 61 Davenport Road and the College of Nurses of
Ontario building at 101 Davenport Road, because these two buildings do not share the siting and built form characteristics
of other properties within the study area.
3.Existing Planning Controls:
3.1Applicable Official Plan Policies:
The former City of Toronto Official Plan and the North Midtown Part II Plan (Section 19.34 of the Official Plan) designate
the Yorkville Triangle as a "Low Density Residence Area".
As described in Section 12.5 (a) of the Official Plan, a Low Density Residence Area will be regarded as stable. No changes
will be made through zoning or other public action which are out of keeping with the physical character of the area. It is the
policy to undertake measures which will protect and enhance the Low Density Residence Area. According to Section 12.5
(b) of the Official Plan, Council may pass by-laws within a Low Density Residence Area to permit residential buildings
having a gross floor area up to 1.0 times the area of the lot.
Section 6.1 of the North Midtown Part II Plan states that Council shall seek to ensure that new development respects the
special character of the Low Density Residence Area designated as the Yorkville Triangle Area of Special Identity. As
described in this Section of the Part II Plan, this Area, along with other designated Low Density Residence Areas of Special
Identity in the North Midtown, contains tree-lined streets and two and three-storey attached and detached houses generally
built of brick, consistently set back from the street line, and in the Yorkville Triangle and Asquith-Collier Areas of Special
Identity, compatible with the predominant Victorian-era style.
3.2Applicable Zoning:
The general Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto (438-86, as amended) zones the lands in the Yorkville Triangle as
R3 Z1.0, with a 12 metre height limit applicable to Jesse Ketchum Public School and properties which front on Hazelton
Avenue and Webster Avenue, and a 10 metre height limit applicable to properties which front on New Street, Bishop Street
and Berryman Street. This residential zoning district limits density to a maximum of 1.0 times the area of the lot.
3.3Applicable Design Guidelines:
When Council adopted the North Midtown Part II Plan, on December 15, 1986, it also directed that Planning staff give
consideration to the Design Guidelines for North Midtown, as amended, when reporting on development review and
rezoning applications in North Midtown.
Section 3 of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown contains general guidelines which relate to vehicular access and
parking, pedestrian circulation and environment, and streetscape and built form. A series of more detailed guidelines affect
each of the geographic areas which comprise North Midtown. Section 13 of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown
specifically applies to the Low Density Residence Areas, including the Yorkville Triangle Area of Special Identity.
Also, Appendix 1 of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown contains a separate set of guidelines applicable to Berryman
Street. The Berryman Street Guidelines are to be referred to when reviewing applications before the Committee of
Adjustment and for Site Plan Approval. The Berryman Street Guidelines are transcribed in the Appendix of this report.
4.Public Meeting:
A public meeting in the community, which was organized jointly by Councillor John Adams and Councillor Ila Bossons,
was held at Jesse Ketchum Public School on February 23, 1999. The meeting was attended by approximately 60 people.
Planning staff outlined the findings of the study to that date and listened to comments. Residents expressed a strong
attachment to the area and, generally stated, supported the imposition of additional regulations to reflect and protect the
area. However, there was little support for reducing the current density limit or for introducing regulations which would
otherwise have this effect.
Comments:
5.Planning Review:
5.1Study Methodology:
The Department studied all the major characteristics of the properties and buildings in the Yorkville Triangle, including:
density; building heights; lot widths; building depths; setbacks; stepbacks; variances granted since 1988; and heritage status.
Existing planning controls are appropriate, however, the study indicates that some 'fine tuning' is required to better reflect
the existing built form context and protect the heritage character of the area.
5.2Density:
As discussed in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 of this report, the existing planning controls which affect the study area permit a
maximum residential density of 1.0 times the area of a lot.
The average density of existing buildings in the study area is 0.93 times coverage. Generally, buildings on the west-east
streets of Webster Avenue, New Street, Bishop Street and Berryman Street have greater densities than buildings on
Hazelton Avenue. The lower building densities for Hazelton Avenue, which has an average density of 0.85 times coverage,
result because lots on this street are comparatively wider and deeper, and therefore larger, than the lots of the neighbouring
west-east streets. Notwithstanding this lower average density, sixteen percent of the buildings on Hazelton Avenue have
densities in excess of 0.93 times coverage.
Given the densities of existing buildings in this zone, I do not believe that an amendment to the base density limit is
necessary.
5.3Height:
As previously stated, the Zoning By-law sets the height limit for Webster Avenue, Hazelton Avenue and Jesse Ketchum
Public School at 12 metres. The height limit for buildings on New Street, Bishop Street and Berryman Street is 10 metres.
Most existing buildings on Webster Avenue and Hazelton Avenue are 10 metres to 12 metres in height. Buildings on New,
Bishop and Berryman Streets are generally 9 metres to 10 metres in height.
In general, the two height limits applicable to the Yorkville Triangle reflect the heights of existing buildings.
However, the appropriate height for buildings is an issue in the area with respect to the rear portion of new buildings and
rear yard additions to existing buildings, as discussed in Sections 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 of this report.
5.4Lot Widths:
The Zoning By-law requires that lots be a minimum of 5 metres in width in this area. Lot widths vary throughout the study
area. A relatively small number of lots have widths of 5 metres or less. Approximately two-thirds of the lots have widths
which are 5.5 metres or greater. On Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue and Berryman Street, many properties have lot
widths which exceed 6.5 metres. Thirty-three percent of all the properties in the study area have lot widths of 7.62 metres
(25 feet) or greater.
Currently, the applicable general zoning provisions only permit an integral private garage on lots which have a lot width of
7.62 metres or greater (Section 6. (3) Part IV 3. of the Zoning By-law). The Yorkville Triangle is characterized by lots with
relatively consistent setbacks from the front lot line and front yard landscaping. In the few instances where integral garages
have been constructed, the streetscape has been negatively impacted. I am concerned about the potential for an increase in
the number of integral private garages through redevelopment in this area, with its heritage character and mature front yard
landscaping. Therefore, notwithstanding the general provisions of the Zoning By-law, I am recommending that integral
private garages be prohibited in the Yorkville Triangle.
Larger lot widths also allow for increased side yard setbacks. Almost 60 percent of the buildings in the study area have
relatively large side yard setbacks for the rear portion of the building. The increased setback provides for improved light,
view and privacy conditions between buildings, and is being recommended for new buildings and additions in the Yorkville
Triangle. However, I can only recommend an increased setback where the lot width is sufficient to allow for it while leaving
a minimum 'buildable' floor-plate width of 4 metres.
5.5Building Depths and Setbacks:
Section 6 (3) Part II of the Zoning By-law regulates the depth and setback requirements for buildings in a Residential Zone.
In a R3 Z1.0 zone, a detached house is not technically subject to a maximum depth provision. Where the side wall of a
detached house has no openings, a detached house is required to be set back 0.45 metres from its side lot lines for that
portion of the building which has a depth of not more than 17 metres and is required to be set back 7.5 metres for that
portion of the building deeper than 17 metres. Where the side wall of a building has an opening, the 0.45 metre setback
requirement is increased to 0.9 metres. A semi-detached house cannot have a depth greater than 17 metres and a row house
cannot have a depth greater than 14 metres. The same side yard setbacks apply to semi-detached and row houses, however,
the depth of semi-detached and row houses cannot exceed 17 metres.
I have examined the depth and side yard characteristics of buildings in the Yorkville Triangle. Generally stated, the
buildings with the greatest depths are usually located on the lots with the greatest depths. The majority of buildings on
Hazelton Avenue have a depth of 17 metres or greater. In several cases, newer buildings and additions have been granted
minor variances to exceed the maximum depth provisions. A number of buildings on Hazelton Avenue, Berryman Street
and the north side of Webster Avenue have depths between 14 and 16 metres. The remainder of buildings within the study
area have depths of less than 14 metres.
A majority of semi-detached and row houses within the study area have a significant side yard setback for the rear portion
of the building. On deeper lots (on Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue and the south side of Berryman Street), this
increased side yard setback usually occurs at a depth of 11 to 13 metres from the front wall of the building. On the more
shallow lots (Bishop Street, New Street and the north side of Berryman Street), the notch occurs at a depth of between 8 and
10 metres from the front wall of the building.
Recommendations 2. b) and c) of this report detail the proposed building depth and setback standards. (See Figures 5 and
6.)
5.6Building Stepbacks:
The third floor of several three-storey buildings is set back from the rear wall of the first and second floors. In other words,
the depth of the third floor is less than the depth of the first and second floors. In some cases, a private outdoor deck is
located in this area. This type of setback reduces the mass and dominance of the rear of buildings, and therefore, their
impact on adjacent properties. A reduced third floor also lessens the shadow impacts on rear yards and adjacent properties.
Given these benefits, I am recommending that the third floor be set back a minimum of 3 metres from the rear wall of the
first and second floors. (See Figures 5 and 6.)
Recommendations 2. b) (b) ii and 2. b) © ii of this report detail the proposed stepback standards.
5.7Heritage Status:
There are 30 properties within the study area which are included on the former City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage
Properties. Of the 30 heritage buildings, 24 properties are listed and six properties are designated as historic. All 24 listed
properties are located on Hazelton Avenue. All six designated properties are located on Bishop Street, specifically, 31-41
Bishop Street. (See Map 4.)
I have consulted with Heritage Toronto. Generally, the historical significance of the area is greater than is indicated by the
relatively low number of designated and listed properties. Many non-listed and non-designated buildings share the same
physical and historic characteristics of buildings which are included on the Inventory of Heritage Properties.
Heritage Toronto has recommended that the North Midtown Part II Plan and Design Guidelines for North Midtown be
amended to better reflect the existing context and to provide guidance for alterations to listed and designated buildings.
Recommendations 1 and 3 of this report were drafted in consultation with Heritage Toronto.
In light of the importance of the area, I am also recommending that Heritage Toronto be requested to report to Toronto
Community Council on the appropriateness of considering the Yorkville Triangle and possibly a larger area for designation
as a Heritage Conservation District under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act and the staffing and funding resources required
to undertake a study.
5.8Other:
I do not believe that the existing Berryman Street Guidelines, appended to the Design Guidelines for North Midtown and set
out in the Appendix of this report, are required. The recommendations of this report for amendments to the existing
planning controls, the Design Guidelines for North Midtown, and general Design Guidelines for the former City of Toronto
make the Berryman Street Guidelines largely redundant. Therefore, I have recommended that they be repealed.
Conclusions:
Amendments to the North Midtown Part II Plan, Zoning By-law and Design Guidelines for North Midtown affecting the
Yorkville Triangle, as recommended and described in this report, will result in new buildings and additions to existing
buildings which better reflect and protect the character of the area.
Contact Name:
Michael Mizzi
Telephone: 416-392-1324
E-mail: mmizzi@toronto.ca
--------
Appendix
From: Appendix 1: Berryman Street Guidelines
in the Planning and Development Department report
"Design Guidelines for North Midtown", dated May 5, 1983,
as revised by Further Report, dated June 5, 1985, all in
1987 Land Use Committee Report No. 1, Clause 23.
"Berryman Street Guidelines for applications to Committee of Adjustment, Development Review, as contained in reports
dated, September 8, 1982, adopted by City Council on October 7-8, 1982.
1.Sideyard setbacks - Sideyard setbacks should be enforced for semi-detached houses and end units of townhouses to ensure
access to the rear of the houses because there is no alternate rear laneway access.
2.Depth and rear yard setbacks - Rear yard setbacks should be enforced, especially on the north side of the street. Variation
in house depth should be permitted only when it does not encroach on the required rear yard setback.
3.Front yard setbacks and 50 percent landscaped open space in front yard - The front yard setback should be permitted to be
reduced to the average of the adjacent houses to reflect the existing street and area character. Open space requirements
would have to be reduced on lots narrower than 6 metres (20 feet) and containing integral garages. In these circumstances,
consideration should be given to appropriate planting and paving materials, as noted above.
4.Height - Only very minimal variances should be permitted.
5.Location of integral garages - Garages should be located at grade so that ramps down from the sidewalk are avoided. If
necessary, gates should be provided at the ramp to visually maintain the street level.
6.Severances - Support should be given if the variances requested are appropriate.
7.Application with multiple requests for variances - Careful consideration should be given to the combined impact of the
effects of the variances requested.
8.Timing - Applications for variances and severances should be considered concurrently with consideration of an
application for development review so that the matters of siting and landscaping can be reviewed and appropriate elements
secured on plans.
9.Access - The site plan should allow for adequate and convenient access, parking arrangements and stairways.
10.Landscaping - A minimum amount of front yard should be landscaped with suitable planting, and attractive paving
should be used.
11.Character - Consideration should be given to the street design with respect to scale, roof line treatment, garage door
treatment, stairs, etc. so that the building is compatible with the existing residential character.
12.Density
(a)The maximum permitted gross floor area of the proposal should not exceed 1 times the lot area.
(b)In considering application for other variances, such as setbacks, depth of buildings, etc., consideration should also be
total bulk of the building, and the 'apparent' increase in density which results from the inclusion of large internal voids and
'children's play areas' which are located substantially above grade.
13.Minimum lot frontages - Consideration may be given to support frontages no less than 4.6 metres (15 feet) for inside
rowhousing units, and 5 metres (16.5 feet) for end units of rowhousing and semi-detached houses, provided that the
frontyard landscaping, paving materials, and layout are acceptable and secured through a development agreement."
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Yorkville Triangle Area
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Yorkville Triangle Area
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Yorkville Triangle Area
Insert Table/Map No. 4
Yorkville Triangle Area
Insert Table/Map No. 5
Yorkville Triangle Area
Insert Table/Map No. 6
Yorkville Triangle Area
The Toronto Community Council, reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following
communications, and a copy thereof has been forwarded to Council under separate cover:
-(March 24, 1999) from Mr. Adam J. Brown, Brown, Dryer, Karol, Barristers and Solicitors obo owners of 121 Avenue
Road;
-(March 18, 1999) from Mr. Edward Drimmel and Ms. Priscilla Drimmel;
-(March 29, 1999) from Mr. Lawrence H. Zucker, Kagan, Zucker, Feldbloom, Shastri, Barristers and Solicitors obo owners
of 59 Hazelton Avenue;
-(March 29, 1999) from Mrs. Stacie Sobkowski; and
-(March 29, 1999) from Owners, Agents or Tenants of 40 Hazelton Avenue.
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
communications:
(i)(April 7, 1999) from the City Clerk, submitting the following communications with respect to the Draft Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments regarding the Yorkville Triangle Area (Midtown):
(a)(March 24, 1999) from Mr. Adam J. Brown, Brown, Dryer, Karol, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of owners of 121
Avenue Road;
(b)(March 18, 1999) from Mr. Edward Drimmel and Ms. Priscilla Drimmel;
(c)(March 29, 1999) from Mr. Lawrence H. Zucker, Kagan, Zucker, Feldbloom, Shastri, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf
of owners of 59 Hazelton Avenue;
(d)(March 29, 1999) from Mrs. Stacie Sobkowski; and
(e)(March 29, 1999) from Owners, Agents or Tenants of 40 Hazelton Avenue;
(ii)(April 8, 1999) from Mr. Lawrence H. Zucker, Kagan, Zucker, Feldbloom, Shastri, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf
of the owners of the property located at 59 Hazelton Avenue, requesting that Council approve an exemption from the
proposed Zoning By-law; and
(iii)form letters from 71 residents of the Yorkville area, in support of the repeal of By-law No. 726-1998, filed by
Mr. Lawrence H. Zucker, Kagan, Zucker, Feldbloom, Shastri, Barristers and Solicitors.)
(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing
Clause, in that he uses the services of a solicitor who is also acting on behalf of a firm involved in this matter.)
9
Draft Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Sign By-law -
Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars
(All Wards in the former City of Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, amended this Clause, by:
(1)amending Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) of the Toronto Community Council by:
(a)inserting in Recommendation No. (2)(ii), prior to the word "letters", the words "sign box"; and
(b)deleting Recommendation No. (2)(iii) as an amendment to the draft sign by-law and adding to Recommendation No. (1)
the words "and that lights be recessed into the underside of the canopy to reduce light spray with respect to overhead
lighting", in order that such requirement shall form part of the development review guidelines referred to therein; and
(2)adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the report dated April 13, 1999, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:
"It is recommended that City Council approve the 'Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile Service Stations
and Gas Bars)' as amended and attached to this report.";
so that the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council shall now read as follows:
"(1)the guidelines set out in the report (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services be amended so that requirements be added that garbage at gas station sites be placed in an enclosed rodent-proof
container, and that lights be recessed into the underside of the canopy to reduce light spray with respect to overhead
lighting;
(2)the draft Sign By-law attached to the report of the City Solicitor (March 17, 1999) be amended by:
(i)deleting paragraph B of Section 2; and
(ii)requiring that light be emitted only through the sign box, letters or logos of back-lit canopy signs within 50m of
residential areas; and
(3)the report (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended to give
effect to Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2), and as amended by her further report dated April 13, 1999, be adopted;
(4)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (March 17, 1999) of the City Solicitor, as amended, be approved and that
authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto, including a bill to amend the Site
Plan provisions of the Municipal Code as set out in Recommendation 2 of the report of the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services (March 16, 1999);
(5)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report further, in consultation with the community and
the petroleum industry, to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on July 15, 1999, on:
(a)signage and lighting;
(b)tree shading strategies; and
(c)stormwater management strategies on gas station sites.")
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)the guidelines set out in the report (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services be amended so that a requirement be added that garbage at gas station sites be placed in an enclosed
rodent-proof container;
(2)the draft Sign By-law attached to the report of the City Solicitor (March 17, 1999) be amended by:
(i)deleting paragraph B of Section 2;
(ii)requiring that light be emitted only through the letters or logos of back-lit canopy signs within 50m of residential
areas; and
(iii)requiring that lights be recessed into the underside of the canopy to reduce light spray with respect to overhead
lighting;
(3)the report (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended to
give effect to Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2), be adopted;
(4)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (March 17, 1999) of the City Solicitor, as amended, be approved and that
authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto, including a bill to amend the
Site Plan provisions of the Municipal Code as set out in Recommendation 2 of the report of the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services (March 16, 1999);
(5)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report further, in consultation with the
community and the petroleum industry, to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on July 15,
1999, on:
(a)signage and lighting;
(b)tree shading strategies; and
(c)stormwater management strategies on gas station sites.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to report
directly to Council on amendments to the guidelines set out in the report (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services to include the requirement that garbage be placed inside the gas station site.
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 and the Municipal Act. The public meeting was held on March 30, 1999, and the
following persons addressed the Toronto Community Council:
-Mr. William Roberts, obo Swansea Area Ratepayers Group;
-Mr. Bob Clapp, Vice President, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute; and
-Mr. Ron Braun, Ripley Area Residents Group.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 17, 1999) from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
Attached are Draft By-laws (1) and (2), being the draft zoning by-law and draft by-law amending the sign provisions of the
Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto, respecting automobile service stations and gas bars and as recommended by
the report of the of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (March 16, 1999).
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 Draft By-law (1) in accordance with the provisions
of the Planning Act and in respect of Draft By-law (2) in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.
Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it
could recommend that:
(2)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (March 17, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted
to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto, including a bill to amend the Site Plan provisions of the
Municipal Code as set out in Recommendation 2 of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services (March 16, 1999);
(3)the Recommendations 1-5 of the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services
(March 16, 1999) 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 (March 16, 1999) at its meeting to be held on March 30, 1999 concerning the above noted subject. This report
recommends, inter alia, that Draft By-laws be prepared by the City Solicitor to amend the General Zoning By-law and sign
provisions of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto respecting automobile service stations and gas bars.
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 amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto respecting automobile service stations.
The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other
matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings
and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by:
(1)deleting from the definition of "automobile service station" contained in section 2(1), the words "for greater certainty
does not include a gas bar" and substituting therefor, the words "includes a gas bar";
(2)deleting the semi-colon in each of clauses (1) and (ii) of section 8(3) PART XI 2., substituting a comma therefor, and
adding thereafter "except for an automobile service station of a non-residential gross floor area of less than 20 square
metres;";
(3)deleting the semi-colon in clause (v) of section 12(2)107, substituting a comma therefor, and adding thereafter "except
for an automobile service station of a non-residential gross floor area of less than 20 square metres on a lot in a CR or
MCR district;"; and
(4)adding sub-clause "D" to section 12(2)119 (iii) as follows:
"D.in the case of an automobile service station of a non-residential gross floor area of less than 20 square metres on a lot in
a CR or MCR district;".
--------
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 former City of Toronto Municipal Code Ch. 297, Signs, respecting automobile service stations.
The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.Section 297-2 of Chapter 297, Signs, of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto is amended as follows:
A.By inserting after the definition of "FRONTAGE", the following:
FUEL PUMP SIGN - A sign on, over, beside or between automotive fuel pumps in an automobile service station.
B.By inserting after the definition of "PROJECTING SIGN", the following:
PUMP ISLAND SIGN - A sign at or on a fuel pump island of an automobile service station which conveys information
about the fuel sold at that pump island.
2.Section 297-10 is amended as follows:
A.By adding to the table in Subsection C(2) beneath the listed headings the following:
CR, MCR,IC, I1, I2
Type of SignPurposeRA, T, TrI3, I4
Fuel pump signAny purpose in Q20 Q20
conjunction with
an automobile
service station
Pump island signAny purpose in Q21 Q21
conjunction with
an automobile
service station
B.By deleting from Subsection D(2)(b), the expression "one (1) metre" and substitute "one and one-tenth (1.1) metres".
C.By deleting Subsection D(7)(a) and substitute the following:
(a)The total number of ground signs and pedestal signs is not more than one (1) per lot, unless two (2) frontages of the lot
are greater than thirty (30) metres in length, in which case one (1) ground sign or pedestal sign for each such frontage is
permitted.
D.By deleting Subsection D(12)(a) and substitute the following:
(a)The total number of ground signs and pedestal signs is not more than one (1) per lot, unless two (2) frontages of the lot
are greater than thirty (30) metres in length, in which case one (1) ground sign or pedestal sign for each such frontage is
permitted.
E.By adding Subsection D(20) and D(21) as follows:
(20)A sign, which may be illuminated and which displays the company name, brand, corporate logo and pump number is
permitted, if:
(a)There is not more than one (1) per pump;
(b)The area of the sign does not exceed two and eight-tenths (2.8) square metres per side; and
(c)The sign contains no third party advertising.
(21)A non-illuminated sign affixed to the ground, the canopy or canopy supports of a pump island which identifies the
corporate name or logo, fuel type, grade, price and type of service is permitted, if:
(a)The horizontal dimension of the sign does not exceed the width of the pump island;
(b)The vertical dimension of the sign is not greater than the height of the pump; and
(c)The sign contains no third party advertising.
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To recommend amendments to the regulations affecting automobile service stations and gas bars in the area of the former
City of Toronto as follows:
(i)a Zoning By-law amendment to include gas bars as a component of the automobile service station use
(ii)a Zoning By-law amendment to exempt gas bar payment kiosks up to 20 square metres from the Zoning By-law
requirements which require the building entrances of non-residential uses to be oriented to pedestrians on the public
sidewalk
(iii)an amendment to the Municipal Code to eliminate the exemption from Site Plan Approval for new automobile service
stations including gas bars uses with a floor area less than 300 square metres in all but Industrial Zones
(iv)Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars)
(v)amendments to the "Sign By-law" to permit and limit normal gas station signs
The report also recommends issues for further study.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Council adopt the amendments to the Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, of the former City of Toronto, to:
(a)amend the definition of automobile service station to include a gas bar, and
(b)exempt a payment kiosk with a floor area of less than 20 square metres at an automobile service station (which now
includes a gas bar), from the following Zoning By-law requirements in a CR and MCR (Mixed Commercial-Residential)
zoning districts:
(i)that its entrance be located within 0.2 metres of the level of the public sidewalk,
(ii)that the entrance must be directly accessible from a public sidewalk, and
(iii)which prohibits parking between the building and the sidewalk;
(c)exempt a payment kiosk with a floor area of less than 20 square metres at an automobile service station (which now
includes a gas bar), from the build-to requirements for non-residential and mixed-use buildings in the Yonge-Eglinton Area
and the Yonge-Lawrence Commercial Area;
(2)Council adopt an amendment to the Municipal Code - Chapter 165, Article III of the former City of Toronto, to require
Site Plan Approval for all new automobile service stations including gas bars uses with a floor area less than 300 square
metres, except in Industrial Zones;
(3)Council adopt the following amendments to the Municipal Code - Chapter 297 - Signs, of the former City of Toronto
which affect automobile service stations and gas bars:
(a)amend Chapter 297-2 to add the following definitions:
"fuel pump sign -a sign on, over, beside or between automotive fuel pumps in an automobile service station", and
"pump island sign - a sign at or on a fuel pump island which conveys information about the fuel sold at that pump island";
(b)amend Chapter 297-10, Section C (2) to add the following to the table under the appropriate headings:
Type of SignPurposeCR, MCR,IC, I1, I2
RA, T, TrI3, I4
"fuel pump signAny purpose in Q20 Q20
conjunction with
an automobile
service station
pump island signAny purpose in Q21 Q21
conjunction with
an automobile
service station"
(c)amend Chapter 297-10, Section D, Qualifications as follows:
(2)(b)replace the phrase "one (1)" with "1.10";
(7)(a)delete the existing and replace with the following "the total number of ground signs and pedestal signs is not more
than one (1) on a lot unless both frontages are greater than 30 metres in length, in which case the maximum total number of
ground signs and pedestal signs, combined, is two (2), one on each frontage";
(12)(a)delete the existing and replace with the following "the total number of ground signs and pedestal signs is not more
than one (1) on a lot unless both frontages are greater than 30 metres in length, in which case the maximum total number of
ground signs and pedestal signs is two (2), one on each frontage"; and
(d)amend Chapter 297-10, Section D, Qualifications by adding the following:
"(20)A sign, which may be illuminated, which displays the company name, brand, corporate logo and pump number, is
permitted if
(a)there is not more than one sign per pump;
(b)the area of the sign does not exceed 2.8 square metres per side;
(c)the sign contains no third party advertising." and
"(21)A non-illuminated sign affixed to the ground, the canopy or canopy supports of a pump island which identifies
corporate name or logo, fuel type, grade, price and type of service, is permitted if
(a)the horizontal dimension of the sign does not exceed the width of the pump island,
(b)the vertical dimension of the sign is not greater than the height of the pump,
(c)the sign contains no third party advertising."
(4)Council adopt the attached "Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars)" for the
area of the former City of Toronto, appended to this report.
(5)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report further on the following:
(i)height limits and sizes of pedestal signs and ground signs at automobile service stations and gas bars,
(ii)merchandise signage at automobile service stations and gas bars, and
(iii)guidelines for the design of drivethru operations as separate uses and in association with automobile service stations and
gas bars, including appropriate signage.
Council Reference:
Toronto Community Council, at its November 12, 1998 meeting, adopted the recommendations of my November 2, 1998
report on proposals and public consultation regarding the Zoning By-law, Site Plan Approval, Urban Design Guidelines and
the "Sign By-law" of the former City of Toronto as they affect gas bars and automobile service stations. Council also asked
that I report on the results of the community consultation and that the City Solicitor prepare draft by-laws to implement the
recommendations of this report.
Comments:
The issues related to the regulatory controls on automobile service stations including gas bars in the former City of Toronto
are thoroughly laid out in my November 2, 1998 Proposals Report on this subject which was before Toronto Community
Council, November 12, 1998. The recommendations, including minor changes made as a result of further review and the
consultation process are summarized below.
1.Site Plan Approval
The existing Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto exempts all new mixed-use and non-residential development
with a floor area less than 300 square metres from Site Plan Approval. This avoids unnecessary approval processes in most
cases where small development has little or no impact and creates no site planning issues. Since automobile service stations
are busy, bright, generate significant vehicle movement across public sidewalks and are generally unlike the forms of other
development in the former City of Toronto, they have much more potential impact. They should be subject to Site Plan
Approval in order to minimize potential negative effects.
The recommendations in this report and the draft by-law prepared by the City Solicitor propose amendments to the
Municipal Code to require Site Plan Approval for automobile service stations including gas bars in all but Industrial zones.
2.Urban Design Guidelines for Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars
My November 2,1998 report contained draft "Urban Design Guidelines for Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars".
These Guidelines set the standards for urban gas station development in order to ensure a proper fit into the densely
developed context of the former City of Toronto.
They will assist developers in preparing their plans, assist City staff in reviewing proposals within a standard set of rules,
and provide the public with the assurance that the potentially obtrusive nature of these types of uses will be properly
addressed. Through the approvals process, each proposal will be subject to Site Plan review according to the following set
of issues:
(i)site planning
(ii)access
(iii)built form
(iv)pedestrian amenity
(v)streetscape improvements
(vi)landscaping and environmentally sensitive areas
(vii)lighting
(viii)signage
(ix)safety.
The revised Guidelines are appended to this report and re-titled "Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile
Service Stations and Gas Bars)". Minor amendments have been made as a result of further review, public consultation and
continuing discussions with interested parties and the representatives of the oil companies. Discussion of the principal
changes follows.
(a)For stations near environmentally sensitive areas the draft Design Guidelines have been amended to:
(i)incorporate guidelines to direct light away from environmentally sensitive areas,
(ii)encourage design and site planning of buildings and underground storage tanks to avoid contamination of
environmentally sensitive areas, and
(iii)protect surrounding wildlife from disruption and encourage the use of landscape materials which use native species.
(b)Lighting Standards
Staff was asked to guide lighting levels through the use of lumens, a measure of the light emitted rather than through watts,
a measure of the energy consumed by light fixtures, as was done in the draft Guidelines. The appropriate metric measure
used for an area's brightness is "lux". The Design Guidelines now set minimum and maximum lux standards for automobile
service station sites which are based on the standards of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America:
(i)under canopies and at store entrances - minimum 50, maximum 200 lux
(ii)for the rest of the site - minimum 5 lux, maximum 20 lux.
(c)Neighbourhood and Architectural Context
Staff was asked to strengthen the Guidelines wording to give more encouragement for building siting, orientation and
materials to reflect the existing built pattern and architecture of an area, particularly when there is a distinctive and valued
architectural and historical character. Amended wording in the Guidelines has improved this aspect of the Guidelines.
3.Zoning
3.1Permission for Payment Kiosks At Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars
As set out in the Proposals Report, the Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto excludes gas bars from the definition
of an automobile service station. As indicated in my November 2, 1998 Proposals Report, the Ontario Municipal Board has
clearly indicated that there is no essential difference between the two. The recommendations in this report and the draft
by-law prepared by the City Solicitor would include gas bars in the definition of an automobile service station.
The policy requirement that new buildings in commercial and mixed-use areas be located with their primary entrance
orientation to the public sidewalk is already addressed by existing provisions of the Zoning By-law. No parking is permitted
between the front wall of a building and the sidewalk; any pedestrian walkway must be virtually level; and there is to be no
grade separation greater than 0.2 metres between the entrance and the sidewalk. The recommendations in this report and the
draft by-law prepared by the City Solicitor would exempt payment kiosks from these provisions of the Zoning By-law, but
limit them to a non-residential gross floor area of 20 square metres.
3.2Special Zoning for Auto-Related Uses
Staff was asked to examine the creation of a separate zoning category for auto related uses. Currently, a limited range of
automobile related uses is permitted in commercial and mixed-use areas including automobile service stations. Uses with
the potential to disrupt the amenity of such areas, such as body shops and paint shops are not permitted except in Industrial
zones. There is no planning reason to exclude automobile service stations from the retail strips of the former City of
Toronto. A separate zone for automobile uses would require the owners of sites with that zoning to re-zone their properties
if they wanted to change the auto-related use to another use already permitted and acceptable on all other properties on the
retail strip. Cityplan, in 1993, removed the automobile uses "AC" zone from the Zoning By-law for that reason. It should
not be re-introduced.
3.3Parking
Staff was asked to consider a zoning amendment to require parking spaces for automobile service stations and the other
retail uses which also locate on these sites. The Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto does not require parking for
retail and service uses on retail strips. Even the small gas station sites in the former City of Toronto have sufficient land to
permit a small amount of parking for staff. To require parking for retail uses because of the presence of gas pumps would be
unduly discriminatory. The Design Guidelines recommend that any staff parking be provided on-site.
4.Signage
4.1New Types of Signs
I am proposing two new sign types for automobile service stations:
fuel pump sign -"a sign on, over, beside or between automotive fuel pumps in an automobile service station":
(i)may be illuminated
(ii)shows company logo or name and pump number
(iii)maximum one per pump
(iv)maximum area 2.8 square metres
(v)no third party advertising; and
pump island sign - "a sign at or on a fuel pump island which conveys information about the fuel sold at that pump island":
(i)non-illuminated
(ii)may be on ground or attached to canopy support
(iii)size not greater than the size of the pump
(iv)no third party advertising.
These are standard, uncontroversial signs which are not defined in the "Sign By-law" chapter of the Municipal Code and so,
have required variance applications whenever a new or renovated station is to be built. The regulations should prevent sign
clutter and reduce unnecessary red tape.
4.2Logos on Canopies
Currently, one of the major gasoline retailers has a national standard logo on its canopy which extends 1.07 metres above
the top of the canopy. This exceeds the current 1.0 metre maximum in the "Sign By-law". I am recommending that the
"Sign By-law" be amended to permit 1.10 metres above the canopy so that no variances are needed to permit the extra 7
centimetres.
4.3Ground and Pedestal Signs
These are typically large, free-standing signs, fixed to the ground, which identify the business to passing motorists, identify
the brand name, usually with a corporate logo, fuel prices, grade and type. They also identify other services which are
offered on the site including what other businesses are there. Gasoline retailers have typically chosen to erect either a
ground sign or a pedestal sign on a street frontage, but not both, even though the "Sign By-law" currently permits one of
each on each street frontage. I am recommending that the "Sign By-law" be amended to restrict automobile service stations
and gas bars to one sign only per lot, unless both frontages of a lot exceed 30 metres, in which case, one per frontage would
be permitted. Therefore, the maximum number of ground and pedestal signs combined would usually be one only.
Despite the fact that these signs are about the same size and perform the same function, the "Sign By-law " places different
height limits on them - 7.6 metres for ground signs and 4.5 metres for pedestal signs. The main difference between them is
that unlike a ground sign, a pedestal sign cannot be standing on visible legs but is filled in right down to the ground.
Resolving this inconsistency is desirable but beyond the scope of this report. I am recommending that further study be made
on this issue.
4.4Other Sign Issues
Staff was asked to consider reducing the setback requirements for ground and pedestal signs. This issue was the subject of a
major review in 1995. As a result of that review By-law 1996-0172, passed April 2, 1996, increased the minimum setback
from a lot line from 0.6 to 2.0 metres and increased the minimum setback from an intersection from 2.0 to 6.0 metres. I am
not recommending that this issue be reopened.
Staff was asked to consider the introduction of a "merchandise sign" into the "Sign By-law" which would be a small
permanent ground sign which would be used to advertise monthly specials. This would eliminate the practice of temporary
moveable signs on the ground or attached to canopies and reduce sign clutter. Since this is a new proposal which has not
been placed before Council or the public and has not been reviewed by staff, I am recommending that I be requested to
review this proposal and report later.
Staff was asked to consider the introduction of a "menu sign" into the "Sign By-law" which would be a sign for a car wash
or a drivethru operation which displays instructions and prices. Since this is a new proposal which has not been placed
before Council or the public and East District Planning staff is currently studying the design issues related to drivethru
operations, including signage, it is premature to recommend any action on this proposal. I am recommending that I be
requested to report to Toronto Community Council when that study is complete.
5.Other Considerations
The following comments respond to other issues raised through the consultation process.
(a)Neon Signs
Staff was asked to consider banning neon from stations close to residential districts, parks and environmentally sensitive
areas as part of the site planning process. The Planning Act does not give a municipality the authority through its Zoning
powers or through its Site Plan Approval powers to regulate the use of neon as a light source or as a design element. The
use of neon in a sign can be regulated through the "Sign By-law", Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code of the former City of
Toronto. The Design Guidelines could contain guidelines for the use of neon or other types of signage and lighting. Neon
and other coloured lighting signs are commonly used by many types of retail businesses in their shop signs and window
displays. It is not used and is not effective as a primary source of area lighting. A prohibition on a particular type of sign or
design material is too specific and prescriptive for both the "Sign By-law" or the Design Guidelines, in my view. I am
satisfied that the other provisions of the "Sign By-law" and of the Guidelines provide adequate guidance for the approval of
applications.
(b)Distancing Requirements
Staff was asked to examine distancing requirements for gas storage or gas tanks. These issues are already addressed in the
Building Code and other existing regulations governing fuel storage.
(c)Hours of Operation
Staff was asked to recommend hours of operation for automobile service stations and gas bars. This is a licensing issue.
The City Solicitor and the Executive Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards reported to the Emergency and
Protective Services Committee on this issue in reports dated November 25, 1998 and January 22, 1999 respectively. The
Committee deferred consideration of those reports and asked for further reporting on the issues of hours of operation of
body shops and automobile service centres and of harmonizing the definitions of all gasoline retail outlets to ensure that the
rules regarding hours of operation apply to all of them. Reports are expected in April.
(d)Display of Merchandise
Staff was asked to examine prohibiting non-auto-related items from being displayed on the gas pump island. Retail stores
are permitted to display merchandise outside the store, including, with a permit, on the public sidewalk. Prohibiting this
display would, in my view, be unduly discriminatory.
Consultation:
Three public information meetings were held, February 15, 1999 at Central Technical School, February 16, 1999 at Bedford
park Public School and February 22, 1999 at Danforth Collegiate and Technical Institute, which were attended by a total of
12 people, including five from the oil companies.
I would like to acknowledge, in particular, the suggestions of Ripley Avenue Residents Group and Swansea Area
Ratepayers Associations and the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute for their for helpful suggestions for amendments to
the draft proposals.
Conclusions:
Council should pass the proposed by-law amendments and adopt the attached "Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations
(Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars)" and policies to provide proper guidance for the development of automobile
service stations, including gas bars and uses commonly developed in association with them.
Contact Name:
Ian Cooper
Telephone: (416) 392-7572
Fax: (416) 392-1330
E-mail:icooper@toronto.ca
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following
communications, and a copy thereof has been forwarded to Council under separate cover:
-(March 29, 1999) from Mr. William H. Roberts, Barrister and Solicitor, obo Swansea Area Ratepayers Association
-(March 30, 1999) Presentation from Mr. Bob Clapp, Vice President of the Ontario Division of the Canadian Petroleum
Products Institute
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 4
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 5
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 6
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 7
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 8
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 9
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 10
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 11
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 12
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 13
Service Stations and Gas Bars
Insert Table/Map No. 14
Service Stations and Gas Bars
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
report (April 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To recommend approval of the "Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars)"
for the former City of Toronto, as amended by a Toronto Community Council motion at its March 30, 1999 meeting.
Source of Funds:
Not Applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council approve the "Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile Service Stations
and Gas Bars)", as amended and attached to this report.
Council Reference:
The Toronto Community Council at its March 30, 1999 meeting, recommended that:
"the guidelines set out in the report (March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services be amended so that a requirement be added that garbage at gas station sites be placed in an enclosed rodent-proof
container" (Report 6, Clause 9).
Comments:
The recommendations of the Toronto Community Council to include a requirement for inside rodent- proof garbage
storage in the "Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars)" for the former City
of Toronto area are a useful addition to the Guidelines and have been incorporated into them.
Conclusion:
The Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars)" for the former City of Toronto,
as amended to require rodent-proof garbage storage, should be approved.
Contact Name:
Ian Cooper
Phone: 392-7572Fax: 392-1330E-mail: icooper@toronto.ca
April 1999
Urban Design Guidelines for Gas Stations (Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars)
The Urban Design Guidelines below set the standard for urban gas station development in order to ensure a proper fit into
the densely developed context of the former City of Toronto. General corporate standards or development models
established for larger sites on highways or along suburban retail strips can be problematic in the more densely developed
urban areas. These guidelines should enable gasoline retailers to follow the experience of other large chain retailers such
as fast food franchises, specialized auto service and repair businesses which have successfully created development
standards to meet their needs for visibility and corporate identity in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding
urban area.
