1 Extension of Hours of Operation for the Boulevard Cafe - Kennedy Avenue Flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West (High Park)

2 Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to a Point 77.4 Metres East of Yonge Street - Transference of Parking from the North Side to the South Side (Midtown)

3 Construction of Stone Pillars and Wrought Iron Fence - 40 Burton Road (Midtown)

4 Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road (North Toronto)

5 Draft Zoning By-law - 266 MacDonell Avenue (High Park)

6 Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendments and Rezoning - 910 Logan Avenue (Don River)

7 Draft Zoning By-law - 720 to 724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue (East Toronto)

8 Tree Removal - 24 Hawarden Crescent (Midtown)

9 Tree Removal - 311 Bain Avenue (Don River)

10 Appeal - Curb Lane Vending Permit - University Avenue, East Side, 81 Metres South of Dundas Street West, Extending a Further 5.5 Metres South (Downtown)

11 Tree Removal - 163 Cortleigh Boulevard (North Toronto)

12 Tree Removal - 157 Coldstream Avenue (North Toronto)

13 Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West (Alexander Davidson House and Coach House) (Midtown)

14 Tree Injury - 7 Gange Avenue (Midtown)

15 Tree Removal - 150 Roehampton Avenue (North Toronto)

16 Installation of Speed Humps - Kennedy Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Morningside Avenue (High Park)

17 Construction of Lay-By - South Side of Eglinton Avenue East Near Redpath Avenue (North Toronto)

18 Installation of Speed Humps - Morningside Avenue, from Rambert Crescent to Windermere Avenue (High Park)

19 Stop Up and Closing - Remnant Portion of Public Lane Crossing Harris Road and Authorization of the Sale Thereof (Davenport)

20 Tree Removal - 8 Bin-Scarth Road (Midtown)

21 Appeal - Boulevard Cafe - 178 Bathurst Street (Convenience Address for 659 Queen Street West) (Trinity-Niagara)

22 Tree Removal - 42 Balsam Avenue (East Toronto)

23 Tree Removal - 77 Abbott Avenue (Davenport)

24 Settlement Report - Zoning By-law Amendment and Site Plan Approval - 395, 397, 399 and 403 Brunswick Avenue, and Part of 10A Kendal Avenue (Midtown)

25 Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 356 Spadina Road (Midtown)

26 Tree Removal - 353 Brunswick Avenue (Midtown)

27 Residential Demolition Application - 285 Indian Grove (Davenport)

28 Tree Removal - 326 Kennedy Avenue (High Park)

29 Appeal - Boulevard Cafe Deck - 1163 St. Clair Avenue West, Marcello's Pizzeria (Davenport)

30 Maintenance of Fences - 51 Osborne Avenue (East Toronto)

31 Maintenance of Fences - 348 Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

32 Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - (Midtown, East Toronto, Don River, North Toronto, Davenport)

33 Repeal of Designation By-law No. 494-95 - 123 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)

34 Heritage Easement Agreement - 18 Trinity Street (Don River)

35 Renaming of Beltline Park - The Kay Gardner Beltline Park (North Toronto)

36 Naming of New Parkette - North East Corner of Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue East - The George Milbrandt Parkette (North Toronto)

37 Eglinton Park Playground Development and Naming (North Toronto)

38 Parking Regulations - Ellerbeck Street, from the First Lane North of Danforth Avenue to Erindale Avenue/Hurndale Avenue (Don River)

39 Prohibition of Vehicles Over 2.0 Metres in Width - First Lane East of Pape Avenue Running Between Dundas Street East and Audley Avenue (Don River)

40 Provision of an On-Street Loading Zone for Disabled and Other Persons - Briar Hill Avenue and Rosewell Avenue (The Church of St. Clement, Eglinton) (North Toronto)

41 Provision of an On-Street Loading Zone For The Disabled - 30 Balfour Avenue, North Side, West of Palmer Street (East Toronto)

42 Provision of an On-Street Loading Zone For The Disabled - 21 Coxwell Avenue - Coxwell Avenue West Side, South of Gerrard Street East (East Toronto)

43 Traffic Calming Measures - Highfield Road Between Dundas Street East and Gerrard Street East (East Toronto)

44 Provision of An On-Street Loading Zone For Disabled Persons - Sultan Street, North Side, From St. Thomas Street To The East End (Downtown)

45 Prohibition of Standing Anytime on Grenville Street, Grosvenor Street and Elm Street (Downtown)

46 Provision of A "Commercial Loading Zone" Fronting The Royal Canadian Military Institute - 243 - 245 Simcoe Street (Downtown)

47 Parking Regulations and Installations of Parking Meters/Machines - Walker Avenue (Midtown)

48 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Committee of Adjustment Decision - 507 St. Clements Avenue (North Toronto)

49 Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - Committee of Adjustment Decision - 54 MacDonell Avenue (High Park)

50 Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

51 Agreement Required by Ontario Municipal Board - Dominelli Service Stations Limited - 759 Richmond Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

52 Stopping Prohibition on Hagar Avenue at St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)

53 Installation/ Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (High Park, Davenport)

54 Realignment of Pavement - Fairmount Crescent at Bowmore Road (East Toronto)

55 Establishment of an On-Street Loading Zone For Disabled Persons - 932 Dovercourt Road (Davenport)

56 Request for Korea Town Street Signs (Trinity-Niagara)

57 Proposed Installation of Speed Humps - South Parkdale Area (High Park)

58 Speed Hump Polling Results - Marchmount Road, from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue (Davenport)

59 Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Harbourfront Centre - 235 Queens Quay West (Downtown)

60 Implementation of a One-Hour Maximum Parking Limit - Davenport Road, from Uxbridge Avenue to the First Lane West (Davenport)

61 Establishment of a Student Pick-up/ Drop-off Zone - Poplar Plains Road, East Side, From Lynwood Avenue to Clarendon Avenue (Midtown)

62 Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Kennedy Avenue flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West, on condition that the patio is closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. Sunday to Wednesday and by 2:00 a.m. Thursday to Sunday; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Toronto Community Council at the end of the 2000 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extended hours of operation from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week for the boulevard cafe on the Kennedy Avenue flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West as requested by City Council at its meeting of July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999. As this a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council approve the continuation of the licence for the boulevard cafe on the Kennedy Avenue flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West, with the same terms and conditions as previously approved, i.e. 2:00 a.m. closing time, 7 days a week, since there were no complaints received from the neighbourhood; and

(2) The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council at the end of the 2000 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, in considering a motion from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski on behalf of the cafe operator approved the applicant's request for an extension of hours of operation for the boulevard café on the Kennedy Avenue flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West, from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week, on a temporary basis and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 14, 1999, on the operation of the café under the extended hours.

Comments:

A temporary cafe licence to extend the hours of operation to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week on the Kennedy Avenue flankage of 2199 Bloor Street West was issued to Mr. Borys Wrzesnewskyj, President of 904355 Ontario Limited, o/a Future Bakery and Café on August 23, 1999.

Periodic inspections have shown that the cafe operator has complied with the conditions as approved by City Council and other requirements of § 313-36 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, including the closing time restriction of 2:00 a.m. In addition we have consulted with a representative of Toronto Police Service, Division No. 11, who advised that no complaints regarding the business operation are on file.

Conclusions:

Given that the cafe operator has complied with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and the conditions imposed by City Council, I am recommending that the licence be renewed annually under the extended hours.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7894

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

- (September 10, 1999) from T. Kurehn;

- Petition with 21 signatures in opposition; and

- Petition with 18 signatures in opposition

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the south side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to Yonge Street, be adjusted to operate on the north side of the street;

(2) the 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. permit parking hours from a point 77.4 metres east of Yonge Street to Tacoma Avenue be changed to operate from 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and the 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. permit parking hours of operation from Tacoma Avenue to Ottawa Street, on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue both be adjusted to apply on the south side of the street;

(3) the "disabled persons parking space" located on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from a point 15 metres west of Ottawa Street to a point 5.5 metres further west, be relocated to the south side of the street; 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.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 9, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a request from Councillor Ila Bossons to transfer parking from the north side of the section of Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to a point 77.4 metres east of Yonge Street, to the south side, for the purpose of maximizing the available on-street parking spaces.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services 1999 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the south side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to Yonge Street, be adjusted to operate on the north side of the street;

(2) That the 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. permit parking hours of operation on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to a point 77.4 metres east of Yonge Street be adjusted to operate on the south side of the street;

(3) That the "disabled persons parking space" located on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from a point 15 metres west of Ottawa Street to a point 5.5 metres further west, be relocated to the south side of the street; 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:

Councillor Ila Bossons has forwarded a letter dated August 18, 1999, from the Summerhill Residents' Association, requesting that parking on Shaftesbury Avenue, from Ottawa Street to a point 77.4 metres east of Yonge Street, be transferred from the north side of the street to the south side in order to maximize the available on-street parking spaces.

Shaftesbury Avenue from Yonge Street to Ottawa Street operates two-way with a pavement width ranging from 7.3 metres to 9.7 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the entire south side and on the north side from Yonge Street to a point 77.4 metres east. Parking is currently allowed elsewhere on the north side of the street by permit only from 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. and for a maximum period of three hours at other times.

Field investigation has determined that there are presently 11 parking spaces on the north side of this portion of Shaftesbury Avenue and 24 potential spaces on the south side. Transferring parking from the north side of the subject section of Shaftesbury Avenue to the south side would result in an increase of 13 parking spaces as well as a corresponding increase in Permit Parking Area 10A.

At the present time, there is a designated "disabled persons parking space" located on the north side of Shaftesbury Avenue, from a point 15 metres west of Ottawa Street to a point 5.5 metres further west. This facility will have to be relocated to the south side of the street in conjunction with the transference of parking from the north to the south side of the street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, Traffic Investigator, 392-7711

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

- (October 7, 1999) from Mr. Nicholas Jennings;

- (October 7, 1999) from Ms. Jill Cameron;

- (October 7, 1999) from Mr. Don Huff;

- (October 7, 1999) from Mr. Bill Johnston and Mr. Ron Lillie; and

- (October 8, 1999) from Mr. Marc Gotlieb

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 be approved; and

(2) the applicant contribute $1,500.00 to the Urban Forestry Program for the planting of trees on municipal property in the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 30, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowners' request to construct and maintain stone pillars and decorative stone ornamental walls surmounted by a wrought iron fence, the overall height of 2.0 m within the public right of way which exceeds the maximum height permitted under the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks. In addition, the wall and fence is to be set back .61 m back of the curb rather than the required 2.1 m. 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 and maintenance of the pillars, decorative ornamental wall and fence within the public right of way fronting 40 Burton Road provided that the owner enters into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

On June 3, 1999, Volgyesi & Prost Inc, Architects and Planners, acting on behalf of the owner of 40 Burton Road, Toronto, Ontario M5P 1V2, submitted an application for permission to construct stone pillars, decorative ornamental wall surmounted with a wrought iron fence for an overall height of 2 m within the public right of way. In addition, the applicant intends on installing lamp standards on top of the stone pillars.

As noted, the pillars, decorative walls and fence are to be 2.0 m in height which exceeds the maximum height of 1.0 m permitted in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Furthermore, the installations are to be set back .61 m back of the curb rather than the required 2.1 m.

Currently, there are existing 4 decorative pillars together with light standards and stone walls within the public right of way in the vicinity of the entrance to 40 Burton Road.

In a letter dated March 28, 1999, the architect, acting on behalf of the owners has requested an exemption to the Municipal Code as they have incurred a number of security related issues including having their vehicle vandalized and garage broken into.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property. As there are similar installations in the area, it was determined that the pillars and fence would not negatively impact the public right of way.

Details of the pillars and fence are on file with my Department.

Conclusions:

As the pillars and fence do not negatively impact the public right of way, the construction of the pillars and fence should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7894

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

- (October 5, 1999) from Eleanor Leibel

- (September 21, 1999) from Mr. Andrew S. Volgyesi, Volgyesi & Propst Inc., Architects and Planners, forwarding two form letters from immediate neighbours

Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird & Berlis, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (September 28, 1999) of the Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form attached to the report, 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 a strata reference plan of survey, in metric units of the site, delineating thereon by separate Parts the lands to be retained by the Toronto Parking Authority, the remainder of the site, and any appurtenant rights-of-way as well as dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site-specific exemption by-laws;

(c) receipt by the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health of an approved Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil and groundwater conditions and proposes remediation options; and

(2) the report (September 20, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on October 12, 1999, and Mr. M. J. McQuaid, Weir & Foulds, addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 28, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit the maintenance and conversion of an existing seniors building and the erection of a 9-storey addition on the existing Toronto Parking Authority lot.

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) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (September 28, 1999) of the Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form attached to the report, 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 a strata reference plan of survey, in metric units of the site, delineating thereon by separate Parts the lands to be retained by the Toronto Parking Authority, the remainder of the site, and any appurtenant rights-of-way as well as dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site-specific exemption by-laws;and

(c) receipt by the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health of an approved Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil and groundwater conditions and proposes remediation options.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the Report of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (September 17, 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 development.

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) 397-4420; E-mail: rfeig@toronto.ca

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

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

with respect to lands known as 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road,

including lands formerly known as 226 Soudan 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. 151.

1. Section 18 of the Official Plan is amended by adding Section 18.498 and Map 18.498, as follows:

"18.498 Lands known as 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road, including lands formerly known as 226 Soudan Avenue

Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws with respect to the lands shown on Map 18.498 to permit an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted for the maintenance and conversion of an existing seniors building and the erection of an addition to the seniors building containing retirement uses, nursing care facilities, retail uses and parking extending below-grade, provided that:

(a) on the lands shown as Parcel A commonly known as 226 Soudan Avenue, the use of the existing house form building for seniors residential purposes is permitted provided that the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 400 square metres; and

(b) on the lands shown as Parcel B, the total gross floor area does not exceed 16,350 square metres, of which:

(i) not more than 12,320 square metres of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(ii) not more than 1,650 square metres of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(iii) not more than 2,400 square metres of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for commercial parking."

(Map to be inserted)

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

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto with respect to the lands known as 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road,

including lands formerly known as 226 Soudan Avenue.

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

1. None of the provisions of Sections 4(2)(a), 4(4)(b) and (c), 6(1)(a), 6(3) Part I 1, 6(3) Part II 2(iii), 6(3) Part II 3, 6(3) Part II 5 and 6(3) Part III 1(a), of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the use of the existing house form building for seniors residential purposes on Parcel A shown on the attached Plan 1, provided that:

(1) the part of the lot on which such building is to be used comprises at least the lands shown as Parcel A outlined by heavy lines on the attached Plan 1;

(2) no part of the building above grade, extends beyond the area outlined by heavy lines shown on the attached Plan 2;

(3) the height above grade of the building does not exceed 10.3 metres;

(4) the building contains not more than 6 dwelling rooms, where a dwelling room means dwelling accommodation in a retirement home consisting of one or more habitable rooms and culinary or sanitary conveniences or both;

(5) not less than 4 parking spaces are provided and maintained on Parcel A shown on Plan 2;

(6) the residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 400 square metres; and

(7) the landscaped open space on Parcel A is not less than 28% of that part of the lot.

2. None of the provisions of Sections 4(2)(a), 4(3)(a), 4(13)(a) and (c), 8(3) Part I 1 and 3(a), 8(3) Part II 1(a)(ii), 8(3) Part II 4(c)(i) and (iii) and 12(2)119(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended, shall prevent the erection and use of a seniors residential building containing retirement uses, nursing care facilities, retail uses and a parking garage extending below-grade, provided that:

(1) the part of the lot on which such building is to be used comprises at least the lands shown as Parcel B outlined by heavy lines on the attached Plan 1;

(2) the building contains not more than 230 dwelling rooms, where a dwelling room means dwelling accommodation in a retirement home consisting of one or more habitable rooms and culinary or sanitary conveniences or both;

(3) the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 16,350 square metres, of which:

(a) not more than 12,320 square metres is residential gross floor area;

(b) not more than 1,650 square metres of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes, and

(c) not more than 2,400 square metres of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for a commercial parking garage;

(4) (a) no part of the building above grade extends beyond the area outlined by heavy lines shown on Parcel B on the attached Plan 2; and

(b) the heights above grade of such building shall not exceed the heights as shown on Plan 2,

provided that nothing herein shall prevent the erection or use of a 0.4 metre parapet, the 5.1 metre mechanical penthouses, two dome 7.0 metre skylights and other structural elements permitted by Section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended, which may extend vertically beyond the building envelope;

(5) not less than 132 parking spaces are provided and maintained on Parcel B shown on Plan 1 to serve the building, provided that:

(a) not less than 69 parking spaces, accessed from Soudan Avenue, are provided for the exclusive use of residents of the building;

(b) not more than 56 parking spaces are provided for a public parking garage, accessed from Mount Pleasant Road; and

(c) not less than 7 parking spaces, accessed from Soudan Avenue, are provided for visitors to the Retirement Centre in the building; and

(6) a minimum of 16 bicycle parking spaces - occupant is provided, and a minimum of 12 bicycle parking spaces - visitor is provided.

3. By-law No. 670-87, being "A By-law To amend By-law No. 438-86 respecting a 6-unit residential dwelling at No. 226 Soudan Avenue as an addition to the existing building at No. 700 Mount Pleasant Road." is hereby repealed.

4. Section 12(1)163 of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, as amended, is further amended by deleting reference to 730 Mount Pleasant Road in Section 12(1)163(i) and by deleting Section 12(1)163(iii).

5. For the purpose of this by-law:

(1) "lot" means the lands comprising Parcel A and Parcel B on Plan 1; and

(2) each other italicized word or expression shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression is defined in the aforesaid By-law 438-86, as amended.

(Plans to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations respecting applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for the maintenance and conversion of an existing seniors building and the erection of a 9 storey addition, including a 56 space commercial parking garage, for 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road.

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 the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto), for lands known in the year 1999 as 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road, including lands formerly known as 226 Soudan Avenue, substantially as set out below:

"700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road

See Map 18.__ at the end of this Section.

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map __, to permit an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted, for the maintenance and conversion of an existing seniors building and the erection of an addition to that building containing retirement uses, nursing care facilities, and accessory and commercial parking, provided that:

(a) on the lands shown as Parcel A and formerly known as 226 Soudan Avenue, the use of the existing house form building for seniors residential purposes is permitted provided that the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 400 m2; and

(b) on the lands shown as Parcel B, the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 16,350 m2, of which:

(i) not more than 12,320 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

(ii) not more than 1,650 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(iii) not more than 2,400 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for commercial parking.