The guidelines for gas stations (automobile service stations and gas bars) also provide guidance to their development and
other uses associated with them. They will assist developers in preparing their plans, assist City staff in reviewing
proposals within a standard set of rules, and provide the public with the assurance that the potentially obtrusive nature of
these types of uses will be properly addressed. Through the approvals process, each proposal will be subject to Site Plan
review according to the following set of issues:
access
built form
pedestrian amenity
streetscape improvements
landscaping
lighting
signage
safety
Policy Source
When the former City of Toronto adopted a new Official Plan in July 1993, it established for the first time a series of
city-wide urban design policies dealing with the role of new development to preserve and enhance the public realm. The
policies in this plan emerged because of public concern with the quality of pedestrian experience in our streets, lanes,
parks, open spaces and public buildings. These urban design policies form the framework of the detailed urban design
guidelines being proposed for the development of gas stations.
Urban Design Guidelines
1:Site and Building Organization
Principles
to ensure proper siting of gas stations within the existing context
to maximize compatibility with the surrounding existing buildings, neighbourhoods and street patterns within the area.
General Guidelines
Gas stations should:
-be sited and oriented in a way which is sensitive to and compatible with the physical character and amenity of the
surrounding area
-have stores and payment kiosks which contain windows which provide good visibility to and from the store or kiosk to and
from all surrounding streets and vehicular traffic
-where there is a store, it should be directly accessible from the public sidewalk and be part of any adjacent retail strip
-provide a landscaped buffer zone between the gas station use and the public realm
-have rodent-proof garbage containers enclosed within a building
-have proper lighting that does not have a negative impact on the surrounding residential area
-maintain proper fencing and landscaping around the entire site
-enhance and improve the pedestrian environment
-create a sense of safety
-have buildings and storage tanks sited and oriented in a manner which is sensitive to and compatible with any adjacent
environmentally sensitive areas and which minimizes the potential negative effect on those areas.
2:Vehicular and Pedestrian Access
Principles
to ensure minimal impact on the streetscape, while providing safe, controlled, access points to gas stations.
General Guidelines
Gas stations should be designed to minimize noise and traffic in the neighbourhood and along the main streets.
Gas stations should be easily accessible to vehicles and traffic movements for the purpose of purchasing gas or
convenience products without disrupting the existing traffic flow.
Curb Cuts
Gas stations should minimize curb cuts and disruptions to the public realm.
Access
The width of vehicular egress points should be minimized in order to lessen the impact and disruption on the streetscape,
limit the area of pedestrian/vehicular conflict, and provide a comfortable environment for all pedestrians with or without
disabilities.
Vehicular entrances and exits should be located as far from traffic intersections as possible to prevent traffic congestion.
Vehicular and pedestrian access points into and within gas stations should be clearly separated and signed. Direct and
separated pedestrian access into stores in gas stations from the public realm is essential.
Stacking
Stacking of vehicles at all entry and exit points should take place within the gas station site. Stacking should be set back
from the public sidewalk a minimum distance of three metres in order to minimize disruption to the public realm.
Parking On-Site
- Any parking for employees should be provided on-site.
All parking spaces on-site should be located to the rear of the site and away from the lot edges. If the parking spaces abut
a residential neighbourhood, proper screening must be provided to minimize the impact.
3:Built Form and Design
Principles
to maximize compatibility with the local built form context
to ensure that gas stations are designed and constructed with the same planning and architectural considerations as other
buildings
to properly consider issues of design, massing, scale, setbacks and facades.
General Guidelines
The built form components of gas stations should:
-create a built form that complements or replicates the surrounding context
-minimize the built form impact on the adjacent neighbourhoods by siting the building or pavilion as close to the property
line as possible
-provide a pedestrian entrance directly from the public sidewalk
-minimize the height of canopies so as not to affect the adjacent buildings (minimum 4.5 m. clearance to accommodate
delivery tanker trucks)
-animate and articulate wall surfaces to avoid blank walls
-be sensitive to the various adjacent activities occurring at grade
-create a streetwall that supports, continues and strengthens the continuous public realm.
Massing
Special attention should be paid to the height, scale, form and design elements of gas stations and convenience store
components.
Sightlines
Gas station pavilions should be constructed with as much glass as possible to provide clear, unobstructed sightlines in and
out of the store.
Setbacks
- Gas station stores should respect and maintain all existing front and sideyard setbacks along the street.
Materials and Finishes
- Buildings should create a harmonious relationship to their built form environment through consideration
of appropriate scale and height, local building context and materials, high quality materials, details and
finishes and architectural character and expression.
4:The Streetscape: Pedestrian Amenity in the Public Boulevard
Principles
to improve pedestrian amenity within the public realm and specifically, adjacent to gas stations
to animate the streetscape
to reduce the impact of gas stations at grade.
General Guidelines
Gas stations should enhance the public realm and improve the existing pedestrian amenity.
Streetscape
The streetscape surrounding gas stations should be organized to aid the pedestrian. Any bus stop locations, benches,
public telephone booths, mail boxes and newspaper stands should be designed and located should be integrated into the
overall design of the site and should not interfere with the pedestrian landscaped amenity and vehicular traffic.
Pedestrian-scale lighting should be provided along all pedestrian routes and access points into and out of gas stations.
Street Furniture
All street furniture provided, such as planters, benches, garbage receptacles, pavement materials and patterns should meet
City standards.
Public Amenity
Public washroom facilities, clocks and payphones should be incorporated into the design of gas stations. These elements
should not obstruct sightlines in order to promote a safe environment.
All public amenities should be well-lit and vandal-proof.
5:Landscaping and Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Principles
to ensure proper landscaping, continuity of the public and private realm and protection for environmentally sensitive
areas.
General Guidelines
Gas stations should meet the same landscaping standards as all other buildings and should maintain, continue and
improve the existing landscaped public street edge.
Gas stations should preserve all existing perimeter trees on the property with minimal grade changes around tree trunks.
All underground structures such as gas tanks and utilities should be located so as not to disrupt the root system of existing
trees on the property.
Tree planting in the public amenity area is a requirement. A band of complementary planting along the edge of the private
property should be provided matching the existing character of the street.
Since a wide variety of planting conditions is desirable, the planting of trees in groups rather than in lines is also
encouraged.
The minimum callipers of trees on private property are 40mm, 65mm for street trees and 1.5m for evergreens. The
recommended tree spacing along public streets within the former City of Toronto is 7 metres for large shade trees and 5
metres for smaller ornamental trees.
Plant material should be selected so it is residing in an appropriate growing environment and with the level of
maintenance expected.
Plant material should be selected so that in a mature size it does not block view lines or pedestrian sidewalks.
All garbage areas should be properly screened.
Landscape Plan
Applications for gas stations should provide a comprehensive landscape plan which illustrates the treatment of all street
frontages with a variety of hard and soft landscaping materials. These should include, but are not limited to: plant
materials, hard paving materials, architectural treatments, fences, screens, grates, canopy structures, lighting and low
street walls.
- Landscape plans for gas stations adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas should help protect
surrounding wildlife from disruption and contain plant material compatible with native plant species.
6:Lighting
Principles
to provide a well-lit, safe environment for all user groups
to provide lighting which will not interfere with adjacent properties or uses.
General Guidelines
A comprehensive lighting plan should be provided for all gas stations.
Specific Requirements
All lighting fixtures within the gas station site should use lamp types which produce white or "natural" light - such as
incandescent, flourescent, mercury vapour and metal halide.
- Light levels:Apron, under canopy and building entrances: minimum 50 lux and maximum 200 lux average
illuminescence level
rest of site, parking areas: minimum 5 lux and maximum 20 lux average illuminescence level (Note: based on standards of
the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America).
- Lighting levels, design, fixtures and direction should minimize or eliminate glare.
No lighting should be directed off the site.
Lighting should outline safe pathways for travel, which aids in reducing crime.
Lighting should be located in a manner that enables the user to make choices about routes through the site.
Near Residential Areas and Environmentally Sensitive Areas
All lighting provided by gas stations should be directed away from adjacent residential neighbourhoods or uses and away
from environmentally sensitive areas.
Special Lighting
Pedestrian-scale street lighting should be provided for pedestrian areas for all gas stations.
7:Signage
Principles
to develop a comprehensive sign package which is an integral part of gas stations design
General Guidelines
A number of sign types are needed within gas stations to:
-indicate the difference between gas stations and indoor retailing
- properly and predictably regulate gas station signs so that they meet retailers' needs for visibility, brand
identification and customer convenience and safety
-control the potential negative impact of poor or unsightly signs on commercial streets and surrounding residential areas
-reduce unnecessary processing of variances.
- A comprehensive sign package is necessary for all applications and should be considered an integral part
of gas station design. It should include, but not be limited to, external signage, illuminated and painted
identification points, signage bands, logos, banners, price menus, colours, materials, size, textures and/or
brightness.
These signs will be reviewed under the"Sign By-law" and must meet all specific requirements.
8:Safety
Principles
to minimize the opportunity for crime, vagrancy, and vandalism through proper design of gas stations
to enhance personal safety for both users and employees.
General Guidelines
All gas stations should be designed to minimize crime, eliminate hiding places, and be uninviting to vandalism.
Exit Points
- All exits should be highly visible.
Sightlines
Views and clear sightlines into and from gas stations are encouraged, to ensure safety and comfort levels.
Customer washrooms should be located within direct view of the public street and/or parking attendants or within a store
or restaurant.
Other specific safety measures should include, but not be limited to, directional signage, video surveillance, phones and
mirrors to broaden sightlines.)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:
(i)(April 7, 1999) from the City Clerk, submitting the following communications with respect to the Draft Zoning By-law
Amendment and Draft Sign By-law regarding Automobile Service Stations and Gas Bars (All Wards in the former City of
Toronto):
(a)(March 29, 1999) from Mr. William H. Roberts, Swansea Area Ratepayers Association; and
(b)(March 30, 1999) from Mr. Bob Clapp, Canadian Petroleum Products Institute - Ontario Division; and
(ii)(March 22, 1999) from Mr. Donald C. Mayne, Barrister and Solicitor, advising of his support for the proposed by-law
with respect to the Draft Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Sign By-law regarding Automobile Service Stations and Gas
Bars.)
10
Proposal by the Balmy Beach Rugby Club to erect two ground
signs in the City's road allowance adjacent to
Ashbridges Bay Park (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council advise the Balmy Beach Rugby Club that it does
not support its proposal for two third party ground signs within the Lake Shore Boulevard East road allowance to
finance a private club house in a City park.
The following motion placed by Councillor Jakobek, was lost on the following division of votes:
"That the matter be deferred until the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on May 26, 1999, and the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate officials, be requested to
meet with representatives of the Balmy Beach Rugby Club, to determine where the proposed sign would be located, how
much revenue would be generated by the sign, whether the revenues generated would cover the construction of the club
house and where the structure would be placed, and to report thereon to the Toronto Community Council."
Yeas:Councillors Bussin, Disero, Jakobek - 3
Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams Bossons, Johnston, Miller, Pantalone, Walker - 7
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded the request for funding for the
proposed facility to the Policy and Finance Committee, for consideration within the 5-year Capital Plan.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
This report provides comments on a specific proposal by the Balmy Beach Rugby Club to erect two third party ground signs
on Lake Shore Boulevard East with revenue directed to pay for construction of a club house within a City park. This report
is submitted at the request of Ward Councillor Tom Jakobek.
Source of Funds:
The financial implications to the City of this proposal have not been quantified.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council advise the Balmy Beach Rugby Club that it does not support its proposal for two third
party ground signs within the Lake Shore Boulevard East road allowance to finance a private club house in a City park.
Background:
Ashbridges Bay Park is located east of Coxwell Avenue and north of Lakeshore Road East ( see Figure 1). The park
contains a baseball diamond and a sports field. The Balmy Beach Rugby Club uses the sports field on the western portion of
the park.
The Rugby Club's idea is to erect two 10 foot by 20 foot double sided third party ground signs within the City's road
allowance approximately 100 metres and 167 metres west of Coxwell Avenue and four metres north of the curb,
perpendicular to Lake Shore Boulevard East (see Figures 1 and 2).
The Rugby Club proposes that the City enter into a twenty year lease agreement with Mediacom and agree to direct two
lump-sum payments from the signs revenue directly to the Balmy Beach Rugby Club to pay for construction of a club house
in the park.
Comments:
The former Metro By-law 211-79 prohibits commercial signage within all City road allowances and former Metro By-law
373 further restricts third party signs within 45 metres of Lake Shore Boulevard East. The intent of these by-laws is to
protect aesthetically sensitive areas such as parks and major city gateways as well as to ensure safe traffic movement. This
portion of Lake Shore Boulevard serves as the visual entrance to the essentially green corridor of the Eastern Beaches. This
proposal conflicts with the basic intent and purpose of the City's Sign By-law. There is no rationale for supporting it.
Staff of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks and Recreation division) have advised that the installation of
the signs would require the removal of numerous healthy City-owned trees and they do not support the removal of
City-owned trees nor do they support the proposal to erect a club house at this location due to the proximity of other similar
facilities in the area.
Third party signage in City road allowances has been controversial in recent years. The former City of Toronto Council
decided, in 1995, not to expand advertising on City lands beyond the transit shelter program and, in 1997, not to permit
installation of third party advertising on telephone booths on private and public property.
To my knowledge, this is the first such proposal to be brought to City Council's attention since amalgamation. There will be
similar suggestions in future. The issues of corporate sponsorship and use of City-owned lands and facilities for third party
advertising are complex. A coordinated and corporate strategy and policies should precede approval of any individual,
"one-off" proposals.
In my opinion, the Balmy Beach Rugby Club's suggestion is not supportable and would set a precedent with far reaching
implications for other community groups who might like to finance their capital projects through signage on City property.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca
Telephone: (416) 392-0421
Fax: (416) 392-0580
E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca
--------
Mr. Malcolm Clayton, Balmy Beach Club, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Balmy Beach Rugby Club
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Balmy Beach Rugby Club
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Balmy Beach Rugby Club
11
Tree Removal - 63 Wolfrey Avenue (Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 63 Wolfrey
Avenue, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that has caused concern due to falling fruit has been filed
by Mr. Don Finlayson & Ms. Sue Konynenburg, 63 Wolfrey Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4K 1K9, owner's of 63 Wolfrey
Avenue
Financial Implications:
N/A
Recommendations:
Either 1, or 2 below
(1)refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree; 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.
Comments:
The tree in question is a forty-five centimetre diameter black walnut in fair condition. The black walnut tree is native to
Southern Ontario and a significant species in Toronto's urban forest. The fruit of the black walnut can reach the size of a
tennis ball and may be an inconvenience when it falls from the branches in the late summer. The property in question is well
treed with mature Norway maples and the applicant would like to plant a Japanese maple and a lilac as replacement if a
permit for removal of the black walnut is granted. The applicant has stated that the fruit from the walnut tree has stained the
boards of a newly rebuilt deck. The staining of the newly treated deck boards could also be attributed to a large Norway
maple that overhangs the deck and to other windborne debris from neighbourhood trees.
A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the
neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection was received in response
to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter along with two letters in support of the application for
tree removal has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.
Contact Name:
Andrew Pickett
(416) 392-6644
(A copy of letters in support and opposition, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the
Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on March 30, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office
of the City Clerk).
12
Appeal of Denial of Application for Commercial Boulevard
Parking - 373 Front Street East (Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard
parking fronting 373 Front Street East.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way
Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 373
Front Street East, because the location does not comply with the criteria of the Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and
Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it should
be scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That the Toronto Community Council recommend that City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking
fronting 373 Front Street East.
Background:
Mr. A Neil Craik, solicitor for Grosso-Jacobson Production Inc., in his letter of September 10, 1998, has requested an
appeal of staff's decision to refuse his client's application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 373 Front Street East.
Comments:
Ms. Lisa Parasyn, on behalf of 1037300 Ontario Inc., o/a Grosso-Jacobson Production Inc., 373 Front Street East, Toronto,
Ontario M5A 1G4, submitted an application requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking privileges fronting 373
Front Street East for the parking of 10 motor vehicles within the outer boulevard positioned parallel to the roadway as
shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').
Regulations Pertaining to Commercial Boulevard Parking
Applications for commercial boulevard parking are governed by the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets
and Sidewalks, and Zoning By-law No. 438-86, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The current lawful use of a
property at the time of application determines whether the application is to be processed under § 313-40, § 313-41 or §
313-42.
Details of these Sections of the Municipal Code are listed below
Section 313-40provides for parking on boulevards in residential areas where the property is used for residential purposes;
Section 313-41provides for parking on boulevards in industrial or commercial areas where the property is used for industrial
or commercial purposes, exclusive of any portion of the street between the curb and sidewalk.
Parking is not permitted in front of the main front wall of a building for any property designated as C1, C1A, C1S, or CR in
the applicable zoning by-law on or after June 1, 1993. However, where a boulevard parking licence was granted on or prior
to June 1, 1993, for parking in front of the main front wall of a building designated C1, C1A C1S or CR, the licence may be
renewed annually, if the building in respect of which the licence was granted prior to June 1, 1993, has not been
demolished.
Section 313-42provides for parking where the property is being used for non-residential purposes and which property is
either located in a residential district or flanks a residential district.
History of the Area where the property is located
The subject property is situated on the south side of Front Street East, between Cherry and Trinity Streets, within an area
zoned RA(h), West Don Lands, within the former Ataratiri site. The property is currently used as a film production
company and it is permitted under RA(h) zone.
For the information of the Toronto Community Council, the Province cancelled the Ataratiri project in early 1992. The
cancellation left a number of planning issues such as the provision of flood protection, soil remediation, and the provision
of hard and soft infrastructure unresolved. As a result, there was a need to create a new relevant planning context for the
site. In April 1996, the former City of Toronto Council passed new planning regulations for the former Ataratiri area, now
commonly known as the West Don Lands. The thrust of the new planning regulations are to encourage short term leasing of
existing buildings for light industrial uses to make the site more marketable for sale for redevelopment. However, in the
medium term the intent of the planning regulations encourage comprehensive and co-ordinated redevelopment of the area
for a wide variety of mixed uses in order to revitalize the area. Resolution of the outstanding planning issues listed above,
will occur within that context.
The Province, which now owns the West Don Lands, undertook a major proposal call for its redevelopment. Although it
generated significant interest the Province was unable to complete a sale of the site. Since that time the Province has
pursued an incremental strategy of leasing lands and buildings in many cases, the leases have been for auto related uses, and
at least one of the major leases is long term. The auto related uses which have proliferated on the site do not enhance the
image of the area, encourage the area's redevelopment or further the long term planning objectives for the area.
History of 373 Front Street East
In 1984, an application was submitted by Giftcraft Limited for the parking of 9 motor vehicles on the boulevard adjacent to
373 Front Street East. The proposed parking area was to be on the outer paved boulevard. The outer asphalt/concrete
boulevard, measures approximately 2.4 m in width, the City sidewalk measures 1.5 m in width and the inner
asphalt/concrete boulevard measures 0.8 m in width (Appendix 'A'). Given that there was insufficient space to
accommodate vehicles in the inner boulevard, and parking on the outer boulevard would impede pedestrian and vehicular
traffic, the application was denied.
In a report dated December 3, 1984 entitled "Assistance to Industry - Giftcraft Limited" to the former City Services
Committee of the former City of Toronto, the Chairman of the South East Area Industrial Co-ordinating Committee
requested approval of boulevard parking at the subject location.
The former City of Toronto approved the application for boulevard parking, notwithstanding that the location did not meet
the physical criteria of the by-law and a permit was issued to Giftcraft Limited in April 1985 for the parking of 9 vehicles.
Subsequently, the licence was cancelled in July 1990, when the property vacated.
Conclusions:
Staff cannot issue Ms. Parasyn a licence for commercial boulevard parking fronting 373 Front Street East because the
property is located in an RA(h) zone and there are no provisions within Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and
Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.
In addition, in consultation with the Urban Planning and Development Services, I have been informed that the legalization
of boulevard parking within the West Don Lands runs counter to the planning objectives for the West Don Lands and it
should be discouraged.
On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the
appeal.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
Insert Table/Map No. 1
373 Front Street East
13
Application for Demolition - 905 Queen Street West (Farr House)
(Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:
"It is recommended that the report dated April 9, 1999, from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, embodying
the following recommendation, be adopted:
'That City of Toronto Council refuse the application made under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish the
designated building at 905 Queen Street West.' ")
The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested Heritage Toronto, acting in the
capacity of the Local Architectural Conservancy Advisory Committee, to consider at its meeting on April 7, 1999 the
application to demolish the house at 905 Queen Street West and that Heritage Toronto submit its recommendation directly
to City Council.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 12, 1999) from the Managing Director,
Heritage Toronto:
Recommendation:
That Toronto Community Council request Heritage Toronto, acting in the capacity of the Local Architectural Conservancy
Advisory Committee, to consider at its meeting on April 7, 1999 the application to demolish the house at 905 Queen Street
West and that Heritage Toronto submit its recommendation directly to City Council for consideration at its meeting on
April 13, 1999.
Comments
1.Background:
The house at 905 Queen Street West was designated by Toronto City Council for architectural and historical reasons under
part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act in February of 1992.
In 1998, the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) approved a development proposal for the site in which the applicant would
receive permission to erect a building that exceeds the permissible height and density in exchange for saving and restoring
the existing designated house. Heritage Toronto staff supported the proposal because it saved the building. The OMB is
holding its order until the Heritage Easement Agreement is executed.
In late January, 1999, the applicant (Gramercy Park Lofts Inc.) notified the City and Heritage Toronto that the original
proposal was not feasible. The applicant presented two options: moving the building to another part of the site, or
demolishing and submitting a new application that complies with existing zoning. All of the City's representatives
expressed concern that preservation objectives were substantially compromised.
On February 5, 1999, the applicant applied to the City Clerk for permission to demolish the designated building at 905
Queen Street West. Under Section 34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council must consult with its LACAC and make a
decision regarding the application within 90 days of its receipt.
The application is normally heard by Heritage Toronto prior to being before Community Council, but discussions through
the good offices of Councillor Pantalone (described below) have led to a change to the normal order. City legal has advised
the change is consistent with the Ontario Heritage Act and all parties accept it.
2.Discussion:
Community support for conservation objectives on this site are strong. At a meeting of the Niagara Neighbourhood
Association of February 24, 1999, support for conserving the building in its current location was unanimous.
Since the application for demolition was filed, negotiations have been taking place between the applicant and
representatives of the City and Heritage Toronto. Councillor Pantalone has helped broker a solution that would preserve the
historic house in its location while still permitting the property owner to redevelop the site. The good will of all parties, and
especially the efforts of City Planning staff to find a solution, should be acknowledged.
Although negotiations have been very encouraging, it is important to note that the applicant has not withdrawn the
application for demolition (see attached letters). The revised project will require the consent of the Ontario Municipal
Board. Should that not happen, demolition could still be a possibility. Toronto Community Council should refer this matter
to its LACAC, Heritage Toronto, who will be advised by its staff to refuse demolition.
It is our sincere hope that the negotiated solution wins approval.
Contact:
Peter Elliot, Preservation Officer, Architecture
Historical Preservation Division
Toronto Historical Board
Phone: 392-6827, ext. 238
(A copy of the letters, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council
with the agenda for its meeting on March 30, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
report (April 9, 1999) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:
Purpose:
To comply with the statutory requirement that Council consult its Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee on
applications made under the Ontario Heritage Act.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City of Toronto Council refuse the application made under part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to demolish the
designated building at 905 Queen Street West.
Background:
At its meeting of March 30, 1999, Toronto Community Council recommended that Heritage Toronto, acting in the capacity
of Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee, consider the application to demolish the house at 905 Queen
Street West and submit its recommendation directly to City Council.
Comments:
At its meeting on April 7, 1999, Heritage Toronto had before it a staff report and adopted the recommendation that the
demolition application be refused.
Contact Name:
Mr. Peter Elliott
Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division,
Toronto Historical Board
Tel: 392-6827, ext. 238
Fax: 392-6834)
14
Tree Removal - 523 Davisville Avenue (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 523
Davisville Avenue.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of
Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that is damaging the garage roof and foundation has been
filed by Ms. Amanda Kelly, owner of 523 Davisville Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4S 1J2.
Financial Implications:
There is not funding implications with this request.
Recommendations:
Either 1, or 2 below
(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; or
(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant an 80 millimetre caliper large growing
native shade tree.
Comments:
The tree in question is a seventy-eight centimetre diameter native elm in fair condition. The tree is located adjacent to the
applicant's garage and a portion of the main stem may be on the neighbours property at 525 Davisville Avenue. The arborist
report prepared by Mount Pleasant Tree Service that accompanies the application states that the elm tree has deadwood
throughout the crown and that the foliage is infested with the elm leaf beetle. The report states that the tree has three main
stems that are joined with weak v-shaped unions. The report concludes that the tree is in decline and has the potential for
structural failure and is therefore no longer viable to maintain.
In the opinion of Urban Forestry staff the elm tree is a viable specimen and if a program of regularly scheduled maintenance
is implemented, it would remain as a rare and significant asset in the Community's urban forest. The elm leaf beetle
population fluctuates annually and this past season the population was high. Premature defoliation associated with the
beetles feeding does not have significant impact on the health of the tree. The weak unions of the three main stems as
described in the arborist report are structurally sound at this time and any developing cracks can be detected prior to limb
failure with regularly scheduled inspections by an arborist.
A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the
neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection was received in response
to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council
Secretary for the Community Council to review.
Contact Name:
Andrew Pickett
392-6644
--------
(A copy of the letter in opposition, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto
Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on March 30, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the
City Clerk).
15
Draft By-law - Alteration of Shaw Street - Speed Humps
(Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 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 reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 56 of Report No. 16 of the
Toronto Community Council, titled "Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Shaw Street, from Dundas Street West to
College Street (Trinity Niagara)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on December
16 and 17, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on
March 12, 15, 22 and 29, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:
Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 14, Clause No. 41, as amended and adopted by Council on November
25, 26 and 27, 1998 and Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, Clause No. 56, as adopted by Council on December
16 and 17, 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 Shaw Street from Bloor Street West to College Street and Shaw Street from College Street to Dundas
Street West by the installation of speed humps.
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) |
| Shaw Street
|
|
Alteration
consisting of
the
installation of
speed humps
|
Bloor Street
West
|
College Street
|
421F-5277
dated October,
1998
|
| Shaw Street
|
|
Alteration
consisting of
the
installation of
speed humps
|
College Street
|
Dundas Street
West
|
421F-5299
dated
November,
1998
|
ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.
MayorCity Clerk
--------
The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 56 of Report No. 16 of the Toronto Community Council, titled
"Installation of Traffic Control Devices - Shaw Street, from Dundas Street West to College Street
(Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998:
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To reduce the operating speed of motorists using Shaw Street, from Dundas Street West to College Street.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to undertake the necessary work in the estimated amount of $14,000 are contained in Works and Emergency Services
Capital Fund Code No. 296702.
Recommendations:
(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Shaw Street, from Dundas Street West to College Street for
traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected
residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:
"The construction of speed humps on Shaw Street from College Street to Dundas Street West, generally as shown on the
attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5299 dated November, 1998."
(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Shaw Street from Dundas
Street West to College Street, coincident with the implementation of traffic calming; and
(3)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to implement the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.
Comments:
At the requests of Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva on behalf of area residents, a staff investigation has been
conducted to determine the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Shaw Street from Dundas Street West to College
Street to reduce the number of speeding motorists on this street.
Shaw Street from College Street to Dundas Street West operates one-way southbound with a pavement width of 7.32 metres
and has a posted speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A recent twenty-four hour speed and volume survey conducted on
Shaw Street between College Street and Dundas Street West indicates typical daily traffic volume of approximately 3,100
vehicles, with an operating speed (85th percentile) of 49 mph. In addition, Shaw Street is part of a designated bicycle route
extending from Hallam Street in the north to King Street West in the south.
The traffic calming proposal is illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5299 dated November 1998 and
consists of 7 speed humps located approximately 52 metres to 85 metres apart. In addition a reduction of the speed limit to
30 kilometres per hour is also appropriate to maintain safe operating speeds for motorists to travel over the humps.
As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that a speed hump installation meets technical criteria, a formal poll
should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of the street, and also
households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. At least
60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, staff will conduct a
poll of residents and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project.
The changes proposed to Shaw Street roadway as set out above 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. Consultations
with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their
respective operations.
This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads
Projects.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Shaw Street
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 29, 1999) from the Director of
Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report the results of a poll of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Shaw Street, from Dundas Street
West to Bloor Street West.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Background:
City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted Clause 56 in Toronto Community Council Report No.16,
and in doing so, approved the alterations of the pavement on the section of Shaw Street, from Dundas Street West to
College Street, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto
policy relating to speed hump installation.
City Council, at its meeting of November 25, 26 and 27, adopted Clause 41 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 14
and in doing so, approved alterations of the pavement on the section of Shaw Street, from College Street to Bloor Street
West, subject to the same conditions noted above. Both sections of Shaw Street were advertised concurrently in a local
newspaper on four consecutive weeks in March 1999 and the draft by-law is scheduled to be considered by Toronto
Community Council on March 30, 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% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.
The results of the poll undertaken on Shaw Street from Dundas Street West to Bloor Street West showed that 40% of the
eligible voters responded to the poll and of these, 269 (62%) supported speed humps and 166 (38%) opposed the plan.
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 Shaw Street from Dundas Street West to Bloor Street West.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Michael J. Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, 392-7711
16
Draft By-law - Alteration of Adelaide Street West -
Road Narrowing and Realignment (Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 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 reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 54 of Report No. 16 of the
Toronto Community Council, titled "Realignment and Narrowing of Pavement - Adelaide Street West, West of Bathurst
Street (Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and
17, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on
March 12, 15, 22 and 29, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:
Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, Clause No. 54, as adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 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 Adelaide Street West by narrowing and realigning the pavement between Bathurst Street and the
north-south leg of Adelaide Street West.
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-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) |
| Adelaide Street
West
|
|
from: 9.75 m
to: 4.9 m - 6.75
m
|
Bathurst Street
|
north-south leg
of Adelaide
Street West
|
SK-2210 dated
November 23,
1998 |
ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.
MayorCity Clerk
--------
The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause No. 54 of Report No. 16 of the Toronto Community Council,
titled "Realignment and Narrowing of Pavement - Adelaide Street West, West of Bathurst Street
(Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998:
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 25, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To authorize the narrowing and realignment of the pavement on Adelaide Street West between Bathurst Street and the
north-south leg of Adelaide Street West to physically enhance the eastbound left turn prohibition on Adelaide Street West at
Bathurst Street and create a sodded boulevard on the south side of the street to facilitate the planting of in ground trees.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to cover the cost of the minor pavement realignment in the estimated amount of $30,000.00 can be accommodated
within the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget authorization requests for the reconstruction of pavements
sidewalks and curbs.
Recommendations:
(1)That approval be given to realign the pavement on Adelaide Street West as follows:
"The realignment and narrowing of the pavement on ADELAIDE STREET WEST between Bathurst Street and the
north-south leg of Adelaide Street West, from a width of 9.75 m to a width varying from 4.9 m to 6.75 m, as shown on the
attached print of Drawing No. SK-2210, dated November 23,1998"; 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:
Adelaide Street West from Bathurst Street to the north- south leg of Adelaide Street West functions as a local collector
street. It carries one-way eastbound traffic with a pavement width of 9.75 m. One hour parking is allowed on the north side
of the street.
A planter box was installed at the north-west corner of the intersection of this segment of Adelaide Street West with
Bathurst Street in 1992 as an interim means of physically channelizing eastbound right turning traffic southbound on
Bathurst Street. This planter has been moderately successful; however, eastbound vehicles continue to make northbound left
turns notwithstanding the existing turn prohibition.
At the request of Councillor Joe Pantalone, staff of Works and Emergency Services in consultation with Urban Planning
and Development Services have developed a plan for this segment of Adelaide Street West which would improve the
channelization of eastbound right turns at Bathurst Street as well as address the deficiency of green space in the area by
providing for a widened south boulevard and corresponding narrowing of the pavement. This boulevard area, which could
be sodded, would facilitate the planting of a row of street trees. The proposed pavement realignment, as shown on the
attached print of Drawing No. SK-2210, dated November 23, 1998, and described in Recommendation No.1, above, will
not adversely affect the functioning of traffic on the street nor will it affect parking or access.
This street is approaching a condition requiring remedial maintenance in the near future and as such the minor realignment
work can be implemented cost effectively at this time.
The realignment of the pavement on Adelaide Street West constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipal Act.
This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule 'A' of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road
Projects.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
John Niedra
Manager of Programmes
392-7835
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Narrowing of Pavement
17
Draft By-law - Alteration of Euclid Avenue and
Palmerston Boulevard - Speed Humps (Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that, notwithstanding the results of the poll, a by-law in the form of
the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 50 of Report No. 16 of the
Toronto Community Council, titled, "Palmerston Area Traffic Calming - Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard Speed
Hump Proposal (Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on
December 16 and 17, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily
newspaper on March 12, 15, 22 and 29, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:
Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, Clause No. 50, as adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 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 Euclid Avenue from Harbord Street to Bloor Street West and Palmerston Boulevard from College
Street to Bloor Street West by the installation of speed humps and the alteration of Euclid Avenue near Ulster Street
and Clinton Street near Bloor Street West by narrowing the pavement.
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) |
(Column2
Side/Corner) |
(Column 3
Alteration/Repair) |
(Column 4
From) |
(Column 5
To) |
(Column 6
Drawing
No./Date) |
| Euclid
Avenue
|
|
Alteration
consisting of the
installation of speed
humps
|
Harbord
Street
|
Bloor Street
West
|
421F-5281
dated October
1998 and
421F-5259,
421F-5260
dated
November
1998 |
| Palmerston
Boulevard |
|
Alteration
consisting of the
installation of speed
humps |
College Street |
Bloor Street
West |
421F-5281
dated October
1998 and
421F-5259,
421F-5260
dated
November
1998 |
(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)
|
| Euclid
Avenue |
west |
from: 7.3 m to:
4.5 m - 7.3m |
lane first
south of
Ulster
Street |
a point 15
metres
further
south |
|
| Clinton
Street |
east |
from: 7.3 m to:
4.5 m - 7.3 m |
lane first
south of
Bloor
Street West |
a point 15
metres
further
south |
|
ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.
MayorCity Clerk
--------
The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause No. 50 of Report No. 16 of the Toronto Community Council,
titled "Palmerston Area Traffic Calming - Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard Speed Hump Proposal
(Trinity-Niagara", which was adopted by City Council, at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998:
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 3, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services District 1:
Purpose:
To report on a proposal to replace existing traffic calming islands on Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor
Street West with speed humps and to install speed humps on Palmerston Boulevard between College Street and Bloor Street
West.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to cover the costs of replacing traffic calming islands on Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street
West with speed humps, and also installing speed humps on Palmerston Boulevard between College Street and Bloor Street
West, in the estimated amount of $30,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702. Funds for installing traffic
calming measures in the Palmerston area were initially approved by the former Toronto City Council in its 1997 Capital
Budget, and sufficient funds remain in the account for this purpose.
Recommendations:
(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the pavement on Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard 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 EUCLID AVENUE from Harbord Street to Bloor Street West, and on
PALMERSTON BOULEVARD from College Street to Bloor Street West, generally as shown on the attached prints of
Drawing No. 421F-5281 dated October 1998, and Drawing Nos. 421F-5259, 421F-5260 dated November 1998";
(2)That approval be given to alter sections of the pavement on Euclid Avenue and Clinton Street for traffic calming
purposes as described below:
(i)"The narrowing of EUCLID AVENUE, west side, from the lane first south of Ulster Street to a point 15 metres south
thereof, from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 4.5 metres to 7.3 metres"; and
(ii)"The narrowing of CLINTON STREET, east side, from the lane first south of Bloor Street West to a point 15 metres
south thereof, from a width of 7.3 metres to a width varying from 4.5 metres to 7.3 metres";
(3)That approval be given to reduce the speed limit from 40 km/h to 30 km/h on Palmerston Boulevard from College Street
to Bloor Street West, coincident with the implementation of speed humps;
(4)That By-law No. 1996-0463 authorizing the narrowing of sections of Clinton Street, Manning Avenue, Euclid Avenue,
Palmerston Boulevard, Ulster Street and Markham Street, be rescinded; and
(5)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:
The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of October 7 and 8, 1996, approved a traffic management plan for the
Palmerston area (bounded by Grace Street, Bloor Street West, Bathurst Street and College Street). The plan involved the
narrowing of sections of the pavements to create mid-block chicanes and narrowed intersections by means of modular
traffic calming islands on selected streets. This approval was the culmination of several years of effort by the Palmerston
Area Residents' Association (PARA) to address concerns related to vehicle speeds and pedestrian safety in the
neighbourhood.
In October 1997 traffic calming islands were installed on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue both between College Street
and Bloor Street West. A similar proposal for Manning Avenue was dropped from the original plan at the request of
residents, and traffic calming measures proposed for Markham Street and Palmerston Boulevard were deferred for further
review. Following the installation of the traffic calming islands on Clinton Street and Euclid Avenue, area residents
expressed concern regarding the impact on parking, and the impact of illegal parkers on emergency vehicle operations.
As a result of local concern, Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva polled residents of Clinton Street and Euclid
Avenue between College Street and Bloor Street West. The polls were conducted in April 1998 to seek residents' views on
alternative proposals.
Based on the results of the poll, City Council, at its meeting of June 3, 1998, approved the following revisions to the
Palmerson Area traffic management plan:
a)removal of all of the traffic calming islands (except for one island/hump combination) on Clinton Street between College
Street and Harbord Street;
b)removal of all but one of the traffic calming islands on Clinton Street between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West;
c)removal of all but one of the traffic calming islands and the existing speed hump on Euclid Avenue between College
Street and Harbord Street, and installation of four new speed humps; and
d)retention of all traffic calming islands on Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West.
Based on the most recent consultations between Transportation Services staff, Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva,
and discussions with PARA representatives, it is recommended that the traffic islands on Euclid Avenue between Harbord
Street and Bloor Street West be replaced by three speed humps as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5281
dated October 1998, and fourteen speed humps be installed on Palmerston Boulevard between College Street and Bloor
Street West as shown on the attached prints of Drawing Nos. 421F-5259 and 421F-5260, both dated November 1998.
The proposed speed hump plan will create approximately five additional parking spaces on Euclid Avenue between
Harbord Street and Bloor Street West. There will be no change to the parking supply on Palmerston Boulevard as a result of
the speed hump plan. The parking regulations on Euclid Avenue will return to the previous alternate side conditions which
were in effect prior to the installation of the traffic calming islands. As parking regulation amendments were not enacted for
the initial changes, no amendments are necessary at this time. The current alternate side parking regulations on Palmerston
Boulevard will remain unchanged.
As outlined in the former City of Toronto speed hump policy, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine
whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adult residents (18
years and older) of households directly abutting the street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order
to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.
The changes proposed to Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard as set out above constitute alterations to a public
highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize
any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be
subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised to ensure that the proposals do not unduly
hamper their operations.
This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads
Projects.
It is proposed that three separate polls be distributed, with one for Euclid Avenue between Harbord Street and Bloor Street
West, one for Palmerston Boulevard between Harbord Street and Bloor Street West and one for Palmerston Boulevard
between College Street and Harbord Street. The polls will be conducted during January/February 1999, coincident with the
statutory advertising for highway alterations, and the matter should be the subject of deputations at the February 17, 1999
meeting of the Toronto Community Council.
I note that minor "house-keeping" amendments to the Municipal Code to formalize earlier traffic calming work in this area
are included in Recommendation No. 2 of this report.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nigel Tahair, Transportation Technologist
392-7711
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Euclid Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Euclid Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Euclid Avenue
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 29, 1999) from the Director of
Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report the results of a poll of residents to replace traffic calming islands with speed humps on Euclid Avenue and on the
results of a poll to install speed humps on Palmerston Boulevard.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That speed humps not be installed on the section of Palmerston Boulevard from College Street to Harbord Street and that
the Draft By-law and Clause 50 of Report No. 16 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Palmerston Area Traffic
Calming - Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard Speed Hump Proposal (Trinity-Niagara)", be amended accordingly;
and
(2)That the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.
Background:
City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted Clause 50, in Toronto Community Council Report
No.16, and in doing so 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-laws to give effect to the above was advertised in a daily newspaper on four consecutive
weeks in March 1999 and will be considered by Community Council on March 30, 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% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.
The locations and results of the poll undertaken on sections of Euclid Avenue and Palmerston Boulevard are denoted in the
table below:
Table A
| Street |
Location |
Support
Speed Humps |
Oppose Speed
Humps |
% of Eligible
Voters With
Valid
Responses |
| Euclid Ave. |
Harbord St to
Bloor St West |
86 (81%) |
20 (19%) |
51% |
| Palmerston Blvd. |
College St to
Harbord St |
76 (55%) |
62 (45%) |
41% |
| Palmerston Blvd. |
Harbord St to
Bloor St West |
65 (60%) |
44 (40%) |
36% |
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 the subject sections of roadway except for Palmerston Boulevard from College Street to Harbord Street.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Michael J. Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, 392-7711
18
Draft By-law - Alteration of Elm Ridge Drive - Speed Humps
(North Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 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 reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 48 of Report No. 16 of the
Toronto Community Council, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Elm Ridge Drive, from Bathurst Street to William R.
Allen Road (North Toronto), which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting on December 16 and
17, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on March
12, 15, 22 and 29, 1999, and the following persons addressed the Toronto Community Council:
-Ms. Julianna Braun, Toronto, Ontario;
-Mr. Steven Plant, Toronto, Ontario; and
-Mr. Art Krause, Elm Ridge Drive Traffic Committee.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:
Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, Clause No. 48, as adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 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 Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road by the installation of speed humps.
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) |
| Elm Ridge
Drive
|
|
Alteration
consisting of
the
installation of
speed humps
|
Bathurst Street
|
William R.
Allen Road
|
421F-5265
dated
September,
1998
|
ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.
MayorCity Clerk
--------
The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause No. 48 of Report No. 16 of The Toronto Community Council,
titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Elm Ridge Drive, from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road (North
Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998:
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 2, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To reduce the speed of traffic on Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road by the introduction of
speed humps.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $15,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702
Recommendation:
(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Elm Ridge Drive, from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen
Road for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of
residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:
"The construction of speed humps on Elm Ridge Drive, from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road, generally as shown
on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5265, dated September 1998";
(2)That the speed limit be reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h on Elm Ridge Drive between Bathurst Street and William R.
Allen Roadway coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and
(3)That the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.
Comment
At the request of North Toronto Ward Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, and area residents, a staff
investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street
to William R. Allen Road to reduce the speed of motor vehicles.
Elm Ridge Drive is a collector street with a two-way operation, a daily traffic flow of about 4,500 vehicles and a speed limit
of 40 km/h. The pavement width varies from 8.5 m to 10.4 m in the sections with no median while in the sections with a
median, each roadway is approximately 5.5 m wide. Parking is permitted on the south side of Elm Ridge Drive from the
North Toronto ward boundary to Marwood Road (except on the William R. Allen Road bridge) and from Burmont Road to
Manitou Boulevard. Parking is not permitted at any time on either side of Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street to Manitou
Boulevard. In general, parking supply is unaffected by the installation of speed humps.
Elm Ridge Drive, for the most part, consists of very short blocks (in the order of 90 metres in length). The exception to this
is the block between Manitou Boulevard and Lawnhurst Boulevard which is about 190 metres in length. An 85th percentile
speed (the speed exceeded by 15% of the traffic) is 47 km/h. I note that the block between Manitou Boulevard and Bathurst
Street which is slightly longer than the typical block (about 110 metres) has an 85th percentile speed of 42 km/h.
To be consistent with the former City's Speed Hump Policy, one speed hump per block could be installed on the short
blocks, and two on the Manitou Boulevard/Lawnhurst Boulevard block. The proposed locations for these speed humps are
shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5265, dated September 1998. Six humps are proposed on the undivided
roadway sections of Elm Ridge Drive, plus another four humps at two sections where there is a median.
It is not advisable to install speed humps on the bridge over the William R. Allen Road because of the potential for
structural damage to the bridge. Speed humps are also not proposed west of the bridge at this time. I note that the land use
east of the bridge is predominantly single family dwellings whereas west of the bridge it is mainly apartment buildings.
In light of the above and the apparent support for the proposal evident at a public meeting of November 26, 1998, hosted by
the Elm Ridge Drive Traffic Committee, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine the amount of community
support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households
directly abutting the affected portions of the street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to
authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.
One of the concerns of residents from neighbouring streets in the area is whether or not traffic volumes on their streets will
be impacted because of traffic diversion from Elm Ridge Drive. Studies conducted so far on Glengrove Avenue (where 10
speed humps were installed in July 1998) suggest that there is minimal, if any, diversion of traffic with the introduction of
speed humps. Traffic volumes will be monitored closely on Ridelle Avenue and Briar Hill Avenue to establish whether any
traffic increases occur due to the installation of speed humps on Elm Ridge Drive. If remedial action is required one option
would be to install speed humps on Ridelle Avenue and Briar Hill Avenue.
The changes proposed to Elm Ridge Drive as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes
resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing.
It is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that the proposal 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
Michael J. Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (November 27, 1998) from Councillor
Walker, addressed to the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:
Last night I attended a meeting for all residents on Elm Ridge Drive (Bathurst Street to Newgate Road) that was well
attended. At this meeting Mr. Mike Harris presented a Speed Hump proposal to the residents. There was overwhelming
enthusiasm from the members of this street to proceed as soon as possible with the installation of these devices and a
unanimous vote was taken to request that a poll be taken on their street as soon as possible.
Mr. Harris at the meeting suggested that it would be feasible to have this item brought before the next Toronto Community
Council on December 9, 1998. Therefore, I am requesting that you expedite this process.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of
the foregoing matter, a communication (December 6, 1998) from Dr. Stephen Abrams, Ms. Rosetta Rutman and Mr. A. and
Ms. J. Braun, enclosing petitions from 156 residents of Elm Ridge Drive and 292 residents of the North West Forest Hill
neighbourhood and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Elm Ridge Drive
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication
(December 15, 1998) from Dr. Stephen Abrams, Toronto, forwarding various documents and petitions in opposition to the
proposed installation of speed humps on Elm Ridge Drive from Bathurst Street to William R. Allen Road, and a copy of
each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
--------
The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (March 29, 1999) from the Director of Transportation
Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To report on the results of a speed hump poll of residents and to advise that conditions for the installation of speed humps
on the subject section of Elm Ridge Drive 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 December 16 and 17, 1998, in adopting Clause 48 in Toronto Community Council Report
No.16, approved the alterations of the pavement on the above noted street, 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 four consecutive weeks in
March 1999 and will be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting of March 30, 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% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.
The results of the poll undertaken on Elm Ridge Drive between Bathurst Street and William R. Allen Road in March 1999
showed that 70% of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these 121 (84%) supported speed humps and 23 (16%)
opposed the plan.
As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, have been satisfied
on the subject section of roadway.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Michael J. Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, 392-7771
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, also having had before it the following
communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:
-(March 23, 1999) from Dr. Brian Schwartz;
-(March 28, 1999) from Dr. Harold Ashley;
-(March 30, 1999) from C. Hirsh; and
-(Undated) from Ms. Julianna Dora Braun
19
Draft By-law - Alteration of Dufferin Grove Area -
Speed Humps (Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 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 reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 55 of Report No. 16 of the
Toronto Community Council, titled "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Dufferin Grove Area bounded by Dufferin
Street, Bloor Street West, Ossington Avenue and College Street (Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted without amendment
by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the
draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on March 12, 15, 22 and 29, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto
Community Council.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:
Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. 15, Clause No. 55, as adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 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
Dufferin Grove Area by the alteration of Dewson Street from Ossington Avenue to Havelock Street, Sylvan Avenue
from Havelock Street to Dufferin Street and Havelock Street from College Street to Bloor Street West by the
installation of speed humps.
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) |
| Dewson Street
Sylvan
Avenue |
|
Alteration
consisting of
the installation
of speed humps
Alteration
consisting of
the installation
of speed humps |
Ossington
Avenue
Havelock
Street |
Havelock Street
Dufferin
Street |
421F-5284,
421F-5285
dated
November 1998
421F-5284,
421F-5285
dated
November 1998
|
| Havelock
Street |
|
Alteration
consisting of
the installation
of speed humps |
College Street |
Bloor Street
West |
421F-5284,
421F-4285
dated
November 1998 |
ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.
MayorCity Clerk
--------
The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause No. 55 of Report No. 16 of the Toronto Community Council,
titled "Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - Dufferin Grove Area bounded by Dufferin Street, Bloor Street West,
Ossington Avenue and College Street (Trinity-Niagara), which was adopted by City Council at its meeting held on
December 16 and 17, 1998:
(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To reduce the speed of traffic in the Dufferin Grove Area 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 $25,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.
Recommendations:
(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Dewson Street, Sylvan Avenue, and Havelock Street in the
Dufferin Grove Area bounded by Dufferin Street, Bloor Street West, Ossington Avenue and College Street 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 Dewson Street from Ossington Avenue to Havelock Street, Sylvan Avenue from
Havelock Street to Dufferin Street and Havelock Street from College Street to Bloor Street West, generally as shown on the
attached prints of Drawing Nos. 421F-5284 and 421F-5285, dated November 1998".
(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Dewson Street from
Ossington Avenue to Havelock Street, Sylvan Avenue from Havelock Street to Dufferin Street and Havelock Street from
College Street to Bloor Street West 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:
Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva requested staff assistance in developing a speed hump plan for the Dufferin
Grove Area in order to reduce vehicle speeds.
Existing Conditions
(1)Dewson Street from Ossington Avenue to Havelock Street
Sylvan Avenue from Havelock Street to Dufferin Street
Both streets have pavement widths of 7.3 metres and operate with two-way traffic. The maximum speed limit is 40 km/h.
The following parking regulations are in effect:
North Side
-Parking is prohibited at all times.
South Side
-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.
-Parking is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday from Ossington Avenue to Concord Avenue.
Twenty-four hour speed and volume traffic surveys conducted on Dewson Street in July 1998 recorded approximately 3200
to 3500 vehicles per day, and of these about 43% exceeded the posted speed limit of 40 km/h., while about 14% travelled in
excess of 10 km/h over the limit. On Sylvan Avenue, a twenty-four hour traffic survey conducted in April 1992 recorded
approximately 3000 vehicles per day.
A suitable speed hump plan for these streets would consist of six speed humps on Dewson Street and two speed humps on
Sylvan Avenue generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5284 dated November 1998.
Havelock Street from College Street to Bloor Street West
Havelock Street from College Street to Bloor Street West has a pavement width of 7.3 metres and operates one-way
northbound (Dewson Street to Bloor Street West) and southbound (Sylvan Avenue to College Street). The maximum speed
limit is 40 km/h. The following parking regulations are in effect:
Sylvan Avenue to College Street
*east side:Parking is prohibited at all times.
*west side: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.
Sylvan Avenue to Bloor Street West
*east side: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.
*west side:Parking is prohibited at all times.
Twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys conducted on Havelock Street from Lindsey Avenue to College Street in July,
1998 recorded approximately 1000 vehicles per day, and of these about 66% exceeded the posted speed limit of 40 km/h.,
while about 19% travelled in excess of 10 km/h over the limit. On Havelock Street from Hepbourne Street to Bloor Street
West, twenty-four hour speed and volume traffic surveys conducted in July, 1998 recorded approximately 1300 vehicles per
day, and of these 70% exceeded the posted speed limit of 40 km/h, while 19% travelled in excess of 10 km/h over the limit.
A suitable speed hump plan for this street would consist of 11 speed humps as generally shown on the attached print of
Drawing No. 421F-5285 dated November 1998.
If speed humps were installed on either or both streets, they should be 7.5 cm high.
As outlined in the former City of Toronto speed hump policy, it is recommended that residents be polled to determine
whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll should be conducted of adult residents (18
years and older) of households directly abutting the street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order
to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.
The changes proposed in the Dufferin Grove Area as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes
resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing.
It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper
their operations.
This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads
Projects.
Contact Name and Telephone Number
Joe Gallippi, Transportation Technologist, 392-7711
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Dufferin Grove Area
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Dufferin Grove Area
The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (March 29, 1999) from the Director of Transportation
Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report the results of a poll of residents regarding the installation of speed humps on Dewson Street (Ossington Avenue to
Havelock Street), Sylvan Avenue (Havelock Street to Dufferin Street) and Havelock Street (College Street to Blood Street
West).
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Background:
City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998 approved Clause 55 in Toronto Community Council Report No.
16, and in doing so, approved the alterations of the pavement on the above noted streets, subject to favourable results of
polling of 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 four consecutive
weeks in March 1999 and will be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting of March 30, 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% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.
The results of the poll undertaken on the subject sections of Dewson Street, Sylvan Avenue and Havelock Street are
denoted in the table below:
Table "A"
| Street |
Location |
Support Speed
Humps |
Oppose Speed
Humps |
% of Eligible
Voters |
| Dewson Street |
Havelock Street
to Ossington
Ave |
45
(70%) |
19
(30%) |
28% |
| Sylvan Avenue |
Dufferin Street
to Havlock St |
18
(69%) |
8
(31%) |
30% |
| Havlock Street |
College Street
to Bloor Street
W |
132
(71%) |
53
(29%) |
39% |
As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, have been satisfied
on the subject sections of roadway.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Michael J. Harris, Supervisor Traffic Engineering, 392-7711
20
Realignment of Permit Parking Area Boundary -
- Areas 3L and 5A (Davenport and Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that holders of valid residential permits in Areas 3L and 5A be
allowed to park on either the east or west side of Christie Street (where parking is permitted), between the CP Rail
Corridor and Bloor Street West, and the appropriate City officials be authorized 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 reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services to resolve the issues raised in the communication (March 23, 1999) from Xiao Hong Chen.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way
Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To report on a proposal to establish the centerline of Christie Street as the boundary between permit parking areas 3L and
5A, Davenport and Midtown. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)The boundary of permit parking areas 3L and 5A be amended as follows:
(a)Area 3L to be bounded on the west by the east side of Ossington Avenue, on the north by the CPR Corridor; on the east
by the west side of Christie Street, and on the south by the north side of Bloor Street West; and
(b)Area 5A to be bounded on the west by the east side of Christie Street, on the north by the CPR Corridor; on the east by
the west side of Bathurst Street, and on the south by the north side of Bloor Street West;
(2)Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto, be amended to incorporate the attached
revised "District Map 5-1"; and
(3)The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
Background:
City Council, at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted without amendment Clause 36 of Toronto Community
Council Report No. 4, respecting refinements to approved roadway narrowing plan at Christie Street, which in part,
permitted the realignment of permit parking areas 3L and 5A on Christie Street, from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street
Comments:
Christie Street, between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street, is authorized for permit parking on the west side within
permit parking area 5A. Within this portion of Christie Street, there are 76 legal on-street parking spaces for which as of to
date 27 permits have been issued to residents of this street. Specifically, ten on-street parking permits issued to residents on
the west side of Christie Street and 17 on-street parking permits to residents on the east side of the street.
Christie Street is also the boundary street for areas 3L and 5A (Davenport and Midtown boundaries).
Permit Parking area 5A is bounded on the north by the Canadian Pacific Railway, on the east by the west side of Bathurst
Street, on the south by the north side of Bloor Street West and on the west by the west street line of Christie Street (all of
Christie Street falls within permit parking area 5A).
Permit Parking area 3L is bounded on the north by the Canadian Pacific Railway, on the east by the west street line of
Christie Street, on the south by the north side of Bloor Street West and on the west by the east side of Ossington Avenue.
Permit Parking area 5A has a total of 953 on-street permit parking spaces for which a total of 949 permits have been issued
to date. Permit Parking area 3L has a total of 626 on-street parking spaces for which a total of 559 permits have been issued
to date.
City Council, at its meeting of March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, among other things, approved the realignment of permit parking
regulations on Christie Street, between Bloor and Dupont Streets as follows:
| Christie Street From |
To |
Authorized side for permit parking |
| Bloor Street West |
Barton Avenue |
west side |
| Barton Avenue |
Follis Avenue |
east side |
| Essex Street |
Garnet Avenue |
west side |
| Garnet Avenue |
Yarmouth Avenue |
east side |
| Yarmouth Avenue |
Dupont Street |
odd side |
These parking regulations would permit resident permit holders of Christie Street, living on the east side of the street to
park on the east side and residents of the west side park on the west side of the street. In addition, permit holders, regardless
of which side of the street they reside, would be able to park on either side of Christie Street, within the authorized permit
parking areas.
Conclusions:
Given that the realignment of the area boundaries of permit parking areas 5A and 3L will not negatively impact the
available spaces and the distribution of parking permits, it is recommended that the proposal be approved.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Bob Bonner, 392-7876
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of
the foregoing matter, the communication (March 23, 1999) from Xiao Hong Chen, in support of the application, and a copy
thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
21
Application for Commercial Boulevard Parking Privileges
- 18 Lower Jarvis Street, Market Street Rear (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard
parking at 18 Lower Jarvis Street, Market Street rear and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with
the criteria set out in §313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto
Municipal Code, subject to the following:
(a)that the applicant being approved for the construction of the 1.83 m high chain link fence, 1 m back of the curb at
18 Lower Jarvis Street, Market Street rear;
(b)that the applicant be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter
313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;
(c)that access to the proposed boulevard commercial boulevard parking spaces be restricted to the existing ramping
facilities;
(d)that the gate be locked at night and on weekends;
(e)that the use of the proposed commercial boulevard parking spaces is restricted to staff and clients and not to the
general public; and
(f)that the applicant be required to undertake landscape improvements to the City boulevard on Market Street.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 16, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way
Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To report on the business owner's application for commercial boulevard parking privileges and request to install a 1.83
metres high chain link fence, one metre back of the curb within the City's right-of-way at 18 Lower Jarvis Street, Market
Street rear. 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 application for commercial boulevard parking at 18 Lower Jarvis Street, Market Street rear; or
(2)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking at 18 Lower Jarvis Street, Market Street rear and
such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in §313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313,
Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, subject to the following:
(a)that the applicant being approved for the construction of the 1.83 m high chain link fence, one metre back of the curb at
18 Lower Jarvis Street, Market Street rear;
(b)that the applicant be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the
former City of Toronto Municipal Code;
(c)that access to the proposed boulevard commercial boulevard parking spaces be restricted to the existing ramping
facilities;
(d)that the gate be locked at night and on weekends;
(e)that the use of the proposed commercial boulevard parking spaces is restricted to staff and clients and not to the general
public; and
(f)that the applicant be required to undertake landscape improvements to the City boulevard on Market Street.
Background:
Ward Councillors are routinely notified of any applications for commercial boulevard parking in their Ward, should they
wish to comment on the application. The Councillor(s) may also wish to bring the matter before the Toronto Community
Council for further discussion.
Councillor Kyle Rae has identified concerns regarding the ingress and egress of vehicles to the proposed boulevard parking
area given that the character of the area has changed considerably to residential use.
Comments:
Mr. Harold Gross, owner of Gross Realty Group, o/a Gross Machinery Group, 18 Lower Jarvis Street, Toronto, Ontario
M5E 1N1, submitted an application on October 18, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking at 18
Lower Jarvis Street, Market Street rear.
The application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in § 313-39 of the former City of
Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.
As indicated, Councillor Rae has concerns pertaining to the ingress and egress of vehicles to the proposed boulevard
parking area.
In order to address Councillor Rae's concerns, staff met with Messrs. Gross and Franklin in November and December 1998,
to review various options to control access to the proposed commercial boulevard parking spots.
Mr. Gross is proposing to relocate an existing 1.83 metres high chain link fence from private property to within the City's
right-of-way at Market Street to a point one metre back of the curb of Market Street with access to the proposed parking
area via existing ramping facilities at the south west corner of Market and Wilton Streets. On Appendix 'A', we have shown
the proposed parking spots together with the proposed 1.83 metres high chain link fence and existing ramping facilities.
Of note, in reviewing the matter for the relocation of the chain link fence, we have determined that there is an existing 50
mm Consumers gas main which is located approximately 2.2 metres east of the curb line of Market Street. Although
Consumers Gas has indicated that they have no objections to the overall proposal, they will not be held responsible for any
loss or damage if any repairs to their existing service is required.
For the information of the Toronto Community Council, Gross Machinery abuts the whole of the boulevard of the east side
of Market Street from Wilton Street southerly to the dead end and there is no sidewalk on this portion of Market Street
(Appendix 'B'). However, if a boulevard parking licence is issued, there will be sufficient sidewalk boulevard space for
pedestrians. On the west side of Market Street and opposite the proposed parking area there are a number of large
residential complexes. The width of the City sidewalk fronting these locations is approximately 2.7 metres.
Councillor Rae, in his letter of March 3, 1999, has indicated that the boulevard parking proposal and relocation of the chain
link fence to within one metre of the Market Street curb should be subject to the following conditions:
(1)That access to the parking remains via the existing driveway;
(2)That the applicant provide improvements to the City boulevard by planting trees along the length of the fence, either
above or below ground;
(3)That the gate be locked at night and on weekends; and
(4)That the parking is available only to staff and clients, not to the general public.
The existing gas main located approximately 2.2 metres back of the curb of Market Street may be a conflict with planting of
trees. Under the circumstances, should your Committee recommend approval of the commercial boulevard parking
application, the applicant must be required to submit detailed landscape proposal for our review and approval.
Conclusions:
The proposed boulevard parking area is on the west side of Market Street. This section of the street is a dead end and is
somewhat unsightly. Any improvements to the boulevard would enhance the area. The parking of vehicles on the boulevard
and the installation of the fence would not impact negatively on the City's right-of-way.
On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to
grant the requested commercial boulevard parking privileges and the construction of a 1.83 metres high chain link fence.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Appendix 'A' and 'B'
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Appendix 'A' and 'B'
(Communication dated March 3, 1999, addressed to
Mr. Ken McGuire, Supervisor, Commercial Licensing Section, from Councillor Rae)
Thank you for your e-mail regarding the Gross Machinery Site and the request to increase staff parking for that address.
I do not have any problem with the moving of the fence to within one metre of the Market Street curb as long as four
conditions are met:
(1)That access to the parking remains the existing driveway.
(2)That the applicant provide improvements to the City boulevard by planting trees along the length of the fence, either
above or below ground.
(3)That the gate be locked at night and on weekends.
(4)That the parking is available only to your staff and clients, not the general public.
I have shared these thoughts with the neighbouring residential co-op, and they agree that the greening of the boulevard
would enhance the view of the lot.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns.
22
Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing - 387 Bloor Street East
(Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council rescind the licensed boulevard marketing fronting
387 Bloor Street East subject to:
(a)the licence holder being notified and being given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community
Council;
(b)a 30 day written notice of cancellation being provided to the licence holder; and
(c)the licence holder being refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 11, 1999) from the Manager of the Right of
Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To report on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 387 Bloor Street East. As licence holders must be
given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee of Council prior to the revocation of a licence, this matter is
scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:
(1)City Council rescind the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 387 Bloor Street East subject to:
(a)the licence holder be notified and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council;
(b)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder; and
(c)the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee; or
(2)City Council allow the licensed boulevard marketing to continue fronting 387 Bloor Street East.
Background:
Councillor Kyle Rae has requested us to report on the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 387 Bloor
Street East.
Comments:
Mr. Ganesan Sugumar, Sugshe Trading Canada Ltd., o/a Metro Paradise, 387 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario M4W
3N1, was issued a licence to occupy 5.95 square metres of City street allowance for boulevard marketing on September 28,
1995, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').
In response to complaints received pertaining to excessive marketing, numerous inspections conducted in 1998 and 1999
revealed that the marketing was in compliance with the licence issued, except on two occasions where cardboard boxes
were used for the display of merchandise extending the marketing licensed area. Notices of Advice were issued to the owner
and the cardboard boxes were removed in the presence of the inspector.
Boulevard marketing is governed under the criteria set out in 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 the display stands must
be constructed of wood with epoxy resin paint, stainless steel, galvanized metal, plastic, fibreglass, aluminum or steel with
baked enamel finish and designed to maintain the merchandise a minimum of 0.61 metres above grade, and to ensure that
the area under the merchandise is left clear. The Municipal Code does not permit the use of cardboard boxes for display
purposes.
Because of constituency concerns, Councillor Kyle Rae has requested a report on the cancellation of the boulevard
marketing licence at 387 Bloor Street East.
Conclusions:
Should the Toronto Community Council decide to cancel the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 387 Bloor Street East,
in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Code, a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the
licence holder and the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee.
The City of Toronto Act requires that licence holders be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee of Council
prior to the revocation of a licence.
On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to:
(a)cancel the boulevard marketing fronting 387 Bloor Street East; or
(b)allow the boulevard marketing to continue.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Appendix 'A' - 387 Bloor Street East
The Toronto Community Council, for the information of Council, also had before it the following communications, and a
copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:
-(March 23, 1999) from Mr. Barrie W. Martin, President, MTCC 594
-(March 30, 1999) from Mr. R. Ravi Varman, Accountant, Sugshe Trading Canada Limited
-(March 30, 1999) from Ms. Faye Sleeth
Mr. David Sleeth, MTCC1021, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
23
Appeal of Driveway Widening at 723 Coxwell Avenue
(East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the existing paving fronting 723 Coxwell Avenue be permitted
to remain.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Manager of the Right of
Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To comment on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of
Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the existing concrete paving to remain in connection with the driveway widening
application, as it does not meet the paving specifications as required by the Code. As this matter is of public interest, it is
scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
(1)That City Council request the excessive paving fronting 723 Coxwell Avenue be removed, and that the parking area be
paved in semi-permeable materials such as ecostone or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as per the conditions of approval; or
(2)That the existing paving fronting 723 Coxwell Avenue be permitted to remain.
Background:
Councillor Tom Jakobek, in his communication of February 3, 1999, together with a communication dated February 3, 1999
from Ms. Rosie Dogantzis, owner of 723 Coxwell Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4C 3C3, requested an appeal to staff's
decision that the newly paved area fronting the subject property be changed, in order to meet the City's paving
specifications, and requested me to report to the Toronto Community Council.
Comments:
In our letter of approval dated December 3, 1998 to Ms. Rosie Dogantzis, we advised her that the submitted proposal was
approved subject to the paving of the parking area in semi-permeable material as per attached City specification sheet
(Schedule 'A'). The letter also requested her to obtain clearances from the utility companies and to obtain a construction and
paving permit from the department prior to any work being undertaken.
Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal
Code. The current criteria of the Code:
(a)requires that the proposed parking area be paved with semi-permeable material or equivalent permeable paving treatment
acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;
(b)requires that the parking area not exceed a maximum of 2.6 metres in width;
(c)requires that a minimum of 50 percent of the front yard on private property be maintained as landscape open space; and
(d)requires a minimum of 15 percent of the area on the City boulevard be soft landscaping, and all other areas other than the
walkway and the parking area must be maintained as soft landscaping.
On February 2, 1999, the applicant came to the office, wanting to pick up the parking licence in order to park on the parking
pad. She was advised that she needed to obtain a construction and paving permit as indicated in the letter and to pave the
area with semi-permeable materials. She advised the staff that the full front yard was recently paved in concrete prior to
receiving the approval letter.
An inspection was conducted on February 16, 1999, and determined that most of the front yard was paved in concrete. The
existing conditions of the front yard do not meet the criteria of Chapter 248 as follows:
(1)the area paved is 6.2 metres in width, instead of 2.6 metres;
(2)the landscape open space on private requirement is only 23 percent instead of 50 percent; and
(3)the parking area is not paved in semi-permeable materials as required by the Code.
Conclusions:
The paving does not meet the City's specifications and the current criteria of the Code because:
(a)the amount of paving exceed 6.2 metres in width instead of 2.6 metres maximum;
(b)the landscape open space on private property is 23 percent instead of 50 percent; and
(c)the paving is not semi-permeable.
Given that the owners have paved most of the front yard in concrete, without receiving prior approval, and have deviated
from their submitted proposal, it is therefore recommended that this appeal be denied by Council.
Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778
--------
Ms. Rosie Dogantzis, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing
matter:
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Schedule 'A' - Page 1 of 3
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Schedule 'A' - Page 2 of 3
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Schedule 'A' - Page 3 of 3
24
Railway Lands Central and West (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted the following recommendations:
"It is recommended that:
(1)EagleQuest provide subsidized and affordable community access to the proposed golf course in the Railway Lands West;
(2)the appropriate staff of Urban Planning and Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism
continue to meet with representatives of Concord Adex and EagleQuest to determine what type of community programs will
be provided at the proposed golf course in the Railway Lands West, such programs to be in place for the opening of the golf
course facility; and
(3)there be consultation with the Pesticides Sub-Committee as the project is developed.")
The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:
(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to Council on access for the
community, particularly for youth, and the provision of off-peak time for youth;
(2)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with appropriate officials and the
Sub-Committee on Pesticides, to report directly to Council on pesticide use at the site; and
(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on a stormwater management plan for
the site.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 12, 1999) from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to:
1.advise Council that the Ontario Municipal Board has, by Order issued September 3, 1998, approved the amendments to
the Railway Lands Central and West Part II Official Plans and Zoning By-laws originally passed by the Council of the
former City of Toronto in October 1997 with the modifications approved by City Council in May 1998;
2.authorize an amendment to the 1994 Escrow Agreement in respect of the Railway Lands West to replace certain of the
1994 street and park conveyances with conveyances for the new streets and parks approved by the Board's Order of
September 3, 1998; and
3.permit the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report directly to the March 30, 1999 meeting
of Toronto Community Council or the April 13, 1999 meeting of City Council upon the request by Concord Aden that the
City agree to not take title to certain streets and park lands until the abutting blocks are developed.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There are no financial implications.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
1.The City amend the 1994 "Escrow Agreement Railway Lands Central and West" to replace the 1994 street and park
conveyances with conveyances for the new streets and parks as shown on the 1997 amendments to the Railway Lands West
Part II Plan and Zoning By-law approved by the Ontario Municipal Board Order of September 3, 1998.
2.The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be allowed to report directly to the March 30, 1999
meeting of Toronto Community Council or the April 13, 1999 meeting of City Council upon the request by Concord Aden
that the City agree to not take title to the crescent abutting Block 26 and certain components of the Northern Linear Park
until the abutting blocks are developed.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In October of 1994 the Ontario Municipal Board approved Part II Official Plans and Zoning By-laws for the Railway Lands
Central and the Railway Lands West and the City of Toronto entered into various agreements with the owner, Canadian
National Railway Company, regarding the future development of the lands. One of these was an escrow agreement whereby
an escrow agent would hold certain lands to be conveyed to the City, including lands for the streets and parks to be
constructed in conjunction with the ultimate development of the Railway Lands West.
In October, 1997 Council modified the Part II Plans and Zoning By-laws for the Railway Lands Central and West in
response to an application by a new owner, Grand Aden. These modifications, which among other matters altered the
location of some of the proposed streets and parks, were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. At its meeting held on
May 13 and 14, 1998 Council adopted the recommendations in the City Solicitor's report of May 14, 1998 entitled "Railway
Lands Central and West - OMB Settlement" and thereby advised the Board that the City agreed with certain modifications
to the appealed Part II Plans and Zoning By-laws. By its Order dated September 3, 1998 the Board approved the Part II
Official Plans and Zoning By-laws in accordance with the settlement supported by City Council.
Since then Concord Aden, the present owner, has proposed to build a golf course within the Railway Lands West as an
interim use pending the ultimate development of the lands. Concord Aden has asked the City to confirm that Concord Aden
may use certain of the escrowed street and park lands during the anticipated life of the interim golf course.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Changes to Escrow Agreement:
As the 1994 Escrow Agreement permits the escrow agent to hold conveyances for the streets and parks as set out in the
1994 Part II Plan and Zoning By-law, it is now necessary to amend the Escrow Agreement to replace those conveyances
with conveyances for the new streets and parks as approved by the Board in September 1998.
Acknowledgment Agreement Regarding the Proposed Interim Golf Course:
Concord Aden has advised the proposed interim golf course will not proceed unless the City confirms it will not, during the
anticipated life of the golf course, take title to an escrowee crescent abutting Block 26. Concord Aden has also asked that a
similar assurance be given with respect to a component of the proposed Northern Linear Park. The Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services is currently reviewing these requests. Given that timing is of the essence if the
proposed golf course is to be constructed this year, the Commissioner's staff have requested that the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services be allowed to report on this matter directly to Toronto Community Council or
City Council.
Conclusions:
It is appropriate to amend the Escrow Agreement as noted above. With respect to the owner's request regarding the
proposed interim golf course, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services should be allowed to report
directly to Toronto Community Council or to City Council.
Contact Name:
Stephen Bradley, Solicitor
Telephone: (416)392-7790Fax: (416) 392-0024E-Mail: Bradley@toronto.ca
The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (March 30, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To advise Toronto Community Council that I have no objection to the preparation of an agreement which would leave in
escrow the land designated for streets and park which is to be part of the temporary golf course on the Concord Aden lands
in the Railway Lands West, until abutting land is developed.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)The City enter into an agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, with Concord Aden confirming that,
notwithstanding any existing agreements with the City,
(a)grading, construction and/or conveyance to the City of the escrowee crescent abutting Block 26; and
(b)conveyance to the City of those parts of the northern linear park immediately to the north of Block 29, shown as Parts 37
and 42 on the Delph & Jenkins Survey No.30-97-020-2, dated September 25, 1997,
within the Railway Lands West, shall not occur until the abutting lands are developed.
Background:
Concord Aden, the owners of part of the Railway Lands, wishes to lease some of its lands for a temporary golf course use.
The Site Plan Approval application for the golf course is under review. Some of the golf course land is the subject of
escrow agreements affecting future streets and parkland to be conveyed to the City. Concord Aden has requested assurance
from the City that it will not take title to some of those lands during the life of the golf course.
The City Solicitor has recommended that I report directly to the March 30, 1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council or
to the April 13, 1999 meeting of City Council on this request.
Comments:
I support an agreement which gives Concord Aden the assurance that the City will not exercise its right to the escrowee
lands shown on Map 1 before the crescent road and park and are needed to serve the development which is to occur on the
adjacent lands. This will facilitate the golf course, which I also support, as a temporary use.
Any agreement should maintain:
(i)the City's right to pre-build Bremner Boulevard through the Railway Lands West;
(ii)the City's requirement that all streets and parkland required to service development, when it occurs, are built; and
(iii)the City's right to build a continuous open space link along the south side of the Rail Corridor between Spadina Avenue
and Bathurst Street.
I have consulted with the appropriate staff in the Departments of Works and Emergency Services and Economic
Development, Culture and Tourism, who advise that they have no objection to giving the applicant the assurance requested.
Conclusion:
In order to facilitate the construction of the golf course in the Railway Lands West, the City Solicitor should prepare an
agreement between the City and Concord Aden acknowledging that the City will not exercise its rights to the escrowee
street and parkland shown on Map 1 until that land is needed to serve development in adjacent development blocks.
Contact Name:
Ian Cooper
Telephone: (416) 392-7572
Fax: (416) 392-1330
E-Mail: icooper@toronto.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Railway Lands
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following
report (April 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To report on free and/or low cost community programmes particularly for youth, at the proposed golf course facility on the
Railway Lands West.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that Urban Planning and Development Services and of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism
staff continue to meet with representatives of Concord Aden and EagleQuest to determine what type of community
programmes will be provided at the proposed golf course in the Railway Lands West and that these programmes be in place
for the opening of the golf course facility.
Council Reference:
Toronto Community Council has requested that I report directly to City Council on this matter in conjunction with the
March 12, 1999 report of the City Solicitor and my March 30, 1999 report concerning a temporary golf course in the
Railway Lands West.
Comments:
Staff have spoken with representatives of Concord Aden, the owner of the site, and EagleQuest, the developer and operator
of the golf course regarding free or low cost programmes at the golf course. EagleQuest has provided subsidized
community access at the other courses it operates and would be willing to institute that programme here. EagleQuest is
also willing to discuss how their community access programme could be integrated with other City-run recreation
programmes.
Conclusion:
EagleQuest, the operator of the proposed golf course has a corporate commitment to community access. The form of
community access programme for this golf course will to be determined through ongoing discussions.
Contact Name:
Ian Cooper
Phone: 392-7572
Fax: 392-1330
Email: cooper@toronto.ca)
(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (April 13, 1999) from
the Acting Manager, Development Services, Works and Emergency Services:
At its meeting of March 30, 1999 Toronto Community Council requested that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services report to the Council meeting of April 13, 1999 with respect to stormwater management proposed for the proposed
interim use of the Railway Lands west of Spadina Avenue as a golf course facility.
The developer as part of a Site Plan Application is responsible to provide a municipal servicing plan including details of a
stormwater management plan for the review and acceptance of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.
The stormwater management plan is to demonstrate the following:
- measures to contain the flows generated by storm which occurs on average every two years on site through
infiltration to landscaped areas;
- the impacts of existing soil quality on groundwater regimes with respect to proposed infiltration schemes;
and
- the overland flow routing for storms in excess of infiltration capacities.)
25
Urban Design Guidelines for Parking Facilities
in The Kings (Downtown, Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be
adopted; and
(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the Urban Environment and
Development Committee on City-wide guidelines which would permit parking structures at the sub-surface level of
the public right-of-way.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval for the following urban design guidelines for parking facilities in The
King-Parliament and King-Spadina districts of the city.
Source of Funds: Not Applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That Council adopt the urban design guidelines for parking facilities in The Kings districts.
Background:
In the spring of 1996, the former City of Toronto Council approved changes to land use controls in the King-Parliament and
King-Spadina districts. This initiative was aimed at attracting new investment to these districts, creating new residential
opportunities including legalizing live/work. The initiative has been very successful and has resulted in a significant
rejuvenation of these areas as mixed use districts within the City. Community Improvement Plans are also currently
underway.
The zoning changes also permitted the introduction of above-grade parking structures into these districts, subject to a
number of controls. At the present time, such structures are not permitted elsewhere in the City. To ensure the continued
high level of amenity in these areas in light of the introduction of this building type and to ensure that the new structures fit
in well with neighbouring buildings, urban design guidelines for The Kings have been prepared for Council approval.
Comments:
Consistent with the King-Parliament and King -Spadina Part II policies, parking structures should be designed with the
following objectives in mind:
1.Parking facilities should be sited to fit and reinforce the existing area context.
2.The street lines of existing buildings should be respected.
3.New development should contribute to the achievement of an attractive, inviting, comfortable, and safe public realm
which meets high standards of urban design.
4.New development should address the primary street with its main entrance close to the front property line.
5.New structures should occupy the majority of the lot frontage along a public street.
6.Parking structures should be landscaped with trees along the primary street frontage and other plantings should extend
along the street wall.
The proposed guidelines are consistent within these policies and objectives.
Conclusions:
With the addition of the parking structure guidelines for the districts, the issue of parking facilities will be well defined and
properly addressed to encourage compatible design within the community. These public initiatives dovetail with the recent
private investment within the two districts, and strengthens the vitality and amenity of these emerging neighbourhoods.
Contact Name:
Deborah Porte
Telephone (416) 396-7007
Fax (416) 396-4265
E-Mail:dporte@toronto.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 4
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 5
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 6
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 7
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 8
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 9
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 10
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 11
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 12
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 13
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 14
Parking Facilities in the Kings
Insert Table/Map No. 15
Parking Facilities in the Kings
(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing
Clause, in that his family has an interest in property located in the vicinity of the subject site.)
26
86 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre)
- Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan (Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 15, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to inform City Council of the proposed Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan for 86
and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) and to seek approval for the recommendations of the Public Art
Commission concerning this plan.