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 the former City's Zoning By-law (438-86 as amended) as it affects the lands known in the year 1999 as 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road, including lands formerly known as 226 Soudan Avenue, substantially as set out below, so as to:

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

4 (2) Height Limits: Buildings and Structures;

4 (4) (b) Parking;

4 (4) (c) Driveway width;

6 (1) (a) Use;

6 (3) Part I Density;

6 (3) Part II 2 (iii) Setbacks;

6 (3) Part II 3 Setbacks;

6 (3) Part II 5 Depth;

6 (3) Part III 1 (a) Landscaped open space

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

4 (2) Height Limits: Buildings and Structures;

4 (3) (a) Visitor parking spaces

4 (13) Bicycle Parking spaces;

8 (3) Part I Density;

8 (3) Part II

1(a) (ii) Setbacks - Window separation;

8 (3) Part II 1

4 (c) (i) & (iii) Setbacks - Angular planes;

12 (2)

119 (ii) & (iii) Restrictive Exceptions - in Yonge-Eglinton - setback

12 (2) 119 (iv) Restrictive Exceptions - in Yonge-Eglinton - angular planes;

(c) permit, on the lands shown as Parcel A on the Key Map attached to this report and formerly known as 226 Soudan Avenue, the use of the existing house form building for seniors residential purposes, provided that:

(i) the height of the building is no greater than 10.3 metres;

(ii) no less than 4 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lands;

(iii) the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 400 m2;

(iv) the maximum number of dwelling rooms is no greater than 6 where a dwelling room means dwelling accommodation in a retirement home consisting of one or more habitable rooms and culinary or sanitary conveniences or both; and

(v) the landscaped open space is no less than 28% of the area of the lot;

(d) permit, on the lands shown as Parcel B on the Key Map attached to this report, a seniors residential building, containing retirement uses, nursing care facilities and below-grade parking, provided that:

(i) the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 16,350 m2, of which:

(a) not more than 12,320 m2 shall be residential gross floor area;

(b) not more than 1,650 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes; and

(c) not more than 2,400 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for a commercial parking garage;

(ii) the maximum number of dwelling rooms does not exceed 230, where a dwelling room means dwelling accommodation in a retirement home consisting of one or more habitable rooms and culinary or sanitary conveniences or both;

(iii) the height of such building does not exceed the heights and angular planes as shown on the plans and drawings submitted with this application, and illustrated in Drawing No. 6, Elevations, attached to this report, exclusive of a 0.4 metre parapet and the 5.1 metre mechanical penthouses. This provision is not intended to prevent the erection or use of other structural elements permitted by Section 4(2) Height Limits (a) (i) and (ii) of the Zoning By-law which may extend vertically beyond such building envelope or the erection of two dome 7.0 metre skylights on the 3^rd floor roofs as shown in on the plans and drawings submitted with this application and illustrated Drawing No. 6, Elevations;

(iv) not less than 132 parking spaces are provided and maintained to serve the building, provided:

(a) not less than 69 parking spaces, accessed from Soudan Avenue, are provided for the exclusive use of residents of the building;

(b) not more than 56 parking spaces are provided for a commercial parking garage, accessed from Mount Pleasant Road;

(c) not less than 7 parking spaces, accessed from Soudan Avenue, are provided for visitors to the Retirement Centre in the building;

(v) a minimum of 16 bicycle parking spaces is provided for occupants and a minimum of 12 bicycle parking spaces is provided for visitors.

3. That, prior to the introduction of a Bill into Council, the owner enter into an undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act; and

4. That, once the Bill comes into force and effect, Council rescind:

(i) By-law 670-87 and

(ii) agreements numbered CT734843 and CT734844, dated August 9, 1985 and CT900374 and CT900375 dated September 16, 1987

and Council amend Section 12(1), subsection 163 of By-law 438-86 as amended to delete reference to 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road.

Background:

1. Applicant

The application and revised plans were submitted by Weir and Foulds, Barristers and Solicitors, Exchange Tower, Suite 1600, 130 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario, M5X 1J5 on behalf of The Briton House.

2. Site

The development site totals 0.39 hectares and consists of three parcels; the westerly 495 m2 parcel, located on land formerly known as 226 Soudan Avenue, accommodates a house form building used for seniors residential and accessory amenity purposes by the Briton House; the southerly 1,952 m2 parcel, located north-west of the corner of Soudan Avenue and Mount Pleasant Road, accommodates the 12 storey Briton House Retirement Centre with an adjoining single storey structure currently used as a grocery store; the northerly 1,466 m2 parcel is currently used by the Toronto Parking Authority as a public surface parking lot.

3. Surrounding Area

This section of Mount Pleasant Road is characterized by 2 storey structures with small, street related retail at grade and commercial office space above. A one storey commercial structure is located immediately to the north of the Toronto Parking Authority lot followed by a one storey commercial retail plaza with parking in front.

To the west, on Soudan Avenue, there are two and three storey detached and attached houses. Abutting the north-westerly lot line of the site is a 15 storey apartment building located at 55 Brownlow Avenue.

4. Proposal

The applicant, in association with the Toronto Parking Authority, in revised plans filed July 6, 1999, which are summarized in the appended Application Data Sheet, proposes to replace the existing Toronto Parking Authority surface parking lot with a 9 storey residential building. The addition will contain residential uses for seniors, nursing care facilities and a three level parking garage. This addition is shown in the drawings submitted by the applicant, some of which are appended to this report.

Currently, the Briton House facility consists of a 12 storey seniors residential apartment building and an adjoining 1 storey structure, currently occupied by a grocery store with a roof top amenity/recreation space serving the residents of Briton House.

The Briton House Retirement Centre and the existing grocery store are to be retained, while the amenity space above the store is to be enclosed and improved to provide a link between the existing Briton House and the planned 9 storey addition.

The proposal will result in 65 new seniors dwelling units and 60 new nursing care beds, in addition to the existing 95 dwelling units/rooms and 10 hotel suites, which will be converted to dwelling rooms, in the 12 storey tower and 5 dwelling units in the house form building on Soudan Avenue. The proposal will also add 1,497 m2 of indoor recreation space and 546 m2 of outdoor landscaped space to the existing development.

The proposed addition will add 86 vehicle parking spaces in a 3 level garage, 2 levels of which are below grade, with 56 spaces being retained by the Toronto Parking Authority for public use. The development, including the addition, will have a total of 173 parking and 28 bicycle spaces.

No changes are proposed for the existing house form building at 226 Soudan Avenue.

The total gross floor area of this development, both existing and proposed, will be 16,741 m2, including the commercial parking lot and the residential uses in the house form building. This represents a total density of 4.3 times the lot area, including the lot area associated with 226 Soudan Avenue and 4.9 times excluding the Soudan Avenue lot. In the latter instance, the total residential density is 3.72 times the lot area and the non-residential density is 1.18 times the lot area.

5. Public Review

The community public meeting, held at Hodgson Senior Public School on November 17, 1998, was attended by approximately 25 people. There was general support for the proposed expansion of the Briton House Retirement Centre as well as the proposed replacement of existing surface parking within a below-grade parking garage. The proposed retail frontage along Mount Pleasant Road was also supported.

A few people expressed concern about the height of the new tower, although it was noted that the height may be supportable in light of existing high rise buildings already in the area. Several people expressed concern about the lack of a drop-off / pick-up lay-by. The owner of the apartment building at 55 Brownlow Avenue, north-west of the site, expressed concern about potential negative effects on tenants in his building.

6. Applicable Planning Controls

Applicable Official Plan policies:

The site, excluding the parcel at 226 Soudan Avenue, is designated a Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area (LDMCR) in the former City of Toronto Official Plan. Permitted uses in LDMCR Areas include mixed use development to a maximum density (gross floor area times the lot area) of 3.0 provided that residential uses do not exceed a maximum density of 2.5 and non-residential uses do not exceed 2.0. The parcel at 226 Soudan Avenue is designated High Density Residence Area which would permit primarily residence uses to a maximum density of 2.0.

Applicable Zoning:

The former City of Toronto's Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) zones this site, excluding the parcel at 226 Soudan Avenue, MCR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5 with a 16 metre height limit. This zoning would permit a mix of commercial and residential uses to a maximum gross floor area of 3.0 times the lot area, provided that the density of non-residential uses does not exceed 2 and of residential uses does not exceed 2.5. The parcel at 226 Soudan Avenue is zoned R2 Z0.6 which would permit primarily residence uses to a maximum density of 0.6.

Comments:

7. Planning Considerations

7.1 Official Plan:

The proposed development is generally consistent with the intent of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto. The mix of uses contemplated in the development is consistent with the Plan. Although the density of the proposed development is higher than intended in the Plan, it is consistent with some adjacent developments and the adjacent High Density Residence Area designation.

7.2 Zoning:

The proposed use of the development is consistent with the intent of the Zoning By-law for the former City of Toronto. The height and density of the proposed development are in excess of those permitted in the Zoning By-law.

7.3 Site Plan:

In 1987, a site plan was approved for Parcel A, which applies to the existing house form building. Parcel B is subject to Site Plan Application No. 398084 which has been delegated to me for approval. I will be issuing this approval conditional upon the new zoning I am recommending in this report coming into force and subject to the owner entering into an Undertaking, to be executed prior to the Bills being introduced into Council, to secure the conditions of approval. These conditions will include development requirements, some of which are specified below.

7.4 Height, Density and Massing:

The height of the proposed addition is 28.7 metres. The existing tower of the Retirement Centre, to the south of the proposed tower, is higher, at 36.3 metres. The 15 storey apartment building at 55 Brownlow Avenue, north-west of the site, is also higher than the proposed development.

The density of the proposed addition, at approximately 6.6 times the lot area, is higher than the existing development at 700 Mount Pleasant Road. However, this includes almost 1,500 m2 of interior amenity space for the full development, which is lacking in the existing Retirement Centre. Overall, the existing and proposed development, including the lot area and development on Parcel A, 226 Soudan Avenue, will result in a gross floor area of 4.3 times the lot area and 4.78 if the lot and development on Parcel A is excluded.

The massing of the existing and proposed development, moving from south to north, consists of a 12 storey tower, a two storey podium with a domed skylight, a nine storey tower and a 2 storey podium with a domed skylight. This massing is illustrated in the east elevation shown in Drawing No. 6 attached to this report. The Mount Pleasant elevation shows that the three storey character of the development predominates, with towers punctuating the middle and south end.

I am satisfied that the height, density and massing of the addition to this development is acceptable. The tower to be added is lower in height than several existing developments in the immediate area. The massing of the towers provides, from north to south, a diminishing height, acknowledging the lower existing building heights north of the site. Further, the continuous three storey podium, with associated ground related retail and other active uses along the Mount Pleasant frontage, echoes the character of existing development in the immediate neighbourhood.

Adverse impacts due to the height, massing and density of the development for the existing two and three storey houses on Soudan Avenue have been mitigated, in part, by the retention of the house form building at 226 Soudan Avenue. The applicant conducted shadow and view studies of the proposed development and met with concerned neighbours. I am satisfied that the limited shadow impact on the apartment building north-west of the site is acceptable. The applicant produced illustrations of views of the proposed development from the perspective of concerned neighbours and met with those neighbours. I am satisfied that these concerns about view impacts have been addressed by the applicant to the extent possible.

7.5 Streetscape

The site of the addition is currently a vacant lot used for surface parking with the result that, on the Mount Pleasant frontage, there is no animation. The proposed addition to the development provides animation in the form of a lobby for the Briton House Retirement Centre and a retail unit. These active uses occupy approximately 70% of the Mount Pleasant frontage. The access to the public parking garage occupies the balance of this frontage. Pedestrian/vehicle conflicts relative to the garage entrance will be mitigated by measures required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to be secured in the Site Plan Approval.

7.6 Parking Garage

In my Preliminary Report, the parking garage and its access were listed as issues to be resolved. I understand that the Toronto Parking Authority has been involved with the design of the development and has not expressed any concern to me about the proposal. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed the proposal and, with the mitigation measures to be secured in Site Plan Approval, the access to the Parking Garage is acceptable. Further, there is a distinct separation between the public parking garage, which occupies the first two levels of the parking garage in the proposed addition, and the resident parking, which occupies the third level of the garage.

Conclusions:

I recommend approval of the revised proposal which will provide additional living accommodation for seniors in the neighbourhood, while retaining a public parking garage to be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority. The Mount Pleasant streetscape will be improved with this development, while adverse impacts to the west of the development will be mitigated, in part, by the retention of the existing house form building at 226 Soudan Avenue.

Contact Name:

Wayne Morgan, Community Planning, South District

Telephone 392-1316; Fax 392-1330; E-mail wmorgan@toronto.ca

Site Plan Approval: Y Application Number: 198015 398084

Rezoning: Y Application Date: July 27, 1998

O. P. A.: Y Date of Revision: July 6, 1999

Confirmed Municipal Address: 700 and 730 Mount Pleasant Road.

Nearest Intersection: Northwest corner of Mount Pleasant Road and Soudan Avenue.

Project Description: To expand the existing retirement centre by constructing a 9-storey building at 730 Mount Pleasant Rd., containing retail, retirement homes and Toronto Parking Authority (TPA) garage.

Applicant: Agent: Architect:

Michael J. McQuaid Weir and Foulds Cole, Sherman

1600 - 130 King St. W. 1600 - 130 King St. W. 75 Commerce Valley Dr.E., Thornhill

947-5020 947-5020 882-9190

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: LDMCRA Site Specific Provision: 670-87

Zoning District: MCR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5 ; R2 Z0.6 Historical Status: No

Height Limit (m): 16.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area: 3419.2 m² Height: Storeys: 9 + 12

Frontage: 80.2 m Metres: 28.70, 36.27

Depth: 42.67 m

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: Parking Spaces: 223

Residential GFA: 12312.0 m² Loading Docks: 2

Non-Residential GFA:4030.6 m² (number, type)

Total GFA: 14742.0 m²

DWELLING UNITS FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN

Tenure: Rental Land Use Above GradeBelow Grade

Total Units: 230 Residential 10711.4 m²

Commercial 1642.2 m²

TPA Garage 1199.5 m² 1188.9 m²

Indoor Amenity Space 1524.2 m²

PROPOSED DENSITY

Residential Density: 3.60 Non-Residential Density: 1.18 Total Density: 4.78

COMMENTS

1600.6 m2 of amenity space included in residential GFA and density calculation. 226 Soudan Ave. excluded in this application.

Status: Application revised.

Data valid: July 6, 1999 Section: CP South District Phone: 392-7333

APPENDIX A

COMMENTS FROM CIVIC OFFICIALS

1. Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings Division (August 9, 1999, revised August 23, 1999)

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Make alterations, construct addition and change of use to 700 Mount Pleasant Road, including 226 Soudan Ave (45 dwelling units, 65 dwelling rooms, grocery store & restaurant) and construct new 9 storey mixed use (65 dwelling units, 60 nursing care beds, retail store and commercial parking garage.

Zoning Designation: MCR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5 Map: 51K321

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

Plans prepared by: COLE, SHERMAN Plans dated: JUNE 30, 1999

Residential GFA: 12,710.0 m²

Non-Residential GFA: 4,031.0 m²

Zoning Review

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

2. The by-law permits a maximum height of 16.0 metres, the proposed building will have a height of 28.7 metres to the top of the roof and 33.78 metres to the top of the mechanical penthouse roof. (Section 4 (2) (a))

3. The by-law requires at least 39 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building ; 16 bicycle parking spaces are proposed. (Section 4(13)(a) and (c))

4. The by-law requires that the combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area be not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot: 10,257.6 square metres. The proposed building has 16,741.0 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

5. The by-law requires that the residential gross floor area be not more than 2.5 times the area of the lot: 8,548.0 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 12,711.0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

6. The by-law requires the window of a dwelling unit to be set back at least 5.5 metres from a lot line that is not a street line or from a wall of a building. The windows of the proposed building are set back zero metres. (Section 8(3) PART II 1(a)(ii))

7. The by-law requires that no building penetrate the 45 degree angular plane projected over the lot from an elevation of 13 metres above the average elevation of the ground at the street line. The proposed building will penetrate this angular plane. (Section 8(3) PART II 4(c)(i))

8. The by-law requires the building to be within the 45 degree angular plane projected over the lot from an elevation of 10 metres above the average elevation of the ground at a distance of 7.5 metres from a lot in a residential or park district. The proposed building will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane. (Section 8(3) PART II 4(c)(iii))

9. The by-law requires a building to be setback a distance of at least 6.1 metres from a lot in a residential district. The proposed building is setback zero metres. (Section 12 (2)119.(ii))

10. The by-law requires the first storey of the building to be setback a minimum of 0.15 metres from the lot line facing a public sidewalk. The proposed wall of the first storey of the building will be setback zero metres. (Section 12 (2) 119. (iii))

11. The by-law requires a building to be within a 60 degree angular plane constructed over the lot line facing an R district and a line 10.0 metres from a lot line facing a public highway. The proposed building will penetrate the 60 degree angular plane. (Section 12 (2)119.(iv))

12. The by-law requires a minimum of 28 visitors parking spaces to be provided. The proposed visitors parking spaces is 7. (Section 4 (3)(a))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

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

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

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

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

5. The proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.

6. All work within the City's road allowance will require a separate approval by City Works Services.

2 Works and Emergency Services (August 12, 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) Construct and maintain a 6 m wide opening in the wall abutting the north side of the driveway, at a height of about 1 m above the driveway, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in order to enhance visibility between the proposed driveway and the adjacent driveway serving the Shoppers Drug Mart store on the north side of the site, for both motorists and pedestrians;

(c) Install and maintain warning signs, signals and/or mirrors to enhance the safe operation of the proposed driveway at the north end of the site, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and in connection with this requirement:

(i) submit details of the proposed installation of these warning signs, signal and/or mirrors for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to their installation; and

(ii) arrange for inspection and approval of these warning signs, signal and/or mirrors by staff of Works and Emergency Services prior to the occupancy of the addition;

(d) Setback the control gate for the Toronto Parking Authority garage at least 8 m from the west limit of Mount Pleasant Road;

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

(i) A Strata Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units of the site, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands to be retained by the Toronto Parking Authority, the remainder of the site, and any appurtenant rights-of-way;

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

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

(g) File an application for an Encroachment Agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the existing encroachment of a canopy on Soudan Avenue;

(h) Submit and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a grading and drainage plan for the site prior to approval of the building permit for the site;

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

(j) Provide to the City, a one-time cash contribution equivalent to the cost of removal of the parking meter plus 2 years lost revenue, such cost to be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in connection with the establishment of the proposed "Disabled Loading Zone;"

2. That the owner be advised:

(a) Of the need to submit a separate application to the Department of Works and Emergency Services for approval of the proposed "Disabled Loading Zone", on Mount Pleasant Road;

(b) That the City will not collect medical waste (e.g. bandages, poultices, dressings, needles, syringes or other 'sharps' or any potentially infectious materials) generated by this project and that it will be necessary for the owner to arrange for private refuse collection service for any medical waste emanating from the retirement home; and

(c) 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 Mount Pleasant Road, north of Soudan Avenue.