Source of Funds:
All costs associated with this Public Art Plan are the responsibility of the owners of 86 and 100 Bloor Street West.
Recommendations:
That the Toronto Community Council approve the following recommendations from the City of Toronto Public Art
Commission:
(a)that, in addition to the main north wall site, as proposed in the 86 and 100 Bloor Street West Private Developer Percent
for Public Art Plan, the northeast corner be included as a significant site and addressed in the final scheme;
(b)that the final budget will identify the public art contribution which will be over and above the base building costs for the
north wall;
(c)that the owner submit the competition brief for information to the City and the Public Art Commission prior to
distribution to the competing artists; and,
(d)that Toronto Community Council approve the proposed Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan for 86 and 100
Bloor Street West, subject to the incorporation of the above recommendations from the Public Art Commission.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On March 2, 3 and 4, 1999, City Council adopted, as amended, Clause No. 1 of the Toronto Community Council Report
No. 4 respecting Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments which included a requirement for a one percent public art
commitment from the development at 86 and 100 Bloor Street West (the University Theatre project). The Public Art Plan
was presented to the Public Art Commission at its March 4, 1999 meeting.
The following sections, 1 through 7, represent the Public Art Plan for 86 and 100 Bloor Street West, as presented by
Catherine Williams and Donald Schmitt, Public Art Consultants, John Filipetti, (owner representative, Gentra), and Colin
Graham, Project Architect.
1.Description of the Development:
The proposed development includes a mix of residential, retail and theatre uses on the north side of Bloor Street, stretching
west from Bellair Street, and north to Critchley Lane at the southern edge of the Village of Yorkville Park. Nine new
cinemas will be accessed though the historic and restored University Theatre facade to a third-floor lobby with transparent
views of the lobby from Bloor Street. The retail stores are each two-storeys in height, directly accessible from the street, and
located on all sides of the structure. A 160-unit condominium will rise at the southeast side of the development with the
lobby, parking and loading access situated on Bellair Street.
2.Recommended Art Sites:
At the northwest corner of the building is a blank wall which envelopes the movie theatres behind it (hence no windows)
and faces the Village of Yorkville Park and beyond to the converted Victorian houses along Cumberland Street. This is the
primary art site. There is an opportunity here to orient the building to the park, which is an imaginative landmark and
well-frequented spot for lunching, reading and playing. The owners of the development intend to extend the park materials
to the edge of the building and envisage the art and architecture presenting an integrated and coherent complement to the
neighbourhood.
The winning artist may exercise the option to extend the art site to two secondary locations also located on the north side of
the building, a large window at the centre and stepped wall at the northeast corner. Treatment of or around the window
would have to be such that the transmission of light to the inside of the building, and conversely the visibility from the
inside, would not be impaired.
The northwest corner art site starts 10.5 metres above grade and measures 24 metres (height) by 21.6 metres (width). The
window is 27.5 metres (height) by 27 metres (width). At it's highest point, the stepped wall is 5.5 metres high graduating
down to 2.1 metres; the overall length is 9 metres.
The "film strip" laneway on the western boundary of the development could be considered as another secondary art site to
help make the walkway as "un-lane like" as possible; however, retail signage and fire exits make the space visually
congested.
Other sites for the public art were considered and disqualified. The lobby of the condominium with a possible spill over on
the sidewalk was thought not to be public enough. Treatment of the glazing on the Bloor Street facade was ruled out as art
would be in conflict with the retail functions.
3.Type of Competition:
The jury will interview five artists about their past work, working methods and conceptual approaches or rough ideas each
might bring to this particular site. Each artist will be provided with a description of the site, the budget and guideline as to
what is expected of them in the interview. The artist will be paid a fee of $1,000.00 plus travel expenses. One will be
chosen to collaborate with the architect, Colin Graham.
Once the artist and architect have started to flesh out their thoughts, they will present the directions they are considering to
the jury for comment and for approval, in general, to proceed. It is important that this second meeting of the jury be held as
soon in the process to allow for meaningful discussion and reasonable time to make adjustments if necessary, At this stage,
the jury will consist of the three art and community representatives only. By then, Mr. Graham, the architect and Mr.
Filipetti, the owner's representative, would have been involved in the collaborative process.
The jury's second meeting will help to ensure that the intent of the City's public art program is being carried out. Should
insurmountable difficulties arise between the artist and the architect, a pre-determined severance fee will be paid to the artist
and the runner-up will be approached to work on the project
We feel this interview and collaboration method is appropriate to achieve a high level of integration between public art and
the architecture of the development's north wall.
4.Artists:
Five artists will be chosen from the following short list: Derek Bezant; Jeff Jackson; Greg Murdock; Margaret Priest;
Martha Schwartz; Judith Schwarz; Barbara Steinman; and Catherine Widgery.
5.The Jury:
The owners' representatives will be: John Filipetti (Gentra) and Colin Graham (project architect). The remaining three
representatives will be drawn from the art and local communities. Names under consideration are: Nicholas Metivier
(Director, Mira Godard Gallery); Budd Sugarman (interior designer with a business in the neighbourhood; and on jury for
Village of Yorkville Park); Jeanne Parkin (art consultant with experience in public art, collector, local resident); Mark
Kingswell (University of Toronto Professor of philosophy and multi-media; has written about the University Theatre); and
Fern Bayer, ( former Curator of the Ontario Government art collection including public art; local resident).
6.Budget:
The estimated budget is $550,000.00, to be apportioned as follows:
10 percent administration of competition, travel for out town artists, consultants' fees $55,000.00
10 percent maintenance $55,000.00
80 percent art, including artists' fee, materials, fabrication, installation $440,000.00
7.Tentative Schedule:
Brief sent to Artists:late March, early April, 1999
Jury interviews Artistsearly May, 1999
Artist and Runner-Up announcedmid-May, 1999
Second Jury Meetingearly July, 1999
Final Drawings, Tenderingearly October, 1999
OccupancyFall, 2001
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
This Public Art Plan conforms with the City's guidelines, as published by Urban Planning and Development Services in the
Developer Approval Manual. The proposed public art plan is an ambitious one and is being submitted to Council in a timely
manner so that the competition can be run and an artist hired as soon as possible to ensure an effective collaboration with
the architect. Subject to the recommendations referred to earlier in this report, this plan was unanimously supported by the
Public Art Commission. It should be noted that this plan will be of no cost to the City and all the public art expenditures
will be the responsibility of the owners.
Conclusions:
I am in full support of this Public Art Plan and look forward to the final outcome of the Public Art Plan.
Contact Name:
Jane Perdue,
Public Art Coordinator, 392-1304
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Zoning By-law 438-86 as amended
Insert Table/Map No. 2
North Elevation (Critchley Lane)
27
Application for Consent under Chapter 276, Article I, Ravines
of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - Retention of
a Deck - 5 Castle Frank Crescent (Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 23, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To obtain City Council's consent to Application No. 098054 respecting the retention of a deck at the rear of the existing
house.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)City Council consent to Application No. 098054 respecting 5 Castle Frank Crescent to permit the construction of a deck
located within the Rosedale Valley Ravine, on the condition that the owner enter into a Ravine Control Agreement
requiring:
(a)that the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping and ravine improvements substantially in accordance with Plan
No. L1, date stamped as received on October 19, 1998, as redlined on November 30, 1998, prepared by Lloyd & Nodwell
Landscape Architects, as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and
(b)that the rain water leaders, at the rear of the building, remain connected to the existing drainage system;
(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement; and
(3)the owner be advised to contact the Forestry Section, Parks and Recreation Division, Economic Development, Culture
and Tourism Services, at 392-1900, upon the completion of all work as indicated on the approved plans.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Comments:
1.Project: To maintain a deck located within the Rosedale Valley Ravine at the rear of the existing house.
2.Location: On the west side of Castle Frank Crescent to the south of Bloor Street East.
3.Site: The property is generally rectangular and very deep, sloping at the rear of the house down to the floor of the
Rosedale Valley Ravine and Rosedale Valley Road. The current owner of the property wishes to legitimize the construction
of the existing deck at the rear of the house. This deck was constructed by the previous owner of the property.
4.Comments from Civic Officials (see Appendix A)
(a)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has indicated that the proposed deck does not comply
with the requirements of the Zoning By-law in that it exceeds the maximum depth of a building. The applicant has
previously applied to the Committee of Adjustment to allow this variance. The Committee of Adjustment has adjourned the
hearing on this application until the ravine consent application has been dealt with by Council.
(b)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services indicated his satisfaction with the proposal subject to conditions
related to drainage and slope stability.
(c)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Services stated that the current proposal
satisfactorily addresses their concerns regarding the preservation of the natural vegetation within the ravine.
5.Planning Considerations
Conclusions:
The applicant has proposed the upgrading of indigenous plant material within the ravine portion of the site and the removal
of non-native Norway Maple trees. In this instance I believe that the current proposal for the maintenance of the existing
deck at the rear of the new house is both reasonable and within the intent of Chapter 276, Ravines, of the former City of
Toronto's Municipal Code. Therefore, I recommend that City Council give consent to the proposed development, subject to
the owner entering into a Ravine Control Agreement.
Contact Name:
Angus M. Cranston
Telephone: (416) 392-0425
Fax: (416) 392-1330
--------
Appendix A
Reports of Civic Officials
1.Urban Planning and Development Services (September 2, 1998)
Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:Erect deck addition at rear
Zoning Designation:R1 Z0.35Map:51H-323
Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended
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 rear 15 metres of the building/addition exceeding the depth of 17 metres will be set back 0.0 metres from the west
and east side lot lines instead of the minimum required 7.5 metres.
Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals
1.The proposal does not require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.
2.The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act because the property is located within an
area of ravine control. Please call (416) 392-7352 for an application or further information.
3.The proposal is not subject to the provisions of the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 165, Article I (Parks Levy).
4.The proposal does not require City Council's approval pursuant to the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.
2.Works and Emergency Services (September 8, 1998)
Recommendations:
1.That the owner be required, as a condition of approval of the plans and drawings for the
Project, to submit a slope stability analysis for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services.
2.That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for
any work to be carried out within the street allowance.
Comments:
Location
West side of Castle Frank Crescent, south of Bloor Street East.
Proposal
To maintain a wooden deck addition at the rear of a single-family dwelling within the designated ravine lands.
Ravine Control Area
The southerly portion of the site, containing most of the wooden deck, is located within the lands designated as ravine and
is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 276, Article I (Rosedale Valley Ravine).
Accordingly, it will be necessary for the owner to submit a slope stability analysis for the review and approval of the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to ensure the slope can withstand the footings and that there will be no
future erosion of the slope caused by the installation of the terrace.
Parking
Although details with respect to the parking facility are not included with this application, the application, indicates that
parking for 2 vehicles is provided within an attached garage. This satisfies the estimated parking demand for 1 parking
space and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like number.
Refuse Collection
The City will continue to provide this project with regular curbside refuse collection in accordance with the provisions of
the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a rodent proof storage area on private
property to separately store recyclable and non-recyclable material generated between collections.
Work within the Road Allowance
Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received from this Department.
(January 22, 1999)
Comments:
The proposal for this site, located on the west side of Castle Frank Crescent, south of Bloor Street East, was dealt with in a
Departmental report dated September 8, 1998.
Mr. Frank Ferenczi, Architect, has submitted on behalf of Brenda Jean Cathrea, a geotechnical investigation report dated
October 2, 1998, prepared by Terraprobe Limited, on the slope stability and foundation design for a wooden deck addition
at the rear of a single-family dwelling located
within the designated ravine lands.
The slope stability analysis has been reviewed by this Department and is acceptable, providing the rain water leaders,
directed to grade at the rear of the building, remain connected to the existing drainage system.
As a result of the foregoing, Recommendation No. 1 of the September 8,1998, Departmental report has been satisfied and
Recommendation No. 3 should be added as follows:
3.That the rain water leaders, at the rear of the building, remain connected to the existing drainage system.
3.Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation Division) (December 18, 1998)
This is to confirm the details of a meeting on November 30,1998 between Paul Nodwell, Angus Cranston and Bruce
Gordon.
The revisions to the upper area of the slope just below the deck were red-lined on the plan to show where the additional
planting will take place. Approximately 10 Lady ferns (Athyrium filix-femina) and 10 Christmas Fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) are to be planted 3' apart. Quantities of the plant material may change at the time of planting.
The Geotechnical Slope Report prepared by Terraprobe (page 6, paragraph 4) recommends that a thin layer of gravel 1 to 2
inches thick should extend beyond the perimeter of the deck at a distance of 3 feet to help prevent soil erosion. This
recommendation is not acceptable as it is not in keeping with natural appearance and character of the ravine. The above
mentioned recommendation must be removed from the report and a copy of the page showing the revision must be sent to
us at which time our department will approve the ravine application.
If you should have any further questions or comments regarding these requirements, please do not hesitate to contact Bruce
Gordon at 392-1900.
(February 12, 1999)
This will acknowledge the revision pertaining to the above noted development application which was circulated to Forestry
Services on February 10,1999. I have reviewed the material and advise that:
(1)The revision made to page six of the report, prepared by Terraprobe and faxed by Frank Ferenczi Architect meets the
approval of this Department.
4.The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (September 1, 1998)
This will acknowledge receipt of the above noted applications. It is our understanding that this proposal is for a deck/terrace
addition. We offer the following comments.
The subject property is traversed by a valley corridor associated with a tributary of the Don River (Rosedale Valley).
Enclosed please find a part print of the Authority's Flood Plain and Fill Regulation line map, sheet No. 2 of the Don River,
on which we have plotted in red the subject property; in blue the regional flood plain; and in green the Authority's fill
regulation limit. As you will note the subject property is located within the Fill Regulation area. In accordance with Ontario
Regulation 158 a permit is required from the Authority prior to any of the following works taking place:
(1)place or dump fill or permit fill to be placed or dumped in the areas described in the schedules whether such fill is
already located in or upon such area, or brought to or on such area from some other place or places.
The Authority's "Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program" (VSCMP) sets out policy criteria for development
adjacent to and within valley corridors. Section 3.1.1 of VSCMP defines the valley corridor boundary by a line established
10 metres inland from the stable top of bank. In accordance with Section 4.1 of VSCMP, a new development is not
permitted within the valley corridor boundary.
A review of the submitted drawings appears to indicate that the proposed deck/terrace addition extends over the top of bank.
The Authority's policies do not allow for any proposed development to encroach over the top of bank. Based upon the
above, we cannot support these applications at this time.
Authority staff is prepared to meet on-site with the applicant to discuss the Authority's policy requirements and assess the
site conditions.
We trust this is satisfactory. However, should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or
Gaspare Ritacca at extension 324.
(January 20, 1999)
Further to our letter dated September 1, 1998, City staff has advised that the purpose of these applications is to recognize
the existing deck/terrace and that no new development is proposed. On this basis, we would have no objections to the
approval of these applications.
We trust this is satisfactory. However, should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or
Gaspare Ritacca at extension 324.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
5 Castle Frank Crescent
Insert Table/Map No. 2
5 Castle Frank Crescent
28
79 Highland Avenue: Application No. 098064 for consent
under Chapter 276, Ravines - Article I of the Former City
of Toronto Municipal Code (Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1999) from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To obtain City Council's consent to Application No. 098064 for a Variance to the Ravine Control provisions of the former
City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)City Council consent to Application No. 098064 respecting 79 Highland Avenue to permit the construction of terraces
and retaining walls within the Park Drive Ravine, on the condition that the owner enter into a Ravine Control Agreement
requiring:
(a)that the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping and ravine improvements substantially in accordance with Plan
No. L1, 'Landscape Plan and Details - Back Garden' date stamped as received on December 2, 1998, and redlined March 16,
1999, prepared by William M. Hewick, Landscape Architect, Acme Environmentals, as on file with the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services;
(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement; and
(3)the owner be advised to contact the Forestry Section, Parks and Recreation Division, Economic Development, Culture
and Tourism Services, at 392-1900, upon the completion of all work as indicated on the approved plans.
Comments:
1.Project: To construct terraces, steps and retaining walls at the rear of a replacement house and landscape the rear yard.
2.Location: On the south side of Highland Avenue, between Roxborough Drive and Binscarth Road.
3.Site: The property is generally rectangular with the southern portion, behind either the original or replacement house,
sloping down into the Park Drive Ravine. The owner of the property wishes to stabilize a portion of the slopes within the
ravine control area with the construction of terraces and retaining walls in conjunction with the construction of a
replacement dwelling outside of the control area.
79 Highland Avenue was the subject of a Committee of Adjustment decision approving minor variances in respect of a
redevelopment plan on June 5, 1998. Construction Permit 414-695 for the new house was issued July 16, 1998, together
with a permit to demolish the existing house.
4.Comments From Civic Officials: (see Appendix A)
(a)Zoning By-law compliance issues relating to the house portion of the site plan have been addressed with approval of
minor variances by the Committee of Adjustment in a decision May 6, 1998 (File A 526). The Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services (Buildings) has indicated that the current landscaping proposal is in compliance with
the Zoning By-law.
(b)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services indicated his satisfaction with the proposal subject to standard
conditions related to stormwater drainage and any work to be carried out within the street allowance.
(c)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Services (Parks and Recreation) stated that the
current plans are satisfactory.
(d)The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority have reviewed the application, inspected the site and have no objections
to approval.
5.Planning Considerations:
This application arises as portions of stairs and low retaining walls extend approximately one metre into the portion of the
lot subject to ravine control, and landscaping/planting of the ravine slopes. The technical review has identified no problems
with the proposal, and the plan would complement the associated replacement house construction and adjacent ravine lands.
The original submission was revised March 16, 1999 to delete a staircase to a first floor level terrace.
The proposal is also the subject of Application No. 398111 for Site Plan Approval, which is delegated to the Commissioner
of Urban Planning and Development Services. I am prepared to approve that application if Council adopts the
recommendations of this report.
Conclusions:
The applicant has proposed works which would stabilize the slopes and upgrade indigenous plant material within the ravine
portion of the site. In this instance I believe that the current proposal is reasonable and within the intent of Chapter 276,
Ravines, of the former City of Toronto's Municipal Code.
Therefore, I recommend that City Council give consent to the proposed development, subject to the owner entering into a
Ravine Control Agreement.
Contact Name:
Bruce McCormick
Telephone: (416) 392-1306
E-mail: bmccormi@toronto.ca
--------
Application Data Sheet
| Site Plan Approval: |
Y |
|
Application Number: |
398111 |
| Rezoning: |
N |
|
Application Date: |
December 2, 1998 |
| O. P. A.: |
N |
|
Date of Revision: |
|
Confirmed Municipal Address:79 Highland Avenue
| Nearest Intersection: |
East of Mount Pleasant Rd. between Roxborough Dr. and Binscarth Rd. |
| |
|
| Project Description: |
Landscape development plan at the rear of the property. |
| Applicant:
ACME Environment Landscape
Design Ltd.
274 Unwin Ave.
461-2263 |
Agent:
ACME Environment Landscape
Design Ltd.
274 Unwin Ave.
461-2263 |
Architect:
|
Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)
| Official Plan
Designation: |
LDRA |
Site Specific
Provision: |
No |
| Zoning District: |
R1 Z0.35 |
Historical Status: |
No |
| Height Limit (m): |
10.0 |
Site Plan Control: |
Yes |
Project Information
| Site Area: |
970.3 m2 |
|
Height: |
Storeys: |
2 |
| Frontage: |
11.0 m |
|
|
Metres: |
9.60 |
| Depth: |
60 m |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Indoor |
Outdoor |
|
|
| Ground Floor: |
181.5 m2 |
|
Parking
Spaces: |
2 |
|
|
|
| Residential
GFA: |
370.6 m2 |
|
Loading
Docks: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Non-Residential GFA: |
|
|
(number,
type) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total GFA: |
370.6 m2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Floor Area Breakdown |
| |
|
|
|
|
Land Use |
Above
Grade |
Below
Grade |
| |
|
|
|
|
Residential |
370.6
m2 |
|
| Proposed Density |
|
|
| Residential Density: 0.42 |
Non-Residential Density: |
Total Density: 0.42 |
| Status: |
Application 09069 for Ravine Control Variance and application 398111 for Site Plan
Approval. |
| Data
valid: |
March 15, 1999 |
Section: |
CP South District |
Phone: |
392-7333 |
--------
Appendix A
Comments from Civic Officials
1.Urban Planning and Development Services (Buildings), dated March 16, 1999
| Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows: |
| Description: |
Landscaping of rear yard of new detached house |
| Zoning
Designation: |
R1 Z0.35 |
Map: |
51J 312 |
| Applicable
By-law(s): |
438-86, 1997-0369, as amended |
| Plans
prepared
by: |
Murakami |
Plans
dated: |
February
10, 1998
and
revised
March 16,
1999 |
| Residential
GFA: |
366.18 m2 |
|
Zoning Review
A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal complies with the City's Zoning By-laws.
Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals
| 1. |
The proposal DOES NOT require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in
lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act. |
|
2. |
The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario
Heritage Act. |
| 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. |
The proposal is within an area regulated by the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority. TRCA approval will be required prior to the issuance of any permit by the Chief
Building Official. |
| 5. |
The proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval and
curb cuts. |
2.Works and Emergency Services, dated December 29, 1998
Recommendations:
(1)That the owner be advised:
(a)that the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that
storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted 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 sois
contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff; and
(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.
Comments:
Location
South side of Highland Avenue, west of Glen Road.
Proposal
Construction of a 2-storey detached dwelling and the installation of dry laid flagstone retaining walls, flagstone steps, and
paving with a combination of claybrick paving and lower grass terrace in the rear yard, within a portion of the designated
ravine lands.
Ravine Control Area
The proposed landscaping and the construction of the retaining walls are subject to Municipal Code, Chapter 276 , Ravines,
Article I (Park Drive Ravine) and to the Ravine Impact Boundary as set out in section 12(2)319 of By-law 438-86.
Parking
The provision of 2 parking spaces in tandem within an integral garage, along the west side of
the dwelling, satisfies the estimated parking demand for 1 parking space and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning
By-law requirement for a like number.
Refuse Collection
The City will continue to provide this site with regular curbside refuse collection in accordance with the provisions of the
Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a rodent proof storage area on private
property to separately store recyclable and non-recyclable materials generated between collections.
Storm Water Management
It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings,
whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated
that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by
contacting the Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787).
Work within the Road Allowance
Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received from this Department.
3.Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks and Recreation), dated January 18, 1999
This will acknowledge the new plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to
Forestry Services on December 2, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:
(i)The tree(s) on private property which were indicated on the Arborist Report form filed with the development application
are exempt from protection under City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331, trees Article III.
(ii)I advise that the Site Plan A-1 prepared by Murakami and Landscape Plan prepared by ACME Environmentals
Landscaped Design Ltd., dated stamped as received on December 2, 1998 by Urban Planning and Development Services is
acceptable.
4.The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, dated December 15, 1998
Authority staff has reviewed the above noted applications and we offer the following comments.
The subject property is located adjacent to a valley corridor associated with a tributary of the Don River. The Authority's
"Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program" requires development to be located outside the valley corridor.
Authority staff has inspected the property and we are satisfied that the location of the proposed works is consistent with the
existing surrounding development and outside the valley corridor. We also advise that the site is not within the Fill
Regulated Area and that there is no watercourse on the property. Therefore, a permit under Ontario Regulation 158 is not
required for the Authority.
Based upon the above, we would have no objections to the approval of this proposal and the issuance of building permits by
the City.
We trust this is satisfactory. However, should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or
Gaspare Rittacca at extension 324.
5.Heritage Toronto, dated December 11, 1998
The property located at 79 Highland Avenue is neither included on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties nor
designated under the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Staff of Heritage Toronto have no comments on this application.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
79 Highland Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 2
79 Highland Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 3
79 Highland Avenue
29
Maintenance of Wood Trellis - 105B Gough Avenue (Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the homeowner's request to maintain a wood trellis within the City's right-of-way fronting 105B Gough
Avenue. As there is no specific provisions for this type of installation in the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, I am
required to report on this matter.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the maintenance of a wood trellis within the City's right-of-way fronting 105B Gough Avenue,
subject to the property 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:
Ms. Paulette Moser, co-owner of 105B Gough Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 3N9, submitted an application dated
November 17, 1998, requesting permission to maintain a wood trellis within the City's right-of-way fronting 105B Gough
Avenue.
Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that the trellis does not impact
negatively on the public right-of-way.
In addition, I am in receipt of two letters and a petition from the neighbours supporting the maintenance of this structure.
Details of this trellis and the letters from the area residents are retained on file with this Department.
Conclusions:
As this trellis does not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, the trellis should be permitted to remain.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
30
Maintenance of Wood Trellis - Fronting 71 Rainsford Road
(East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the homeowner's request to maintain a wood trellis within the City's right-of-way fronting 71 Rainsford Road.
As there is no specific provision for this type of installation in the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, I am required to
report on this matter.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the maintenance of the wood trellis within the City's right-of-way fronting Rainsford Road,
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:
Ms. Winona Gallop, 71 Rainsford Road, Toronto, Ontario M4L 3N7, submitted an application dated September 11, 1998,
requesting permission to maintain a wood trellis within the City's right-of-way at the above location.
Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that the trellis does not impact
negatively on the public right-of-way.
Conclusions:
As this trellis does not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, the trellis should be permitted to remain.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
31
Installation of a Sign Case - 12 Alexander Street (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on a request to install a 2.4 metres high illuminated sign case within the public highway fronting 12 Alexander
Street. As the sign case does not provide the 2.74 metres vertical clearance required in the former City of Toronto
Municipal Code, I am required to report on this matter.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the installation of the illuminated sign case within the public highway fronting 12 Alexander
Street, provided that the sign owner agrees to restrict the use of the sign case for the display of posters or similar signage
promoting the theatre's events and plays and agrees to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto as prescribed under
Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Comments:
On October 14, 1998, Mr. Ryan Gaul, on behalf of the tenant, Buddies In Bad Times Theatre, 12 Alexander Street, Toronto,
Ontario M4Y 1B4, submitted an application for permission to install a 2.4 metres high and 1.2 metres wide illuminated sign
case within the City boulevard.
In a letter dated February 16, 1999, the applicant has requested consideration for this sign case noting that the sign case will
provide an effective means of promoting their events.
Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that the sign case will not
negatively impact the public right-of-way. It was also noted that there is inadequate space on private property to
accommodate the sign case.
It is important to note that at its meeting of January 13, 1997, the former City of Toronto adopted Clause 8 of the Land Use
Committee Report No. 1, which, among other things, recommended, "That City Council's decision of June 5, 1995, not to
expand citywide advertising programs involving the use of City equipment or the public road allowances beyond the current
transit shelter program be confirmed".
In view of this policy, the proposed sign case should be used strictly for the display of posters and similar signage
promoting the Theatre's events and plays. The sign case should not be used for any type of third party advertising.
Details of the sign case are on file with my Department.
Conclusions:
As the sign case does not negatively impact the public right-of-way and provided it is used only for the display of posters or
similar signage promoting the Theatre's events/plays, it should be permitted.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
32
Decorative Sidewalk Plaque/Star and Monument Installation
- Canada's Walk of Fame - John Street, Simcoe Street and
Front Street West (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 15, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the request from Mr. Peter A. Soumalias, Chair, Board of Directors of Canada's Walk of Fame, to extend the
existing boundaries and install individual plaques/stars in the sidewalks of (a) John Street, from Richmond Street West to
King Street West; (b) Simcoe Street, from King Street West to Front Street West; and (c) Front Street West, from Simcoe
Street to John Street, to continue honouring Canadian achievers in the entertainment industry.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The supply and installation of the plaques/stars and monuments are to be funded by the proponents. As no special
maintenance is required following installation, there will be no financial impact on the City.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the extension of the existing boundaries of Canada's Walk of Fame and the installation of
decorative plaques/stars and two monuments on John Street, from Richmond Street West to King Street West; on Simcoe
Street, from King Street West to Front Street West; and Front Street West, from Simcoe Street to John Street, subject to the
Board of Directors of Canada's Walk of Fame:
(a)supplying the plaques/stars and monuments to the City and paying $700.00 for each plaque/star and monument for their
installation by City forces;
(b)submitting to the City an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $10,000.00 to cover the cost of on-going
maintenance work that may be required for the City sidewalk affected by the installation of the plaques/stars and
monuments; and
(c)executing an agreement with such conditions as the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Corporate
Services may deem necessary in the interest of the City of Toronto.
Background:
The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of July 6 and 7, 1992, approved the creation of a "Walk of Fame" in the
sidewalk on the north side of King Street West, from Simcoe Street to John Street, to honour Canadian celebrities. In
subsequent meetings on July 19, 1993, May 12 and 14, 1994, January 22, 1996 and May 27, 1998, City Council approved,
amongst other things, the installation of additional decorative commemorative plaques/stars, as well as the renaming of the
"Walk of Fame" to "Canada's Walk of Fame".
Comments:
The Board of Directors for Canada's Walk of Fame are once again in the process of nominating additional inductees for
1999 and requested an extension of the previously approved Canada's Walk of Fame boundaries, for the installation of
additional commemorative plaques/stars and two monuments.
Originally, the installation of the plaques/stars was confined to the north side of King Street West, between John Street and
Simcoe Street. The proposed new boundaries for Canada's Walk of Fame will be extended to include:
(a)John Street, from Richmond Street West to King Street West;
(b)Simcoe Street, from King Street West to Front Street West; and
(c)Front Street West, from Simcoe Street to John Street.
The proposed monuments will consist of an upright column or post type of installation with an inscribed plaque on the top
surface. The monuments will serve to identify and highlight the start and finish of Canada's Walk of Fame and are to be
installed on John Street at Richmond Street West and on Front Street West at Simcoe Street.
As in the past, Canada's Walk of Fame will continue to supply the commemorative plaques/stars based on the City's
specifications to ensure that they are fabricated in a manner suitable for sidewalk use. The on-going maintenance of the
sidewalk will be consistent with the standard sidewalk treatment and, therefore, the plaques/stars will not generate
additional maintenance costs. As for the monuments, the applicant has submitted a conceptual design for review and has
asked that he be provided with the City's specifications as to the size and dimensions for fabrication. This is currently under
review.
The cost for City staff to install the plaques/stars and monuments, which requires the removal and reinstallation of a
complete sidewalk bay, is estimated at $700.00 per star/monument, the cost of which is to be incurred by the applicant.
For your Committee's information, an evaluation of the existing walk of fame was done to review the condition of the
sidewalk. It was determined that the spacing of regular sidewalk bays between the plaques/stars as currently provided along
the existing walk of fame should also be maintained for the extended portions. The spacing between the plaques/stars serves
to minimize shifting or heaving of the sidewalk bays and helps to maintain the integrity of the sidewalk and the associated
maintenance costs.
Conclusion:
Canada's Walk of Fame was approved in principal in 1992 by the former City of Toronto and since then numerous
plaques/stars have been installed along the north side of King Street West, between John Street and Simcoe Street.
As the installation of additional commemorative installations onto other streets does not interfere with the routine
maintenance and cleaning of the sidewalks and as they contribute to Canadian achievement in entertainment, sports and the
arts, this application should be approved.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894
33
Elizabeth Street, West Side, from Dundas Street West to Hagerman
Street (in the Vicinity of the Rear Entrance/Exit Doors at
City Hall) - Provision of an On-street Loading Zone for
Disabled Persons (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)the following report (March 4, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 be approved;
(2)the Minister of Transportation and/or his designates be requested to meet with a delegation from the City of
Toronto comprised of Members of Council, senior staff and representatives of the Toronto Police Service for the
purpose of reviewing the process dealing with the issuance and use of Disabled Persons Parking Permits as
described in the Highway Traffic Act and its regulations, with the view to standardizing and clarifying procedures
across the Province, including exemptions from City traffic by-laws afforded to holders of Disabled Persons Parking
Permits, so as to minimize confusion on behalf of the public as to the appropriate and proper use of these permits;
(3)the Toronto Police Services Board be requested to consult with the Ministry of Transportation on a standardized
province-wide system of enforcement respecting the use or misuse of Disabled Persons Parking Permits; and
(4)the City Clerk be requested to circulate these recommendations to the Clerks of all Ontario Municipalities with a
population greater than 100,000, with the request that they refer this matter to their respective Councils to
determine if they wish to participate in a forum in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation to assist in
developing a standardized listing of exemptions to local traffic by-laws granted to holders of disabled persons
parking permits, as noted in Recommendation No. (2).
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 4, 1999) from the Director of Transportation
Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To keep the curb area at the rear of City Hall clear of vehicles and to enhance pick-up/drop-off opportunity for disabled
persons.
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 at anytime on the west side of Elizabeth Street, from Hagerman Street to a point 25.9 metres
further north, be rescinded;
(2)That a disabled persons loading zone be established on the west side of Elizabeth Street, from Hagerman Street to a point
25.9 metres further north; and
(3)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Comments:
At the request of Downtown Councillor Kyle Rae, Works staff have investigated the provision of an on-street disabled
loading zone on the west side of Elizabeth Street, between Dundas Street West and Hagerman Street in the vicinity of the
rear entrance/exit doors at City Hall to facilitate Wheeltrans pick-up/drop-off of disabled passengers.
Elizabeth Street, from Dundas Street West to Hagerman Street operates two-way on variable pavement widths ranging
between 7.3 metres and 4.9 metres. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of Elizabeth Street, (in the vicinity of
the rear entrance/exit doors at City Hall) from Hagerman Street to a point 25.9 metres north and in conjunction therewith,
standard "Disabled Symbol" signs are affixed to the prohibited parking signs to advise handicapped parkers of their
privilege. Parking is permitted on both sides of Elizabeth Street, from Dundas Street to Hagerman Street from 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday (controlled by parking meters), otherwise parking is permitted for a maximum period of
three hours.
A site inspection by Transportation staff revealed that vehicles displaying disabled persons parking permits park for
extended periods of time on the west side of Elizabeth Street, just north of Hagerman Street, in the vicinity of the rear
entrance/exit doors at City Hall under exemptions afforded them within "No Parking" areas. Wheeltrans buses often stop to
pick-up/drop-off disabled persons in this area but frequently cannot gain access to the curb. As a result, they must
double-park, at times creating potentially hazardous conditions for moving traffic and embarking/disembarking Wheeltrans
passengers. Additionally, emergency vehicles as well as garbage trucks, currently experience manoeuvrability difficulties
negotiating this portion of the street (given that the street is only 4.9 metres wide at this point) when vehicles are parked.
To alleviate this, a designated on-street loading zone for disabled persons could be provided on the west side of Elizabeth
Street, from Hagerman Street to a point 25.9 metres further north. Implementation of this measure would keep the curb area
at the rear of City Hall clear of vehicles, resulting in enhanced disabled passenger pick-up/drop-off operations and improved
manoeuvrability. This measure would have a minor impact on on-street parking by disabled persons.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Curt Russell, 392-7771
34
Jarvis Street, West Side, between Shuter Street and Dundas Street
East Fronting Premises No. 178 (Hazelburn Housing Co-op) -
Provision of an On-street Loading Zone for Disabled
and Other Persons (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To keep the area fronting Premises No. 178 Jarvis Street clear of vehicles and to enhance pick-up/drop-off opportunity for
disabled and other persons resident at this address.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The implementation cost of this proposal is approximately $500.00, funds for which are contained in the Transportation
Services Division 1999 Current Budget request. The removal of two parking meters to facilitate the implementation of the
loading zone for disabled persons will result in an annual loss of revenue of approximately $4,040.00.
Recommendations:
(1)That a passenger loading zone be established on the west side of Jarvis Street, from a point 56.5 metres north of Shuter
Street to a point 14.5 metres further north;
(2)That the one hour maximum parking regulation from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m., Saturday, on the west side of Jarvis Street, between Shuter Street and Dundas Street East, be rescinded;
(3)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, on the west side of Jarvis Street, between Shuter Street and a point 56.5 metres north;
(4)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Saturday, on the west side of Jarvis Street, from a point 71.0 metres north of Shuter Street to Dundas
Street East; 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 a representative of the Hazelburn Housing Co-op and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Kyle
Rae, Works staff have investigated the provision of an on-street disabled and other persons loading zone on the west side of
Jarvis Street, between Shuter Street and Dundas Street East fronting Premises No. 178 (Hazelburn Housing Co-op) to
facilitate Wheeltrans pick-up/drop-off of disabled passengers.
Jarvis Street, from Shuter Street to Dundas Street East operates two-way on a pavement width of 15.2 metres. Stopping is
prohibited from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday on both sides of Jarvis Street,
between Shuter Street and Dundas Street East and parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of the street. Parking is
permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m., Saturday, (controlled by 10 parking meters) on the west side of Jarvis Street, from Shuter Street to Dundas Street East.
I note that Jarvis Street is an arterial road which was under the jurisdiction of the former Metropolitan Corporation and as
such, all traffic regulations are governed by the Metropolitan Toronto Uniform Traffic By-law. There is currently no
provision within that By-law for disabled persons parking spaces or loading spaces.
In light of this, an on-street loading zone for disabled and other persons could be identified on the west side of Jarvis Street,
from a point 56.5 metres north of Shuter Street to a point 14.5 metres further north, fronting Premises No. 178 Jarvis Street
by means of implementing an area designated for "No Standing at Anytime" to enhance access to the curb for disabled and
all other persons at the Hazelburn Housing Co-op. For your Council's information, a motorist may temporarily stop his/her
vehicle in a standing prohibited area while actively engaged in picking up/discharging passengers, but may not park his/her
vehicle within the area.
Implementation of this suggestion will result in the loss of two metered parking spaces on the west side of Jarvis Street in
an area where on-street parking is in high demand throughout the day and the annual revenue for the City generated by these
meters (as noted above). Although this might present an inconvenience to some individuals conducting business in the area,
the requirements for disabled and other persons living at the Hazelburn Housing Co-op outweigh the minor inconvenience
that the loss of two parking spaces will create.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Curt Russell, 392-7771
35
Installation of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking
Spaces (High Park, Trinity-Niagara, Davenport,
Downtown and East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the Geoffrey Street location for disabled on-street parking be
deleted from Table "A" of the following report (March 10, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services,
District 1, and that the report, as amended be adopted.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 10, 1999) from the Director of
Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To report on requests for the installation 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 $4,800.00 are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.
Recommendations:
(1)That the installation of disabled on-street parking spaces as noted in Table "A" of this report be approved; and
(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.
Comments:
Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated the feasibility of installing a number of on-street disabled persons
parking spaces at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.
All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the
designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878
--------
Table "A"
Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces
WardLocation
19Pacific Avenue, west side, a point 28 metres south of Oakmount Road and a point 5.5 metres further south.
(Source: Ms. Anne O'Neil, a resident of Premises No. 205 Pacific Avenue).
19Quebec Avenue, west side, a point 129.2 metres south of Annette Street and a point 5.5 metres further south.
(Source: Mr. J. Hawryluk, a resident of Premises No. 319 Quebec Avenue).
19Clendenan Avenue, east side, a point 149 metres north of Annette Street and a point 5.5 metres further north.
(Source: Ms. D. Naylor, a resident of Premises No. 443 Clendenan Avenue).
20Markham Street, east side, from a point 53.5 metres north of Robinson Street to a point 5.5 metres further north.
(Source: Ms. Bernice Zub, a resident of Premises No. 49 Markham Street).
20Treford Place, north side, from a point 32.5 metres east of Bellwoods Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.
(Source: Mr. Earl Goneau, a resident of Premises No. 19 Treford Place).
21Concord Avenue, east side, from a point 78.7 metres south of Dupont Street to a point 5.5 metres further south.
(Source: Mr. Paolo Davini, a resident of Premises No. 582 Concord Avenue)
21Glenlake Avenue, south side, a point 47.5 metres west of Oakmount Road and a point 11 metres further west.
(Source: Ms. S. Weatherseed, a resident of Premises No. 255 Glenlake Avenue, unit 1814).
21Hope Street, north side, a point 32.5 metres east of Harvie Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further east.