Proposal

Construction of a 10,182 m² addition to the existing retirement/nursing home at the northwest corner of Mount Pleasant Road and Soudan Avenue. The addition, located on an existing Toronto Parking Authority (T.P.A.) surface parking lot would contain about 5,616 m² of retirement home/nursing home uses, about 135 m² of retail space, a parking garage containing a 56-space public parking facility to be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority, and 30 new spaces for the use of staff and residents of the project, located in a physically separate portion of the garage. The resulting enlarged project will contain 10,711 m² of retirement home/nursing home space, (consisting of 110 dwelling units and 125 nursing care beds/rooms, including "intermediate" care rooms), 1,642 m² of retail space (including an existing 1,454 m² grocery store) and a total of 168 parking spaces.

The proposal was dealt with in the Departmental report dated April 14, 1999. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous reports, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Existing Agreements

The site is subject to the Development Agreement and Collateral Agreements registered as Instrument Nos. CT734843 and CT734844 on August 9, 1985, respectively.

Parking and Access

The provision of a total of 113 parking spaces for the enlarged seniors project with access from Soudan Avenue through the existing parking garage, satisfies, as far as can be ascertained, the requirement of the Zoning By-law for 69 spaces and is acceptable.

The proposed replacement of the existing 55-space T.P.A. lot with 2 access points off Mount Pleasant Road, with a 56-space T.P.A. garage with a single access point directly adjacent to the existing Shoppers Drug Mart store driveway (serving its 15-space parking lot) at the north end of the site will concentrate all vehicular activity at one location. Consequently, the applicant was requested to have their traffic consultant (Cole Sherman) undertake a traffic review to examine the traffic impact of the proposed access configuration on the operations of Mount Pleasant Road. Cole Sherman submitted a traffic review under date of February 24, 1999 which concluded that, "Locating the TPA access adjacent to the Shoppers Drug Mart driveway would not create an operational problem given the low outbound left turn demand from the TPA lot". The report further indicates that the configuration would reduce potential pedestrian conflicts by consolidating the access locations. On the basis of the conclusions of the consultant's traffic study, the proposed driveway location is acceptable provided that an opening is created for at least the first 6 m of the wall on the north side of the driveway, at a height of about 1 m above grade, to enhance visibility between the adjoining driveways. The proposed opening illustrated on the drawings is acceptable for this purpose. There would be no objection to some form of glazing or fence being placed in the opening, as long as clear visibility is maintained. Furthermore, signs, mirrors and/or signals must be installed and maintained at the garage egress to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. Appropriate signage wordings could include "Caution-Watch for Pedestrians". The owner is required to submit details of these features for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to their installation. Furthermore, Recommendation No. 1(c) above requires that the owner arrange to have staff of Works and Emergency Services inspect and approve the installation of these signs, mirrors and/or signals prior to occupancy of the building.

The proposed driveway design, with the above noted mitigation measures, is acceptable.

Of course, the cost of installation of the new ramp, and removal of the old ramps will be the responsibility of the owner.

Ramp Slope

It will be necessary for the owner to comply with the requirements of the Zoning By-law with respect to ramp slopes as outlined in Recommendation No. 1(e) above. The proposed ramps are acceptable. Given the downward slope of the ramp, it will be necessary for the owner to submit a grading and drainage plan, as set out in Recommendation No. 1(h) above.

Loading

The existing retirement home is serviced by an 11 m wide by 16 m long loading area off Soudan Avenue, comprising 2 receiving spaces (including loading dock) and a refuse pick up area. These facilities are adequate to serve the expanded retirement home.

Disabled Loading Zone

Although below grade connections to the loading facilities are available for laundry and refuse servicing, the owner has requested that a separate at-grade loading facility for ambulances, Wheel-Trans vehicles and occasional delivery vehicles on the Mount Pleasant Road frontage of the site, adjacent to the residential lobby. A number of alternative loading configurations were reviewed. It was determined that in each case, adequate turn around areas could not be provided to accommodate these types of vehicles and that the provision of an on-street "Disabled Loading Zone," adjacent to the lobby would be preferable to the introduction of further access driveways at this location. This would require the elimination of one metered parking space on Mount Pleasant Road and in this regard, it will be necessary for the owner to reimburse the City for the cost of removal of the parking meter plus two year's lost revenue for the metered parking space. The owner should be required to submit a separate application to this Department for the establishment of a disabled loading zone, as more particularly set out in Recommendation Nos. 1(j) and 2(a) above. The amount of required payment of lost parking meter revenue and removal will be determined by this Department in conjunction with the processing of the application for the "Disabled Loading Zone" on Mount Pleasant Road.

Refuse and Recyclable Collection

The existing retirement home on the site presently receives City refuse and recyclable collection service. This service will be extended to the enlarged retirement home. The existing refuse/recyclable storage rooms and loading facilities shown on the plans are acceptable for this purpose, provided that the garbage chute shown on the existing plans, empties into the existing garbage room. Although not explicitly indicated on the plans, the owner's architect has advised that the garbage chute will empty into the existing garbage room.

The City will not collect medical waste (e.g. bandages, poultices, dressings, needles, syringes or other 'sharps' or any potentially infectious materials) generated by this project. It will be necessary for the owner to arrange for private refuse collection service for any medical waste emanating from the retirement home.

Reference Plan of Survey

The owner is required to provide a Strata Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units, of the site delineating thereon by separate PARTS, the lands to be retained by the Toronto Parking Authority, the remainder of the site, and any appurtenant rights-of-way.

Encroachments

The survey shows an existing encroachment of a canopy within the Soudan Avenue road allowance. As far as can be ascertained, the owner has not yet entered into an encroachment agreement in respect of this canopy. It will be necessary for the owner to obtain approval for this encroachment from this Department.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

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

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

Municipal Numbering

It will be necessary for the owner to apply for revised municipal numbering prior to the issuance of a building permit.

3. Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Division (August 19, 1999)

This will acknowledge the final plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on July 8, 1999. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

There are seven (7) City owned trees involved with this project which are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These trees must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

The applicant must submit a letter of responsibility for the two City owned trees flanking Soudan Avenue where the City's Specifications for Construction Near Trees can not be met adequately.

According to the plans filed, it appears that the tree(s) on private property which qualify for protection under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, will not be affected by the development. The applicant must undertake tree protection measures in order to ensure that the health of the subject tree(s) is not compromised as a result of construction activities associated with this development. The applicant must retain a Certified/Registered Consulting Arborist or Registered Professional Forester if they are unsure of appropriate tree protection measures.

I advise that the Plans (Drawing Nos. A1 and L-1B) prepared by Cole Sherman., date stamped as received on July 6, 1999 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services are acceptable provided that the condition(s) noted above are fulfilled.

4. Public Health (April 20, 1999)

Further to our letter dated February 18, 1999 our Department has received additional information from the applicant dated April 2, 1999. This information references an additional Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment conducted by McClymont & Rak Engineers in November 1992. This previous environmental investigation included analytical testing of soil samples for metals, VOCs and PAHs. We have reviewed the analytical tables and note that generally there are no exceedances of the MOE Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites, Table B residential land use criteria, except for a minor exceedance of the pH and beryllium from BH2/3-1 and BH9-1. Analytical results for Voc and PAHs were also in compliance with non-detectable levels being recorded. In response to recommendation 1(ii) of our February 18, 1999 letter, the BTEX/TPH exceedances near the north property boundary (7.62m and 8.25m below grade) will be excavated and disposed of at a licensed facility. Upon completion of this work, a verification report will be prepared and forwarded to the Medical Officer of Health. The owner/applicant should also be aware that the Excavation Dust Control Plan measures outlined in our February 18, 1999 letter must be implemented during all site activities as it will be incorporated as a condition of permit issuance.

Based on the information provided, I would indicate to you that I have no objection to the issuance of a below grade permit at this time. However, an above grade construction permit will only be granted upon the Medical Officer of Health receiving and approving the final verification report.

5. Public Health (February 18, 1999)

Further to our letter dated September 3, 1998 our Department has received a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (January 14, 1993) prepared by Raven Beck Environmental Ltd., and a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (September 1997) prepared by Winchurch Environmental Inc. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed these documents and offer the following comments.

Comments:

Historical site ownership has indicated that the area was subdivided for residential and commercial land use prior to 1895. At that time the property was sold from J. White to C. Laurie. The current owner is Wells Gordon Ltd who acquired the property from Grems Ltd which consolidated the ownership in 1971, prior to construction of the current facilities. A chronological listing of owners has been provided by the consultant which has been reviewed and was found to be satisfactory. Fire insurance plans for 1934 show the northwest corner of Mt. Pleasant and Soudan Avenue as residential. The area immediately north of the site was vacant. The 1958 plan shows the same residential configuration for the subject site. The vacant property to the north was then occupied by Mt. Pleasant Motors, a used car lot immediately to the north and further north by a service station. Air photos for 1956, 1960, 1965, 1970-73 document residential use until 1970, while the 1971 photo shows a large excavation on the subject site and by 1972 the apartment building and the grocery store were constructed. Might's Directories first lists the Mount Soudan Apartment Hotel in 1976.

A building inspection revealed that the Annex at 226 Soudan is only 3 years old, and is a new building constructed with non-hazardous materials. The exterior is brick with poured concrete and wood frame interior walls. The main retirement hotel is of reinforced concrete construction. The consultant states that no UFFI, and no PCB containing light ballasts were observed.

An inspection for asbestos containing materials (ACMs) revealed no sprayed asbestos and no cement sheeting or transite, however, ceiling in some units are texture coated plaster and there are vinyl floor tiles which may also contain asbestos. In addition, a hot water holding tank is present which is wrapped in asbestos, fibreglass and canvas. The covering however is in good condition. A small amount of parging cement is present on pipe elbows which is in poor condition and the grocery store room contains 15-20 feet of asbestos insulated piping which is in good condition. The consultant also reports that there are no USTs on the property. Based on their observations, the consultant recommends that ACMs on the property are safe when properly maintained and that parging cement on pipe elbows should be removed or repaired and must be handled and/or disposed of in accordance with Ontario Regulation 654/85.

The Phase II ESA consisted of 3 boreholes that were drilled to depths ranging up to 10.67 metres below grade. Boreholes 1 and 2 were selected based on potential petroleum impact observed during previous investigations (not submitted or reviewed by our Department), while borehole 3 was selected to determine petroleum conditions down gradient of the known petroleum impacts. The report states that the typical soil profile consists of sand and silt to depths of 3m, overlying native silt at a depth of 4m, with native sand below 4.5 metres. Petroleum odours were detected in soil samples from BH1 and BH2. At BH1, two zones were observed, one at 2.28m-3.05m and one at 6.10m-9.0m with a maximum vapour concentration of 9500ppm in a sample from BH1. At BH2, two zones were also observed, one at 0.15m-1.52m and one at 7.62m-8.38m with a vapour concentration of 12000ppm. Subsurface petroleum impact was not observed in any of the soil samples from BH3. Based on inspections of 2 monitoring wells installed on the site, the observed groundwater depth is approximately 8m, with a perched water table at 3m below grade. There was no evidence of liquid petroleum, however, petroleum odours were detected in monitoring well number 1. A total of 4 samples were submitted for analysis, 3 for petroleum related compounds (BTEX/TPH/VOCs) and 1 sample for subsurface conditions down gradient. A review of the certificates of analysis indicates that BTEX, TPH and VOCs are in compliance with the applicable MOE Table B residential land use criteria, with the exception of xylene (370ppm) from BH1 at a depth of 7.62m-8.24m below grade. Examination of the analytical results indicates that the concentration of VOCs detected in the groundwater are also in compliance with the MOE Table B residential land use criteria.

Although the sample from BH1 is not in compliance with the MOE Table B surface soil criteria (0m-1.5m depth) for xylene, it does not exceed the Table D subsurface soil criteria (>1.5m depth). The MOE guideline recognizes this as a stratified condition, and as such requires a Record of Site Condition (RSC). The MOE may then issue a Director's Order requiring the Registration of a Certificate of Prohibition on Title of the property. The report goes on to state that development of the site will require disposal of approximately 200 cubic metres of petroleum contaminated soil, as well as the perched water table.

Conclusions:

Based on the information provided, I would draw your attention to the following issues. First, the report did not provide any soil analysis for the general organic/inorganic/metal parameters listed in the MOE Table B residential land use criteria. If this information is available, it should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review and comment. If not, then further analysis of soils on the site will be necessary and should be representative of conditions across the entire site.

Second, since the site will require remediation, a final verification report certifying that soils remaining on the site are in compliance with the residential land use criteria. This report must be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of an above grade construction permit. Finally, the report did not provide details on measures that would be implemented during site activities to control the generation of dust. This Department will require adherence to the Excavation Dust Control Plan measures listed below at all times.

Recommendations:

1. (i) 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 Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development services for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

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

2 (i) the daily cleaning, or more frequently if required wetting of all soft and hard surfaces and any excavation face on the site with the addition calcium chloride or any other recognized dust suppressant;

(ii) the daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25m from the property line;

(iii) the designation of truck loading points to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off the site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimize tracking of soil on to the sidewalk and street. If the loading point becomes contaminated it should be cleaned or replaced;

(iv) all trucks and vans leaving the site should be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the applicant (developer) noting when each truck was washed and by whom;

(v) tarping all trucks leaving the site which may have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris;

(vi) supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified environmental consultant.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (October 6, 1999) from Ms. Barbara K. Mann, which has been submitted to Members of Council under separate cover.

(City Council on October 26 and 27,1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 19, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding a communication dated October 6, 1999, from Ms. Barbara K. Mann with respect to an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application for 700 and 703 Mount Pleasant Road (North Toronto).)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause by deleting Recommendation No. (3)(b) embodied in the report dated September 8, 1999, from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, viz.:

"(3) the owner be required to:

(b) secure the approval of CN/CP railways with respect to the proposed building setback from the railway right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit;".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the draft by-law attached to the report (September 29, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council substantially in the form of the Draft By-law to give effect thereto; and

(2) the report (September 8, 1999) from Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on October 12, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit the erection and use of 4 semi-detached houses on the lands municipally known as 266 MacDonell Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-law 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-law in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

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

(2) the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 29, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council, substantially in the form of the Draft By-law to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of October 12, 1999 will have before it the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Acting Commissioner Urban Planning and Development Services (September 8, 1999) concerning the above-noted subject. This report recommends a Zoning By-law Amendment which will permit the erection and use of 4 semi-detached houses on the lands municipally known as 266 MacDonell Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Conclusions:

N/A

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer, Solicitor

Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-1228; Fax: (416) 397-4420

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

as adopted by City of Council on , 1999

Enacted by Council:

Bill No.

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

with respect to the lands known as 266 MacDonell Avenue.

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

1. None of the provisions of the definitions of "grade" and "lot" in section 2(1) and of section 9(1)(f) of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use of 4 semi-detached houses and 4 private garages on the lands known in the year 1998 as 266 MacDonell Avenue provided:

(1) the lands upon which the semi-detached houses are erected and used comprise at least the site;

(2) each semi-detached house is located on its own lot and any application for a building permit for any part of the site complies with section 6(3) Part IX of By-law 438-86;

(3) no part of any building or structure located above grade on the site is located otherwise than wholly within the heavy lines shown on Map 2 attached to and forming a part of this by-law;

(4) the site contains no more than 4 semi-detached houses;

(5) each lot has a minimum lot frontage of 5.48 metres;

(6) not less than one parking space is provided and maintained for each semi-detached house in a private garage on each lot within the area outlined by heavy lines on Map 2 labelled "GARAGES" and fronting the "RIGHT-OF-WAY" shown on the attached Map 1; and

(7) no part of any semi-detached house shall have a height above grade exceeding 10.0 metres.

2. For the purpose of this by-law:

(i) "lot" means any of Lots 1 to 4 inclusive as delineated on Map 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law;

(ii) "grade" means the average elevation of the natural or finished level of the ground adjoining the front wall of a semi-detached house on any lot, whichever is lower; and

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

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

(Maps to be inserted)

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 8, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of an application to construct two pairs of semi-detached buildings at 266 MacDonell Avenue.

Source of funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. The Zoning By-law 438-86 be amended as it applies to 266 MacDonell Avenue, so as to:

a) exempt the site from Section 9 (1)(f) (use);

b) permit the use of the site for residential purposes, provided that:

i) the site contains no more than 4 dwelling units, each on its own lot;

ii) no part of the building above grade extends beyond the area shown on Elevations 2 and 3 attached to this report;

iii) the maximum building height does not exceed 10 metres;

iv) one parking garage is provided at the rear of each lot;

v) a minimum setback of 0.3 metres is provided to the proposed garages from the east limit of the right-of-way;

vi) each lot is maintained on a minimum frontage of 5.48 metres;

vii) a 3.04 m rear yard wood/lattice fence is erected at 262 MacDonell Avenue on top of the north one storey block/brick privacy wall at the expense of the owner of 266 MacDonell Avenue; and

viii) a 1.8 m front yard wood/lattice fence is erected at the south property line of the 266 MacDonell Avenue site.

2. Prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, the owner shall:

a) submit 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; and

3. The owner be required to:

a) Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

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

b) secure the approval of CN/CP railways with respect to the proposed building setback from the railway right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit;

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

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

e) submit revised drawings showing the requested setback of the rear garages, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

f) 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 Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of Bills in Council;

g) 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;

h) prepare an Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit; and

i) implement the measures in the Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

4. 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 the storm water connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff;

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

c) of the comments of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services with respect to the applicability of the Ontario Building Code to these buildings; and

d) of the need to include a warning clause in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and Lease advising of possible noise and vibration from the nearby CN/CP railway tracks.

Background:

1.0 Proposal

To permit the construction of two pairs of semi-detached buildings with parking garages located off the rear laneway.

2.0 Site and Surrounding Area

This 901 square metre vacant site was the location of a former industrial building, which has been demolished. It is located on the west side of MacDonell Avenue, two properties south of Wabash Avenue. To the north are two lots approved for one pair of semi-detached buildings. Further north is a 5.6 acre public park. To the west a new subdivision is under construction consisting of 10 detached and 5 pairs of semi-detached houses on a new street. To the south is a small scrap metal handling building. Further south is a mix of semi-detached and detached homes. To the east are detached houses, with the CN/CP railway line located behind the rear yards.

3.0 Consultation Process

On June 16, 1999, a public meeting was held in the neighbourhood. Eight residents attended in addition to one Ward Councillor, the community planner and the applicant/owner. Concerns raised by the residents at the meeting included increased traffic on MacDonell Avenue, the need for adequate lighting in the rear right-of-way, and the impact of the existing scrap metal yard on the proposed homes. A proposed privacy fence along the new public laneway at the south edge of the adjacent subdivision was also discussed.

Comments:

1. Current Planning Controls

The site is designated under the Official Plan as being within a Mixed Industrial Residential Area. The proposal is within the 2x density limits of the Official Plan Part I. Residential uses are permitted subject to a rezoning.