(Source: Ms. E. Corrales, a resident of Premises No. 162 Hope Street).
21Ryding Avenue, north side, a point 132 metres east of Runnymede Road and a point 5.5 metres further east.
(Source: Mr. C. Chong, a resident of Premises No. 318 Ryding Avenue).
21Salem Avenue North, east side, a point 165 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 5.5 metres further south.
(Source: Mr. Manuel Freitas, a resident of Premises No. 477 Salem Avenue North).
21Springmount Avenue, east side, a point 150 metres south of Rosemount Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further south.
(Source: Mrs. Saveria Puopolo, a resident of Premises No. 89 Springmount Avenue).
24Geoffrey Street, south side, a point 264.3 metres west of Sorauren Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further west.
(Source: Ms. C. Lowry, a resident of Premises No. 77 Geoffrey Street).
26Roseheath Avenue, east side, a point 2 metres north of Stacy Street and a point 5.5 metres further north.
(Source: Ms. M. Simpson, a resident of Premises No. 53 Roseheath Avenue).
26Duart Park Road, north side, a point 72.0 metres west of MacLean Avenue and a point 5.5 metres further west.
(Mr. M. Wallace, a resident of Premises No. 24 Duart Park Road).
26Fairmont Crescent, south side, a point 28.1 metres west of Bellhaven Road to a point 5.5 metres further west.
(Source: Ms. Dianne Hirons, a resident of Premises No. 13 Fairmont Crescent).
26Wheeler Avenue, east side, a point 52.0 metres north of Queen Street East to a point 5.5 metres further north.
(Source: Mr. Robert A. Rutledge, a resident of Premises No. 9 Wheeler Avenue).
36
Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Bowood Avenue, between
Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 15, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Bowood Avenue, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road,
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 Bowood Avenue, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road, 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 Bowood Avenue, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road;
(3)the existing no parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday prohibitions on both sides of Bowood Avenue, from
Bocastle Avenue to Mount Pleasant Road, be rescinded;
(4)the existing maximum one hour parking limit in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the north side
of Bowood Avenue, from a point 50 metres east of Yonge Street to Bocastle Avenue, be adjusted to allow parking for a
maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday;
(5)the existing maximum one hour parking limit in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the south side
of Bowood Avenue, from a point 91.4 metres east of Yonge Street to Bocastle Avenue, be adjusted to allow parking for a
maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday; and
(6)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 Michael Walker to have the permit parking hours on Bowood Avenue, between
Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road, extended from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01
a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.
Comments:
Bowood Avenue, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road, is authorized for permit parking on a street name basis,
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 Bowood Avenue, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road, is an
administrative procedure.
In order to facilitate the extension of permit parking, it will be necessary to rescind/adjust these parking regulations as
follows:
1.rescind the existing no parking 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Bowood Avenue, from
Bocastle Avenue to Mount Pleasant Road;
2.adjust the existing one hour parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the north side of Bowood
Avenue, from a point 50 metres east of Yonge Street to Bocastle Avenue, to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
to Friday; and
3.adjust the existing one hour parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south side of Bowood
Avenue, from a point 91.4 metres east of Yonge Street to Bocastle Avenue, to operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday.
Conclusions:
Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Bowood Avenue, between Yonge Street and Mount Pleasant Road, 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
37
Amendments to Parking Regulations near Premises
No. 2155 Danforth Avenue (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To amend the parking regulations in the vicinity of No. 2155 Danforth Avenue by converting the use of a one-space taxicab
stand to a metered parking space.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulation amendments are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Operating Budget Estimates. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is
$600.00.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)The one-space taxicab stand designation, on the south side of Danforth Avenue, west of Cedarvale Avenue, be rescinded;
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:
At the request of Councillor Sandra Bussin, Transportation Services staff investigated the feasibility of providing an
additional on-street metered parking space by converting the existing one-space taxicab stand on the south side of Danforth
Avenue, between Amroth Avenue and Cedarvale Avenue, in the vicinity of No. 2155 Danforth Avenue.
A one-space taxicab stand has been in place on the south side of Danforth Avenue, west of Cedarvale Avenue since 1985.
This taxicab stand operates at all times except during the afternoon peak periods on weekdays.
A Brewers Retail outlet operated at No. 2155 Danforth Avenue and was the prime generator of taxicab activity in this
vicinity. This store has been closed for some time. Therefore, the taxicab stand is underutilized. The conversion of the
existing taxicab stand to an additional metered parking space would be more appropriate for the businesses in this vicinity
of Danforth Avenue.
Our observations indicate that the subject taxicab stand is rarely used. Often, private vehicles park illegally in this space on
a short-term basis. The Taxi Advisory Committee does not have a concern with the proposed conversion of the existing
one-space taxicab stand to a metered parking space in the vicinity of No. 2155 Danforth Avenue. Councillors Sandra Bussin
and Tom Jakobek have been advised of this proposed change.
Contact Name:
Vince Suppa, District 1 - East, 416-397-5436
38
Reduction of Permit Parking Hours on Bowood Avenue, between
Mount Pleasant Road and Ronan Avenue (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 3, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the reduction of permit parking hours on Bowood Avenue, between Mount Pleasant Road and Ronan Avenue,
from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.
Funding Sources, Financial implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:
(1)permit parking hours of operation on Bowood Avenue, between Mount Pleasant Road and Ronan Avenue, be reduced
from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;
(2)Schedule H of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be
amended to incorporate Bowood Avenue, between Mount Pleasant Road and Ronan Avenue; and
(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the
introduction of all necessary bills.
Background:
A request was received from Councillor Michael Walker to have the permit parking hours on Bowood Avenue reduced
from the current hours of 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.
Comments:
Bowood Avenue, between Mount Pleasant Road and Ronan Avenue, is authorized for permit parking on a street name
basis, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week. This portion of Bowood Avenue has a total of
21 permits issued against 49 on-street parking spaces.
The reduction of permit parking hours on Bowood Avenue, between Mount Pleasant Road and Ronan Avenue, is a
"deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to
notify all affected permit holders. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking hours was mailed to all permit holders on
December 18, 1998, with January 14, 1999 as the last date to respond, and no objections were received.
Conclusions:
Given that there were no objections received, it is recommended that the permit parking hours on Bowood Avenue, between
Mount Pleasant Road to Ronan Avenue, be amended to indicate 2:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Bob Bonner, 392-7876
39
Woodycrest Avenue from Gertrude Place to Selkirk Street
- Introduction of a one hour maximum parking restriction
and extension of the permit parking hours (Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
This proposal is intended to discourage long term non-resident parking by restricting parking and extending the permit
parking hours of operation on Woodycrest Avenue from Gertrude Place to Selkirk Street.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,500.00 are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.
Recommendations:
(1)That the permit parking hours of operation where applicable under the alternate side parking system on the east and west
sides of Woodycrest Avenue, between Gertrude Place and Selkirk Street, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, to
apply from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily.
(2)That parking on the east side of Woodycrest Avenue from Gertrude Place to Selkirk Street be restricted to a maximum
period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday from December 1st of one year to March 31st of the next
following year, inclusive, and from the 1st day to the 15th day of each month, from April 1st to November 30th, inclusive;
(3)That parking on the west side of Woodycrest Avenue from Gertrude Place to Selkirk Street be restricted to a maximum
period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday from the 16th day to the last day of each month, from
April 1st to November 30th inclusive; and
(4)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Comments:
At the request of Don River Councillor Jack Layton on behalf of area residents and in consultation with Councillor Pam
McConnell, Transportation Services has investigated the feasibility of implementing a one hour maximum parking limit
from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, and extending the current 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 Woodycrest Avenue from Gertrude Place to
Selkirk Street, in order to reduce long term non-resident parking.
Woodycrest Avenue between Gertrude Place and Selkirk Street operates one way southbound and has a pavement width of
7.3 metres. Alternate side parking and permit parking regulations are in effect on Woodycrest Avenue, between Gertrude
Place and Selkirk Street. Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.
A site investigation has confirmed that long term non-resident parking is occurring on the subject section of this street.
Adjusting the permit parking hours of operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. to operate 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. daily, in
combination with implementing a one hour maximum parking restriction from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday,
would establish the regulations needed to deter long-term parking on this street by commuters and non-residents, and would
enable more frequent enforcement by members of the Parking Enforcement Unit.
Visitors, trades persons and residents without parking permits will be able to park on the subject section of Woodycrest
Avenue but will be subject to the one hour regulation. Vehicles displaying valid on-street parking permits would be exempt
from this temporal parking restriction.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
John Crocco, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771
40
Winona Drive, West Side, from Tyrrel Avenue to Benson Avenue
- Implementation of a One Hour Maximum Parking Limit
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday
(Davenport)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 15, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To implement a one hour maximum parking limit on the west side of Winona Drive from a point 73.2 metres south of
Benson Avenue to Tyrrel Avenue in order to reduce the incidence of long term parking.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $250.00 are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.
Recommendations:
(1)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 west
side of Winona Drive from a point 73.2 metres south of Benson Avenue to Tyrrel 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
implementing a one hour maximum parking limit.
Parking on the east side of Winona Drive from Benson Avenue to Tyrrel Avenue (fronting Winona Drive and McMurrich
Public Schools) is prohibited at any time. Parking on the west side of Winona Drive is prohibited from Benson Avenue to a
point 73.2 metres south, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Parking is otherwise permitted on
the west side of the subject section of Winona Drive to a maximum period of three hours outside of the hours of permit
parking operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.
At its meeting of June 3, 1997 the former City of Toronto Council passed By-law No. 97-276 rescinding the one hour
maximum parking limit from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of the subject section of Winona
Drive. Subsequent to the removal of the one hour parking restriction, several complaints have been received from area
residents regarding long-term parking by employees of businesses and schools in the area.
Accordingly, to provide for increased parking opportunities for area residents by encouraging the "turn-over" of parking
spaces, the one hour maximum parking limit should be reinstated. It should be noted that 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
41
Widmer Street, from Adelaide Street West to Richmond Street
West - Reversal of the One-way Southbound Traffic
Operation to Operate One-way Northbound (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To reverse the one-way traffic operation on the above noted section of Widmer Street.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds in the estimated amount of $1,000.00 are accommodated in the Transportation Services Division's 1999 Operating
Budget.
Recommendations:
(1)That the one-way southbound traffic operation on the section of Widmer Street, from Adelaide Street West to Richmond
Street West, be adjusted to operate one-way northbound; 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 might be required.
Background:
The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of February 7, 1997, adopted Clause No. 4 in Land Use Committee
Report No. 3 and in doing so, approved the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application (No. 195036) at the
Festival Hall development, Premises Nos. 126 John Street and 265-267 Richmond Street West. One of the conditions of
approval was the reversal of the one-way southbound traffic operation on Widmer Street, as noted in Recommendation No.
1, above.
Comments:
At the request of area residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Festival Hall development, staff requested that the
Architects associated with the project (Kirkland Partnership Architects) submit plan revisions, which included among other
issues, the reversal of the one-way southbound traffic operation on Widmer Street, from Adelaide Street West to Richmond
Street West, as part of an Official Plan Amendment and a site-specific Zoning By-law amendment. Works and Emergency
Services staff supported this proposal in written comments provided to Planning staff during the rezoning process.
Accordingly, the existing one-way southbound traffic operation on the subject section of Widmer Street should be adjusted
to operate one-way northbound.
Contact name and Telephone Number:
Colin Booth, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771
42
Wheeler Avenue, between Queen Street East and
Norway Avenue - Extension of the Maximum Parking Duration
(East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To enable visitors to park for up to 2 hours on Wheeler Avenue between Queen Street East and Norway Avenue (from 7:00
a.m. to 12:01 a.m.)
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1200.00 are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.
Recommendations:
(1)That the one hour maximum parking regulation at anytime on the east side of Wheeler Avenue from Queen Street East to
Norway Avenue, be adjusted to allow parking for a maximum parking period of two hours at anytime; and
(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Comments:
At the request of area residents and in consultation with East Toronto Councillor Tom Jakobek, Transportation staff have
investigated extending the maximum parking period on Wheeler Avenue between Queen Street East and Norway Avenue.
Wheeler Avenue is a residential street operating two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking is regulated as
follows:
East Side
-Parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily from Queen Street East to Norway Avenue;
-Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of one hour from Queen Street East to Norway Avenue; and
West Side
-Parking is prohibited at anytime from Queen Street East to Norway Avenue.
A two-hour maximum parking regulation could be implemented on the east side of Wheeler Avenue from Queen Street East
to Norway Avenue in place of the current one hour restriction to allow persons visiting on the street the opportunity to park
for a longer duration.
Staff point out that this regulatory amendment could promote infiltration parking by patrons of businesses on Queen Street
East, resulting in less opportunity for permit parkers to find a space on Wheeler Avenue and reduce the potential frequency
of parking enforcement.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771
43
Logan Avenue, West Side, between Eastern Avenue
and Queen Street East - Restriction of Parking to a
Maximum Period of One Hour and Extension of the
Permit Parking Hours (Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 8, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on measures to discourage long term non-resident parking on Logan Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and Queen
Street East during the daytime.
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 permit parking hours of operation on the west side of Logan Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and Queen Street
East, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, to apply from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily;
(2)That parking on the west side of Logan Avenue from a point 30.5 metres south of Queen Street East to a point 67 metres
north of Eastern Avenue, be restricted to a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday;
and
(3)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Comments
At the request of Councillor Jack Layton, Councillor Pam McConnell and area residents, Transportation Services has
investigated measures to deter long term non-resident parking on Logan Avenue from Queen Street East to Eastern Avenue
and make parking spaces more readily available during daytime hours for resident permit holders.
Logan Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and Queen Street East operates two-way and has a pavement width of 9.75 metres.
Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side and on the west side of Logan Avenue between Eastern Avenue and a point
67 metres north. The permit parking system is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily on the west side and parking is
otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.
A site investigation has confirmed that long term non-resident parking is occurring on the subject section of this street.
Adjusting the permit parking hours of operation from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. to operate from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.,
daily, in combination with implementing a one hour maximum parking restriction from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to
Friday, would establish the regulations needed to deter long-term parking of this street by commuters and non-residents, and
would enable more frequent enforcement by members of the Parking Enforcement Unit.
Visitors, trades persons and residents without parking permits will be able to park on the subject section of Logan Avenue
but will be subject to the one hour regulation. Vehicles displaying valid on-street parking permits would be exempt from
this temporal parking restriction.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Peter Ip, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771
44
Narrowing of the Pavement on Dundas Square
between Yonge Street and Victoria Street - Yonge-Dundas
Redevelopment Project (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 17, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To authorize the narrowing of the existing pavement on Dundas Square between Yonge Street and Victoria Street, in order
to provide an improved overall pedestrian environment and enhanced landscaping treatments in conjunction with the
Dundas Square open space initiative.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to cover the cost of the pavement narrowing and related streetscape improvement work in the estimated amount of
$200,000 are to be accommodated within Urban Planning and Development Services Capital Budget Account No. 216-195,
the Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment Project Capital Account No. 216-692, and the Toronto Parking Authority Reserve Fund.
Recommendations:
(1)That approval be given to narrow the pavement on Dundas Square, described as follows:
"the narrowing of the pavement on DUNDAS SQUARE from a width of 11.0 metres to a width of 6.1 metres between
Yonge Street and a point 60.5 metres east thereof, and a width ranging from 6.1 to 10.0 metres from a point 60.5 metres east
of Yonge Street to Victoria Street, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5348, dated March 1999";
(2)That one-way eastbound traffic operation be implemented on Dundas Square between Yonge Street and a point 60.5
metres east thereof, and Schedule 1 of Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended accordingly
as indicated in Appendix A of this report;
(3)That the parking regulation amendments to Schedules 23, 25 and 30 of Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto
Municipal Code indicated in Appendix A of this report be approved; and
(4)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:
Dundas Square is a two-way local street extending from Yonge Street to Dundas Street East, abutting the south side of the
site of the Dundas Square open space initiative (bounded by Yonge Street, Dundas Street East, Victoria Street and Dundas
Square). The existing pavement has a width of about 11.0 m within a right-of-way of 20.1 m. There are concrete
sidewalks/paved brick boulevards with a combined width of 4 metres and 5 metres on the north and south sides of the street
respectively. Metered parking (1 hour, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday) is permitted on the south side of the
street.
The Dundas Square project was awarded through a design competition process in December 1998. The project consists of
an underground parking facility to be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA), and a public square above the
garage. A vehicular entrance/exit for the garage is proposed on Dundas Square roughly 15 m west of the Dundas
Square/Victoria Street intersection.
Preliminary conceptual plans for the square provide for a number of paving and landscaping elements that will extend into
the abutting rights-of-way to increase the open space and draw attention to the square. One of the key elements is the
proposed edge treatment along the north side of Dundas Square. This treatment includes the provision of stairs adjacent to
the sidewalk and a planting bed for trees immediately north of the stairs. The narrowing of the roadway and south boulevard
on Dundas Square is recommended to ensure that the planting bed and trees are outside of the limits of the underground
parking garage structure, thereby ensuring the viability of this feature of the square. Another benefit of the roadway
narrowing is that it will create a more pedestrian friendly environment overall.
The proposed narrowing of Dundas Square is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5348, dated March 1999. It
is recommended that the pavement be narrowed from 11.0 m to 6.1 m between Yonge Street and the entrance/exit to the
parking garage, and this segment of the street be designated one-way eastbound. The remaining section of the road between
the parking entrance/exit and Victoria Street would remain two-way, and it is recommended that this section be narrowed
from 11.0 m to 10 m. O'Keefe Lane between Shuter Street and Dundas Square would remain one-way northbound. Lastly,
the boulevard/sidewalk on the south side of Dundas Square would be narrowed from 5.0 m to 4.0 m.
The narrowing of Dundas Square and conversion of a portion of the road to one-way eastbound is feasible given the
relatively low traffic volumes and predominant eastbound traffic flow. Maintaining two-way traffic operations at the eastern
end of the block is required to accommodate the future parking garage traffic.
In light of the changing nature of the street and the future availability of the new underground parking facility, it is also
recommended that parking be prohibited along the full extent of Dundas Square and the existing parking meters on the
south side be removed accordingly.
The project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environment Assessment for Municipal Road
Projects.
The narrowing of the pavement on Dundas Square constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of
the Municipal Act.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nigel Tahair, 392-7711
--------
Appendix A
Traffic and Parking Regulation Amendments
to be Implemented in Conjunction with the
Proposed Narrowing of Dundas Square
Between Yonge Street and Victoria Street
1.Add the following:
§ 400-54. Schedule I: One-Way Highways
| Highway |
Time or Between |
Days |
Direction |
| Dundas
Square |
Yonge Street and a point 60.5
metres east thereof |
Anytime |
From west to east |
2.Add the following:
§ 400-76. Schedule XXIII: No Parking Certain Times
| Highway |
Side |
Between |
Prohibited Times
or Days |
| Dundas
Square |
South |
Yonge Street and Victoria Street |
Anytime |
3.Delete the following:
§ 400-78. Schedule XXV: Time Limit Parking
| Highway |
Side |
Between |
Time or Days |
Maximum
Period Permitted |
| Dundas
Square |
South |
Yonge Street and
Victoria Street |
8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Mon. to
Sat. |
Anytime |
4.Delete the following:
§ 400-83. Schedule XXX: Parking Meters
| Highway |
Side |
Between |
Hours (daily
except Sun. &
public holidays) |
Fee; Time
Limit |
Maximum
Parking Period |
| Dundas
Square |
South |
Yonge
Street
and
Victoria
Street |
8:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. Mon. to
Sat. |
$0.25 for 15
mins.
$1.00 for 60
mins. |
60 mins. |
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Yonge-Dundas Redevelopment
45
Eglinton Avenue West and Duplex Avenue - Proposed Exemption
for Police Vehicles from the Existing Westbound Left-turn
Prohibition (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To exempt police vehicles from the existing westbound left-turn prohibition on Eglinton Avenue West at Duplex Avenue.
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 existing westbound left-turn prohibition on Eglinton Avenue West at Duplex Avenue, in effect from 7:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. except Sundays and Public Holidays, be amended to exempt police vehicles; 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:
In response to a request from No. 53 Division of the Toronto Police Service, and in consultation with North Toronto
Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, Transportation Services reviewed the feasibility of exempting police
vehicles from the existing westbound left-turn prohibition on Eglinton Avenue West at Duplex Avenue, in effect from 7:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. except Sundays and Public Holidays.
The intersection of Eglinton Avenue West and Duplex Avenue is controlled by traffic signals. Currently, under the
provisions of the Metropolitan Toronto Uniform Traffic By-law, westbound left turns are prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. except Sundays and Public Holidays. Exempting police vehicles from this prohibition will provide them an alternate
and more efficient access to No. 53 Division. This proposal will have a negligible impact on the westbound traffic due to
the infrequent and random nature of these turns.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Danny Budimirovic, P. Eng., Traffic Engineer, District 1 - Central Area, 392-5209
46
University Avenue at Adelaide Street West - Proposed
Designation of an Exclusive Southbound Left Turn
Lane (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 11, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To designate the southbound median lane on University Avenue at Adelaide Street West for left turns only.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $900.00 are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.
Recommendations:
(1)That the easterly southbound lane on University Avenue at Adelaide Street West be designated for left-turning vehicles
only, between Adelaide Street West and a point 30.5 metres north thereof; 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:
In response to a request from the public, and in consultation with Downtown Councillors Olivia Chow and Kyle Rae,
Transportation Services reviewed the feasibility of designating the southbound median lane for left turns only on University
Avenue at Adelaide Street West to provide better guidance for southbound motorists.
The intersection of University Avenue and Adelaide Street West is controlled by traffic signals. The southbound approach
to this intersection consists of a left-turn lane and three through lanes. Southbound right turns are prohibited because
Adelaide Street West is a one-way eastbound roadway at this intersection. Three southbound discharge lanes are provided
on the far side of this intersection.
The southbound left-turn lane is currently marked with pavement markings only. Designation of the southbound median
lane for left turns only and the associated installation of the lane designation sign will provide better guidance for
southbound motorists approaching this intersection. Also, due to the high volume of traffic and the wide nature of
University Avenue, we will install an advance warning "Left Lane Exits" sign along with addition pavement markings to
further reinforce the lane designation.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Frank Bozzo, Traffic Investigator, District 1 - Central Area, 392-5346
47
John Street at Adelaide Street West - Proposed Designation
of an Exclusive Northbound Right Turn Lane (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 12, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To designate the northbound curb lane on John Street, immediately south of Adelaide Street West as an exclusive right turn
lane.
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 easterly northbound lane on John Street at Adelaide Street West be designated for right-turning vehicles only,
between Adelaide Street West and a point 30.5 meters south thereof; 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:
The intersection of John Street and Adelaide Street West is controlled by traffic signals. The northbound approach to this
intersection consists of a right-turn lane and a through lane. Northbound left turns are prohibited because Adelaide Street
West is a one-way eastbound roadway at this location. One northbound discharge lane is provided on the far side of this
intersection.
The northbound right-turn lane is currently marked with pavement markings only. Designation of the northbound curb lane
for right turns only and the associated installation of the lane designation sign will provide better guidance for northbound
motorists approaching this intersection.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Danny Budimirovic, P. Eng., Traffic Engineer, District 1 - Central Area, 392-5209
48
Intersection of Keystone Avenue and Beck Avenue - Installation
of a Northbound "Stop" Sign (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To establish clear right-of-way and improve the overall operating safety of this intersection.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $250.00 are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.
Recommendations:
(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for northbound traffic on Beck Avenue at Keystone Avenue; and
(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Comments
At the request of Councillor Sandra Bussin and in consultation with East Toronto Councillor Tom Jakobek staff have
investigated installing a northbound "Stop" sign at this intersection to improve operational safety.
Keystone Avenue and Beck Avenue form a T-type intersection with Keystone Avenue being the through road. Both streets
operate two-way. No "Stop" signs are posted at this intersection at the present time.
Based on our assessment, the intersection of Keystone Avenue and Beck Avenue satisfies the requirement for a northbound
"Stop" control, specifically, to clearly establish right-of-way. In addition, sight lines at the intersection are reduced (because
of bushes and fence) for northbound motorists exiting Beck Avenue.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
David G. Dignard, 392-7771
Traffic Investigator
49
Intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue -
Impact on All-Way "Stop" Sign Control on Traffic
Operation (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)right turns from southbound Greenwood Avenue to westbound Dorothy Street be prohibited Monday to Friday
(except public holidays) from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. (buses exempt);
(2)left turns from eastbound Queen Street East to northbound Hiltz Avenue be prohibited Monday to Friday (except
public holidays) from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. (buses exempt);
(3)the appropriate City officials be requested to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of
any Bills that may be required.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director of
Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To respond to a request by the former City of Toronto Council, this report is to inform the members of the Toronto
Community Council of the impact of all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue,
which was installed last fall.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not Applicable.
Recommendation:
That this report be received for information.
Background:
The former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of September 22, 1997 in considering Clause 65 in City Services
Committee Report No. 11, approved the installation of northbound and southbound "Stop" signs on Hiltz Avenue at
Dorothy Street (creating all-way "Stop" sign control) and requested, among other things, that the Commissioner of City
Works Services report back to Council after a period of six months on the operation of the all-way "Stop" sign control.
Comments:
The northbound and southbound "Stop" signs on Hiltz Avenue at Dorothy Street were installed on November 20, 1997.
Transportation Services staff have monitored this location and undertaken traffic surveys at and in the vicinity of the
Dorothy/Hiltz intersection over the past eight months to determine what the operational impact of installing all-way "Stop"
sign control has been.
A review of the Toronto Police Service collision data records has provided no useful data as no information is currently
available from December 31, 1997 to the present date. However, for the 3 year period from January 1, 1995 to December
31, 1997, no collisions had been reported at this intersection.
An 8-hour stop sign compliance study conducted on February 23, 1998 during both the morning and afternoon peak and off
peak periods, recorded a total of 615 vehicles at the intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue of which 29 vehicles
(4.7%) came to a complete stop, 530 vehicles (86.2%) made "rolling stops" and 56 vehicles (4.1%) travelled through the
intersection at a moderate rate of speed without slowing down. The directional split was as follows:
| Direction |
Total |
Complied
With Stop |
Made A
Rolling Stop |
Drove
Through |
| Northbound
Southbound
Westbound |
417 vehicles
166 vehicles
32 vehicles |
20
9
0 |
365
139
26 |
32
18
6 |
The percentage incidence of non-compliance observed at this intersection (rolling stop + drive through) is comparable to
similar occurrences observed at other all-way stop intersections in the Toronto Community Council area. It has been our
experience that signage enhancements such as the installation of larger "Stop" signs, "Stop Ahead" signs and either
pole-mounted or overhead red flashing beacons, generally do not significantly improve compliance as the problem is not
related to motorists not seeing the "Stop"signs but rather that motorists deliberately choose to ignore them.
Twenty-four hour speed and volume data was collected over a five day period from May 8-12, 1998 on Hiltz Avenue north
and south of Dorothy Street. An average of 1,185 vehicles daily were recorded travelling on Hiltz Avenue south of Dorothy
Street of which about 280 (24%) travelled at a rate of speed at or below 40 km/h, 490 (41%) travelled at a rate of speed
between 41-50 km/h, and 415 (35%) travelled at a rate of speed greater than 50 km/h. Of particular concern were the
incidents of "top end" speeding between 60-80 km/h which increased the 85th percentile speed (the rate of speed at which
85% of the vehicles recorded travel at or below) to about 56 km/h. A similar speed profile was confirmed north of Dorothy
Street, however, the traffic volume was somewhat less, averaging about 810 vehicles a day.
There has been no appreciable change in the mid-block speed profile or in the traffic volume on either section of Hiltz
Avenue since the installation of the northbound/southbound "Stop" signs at Dorothy Street. This is not unexpected at
mid-block locations as "Stop" signs generally impact on speed in the immediate vicinity of the intersection where they are
installed and the momentary delay created in travel time is insufficient to deter traffic from using the street. There is
expectation that all-way "Stop" sign control will improve safety at the intersection but when motorists fail to comply with
the compulsory stop regulation, as is the case at the Dorothy/Hiltz intersection, other road users, particularly pedestrians and
cyclists are given a false sense of security.
I note that neither section of Hiltz Avenue north or south of Dorothy Street satisfies the primary installation criteria for
speed humps. Specifically, public transit service (Greenwood-31 bus) operates on Hiltz Avenue south of Dorothy Street and
the volume of traffic north of Dorothy Street is under the recommended minimum of 1,000 vehicles daily. Alternatively,
Transportation Services staff would be pleased to assist residents in developing a traffic calming plan using other measures
which might impact on the operational speed of traffic.
As residents also are concerned about traffic volume on Hiltz Avenue and our surveys confirm that moderately higher
traffic volume occurs southbound during the morning peak period and northbound during the afternoon peak period,
consideration could be given to:
(i)prohibiting right turns from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., Monday to Friday from southbound Greenwood Avenue onto
westbound Dorothy Street; and
(ii)prohibiting left turns from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday from eastbound Queen Street East onto northbound
Hiltz Avenue.
These regulations would reduce cut-through trips between Greenwood Avenue and Queen Street East by way of Dorothy
Street and Hiltz Avenue. With the reduction in traffic volume, the frequency of speeding would also be reduced.
Staff would be pleased to discuss these suggestions further with Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin at their
convenience.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
David G. Dignard, 392-7771
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it referred to in the
foregoing report, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. the following material:
-Certified amendment to Clause 65 of Report No. 11 of the former City of Toronto City Services, which was amended by
City Council at its meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997.
-Clause 65, contained in Report No. 11 of the City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, titled "All-Way Stop
Sign and Painted Stop Bars - Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue (Ward 10)", which was adopted, as amended by City Council
at its meeting on September 22 and 23, 1997.
50
Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road
- Installation of Speed Humps (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 8, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To reduce the incidence of speeding vehicles on Castlewood Road between Eglinton Avenue West and Crestview Road.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The estimated cost for this proposal is $6,600.00, funds for which are available in the Works and Emergency Services 1999
Capital Budget.
Recommendations:
(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Castlewood Road, from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview
Road for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of
the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto
Council:
"The construction of speed humps on CASTLEWOOD ROAD from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road, generally as
shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5290, dated November 1998,"
(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Castlewood Road from
Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and
(3)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to implement the
foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.
Comments:
At the request of North Toronto Ward Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker on behalf of area residents,
Transportation Services staff investigated concerns regarding excessive speeding and the feasibility of installing speed
humps on Castlewood Road from Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road.
The subject section of Castlewood Road operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.5 metres and maximum speed limit of
40 kilometres per hour. Parking is currently prohibited at anytime on the east side of Castlewood Road from Eglinton
Avenue West to a point 45.7 metres north and is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday from a point 45.7 metres north of Eglinton Avenue West to Crestview Road. Further, parking is allowed
by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side.
Transportation Services staff recently conducted a 24 hour speed and volume survey on the subject section of Castlewood
Road over a four day period. The results of the survey indicated that Castlewood Road carries an average combined total of
1,107 vehicles per day in both directions, of which 23 percent travelled at a rate of speed in excess of 55 kilometres per
hour. For your information, I advise that the combined operating speed (the speed at which 85 percent of vehicular traffic
travels at or below) averaged over a period of four days was 58 kilometres per hour.
The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5290 dated November 1998, consists
of three speed humps with spacings of between 40 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour as
permitted by the City of Toronto Act, 1996, would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to
parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.
As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll
should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also
households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this
policy, at least 60 percent of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation.
Accordingly, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the results at the deputation meeting for the project.
The changes proposed to Castlewood Road, as described above, constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the
provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the
alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. In the interim,
consultations with the emergency services will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper
their respective operations.
This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for the Municipal
Roads Project.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Proposed Speed Hump Locations
51
Lane System Bounded by St. Clair Avenue West, Arlington Avenue,
Benson Avenue and Greensides Avenue - Proposed
Installation of Speed Bumps (Davenport)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the installation of speed bumps at the laneway location noted above.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The implementation cost of this proposal is approximately $800.00, funds for which are contained in the 1999 Capital
Programme for Public Laneway Improvements.
Recommendations:
(1)That the installation of speed bumps in the public lane system bounded by St. Clair Avenue West, Arlington Avenue,
Benson Avenue and Greensides Avenue of the type and design noted and at locations shown on Drawing No. 421F-5015 be
approved; and
(2)The appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including
the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.
Comments:
Works and Emergency Services staff have received a request regarding the feasibility of installing speed bumps in the
laneway system noted above. This location meets the criteria for the installation of speed bumps.
The type and design of the speed bumps to be installed are shown on attached Drawing No. 421F-5015.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Speed Bump and Sign Layout in Lane System
52
Extension of Stadium Road southerly, thence westerly
(Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 15, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To extend Stadium Road southerly, thence westerly and lay out and dedicate the lands for public highway purposes.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That the lands, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE 2912, be laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes
and declared to form part of Stadium Road;
(2)That standing be prohibited at anytime on both sides of the east-west branch of Stadium Road from the north-south
branch of Stadium Road to the west end of the street; and
(3)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the
introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.
Council Reference:
Under the terms of the Harbourfront Implementation Agreement between the City and Queens Quay West Land
Corporation, the City acquired a parcel of land for the purpose of widening Stadium Road. (Item No. 60 of Executive
Committee Report No. 25, adopted in Council on September 14 and 15, 1992),
In addition, the former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of October 11, 1994, in adopting Clause No. 61 in Executive
Committee Report No. 23, authorized, among other things, the acquisition of certain lands to extend Stadium Road
southerly, thence westerly.
Comments:
The City is now the owner of Parts 3 and 4 on Plan 63R-3424, and Part 2 on Plan 66R-14741, shown hatched on the
attached Plan SYE2912. These parcels should now be laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes, and declared to
form part of Stadium Road.
Since the above noted parcels provide the only vehicular access route to The National Yacht Club property at Premises No.
1 Stadium Road, for reasons of safety and security it will be necessary to regulate this section of the new highway by
prohibiting "Standing" at any time on both sides of the extension.
In order to implement the "No Standing" regulation, it will be necessary to amend Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto
Municipal Code.
This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal
Road Projects.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Laurie Robertson, Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings (392-7711)
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Stadium Road
53
Once Per Week Daytime Curbside Garbage and Recycling
Collection Rescheduling in the Toronto Community Council Area
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)the issue of the sale of surplus garbage collection vehicles be deferred until January 2000, and that the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report further to the Toronto Community Council at that time;
(2)the following report (March 9, 1999) from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, as amended
by Recommendation No. (1), be adopted.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 9, 1999) from the General Manager of Solid
Waste Management Services, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to obtain Council authority to reschedule the garbage and recycling collection days in the
Toronto Community Council Area (Toronto CCA) effective June 21, 1999 as described in the body of this report.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The proposal described in this report will improve recycling collection service to the public by eliminating the 11 recycling
collection cancellations that currently are scheduled as a result of statutory holidays in the Toronto CCA. When
implemented, approximately ten fewer collection vehicles will be required resulting in savings of approximately
$150,000.00 which are included in the Divisions' 1999 Operating Budget, and annualized savings in equipment rentals in
subsequent years of approximately $300,000.00. A revised collection calendar will be produced and delivered to all affected
households in the Toronto Community Council Area by mid June 1999 at a cost of approximately $62,000.00 which is also
included in the 1999 Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that authority be granted to implement the proposed collection schedule described in this report effective
June 21, 1999 and that staff produce and distribute a revised collection calendar to all affected households by mid June
1999.
Council Reference/Background/History:
The existing daytime garbage and recycling collection services schedule to residential households in the Toronto
Community Council Area has been in place since the Spring of 1993 and provides once per week garbage collection with
recycling collection service on separate days. Generally, recycling and yard waste collections are provided on Mondays and
Tuesdays and garbage collections are provided on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. Recycling collection alternates
between grey box paper fibre one week and blue box containers the following week. All recycling and yard waste
collections are canceled during weeks that include a statutory holiday.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The existing system results in cancellation of recycling and organic yard waste collection services to approximately one half
of the Toronto CCA households on weeks that include statutory holidays and the rescheduling of recycling collection to the
other half of the households on the following week. The increased quantity of material set out on the next scheduled
recycling collection day following a cancellation requires that staff work overtime and/or to work a 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.
shift to collect the additional recycling materials. Residents affected by cancellations/rescheduling must store grey or blue
box materials for one additional week following a statutory holiday cancellation. Some residents do not observe the
calendar instructions and set out recycling materials on the wrong day following recycling cancellations/rescheduling which
creates litter conditions and unsightly streets.
Under the proposed schedule, generally both garbage and one recyclable material will be collected the same day on
Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays. Blue box and grey box recyclable material will continue to be collected on an
alternating weekly basis. Yard waste for the entire Toronto CCA will be collected on Wednesdays.
Under the proposed schedule, ten fewer collection vehicles will be required in the Toronto CCA. This will result in an
equipment rental savings of approximately $150,000.00 in 1999, as well as a revenue of approximately $100,000.00 from
the sale of surplus collection vehicles.
There will be some reduction in the total distance traveled to collect wastes under the proposed system, as approximately
ten fewer trucks will be required for the occasions on which it was necessary to collect blue and grey box materials
following statutory holidays. The reduced travel distance will result in reduced impacts associated with the travel of
collection vehicles, including CO2 and NOX emissions.
A revised collection schedule calendar will be required to inform residents of their new collection schedule at a cost of
approximately $62,000.00.
A comparison of the existing and proposed systems is outlined below for the major components of the solid waste
collection system in the Toronto CCA based on the 1998 calendar.
Recycling
A total of 18 recycling collections are affected under the existing collection system; 11 recycling collections were canceled
and seven recycling collections were rescheduled. In the proposed system, no recycling collection cancellations will occur
and seven recycling collections will be rescheduled to the Wednesday on weeks that include a statutory holiday. Residents
whose normal recycling collection day falls on a statutory holiday are much more likely to consult their calendars for set-out
instructions, resulting in reduced incidences of incorrectly set out materials and improved customer service and satisfaction.
Garbage
Under the existing collection system, the six garbage collection dates that required rescheduling due to statutory holidays
affect 33 percent of the households in the Toronto CCA on each occasion. The rescheduled dates are moved ahead to reduce
the number of days between collections which has caused many residents to miss the collections, and having to store their
garbage for an additional week until the next regularly scheduled collection day. Under the proposed system, the 11 garbage
collection dates that require rescheduling due to statutory holidays, affect approximately 25 percent of the Toronto CCA
households on each occasion and will generally be rescheduled to the Wednesday following the statutory holiday. This will
eliminate the missed garbage collections referred to above and will also remind the residents who have garbage collection
services scheduled on statutory holidays to consult their collection calendar for set-out instructions resulting in reduced
incidences of incorrectly set out materials and improved customer service and satisfaction.
Organic Yard Waste
In the proposed system, there are six yard waste cancellations; there are also six cancellations in the existing system. Storing
yard waste materials for one additional week will not affect most residents, as well, three of the six yard waste cancellations
occur in the summer months when there is reduced generation or this type of material.
Conclusions:
Under the proposed system, there will be no blue or grey box recycling cancellations, compared with 11 cancellations in the
existing system. Under the proposed system, rescheduled garbage collections will affect a smaller proportion of Toronto
CCA households and it will be easier for Toronto CCA residents to understand than the rescheduling under the existing
system. Under the proposed system, residents will be less likely to set materials out on the wrong day and/or miss a
collection day which will improve customer service and satisfaction. The proposed system will also reduce equipment rental
costs by approximately $150,000.00 in 1999 and by approximately $300,000.00 in subsequent years. There is also a one
time revenue of approximately $100,000.00 from the sale of approximately ten surplus collection vehicles.
To implement the new collection system on June 21, 1999, Council approval is required by April 16,1999 to provide
sufficient time for calendar production and delivery.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Steve Whitter
Director - Solid Waste Collections, Districts 1 and 2
Solid Waste Management Services
Phone: (416) 392-1950
Fax: (416) 392-0396
54
Tree Removal - 322 Glen Road
(Midtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for tree removal at 322 Glen Road be denied.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic
Development, Culture and Tourism:
Purpose:
An application has been received from Mrs. Heather Davies, 320 Glen Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 2X3, for City Council
to consider removal of a City owned white pine located at the above noted address. Mrs. Davies reports that the tree is a
continual nuisance as sap is damaging the finish on her cars.