The site is zoned I1D2 which permits light industrial uses. The proposed residential use is not permitted as-of-right and a rezoning is required.

2. Planning Considerations

2.1 Proximity of Scrap Metal Yard

The abutting property to the south of the site is occupied by a small scrap metal yard which has co-existed with the neighbourhood for several decades. The scrap metal yard has a 9.14 m crane that operates in the rear of the facility. To increase privacy for future residents I am recommending erection of a 3.04 m wood/lattice fence on top of the one storey block/brick wall which separates the scrap metal yard from the proposed residential units. I am also recommending that a 1.82 m wood/lattice property line fence be erected by the applicant in the front yard to provide screening from the adjacent scrap metal material drop off area. My staff have spoken to the owner of 262 MacDonell Avenue and he agrees that these measures will help avoid possible complaints about his operation.

The applicant provided a noise impact statement which states that the scrap metal handling operation does not contain any noise sources. A small shear and compactor are contained within the building. Given the small scale of this operation, the fact that the compactor is contained within the building, the recommended fencing, and the lack of complaints from the surrounding neighbourhood, I believe this is an acceptable relationship.

2.2 Soil

A Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment was undertaken by Rubicon Environmental Inc.

This assessment, which included a historical review, site building audit, and soil sample testing for petroleum products, was found to be satisfactory by staff of the City's Environmental Health Services. However, further sub-surface soil testing has been requested to check for concentrations of copper, lead and zinc, now that the former industrial building has been demolished. The soil test results must be submitted to the Environmental Health Services prior to the submission of the Bills in Council for the Site Specific By-law.

2.3 Proximity to Rail Corridor

The noise impact statement for the site also reviewed the significance of noise sources from the CN/CP railway track located at the rear of the houses on the east side of MacDonell Avenue. The noise impact statement concluded that the proposed buildings are well shielded from railway noise by the existing row of houses on MacDonell Avenue. The noise level from the CN/CP railway tracks was found to be within acceptable noise level guidelines. The noise impact statement advises of the need to include a standard warning on all Agreements of Purchase and Sale and Lease, advising of potential noise and vibration from the nearby CN/CP railway tracks.

The CN/CP railway property line is approximately 20 metres east of the proposed semi-detached buildings. CN policy normally requires a distance separation of 30 metres (or equivalent crash barrier protection). As noted above, an existing row of houses is located between this site and the railway right-of-way, and there is no opportunity to construct a crash barrier or equivalent protection. The property to the north has been rezoned to permit new homes approximately 16 m from the railway right-of-way. However, since comments have not been received to date from the railways, I am recommending that the applicant secure approval for the proposed setback from CN/CP, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

2.4 Lot Severances

The applicant intends to market his project as freehold units and this requires the creation of individual lots. I have no objection to the creation of the four proposed lots through Committee of Adjustment severances. The property to the north was previously rezoned to permit one pair of semi-detached buildings and the current application will permit construction of the southern portion of the development. Upon approval of the current rezoning application, the applicant will apply for Committee of Adjustment approval to sever the parcels and create freehold lots for each semi-detached dwelling.

2.5 Public Lane Access/Privacy Fences to Wright Avenue Properties

During the public consultation meeting several home owners on Wright Avenue raised issues regarding the developer's abutting project at 7-29 Wabash Avenue. The developer indicated that he was committed to providing a brick or wood privacy fence for the owners abutting the laneway along the south edge of the property. Subsequent review by Works and Emergency Services indicated that a wood fence could be attached to the existing concrete retaining wall. The applicant has indicated a willingness to provide access to the rear of the Wright Avenue properties from the laneway after approval of the project. However, the design and construction of the retaining wall does not provide curb cuts to permit this access. As a result Works and Emergency Services are reviewing the wall construction and slope of the laneway to see if curb cuts for all of the affected properties are possible.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks

Telephone: (416) 392-0758; Fax: (416) 392-1330; E-Mail: bbrooks@toronto.ca

Confirmed Municipal Address: 266 MacDonell Avenue

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Medical Officer of Health (March 4, 1999)

Thank you for your request of January 8, 1999 to review and comment on the above referenced site. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

Comments:

Our Department has previously commented on this site on April 3, 1996 when an application (#196008) to convert the existing 2-storey industrial building into residential dwellings was filed. At that time we requested the owner/applicant to provide a Historical Review, Site and Building Audit, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan, and a Dust Control Plan. Additional comments by us on June 5, 1998 found that no historical review, no dust control plan, and limited soil and groundwater testing was provided, which did indicate elevated levels of copper, lead and zinc. The consultant at that time recommended further sampling. Our most recent comments related to a Demolition Permit application (#416121) which included a Phase 1 and 2 Environmental Site Assessment by Rubicon Environmental Inc. Our comments noted that the historical review and site/building audit were satisfactory. The soil analysis indicated that it would be classified as registerable non-hazardous, however, the sampling related only to petroleum contamination. The consultant at that time also recommended additional subsurface sampling once the demolition is complete. The site is currently vacant and the applicant is requesting permission to sever the land into 3 parts and build one pair of 2-storey semi-detached houses and half of another pair.

Recommendations:

1. (i) 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 Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

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

2. (i) That the owner prepare an Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any permit.

(ii) That the owner implement the measures in the Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

By copy of this letter I have advised the owner/applicant accordingly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 392-7685.

2. Urban Planning and Development Services (December 14, 1998)

Preliminary Zoning Notice

Draft NoticeFinal Notice

Municipal Address Ward Zone District

266 MacDonell Av Don River I1 D2

Owner

590266 Ontario Ltd.

Applicant

Greg Bettencourt

Existing Use

Vacant Land (Light Manufacturing building to be demolished)

Proposed Use

Semi-detached houses

Description

Sever lots and build (2) two pairs of semi-detached houses.

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. For the proposal to proceed, the plans may be revised to comply, an application for variance(s) be granted by the Committee of Adjustment, or City Council adopts a site specific By-law. Revised plans should be sent to the Examiner, Robert Johnston. For information on Committee of Adjustment approvals and application forms, please visit the Committee of Adjustment Office, Main Floor West, Toronto City Hall or telephone (416) 392-7565. For an application for a site specific By-law, telephone (416) 392-7132.

1. The proposed use, (semi-detached houses and their proposed garages at rear of the lot), are not permitted. (Section 9(1)(f))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1. The proposal DOES NOT require Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2. The proposal DOES NOT require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

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

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

Additional Comments

Changes to the proposal

Revised plans must clearly identify all changes. Extensive changes to the proposal will require a new application to be submitted along with a separate application fee.

City of Toronto Requirements

Environmental measures

In addition to the energy and water conservation measures in the Ontario Building Code (ASHRAE 90.1 Section 9.25, Part 7 etc.), it is City Council's policy that projects be designed with regard for energy and water conservation, material recovery and waste reduction and, where applicable, noise impact, transportation demand management and avoidance of exposure to electric and magnetic fields.

Protection of trees

The City requires the protection of existing trees on City and private property and encourages new tree planting. A permit is required to injure or destroy any public tree and those private trees having a diameter of 30 centimetres or more measured at 1.4 metres above ground level. (City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees)

Protection against termites

New construction with wood structural members must be made resistant to termites. Homeowners are also encouraged to construct in a manner that will discourage termite infestation, including re-treating previously treated soil which has been disturbed. (Ontario Building Code and City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 326)

Smoke alarms

City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 300, and Building and Fire Codes require smoke alarms be installed and maintained on each storey of every dwelling unit, including the basement.

Carbon Monoxide Detectors

In addition to the Ontario Building Code requirement for a carbon monoxide detector in each room in which a solid fuel-burning appliance is installed, the Carbon Monoxide Detector By-law requires that at least one (1) carbon monoxide detector be installed in each dwelling unit containing a fuel-burning appliance, in each dwelling unit located on the same floor level as a fuel-burning appliance, and in each dwelling unit located on the two floors immediately above a floor level containing a fuel-burning appliance. (City of Toronto By-law No. 60-1998)

Preliminary Zoning Notice sent to:

Distribution: District Inspections Office, Information and Permit Services

3. Works and Emergency Services (April 6, 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) Set back the garages a minimum of 0.3 m from the west property line;

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

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

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

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

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

(e) Submit revised drawings with respect to Recommendation No 1(b), above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2. That the owner be advised:

(a) That the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff; 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

West side of MacDonell Avenue, south of Wabash Avenue.

Previous Applications

This site was the subject of Site Plan Review Application No. 390191 and Rezoning Application No. 196008.

Proposal

Construction of one and one-half semi-detached dwelling buildings (3 dwelling units). The other half of the northerly semi-detached dwelling building is the subject of Rezoning Application No. 195022 on which comments were provided in my March 31, 1999 report to you.

Parking and Access

The proposed provision of one parking space to serve each dwelling unit, contained in a detached garage at the rear of each lot, satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the project and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like number.

Ingress to/egress from the parking garages is provided via a 4.27 m wide right-of way at the rear of the site, extending between Wabash Avenue to the north and a 5.0 m wide east-west public lane to the south. Given the narrow width of this right-of-way, vehicular manoeuvres into and out of the parking garages would be difficult. In this regard, I note that the existing garages on the west side of the right-of-way are set back 0.3 m from the limit of the right-of-way. Therefore, in order to provide some additional manoeuvring room, it is recommended that the proposed garages also be set back at least 0.3 m from the east limit of the right-of-way.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with curbside refuse collection on MacDonell Avenue in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste).

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution system and sanitary sewer system are adequate to serve this project.

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).

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause by:

(1) adding to Recommendation No. (1) of the Toronto Community Council, the words "subject to amending section 1 of Draft By-law (2) by adding thereto the following new subsection (8):

"(8) for greater certainty, nothing in this by-law or By-law No. 438-86, as amended, shall prevent the severance of the lot for the purpose of the individual sale of the dwelling units and for the establishment of certain portions of the lot as areas to be held in common."; and

(2) adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) as recommended in the report dated October 22, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, approval of this Clause be subject to the applicant agreeing to install and maintain signage at the garage exit indicating 'No Left Turn';

(b) the communication dated October 26, 1999, from Mr. Keith Jebodhsingh, President, Mayfair Development Corporation, be received, and the City Clerk be requested to include such communication in Appendix 'A'; and

(c) there be no further notice given of the public meeting requirement of Draft By-law (2), as amended.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (September 29, 1999) from the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form of the by-laws attached to the report; and

(2) the recommendations contained in the report (September 17, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

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

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report directly to Council on the traffic and laneway issues raised in the communication (October 11, 1999) from Mr. Eric Endicott; and

(2) the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(a) in consultation with the applicant, to give consideration to the fence issue raised in the communication (undated) from Ms. June Macy in the site plan review process;

(b) to consider in the site plan review process, the potential for the park to take on the character of the front lawns in the new homes; and

(c) to continue to consult with the Ward Councillors and the applicant with respect to the affordability of the units in the development.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on October 12, 1999, and Mr. Michael Vaughan, Toronto, Ontario, addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit 9 residential units with underground parking at 910 Logan Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Enacting the Draft By-laws does not require any expenditure by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

(2) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (September 29, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto substantially in the form of the by-laws attached to the report.

(3) the Recommendations contained in the report (September 17 , 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the final report of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (September 17, 1999) at its meeting on October 12, 1999 recommending an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law respecting a proposed development at 910 Logan Avenue consisting of 9 residential units with underground parking.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The draft by-law report of the City Solicitor implements the recommendations contained in the report of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (September 17, 1999).

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-7237; Fax: (416) 397-4420; E-mail: whawryli@toronto.ca

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

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. .

1. Section 18 of the Official Plan, for the former City of Toronto is hereby amended by adding the following Section 18.___ and the attached Map 18.___;

"18.___ Lands known as 910 Logan Avenue

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 18.___, to permit the erection and use of a residential building containing not more than 9 dwelling units and a residential gross floor area of not more than 1 437 square metres."

(Map to be attached)

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

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

1. None of the provisions of sections 4(2), 6(3) PART I 1, 6(3) PART II 2(ii), 6(3) PART II 3(i), 6(3) PART II 3.F(1)(2), 6(3) PART II 4, 6(3) PART II 5(i), 6(3) PART II 6.(i) and 6(3) PART III 1(b) 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 mattes relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection of a residential building on the lot, provided:

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

(2) no portion of the building above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the areas delineated by heavy lines on Plan 2 attached to and forming part of this By-law;

(3) the height of the building does not exceed the height as shown on Plan 2, which height shall be inclusive of structural elements referred to in section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of By-law No. 438-86, as amended;

(4) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 1 437 square metres;

(5) there are not more than 9 dwelling units within the building;

(6) at least 11 parking spaces, of which not more than 2 of a minimum length of 5.3 metres notwithstanding the minimum length requirement of the definition of parking space contained in section 2 of By-law No. 438-86, are provided and maintained with an underground parking facility on the lot; and

(7) landscaped open space at least of 39 square metres is provided and maintained on the lot.

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

(Plans to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 17, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations for Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 298003 to permit the construction of 9 residential units with underground parking at 910 Logan Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1. The Official Plan be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18._ Lands known as 910 Logan Avenue

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 910 Logan Avenue, to permit an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted, for the erection and use of 9 residential units, including below-grade parking, provided that:

(a) no more than 9 residential units are erected;

(b) the maximum residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 1,436.6 square metres.

(2) the Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended, so as to:

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

Section 4(2) respecting height;

Section 2(1) respecting the definition of a parking space;

Section 6(3) PART I 1 respecting residential gross floor area;

Section 6(3) PART II 2(ii) respecting front lot line setback;

Section 6(3) PART II 3(i) respecting the side wall of an adjacent building;

Section 6(3) PART II 3.F(1)(2) respecting side lot line setback where the side walls contain openings;

Section 6(3) PART II 4 respecting minimum rear yard setbacks;

Section 6(3) PART II 5(i) respecting building depth;

Section 6(3) PART II 6.(i) respecting external walls of a building; and

Section 6(3) PART III 1(b) respecting landscaped open space.

(b) permit the erection and use of a residential building provided:

(i) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 1,436.6 square metres;

(ii) the height does not exceed 13 metres;

(iii) a maximum of two of the eleven parking spaces will have dimensions of 2.6 metres by 5.3 metres;

(iv) the front lot line setback is a minimum of 1.82 metres;

(v) the side wall is located 0.00 metres on the north side and a minimum of 0.4 metres on the south side;

(vi) the rear yard setback is a minimum of 0.17 metres;

(vii) the depth is a maximum of 40.7 metres;

(viii) the distance between the external walls of the building is a minimum 3.05 metres; and

(ix) the minimum landscape open space is 39 square metres.

(3) the owner be advised of the requirement for Site Plan Approval including the submission and approval of a landscape plan for all on and off-site improvements with the following requirements to apply:

(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 garbage and recyclable storage facilities within the underground garage to serve each unit;

(c) indicate on the drawings a designated area within the Logan Avenue road allowance for the placement of garbage bags and recyclables on collection days;

(d) designate a unit owner, or provide personnel to be responsible for the day to day maintenance of the common collection point;

(e) provide and maintain a minimum of 11 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(f) submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i) a strata Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the proposed parcels and any right-of-way appurtenant thereto;

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

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

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

(h) construct and maintain water and sanitary header systems for Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;

(i) submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, detailed plans of the proposed header systems in accordance with Departmental requirements and the Plumbing Code;

(j) arrange for the installation of individual water metres for each dwelling unit;

(k) include in the Development Agreement and/or Undertaking for the project and in all subsequent Offers of Purchase and Sale Agreement for the proposed infill units (nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) a clause indicating that the water and sanitary header systems serving Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are privately owned, and the future maintenance of these systems will be the ongoing responsibility of these Unit owners;

(l) submit a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the issuance of a building permit; and

(m) the submission, approval and implementation of a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements.

Background:

The Official Plan Amendment/Rezoning application was submitted by Michael Vaughan, Q. C., 130 Adelaide Street West, Suite 3100, Toronto, Ontario, M5H 3P5 on behalf of the Toronto Chinese Methodist Church, 910 Logan Avenue, Toronto, M4K 3E4.

On December 9, 1998, Toronto Community Council adopted a preliminary report prepared by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Application No. 298003 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the construction of 13 residential units at 910 Logan Avenue and requested that notification be given to the tenants and owners and that a public meeting be held in the area to discuss the application.

Since the adoption of the preliminary report and a public meeting that was held on March 1, 1999, the proposal has been revised to eliminate the four basement suites, reduce the gross floor area, and achieve greater setbacks from both the south and north elevations of the units facing Logan Avenue Parkette.

Comments

1. Location

The property known as 910 Logan Avenue is located just north of Danforth Avenue on the west side of Logan Avenue.

2. Site and Surrounding Context

Immediately to the north is Logan Avenue Parkette. Further north and to the west and east is a traditional stable low density residence area. To the south is Danforth Avenue with a mix of uses. Chester subway station is within 4 blocks of the site.

3. Proposed Development

The project involves the construction of a 9 unit freehold infill housing project, consisting of 4 townhouse units fronting on Logan Avenue and 5 townhouse units on the west side of the site facing the Logan Avenue Parkette. An 11 space parking garage with access from Plum Place is proposed to serve the project.

4. Public Meeting

A public meeting was held in the community to discuss this application on March 1, 1999, with approximately 60 people in attendance. In addition, the Department has received letters from the public. Issues of concern that have been raised include parking, traffic, density, architectural detailing, height, number of dwelling units, additional school enrollment, construction and the impact on the abutting parkette. These issues are addressed in this report.

Comments:

1. Planning Controls

(a) Current Official Plan and Zoning Bylaw

The Official Plan designation for the site is Low Density Residence Area which permits residential buildings having a gross floor area of up to 1.0 times the area of the lot.

The Zoning Bylaw designates the site as R2 Z0.6 which permits a maximum residential density of 0.6 times the area of the lot.

(b) Requested Amendments to the Planning Controls

(i) Official Plan

Amendments are required to the Official Plan to permit the increase in density from 1.0 to 1.78 times the area of the lot.

(ii) Zoning Bylaw

The proposed development does not comply with the Zoning Bylaw in the following ways:

- the proposed density of 1.78 times the lot area exceeds the permitted density of 0.6 times the area of the lot;

- the height of 13 metres exceeds the permitted height of 10 metres;

- a maximum of two of the eleven parking spaces will have dimensions of 2.6 metres by 5.3 metres instead of 2.6 metres by 5.9 metres;

- the front lot line setback is a minimum of 1.82 metres instead of 4.56 metres;

- the side wall of the garage foundation is located 0.00 metres on the north side and a minimum of 0.4 metres on the south side instead of 0.9 metres to the side wall of an adjacent building that contains no openings;

- the rear yard setback is a minimum of 0.17 metres instead of 7.5 metres;

- the depth of the buildings is a maximum of 40.7 metres instead of 14 metres;

- the distance between the rear of the units facing Logan Avenue and the side of the most easterly unit facing the parkette is a minimum 3.05 metres instead of 11 metres; and

- the minimum landscape open space is 39 square metres instead of the required 402 square metres for the site.

(c) Site Plan Approval

This application does not include Site Plan Approval. Site Plan Approval, which will be under separate cover, is required prior to the issuance of a building permit. A landscape plan showing the details of on and off-site streetscape improvements will be required. All off-site streetscape improvements will require a separate application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for approval of works within the street allowance.

2. Planning Considerations

In determining the appropriateness of the proposal, it is relevant to consider the increase in density and height required in terms of consistency with the objectives and policies of the Official Plan. Comments received from the public have also been taken into account.

(a) Density and Height

The density of the proposal is more than double the permitted density under the Zoning Bylaw. The height at the rear of the project is 3 metres above the permitted height limit.

With respect to density, the lot is in close proximity to Danforth Avenue which permits a residential density of 2.5 times. The bulk of the units facing Logan Avenue read as three storey house forms and are consistent with other housing in a townhouse form common to this neighbourhood.

The height of the townhouse units facing Logan Avenue is 10.7 metres whereby the height limit is 10 metres. The five units on the west side of the lot facing the Logan Avenue Parkette will be approximately 13 metres in height due to the natural grade and clearance required from the below grade garage. These five units are set back 2.5 metres from the north property line that abuts Logan Avenue Parkette.

(b) Evaluation of Physical Impact

The proposed development will retain the existing church's foundations. The front yard set back is in keeping with the building to the south. The proposed development is also sensitive to the existing house to the south by providing a greater setback to 908 Logan Avenue than currently exists between the church and that home.

The units facing Logan Avenue Parkette are in accordance with the Official Plan which requires buildings located along the edges of parks and open spaces to provide an outlook and create a degree of enclosure or definition appropriate to the type of open space they enclose, through their siting, massing and scale.

The conceptual design of the development provides for adequate light, views and privacy.

The entrance to the parking garage is from the rear lane which allows the residential facade on Logan Avenue to be uninterrupted by parking access.

(c) Parking and Traffic

A great deal of discussion took place at the public meeting as it relates to the traffic on the street and in the area surrounding Danforth Avenue. The availability of on-street parking is a continual problem.

Concern was expressed with respect to the dwelling units with the basement suites originally proposed and the inadequate parking facilities that would result in further parking problems for the neighbourhood.

By eliminating the basement suites the proposal now provides eleven parking spaces for nine units in the underground parking garage. Access to the project is via the public lane named Plum Place. The elimination of the basement suites also reduces the traffic on the street and on Plum Place. The revised proposal is acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(d) Affordable Housing

City Council, in recommending the preliminary report respecting this proposal, requested that the possibility of innovative affordability within the project be pursued. It is the City's objective to achieve affordable housing throughout the City. However, the basement suites originally proposed were not acceptable to the neighbours who attended the public meeting for the primary reason that there would be inadequate parking provided and it would generate additional traffic.

(e) Stormwater Management

The owner is currently examining stormwater management options off-site, in consultation with Parks & Recreation staff, using the park to the north. This will be reviewed more closely in the Site Plan process.

(f) Other Issues

Concern was expressed by a neighbour with respect to the architectural detailing of the windows facing Logan Avenue. The window treatment has been revised.

One resident was concerned about the impact that the project would have on school enrollment in the neighbourhood. The negligible impact of the nine units would be factored in by School Districts in their annual review.

Hours of construction was discussed as it relates to the Noise Bylaw. This issue is controlled by the Inspections staff of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Conclusions:

A Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Bylaw Amendment is required to facilitate this proposal and it is attached to this report for Council's consideration.

The proposed project which is located in close proximity to the subway and Danforth Avenue represents an appropriate form of infill housing. The massing and conceptual design is sensitive to the street, the abutting parkette and the livability of the proposed units themselves. The revised plans reflect meaningful changes as a result of the comments made at the public meeting.

I am recommending that an amendment to the Official Plan and a rezoning be granted as the infill housing development proposal is appropriate for the site and represents good planning for the area.

Contact:

Lori Martin

Community Planning, East Section

Telephone: 392-7196; Fax: 392-1330; E-Mail: lmartin2@toronto.ca

Confirmed Municipal Address: 910 Logan Avenue.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

1. Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings, September 10, 1999

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 maximum permitted height of the building is 10.0 metres. The proposed height of the building is 13.0 metres( approx.). ( Section 4(2) )

2. Two of the 11 parking spaces will have dimensions of 2.6 metres by 5.3 metres instead of the by-law required 2.6 metres by 5.9 metres. ( Section 2(1) def. "parking space")

3. The by-law limits the residential gross floor area in an area zoned R2 Z0.6 to 0.6 times the area of the lot: 482.7 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building exceeds the maximum permitted by approximately 953.9 square metres. (Section 6(3) PART I 1)

4. The by-law requires a building on an inside lot to have a minimum front lot line setback of 4.56 metres. The proposed front lot line setback is 1.82 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 2(ii))

5. The by-law requires a building to be located no closer than 0.90 metres to the side wall of an adjacent building that contains no openings. The proposed building is located 0.00 metres from the adjacent building. (Section 6(3) PART II 3(i))

6. The by-law requires an apartment building to have a minimum side lot line setback of 1.2 metres, where the side wall contains openings. The proposed side lot line setback is 0.0 metres on the north side and 0.4 metres on the south side. (Section 6(3) PART II 3.F(I)(2))

7. The by-law requires a building to have a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The proposed rear yard setback is 0.17 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 4)

8. The by-law limits a building in a 0.6 zone to a maximum depth of 14.0 metres. The proposed depth is 40.7 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 5(i))

9. The by-law requires a minimum distance of 11.0 metres between the external walls of a building. The proposed distance between the external walls of a building is 3.05 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 6. (i))

10. The by-law requires an apartment building to provide a minimum landscaped open space of 50% of the area of the lot: 402.5 square metres. The proposed landscaped open space has not been provided. (Section 6(3) PART III 1(b))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

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

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

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

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

5. The proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.

6. All work within the City's road allowance will require a separate approval by City Works Services.

2. Works and Emergency Services, September 10, 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 garbage and recyclable storage facilities within the underground garage to serve each unit;

(c) Indicate on the drawings a designated area within the Logan Avenue road allowance for the placement of garbage bags and recyclables on collection days;

(d) Designate a unit owner, or provide personnel to be responsible for the day to day maintenance of the common collection point;

(e) Provide and maintain a minimum of 11 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

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

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

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

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

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

(h) Construct and maintain water and sanitary header systems for Unit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5;

(i) Submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, detailed plans of the proposed header systems in accordance with Departmental requirements and the Plumbing Code;

(j) Arrange for the installation of individual water meters for each dwelling unit;

(k) Include in the Development Agreement and/or Undertaking for the project and in all subsequent Offers of Purchase and Sale Agreement for the proposed infill units (Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) a clause indicating that:

(i) The water and sanitary sewer header systems serving Units 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are privately owned, and the future maintenance of these systems will be the ongoing responsibility of these Unit owners;

(l) Submit a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Comments:

Location

Extending between Logan Avenue and the public lane known as Plum Place, north of Danforth Avenue.

Proposal

Construction of a 9-unit freehold infill housing project on the site, consisting of 4-townhouse units fronting on Logan Avenue and 5 townhouse units on the west side of the site facing the Logan Avenue Parkette, which abuts the site to the north, with no direct road frontage. An 11-space parking garage with access from Plum Place is proposed to serve the project.

The proposal was dealt with in the Departmental report dated May 6, 1999. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The provision of a total of 11 parking spaces in a common garage with access off of Plum Place lane is less than the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 14 spaces and the Zoning By-law requirement, as far as can be ascertained, for 12 spaces, both including an estimated visitor parking requirement for 3 spaces. Given that the proposed parking garage can accommodate the estimated parking demand for project residents (for 11 spaces), and that it would not appear to be feasible to provide additional parking accessible to visitors in the proposed garage, the provision of 11 parking spaces to serve the project is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide the project with once-a-week curbside refuse collection service from a common collection point on Logan Avenue. It will be necessary for the common pick up point to be illustrated on the plans. The provision of individual garbage/recyclable storage areas within the parking garage to serve each unit is acceptable.

The common garbage/recyclable collection point to serve 9 individually-owned units (freehold) would require that a party be responsible to keep the common collection point in a tidy condition. Recommendation No. 1(c) above requires that the owner delegate these responsibilities.

Reference Plan of Survey

The owner is required to provide a Strata Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units, of the site delineating thereon by separate PARTS, the proposed parcels and any appurtenant rights-of-way.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

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

The owner has met with City staff, and provided details of proposed servicing arrangements (municipal services and utilities). Each townhouse unit fronting on Logan will have individual service connections to the existing municipal services on Logan Avenue, which is acceptable. There is insufficient room on the north side of the building to install individual connections directly to Logan Avenue for Unit Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. As a result, it will be necessary for the owner to install privately owned water and sanitary header systems to serve these units. Individual connections will be made from these header systems to each of the infill units. Given that the service connections will be privately owned, City easements are not required. It will be necessary for the owner to provide unit owners with access rights to their service connections for maintenance purposes. Furthermore, in order to clarify to the unit purchasers that the City will not assume these services and that the unit purchasers will be responsible for the future maintenance of these privately owned header systems, an advisory clause should added to the Undertaking and/or Development Agreement for the site and to subsequent Offers of Purchase and Sale Agreements, as more particularly set out in Recommendation No. 1(k), above.

Having regard for the above, the proposed servicing arrangements are acceptable in principle. Of course, it will be necessary for the owner to obtain appropriate final approvals prior to the installation of the services (municipal services and utilities).

Given that the existing and proposed buildings occupy virtually all of the site, it is recognized that there are limited opportunities for infiltrating storm water into the ground. The owner will have to submit an application to this Department for any new storm connections.

The basement garage and ramp thereto is located below the grade of the existing lane. The applicant should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Municipal Numbering

The proposal will require revised municipal numbering. The owner is required to apply for revised municipal numbering prior to the issuance of a building permit.

3. Parks and Recreation - Forestry, November 9, 1998

I have reviewed the Arborist Report pertaining to the above noted development application which was circulated to Forestry Services by Urban Planning and Development Services on October 19, 1998. I provide the following comments for inclusion in your response to Urban Planning and Development Services.

- There are nine (9) City owned trees involved with this project which are situated on City owned parkland adjacent to the development sites. Three (3) of the nine City owned trees quality for routine removal by Forestry Services.

The remaining six (6) trees must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

- According to the plans previously filed, it appears that the trees in question will not be affected by the development. The applicant must undertake tree protection measures in order to ensure that the health of the subject trees is not compromised as a result of construction activities associated with this development. The applicant must retain a Certified/Registered Professional Forester if they are unsure of appropriate tree protection measures.

- I advise that the plans prepared by Turner Fleischer Architects Inc., date stamped as received by Urban Planning and Development Services on August 28, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services are acceptable provided that the conditions noted above are fulfilled.

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

- (September 27, 1999) from Mr. Harvey B. Kasman;

- (Undated) from Mr. Marko Janovski;

- (Undated) from Ms. June Tracy;

- (Undated) from Mr. John Vretos; and

- (October 11, 1999) from Mr. Eric Endicott

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 22, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report directly to City Council as directed by the Toronto Community Council on the traffic and laneway issues raised in a communication (October 11, 1999) from Mr. Eric Endicott in connection with a proposed rezoning to permit a 9-unit residential building to be constructed at Premises No. 910 Logan Avenue.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

Should City Council approve the Draft Zoning By-laws for the project, as recommended by the Toronto Community Council, approval could be subject to the applicant agreeing to install and maintain signage at the garage exit indicating "No Left-Turn".

Background:

The proposed Rezoning of Premises No. 910 Logan would permit the construction of a 9-unit residential building with an 11-space parking garage accessible from Plum Place, the public lane at the rear of the site.

Toronto Community Council, in considering this application at its meeting held on October 12, 1999 adopted the motion:

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with appropriate officials, report directly to Council on the traffic and laneway issues raised in the communication (October 11, 1999) from Mr. Eric Endicott."

Comments:

The concerns related to the laneway and traffic raised by Mr. Endicott can be summarised as follows:

- the existing lane system at the rear of the site is congested with traffic from the abutting residences plus commercial traffic turning around while searching for parking spaces.

- Additional traffic on the east-west lane at the south end of Plum Place is particularly problematic, as this lane is substandard in width and has poor sight lines at its intersection with Arundel Avenue.

- The traffic generated by the proposal would be about double the as-of-right development (fronting on Logan Avenue).

Our comments on the lane-related issues are as follows:

(i) Traffic on Existing Lane System

Vehicular access to the site is via an H-shaped lane system comprised of a 3.05 m wide lane, located some 27.4 m north of Danforth Avenue extending between Arundel Avenue and Logan Avenue, a 7.22 m wide lane known as Ainsworth Road extending between Arundel Avenue and Logan Avenue, and Plum Place, a 7.32 m wide north-south lane, which connects the above noted east-west lanes.

Logan Avenue is one-way northbound with an 8.53 m pavement width at Danforth Avenue, narrowing to 7.32 m. Traffic calming measures have been installed including speed humps and intersection narrowings. Arundel Avenue operates one-way southbound with a pavement width of 7.32 m.

Given the one-way street system in the area, it is anticipated that the Ainsworth Road leg of the lane system will also be used by traffic accessing a north-south lane located between Logan and Ferrier Avenues, when approaching from the north-west.

The lanes known as "Plum Place" and "Ainsworth Road" have widths notably in excess of standard public lanes which, according to City policy, should have minimum widths of 5 m for residential lanes. Operationally, these lanes are better equipped to handle additional traffic demands than the vast majority of residential lanes and many streets in the City. For information, 11% of local streets in the former City of Toronto accommodate 2 lanes of traffic plus one lane of parking. Given that parking is prohibited on public lanes, it is anticipated that the 7.32 m and 7.22 m pavement widths on these lanes will, in fact, afford the abutting premises with better access than many residential properties in the downtown area.

The 3.05 m wide east-west lane at the south limit of the site is substandard in width and should, in accordance with City Council policy for lanes serving both residential and commercial properties, be widened to a minimum width of 6 m. In this regard, owners of properties abutting substandard lanes are required to convey lands for lane widening purposes, at nominal cost, in connection with new development proposals (Site Plan, Rezoning and Severance applications). In the case of this lane, City Council policy would require 1.975 m widenings from properties from the south side of this lane, and 0.975 m wide conveyances from the properties abutting the north side of the lane. The owner of Premises No. 456 Danforth Avenue has conveyed a 1.97 m wide strip of land to the City (by Instrument No. CA56905 registered on October 27, 1989). Similar conveyance conditions were imposed in connection with Development Review application Nos. 390011 and 390069 for Premises Nos. 458 and 464 Danforth Avenue, however, these developments did not proceed, and therefore, the conveyances have not yet been made.

In order to control speed along the lane system, and enhance safety, speed bumps were installed along all three of the lanes serving the site in 1994, as more particularly shown on the attached sketches.

No recent traffic counts have been undertaken for this lane system. During a site visit from 6:00 p.m. to 6:10 p.m. on Wednesday October 20, 1999, one car was observed driving in the lane system. Given the wide pavement widths on Plum Place and Ainsworth Road, it is not anticipated that traffic counts would reveal any capacity problems on this lane system. In the event that Council requires more detailed traffic information than set out in this report, staff would be pleased to have traffic counts undertaken.

Mr. Endicott has observed that commercial traffic uses the lane system as a turnaround while searching for parking spaces in the neighbourhood. Although this was not evident during the brief staff site check, given the one-way operation of Logan and Arundel Avenues, there is little doubt that some "commercial" traffic will use the lane system while searching for on-street parking spaces in close proximity to Danforth Avenue. This type of activity occurs in public lane systems throughout the area. Consideration could be given to discouraging commercial traffic from using the east-west lanes by signing them for one-way eastbound operation. Given that this would have the negative ramifications of directing additional commercial traffic into the neighbourhood, as well as inconvenience area residents accessing their parking spaces/garages off the lane system, it is not recommended that any one-way designations for any portions of this lane system be implemented at this time.

(ii) Additional Traffic on East-West Lane at South End of Plum Place

The lane widening policy described above is very long-term, thus it is anticipated that the existing problems on this substandard lane, such as occasional blockages by trucks and limited sight lines at the intersection of this lane with Arundel Avenue, will continue to cause lane users some inconvenience for the foreseeable future. In order to reduce the chance of being delayed by other vehicles blocking this lane, new residents of Premises No. 910 Logan Avenue may, on their own accord, choose to enter and exit their garage by way of Plum Place and Ainsworth Road. In order to direct site-generated traffic away from the substandard lane Council may wish to require the owner to install and maintain signage at the garage exit indicating "No Left-Turn".

(iii) Traffic Generated by the Proposal

Mr. Endicott has expressed concern that traffic generated by the 9-dwelling-unit proposal will be in excess of that which would be generated by an as-of-right proposal, estimated by Mr. Endicott at 4 dwelling units. It is likely that the traffic generated by a 9-unit proposal will be more than for a 4-unit proposal. However, even with the 9-unit proposal, typical traffic generation patterns of such developments would result in about 3 additional vehicles for the entire peak hour. In view of the very low number of trips forecast and the generous width of the lane providing access to the garage, there are no Departmental concerns with the additional traffic to be generated by this proposal.

Moreover, the proposed garage layout will allow cars to enter and exit Plum Place in a forward motion. From traffic and safety standpoints, this arrangement is preferable to cars backing out onto the lane system from individual garages, as is the case for the existing residential properties abutting the lane system.

Conclusions:

The access arrangement for the 9-unit housing proposal at Premises No. 910 Logan Avenue, via a driveway from Plum Place should provide acceptable operations and not negatively impact other laneway users, given the very low traffic generation and generous width of the lane. Should Council wish to address the concern of impacts on the narrow width of the lane at the south end of Plum Place linking with Arundel and Logan Avenues, consideration could be given to implementing a left-turn prohibition from the site driveway onto Plum Place.

Contact:

John Mende, 392-7713

Manager, Traffic Planning

Transportation Services, District 1)

City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 19, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding communications from the following with respect to an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application for 910 Logan Avenue (Don River):

- (September 27, 1999) from Mr. Harvey B. Kasman;

- (Undated) from Mr. Marko Janovski;

- (Undated) from Ms. June Tracy;

- (Undated) from Mr. John Vretos; and

- (October 11, 1999) from Mr. Eric Endicott.

(Letter dated October 26, 1999, from Keith Jebodhsingh, President,

Mayfair Development Corporation addressed to

Mayor Lastman and Members of Council)

Re: 910 Logan Avenue: rezoning

On behalf of Mayfair Development Corporation a donation will be made to support the City's affordable housing initiatives in the amount of $13,500. This donation is in recognition of the fact that affordable housing has increasingly become an issue in the City of Toronto. We. along with the Planning Department and Councillor Jack Layton have explored numerous avenues to build an affordable housing component into our project to reflect this need, however this could not be done.