Source of Funding:
There is no funding implications for this request.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the request for tree removal be denied.
Comments:
The tree in question is a 36 cm diameter white pine located on the City street allowance of 322 Glen Road. The tree stands
in excellent condition and is valued at $1,879.28. The tree was pruned November 2, 1998 to raise up the low branches over
the driveway of 320 Glen Road.
Conclusion
It is common for certain trees such as white pine to excrete small amounts of sap which is very difficult to remove from
cars. Sap may cause discolouring of car paint. Perhaps a protective car cover could be used to reduce the contact with sap.
Since the white pine is not structurally unsound, dead or dying, this Department recommends that the request for tree
removal be denied.
However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, this Department recommends that the applicant pay
all costs involved; this includes the tree value of $1,879.28, the removal costs of $561.04, and the costs to plant a
replacement at this address, $475.01 for a total of $2,915.33.
Contact Name:
Paulette Mullings, 392-6640
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of
the foregoing matter, the communication (March 25, 1999) from Dr. Edward Davies, in support of the application, and a
copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
55
Designation of 2 Strachan Avenue (Stanley Barracks)
(Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (February 26, 1999) from the
City Clerk:
Recommendation:
That authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 2 Strachan Avenue (Stanley
Barracks) (Trinity Niagara) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and the
appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the said
Act in respect to such designation.
Comments:
Pursuant to the action of City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998 (Toronto Community Council
Report 16, Clause 43), Notice of Intention to Designate 2 Strachan Avenue (Stanley Barracks) (Trinity Niagara)as a
property of architectural and historical value or interest was sent to the owner and the Ontario Heritage Foundation and, also
in accordance with Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Notice of such intention was published in a newspaper on
January 22, 1999.
Both the Notice of Intention and the newspaper insertion stated that any objection be served on the City Clerk, c/o Frances
Pritchard, Administrator, Toronto Community Council within thirty days, expiring February 20, 1999. No objections have
been received.
Contact Name:
Glenda Williams
Telephone:(416) 392-7483
Facsimile:(416) 392-1558
E-mail:gwillia1@toronto.ca
56
Liquor Licence Application - Lion on the Beach -
1958 Queen Street East (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion from Councillor Jakobek:
"WHEREAS the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ("the Commission") will be considering a Notice of
Proposal to impose a condition on the liquor licence held by the Lion on the Beach, 1958 Queen Street East ("the
Lion"), at a hearing on May 4, 1999; and
WHEREAS the condition under consideration is that the sale and service of liquor on the Lion's westerly patio shall
cease at 10:15 p.m. and that all patrons shall be cleared from that patio by 11 p.m. nightly; and
WHEREAS the Lion must already clear it's easterly patio of all patrons by 11:00 p.m., nightly; and
WHEREAS local residents have complained of unacceptable and disruptive levels of noise generated by the
operation of the Lion's westerly patio, particularly at night; and
WHEREAS subsection 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act ("the Act") provides that an applicant is entitled to be
issued a licence to sell liquor except if the licence is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes
of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located; and
WHEREAS section 7.1 of Regulation 719 under the Act states that, in the absence of receiving submissions to the
contrary, the Board shall consider a resolution of the council of the municipality, in which are located the premises
for which a person makes an application to sell liquor or holds a licence to sell liquor, as proof of the needs and
wishes of the residents of the municipality for the purposes of clause 6(2)(h) of the Act; and
WHEREAS subsection 23(12) of the Act provides that the Commission, following a hearing, may attach to a license
any condition that the Commission considers proper to give effect to the purposes of the Act;"
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1)That City Council advise the Commission that the Commission should impose a condition on the Lion's Liquor
Licence to cease the sale and service of liquor on the westerly patio area at 10:15 p.m., and to clear that patio area of
all patrons by no later than 11 p.m., nightly, having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the
municipality; and
(2)That the City Solicitor be authorized to attend before the Commission at the hearing set for May 4, 1999, in
support of the imposition of this condition.
57
Liquor Licence Application - 5 St. Joseph Street (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion from Councillor Rae:
"WHEREAS on June 2, 1978 City Council adopted a motion that the "Liquor Licence Board of Ontario be
requested to issue no further licences on the interior streets bounded by Charles, Wellesley, Bay and Yonge Street,
namely St. Mary Street, Inkerman Street, Irwin Street, St. Joseph Street, Phipps Street and St. Nicholas Street", due
to the growing residential nature of the area; and
WHEREAS on January 6, 1999 City Council adopted a motion requesting the Liquor Licence Board to refuse a
specific application at 5 St. Joseph Street as not in the public interest; and
WHEREAS the residential component of this neighbourhood is much greater today than in 1978; and
WHEREAS there is another application for 5 St. Joseph Street that is subject to a hearing on April 29, 1999; and
WHEREAS local residents and residents associations are objecting to this application as not in the public interest;"
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
(1)That City Council reaffirm its resolution of June 2, 1978.
(2)That the City Solicitor be requested to appear at the hearing regarding 5 St. Joseph to oppose the issuance of the
liquor licence.
--------
(Background material filed by Councillor Rae, attached to the foregoing motion was forwarded to all Members of the
Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on March 30, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office
of the City Clerk).
58
Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision - 148 Borden Street
(Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in support of the Committee
of Adjustment decision respecting 148 Borden Street.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following motion from Councillor Chow:
WHEREAS Don Desrochers (on behalf of Magda Fis) applied to the Committee of Adjustment for variances and severance
of the property at 148 Borden Street into three parcels of land to permit construction of two 2 storey semi-detached houses
fronting onto Borden Street and one detached house fronting onto Croft Street; and
WHEREAS on January 12, 1999, the Committee of Adjustment convened a Public Meeting to consider the application, and
at that meeting a number of residents appeared in opposition to the proposal; and
WHEREAS on January 12, 1999, the Committee of Adjustment refused the proposed severance and variance applications
on the grounds that the proposal is not minor in nature or within the intent and purpose of the zoning bylaw; and
WHEREAS the applicant has appealed the Committee of Adjustment's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board for a
Hearing; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Council Request Staff to Appear at the Ontario Municipal Board in Support of the
Committee of Adjusment Decision.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of
the foregoing matter, a communication (March 29, 1999) from Mr. Michael B. Vaughan, Barrister & Solicitor, on behalf of
the applicant, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
59
Request for Improved TTC Service in Parkdale (High Park)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)the T.T.C. investigate improvements to the 504 Streetcar Service, particularly between Queen Street West and
Dundas West subway station, with a view to increasing the frequency of service;
(2)Council endorse recent T.T.C. initiatives to increase fines for blocking streetcar tracks and make easier the
removal of private vehicles which park on or block streetcar lines;
(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Toronto Community Council on a widespread,
effective and enforceable prohibition of automobile left turns from the streetcar tracks, including an evaluation of
the costs to society vis-a-vis the benefits to individuals of allowing such left turns.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having forwarded the above recommendations to
the Toronto Transit Commission, in order that they may be considered by the T.T.C. as part of its annual service plan
process.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 25, 1999) from the General
Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, addressed to the City Clerk:
At its meeting on Wednesday, February 24, 1999, the Commission considered the attached report entitled, "Request For
Improved TTC Service In Parkdale," which responds to a request made by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting
on October 14, 1998 to report, in consultation with appropriate City Officials, on the improvement of public transportation
west of Bathurst Street, south of Queen Street West.
The Commission received the above report for information, noting that:
(i)excellent transit service is currently provided in Parkdale;
(ii)the TTC would be pleased to consider any proposals for specific transit service improvements as part of the annual
Service Plan process. The deadline for submissions to the Service Plan is April 5, 1999;
(iii)the most-significant and immediate action the Toronto Community Council could take to improve the existing transit
service in Parkdale would be to support and encourage an enforceable and effective ban on left-turning automobiles from
streetcar tracks. The TTC supports this initiative, and encourages any action which would reduce the delays to streetcar
customers resulting from left-turning automobiles;
(iv)it would be beneficial if the Toronto Community Council were to endorse recent TTC initiatives which would increase
the fines for blocking streetcar tracks and make easier the removal of private vehicles which park on or block streetcar
tracks.
The foregoing is forwarded to the Toronto Community Council and the Toronto Transportation and Planning Departments
for information and appropriate attention.
--------
(Report No. 17 of the Toronto Transit Commission
titled "Request for Improved TTC Service in Parkdale"
which was received for information at its meeting
held on February 24, 1999)
Recommendations
It is recommended that the Commission:
(1)Receive this report for information, noting that:
(i)Excellent transit service is currently provided in Parkdale;
(ii)The TTC would be pleased to consider any proposals for specific transit service improvements as part of the annual
Service Plan process. The deadline for submissions to the Service Plan is April 5, 1999;
(iii)The most-significant and immediate action the Toronto Community Council could take to improve the existing transit
service in Parkdale would be to support and encourage an enforceable and effective ban on left-turning automobiles from
streetcar tracks. The TTC supports this initiative, and encourages any action which would reduce the delays to streetcar
customers resulting from left-turning automobiles;
(iv)It would be beneficial if the Toronto Community Council were to endorse recent TTC initiatives which would increase
the fines for blocking streetcar tracks and make easier the removal of private vehicles which park on or block streetcar
tracks; and
(2)Forward this report to Toronto Community Council and the Toronto Transportation and Planning Departments.
Background
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14, 1998, considered a report on zoning issues in the Parkdale
area (the report was dated September 16, 1998, was from the City Solicitor, and was entitled Draft Zoning By-Law -
Portions of Parkdale Area). One of the resolutions adopted by the community council at the meeting was a request to "the
Toronto Transit Commission, in consultation with appropriate City officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council
on the improvement of public transportation west of Bathurst Street, south of Queen Street West." This report is in response
to that community council request.
Discussion
Present services
The area of Parkdale identified by the community council already has excellent transit service. The 501 Queen and 504
King streetcar routes provide very frequent eastbound and westbound service on Queen Street and King Street. These
streetcar routes operate well beyond the Parkdale area, and offer many connections to other TTC streetcar, bus, and subway
routes. The 511 Bathurst, 63 Ossington, 29 Dufferin, and 47 Lansdowne streetcar and bus routes operate very frequent
northbound and southbound service through Parkdale, connect with the Bloor-Danforth and Spadina subways, and take
customers to many other destinations.
Unlike transit service in many other parts of Toronto, the routes in Parkdale operate throughout the day and night. Service
on Queen Street, Roncesvalles Avenue, Dufferin Street, Ossington Avenue/Shaw Street, and Bathurst Street is operated 24
hours a day, seven days a week. Service on Lansdowne Avenue and King Street is operated for all but three hours of the
day, from approximately 2:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. the next morning, seven days a week.
Service is closely monitored on all of these routes, and adjustments are made to the scheduled service when warranted by
ridership levels. In the past three years, five streetcars and five buses have been added to these routes, in order to reduce
overcrowding and improve the reliability of operation. Changes such as these will continue to be made by the TTC in
response to ridership levels.
Upcoming service improvements
There are a number of transit service improvements in progress in or near the Parkdale area.
The TTC is currently constructing a new streetcar line on Queens Quay, between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue.
When complete in 2000, new streetcar service will be operated between Exhibition Place and Union Station. This service
will substantially improve access between Union Station, Exhibition Place, and the new residential and recreational
developments planned and under construction at Harbourfront and the former brewery site on Fleet Street.
Transit-priority traffic signal equipment has been installed at most signalised intersections on the 501 Queen and 504 King
routes for some years now. Transit signal priority reduces the amount of traffic signal delay for transit customers, by
extending green signals, or reducing red signals, as appropriate. Transit signal priority has allowed significant reductions in
travel time on these routes, has made service faster for customers, and has reduced operating costs, as fewer streetcars are
required to operate the same level of service. These benefits will be extended to customers on the 29 Dufferin bus route
from February 14, 1999, when the TTC's first bus route transit signal priority scheme becomes operational, along the entire
length of this busy route.
Beginning on March 21, 1999 (and subject to the availability of suitable buses), accessible service will be operated on the
47 Lansdowne route, using low-floor buses, and on the 29 Dufferin route, using lift-equipped buses.
From March 22, 1999, service during the morning peak period and evening on 504 King will be improved by the addition of
more scheduled running time. This change is the result of a detailed review of operations on the route, and will increase
reliability on this busy service.
Future service and route changes
Significant changes to routes and services in the area are evaluated in the annual Service Plan, which is prepared by TTC
staff each year. The deadline for suggestions to this year's plan is April 5, 1999. Suggestions which would improve TTC
service and attract new customers to the TTC are welcomed, and can be submitted by city councillors or by customers. The
annual Service Plan process is the most-appropriate context in which to evaluate service changes, as it allows the relative
benefits of worthwhile suggestions to be compared, and ensures that service changes which are recommended for
implementation will, overall, provide a net benefit to the TTC's customers, its financial situation, and to the viability of
transit service in Toronto.
There is no new money for transit service improvements or new routes. Because of the fixed funding given to the TTC by
the city, any new services or additional service on existing routes are possible only if service is reduced on other routes, in
order to reallocate resources. The challenge for transit in Toronto over the next few years will be to maintain the present
service levels, in the face of possible further reductions in municipal funding for public transit. This challenge applies as
much to Parkdale, and its very good existing service, as it does to other areas of the city.
There is one improvement to public transit which is possible, and which is entirely under the jurisdiction of the City of
Toronto ! a widespread, effective, and enforceable prohibition of automobile left turns from the streetcar tracks. The quality
of transit service on major streetcar routes is substantially reduced by left-turning automobiles. Unlike on bus routes, these
left turns directly block transit vehicles, which are unable to manoeuvre out of the way. In many cases, one left-turning
vehicle, often with only a single occupant, slows down and delays a following streetcar, which often has more than 100
fare-paying customers on board. This is a wasteful allocation of scarce road capacity amongst road users. When the effects
are considered across the TTC's streetcar system, the delays introduced by left-turning autos contribute to the
higher-than-average service unreliability of the streetcar routes, and likely contribute to a suppression of potential transit
ridership and an increase in automobile use and ownership. A rational and thorough evaluation of the effects of left turns
from streetcar tracks would likely find that the cost to society outweighs the benefits to individuals of allowing such turns.
TTC staff would be pleased to assist city staff with ways of evaluating and implementing left-turn prohibitions. The TTC
requests the community council's support in advocating this pro-transit measure.
The TTC also requests the community council's support for other recent initiatives which are intended to improve reliability
on streetcar routes. As a result of the January 1999 snow emergency, the Commission recommended at its meeting of
January 27, 1999 (as part of Report 6 ! January 13, 1999 Storm Impact on TTC Operations) increases to the fine for
motorists who block the streetcar tracks, and the implementation of a process which would allow TTC employees to arrange
to remove private vehicles which block streetcar service. These measures would make streetcar service more reliable, not
just during snowstorms, but also at other busy times of the year, during special events, street festivals, and all times when
there are problems with private vehicles blocking the tracks. This measure would improve the quality of transit service in
Parkdale and elsewhere in Toronto. Implementation of these pro-transit measures requires co-operation from the City of
Toronto Council, the Toronto Police Service, and the provincial government, and the TTC asks the community council for
its endorsement of these initiatives.
60
Requests for Endorsement of Events for
Liquor Licensing Purposes
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 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)Annual Senhor Da Petra Festival at Trinity Bellwoods Park, to be held on July 31, 1999 and August 1, 1999;
(b)Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire VIP reception, to be held on June 19, 26, 30, July 3, 8 and 10, 199 from 8:00
p.m. to 12:00 p.m. in and around Ontario Place;
(c)The Fashion Cares Gala, to be held on May 8, 1999 from 6:00 p.m. to 3:00 a.m. at the Convention Centre;
(d)Toronto Fiesta, to be held on July 10 and 11, 1999, 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. at Earlscourt Park;
(e)African Medical and Research Foundation fundraising event to be held on May 17th, 1999 in St. Lawrence
Market North and in the adjacent parkette to the west of the market;
(2)declare the du Maurier Downtown Jazz Festival taking place at various locations set out in the communication
(February 24, 1999) from Ms. Patti Marshall from Friday, June 25 to Sunday, July 4, 1999 inclusive, to be an event
of national and municipal significance and indicate that it has no objection to it taking place;
(3)advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the following events;
(a)the Fringe of Toronto Festival to be held on July 1 to 11, 1999, inclusive, at the TRANZAC Club, 292 Brunswick
Avenue, and has no objection to it taking place; nor to an extension of liquor licence #40010 to cover an outdoor
marquee are and the front lobby during such event; and
(b)the proposed Beer Garden at Rosedale Park on May 8, 1999, 11:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. in conjunction with the
Mayfair Festival, and has no objection to it taking place; and
(4)approve the consumption of alcohol in the seating area by patrons of The Molson Amphitheatre on a permanent
basis during concert event, and so advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission.
The Toronto Community Council 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:
-(undated) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva;
-(February 19, 1999) from Mr. Steve Chisholm, Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire;
-(February 23, 1999) from Councillor Rae;
-(February 24, 1999) from Ms. Patti Marshall, Du Maurier Downtown Jazz;
-(March 3, 1999) from Mr. Ian Melvin, President, Board of Directors, Toronto Australia New Zealand Club;
-(March 10, 1999) from Mr. Lido Chilelli, Toronto Fiesta;
-(March 9, 1999) from Ms. Elizabeth Dove, Assistant Director, AMREF Canada;
-(March 15, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva; and
-(March 14, 1999) from L.A. Sayer, Mayfair.
61
Parking for Persons with Physical Disabilities
Fronting Joseph J. Piccininni Community Recreation Centre
at 1369 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 15, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To replace the existing taxicab stand on the south side of St. Clair Avenue West fronting Joseph J. Piccininni Community
Recreation Centre with a "No Parking Any Time" regulation in order to provide more parking opportunity for persons in
possession of a valid disabled persons parking permit.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulations, estimated at $500.00, are contained in
the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Estimates.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the existing taxicab stand located on the south side of St. Clair Avenue West, between a point 79 metres west of
Lansdowne Avenue and a point 101 metres west of Lansdowne Avenue, be replaced with a "No Parking Any Time"
regulation; and
(2)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.
Comments:
At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, Transportation Services staff reviewed the feasibility of replacing the existing
taxicab stand to provide enhanced parking opportunities for persons with physical disabilities on the south side of St. Clair
Avenue West, west of Lansdowne Avenue in front of Joseph J. Piccininni Community Recreation Centre. A "No Parking
Any Time" zone currently exists from a point 54 metres west of Lansdowne Avenue to a point 79 metres west of
Lansdowne Avenue. A taxicab stand for three taxis is operational at all times, except from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday
to Friday, between a point 79 metres west of Lansdowne Avenue and a point 101 metres west of Lansdowne Avenue. A
"No Parking" regulation is in effect from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, between a point 101 metres west of
Lansdowne Avenue and Caledonia Road. Parking in this area is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 9:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday and for three hours at other times.
The above-noted "No Parking Any Time" zone, from a point 54 metres west of Lansdowne Avenue, is approximately 25
metres long. A fire hydrant is located approximately four metres west of the easterly limit of this zone. Taking into account
proper clearance for the fire hydrant, persons with physical disabilities have approximately 18 metres, or three vehicle
lengths, in which to park their cars.
As a former Metropolitan arterial roadway, St. Clair Avenue West is at the present time regulated under the Metropolitan
Uniform Traffic By-law. Under this by-law, there are no provisions for designating specially marked areas on an arterial
roadway specifically for the parking use of persons with physical disabilities. However, vehicles which display a valid
disabled permit are exempted from certain "No Parking Any Time" regulations.
It should be noted that the Taxicab Advisory Committee is concerned with this proposal. However, observations by staff
have indicated that this taxicab stand is not used regularly.
Councillors Disero and Fotinos have been consulted on this proposal and are in agreement.
Conclusions:
It is possible to increase the parking available for persons with disabilities by replacing the existing taxicab stand with a "No
Parking Any Time" regulation on the south side of St. Clair Avenue West in the vicinity of Joseph J. Piccininni Community
Recreation Centre. This change will provide additional parking opportunities for persons with physical disabilities without a
significant negative impact on the safety or level of service on St. Clair Avenue West.
Contact Name:
Jacqueline White
Manager Traffic Operations
District 1
Tel.: (416) 397-5021
62
"No Standing" Prohibition - Dufferin Street,
Just South of St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)the existing "No Parking Anytime" regulation in effect on the west side of Dufferin Street between St. Clair
Avenue West and a point 40m south thereof be rescinded;
(2)"Standing" be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Dufferin Street between St. Clair Avenue West and a
point 40m south thereof; and
(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 16, 1999) from the Director of
Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To introduce a "No Standing" prohibition on Dufferin Street, just south of St. Clair Avenue West.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the implementation of proposed parking regulations, estimated at $300.00, are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Estimates.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the existing parking regulation in effect at all times on the west side of Dufferin Street between St. Clair Avenue West
and Mackay Avenue, be rescinded;
(2)standing be prohibited on the west side of Dufferin Street between St. Clair Avenue West and Mackay Avenue; and
(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.
Background:
At the request of Staff Sergeant Graham Whitehead and Councillor Betty Disero, our Department reviewed the feasibility of
introducing a "No Standing" prohibition on Dufferin Street, south of St. Clair Avenue West, to increase the capacity of
southbound traffic proceeding through the intersection at Dufferin Street and St. Clair Avenue West.
Discussion:
Parking is prohibited on both sides of this section of Dufferin Street. Stopping is prohibited on the west side of Dufferin
Street from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and on the east side from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.
Currently, loading and unloading is legally permitted at all times except during the peak periods when stopping is
prohibited. The installation of a standing prohibition at all times would prohibit all loading and unloading activity which is
creating congestion and delays for southbound traffic at this location. There is ample alternative parking available within the
immediate vicinity of this section on Dufferin Street.
The implementation of a "No Standing Any Time" regulation on the west side of Dufferin Street just south of St. Clair
Avenue West would decrease congestion and increase the traffic capacity during the off-peak periods.
Councillors Disero and Fotinos have been consulted on this proposal and are in agreement.
Conclusions:
A "No Standing Any Time" prohibition on this section of Dufferin Street will increase the traffic capacity for southbound
motorists and have a positive impact on the overall level of service in this area.
Contact Name:
Jacqueline White
Manager Traffic Operations
District 1
(416) 397-5021
63
Metered Parking Spaces - North Side of Dundas Street West,
Between Keele Street and Heintzman Street (Davenport)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 15, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To introduce metered parking on the north side of Dundas Street West, between Keele Street and Heintzman Street.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the implementation of proposed parking regulations are contained in the Transportation Services
Division 1999 Current Estimates.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the existing no parking regulation in effect at all times on the north side of Dundas Street West, between Keele Street and
Heintzman Street, be rescinded;
(2)approximately four metered parking spaces be introduced on the north side of Dundas Street West, between a point 15
metres west of Heintzman Street and a point 27 metres further west thereof, to operate between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday and between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays for a period of one hour at a rate of 50 cents per hour;
and
(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.
Comments:
At the request of area residents, our Department reviewed the feasibility of installing parking metres on the north side of
Dundas Street West, between Keele Street and Heintzman Street.
Dundas Street West, between Keele Street and Heintzman Street, is a four-lane roadway. On the north side of Dundas Street
West, parking is prohibited at all times and stopping is prohibited during the afternoon peak period on weekdays. To the
east of Heintzman Street, metered parking is allowed for a maximum one-hour period between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Monday to Friday, and 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturdays. Three-hour parking is allowed at other times except during the
weekday afternoon peak period.
Parking demand on this section of Dundas Street West is high based on the commercial nature of this area. Four parking
metres could be installed on the north side of Dundas Street West, between a point 15 metres west of Heintzman Street and
a point 27 metres further west thereof. These parking metres would operate during the same time periods as parking metres
east of Heintzman Street.
Councillors Betty Disero and Dennis Fotinos have been consulted and support this proposal.
Conclusions:
The installation of parking metres on the north side of Dundas Street West, between Keele Street and Heintzman Street, will
provide additional parking opportunities and encourage parking turnover without a significant negative impact on the safety
or level of service on Dundas Street West.
Contact Name:
Jacqueline White
Manager, Traffic Operations
District 1
Tel.: (416) 397-5021
Fax: (416) 392-8504
64
"No Standing" Zone - North Side of St. Clair
Avenue, East of Prescott Avenue (Davenport)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)"Stopping" be prohibited on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West between Prescott Avenue and a point 80
metres east thereof, Monday to Friday, except public holidays, from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.;
(2)the existing one hour maximum parking limit on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. between Prescott Avenue and a point 80m east thereof be adjusted to apply from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; and
(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 15, 1999) from the Director of
Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
To introduce a "No Standing" prohibition on St. Clair Avenue West, just east of Prescott Avenue.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the implementation of proposed parking regulations, estimated at $1,000.00, are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Estimates.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)standing be prohibited at all times on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West from Prescott Avenue to a point 29 metres
further east;
(2)the first two metered parking spaces on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West from a point 15 metres east of Prescott
Avenue to a point 14 metres further east thereof be removed; and
(3)the appropriate by-law(s) be amended accordingly.
Comments:
At the request of area residents and Councillor Betty Disero, our Department reviewed the feasibility of introducing a "No
Standing" prohibition on St. Clair Avenue West to alleviate visibility problems for southbound motorists that exit Prescott
Avenue. There is an existing "No Parking" regulation in effect on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West from Prescott
Avenue to a point 15 metres further east. Adjacent to this are seven metered parking stalls. Currently, there are "Do Not
Block Intersection" signs on the northwest and northeast corners of the intersection. Furthermore, there is a "dashed" stop
bar situated on the east side of St. Clair Avenue West and Prescott Avenue that reinforces the most courteous stopping
location while emphasizing the "Do Not Block Intersection" sign for westbound St. Clair Avenue West traffic.
Observations on several occasions, indicated that parked vehicles could create visibility problems for southbound motorists
that exit Prescott Avenue. It would be desirable to give motorists an unobstructed view of westbound St. Clair Avenue West
traffic given the nature of this intersection. This would require the removal of the first two metered parking spaces adjacent
to the "No Parking" area just east of Prescott Avenue. In order for this regulation to be effective, it should be implemented
at all times.
Councillors Disero and Fotinos have been consulted on this proposal and are in agreement.
Conclusions:
The removal of two metered parking spaces would give southbound motorists that exit Prescott Avenue an unobstructed
view of westbound St. Clair Avenue West traffic with no negative impact on the safety or level of service on St. Clair
Avenue West.
Contact Name:
Jacqueline White, Manager,
Traffic Operations
District 1
(416) 397-5021
65
Installation of Parking Meters - Lower Jarvis Street,
East Side, from Lake Shore Boulevard
East to The Esplanade (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To authorize the installation of parking meters and a commercial loading zone on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street,
between Lake Shore Boulevard East and The Esplanade.
Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to implement the required signage changes in the estimated amount of $1,500.00 can be accommodated within the
1999 Transportation Services Division Operating Budget request. All expenses pertaining to the installation of the parking
metres are within the purview of the Toronto Parking Authority.
Recommendations:
(1)That parking meters be installed on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street, from a point 63.0 metres south of The Esplanade
to a point 61 metres further south thereof, to operate from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on Saturday for a maximum period of one hour; from 6:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to Friday for a maximum
period of two and one half hours; and from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, for a maximum period of three hours, at a
rate of $1.00 per hour;
(2)That a loading zone (to be designated as No Parking Anytime) be established on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street,
from a point 51.0 metres south of The Esplanade to a point 12 metres further south thereof;
(3)That standing be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street, from The Esplanade to a point 51.0 metres
south thereof in conjunction with the relocation of the existing Toronto Transit Commission bus stop;
(4)That the current No Parking Anytime prohibition on both sides of Lower Jarvis Street, from Lake Shore Boulevard East
to a point 61.0 metres north of the railway overpass, be replaced with a No Stopping Anytime prohibition; and
(5)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:
In response to a request from adjacent business proprietors and in consultation with Downtown Councillor Kyle Rae and
representatives of the Toronto Housing Authority, Transportation Services staff have reviewed the feasibility of installing
parking meters and/or a lay-by to accommodate parking and loading, on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street, south of The
Esplanade, in the vicinity of Premises Nos. 45 to 71 Lower Jarvis Street.
Under the provisions of the Metropolitan Toronto Uniform Traffic By-law, stopping is currently prohibited from 7:30 a.m.
to 9:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on both sides of Lower Jarvis Street between Lake Shore
Boulevard East and The Esplanade and parking is prohibited at other times. In the vicinity of the existing Toronto Transit
Commission bus stop located on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street, approximately 74.4 metres south of The Esplanade,
standing is prohibited (Transit Stop Zone).
Illegal boulevard parking operations are taking place on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street, fronting Premises Nos. 45 to
71. The boulevard is being used extensively during the daytime hours by employees/patrons of the commercial
establishments located in these premises. This boulevard parking has been occurring in spite of the fact that an application
to legalize same to Works and Emergency Services cannot be approved because of pedestrian/vehicular conflicts and the
resultant safety concerns. Vehicles belonging to customers and to the businesses are being tagged while parking/loading on
the boulevard. While the illegal boulevard parking should not be allowed to continue, it is recognized that the need for
accessible parking/loading for the businesses is desirable.
Accordingly, the installation of metered parking spaces and a commercial loading zone, as identified in Recommendation
Nos. 1 and 2, above, would mitigate the potential conflict between pedestrians and motorists and clearly define legal
parking and loading spaces without jeopardizing the operational efficiency and safety of the street. The Toronto Transit
Commission has agreed to relocate their bus stop to a point 20.5 metres south of The Esplanade to accommodate this
proposal and standing should be prohibited the area of the bus stop (Transit Stop Zone) as noted in Recommendation No. 3.
Should Council approve the above, a 12 metre long commercial loading zone (located immediately to the south of the
Transit Stop Zone) and nine metered parking spaces would be provided. To mitigate any potential illegal or improper
parking that may occur at the south end of the metered parking stalls, a stopping prohibited zone should be installed as
noted in Recommendation No. 4.
As an alternative to the above, consideration was also given to constructing a lay-by on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street,
in front of Premises No. 45 - 71. While the provision of a lay-by is technically feasible, the cost of such an installation
would be quite high (estimated to be in excess of $100,000.00). A check of Department records determined that the section
of sidewalk on the east side of Lower Jarvis Street, south of The Esplanade, is scheduled for reconstruction within the next
five years. At the time the reconstruction is undertaken, a parking lay-by could be installed at reduced cost. Under this
scenario, the parking spaces would be available all day and would not interfere with traffic operation on Lower Jarvis
Street.
In light of the above, and as an interim solution, it is recommended that the proposed parking meter/commercial loading
zone operation be approved.
Contact Name and Telephone Number
Frank Bozzo, Traffic Investigator, District 1, 392-7892
66
Prohibition of Standing - Lane First North of
Danforth Avenue Extending Between Donlands
Avenue and Caithness Avenue (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To deter unlawful parking and keep the lane clear for passage by motorists
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,000.00 are contained in the
Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.
Recommendation:
That standing be prohibited at anytime in the lane first north of Danforth Avenue, extending between Donlands Avenue and
Caithness Avenue.
Comments:
At the expressed request of East Toronto Councillor Tom Jakobek and in consultation with Councillor Sandra Bussin, we
are reporting to the Toronto Community Council on prohibiting standing at anytime in the lane first north of Danforth
Avenue, extending between Donlands Avenue and Caithness Avenue, to deter the unlawful parking by vehicles associated
with adjacent business operations and to enhance unimpeded traffic flow in the lane.
This lane provides vehicular access to the rear of businesses fronting on Danforth Avenue, rear yard parking areas and
garbage pick-up facilities at St. David's Tower (Premises No. 51 Donlands Avenue). Signs are clearly posted indicating that
parking is prohibited in the lane. Nevertheless, site inspections have revealed that parking, apparently generated by nearby
businesses, frequently occurs.
The lane currently provides an alternative delivery site during the morning rush period for businesses fronting on Danforth
Avenue when stopping is prohibited on Danforth Avenue from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday. Notwithstanding,
our site inspections indicated that delivery activity is infrequent during this time period. Deliveries may be made from
Danforth Avenue at other times, provided space is available.
Although stringent enforcement of the current parking prohibition might have some impact on resolving the illegal parking
problem, prohibiting standing at anytime in the subject lane in combination with an appropriate level of enforcement, would
be a greater deterrent and is the option supported by the Ward Councillors.
On the other hand, vehicles will be prohibited from using the lane to make deliveries, thereby creating an inconvenience for
business proprietors and promoting delivery activity:
-on Danforth Avenue and Donlands Avenue in areas where parking is prohibited within 30 metres of the signalized
intersection of these streets, potentially causing traffic congestion and reducing sight lines near the intersection; and
-on Caithness Avenue, a residential street, in turn promoting truck circulation and infiltration in the residential
neighbourhood north of Danforth Avenue.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771
67
Parking on the North Side - Front Street East, from
Trinity Street to Cherry Street - Provision of Parking on the
South Side and Longer Term (Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To increase the number of parking spaces on this street, enhance parking opportunity and extend the allowable parking
duration on this section of Front Street East to satisfy the requirements of business clients.
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 at anytime be rescinded on the south side of Front Street East from a point 36.0 metres east
of Trinity Street to a point 33.5 metres west of Cherry Street;
(2)That the one hour, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday parking regulation be rescinded on the north side of Front
Street East from Trinity Street to a point 30.5 metres west of Cherry Street; and
(3)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing,
including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Comments:
At the request of Councillor Pam McConnell, Transportation Services staff have examined the feasibility of allowing
parking on the south side of Front Street East between Trinity Street and Cherry Street to increase the number of parking
spaces on this street and enhance parking opportunity for patrons of local businesses.
The subject section of Front Street East is a collector road operating two-way with a pavement width of 9.45 metres.
Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side and on the north side from Cherry Street to a point 30.5 metres west.
Elsewhere on the north side, parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to
Friday and otherwise for a maximum period of three hours. About 2,500 vehicles daily travel on this section of Front Street
East. Adjacent land use is primarily light industrial at the present time.
The 9.45 metre pavement width of Front Street East is marginal to allow two-sided parking with two-way traffic operation.
The 5.45 metre unimpeded width of the road that will remain between the rows of parked vehicles is about ― metre less in
width than staff would prefer to ensure operational safety. This is somewhat of a concern in this instance as adjacent
businesses generate trucking activity and there is a likelihood of vehicles travelling in opposing directions being unable to
pass each other if one of the vehicles is a truck.
Notwithstanding, based on our assessment and the apparent need for additional parking in the area, staff recommend that
the parking prohibition on the south side of Front Street East between a point 36.0 meters east of Trinity Street and a point
33.5 meters west of Cherry Street, be rescinded and in place thereof that parking be allowed for three hours (the unsigned
City-wide maximum period). This would provide about 18 parking spaces on the south side of the street. The current
parking prohibition would be retained within 36.0 meters of Trinity Street and 33.5 meters of Cherry Street to ensure that an
unimpeded turning radius is maintained for semi-trailer trucks entering the street.
We also recommend that the one hour 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday maximum parking restriction on the north
side of Front Street East from Trinity Street to a point 30.4 meters west of Cherry Street be rescinded and that parking be
allowed for a maximum period of three hours.
Although allowing parking on both sides of Front Street East as noted above for a maximum period of three hours will
satisfy the parking requirements of business patrons, we stress that it is not the function of the street system to facilitate
parking by staff of nearby businesses for the duration of their shift. We suspect that this might occur on Front Street East if
the Recommendations of this report are approved. In this regard, staff will monitor this situation and the general operating
efficiency of the street during the coming summer and advise Councillors McConnell and Layton of our findings.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ron Hamilton, Supervisor of Traffic Engineering, District 1
68
Installation of a "Commercial Loading Zone" -
Queen Street East, South Side, Between a Point
15.0 Metres West of Kenilworth Avenue and a Point
10 Metres Further West - (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 16, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To ease traffic congestion on Kenilworth Avenue just south of Queen Street East caused by delivery trucks loading and
unloading
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.
Recommendation:
That a "Commercial Loading Zone", operating between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, be
delineated on the south side of Queen Street East from a point 15 metres west of Kenilworth Avenue to a point ten metres
further west.
Comments:
At the request of area residents, and in consultation with Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, staff of
Transportation Services have investigated delineating a "Commercial Loading Zone" on the south side of Queen Street East
fronting Premises Nos. 1957 and 1959, to provide an alternative delivery site and minimize delivery operations by trucks on
Kenilworth Avenue just south of Queen Street East.
Queen Street East is an arterial roadway operating two-way with four lanes of traffic and TTC streetcar service. Parking is
regulated as follows on Queen Street East in the vicinity of Kenilworth Avenue.
North Side
-Stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Monday to Friday;
-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. Saturday; and
-Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.
South Side
-Stopping is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday;
-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. Saturday; and
-Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.
A "Commercial Loading Zone" could be established on the south side of Queen Street East from a point 15.0 metres west of
Kenilworth Avenue to a point ten metres further west. This would eliminate two parking spaces in an area where on-street
parking is in high demand. Therefore, to minimize inconvenience, we suggest that the hours of operation for the loading
zone be from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, thereby allowing parking in this area at other times when deliveries
are not frequent.
Chapter 400 of the (former) City of Toronto Municipal Code authorizes the installation of loading zones and the prohibition
of parking therein during the hours of operation contingent upon site-specific approval by City Council. No amendment to
the Municipal Code is required to give effect thereto.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771
69
Amendment to Parking Regulations - Danforth Avenue,
Between Bowden Street and Langford Avenue (Don River)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (March 17, 1999) from the Director,
Transportation Services, District 1.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services to advise the Ward Councillors of the implementation date.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 17, 1999) from the Director of
Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to enact the appropriate parking regulations on Danforth Avenue, between Bowden Street and
Langford Avenue, to enable the installation of Pay-and-Display control as requested by the Toronto Parking Authority.
Funding Sources:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)The parking meter operation on the north side of Danforth Avenue, between Jackman Avenue and Langford Avenue, and
on the south side of Danforth Avenue, between Bowden Street and Langford Avenue, be rescinded;
(2)Pay-and-Display parking machines be installed to control parking on the north side of Danforth Avenue, between
Jackman Avenue and Langford Avenue, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m.,
on Saturday and Sunday, at a rate of $1.00 per hour, for a maximum allowable period of two hours; and on the south side of
Danforth Avenue, between Bowden Street and Langford Avenue, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00
a.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., on Saturday and Sunday, at a rate of $1.00 per hour, for a
maximum allowable period of two hours;
(3)The parking for restricted periods regulation be extended from a maximum period of one hour to a maximum period of
two hours on the north side of Danforth Avenue, between Jackman Avenue and Langford Avenue, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00
a.m., Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., on Saturday and Sunday, and on the south side of Danforth
Avenue, between Bowden Street and Langford Avenue, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and from 6:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.,
Monday to Friday, and from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., on Saturday and Sunday; and
(4)The appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the
introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Comments:
At its meeting of December 9, 1998, The Toronto Parking Authority approved in principle the installation of Pay-
and-Display parking machines to replace parking meters for controlling on-street parking on the north side of Danforth
Avenue, between Jackman Avenue and Langford Avenue, and on the south side of Danforth Avenue, between Bowden
Street and Langford Avenue. The Parking Authority recommended that the Pay-and-Display parking machines operate on
both sides of Danforth Avenue, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 a.m., Monday to Sunday, at a rate of $1.00 per hour, and for a
maximum allowable period of two hours.
The following parking regulations exist on Danforth Avenue, in the subject section:
| |
North side of Danforth
Avenue, between Jackman
Avenue and Langford Avenue |
South side of Danforth
Avenue, between Bowden
Street and Langford Avenue |
| No Stopping |
7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.,
Monday to Friday |
4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday |
| 1-Hour-Maximum Metered
Parking (at a rate of $.50
per hour) |
9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday |
8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturday |
The Pay-and-Display parking machine operation will apply to the existing parking meter stalls only. No new parking spaces
are proposed and the changes will not affect current rush period prohibitions.