On a personal note, as a former Metro Social Services employee I will continue to pursue opportunities to include affordable housing components in future projects.

The payment of $13,500 will be made as follows: $6,250 upon Building Permit and the final $6,250 upon 'closings' of 50% of the units sold.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause:

(1) in accordance with the report dated October 26, 1999, from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, embodying the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that, if City Council approves the Zoning By-law Amendment for the subject properties, such approval be conditional on Tree Preservation Plan A1C dated October 22, 1999, received by Forestry Services on October 25, 1999, being red-lined and approved by the City Forester."; and

(2) by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a) notwithstanding the requirements of Chapter 146-16, whereas the above properties are subject to Chapter 146-16-C of the Municipal Code, and demolition permits 99-104703, 99-104708 and 99-104715 have been applied for by Mr. William Moskaltk of 11346343 Ontario Inc., and the applicant is not proposing to erect new buildings on the land the above properties occupy, and whereas the buildings present a community safety risk, be it resolved that, providing no objections are received by the end of the day November 5, 1999, the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services shall issue the demolition permit; and

(b) the applicant be requested to make a financial contribution of $1,500.00 for tree removal to the Maple Cottage restoration fund.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the report (August 27, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by adding a new recommendation to read:

"That the owner shall submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Utility Burial Plan, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, demonstrating how all utility services will be located underground within the development, provided that the burial plan does not inflict damage to mature trees; the owner hereby agrees to amend this agreement, as/if required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to provide for the maintenance and/or access to the approved below grade utilities."

(2) the report (August 27, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation No. (1) be adopted;

(3) the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 29, 1999) of the City Solicitor, as amended by Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2), be approved, and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council substantially in the form of the Draft By-law to give effect thereto

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

(1) the applicant to meet with the Ward Councillors and local residents prior to the Council meeting in an attempt to mitigate concerns; and

(2) the City Forester to meet with the applicant and report directly to Council on the number of trees with a caliper of over 20 cm on the property and what funding the applicant will contribute towards the City Forestry Program.

A motion by Councillor Jakobek, that the draft by-law not be approved, was lost on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Bussin, Jakobek and Walker - 3

Nays: Councillors McConnell, Adams, Bossons, Disero, Fotinos, Korwin-Kuczynski, Layton, Miller, Pantalone, Rae and Silva - 11

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on October 12, 1999, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

- Ms. Gail Rayment, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Michelle Cockell, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Paul Gross, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. A. Paton, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Gord Cockell, Toronto, Ontario.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit the erection and use of three rowhouses and 14 semi-detached houses on the lands municipally known as 720 to 724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-law 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-law in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

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

(2) the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 29, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council, substantially in the form of the Draft By-law to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of October 12, 1999 will have before it the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Commissioner Urban Planning and Development Services (August 27, 1999) concerning the above-noted subject. This report recommends a Zoning By-law Amendment which will permit the erection and use of a three townhouses and 14 semi-detached houses on the lands municipally known as 720 to 724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Conclusions:

N/A

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer, Solicitor

Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Telephone: (416) 392-1228; Fax: (416) 397-4420

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

as adopted by Council on October , 1999

Enacted by Council:

Bill No.

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

with respect to the lands municipally known in 1998 as

720-724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue

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

1. None of the provisions of Sections 6(3), Part II 2, 3C, 4, 5, Part III 1(a), 3(a), Part VII 1 and Part IX 1(a) of By-law 438-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 1, attached to and forming part of this by-law, of 3 row houses provided:

(1) the lots consist of the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law.

(2) the front lot line setback shall not be less than 2.03 metres;

(3) the row houses shall not have a depth greater than 15.55 metres;

(4) the landscaped open space provided and maintained:

(i) for Lot 1 on Plan 1 shall not be less than 11.2 square metres;

(ii) for Lot 2 on Plan 1 shall not be less than 5.6 square metres;

(iii) for Lot 3 on Plan 1 shall not be less than 8.1 square metres;

(5) not less than 5.6 square metres of the front yard shall be provided and maintained as landscaped open space; and

(6) the lot frontage:

(i) for Lot 1 on Plan 1 shall not be less than 4.4 metres;

(ii) for Lots 2 and 3 on Plan 1 shall not be less than 3.96 metres;

2. None of the provisions of Sections 4(11)(a), 6(3) Part I 1, Part II 3C, 4, 5, Part III 1(a), Part VII 1 and Part IX 1(a) of By-law 438-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 2, attached to and forming part of this by-law, of 6 semi-detached houses, provided:

(1) the lots consist of the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 2 attached to and forming part of this by-law;

(2) on each lot the residential gross floor area shall not be greater than 133.5 square metres;

(3) the landscaped open space provided and maintained:

(i) for Lot 4 shall not be less than 6 square metres;

(ii) for Lot 5 shall not be less than 10.5 square metres;

(iii) for Lot 6 shall not be less than 9.9 square metres;

(iv) for Lot 7 shall not be less than 10.2 square metres;

(v) for Lot 8 shall not be less than 9.7 square metres;

(vi) for Lot 9 shall not be less than 6.2 square metres;

(4) the minimum lot frontage shall not be less than 0.12 metres; and

(5) the front lot line shall not be less than 3.5 metres.

3. None of the provisions of Sections 4(2)(a), 4(11)(a), 6(3) Part I 1, Part II 3(i), 3C, 4, 5, Part III 1(a), 3(a), 3(b), Part IV 3(i), Part VII 1 and Part IX 1(a) of By-law 438-86, being "A By-law to regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 3, attached to and forming part of this by-law, of 8 semi-detached houses, provided:

(1) the lots consists of shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 3 attached to and forming part of this by-law;

(2) the residential gross floor area:

(i) for Lots 10 to 15 shall not be greater than 133.5 square on each lot;

(ii) for Lots 16 and 17 shall not be greater than 139.22 square metres on each lot;

(3) the distance between any part of the side walls and an adjacent building shall not be less than 0.61 metres;

(4) the side yard setback shall not be less than 0.30 metres;

(5) the landscaped open space:

(i) of Lot 11 shall not less than 25.6 square metres;

(ii) of Lot 12 shall not less than 26.4 square metres;

(iii) of Lot 13 shall not less than 24.7 square metres;

(iv) of Lot 14 shall not less than 28.4 square metres;

(v) of Lot 15 shall not less than 27.6 square metres;

(6) the front lot line shall not be less than 0.12 metres; and

(7) the height of the buildings shall not exceed 11.46 metres;

(Maps to be inserted)

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (August 27, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of a draft By-law to introduce zoning amendments which will allow the construction of 3 townhouses and 14 semi detached units at 720 to 724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

1. That the Zoning By-law 438-86 as amended, be further amended so as to exempt the site from the provisions of the Zoning By-law identified by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services attached in Appendix B of this report.

2. That the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council:

- a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the proposed parcels and any appurtenant rights-of-way; and

- final approved plans of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed houses to enable the preparation of building envelope plans.

Such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council.

3. That the owner be requested to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit.

4. 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.

5. That the owner be advised that the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff.

6. That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Fire Services Division of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the provision of fire protection services for this project.

7. That the owner be advised of the need to obtain building location, access and streetscape permits as well as potentially other permits such as hoarding and piling/shoring from Works and Emergency Services.

8. That the owner be advised of the need to design the Kingston Road boulevard in accordance with the guidelines of Works and Emergency Services.

9. That the owner be advised of the requirement to pay the Parks levy in accordance with Chapter 165, Article I of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

10. That the owner be advised of the comments of the Commissioner of Economic Development and Culture and Tourism with respect to City-owned trees and trees situated on private property which may be impacted by this development.

11. That the owner be advised of the comments of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the Ontario Building Code.

12. That the Committee of Adjustment be requested to require the owner to enter into an agreement with the City under Section 53 of the Planning Act, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Consent, as follows:

(a) The owner be required to:

- develop the site substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings Nos., A1, A1A, A3, A5, A7, A9, and A10 date stamped as received on July 23, 1999 all prepared by Brydmoss Developments, all as on file with me;

- provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes, if required, in connection with the development;

- provide and maintain a minimum north-south driveway width of 6.0 metres for a distance of 6.0 metres from the Kingston Road right-of-way, including a 3.0 metre taper for a total curb cut of 12.0 metres and minimum driveway widths of 5.0 metres thereafter;

- eliminate any existing curb cuts on Kingston Road and restore the street allowance to the City of Toronto Standards, at no cost to the City;

- register rights-of-way in favour of the owners of each dwelling unit over the portion of the property required to access their respective parking spaces;

- register a covenant against the title that all future owners, of any severed lot on the site, will be granted rights-of-way over the property required to access their respective parking spaces and will be jointly responsible for the maintenance of the private driveways and the visitor parking spaces, including winter maintenance;

- provide and maintain individual rodent proof garbage storage areas, on private property, of sufficient size to accommodate the amount of separated recyclable and non-recyclable material generated in one week, for all other dwelling units on the site;

- designate a common refuse collection area, adjacent to the sidewalk on Kingston Road, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

- insert in all offers of sale and in all deeds which shall be registered on title for each dwelling in this project, a covenant advising of the location of the garbage pick-up area for all dwellings;

- prepare and submit an overall municipal servicing plan and a stormwater management plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the issuance of a building permit;

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

- comply with recommendations 2 through 11 as set out above.

13. That the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into the Consent Agreement on behalf of the City, such agreement to be in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Summary:

This report recommends amendments to the Zoning By-law to permit a low density residential development consisting of 14 semi-detached dwellings and 3 townhouses accessed by a private roadway located at 720 to 724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue.

Comments:

1.0 The Proposal

The proposal includes a request for zoning amendments to permit the construction of 17 residential units as an infill development on a private roadway. Each house will have at least 1 parking space on its respective lot with 4 visitor spaces to be provided for general use by the residents.

2.0 Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located on the north side of Kingston Road east of Walter Street. The lands are comprised of 3, deep residential lots having frontage on Kingston Road and a residual piece of land (35R Lyall Ave.) which extends eastwards along the rear lot lines of 720 to 736 Kingston Road. The rear portions of 720 to 724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue are wooded but have been poorly maintained and scattered with refuse for years.

The west side of the lot is flanked by a 5 storey condominium and its outdoor surface parking lot. Unit 1 and units 4 through 10 either back or flank onto the west lot line. Of these 7 units, only unit 10 shares a significant common lot line with a Walter Street property (13 Walter Street).

The east side of the property extends northwards from Kingston Road along the side lot line of the 2 storey house at 726 Kingston Road. The lot then extends eastwards at right angles to the rear yards of 726 to 734 Kingston Road.

The north end of the site abuts the rear lot lines of 31 to 35 Lyall Avenue and a portion of the rear yard at 15 Walter Street.

3.0 Current Official Plan and Zoning By-law Designations

The site is designated Low Density Residence Area and permits new residential development at a density of up to 1.0 times the lot area.

The site is split zoned R4 Z1.0 and R2 Z0.6. These zoning classifications permit residential uses up to 1.0 and 0.6 times the lot area respectively.

The cumulative density of all proposed units across the site does not exceed 1.0 times coverage. However, many of the proposed units located in the R2 Z0.6 zoning area exceed the permitted 0.6 times coverage. In addition to density, the proposal also requires a number of Zoning By-law amendments which are typically required of such infill developments. These include amendments for:

- landscaped open space,

- building depths,

- building setbacks, and

- building frontages.

4.0 Planning Considerations

4.1 Density, Built Form and Neighbourhood Context

The surrounding area is a low density residential neighbourhood comprised primarily of single, semi detached and townhouse dwellings. No one set of dominant architectural features is apparent. This proposal does not exceed 1.0 times coverage and therefore qualifies as low density residential use under the Official Plan.

The proposed housing mix of 14 semi-detached houses and 3 townhouse units at 1 times coverage is comparable to the character and density of the existing housing in the neighbourhood. Using the 1 times density cap permitted by the Official Plan and assuming the applicant's average unit sizes, the site could yield up to 18 houses rather than the 17 which are proposed.

Section 6.15, Conversion, Infill and Accessory Apartments, of the Official Plan endorses the infill nature of this application and the property's status as a development lot by stating that it is the policy of Council to promote the provision of new residential units where otherwise permitted by this plan by encouraging infill development on vacant or underdeveloped lots.

4.2 Privacy and Overlook

Many of the residents, who were in attendance at the public meetings which were held in the neighbourhood, expressed concerns with respect to the possibility of overlook from the proposed houses on the privacy in their rear yards or facing living rooms. In response, the applicant has proposed a site plan configuration which is sensitive to these concerns by:

(i) Limiting the number of units that share a common lot line with a Walter Street dwelling to 1, and protecting existing development on Lyall Avenue.

In the initial plan submitted by this applicant, 3 or 4 dwellings shared a common rear lot line with houses on Walter Street in a rear facing condition. In the current layout only unit number 10 shares a lot line with No. 13 Walter Street.

This common lot line is between the rear face of 13 Walter Street and the windowless sidewall of proposed unit 10. No. 13 Walter Street has a rear yard depth of 30 metres (98 feet) or nearly 4 times the minimum rear yard required by By-law 438-86. Unit 10 has a side yard setback of 1.67 metres which exceeds the requirement of 0.45 metres for walls without openings by 1.22 metres. The total separation between 13 Walter and proposed unit 10 is approximately 31.67 metres (103.9 feet). A separation of 31.67 metres between houses is greater than many total lot depths in this immediate neighbourhood and in the City in general.

Unit 1 abuts the 5 storey condominium at 716 Kingston Road. Units 4 through 9 all back onto the surface parking lot for the condominium and are separated from Walter Street houses by a distance of 29 metres (95 feet) or more. Units 11 through 17 back onto the homes at 31 to 37 Lyall Ave. The Lyall Avenue houses have unusually deep rear yards of approximately 57 metres (187 feet) or more. The rear yard setbacks for these proposed units range from 5.04 metres (16.5 feet) for unit 11 to 7.5 metres (25 feet), as required by By-law 438-86, for unit 17. The total separation between Lyall Ave. homes and units 11 to 17 is at least 62 metres (203.4 feet) or the equivalent distance of approximately eight 7.5 metre rear yard setbacks.

(ii) Providing a continuous row of mature evergreen trees and privacy fencing.

The applicant has proposed a continuous row of 3.5 metre (11.5 foot) high trees along the rear lot line of units 4 through 9 and along the side lot line of unit 10. In addition, a 1.83 metre (6 foot) privacy fence with a 0.46 metre (1.5 foot) lattice on top will be constructed on the lot line around the entire perimeter of the site, the Kingston Road frontage excepted.

Given the extremely deep rear yard setbacks of Lyall Avenue homes, the developer has opted to propose deciduous trees rather than a solid evergreen buffer in the rear yards of units 11 to 17. These trees are in addition to the 2.3 metre high privacy fence.

The applicant has also indicated the location of a growth of healthy 20 - 30 centimetre trees on the landscape plan which will be saved and incorporated into the coniferous buffer. Two large existing trees have been identified off-site (at 716 Kingston Road) and will be protected during and after construction.

(iii) Building within the maximum height limit.

All proposed houses are built at or under the 12.0 metre height limit for the area. Also, for the purpose of preventing overlook, the fourth floor open, walk-decks required by the Ontario Building Code for fire safety reasons have been incorporated into the front rather than the rear face of units 1 through 9.

The combination of a sensitive site plan layout and house design, mature tree plantings, privacy fencing, wide separating distances between existing and proposed houses, and building heights which are within the maximum height restriction will result in an acceptable condition.

4.3 Parking and Access

The proposed 19 parking spaces exceeds the By-law requirement of 17 spaces or 1 space per unit. In addition, the plan allows visitor parking for units 10 through 17 in a tandem fashion in the driveway in front of the garages. Although not required, four visitor parking spaces will be available for units 1 through 9 along the south side of the eastern section of the proposed private roadway. The proposed parking supply is acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Access to the houses is via a private T-shaped roadway. It is the policy of Council to discourage residential developments of greater than 20 units on non-public roadways. This proposal will have 17 units which are accessed via a private road. Council's policy does not apply.

Rights-of-way in favour of the owners of each of the proposed dwelling units will have to be granted over the portions of the proposed roadway which are necessary to access the respective parking spaces for the residents.

The main north-south section of the private driveway is 6.0 metres wide at the south end where it intersects with Kingston Road and 5.0 metres wide thereafter. The 5.0 metre wide portion is less than the 5.5 metres usually required by Works and Emergency Services for 2 way traffic. However, given the small number of vehicles expected to be served by this roadway, 5.0 metres is considered acceptable. The remaining 2 east-west portions of the roadway are at or exceed the commonly accepted 5.5 metre roadway width.

4.4 Landscaping

The applicant has prepared a detailed landscape plan which shows:

- privacy fences on all lot lines which are shared with existing homes,

- continuous 3.5 metre high evergreen buffering along the west side,

- mature deciduous tree plantings along the north property line, and

- preservation of healthy trees from 20 centimetres in diameter where 30 centimetres is the usual standard.

While the houses will be visible to the surrounding homes, the applicant, to the extent possible, has tried to maintain the outward impression of a wooded area. A detailed report and plan must be provided which indicates the impact of the construction activities in connection with the proposed development on the 2 mature trees located on 716 Kingston Road in proximity to proposed units 8 and 9. Appropriate tree protection measures as determined by a certified or registered consulting arborist or forester must be submitted to the City's arborist by the applicant for approval.

4.5 Fire Safety

The Fire Department has reviewed the plans and has advised that it will be satisfied when the pertinent requirements of the Ontario Building Code have been applied to this project.

4.6 Subdivision of Land

In the City of Toronto, where most land is already within long standing registered plans of subdivision, further subdivision of parts of lots or blocks is typically done by way of an application for consent through the Committee of Adjustment. In this case where an application for site plan review was not required, the City will need to secure its requirements which include private roadway widths, curb cuts, rights-of-way registered in favour of future homeowners and parkland dedication through imposing conditions on the granting of consent. The owner agrees with this approach and will enter into a Consent Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 53 of the Planning Act.

4.6 Public Response

Two public meetings were held in the neighbourhood to discuss this proposal. The first meeting held on May 26, 1999, discussed a plan that showed a total of 18 units oriented along a north-south private roadway. The residents' concerns included the number of units, the perception of loss of privacy and overlook and the lack of visitor parking.

The second public meeting on July 8, 1999 was to discuss the changes that the applicant had made to the plan to address some of concerns raised at the May 26, 1999 meeting. The revisions included reducing the number of houses by 1, reorienting the plan so that only one unit shared a common lot line with Walter Street homes and moving the fourth floor decks to the fronts of all houses.