The Toronto Parking Authority advises that Councillors Jack Layton and Pam McConnell and the representatives of the
Greektown BIA have been advised of this proposed change and concur with this proposal.
Contact Name:
Vince Suppa, District 1 - East (416-397-5436)
70
Adjustment of "School Bus Loading Zone" -
Evelyn Avenue, East Side, South of Annette Street (High Park)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 22, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To adjust the existing "School Bus Loading Zone" on the east side of Evelyn Avenue which currently operates from a point
37 metres south of Annette Street to a point 57 metres further south, by extending it for an additional distance of 30 metres
further south, in order to accommodate additional school buses which are now servicing the school.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the amount of $400.00 are contained in the Transportation
Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.
Recommendations:
(1)That the existing "School Bus Loading Zone" be adjusted to operate on the east side of Evelyn Avenue, from a point 37
metres south of Annette Street to a point 87 metres further south; 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 High Park Councillor David Miller, Works staff investigated the feasibility of extending the existing
"School Bus Loading Zone" to operate for a distance of 50 metres on the east side of Evelyn Avenue, starting at a point 37
metres south of Annette Street and ending at a point 87 metres further south, to accommodate additional school buses which
are now servicing the school.
Evelyn Avenue from Annette Street to Woodside Avenue operates two-way on a roadway width of 8.5 metres with a speed
limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is currently prohibited at anytime on the east side of the street and a "School Bus
Loading Zone" is located from a point 37 metres south of Annette Street to a point 57 metres further south. On the west
side, the permit parking system is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum
period of three hours.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the existing "School Bus Loading Zone" on the east side of Evelyn Avenue be
extended for a distance of 30 metres further south along the school frontage. This adjustment will not affect the permit
parking system and will not adversely impact the operational safety of the street.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Spiros Stamopoulos
Traffic Investigator
392-7771
71
Heritage Easement Agreement -
173, 177 and 181 Yonge Street and
16 Queen Street East (Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1)authority be granted for the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario
Heritage Act with the owner of 173 Yonge Street, using substantially the forme of easement agreement prepared for
the former City of Toronto in February, 1987 by the City Solicitor and on file with the City Clerk, subject to such
amendments as may be deemed to be necessary by the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto and the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and that authority be granted for the introduction of
any necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto. Such authority shall apply to Site Plan Approval Application
No. 398092 and Committee of Adjustment Application No. A199801103 for the same site;
(2)Clause 12.1(a) of the Heritage Easement Agreement, as revised, shall set a termination date of April 15, 2001, if
the minor variances required under Committee of Adjustment Application No. A199801103 are not finally approved
or in force; and
(3)the owner be requested to provide Heritage Toronto with (2) two copies of the required photographs of 173
Yonge Street for inclusion in the Heritage Easement Agreement.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having:
(1)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Ward Councillors, to give
consideration to the following during the Site Plan Approval process:
(a)a connection to the district heating system;
(b)a connection to the district cooling system;
(2)directed that an energy efficiency plan be submitted by the applicant to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services and that the staff from the Energy Efficiency Office be consulted;
(3)directed that a solid waste minimization and diversion strategy be submitted by the applicant to the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services;
(4)directed that a water conservation and stormwater management plan be developed.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To provide final recommendations respecting a Council position on Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and
respecting authorization for City staff to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board, for an 18 storey office building with
retail uses at grade, at 173 to 181 Yonge Street and 16 Queen Street East.
Financial Implications:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That, subject to the completion of the matters set out in Recommendation 4, below, City Council endorse, for purposes
of submission to the Ontario Municipal Board, amendments to the Official Plan that would add a new Section 18 provision
substantially as set out below:
"18.___Lands known as 173, 177 and 181 Yonge Street and 16 Queen Street East
See Map 18.___ at the end of this Section
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lot shown on Map 18.___, and
known in the year 1998 as 173, 177, and 181 Yonge Street and 16 Queen Street East, to permit an increase in the density
and height of development otherwise permitted, for the erection and use of a non-residential building, including
below-grade parking, provided that:
(a)the maximum non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 33,950 square metres;
(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)the moving of the entrance to the Toronto Transit Commission subway, currently located on the public sidewalk abutting
the south side of the site, into the building;
(ii)a contribution of $750,000.00 towards: a) the development by the City of the public square known as Dundas Square at
the southeast corner of Yonge and Dundas Streets; and b) if authorized and imposed, a Toronto Transit Commission
entrance connection fee;
(iii)a letter of credit to secure the protection of the historic building at 173 Yonge Street, or the significant portions thereof,
during construction or any halt in construction, and to secure completion of the restoration plan;
(iv)a contribution for public art, in an amount equivalent to 1% of gross construction costs of the project, in accordance with
the former City of Toronto's standard public art programme;
(v)provision of space for utility access and vaults;
(vi)submission, approval and implementation of a Noise Impact Statement;
(vii)provision of improvements to the public boulevard and public sidewalk or payment for the improvements to be
provided;
(viii)submission, approval and implementation of a Transportation Demand Management Plan addressing strategies to
minimize automobile use;
(ix)entering into a Heritage Easement Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with respect to 173
Yonge Street;
(x)incorporating in the development the bas relief panels removed from a building previously demolished on the site and
currently incorporated in the decorative barriers along the Yonge and Queen Street frontages of the existing surface
commercial parking lot on the site;
(xi)conducting and submitting 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;
(xii)conducting and submitting 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 the Environment and Energy
Guidelines;
(xiii)if deemed necessary by the Medical Officer of Health after review of the reports required by clauses (xi) and (xii),
above, the conducting of a soil and groundwater testing program and submission, approval and implementation of a Soil
and Groundwater Management Plan; and
(xiv)submission, approval and implementation of a Dust Control Plan.
(2)That, subject to the completion of the matters set out in Recommendation 4, below, City Council endorse, for purposes
of submission to the Ontario Municipal Board, an amendment to the Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86, as amended, so as to:
(a)exempt the site from the following sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:
8(3) PART I 2Maximum non-residential gross floor area;
8(3) PART III 1(a)Common outdoor space;
4(2)(a)Height limit;
4(13)(a)Cyclists' shower-change facilities; and
12(2)259.(ii)Street-related retail and service uses;
(a)permit the erection and use of a non-residential building containing office, retail, service, and public transit entrance/exit
uses, and a below-grade parking facility, on the lot shown on Map 1 and known municipally in 1998 as 173, 177, 181
Yonge Street and 16 Queen Street East, provided:
(i)the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 33,950 square metres;
(ii)Section 4(2)(a) shall apply except that:
(a)the height of the mechanical enclosure shall be no more than 15 metres above the height limit of 76 m applicable to the
lot;
(b)a flag mast shall reach a height of not more than 105 m; and
(c)the proposed mechanical enclosure shall be permitted to cover not more than 37% of the area of the roof of the building;
(iii)Common outdoor space shall be provided to the extent of not less than 220 m2;
(iv)Section 12(2)259.(ii) shall apply except that the minimum percent of the aggregate length of the street frontages in
street-related retail and service uses shall be 20% on Queen Street East and 49% on Yonge Street; and
(v)Section 4(13)(a) shall apply except that shower-change facilities are not required to be provided;
all provided that the owner enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the
following facilities, services and matters:
(i)the entrance to the Toronto Transit Commission subway, currently located on the public sidewalk abutting the south side
of the site, be moved into the building at the owner's expense, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning
and Development Services and the Toronto Transit Commission;
(ii)a contribution of $750,000.00 be made by the owner to the City of Toronto, prior to the issuance of a building permit,
towards: a) the development by the City of the public square known as Dundas Square at the southeast corner of Yonge and
Dundas Streets; and b) if authorized and imposed, an entrance connection fee requested by the Toronto Transit
Commission;
(iii)an irrevocable letter of credit be submitted by the owner to the City, prior to the issuance of any permit, in an amount to
the satisfaction of Heritage Toronto, to secure the protection of the historic building at 173 Yonge Street , or the significant
portions thereof, during construction, to secure completion of the restoration plan, and to secure protection of the remaining
portions of the building should construction of the development be halted prior to completion, all to the satisfaction of
Heritage Toronto and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;
(iv)a contribution be made to the City by the owner for public art, in an amount equivalent to 1% of gross construction costs
of the project, in accordance with the former City of Toronto's standard public art programme;
(v)the owner 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;
(vi)the owner submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, prior to
the issuance of a building permit, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;
(vii)the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the noise impact facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved
by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;
(viii)the owner have a qualified architect/acoustical consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Urban Planning
and Development Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact
Statement approved by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;
(ix)the owner shall submit an application for improvements to the public sidewalk/boulevard generally as shown on the
plans approved under Site Plan Approval Application No. 398092, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services
and carry out at the owner's expense the improvements within a reasonable period of time or at the request of the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services make a cash contribution to the City equal to the value of the
improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part of a comprehensive program;
(x)(a)the owner shall submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the
issuance of a building permit, a Transportation Demand Management Plan addressing strategies to minimize automobile use
in connection with the development;
(b)the owner shall have a qualified Transportation Engineer/Planner certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Transportation
Demand Management Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and
(c)the owner shall provide, maintain and operate the transportation demand management measures, facilities and strategies
stipulated in the Transportation Demand Management Plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services;
(xi)the owner of 173 Yonge Street shall enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Ontario
Heritage Act, prior to the issuance of any permit;
(xii)the owner shall incorporate in the development, to the satisfaction of Heritage Toronto, the bas relief panels removed
from a building previously demolished on the site, and which are currently incorporated in the decorative barriers along the
Yonge and Queen Street frontages of the existing surface parking lot on the site;
(xiii)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. The report should be submitted to the Medical
Officer of Health for review prior to the issuance of a building permit;
(xiv)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 the Environment and Energy
Guidelines. A report on the site audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review prior to the issuance
of a building permit;
(xv)that, if deemed necessary by the Medical Officer of Health after review of the reports required by clauses (xiii) and
(xiv), above, the owner shall:
(a)conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which
characterizes soil and groundwater conditions and proposes remediation options, to be submitted to the Medical Officer of
Health, for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit; and.
(b)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; and
(xvi)that the owner submit to, and have approved by, the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit, a
Dust Control Plan, and shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.
(3)(a)That the City Solicitor and other City staff as necessary be authorized to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board to
represent the position of City Council with respect to this application, and also to defend the decision of the Committee of
Adjustment approving minor variances for this site with respect to Application No. A199801103, with such authorization
subject to prior completion by the owner of the matters set out in Recommendation No. 4, below; and
(b)That the Ontario Municipal Board be requested by the City Solicitor, if the Board is disposed to approve the necessary
amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, to withhold its Order pending notification by the City Solicitor that an
agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act has been executed by the owner.
(4)That prior to the adoption by Council of Recommendations 1, 2 and 3, above:
(a)the owner enter into an undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act, with respect to Site Plan Approval Application
No. 398092; and
(b)the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dimensioned plans of the development for the
purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to Council's
consideration of this matter.
(5)(a)That authority be granted for the execution of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario
Heritage Act with the owner of 173 Yonge Street, using substantially the form of easement agreement prepared for the
former City of Toronto in February 1987 by the City Solicitor and on file with the City Clerk, subject to such amendments
as may be deemed to be necessary by the City Solicitor in consultation with Heritage Toronto and the Commissioner of
Urban Planning and Development Services, and that authority be granted for the introduction of any necessary Bills in
Council to give effect thereto. Such authorities shall apply to this Application No. 198018, and also to Site Plan Approval
Application No. 398092 and Committee of Adjustment Application No. A199801103 for the same site;
(b)That Clause 12.1(a) of the Heritage Easement Agreement, as revised, shall set a termination date of April 15, 2001 if
neither: a) the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments required by Application No. 198018; nor b) the minor
variances required under Committee of Adjustment Application No. A199801103, are finally approved or in force, as the
case may be; and
(c)That the owner be requested to provide Heritage Toronto with (2) two copies of the required photographs of 173 Yonge
Street for inclusion in the Heritage Easement Agreement.
(6)That the owner be advised of the comments of Civic Officials appended to this report, namely:
(a)the comments of the Manager, Plan Review, Urban Planning and Development Services regarding the need for approval
by Heritage Toronto and compliance with the Ontario Building Code;
(b)the comments of Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) advising that the TTC will not accept responsibility for the effects
of transit operations on the building or its occupants, and that noise and vibration and electro-magnetic field attenuation
measures should be applied, and that the developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, through a clause in
the purchase or rental agreements, of the potential for noise and vibration and/or electro-magnetic fields;
(c)the comments of the TTC advising that TTC approval of the final design of the subway entrance is required, as well as
approval of site and foundation plans, and that the owner will be required to enter into a legal agreement with TTC and the
City of Toronto, and that conditions of TTC's approval may be imposed;
(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)that the Yonge Street boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Department of Works and
Emergency Services;
(f)the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits as well as potentially other permits, such as hoarding,
piling/shoring etc. from the Department of Works and Emergency Services prior to construction; and
(g)the comments of the Manager, Plan Review, Urban Planning and Development Services, regarding the requirement for
land dedication for parks purposes, or payment in lieu, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.
Background:
(a)Applicant and Owners
Application submitted by James W. Harbell, Stikeman, Elliot, Suite 5300, P. O. Box 85, Commerce Court West, Toronto,
Ontario M4P 3C5, on behalf of O & Y Properties Inc., 40 King Street West, Suite 2700, Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y2
(b)Location and Context
The 3389.5 m2 site is located at the northeast corner of Queen and Yonge Street. The site currently contains a vacant,
historically-designated, 2-storey former Bank of Montreal building right at the corner of Yonge and Queen (173 Yonge
Street), a vacant, 3-storey former commercial building abutting the north side of that building, a 6-storey commercial
building at 16 Queen Street East, and a surface commercial parking lot.
To the north of the site is the historic Elgin and Wintergarden Theatre building, which has a maximum height of 30.4 m on
the Yonge Street frontage and 35.6 m on the Victoria Street frontage. Proceeding north on the east side of Yonge Street,
there exist an historic 8-storey office building (former Heintzman Building) at 193 Yonge, a vacant historic 4-storey bank
building currently owned by the City at 197 Yonge, a City-owned public open space at 203 Yonge Street, the renovated
City-owned bank building housing Heritage Toronto at 205 Yonge Street, a vacant site at 207 and 209 Yonge where a
13-storey mixed commercial and residential building has been approved, and two commercial buildings of 6 and 3 storeys,
respectively, at the northwest corner of the block. Historic Massey Hall exists on the northeast corner of the block. The
City-owned sites at 197, 197R, and 203 Yonge Street are currently for sale as a development site.
The Eaton Centre, including the 29.6 m Tower Records building on the northwest corner of the intersection, exists on the
west side of Yonge Street north of Queen Street. The southernmost office tower in the Eaton Centre, at the corner of Queen
and James Streets, reaches a height of 140 m. The historic 9-storey (35 m) Hudson Bay department store building is situated
at the southwest corner of the intersection, and directly to the south of the proposed project, on the opposite side of Queen
Street, is a 28-storey (112 m) office building at 1 Queen Street East.
Abutting the east boundary of the site is the surface commercial parking lot mentioned above at 20 Queen Street East and
142 Victoria Street. St. Michael's Hospital exists on the block to the east, with a current height of 47.1 m and a proposed
height of 71.5 m on Victoria Street. Official Plan and Rezoning Application No. 198011 has recently been approved by City
Council for redevelopment and expansion of portions of St. Michael's Hospital.
(c)Proposed Development
The proposed development is an 18-storey non-residential building containing primarily office uses with retail uses at
grade, and a 2-level below-grade parking garage containing 143 parking spaces. Portions, including the facade, of the
historic bank building at the corner of the Yonge-Queen intersection will be incorporated in the building, as well as some
reconstructed portions of the interior banking hall. The other two existing buildings will be demolished. The existing
subway entrance on Queen Street will be eliminated and a new entrance with escalators and an elevator for mobility
impaired persons will be constructed within the building. The office entrance will be on Queen Street, while the main retail
entrance will be on Yonge Street. The vehicular entrance will be from Victoria Street.
The building, excluding the mechanical enclosure, is 76 m high, with an additional 15 m for the mechanical room and a flag
mast which reaches 104 m. The proposed total gross floor area is 33,897 m2 (10 times lot area). The recommended
amendments permit a total gross floor area of 33,950 m2 to permit minor variations in the actual floor area at the time of
building permit application.
(d)History
This site is the subject of applications for the same building for minor variances to the Committee of Adjustment (file no.
A199801103) and for Site Plan Approval (Application no. 398092), submitted in September, 1998. Prior to such
submission, City Planning staff had agreed in discussions with the applicant that the Committee of Adjustment process was
appropriate, provided that a package of public benefits such as would otherwise have been negotiated pursuant to Section 37
of the Planning Act was agreed upon and appropriately secured in the planning approval process. In its decision dated
October 28, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment granted the necessary minor variances subject to conditions implementing
the public benefits package, including requiring the applicant to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement, plus additional
agreement(s) with the City of Toronto to secure:
(i)moving the subway entrance into the building off Queen Street East at the owner's cost;
(ii)a contribution of $750,000.00 to the City for both the Yonge-Dundas public square development and, if authorized, a
proposed Toronto Transit Commission entrance connection fee;
(iii)a letter of credit to secure heritage preservation matters; and
(iv)a contribution for public art equivalent to 1% of construction costs.
The owners of the abutting property to the east at 20 Queen Street East and 142 Victoria Street objected to the Committee
of Adjustment application. A surface commercial parking lot currently exists on that site. Despite what appeared to be very
promising discussions among the applicant, the objectors and City Planning staff regarding a sharing of the O & Y parking
and loading facilities with a proposed office building on the objectors' site, the discussions foundered and the Committee of
Adjustment decision was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the abutting owners. Discussions are
apparently continuing between O & Y Properties and the abutting property owners regarding a settlement of the issues. If a
settlement is reached, presumably this application and all appeals would be withdrawn, and the Committee of Adjustment
decision would stand.
This application for Official Plan and Zoning amendments was made with the applicant's expectation that the applicant
would also appeal this application to the OMB after the requisite 90 days, in order to ensure that the OMB has the
jurisdiction to deal with the proposed development through either the minor variance application or this application. The
current application does not seek Site Plan Approval, since such an application has been submitted previously, as noted
above. A Preliminary Report dated December 17, 1999 on this application was adopted by Toronto Community Council at
its meeting beginning January 20, 1999, and a community public meeting was held on February 10, 1999.
As of the date of preparation of this report, this application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments had not yet
been appealed due to the ongoing settlement discussions. The applicant has advised that if a settlement is not reached, this
application will be appealed prior to the March 30, 1999 meeting of Toronto Community Council. This report has been
prepared as though such appeals had already been made, because if a settlement is reached, this application and this report
will be withdrawn. Rather than recommending adoption of by-laws, this report is recommending a Council position on draft
by-laws and related conditions for subsequent approval by the OMB. As of the date of preparation of this report, the OMB
hearing was scheduled to begin June 22, 1999.
(e)Public Review
A public meeting was held in the community on February 10, 1999. Only 2 members of the public attended: a representative
of the Eaton Centre, and a representative of the owners of the office tower at 1 Queen Street East. Consequently, the formal
portion of the public meeting was dispensed with, and staff and the applicant's representatives answered the few questions
posed by the attendees. There were no planning issues raised by the two people in attendance.
Comments:
1.Planning Controls
(a)Official Plan
The Part I Official Plan designation is Financial District, which permits mixed commercial and residential uses at a
maximum density of 12 times lot area, of which a maximum of 8 times may be used for non-residential uses. The Part II
Official Plan for the Theatre Block is also applicable, but has little relevance to this proposal.
(b)Zoning By-law
The general Zoning By-law designates the site as CR T12.0 C8.0 R11.7, which permits a maximum mixed use density of 12
times lot area, and a maximum non-residential density of 8 times lot area. The height limit is 76 m. Retail and service uses
are required for 60% of both the Queen and Yonge Street frontages.
(c)Necessary Amendments to Planning Controls
Amendments are required to both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit non-residential uses at a density of 10
times lot area instead of the maximum 8 times lot area. Amendments to the Zoning By-law are also required to permit the
height of the mechanical penthouse and flag mast as discussed above, to permit a mechanical penthouse covering more than
30% of the roof, to reduce the common outdoor space requirements, to reduce the requirement that 60% of the Yonge and
Queen Street frontages be street related retail and service uses, and to delete the requirement for shower-change facilities
related to bicycle commuting.
2.Planning Considerations
(a)Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board and Authority for Staff to Attend
The owner has appealed the Official Plan amendment and the Zoning By-law amendment applications to the Ontario
Municipal Board. Although the appeals were made under those sections of the Planning Act citing the municipality's failure
to make a decision withing 90 days of receipt of the application, these are "friendly" appeals in the sense that City staff have
been supportive of the project and have processed this application in a timely manner. Given that the minor variance
approvals were appealed to the OMB by the owners of the abutting site to the east, O & Y Properties is attempting to put the
current applications before the OMB to be heard at the same hearing, so as to expedite the overall approval process. The
Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application is a form of "insurance" for the owner in the event that the OMB
should decide that the minor variances do not meet all of the four tests set out in Section 45 of the Planning Act, and should
therefore not be approved.
An OMB hearing on the minor variances has been scheduled for June 22, 1999. If City Council were to adopt actual
By-laws to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, and those by-laws were appealed by a third party during the appeal
period, it might be difficult to consolidate those appeals with the minor variance appeals in time for the June 22, 1999
hearing date. Additional delay might result. Therefore, it is the intention that City Council will be adopting a position
endorsing the proposed amendments and draft By-laws, rather than actually adopting by-laws, and authorizing staff to take
that position to the OMB. The OMB has the jurisdiction to approve, refuse, or modify the By-laws.
This report is seeking Council authorization for the City Solicitor and other staff as required to not only present Council's
position on the draft By-laws before the OMB, but also to defend the decision of the Committee of Adjustment approving
the minor variances.
(b)Density, Height, Massing
The proposal is to increase the permitted non-residential density on the site from 8 times lot area to 10 times lot area. Given
the context of existing buildings in the area, the fact that a 12 times mixed use building containing residential and
non-residential uses is permitted, and the fact that the proposed massing is satisfactory, the proposed density increase does
not raise any planning concerns.
The office tower is set back from the property line on all four sides above, for most of the building face, a one or two storey
podium extending closer to the property line. The height increase consists of a larger than permitted mechanical enclosure
on the roof of the building and a flag mast, extending 15 m and 28 m, respectively, above the 76 m height limit.
The proposed building is compatible with surrounding existing and proposed development, and relates well to the abutting
streets.
(c)Shadow Impact
Staff have carried out a shadow impact analysis of the proposed development in the context of the existing surrounding
development. There is no significant adverse shadow impact on public sidewalks or public open space as a result of the
proposed increase in height of 15 m over the height limit.
(d)Minimum Frontages for Retail and Service Uses
The inclusion in the development of portions of the designated historical former Bank of Montreal building at 173 Yonge
Street, and the inclusion of the subway entrance within the development, make compliance with the Zoning By-law difficult
respecting the requirement for 60% of the Queen and Yonge Street frontages to be used for street-related retail and service
uses. Preservation of the facade of the historical building and accommodating a public transit entrance are in the public
interest, so the proposed reductions to 22% on Queen Street and 51% on Yonge Street are reasonable and are not considered
to be a significant planning issue.
In addition, the window sills in the historical bank building are proposed to be lowered to permit better views into and out
of the building, and an active use such as a cafe might be located in the southwest corner of the building. These features of
the proposed development are consistent with the original intent of the Zoning By-law provision, which is to enliven and
animate the public sidewalks through provision of active retail and service uses at grade in the abutting buildings.
(e)Common Outdoor Space
The preservation of portions of the historical bank building also makes it difficult for the proposed development to comply
with the Zoning By-law requirement for common outdoor space, because the bank building is built to the lot line on both
the Yonge and Queen Street frontages. A reduction from the required 305.1 m2 to 231.0 m2 of common outdoor space is
reasonable in the circumstances.
(f)Cyclists' Shower-Change Facilities
The Zoning By-law requires that 1 shower-change facility for each gender be provided in an office building containing
greater than 20,000 m2 of gross floor area, to facilitate bicycle commuting. This is the first such building proposed in the
former City of Toronto since those provisions were established in 1993 as a result of the Cityplan amendments. The owner
argues that such shower-change facilities raise issues of safety and security as well as maintenance responsibilities. The
owner would prefer that individual tenants provide their own such facilities if they so choose. Staff does see potential safety
and security issues with common shower-change facilities accessible to multiple tenants of an office building. For this
reason, it is recommended that the requirement be deleted.
(g)Heritage Preservation
The proposal will retain the Yonge and Queen Street facades of the designated historical former Bank of Montreal building,
and set the new building back on both frontages above the historical building to give it prominence. In the interior of the
historical building, some original elements from the building will be reused, and others will be reconstructed to form a
functional space to house the subway entrance and retail and service uses. A heritage preservation report prepared for the
owner by preservation architects was submitted to Heritage Toronto. Heritage Toronto has approved the final form of the
proposed development. Conditions are recommended in this report, at the recommendation of Heritage Toronto staff, to
require a Heritage Easement Agreement and a letter of credit to protect the historical building during construction and to
secure the implementation of the restoration plan.
Decorative elements of a former building on the site, in the form of bas relief panels, have previously been incorporated
on-site in the decorative barriers along Queen and Yonge streets related to the existing commercial surface parking lot. It
has always been the intent that these panels be incorporated in any new development to provide a historical connection to
the past. The owner has proposed installing these panels in the walls of the subway entrance escalator, and Heritage Toronto
staff are in agreement. The inclusion of these panels in the new development is recommended to be secured by provisions in
the Section 37 agreement.
(h)Section 37 Public Benefits and Agreement
An agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act is recommended to secure those provisions which were imposed
by the Committee of Adjustment on the approval of the minor variances for this project, namely:
(i)moving the subway entrance into the building off Queen Street East at the owner's cost;
(ii)a contribution of $750,000.00 to the City for both the Yonge-Dundas public square development and, if authorized and
imposed, a proposed Toronto Transit Commission entrance connection fee;
(iii)a letter of credit to secure heritage preservation matters; and
(iv)a contribution for public art equivalent to 1% of construction costs.
Moving the subway entrance off Queen Street into the building will result in a less congested and more attractive Queen
Street sidewalk, as well as a weather protected subway entrance with escalator and handicapped elevator service. In addition
to these public benefits, the owner will realize a substantial private benefit to the proposed development by having direct
subway access within the building, which will enhance the project. Access to the subway also provides an indirect
connection through 1 Queen Street East or the Eaton Centre to the PATH system, which also represents a benefit to the
owner.
As a result of these private benefits to the owner, Toronto Transit Commission staff have requested, in discussions with the
owner, a fee for permitting the subway entrance within the development, in the amount of 40 cents per square foot of total
gross floor area within the development. This would result in a cash transfer to TTC of $145,950.00. This fee or levy is
relevant to the $750,000.00 cash contribution by the owner negotiated by City Planning staff as a Section 37 public benefit.
Such funds were originally intended to be put toward the development of the Yonge - Dundas public square. The owner has
said that this contribution is all that the project can carry and still remain a viable project. Consequently, the $750,000.00
represents combined contributions for both a Yonge - Dundas Square and a TTC levy or fee. Staff intends to further discuss
the matter with TTC staff before a final decision is made by TTC.
The other two recommended provisions of the Section 37 agreement summarized above, plus all others as included in
Recommendations 1 and 2 of this report, are other public benefits more commonly obtained in an Official Plan and Zoning
By-law amendment process or a Site Plan Approval process (e.g. streetscape improvements) and are being secured in the
agreement, or are public benefits which are more appropriately secured in a registered agreement (e.g. public art) as
opposed to an unregistered Undertaking.
(i)Site Plan Approval
As previously mentioned, this application does not include Site Plan Approval. A previous application for Site Plan
Approval has been submitted, and is delegated to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services. The
minor variances or the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments must be approved by the OMB, or the appeals
withdrawn, before approval of the site plan application could take effect. This report is recommending that the Undertaking
required for site plan approval be executed prior to City Council's adoption of a position on this Official Plan and Zoning
By-law amendment application.
Conclusions:
The proposed development is appropriate, represents a good fit in the surrounding context, and there is no significant
adverse planning impact on surrounding facilities and uses, existing or proposed. The proposed development represents
good planning and should be approved.
Contact Name:
Peter Langdon
Community Planning Division, South District, East Section
Telephone: (416) 392-7617
Fax: (416) 392-1330
E-mail: plangdon@toronto.ca
--------
Appendix A
Application Data Sheet
| Site Plan Approval: |
N |
|
Application Number: |
198018 |
| Rezoning: |
Y |
|
Application Date: |
December 7, 1998 |
| O. P. A.: |
Y |
|
Date of Revision: |
|
Confirmed Municipal Address:173, 177, 181 Yonge Street, and 16 Queen Street East
| Nearest Intersection: |
Northeast corner of Yonge Street and Queen Street East |
| |
|
| Project Description: |
To construct an 18 storey office building with retail at grade and two
levels of underground parking. |
| Applicant:
Stikeman, Elliot c/o James
Harbell
Suite 5300, PO Box 85, Comm.
Court
869-5690 |
Agent:
Stikeman, Elliot c/o James
Harbell
Suite 5300, PO Box 85, Comm.
Court
869-5690 |
Architect:
Webb Zerafa Menkes Housden
- B. Andrew
95 St. Clair Av. W.
961-4111 |
Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)
| Official Plan
Designation: |
Financial District |
Site Specific
Provision: |
|
| Zoning District: |
CR T12.0 C8.0 R11.7 |
Historical Status: |
Designated |
| Height Limit (m): |
76.0 |
Site Plan Control: |
Yes |
Project Information
| Site Area: |
3389.5 m2 |
|
Height: |
Storeys: |
18 |
| Frontage: |
|
|
|
Metres: |
75.40 |
| Depth: |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Indoor |
Outdoor |
|
|
| Ground Floor: |
1493.0 m2 |
|
Parking
Spaces: |
143 |
|
|
|
| Residential
GFA: |
|
|
Loading
Docks: |
2 |
B |
|
|
|
|
| Non-Residential GFA: |
33896.0
m2 |
|
(number,
type) |
2 |
C |
|
|
|
|
| Total GFA: |
33896.0
m2 |
|
|
1 |
G |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Floor Area Breakdown |
| |
|
|
|
|
Land Use |
Above
Grade |
Below
Grade |
| |
|
|
|
|
Office |
32776.0 m2 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Retail |
1120.0
m2 |
|
| Proposed Density |
|
|
| Residential Density: |
Non-Residential Density: 10.00 |
Total Density: 10.00 |
| Comments |
For Site Plan Approval, see Application No. 398092. |
| Status: |
Preliminary Report adopted by Toronto Community Council on January 20, 1999. |
| Data
valid: |
December 7, 1998 |
Section: |
CP South District |
Phone: |
392-7333 |
--------
Appendix B
Comments of Civic Officials
(1)Director of Buildings Division, Urban Planning and Development Services dated October 26, 1998
Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:Build 18 Storey of retail store and office building with two level of basement parking.
Zoning Designation:CR T12.0 C8.0 R11.7Map:51H-311
Applicable By-law(s):438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by:The Webb Zerafa Menkes Housden Partnership
Plans dated:September 16, 1998.
Non-Residential GFA:33896 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 that the non-residential gross floor area be not more than 8.0 times the area of the lot: 27116.8 square
metres. The proposed non-residential gross floor area of the building is 33896.0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 2)
2.The by-law requires the provision of at least 305.1 square metres of common outdoor space. The proposed common
outdoor space is 231.0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART III 1(a))
3.(a)The maximum permitted height of the building or structure is 76.0 metres. The proposed height of the "mast" of the
building is 104.0 metres;
(b)The maximum permitted height of the mechanical enclosure is 5 metres on top of the height limit applicable to the lot .
The proposed is 14.2 metres ( approx.)on top of the height limit applicable on the lot. ( Section 4(2)(a)(i)(A) )
4.The maximum allowed mechanical enclosure is 30% of the area of the roof of the building. The proposed is 36.2% of the
area of the roof of the building. ( Section 4(2)(a)(i)(B) )
5.One shower-change facility for each gender has not been provided. ( Section 4(13)(a))
6.The By-law requires at least 60% of street-related retail and service uses on each frontages of the lot. The proposed are
only 22% on Queen Street East and 51% on Yonge Street. (Section 12(2)259.(ii))
Note:(a)Any Right-of-Way or easement issue must be clarified prior to the building permit application;
(b)The proposal requires a consent or approval from the TTC.
Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals
1.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the
Planning Act.
2.The property is designated historical, and the proposal requires the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario
Heritage Act.
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.
(2)Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated February 25, 1999
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 102 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;
(c)Designate individually the substandard parking spaces by means of clearly visible signs for use by small cars only;
(d)Provide and maintain signage in the vicinity of the parking access ramp and the loading area to clearly advise motorists
and delivery vehicles of the respective uses of the driveway and loading area;
(e)Construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of the property line and
not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;
(f)Provide and maintain a heating system to prevent ice and snow build-up on the access ramp to the underground garage
and loading area which will be exposed to the elements;
(g)Construct the sections of the driveway system which provide direct access to the parking spaces with a slope not
exceeding 5%;
(h)Provide and maintain a minimum of 2 Type B and 3 Type C 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;
(i)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;
(j)Provide and maintain a solid painted line separating the access ramp/driveway from the loading area;
(k)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services final approved drawings of the development with
sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building to enable the preparation of
building envelope plans, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;
(l)Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to filing a formal
application for a building permit;
(m)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;
(n)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;
(o)Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;
(p)Submit a grading and drainage plan and revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(d), 1(e) 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;
(b)That the Yonge Street 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
(3)That the owner be requested to provide and maintain not more than 120 parking spaces on the site.
Comments:
Location
Northeast corner of Yonge Street and Queen Street East, extending to Victoria Street.
Proposal
Construction of an 18-storey commercial building containing 32,776 square metres of office space and 1,120 square metres
of retail space at grade. Portions, including the existing facade of the bank building at Premises No. 173 Yonge Street,
which is designated as an historical structure under the Ontario Heritage Act, will be incorporated into the proposed
structure. As well, the existing subway entrance on Queen Street East will be eliminated and reconstructed within the
proposed building.
Previous Applications
Portions of the site were the subject of Site Plan Review Application Nos. 394014 and 395090 and Rezoning Application
No. 2046 and is subject to Development and Collateral Agreements registered on September 8, 1994 as Instrument Nos.
CA304891 and CA304892, respectively and statement of Approval/Undertaking No. U395090.
Parking and Access
The provision of 143 parking spaces exceeds the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 102 spaces,
consisting of 92 spaces for the office component and 10 spaces for the retail component and the Zoning By-law requirement
for a like amount. In order to discourage discretionary non-essential vehicle use, in accordance with former Council policy,
it would be preferable that the provision of non-residential parking spaces not exceed the essential parking demand
generated by the proposed uses. Given the general development activity in the area, the resultant and traffic impacts and that
the project has a direct connection to the subway system, it is requested that the owner consider reducing the parking supply
to be more in line with the estimated parking demand and the minimum By-law requirements and be limited to no more
than 120 spaces.
The general layout of the parking spaces is acceptable. It is noted that 3 of the parking spaces on Level 1 have a length of
5.69 m, whereas, 5.9 m is required. These spaces are acceptable and should be designated individually by means of clearly
visible signs for use by small cars only. As well, the parking spaces will be accessed from sloped driveways of 2.5% which
is acceptable.
Access to the underground garage is proposed via a ramp off of Victoria Street. The plans show the initial access ramp with
different slopes on different plans (one plans shows a 7% slope, the other with a varying slope of 6% and 12%). The slope
should not exceed 5% within 6 m of the street line and not exceed 15% along the remaining portions. Given that a portion
of the ramp would be exposed and will be jointly used by trucks accessing and egressing the loading spaces, it should be
equipped with a heating system to prevent ice and snow build-up. As well, it appears that the driveway connecting the ramp
from the street line to the internal ramp leading to the underground parking garage is not clearly designated. As a result, it is
recommended that a solid painted line separating the access ramp/driveway from the loading area be installed. This will
provide motorists accessing the underground garage with a delineated driveway.
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plans
As this project generates a non-residential parking demand in excess of 75 parking spaces, the owner is required to submit
in accordance with City Council policy, for review and approval, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan which
sets out measures to be taken in the design and construction of the project, as well as on-going strategies to reduce
automobile use. The Transportation Demand Management Plan required of the owner will include:
(a)A description of the measures (policies, programmes, processes, facilities, equipment and manpower) which will be put
in place to carry out and administer the TDM Plan;
(b)An assessment of the anticipated morning and evening peak hour trip-making by travel mode if no TDM Plan was in
place (base case), including all qualified assumptions;
(c)An assessment of the anticipated reduction in morning and evening peak hour automobile trips which can be attributed to
the TDM Plan. The targeted reduction is to be described, where applicable, in terms of:
(i)percent and numeric reduction anticipated in peak hour vehicle trips;
(ii)percent and numeric reduction anticipated in single occupant vehicles;
(iii)average automobile occupancy in the peak hour;
(d)An outline of measures to address auto travel reduction during off-peak time;
(e)A description of how the TDM will be integrated and operated, in the context of the plans and drawings for the
development proposal;
(f)A description of the mechanisms which will be used to:
(i)implement and administer the TDM Plan;
(ii)monitor, modify and enforce the TDM Plan, bearing in mind the automobile trip reduction targets; and
(iii)ensure the continuity of the TDM Plan for the life of the development.
The owner is advised that the preparation of the plan can be facilitated by contacting the Transportation Services Division
(telephone no. 392-7711) for assistance in the format and content requirements.
Loading
The provision of 1 Type G, 1 Type B and 3 Type C loading spaces within a truckcourt area satisfies the estimated loading
demand generated by this project for 2 Type B and 3 Type C 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, however, trucks would have turning
conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the underground garage. To eliminate this turning conflict, a cautionary signage
system must be employed advising motorists that trucks may be turning within the loading area.
Refuse Collection
The development is classified as large commercial in the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste and as such, is not
eligible for City collection service. As a result, the owner will have to make arrangements for 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.
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 Yonge Street 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
Right-of-way Management Section-District 1 at 392-7877 regarding the site specific permit/licence requirements for this
project.
(3)Manager, Service Planning, Toronto Transit Commission dated November 26, 1998
It is noted that the Yonge subway line is adjacent to the subject site. As the applicant is already aware, from ongoing
discussions with TTC staff, it will be necessary to obtain approval of the 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
(ii)plot plan/sections/elevations showing relation to the subway structure
(iii)structural calculations showing loads
(iv)geotechnical report
(v)excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans.
The applicant has been working with TTC staff with regard to the proposed new subway entrance connection. An
acceptable design for this connection has not yet been developed. Assuming agreement on a design can be reached, the
applicant will be required to enter into a legal agreement with the TTC and the City of Toronto. Subsequent final approval
of the foregoing development will be conditional upon the execution of this agreement and will be subject to any conditions
that may be specified to the applicant by Mr. Garisto.
Please inform the applicant that it is possible for noise and 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 and vibration and electro-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
and vibration and/or electro-magnetic fields and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such effects.
(4)Environmental Health Officer, Environmental Health Services, Public Health, Community and Neighbourhood Services
dated October 30, 1998
Thank you for your request of September 23, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at
Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.
The applicant proposes to construct an 18 storey building with 2 storeys of underground parking on this site. Information
available to us indicates that the subject site was used for Tinsmith activities on Yonge Street (siccode 29) in 1899 and a
store foundry along Queen Street in 1899.
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. The report should be submitted to the Medical
Officer of Health, for review, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(2)That the owner shall conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the
existing buildings. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and Ministry
of the Environment and Energy Guidelines. A report on the site and building audit should be submitted to the Medical
Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(3)That the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management
Plan which characterizes soil and groundwater conditions and proposes remediation options, to be submitted to the Medical
Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
(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.