Since the July meeting, plans have again been modified to deal with some of the remaining resident concerns. Modifications include a continuous evergreen privacy screen, the incorporation of healthy existing trees of 20 to 30 centimetres in diameter (which would not be protected by the tree by-law) into the natural privacy screen and a 2.29 metre high privacy fence is shown on all property lines shared with existing houses.

A previous application was submitted for this site and a preliminary planning report was heard by the Land Use Committee of the former City of Toronto on July 28, 1994. A public meeting was held in the neighbourhood to discuss the proposal which at that time was to build three, 3 to 5 storey buildings containing a total of 32 residential units on the site. The owner (different from the current applicant) did not proceed beyond the preliminary report.

Conclusion:

I am recommending approval of this application.

Contact:

Contact Name:

Tim Burkholder, Community Planning, East Section

Telephone: 392-0214; Fax: 392-1330; E-Mail: tburkhol@toronto.ca

Confirmed Municipal Address: 720, 722, 724 Kingston Rd. and 35 R Lyall Av.

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings, August 17, 1999

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Construct row houses and semi-detached houses - 18 units

Zoning Designation: R4 Z1.0 AND R2 Z0.6

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

Plans prepared by: William Holman Plans dated: July 23, 1999

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.

Lots 1,2 & 3:

1. The minimum required front lot line setback of 2.1 metres for lot 1 and 6.0 metres for lots 2&3 have not been provided. Proposed is 2.03 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 2)

2. The minimum required side lot line setback of 0.45 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 0 metres (lot 3). (Section 6(3 Part II 3C)

3. The minimum required rear lot line setback of 7.5 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 0 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The maximum permitted 14.0 metre building depth is being exceeded. Proposed is 15.55 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

5. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (38.64 sq metres, 38.76 sq metres and 39.36 sq metres) for lots 1,2 &3 has not been provided. Proposed is 11.2 sq metres, 5.6 sq metres and 8.1 sq metres respectively. (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

6. The minimum required front yard landscaped open space of 50% of the front yard area (9.1 sq metres for lot 3) has not been provided. Proposed is 5.6 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part III 3(a))

7. The minimum required lot frontage of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 4.4 metres - lot 1 and 3.96 metres - lots 2&3. (Section 6(3) Part VII 1)

8. The by-law requires the proposed lot(s) to be capable of being conveyed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. The proposed lots require severance consent from the Committee of Adjustment prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Section 6(3) PART IX 1(a))

Lots 4 to 9

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 1.0 times the area of the lot (129.6 sq metres, 80.3 sq metres, 79.3 square metres, 79.3 sq metres, 103.7 sq metres and 128.9 sq metres) for lots 4-9 is being exceeded. Proposed is 133.5 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part I 1)

2. The minimum required side lot line setback of 0.9 metres has not been provided. Proposed is less than 0.9 metres . (Section 6(3) Part II 3C)

3. The minimum required rear lot line setback of 7.5 metres has not been provided, proposed is less than 7.5 metres . (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

4. The maximum permitted depth of 17.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 49.89 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

5. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (40.08sq metres - lot 4, 40.05 sq metres - lot 5,6, 7, 8 and 9). Proposed is 6.0 sq metres, 10.5 sq metres, 9.9 sq metres, 10.2 sq metres, 9.7 sq metres and 6.2 sq metres respectively. (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

6. The minimum required lot frontage of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 0.12 metres. (Section 6(3) Part VII 1)

7. The by-law requires the proposed lot(s) to be capable of being conveyed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. The proposed lots require severance consent from the Committee of Adjustment prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Section 6(3) PART IX 1(a))

8. The proposed buildings are not on a lot having a minimum front lot line of 3.5 metres, as required. Proposed front lot line is 0.12 metres. (Section 4(11)(a))

Lot 10 to 17

1. The maximum permitted residential gross floor area of 0.6 times the area of the lot (66.12 sq metres - lot 10, 56.28 sq metres - lot 11, 57.3 sq metres - lot 12, 69.84 sq metres - lot 13, 78 sq metres - lots 14 & 15, 82.2 sq metres - lot 16 and 83.34 sq metres - lot 15). Proposed is 133.5 sq metres - lots 10-15 and 139.22 sq metres - lots 16 and 17. (Section 6(3) Part I 1).

2. The minimum required 0.9 metre separation between sidewalls has not been provided. Proposed is 0.61 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 3(i))

3. The minimum required side lot line setback of 0.45 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 0.30 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 3C)

4. The minimum required rear lot line setback of 7.5 metres has not been provided. Proposed is less than 7.5 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 4)

5. The maximum permitted building depth of 17.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 76.55 metres. (Section 6(3) Part II 5)

6. The minimum required landscaped open space of 30% of the area of the lot (40.05 sq metres - lots 11-15) has not been provided. Proposed is 25.6 sq metres, 26,4 sq metres, 24.7 sq metres, 28.4 sq metres and 27.6 sq metres respectively. (Section 6(3) Part III 1(a))

7. The minimum required front yard landscaped open space of 50% of the front yard area (13.15 sq metres, 25.2 sq metres, 25.6 sq metres, 26.05 sq metres, 24.2 sq metres, 24.6 sq metres, 7.8 sq metres and 7.0 sq metres for lots 10-17) has not been provided. Proposed is 0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part III 3(a))

8. The minimum required soft landscaped open space of 30% of the required front yard landscaping (3.94 sq metres, 7.56 sq metres, 7.68 sq metres, 7.81 sq metres, 7.26 sq metres, 7.38 sq metres, 2.34 sq metres and 2.1 sq metres for lots 10-17) has not been provided. Proposed is 0 sq metres. (Section 6(3) Part III 3(b))

9. Basement integral garage is not permitted. (Section 6(3) Part IV 3(i))

10. The minimum required lot frontage of 6.0 metres has not been provided. Proposed is 0.12 metres. (Section 6(3) Part VII 1)

11. The by-law requires the proposed lot(s) to be capable of being conveyed in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. The proposed lots require severance consent from the Committee of Adjustment prior to the issuance of a building permit. (Section 6(3) PART IX 1(a))

12. The maximum permitted height of 10.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 11.46 metres. (Section 4(2)(a))

13. The proposed buildings are not on a lot having a minimum front lot line of 3.5 metres, as required. Proposed front lot line is 0.12 metres. (Section 4(11)(a))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1. The proposal DOES NOT require Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

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

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

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

2. Works and Emergency Services, August 31, 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, if required, in connection with the development;

(b) Provide and maintain a minimum of 17 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(c) Provide and maintain a minimum north-south driveway width of 6.0 m for a distance of 6.0 m from the Kingston Road right-of-way, including a 3 m taper for a total curb cut of 12 m and minimum driveway widths of 5.0 m thereafter;

(d) Eliminate any existing curb cuts on Kingston Road and restore the street allowance to the City of Toronto Standards, at no cost to the City;

(e) Register rights-of-way in favour of the owners of each dwelling unit over the portion of the property required to access their respective parking spaces;

(f) Register a covenant against the title that all future owners, of any severed lot on the site, will be granted rights-of-way over the property required to access their respective parking spaces and jointly responsible for the maintenance of the private driveways and the visitor parking spaces, including winter maintenance;

(g) Provide and maintain individual rodent proof garbage storage areas, on private property, of sufficient size to accommodate the amount of separated recyclable and non-recyclable material generated in one week, for all other dwelling units on the site;

(h) Designate a common refuse collection area, adjacent to the sidewalk on Kingston Road, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(i) Insert in all offers of sale and in all deeds which shall be registered on title for each dwelling in this project, a covenant advising of the location of the garbage pick-up area for all dwellings;

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

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

(ii) final approved plans of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed houses to enable the preparation of building envelope plans;

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

(k) Prepare and submit an overall municipal servicing plan and a Stormwater Management Plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the issuance of a building permit;

2. That the owner be requested to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

3. That the owner be advised:

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

(b) That the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm run-off;

(c) Of the need to receive the approval of the Fire Services Division of this Department, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the provision of fire protection services for this project;

(d) 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

(e) Of the need to design the Kingston Road boulevard in accordance with the guidelines of this Department.

Comments:

Location

North side of Kingston Road, east of Main Street.

Proposal

Construction of 14 semi-detached and 3 townhouse units, of which the townhouses front onto Kingston Road and the semi-detached houses front onto a private T-shaped driveway extending northerly from Kingston Road.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated July 18, 1994. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report.

Parking and Access

The provision of 19 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, comprising of 1 single car garage for units 1 through 15 and 2 car garage for units 16 and 17 within each of the townhouses and the semi-detached units and 4 residential visitor spaces to serve the project, satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the residents for 17 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for 17 spaces. The proposed parking supply is acceptable.

Access to the parking spaces is provided via a T-shaped driveway which contains a 5.0 wide north-south section extending northerly from Kingston Road and a 6.0 m wide section servicing the houses at the north end of the site. The proposed width of 5.0 m for the main driveway is less than the 5.5 m required for two-way traffic. Given the number of vehicles served by this driveway, and that the width is only marginally less than the required width, the 5.0 m wide main driveway is acceptable. It is noted that the main driveway is a minimum of 6.0 m in width for a distance of 6.0 m from the Kingston Road right-of-way limit.

A 5.49 m wide east-west private driveway, extending westerly from the main driveway which serves as an access to the parking spaces serving the townhouses fronting onto Kingston Road is acceptable.

Rights-of-way in favour of the owners of each of the proposed dwelling units must be granted over the portions of proposed driveways required to access the respective parking spaces for the residents.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with once a week curbside refuse collection on Kingston Road in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a rodent-proof refuse storage space for each unit on private property, to store separated garbage and recyclable materials generated between collections. This storage area has been designated as a common garbage pick-up area and has been shown on the plans in front of unit 3, adjacent to the sidewalk, within the Kingston Road, road allowance. This is acceptable. The future owner of unit 3 should be informed of the garbage and recyclable materials set out point.

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).

Each of the townhouses units should have its own drain and water service. A detailed site servicing plan must be submitted to this Department for review and approval. The approved services must be constructed in accordance with City standards, and the owner will be required to grant any permanent easements necessary to maintain these services.

Work Within the Road Allowance

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

The design of the Kingston Road boulevard must meet this Department's guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. This includes providing and preserving a decorative band of impressed concrete 0.6 m wide along the back of the curb. The guidelines also state that trees should be provided every 6.0 to 8.0 m. If clarification is required on how these standards will apply to this site the applicant can contact the Streetscape Programme at 392-3808.

Permits

The applicant is required to obtain building location and streetscape permits from this Department prior to the construction of this project. Other permits associated with the construction activities (such as hoarding, piling/shoring, etc.) may be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the applicable permits and should be advised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (RACS) at 392-4960 regarding the site-specific permit/licence requirements.

Fire Services

The applicant is advised of the need to contact the Fire Services Division of this Department in order to determine how fire services can be provided for this project.

Municipal Numbering

Separate municipal numbers are required for the proposed townhouses. The owner should submit a separate application to this Department, including a plan showing the location of the principal access points.

3. Parks and Recreation, August 13, 1999

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on July 29, 1999. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

- 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.

- The tree protection zone(s) which have been indicated on the plans filed with this application are not adequate. Please have the applicant contact Mr. Gary Le Blanc at 392-0494 to discuss the tree protection zone(s).

- I advise that the plans prepared by William Holman, date stamped as received by Urban Planning & Development Services on July 23, 1999 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. Fire, August 4, 1999

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

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

- (Undated) from Mr. Damien Robitaille;

- (October 7, 1999) from Ms. Cathy Beveridge;

- (October 10, 1999) from Mr. Shayne G. Kert; and

- (October 8, 1999) from the Resident's Committee: Lyall-Walter-Kingston Road, forwarding a petition containing 23 signatures in opposition

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Toronto Community council at its meeting of October 12, 1999 requested that the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism report directly to the next meeting of City Council on the number of trees on this site having diameters of 20 cm or more and the funding contribution the applicant will donate towards the City Forestry Program.

Source of Funds

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Background:

Rezoning Application No. 12429 is an application to permit 17 residential units to be constructed at 720 to 724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue.

Comments:

There are three (3) trees which are protected under the provisions of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III which are involved with this development proposal. The trees in questions are as follows:

• 80 cm diameter twin-stem White Oak in fair condition. This tree appears to be mutually owned by the applicant and 736 Kingston Road and is situated towards the north-east corner of the proposed development site.
• 56 cm diameter Norway maple in fair condition. This tree appears to be situated on the adjacent private property of 718 Kingston Road.
• 72 cm diameter Norway maple in fair condition. This tree appears to be situated on the adjacent private property of 718 Kingston Road.

The current plans which have been received by Urban Planning and Development Services date stamped as received on July 23, 1999 are not acceptable to Forestry Services in that the current proposal provides inadequate protection for the above noted trees. On June 22 and August 13, 1999, Forestry staff advised Urban Planning and Development Services that protection measures for these three (3) trees are inadequate. Staff have requested that the applicant file revised plans with Forestry Services with a detailed arborist report outlining tree protection measures for the three (3) trees to be retained and protected.

With respect to the request by Councillor Pantalone in regards to the number of trees on the proposed development site which are greater than 20 cm in diameter, the applicant has advised Forestry Services by way of a letter that there are six (6) trees. Staff have been advised by the applicant that all six (6) trees noted above are proposed for removal and that they cannot be retained and protected within the current development proposal.

The Landscape Plan which forms part of the subject Rezoning Application requires revisions as a more detailed plan must be submitted with respect to the trees proposed for planting in connection with this development.

Staff have been advised that the applicant will send a letter directly to City Council with respect to a financial contribution to Forestry Services.

Contact:

Richard Ubbens,

Tel: 392-1894)

(A copy of a communication dated October 14, 1999 from Mr. William Moskalyk, Brydmoss Developments Limited, appended to the foregoing report is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 26, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Councillors Jakobek and Bussin have request this additional report (Toronto Community Council Report No. 13, Clause 7) regarding the preservation of three (3) trees situated on private property involved with the development of the above noted properties.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that if City Council approves the Zoning By-law Amendment for the subject properties, such approval be conditional on Tree Preservation Plan A1C dated October 22, 1999, received by Forestry Services on October 25, 1999, being red-lined and approved by the City Forester.

Background:

The additional report to City Council dated October 19, 1999 indicates that the protection measures for these trees submitted by the applicant, were inadequate.

Comments:

On October 21, 1999, the City Forester met on site with the applicant to define tree protection measures for three (3) trees protected under the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III. These trees are two (2) Norway Maples of 56 and 72 cm diameter situated on the private property of 718 Kingston Road and one (1) 80 cm diameter twin-stem White Oak.

On October 25, 1999, the applicant submitted a revised Site Plan and a Tree Preservation Plan which, with some minor revisions by way of red-lining, will document the tree protection measures agreed to on site. Provided that these measures are implemented, the three trees in question will be adequately protected.

Any Rezoning approvals for the subject properties should be conditional on approval of Tree Preservation Plan A1C by the City Forester.

Contact:

Richard Ubbens, City Forester

Telephone: 392-1894; Facsimile: 392-6657; e-mail: rubbens@toronto.ca)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 19, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding communications from the following with respect to a Draft Zoning By-law Application for 720-724 Kingston Road and 35R Lyall Avenue (East Toronto):

- (Undated) from Mr. Damien Robitaille;

- (October 7, 1999) from Ms. Cathy Beveridge;

- (October 10, 1999) from Mr. Shayne G. Kert; and

- (October 8, 1999) Petition with 23 signatures in opposition submitted by the Resident's Committee: Lyall-Walter-Kingston Road.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 24 Hawarden Crescent, conditional on the planting of replacement trees of one or more large shade species to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(2) if the planting of a second large shade tree is not possible, the applicant make a contribution of $500.00 to the Urban Forestry Program for the planting of a tree on municipal property in the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the applicant to submit a landscape plan and having requested the City Forester to report thereon directly to Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 24, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by the property owner, Mrs. Sandra Walfish, 24 Hawarden Crescent, Toronto, M5P 1M7. Roots are apparently lifting a driveway and damaging the house foundation.

Financial Implication:

N/A

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 planting of replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty centimetre diameter blue spruce in good condition. The tree is located approximately six metres from the foundation of the house and no evidence has been provided with the application to indicate that there is any foundation damage. Any foundation repairs required could be performed by trenching at the foundation and pruning any roots encountered. The interlock driveway has not been impacted by the spruce tree's roots. Some visible sinking of the pavers was noticed and can be attributed to the compaction resulting from the weight of the automobile that drives and parks on the driveway. The landscape contractor has indicated that he cannot grow grass under the spruce tree, and that it interferes with two maple trees. There are numerous landscape alternatives that can incorporate a spruce tree. The competition between the spruce and Norway maples for light and space is not unique, but rather a natural process when two or more trees are in fairly close proximity to one another. In the opinion of staff, the blue spruce tree is a healthy viable specimen worthy of protection under the private tree by-law. A landscape plan was requested by staff but has not been provided as yet.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

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

- Dr. Paul Walfish, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Ms. Sandra Walfish, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Toronto Community Council at their meeting of October 12, 1999, requested that the applicant submit a landscape plan to the City Forester and that a report be prepared directly to City Council outlining the details of this landscape plan.

Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by the property owner, Mrs. Sandra Walfish, 24 Hawarden Crescent, Toronto, M5P 1M7. Toronto Community Council, at their meeting of October 12, 1999, requested that the applicant prepare a landscape plan and that a report be prepared directly to City Council.

The property owners have provided a letter and a plan to the City Forester indicating that they will plant two large growing shade trees if approval is granted for the removal of the spruce tree. One of the trees is a royal red Norway maple and the second is a Deborah Norway maple. The two trees are to be planted on the Spadina flank in the northern portion of the property. Staff have advised the applicant that the new trees are to be 70-80 millimetre caliper nursery stock.

The two trees proposed for planting by the applicant are suitable species for the location in question. They are both hardy urban trees and will withstand the harsh conditions adjacent to busy Spadina Road. In the opinion of staff, the blue spruce tree should be incorporated into the landscape plans but the replacement trees proposed are acceptable if approval for removal is granted by City Council.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Tel: 392-6644)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for the Manitoba maple in the front yard at 311 Bain Avenue and issue a permit for the Manitoba maple in the rear yard.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property has been filed by Mr Peter Kelly, Kelly's Tree Care, 12 Old Kingston Road, Scarborough, M1E 3J5, agent for the owner Ms. B. Crowe, 311 Bain Avenue, Toronto, M4J 1B9. The owner is concerned that the trees may cause damage to the property.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, 2 or 3 below

(1) refuse to issue a permit for the Manitoba maple in the front yard and issue a permit for the Manitoba maple in the rear yard; or

(2) refuse to issue a permit for removal of both Manitoba maples; or

(3) issue a permit for the removal of both Manitoba maples conditional on the applicant paying the costs to plant a replacement tree at the front of the house on City property.