Toronto Historical Board, as adopted at its meeting of March 10, 1999
Recommendation
That, based on the on-site inspection by Board Members and discussions with the applicant's team, the Official Plan
Amendment, rezoning, and site plan application affecting the designated property at 173 Yonge Street be supported on the
condition that:
1.The owner enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of Toronto to protect historic elements;
2.The owner provide a letter of credit in a form and amount satisfactory to the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto, and
the Commissioner of Finance to stabilize and/or encapsulate the remaining portions of the historic building in the event the
development fails to be completed; and
3.The applicant continue to work with Heritage Toronto staff to ensure interior fixtures and finishes are satisfactory.
Comments
1.Background:
At its meeting on 24 February 1999, the Board had before it a staff report on an application for Official Plan Amendment
and Rezoning affecting the property at 173 Yonge Street. The Board adopted the staff recommendation:
That Heritage Toronto recommend that this application is not in compliance with the "reasons for designation" as set out in
By-law #310-88 and therefore should be refused in its present form.
The Board requested staff to meet with the applicant to review the access to and from the disabled elevator to determine
whether it would be possible to save the double-barrel vaulted vestibule and to review whether the marble surrounding the
elevator should be reused in some portion of the floor.
2.Discussion:
On 4 March 1999, Board members Jon Harstone and Anne Stanley, accompanied by staff, met with the area planner, project
architect and restoration consultant at the bank premises. The group was able to tour the building while discussing the
proposal and questions raised by the Board.
With respect to the Board's specific questions, Mr. Harstone and Ms. Stanley concluded that the disabled access and
elevator were being handled well. They acknowledge the impracticality of retaining the column needed to support the
double-barrel vault in the entrance vestibule and accepted the proposal to replace that vaulted element with a skylight
recovered from one of the transverse vaults on the north side of the banking hall.
With respect to flooring and other interior finishes, Mr. Harstone and Ms. Stanley accepted that staff should continue to
work with the applicant to find acceptable materials.
The applicant noted that the TTC had inquired about converting on of the windows on the Queen Street side into a doorway
for TTC customers. Mr. Harstone and Ms. Stanley conveyed that Heritage Toronto would not support such a move.
In conclusion, Mr. Harstone and Ms. Stanley noted that staff was correct to express concern for the interior designated
elements but are supportive of the proposed alterations and incorporation of the bank's south and west facades and
reconstructed ceiling into the proposed site plan.
The applicant will still enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City of Toronto to protect the historic facades
and the applicant will still provide a letter of credit to ensure that there are sufficient funds to stabilize and/or encapsulate
the remaining portions of the historic building in the event the development fails to be completed.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of
the foregoing matter, the communication (March 29, 1999) from Mr. James W. Harbell, Stikeman, Elliott, on behalf of the
applicant, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
--------
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Joan Miles, West Toronto Junction Historical Society; and
-Mr. David Hanna, Toronto Ontario.
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication
(March 29, 1999) from Mr. James W. Harbell, Stikeman, Elliott, Barristers and Solicitors, with respect to the Official Plan
and Zoning By-law Amendments requested by Application No. 198018, pertaining to 173, 177 and 181 Yonge Street and
16 Queen Street East.)
72
Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West
to Rockwell Avenue - Proposed pavement narrowings (Davenport)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 26, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To reduce the incidents of motorists unlawfully travelling against the one-way operation on Blackthorn Avenue between St.
Clair Avenue West and Rockwell Avenue, particularly motorists exiting St. Marks' and Calvary Anglican Church parking
lot by the introduction of traffic islands.
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 narrow the pavement at selected locations on Blackthorn Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West
to Rockwell Avenue, described as follows:
"The narrowing of the pavement from a width of 8.5 m to a width ranging from 5.0 m to 8.5 m on the north/west side of
Blackthorn Avenue, from 99 metres north of St. Clair Avenue West to a point 10 metres further north thereof, and to a
width ranging from 3.8 m to 7.3 m on the west side of Blackthorn Avenue from Rockwell Avenue to a point 15 m south
thereof, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5353, dated March, 1999";
(2)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 are required.
Background:
In considering Clause 59 of Report No. 4, Item "p" Toronto Community Council at its February 17, 1999 meeting,
requested staff to review the feasibility of installing planter boxes on Blackthorn Avenue immediately south of Rockwell
Avenue, and on Blackthorn Avenue immediately south/west of the St. Marks' and Calvary Anglican Church parking lot to
reduce the incidents of motorists unlawfully travelling against the one-way operation on Blackthorn Avenue, and to report
back to the Community Council on March 30, 1999 with the results of the feasibility study.
Comments:
Blackthorn Avenue from St. Clair Avenue West to S.A.D.R.A. Park has a pavement width of 8.5 metres, and 7.3 metres for
the remaining portion to Rockwell Avenue. Blackthorn Avenue has a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour and
operates two-way from St. Clair Avenue West to the first lane north thereof, and one-way (northbound) for the remaining
portion to Rowntree Avenue.
Parking is prohibited on the east side, and allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
to Saturday on the west side, from St. Clair Avenue West to S.A.D.R.A. Park. 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 from S.A.D.R.A.
Park to Rockwell Avenue.
Twenty-four hour traffic surveys conducted between July 31, 1998 and August 2, 1998 revealed that approximately 800 to
1000 vehicles travel on this portion of Blackthorn Avenue per day, of which approximately 60 to 100 vehicles travelled the
wrong way.
In light of the above, to reduce the number of motorists unlawfully travelling against the one-way operation on Blackthorn
Avenue between St. Clair Avenue West and Rockwell Avenue, particularly motorists exiting the St. Marks' and Calvary
Anglican Church parking lot, traffic islands could be installed generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.
421F-5353, dated March, 1999.
The changes proposed to Blackthorn Avenue 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
Blackthorn Avenue
73
Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Palmerston Avenue
between College Street and Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 26, 1999) from the
Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
Purpose:
To report on the extension of permit parking hours on Palmerston Avenue, between College Street and Dundas Street West,
from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.
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 Palmerston Avenue, between College Street and Dundas Street West, be
extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week;
(2)Schedule Z of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be
amended to incorporate Palmerston Avenue, between College Street and Dundas Street West;
(3)the existing one hour parking limit in effect from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on both sides of Palmerston Avenue, between
College Street and Dundas Street West, be adjusted to allow parking for a maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m.; and
(4)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the
introduction of all necessary bills.
Background:
In a communication with attached petition from residents of Palmerston Avenue, between College Street and Dundas Street
West, Councillor Joe Pantalone requested that we report on the feasibility of extending the permit parking hours from 12:01
a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.
Comments:
Palmerston Avenue, between College Street and Dundas Street West, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis,
within permit parking area 4F, 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 Palmerston Avenue, between College Street and Dundas Street West, is an
administrative procedure.
In order to facilitate the extension of permit parking hours, it will be necessary to adjust the existing one hour parking limit
from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on both sides of Palmerston Avenue, between College Street and Dundas Street West, to
operate from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Conclusions:
Given that the extension of permit parking hours on Palmerston Avenue, between College Street and Dundas Street West, is
an administrative procedure, it is recommended that the hours be amended to indicate 10:00 p.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a
week.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Lisa Forte, 392-1801
--------
Councillor Pantalone declared an interest in the foregoing matter in that he resides on the subject street.
(Councillor Pantalone, at the meeting of City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, declared his interest in the foregoing
Clause, in that he resides on the subject street.)
74
Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,
of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -
(Davenport and Downtown)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 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:
(March 5, 1999)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for minor variances to permit two illuminated pedestal
signs for identification purposes at 1450 St. Clair Avenue West.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That City Council approve Application No. 999003 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former
City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated pedestal signs for identification purposes at 1450 St. Clair
Avenue West.
(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999003, of the requirement to obtain the necessary
permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.
Comments:
The subject property, known as "Prospect Cemetery ", fronts on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West between Harvie
Avenue and Mc Roberts Avenue, in a "G" (park) zoning district.
The applicant is requesting permission to erect two illuminated pedestal signs for identification purposes, on the east side
and west side of the main entrance gateway, at 1450 St. Clair Avenue West (see Figure 1). Each sign will have a length of
3.96 metres and a height of 1.42 metres, with an area of 5.62 mē.
The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
1.the horizontal dimensions of each of the proposed sign (3.96 metres) exceeds by 1.66 metres the maximum 2.30 metres
permitted by the Municipal Code;
2.the area of each of the proposed sign (5.62 mē ) exceeds by 5.37 mē the maximum 0.25 mē sign area permitted by the
Municipal Code; and
3.only one pedestal sign for the purpose of identification is permitted within any frontage of a property.
The first variance occurs because the horizontal dimensions of each of the proposed sign (3.96 metres) exceed by 1.66
metres the maximum 2.30 metres permitted by the Municipal Code.
The horizontal dimension of the pedestal signs is regulated so as to minimize the visual intrusiveness and to protect
sight-lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. In this case, the entrance gateway is set back about six metres from the
property line. The signs will be erected in the flower beds, in front of the semi-circular portion of the fenced wall, on the
east side and west side of the entrance gateway (see Figure 1). Since the signs are substantially set back from the property
line, in my opinion, they will not be visually intrusive for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
The second variance occurs because the area of each of the signs (5.62 mē) exceeds by 5.37 mē the maximum 0.25 mē sign
area permitted by the Municipal Code.
Signs permitted in the "G" (park) zoning districts are required to be small and low in order to limit any negative impact the
sign may have on the users of the park, on the streetscape and on the adjacent uses. In this instance, though larger than the
permitted size, the signs are substantially set back from the property line and need to be visible from the street, which I
consider appropriate.
The third variance occurs because only one pedestal sign is permitted within any frontage of the property. In this instance,
the variance is technical in nature because the orientation of each of the sign is set at an angle of approximately 45 degrees
in relation to the St. Clair West property line and facing southeast and southwest respectively. Only one sign would be
visible to the motorists and pedestrians travelling along St. Clair Avenue West. It is my opinion that the signs will not
adversely impact the cemetery, surrounding uses or the streetscape.
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
1450 St. Clair Avenue West
Insert Table/Map No. 2
1450 St. Clair Avenue West
Insert Table/Map No. 3
1450 St. Clair Avenue West
Insert Table/Map No. 4
1450 St. Clair Avenue West
(March 1, 1999)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to install two illuminated fascia signs in the
form of individual letters which identify the fast food restaurant "Burger King". The signs will be located on the north
elevation and west elevation at 267 College Street.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That City Council approve Application No. 999008 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former
City of Toronto Municipal Code to install two illuminated fascia signs, in the form of individual letters, on the north
elevation and west elevation at 267 College Street.
(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999008, of the requirement to obtain the necessary
permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.
Comments:
The property is located on the southeast corner of College Street and Spadina Avenue, in a mixed-use zoning district. The
property accommodates a two-storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to install two illuminated
fascia signs in the form of individual letters which identify the fast food restaurant "Burger King". The signs will be located
on the north elevation and west elevation at 267 College Street (see Figure 1). Each sign will have a length of 4.27 metres
and a height of 0.48 metre, with an area of 2.05 mē.
The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that fascia signs are required to be mounted wholly
against the wall of a building. Approval of a sign variance application is required because the individual letters which
comprise each proposed sign, will be mounted against a pre-finished metal sleeve with 0.12 metre projection, which is, in
turn, mounted against the wall of the building.
The intent of this provision is to limit the possible negative impact of signage on the appearance of buildings to which they
are attached and on adjacent uses. The adjacent uses are retail commercial in nature and have similar fascia signs. It is my
opinion, that these signs will not adversely impact the building, surrounding uses or the streetscape.
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:
Norm Girdhar
Telephone: (416) 392-7209
Fax: (416) 392-0580
E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
267 College Street
Insert Table/Map No. 2
267 College Street
Insert Table/Map No. 3
267 College Street
Insert Table/Map No. 4
267 College Street
Insert Table/Map No. 5
267 College Street
(March 9, 1999)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for
identification purposes at 456 Wellington Street West.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That City Council approve Application No. 999005 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former
City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes at 456 Wellington
Avenue West.
(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999005, 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 Wellington Street West, between Portland Street and Spadina Avenue, in the
King- Spadina Reinvestment Area. The property accommodates a one -storey commercial building.
The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes on the south wall
of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 8.48 metres and a height of 0.76 metre, with an area of 6.44 mē.
The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the sign obstructs and interferes with windows of
the building. Although, the sign does extend over two of the three windows on the south wall, it is my opinion that the
minor obstruction (0.15 m) of these windows does not affect light access or views.
I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent
and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.
Contact Name:
Norm Girdhar
Telephone: (416) 392-7209
Fax: (416) 392-0580
E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
456 Wellington Avenue West
Insert Table/Map No. 2
456 Wellington Avenue West
Insert Table/Map No. 3
456 Wellington Avenue West
Insert Table/Map No. 4
456 Wellington Avenue West
(March 15, 1999)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to install new identification signage at 522
University Avenue.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)City Council approve Application No. 999012 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of
Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign and two illuminated pedestal signs on condition that only the
top portion of the pedestal signs, being the letters and logo, be illuminated.
(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 999012 , of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits
from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.
Comments:
The property is located on the south-west corner of University Avenue and Elm Street, in a mixed-use
(commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a fourteen storey commercial building. The applicant is
requesting permission to remove the existing signs on the north, south and east elevations of the building and install new
identification signage to reflect the company's new corporate image (see Figures 1-5).
The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
1.the height of the fascia sign on the north elevation will exceed the maximum permitted height of 3 metres by 1.87 metres;
2.more than one pedestal sign will be erected within the University Avenue frontage of the lot; and
3.the pedestal signs will be set back 1.2 metres from the street line instead of 2.0 metres.
The first variance occurs because the height of the logo and name combined will exceed the maximum permitted height for
a fascia sign. The size of signs is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and on the
buildings to which they are attached.
The applicant's original submission proposed a back-lit sign box having a height 5.1 metres. However, I advised the
applicant that University Avenue is the City's most important ceremonial street and that signs should be designed in a
manner which are sensitive to the character of University Avenue. The applicant has worked closely with City staff on a
revised proposal consisting of individual halo-lit letters and illuminated logo. The logo has been appropriately sized to line
up with the decorative grill panels and the new letters would be installed directly above the logo, in the same location as the
existing letters. In my opinion, the revised proposal represents a meaningful improvement over the initial submission, and is
in keeping with other corporate identification signage along University Avenue.
The second and third variances have to do with the number of pedestal signs and their location on the property. The signs
would be installed on either side of the concrete staircase. The number of signs proposed is acceptable in this instance
because they would provide symmetry and reinforce the building's main entrance. Although the signs would be situated
closer to the street line than permitted, the signs are located on the podium level, approximately 1.5 metres above the
sidewalk, and would not obstruct or otherwise interfere with pedestrians. The applicant has advised that only the top portion
of the signs, being the logo and letters, would be illuminated, which I consider acceptable.
The property is also subject to University Avenue By-law No. 13409 which regulates signs along University Avenue
between Front Street and College Street. Under By-law No. 13409, the proposed fascia signs on the north and south
elevations are not permitted. The proposed signs are comparable in size to those which they are intended to replace and are
in keeping with other corporate logo signs along University Avenue. The applicant has applied to the Committee of
Adjustment for a variance which will be considered on May 11, 1999. A copy of this report and Toronto Community
Council's decision will be submitted to the Committee of Adjustment for its information.
I am recommending approval of this application subject to the conditions noted above, as I find the variances requested to
be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca
Telephone: (416) 392-0421
Fax: (416) 392-0580
E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
522 University Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 2
522 University Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 3
522 University Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 4
522 University Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 5
522 University Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 6
522 University Avenue
75
Leasing of Additional Space - 160 Eglinton Avenue East
(North Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion by Councillor Walker,
seconded by Councillor Johnston:
"WHEREAS the City of Toronto leases 6,649 square feet of space plus an additional storage mezzanine area at 160
Eglinton Avenue East for the operation of the Central Eglinton Community Centre (CECC) and the lease expires on
November 30, 20002; and
WHEREAS the CECC is operated as a Board of Management for community centre purposes for the benefit of the
citizens of the Central Eglinton area; and
WHEREAS over the last few years, the services provided by CECC have increased dramatically which has resulted
in the current facilities not being adequate to meet the needs of the approximately 1,500 young children and families,
1,700 adults and 3,200 older adults that use the facilities throughout the course of the year; and
WHEREAS the space is very congested and the organization has been forced to using areas such as converting a
closet into working program/administrative space which is clearly not conducive to good programming; and
WHEREAS the CECC has written to the local Councillors requesting that staff enter into negotiations with
Brookfield Homes Limited in order to lease the 3,201 square feet of additional space on the second floor of 160
Eglinton Avenue East, directly above the present Centre; and
WHEREAS staff have advised that no funding is available in the proposed 1999 operating budget for this purpose
and that the estimated cost on an annual basis would be approximately $64,000.00 and, if the lease was to commence
on July 1, 1999, for 1999 the cost would be $32,000.00;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT Toronto Community Council recommend that the Facilities and
Real Estate Division operating budget be increased by $32,000.00 for 1999 and the Real Estate staff be requested to
enter into negotiations with Brookfield Homes Limited to lease an additional 3,201 square feet of space on the
second floor of 160 Eglinton Avenue East and that final approval of the lease be conditional on the submission of a
report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism which supports the addition of the
space based on his review of the CECC existing space and program demands and confirms its requirements for this
additional space."
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication
(March 26, 1999) submitted by Councillor Anne Johnston, from the Chair, Board of Management and the Executive
Director, Central Eglinton Community Centre, respecting the leasing of additional space at 160 Eglinton Avenue East.)
76
Application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit -
Leslie Street, east side, 190 metres south of
Commissioners Street (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard
vending on Leslie Street, east side, 190 m south of Commissioners Street, notwithstanding the objection received by
the adjoining property owner, and that such approval to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in
Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.
The Toronto Community Council submits the report (March 9, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way
Management, Transportation Services, District 1:
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
Recommendations:
The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:
(1)City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Leslie Street, east side, 190 m south of
Commissioners Street;OR
(2)City Council approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Leslie Street, east side, 190 m south of
Commissioners Street, notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner, and that such approval to
the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of
Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
Mr. Trifon Bukuvalas, in his letter of October 15, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse
an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Leslie Street, east side, 190 m south of Commissioners Street.
Comments:
Mr. Trifon Bukuvalas, 142 Morse Street, Toronto, Ontario M4M 2P8, applied on July 22, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard
vending permit on Leslie Street, east side, 190 m south of Commissioners Street, as shown on the attached sketch
(Appendix 'B'). Mr. Trifon Bukuvalas proposes to vend hot dogs, sausages and cold drinks.
As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of former City of Toronto Municipal Code
Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their comments, if any. Mr. Lou Perin, Manager
of City of Toronto District Yard, 7 Leslie Street, Toronto, Ontario M4M 3H9, on behalf of City of Toronto has submitted a
letter of objection received by facsimile August 06, 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. Bukuvalas 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. Perin's concerns, they are summarized below along with the
staff's response:
Concern No. 1:The proposed vending location will adversely effect heavy bicycle and pedestrian traffic on the existing
bicycle path in the immediate vicinity
Staff Response:Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a
minimum 3.66 meters of paved passable space to be maintained for pedestrians.
A minimum of 4.6 m of paved passable space will be maintained at the requested location. Staff have inspected the area in
the vicinity of the proposed vending location and found sidewalk/boulevard vending at this location would not adversely
affect the use of the existing bicycle path.
Concern No. 2:The proposed vending location would create more garbage in the area
Staff Response:Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a
trash receptacle be provided by the vendor for food vending permits.
Concern No. 3:The proposed vending location should not be located on the grass
Staff Response:Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires the
proposed vending location be on a suitable paved surface.
The proposed location is on a paved surface as required by the Municipal Code Chapter 315.
Conclusions:
This application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal Code. Staff cannot issue Mr.
Bukuvalas 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 the City
Council grant the sidewalk/boulevard vending permit.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Lisa Forte, 392-1801
(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 March 30, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).
Mr. Trifon Bukuvalas, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing
matter.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Vending Permit - Leslie St/Commissioners
77
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)Final Report - Official Plan Amendment And Rezoning Application No. 197013 - 34 Noble Street (High Park).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following final report:
(February 8, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Official Plan
Amendment And Rezoning Application No. 197013 - 34 Noble Street (High Park), and recommending approval of by-laws
to permit 17 live/work units in an existing three storey non-residential building located at 34 Noble Street near Queen Street
West and Dufferin Street.
Mr. Robert Green, Climans Green Liang Architects Inc., appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter.
(b)Draft Report Of The Task Force On Community Access And Equity.
The Toronto Community Council reports having endorsed the draft report (January, 1999) of the Task Force on
Community Access and Equity, titled, "Diversity our Strength, Access and Equity our Goal", and the
recommendations contained therein.
(January 22, 1999) from the Chair, Task Force on Community Access and Equity, forwarding the Draft Report of the Task
Force on Community Access and Equity.
Councillor Mihevc, Chair, Task Force on Community Access and Equity, made a presentation to the Community Council
on this matter.
(c)1999 Operating Budget.
The Toronto Community Council reports having recommended to the Budget Committee, and thereon to City
Council that:
(1)recognizing that user fees, particularly those that are compulsory, such as garbage pick-up, are simply an
alternative tax, no new user fees be charged to residents or businesses for services currently provided by the City at
no cost;
(2)as a general principle, services be harmonized up, not down, over time if necessary;
(3)harmonization of funding for snow clearing services be prioritized so that pedestrian and transit access are the
first priorities;
(4)the funds of up to $76 million from the provincial government's announced reduction in downloading (public
health and ambulance funding) be used to reduce the impact of harmonization through the proposed service
reductions and the proposed increases in user fee charges;
(5)commercial garbage charges for small properties not be implemented until such time as an economic impact
study has been done and only if such a study indicates no negative impact;
(6)as a clear message that Council's adoption of the Children's Charter has real substance, funding of Public Health
programs directed at the health of children from conception onward, and which will give real effect to Clauses 8 and
9 of the Charter, be enhanced;
(7)the $14 million revenue item gained from the City transferring to quarterly payments to the school boards be
removed from the Budget pending a resolution to the negotiations with the school boards and the province;
(8)the $5 million in rental costs for day care spaces in schools be maintained in Children's Services;
(9)the Board of Health report regarding the harmonizing of Tuberculosis, Needle and Methadone Therapy and
Food Safety, be supported and approved;
(10)dental care for children and seniors in low-income families be provided throughout the City;
(11)the Cycling Budget's Ambassador program, and other cycling safety programs, be examined, so that the City
can honour the recommendations respecting safety arising from investigations into cycling fatalities;
(12)sufficient funds be provided to enable the full implementation of the City's portion of the Golden Task Force
report;
(13)in accordance with the original recommendations of the User Fee Committee respecting user fees for recreation;
(a)no user fees be charged for recreation; and
(b)fees be charged for specialized programs only;
(14)in event that Council does not adopt Recommendation No. (13) above, the recommendations of the Budget
Committee respecting recreation user fees be adopted, with the additional elimination of user fees for all adult
drop-in centres
(15)the heavy fee increases being imposed on residents of the former City of Toronto be rescinded.
The Toronto Community Council further reports having, reported, for the information of the Budget Committee that it:
(1)supports the decision of the T.T.C. not to raise fares in 1999;
(2)supports the T.T.C. budget as originally submitted to Council, and opposes cuts proposed by the Chief Administrative
Officer to the T.T.C. budget and the Wheeltrans Budget;
(3)reaffirms its support for the operating budget of the Board of Health as previously submitted, and the enhancements as
approved by the Board of Health;
(4)opposes the proposed Commercial Garbage User Fees;
(5)endorses the position of the Community and Neighbourhoods Committee on the 1999 consolidated grants budget,
specifically that the 1999 consolidate grants budget be flatlined at the 1998 level including the $1.3 million available for
reallocation to the grants budget;
The Toronto Community Council further reports having also:
(1)referred the communication (March 28, 1999) from Ms. Barbara Hurd and Mr. Frank Showler, Community Budget
Watch Coalition 1999, to the Budget Committee for consideration at its wrap-up session, with the request that
representatives from the Community Budget Watch Coalition be permitted to make a deputation to the Budget Committee
at that time;
(2)referred the communications (March 31, 1999 and undated) from Mr. Dalton Shipway to the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services, the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority and the Environmental Task Force for a
report thereon to the Budget Committee on April 16, 1999;
(3)requested the Chief Administrative Officer to report to the Budget Committee and thereon to Council on a prioritized list
to achieve the goal set out in Recommendation No.(4);
(4)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to submit to the Budget Committee an estimate of the rental for
recreational space in schools for inclusion in the 1999 Budget;
(5)requested the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the Budget Committee on April 6, 1999 on the school
boards' negotiations and ways of mitigating the $14 million revenue loss to the school boards, as outlined in
Recommendation No. (7);
(6)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to submit proposals to the Budget
Committee for annual passes and multiple purchase discounts for the island ferry service, similar to those available for
T.T.C. services;
(7)requested the Chief Administrative Officer and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to report to the Labour
Relations Advisory Committee, in camera, on a financing strategy with respect to labour relations pressures facing the City
budget for 1999;
(8)requested the Executive Director of Human Resources to report directly to Council, at its special meeting to consider the
1999 Operating Budget, on the front line staffing levels in the former City of Toronto in 1991 and 1997, and front line
staffing levels at present in the Toronto Community Council area for the following positions:
-street by-law officers;
-noise by-law officers;
-building inspectors;
-public health inspectors;
-animal control by-law officers;
-street cleaners;
-parks maintenance staff;
-finance department inquiry staff;
-licensing inspectors; and
-police officers on patrol in 14, 51 and 52 Divisions; and
(9)expressed its concern to the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and the Chief Administrative Officer that they did not
fully express in their report (March 18, 1999) respecting Services Harmonization - Financial Impact Analysis, the direct
cash burden on the residents of the former City of Toronto, through the imposition of heavy fee loads.
The report request to the Labour Relations Advisory Committee was adopted on the following division of votes:
Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Jakobek, Johnston, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, McConnell - 10
Nays:Councillors Miller and Walker - 2
(i)(March 5, 1999) from the City Clerk respecting the 1999 Operating Budget and forwarding the preliminary
recommendations for the Budget Committee to all Community Councils and Standing Committees for information and
requesting the Community Councils and Standing Committees to forward their recommendations pertaining to the 1999
Operating Budget to the Budget Committee prior to the commencement of the "wrap-up" meetings on April 6, 1999;
(ii)(February 24, 1999) from City Clerk, Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee forwarding the Committee's actions of
February 23, 1999 respecting Service Level Harmonization;
(iii)Clause 2 of Report No. 4 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, headed, "Proposed 1999 Operating Budget
Process and Schedule" which was amended and adopted by City Council at its meeting held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999;
(iv)(March 18, 1999) from Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting Service
Harmonization - Financial Impact Analysis;
(v)(March 22, 1999) from Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting Harmonization of Water and Water Pollution
Control Rates;
(vi)(March 22, 1999) from Ms. Anne Dubas, CUPE Local 79;
(vii)(March, 1999) from Ms. Diane Weinwurm, Co-Chair, The Lung Association Tuberculosis Committee;
(viii)(March 23, 1999) from Dr. Patrick McNamara;
(ix)(March 30, 1999) from Mr. Mark S. Hayes, Toronto Island Community Residential Trust Corporation;
(x)(March 31, 1999) from Mr. Dalton C. Shipway;
(xi)(March 30, 1999) from Ms. Joan Miles, Humber Heritage Committee;
(xii)(Undated) from Ms. Judith Tadman, Finance Program Coordinator, Voices of Positive Women;
(xiv)(March 30, 1999) from Councillor Pam McConnell;
(xv)(Undated) from Ms. Anne Bird, Home Child Care Association of Toronto;
(xvi)(Undated) from Dr. Jack Lee, C.E.O., Wellesley Central Health Corporation;
(xvii)(March 30, 1999) from Ms. Simonne LeBreton, RN, Street Health;
(xviii)(March 30, 1999) from Mr. David Vallance;
(xix)(March 30, 1999) from Mr. Paul Raun (for Michael Rosenberg), Economics of Technology Working Group;
(xx)(March 30, 1999) from Dr. Jae Yang, Respirologist and Clinic Director of the Tuberculosis Program at St. Michael's
Hospital;
(xxi)(March 30, 1999) from Ms. Luanne Rayvals, Fred Victor Centre;
(xxii)(March 30, 1999) from Ms. Ruth Crammond, Executive Director, Davenport-Perth Neighbourhood and Community
Health Centre;
(xxiii)(Undated) from Ms. Barbara Hurd and Mr. Frank Showler Community Budget Watch Coalition 1999;
(xxiv)(March 29, 1999) from Ms. Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;
(xxv)(March 30, 1999) from Councillor Anne Johnston;
(xxvi)(Undated) from Mr. Dalton C. Shipway;
(xxvii)(March 30, 1999) from Ms. Fiona Nelson;
(xxviii)(March 30, 1999) from Ms. Janet Davis, CUPE Local 4400; and
(xxix)(March 29, 1999) from Ms. Shirley Mintz, Regent Park Community Health Centre.
Councillor Pantalone declared an interest in the foregoing matter as it pertains to child care matters in that as his children
attend a day-care centre which has an service agreement with the City.
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:
-Ms. Anne Bird, Toronto Home Child Care Association;
-Ms. Joy Thompson, Planned Parenthood of Toronto;
-Ms. Kathie Siriunas, Planned Parenthood of Toronto;
-Ms. Emmay Mah, Planned Parenthood of Toronto;
-Ms. Stacey Papernick, ACT Board Member;
-Ms. Simonne Lebreton, RN, Street Health;
-Mr. Paul Raun, Economics of Technology Working Group;
-Ms. Anne Dubas, Local 79, CUPE;
-Ms. Luanne Raybals, Fred Victor Centre;
-Ms. Ruth Crammond, Davenport-Perth Community Neighbourhood Centre;
-Mr. Mark Hayes, Toronto Islands Residential Community Trust;
-Mr. David Vallance, Toronto, Ontario;
-Mr. Frank Showler, Community Budget Watch Coalition;
-Ms. Barbara Hurd, Toronto, Ontario;
-Ms. Andrea Bowkor, Toronto Cycling Committee;
-Ms. Joan Doiron, Toronto Pedestrian Committee;
-Ms. Joan Miles, Pedestrian Committee, Green Tourism Association;
-Mr. Dalton C. Shipway, Council of Toronto Watersheds;
-Ms. Fiona Nelson, Toronto, Ontario;
-Ms. Shirley Mintz, Regent Park Community Health Centre;
-Mr. Alan Burke, East Beach Community Association;
-Ms. Janet Davis, CUPE 4400;
-Mr. Dennis Long, Breakaway Youth and Family Services;
-Mr. Peter Clutterbuck, Community Social Planning Council of Toronto;
-Ms. Susan Pigott, St. Christopher House; and
-Ms. Charlotte Maher, Toronto, Ontario.
(d)Council Legislative Process Review - Deputations At Committee Meetings.
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:
(February 12, 1999) from the City Clerk respecting Council Legislative Process Review - Deputations at Committee
Meetings forwarding Clause 2 of Report No. 1 of the Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto
Transition Team, headed, "Council Legislative Process Review - Deputations at Committee Meetings", which was adopted,
as amended, by City Council at its Meeting held on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.
(e)Search Lights on the CN Tower (Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information and having
forwarded same to the Chief Building Official for appropriate action:
(February 26, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting Search Lights on the CN Tower (Downtown) and recommending that
this report be received for information.
(f)Preliminary Report On Application No. 298007 To Amend The Zoning By-law - 318 Clinton Street
(Trinity-Niagara).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:
(March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Application No. 298007 to
Amend the Zoning By-law - 318 Clinton Street (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that
(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to
discuss the application and to notify tenants and owners within 300 metres of the site, residents associations and the Ward
Councillors.
(2)the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise
Impact Statement. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project.
(g)Preliminary Report On Rezoning Application No. 198020 - 31 St. Clements Avenue (North Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:
(March 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application
No. 198020 - 31 St. Clements Avenue (North Toronto), and recommending that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services be requested to hold a public meeting to discuss the application, and to notify owners and tenants
within 300 metres of the site, area residents' associations and the Ward Councillors.
(h)Preliminary Report On Application No. 199001 For An Amendment To The Official Plan And Zoning By-law
And Plan Of Subdivision Application No. 499001, To Permit The Construction Of Six Detached Dwellings And 92
Semi-detached Dwellings At 81 Turnberry Avenue (Davenport).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report and having requested
that the public meeting in the community be held on April 19, 1999:
(March 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Application No. 199001 for an
Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and Plan of Subdivision Application No. 499001, to Permit the
Construction of Six Detached Dwellings and 92 Semi-Detached Dwellings at 81 Turnberry Avenue (Davenport), and
recommending that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to hold a public meeting
in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and residents within 300 metres of the site and the Ward
Councillors.
(i)Preliminary Report On Application No. 298010 for an Amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law and
Plan of Subdivision Application No. 498041 to Permit the construction of one detached dwelling and 24
Semi-detached dwellings at 101 Union Street (Davenport).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report and having requested
that the public meeting in the community be held on April 19, 1999:
(March 10, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Application No. 298010 for an
Amendment to the OP and Zoning By-law and Plan of Subdivision Application No. 498041 to Permit the Construction of
One Detached Dwelling and 24 Semi-Detached Dwellings at 101 Union Street (Davenport), and recommending that the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to
discuss the application and to notify owners and residents within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.
(j)Preliminary Report: 381 And 395 Mount Pleasant Road - Application No. 299001 For Zoning By-law
Amendments And Site Plan Approval To Permit A Gas Bar And Convenience Store (North Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:
(March 15, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on 381 and 395 Mount Pleasant
Road - Application No. 299001 for Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit a Gas Bar and
Convenience Store (North Toronto), and recommending:
(1)That I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application, and to notify owners and
tenants within 300 metres of the site, area residents associations and the North Toronto Ward Councillors.
(2)That the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, an owner may be required to submit a
Noise Impact Statement in accordance with Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of any requirements
by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.
(3)That the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a
report, audit and management plan which provides for the remediation of soil and groundwater from any hazardous
materials on the site.
(k)Relocation Of Advertising Sign From High Park Area To Exhibition Place (Trinity-Niagara).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on
April 28, 1999 and having requested:
(1)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report at that time; and
(2)the City Solicitor to submit the draft by-law(s) at that time:
(i)(February 21, 1999) from Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place respecting Relocation of Advertising Sign from
High Park Area to Exhibition Place (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that:
(1)recommendations 1, 2, and 3, of subject report be submitted to the City's Economic Development Committee;
(2)recommendation 4 of subject be submitted to the Toronto Community Council; and
(3)the reports of the Economic Development Committee and Toronto Community Council Committee related to this sign be
submitted to the City Council at the same time;
(ii)(March 23, 1999) from Interim General Manager, Exhibition Place, requesting deferral
(l)Parking On Mulock Avenue (Davenport).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:
(March 15, 1999) from Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, respecting Parking on
Mulock Avenue (Davenport) and recommending that this report be received for information.
(m)Request For Speed Hump Poll - Marchmount Road Between Shaw Street And Ossington Avenue (Davenport).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to
be held on April 28, 1999:
(March 12, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Request for Speed Hump Poll -
Marchmount Road between Shaw Street and Ossington Avenue (Davenport) and recommending that this report be received
for information.
(n)Liquor Plebiscite (Davenport).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information and having
requested the City Clerk to forward the report to the Junction Gardens B.I.A. for information:
(March 10, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting Liquor Plebiscite (Davenport) and recommending that this report be
received for information.
(o)Financial Support To The Fairlawn Community Centre (North Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report:
(March 16, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting Financial Support to
the Fairlawn Community Centre (North Toronto), and recommending that the report be received for information.
(p)Feasibility Of Installing Speed Humps On Glencairn Avenue, Duplex Avenue To Rosewell Avenue (North
Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to
review the feasibility of installing speed humps on Glencairn Avenue, Duplex Avenue to Rosewell Avenue, and
report back to the Toronto Community Council:
(February 18, 1999) from Councillor Johnston
(q)Request For Speed Humps On Dufferin Park Avenue Adjacent To St. Mary Secondary Catholic School
(Trinity-Niagara).
The Toronto Community Council reports having:
(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of
installing two speed humps on Dufferin Park Avenue adjacent to St. Mary Secondary Catholic School to prevent
illegal "drag-racing" on this residential street; and report thereon to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting
to be held on April 28, 1999; and
(2)directed the appropriate City Officials to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
(March 5, 1999) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva
(r)Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 174 Madison Avenue (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to
be held on May 26, 1999, for deputations, and having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency
Services to report at that time on the results of a poll:
(i)(March 15, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency
Services respecting Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 174 Madison Avenue (Midtown), and recommending:
(1)That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 174 Madison
Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; OR
(2)That, should the Toronto Community Council consider this proposal, this report be deferred to the May 26, 1999 meeting
of the Toronto Community Council, and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report at that
time on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations;
Ms. Maya Litman appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(s)Appeal Of Denial Of Application For A Boulevard Cafe - 481 Bloor Street West, Brunswick Avenue Flankage
(Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council, given the overwhelming opposition of the residents, and given that there were 155
calls for police assistance at the corner of Brunswick Avenue and Bloor Street West in the past 12 months, reports
having:
(1)deferred consideration of this matter to permit the applicant to consult with the community; and
(2)directed that, should the applicant wish to continue processing the application in four months' time, a poll be
undertaken at the applicant's expense:
(i)(January 28, 1999) from 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 that:
(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.
(ii)(February 11, 1999) from Mr. Keith P. Sharp;
(iii)(March 24, 1999) from Mr. Keith P. Sharp;
(iv)(March 24, 1999) from Mr. M. Swartz;
(v)(March 24, 1999) from Ms. Rhea Plosker and Mr. Michael Carter;
(vi)(March 24, 1999) from Mr. Keith P. Sharp;
(vii)(March 24, 1999) from Ms. Gail Misra and Mr. Mark Rowlinson;24.
(viii)(March 29, 1999) from Dr. Daniel Contogiannis; and
(ix)(Undated) from Mr. Mark Mainguy
(t)Tree Removal - 706 1/2 Gerrard Street East (Don River).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on
May 26, 1999:
(i)(January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting Tree Removal - 706
1/2 Gerrard Street East (Don River), and recommending that City Council:
(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; OR
(2)issue a permit for tree removal.
(ii)(March 15, 1999) from Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, reporting as requested; and
(iii)(March 25, 1999) from Ms. Myrna Moore
(u)Appeal Of Denial Of Application For An Extension Of Commercial Boulevard Parking - Woodfield Road
Flankage Of 1390 Gerrard Street East (East Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report and having directed
that a further poll be undertaken, at the applicant's expense:
(March 11, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency
Services respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for an Extension of Commercial Boulevard Parking - Woodfield Road
Flankage of 1390 Gerrard Street East (East Toronto), and recommending that:
(1)City Council deny the application for an extension of commercial boulevard parking on the Woodfield Road flankage of
1390 Gerrard Street East; or
(2)City Council approve the application for an extension of commercial boulevard parking on the Woodfield Road flankage
of 1390 Gerrard Street East, 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.
Mr. R. Guha, Matrix Entertainment Group Limited, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with
the foregoing matter.
(v)Site Plan Approval - Doctors' Hospital (Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having directed that the site plan approval for the Doctors' Hospital be
referred to the Toronto Community Council for consideration and the hearing of deputations.
(Councillor Pantalone, at the meeting of City Council on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999, declared his interest in Item (c),
headed "1999 Operating Budget", embodied in the foregoing Clause, insofar at it pertains to child care matters, in that his
children attend a day-care centre which has a purchase of service agreement with the City of Toronto.)
Respectfully submitted,
KYLE RAE,
Chair,
Toronto March 30, 1999.
(Report No. 6 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council
on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999.)
|