Comments:

The trees in question include a 51 centimetre diameter Manitoba maple at the front of the property and a 33 centimetre diameter Manitoba maple at the rear of the property. Both trees are in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Kelly's Tree Care that accompanies the application, states that the 51 centimetre diameter Manitoba maple is a twin stemmed specimen with significant included bark in the lower trunk area. The report states that the trunk integrity and canopy structure are poor, the canopy vigour is good and that the tree grows on a significant angle and overhangs hydro wires. Kelly's report states that the 33 centimetre diameter Manitoba maple at the rear of the property has been pruned poorly in the past using spurs and that the tree is unbalanced as a result of competition for sunlight.

In the opinion of staff, the removal of the 33 centimetre diameter Manitoba maple would not impact the tree canopy in the neighbourhood and would be acceptable. The larger Manitoba maple in the front yard is growing close to the house, but no evidence of structural damage has been included with the application. This tree should be maintained and pruned to provide clearance from the hydro service and to reduce the weight of the crown. The weight reduction will decrease the stress on the main union of the two stems and reduce the possibility of failure at this point.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. 2 written objections were received in response to the application to remove the trees in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

392-6644

(A copy of the letters of objection referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on October 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for curb lane vending on University Avenue, east side, 81 metres south of Dundas Street West and extending a further 5.5 metres south.

The following motion by Councillor Miller was lost on the following division of votes:

"That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services expedite the previously requested report to the Toronto Community Council and the Works Committee on an recommended process of a harmonized by-law with respect to curblane vending, so that it is submitted within three months."

Yeas: Councillors Fotinos, Korwin-Kuczynski, Miller and Pantalone - 4

Nays: Councillors McConnell, Adams, Bossons, Chow, Layton, Rae and Walker - 7

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (August 26, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a curb lane 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 curb lane vending on University Avenue, east side, 81 metres south of Dundas Street West and extending a further 5.5 metres south;

OR

(2) City Council approve the application for curb lane vending on University Avenue, east side, 81 metres south of Dundas Street West and extending a further 5.5 metres south, notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in By-law No. 98-97 of the former Metropolitan Toronto; and

(3) Should City Council approve the application for curb lane vending on University Avenue, east side, 81 metres south of Dundas Street West and extending a further 5.5 metres south, the applicant pay the costs of the loss of annual parking permit revenue as determined by the Toronto Parking Authority.

Background:

Mr. Ahmad Shafee has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a curb lane vending permit on University Avenue, east side, 81 metres south of Dundas Street and extending a further 5.5 metres south.

Comments:

Mr. Ahmad Shafee, 3050 Pharmacy Avenue, Apt #510, Scarborough, Ontario M1W 2N7, applied on October 22, 1998 for a curb lane vending location on University Avenue, east side, south of Dundas Street West and extending a further 5.5 metres south; as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). Mr. Shafee proposes to vend pizza and chicken wings.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of By-law No. 98-97 of the former Metropolitan Toronto, we notified the adjacent property owner for their comments, if any. Mr. Michael Ward, General Manager, O & Y Enterprise Commercial Management, Property Manager for University Centre, 393 University Avenue, Suite 1607, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1E6, has submitted a letter of objection dated December 15, 1998 (Appendix 'B') regarding this location.

Under the procedural rules of By-law No. 98-97, 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 Road Allowance Sub-Committee.

To date, appeals of denial of applications for street vending within the former City of Toronto are heard by the Toronto Community Council, with the exception of mobile vending applications on former Metro roads, i.e. University Avenue. Prior to amalgamation, the former Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto did not delegate authority to the former City of Toronto for vending enforcement or the issuance of permits on former Metro roads. Those appeals were heard by the former Metro Road Allowance Sub-Committee, recommendations forwarded to the Planning and Transportation Committee, then further forwarded to Metro Council. Currently, there is no scheduled meeting date for the new Road Allowance Sub-Committee.

The responsibility for harmonizing vending by-laws, enforcement and issuance of vending permits is currently in transition, from Works and Emergency Services to Urban Planning and Development Services. This appeal is before the Toronto Community Council for your consideration, in order to simplify, harmonize and expedite the application appeal process during this transition period.

Staff have met with Mr. Shafee and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under By-law No. 98-97, because we have received a letter of objection.

In order to assist your Committee with the evaluation of Mr. Michael A. Ward's concerns, they are summarized below along with staff's response.

Concern # 1 The proposed vending location would add to the existing litter and garbage problem caused by smokers congregating at the front door of 393 University Avenue

Staff Response: The proposed location is 28.5 metres north of the main entrance.

The vendor or the employee or agent of the vendor is required to maintain the designated area to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, failure to do so, the designated area may be cleaned at the vendor's expense by City forces.

Concern # 2 There are two food vendors servicing the area in the vicinity of the proposed vending location

Staff Response: A curb lane ice cream vendor and a sidewalk/boulevard hot dog vendor are located 35 and 54 metres south of this application, respectively. By-law No. 98-97 requires a separation of 25 metres between vendors selling similar products.

The sidewalk/boulevard hot dog vending location on Centre Avenue, the first street east of University Avenue, is 45 metres south of the rear entrance to 393 University Avenue.

Should this application be approved, curb lane vending would be feasible from this location except during rush hour restrictions (No Stopping - 7:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. - 6:30 p.m.). Additionally, the proposed vending location would result in the loss of one parking meter. I have been informed by the Toronto Parking Authority that the costs of the removal of the parking meter is $150.00 and the loss of parking meter revenue for 1999 is $3,000.00. The applicant would be responsible for the costs of removing the parking meter, installing two vending signs/poles and paying the annual fee to off-set the lost parking meter revenue due to the installation of a curb lane vending location.

Conclusions:

This application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the By-law. Staff cannot issue Mr. Shafee a permit because of the written objection to this application.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Barrie Chavel, 392-0839

Mr. Butch Windsor, The Plantario Group Ltd., appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of Appendix B referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on October 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 163 Cortleigh Boulevard.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by Ms. Madelyn S. Sloane, owner of 163 Cortleigh Boulevard, Toronto, M5N 1P6. The applicant is concerned that the tree is too close to the house, and with the mess and dangers associated with falling walnuts.

Financial Implications:

N/A

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 planting of a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 42 centimetre diameter black walnut in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Al Miley & Associates, that accompanies the application, states that the owner and neighbour are concerned about the tree in proximity to their homes. They find that the tree is very messy, as it overhangs their decks and roof and they are concerned that falling walnuts may injure the grandchildren. The owner is committed to planting an 80 millimetre caliper replacement tree if approval is granted for removal of the walnut. The walnut tree has been recently pruned and the structure of the tree is such that pruning in the future to provide clearance from the roof will be possible without deforming the tree or jeopardizing it's health. The fruit of the walnut tree requires a fairly dedicated cleanup program in the late summer months, but the problem is not severe enough to warrant removal of a majestic shade tree.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

392-6644

Ms. Madelyn Sloane, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for the blue spruce in the front yard at 157 Coldstream Avenue and issue a permit for the Norway spruce in the rear yard.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property has been filed by Mr Davide Carnevale, The Tree Specialists Inc., agent for the owners Kathryn & Eric Silmser, 157 Coldstream Avenue, Toronto, M5N 1X7. The owner would like to construct a rear addition and re-landscape the property.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) refuse to issue a permit for the blue spruce in the front yard and issue a permit for the Norway spruce in the rear yard; or

(2) refuse to issue a permit for removal of both spruce trees; or

(3) issue a permit for removal of both spruce trees conditional on the planting of replacement trees to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The trees in question include a 35 centimetre diameter blue spruce at the front of the property and a 43 centimetre diameter Norway spruce at the rear of the property. Both trees are in fair condition. The property owner would like to landscape the front yard and the blue spruce does not fit in with the landscape plans. An addition is proposed for the rear of the house that will require the removal of the Norway spruce. A tree protection plan has been submitted with the application that provides recommendations on protecting two privately owned Norway maple trees during the construction of the rear addition and swimming pool. One of the Norway maples is located on the neighbouring property to the west and our Department will be requiring the owner of the subject property to contract an arborist to implement the tree protection plan to ensure there is no damage to the Norway maples from construction activity.

The blue spruce at the front of the property is a valuable tree in the community and it should be incorporated into any proposed landscaping. The Norway spruce at the rear of the property is growing close to and competing with the Norway maple located on the neighbouring property. The spruce has experienced some dieback on the north side of its crown due to the competition for light with the Norway maple. If two 80 millimetre caliper large growing native shade trees are planted as replacement for the Norway spruce, this would be an acceptable option in the opinion of staff.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the trees in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the report dated September 27, 1999, from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board, be adopted.")

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 Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board to undertake an inventory of properties which can be listed and/or designated on St. Clair Avenue West between Spadina Road and Avenue Road; and

(2) That the communication (September 20, 1999) from Mr. Michael McClelland, E.R.A. Architects Inc., addressed to Mr. Gary Switzer, Great Gulf Homes Limited be referred to the Managing Director and Board of the Toronto Historical Board for consideration.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that the following motion by Councillor Adams lost on the following tied vote:

"That the report (September 27, 1999) from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board be adopted."

Yeas: Councillors McConnell, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Silva and Walker - 6

Nays: Councillors Chow, Disero, Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski, Pantalone and Rae - 6

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Acting Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West (Alexander Davidson House and Coach House) be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That City Council state its intention to include the properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West (Alexander Davidson House and Coach House) on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

2. That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

In August, 1999, on behalf of his constituents, Councillor John Adams requested that the properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West (Alexander Davidson House and Coach House) be considered for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

As outlined in the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (August 24, 1999), Heritage Toronto staff evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Notable Heritage Property (Category B).

Comments:

At its meeting of September 8, 1999, the Board of Heritage Toronto heard deputations from the property owner and several interested parties. The property owner objected to the proposed inclusion of the properties on the Inventory of Heritage Properties; representatives of a local ratepayers group spoke in favour of the proposed listings. The Board recommended that the properties be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties.

The properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West are identified for architectural and historical reasons. The Alexander Davidson House and its complementary Coach House are good examples of Edwardian Classicism architecture with important surviving interior elements in the house.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West (Alexander Davidson House and Coach House) on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson, Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board; Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239; Fax: 392-6834

Recommendation:

That the properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West (Alexander Davidson House and Coach House) be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments

1. Background:

Councillor John Adams, on behalf of his constituents, submitted a Property Nomination Form requesting that the properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West be considered for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property at 262 St. Clair Avenue West contains a house form building dating to 1911-1912 which is currently used for medical offices and an apartment. The adjoining coach house located at 264 St. Clair Avenue West was constructed at the same time and is now in residential use. There is concern in the neighbourhood that the continuing pressure to increase density along St. Clair Avenue West will result in the demolition of these buildings.

A report prepared by heritage consultant Paul Dilse for the applicant as supporting evidence for the nomination is attached.

2. Discussion:

The properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West were evaluated according to the Board's Criteria which indicate that the site is a Notable Heritage Property (Category B).

A Property Research Summary is attached.

Basic Building Data:

Address: 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West (northwest corner of St. Clair Avenue West and Russell Hill Road)

Ward: 23 (Midtown)

Current Name: #262: Hendry Building

#264: not applicable

Historical Name: Alexander Davidson House and Coach House

Construction Date: 1911-1912

Architect: J. Wilson Gray

Contractor/Builder: Gordon Brothers

Additions/Alterations: #262: dates unknown, 1^st-floor casement window altered; slate roof replaced; interior alterations

#264: 1946, garage doors replaced; dormers added

Original Owner: Dr. Alexander Davidson, physician

Original Use: residential (single-family dwelling)

Current Use*: #262: commercial and residential (medical offices and apartment)

#264: residential (single-family dwelling)

Heritage Category: Notable Heritage Property (Category B)

Recording Date: August 1999

Recorder: HPD:KA/PD report

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

Property Research Summary

Description:

The properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West are identified for architectural and historical reasons. The house and adjoining coach house were constructed in 1911-1912 according to the designs of Toronto architect J. Wilson Gray. The property was developed for Dr. Alexander Davidson, a surgeon at Toronto Western Hospital. In 1925, Dr. William Belfrey Hendry, Chief of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at Toronto General Hospital and a professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, acquired the site. The house was named the Hendry Building following its conversion to medical offices in 1946.

The Alexander Davidson House is designed in the Edwardian Classical style favoured for residential and commercial architecture in the early 20^th century. Rising 2½-stories, the house is constructed of red brick and trimmed with artificial stone and wood. The rectangular plan with a stepped facade is covered by a steeply-pitched gable roof with extended eaves and a single brick and stone chimney. Wood dormers with Classical detailing are placed on the south and north slopes. The principal (south) facade is organized into a 2½-storey main block flanked by a two-storey west wing. In the centre of the symmetrically-organized main block, a projecting entrance bay rises 2½ stories beneath a shaped pediment with stone quoins, coping, and brackets with Classical detailing. A single-leaf oak door with bronze hardware is placed in an elaborate stone surround with quoins and exaggerated keystones. The door is flanked by separate half-length sidelights with stone sills. A recessed stone porch with Classical columns and pilasters supporting an entablature protects the entry and three sets of French windows in the first floor. The porch has stone steps, a clay tile floor, and a slatted wood ceiling. Period glass light fixtures flank the door and are mounted along the porch ceiling. Above the entrance, two rows of flat-headed window openings with continuous stone sills are trimmed with brick voussoirs, stone keystones and, in the attic level, quoins and lintels. In the remainder of the main block, flat-headed window openings have double-sash wood windows, brick voussoirs, and stone sills and keystones. The east wall facing Russell Hill Road rises 2½ stories beneath a truncated gable with stone coping. A recessed entrance porch has stone steps, clay tile floor, slatted wood ceiling, and elaborate brick and stone detailing. The porch protects a stone-trimmed entrance containing a single-leaf wood door. On this wall, single and two-storey bay windows display stone detailing. The second-storey window openings are set in stone surrounds, while those in the attic level have brick and stone detailing. The rear (north) elevation displays a 2½-storey projecting centre section, a tripartite stairwell window, and flat-headed window openings set according to the interior plan. The west wing has a gable roof with returned eaves and, on the south and west walls, bands of casement windows with Classical wood detailing and stone sills.

Significant interior elements are found in the main-floor entrance hall and drawing room and the second-floor hall and foyer. The entrance hall displays oak panelled walls, moulded plaster cornice, panelled plaster ceiling, and panelled oak doors. A fireplace with Arts and Crafts detailing features a brick hearth, tile face and floor, hammered metal hood, brackets, and oak mantle. The mantle is surmounted by wall lamps inspired by Art Nouveau styling, and the ceiling has a period glass light fixture. A dog-leg oak staircase with a Classically-detailed newel post, turned balusters, posts and handrail rises to the second-floor foyer and hallway. The foyer has oak wainscotting, cornice and doors as well as a ceiling glass light fixture. The foyer leads to a hall with oak wainscotting and doors and a vaulted plaster ceiling. The first-floor drawing room, located west of the entrance hall, displays panelled mahogany walls with a dentilled cornice and entablatures below a plaster cornice and ceiling. On the west wall, a fireplace is distinguished by its elaborate mahogany surround with Classical detailing, tiled floor and face, metal hearth, mahogany mantle and wall lamps

Northwest of the house, the brick-clad coach house rises 1½ stories under a gable roof with decorative downspouts and, on the south slope, a truncated gable. The windows and door on the south wall are trimmed with brick voussoirs and stone keystones and sills.

The properties at 262 and 264 St. Clair Avenue West are located on the northwest corner of St. Clair Avenue and Russell Hill Road on lands subdivided from the Baldwin Estate. The house and adjoining coach house are set back from and elevated above St. Clair Avenue in a landscaped setting with mature trees. The property is indicative of the residential properties that lined St. Clair Avenue West in the Forest Hill neighbourhood. The property has long associations with the Toronto medical community as the residence of two doctors and, during the last half century, as medical offices. The architectural design is highlighted by intact interior period elements.

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

- (September 30, 1999) from Mr. Gary Switzer, Great Gulf Homes Limited; and

- (Undated) from Mr. Paul Dilse, Heritage Planning Consultant

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

- Mr. Paul Dilse, Heritage Planning Consultant;

- Mr. Gary Switzer, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Joan Miles, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Ms. Susan Ainley, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated) submitted by Councillor Adams, entitled, "Supporting Evidence for Nomination as a Heritage Property".)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree injury at 7 Gange Avenue, conditional on:

(a) the trees in question not being injured until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(b) the applicant implementing a landscape plan acceptable to the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 15, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to injure two trees on private property has been filed by the owner Mr. Richard Weldon, Crown Regal Lands, 124 Merton Street, Suite 300, Toronto, M4S 2Z2. The applicant is proposing to construct row housing in close proximity to the trees.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) refuse to issue a permit for tree injury, requiring the applicant to redesign the proposed development to provide adequate protection for the trees; or

(2) issue a permit for tree injury conditional on: i) the trees in question not being injured until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees. ii) the applicant implementing a landscape plan acceptable to the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The trees in question are both Norway maples with diameters of 52 and 56 centimetres. The trees are located on private property at the rear of 45 and 47 Birch Avenue. The rear yards of these Birch Avenue addresses border the development site. One of the proposed row house units will be constructed within 1 and 3 metres from the two private trees involved with this application. The excavation required to construct the foundation for the unit will impact a significant portion of the tree root systems. There will also be substantial pruning required to provide clearance for the above ground portion of the row house unit. The required pruning will remove approximately 40% of the crowns of both Norway maples. This excessive pruning will be detrimental to the health of the trees and will eliminate the aesthetic qualities that the trees provide to the community. There is an existing building on the site where the proposed row house unit is to be constructed. The building consists of brick construction with a concrete floor slab. This is not an ideal growing environment for the roots of the Norway maple trees, however, there will be supporting roots growing underneath the floor slab of this existing building that will be severed during excavation for the new home.

The applicant has retained an arborist to implement a tree protection plan during construction. The implementation of the arborists' recommendations will provide some protection for the trees, but in the opinion of staff, the extent of the construction proposed and the proximity of the trees to the construction will lead to the decline of both trees. This will leave the owners of the Norway maples with an expense for removing the trees, and depending on the extent of the root damage, the trees may become destabilized and a liability for the owners.

The proposed development should be redesigned so that the trees will not be impacted by the construction activity. The row house units should be constructed far enough away from the trees so that no pruning of the crowns will be required to provide clearance for the units. This would also enable establishment of a no work zone to protect the tree root systems. Plywood hoarding should be constructed a minimum of five metres south, east and west of the tree stems to create an adequate no work zone.

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. Six written objections and two petitions were received in response to the application to injure the trees in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

392-6644

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, photographs of the tree, 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. Linda Bergman, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Catherine Eaton, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. S. Bielak, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Ian Bruce, Bruce Tree Expert Co. Ltd.; and

- Mr. R. Weldon, Crown Regal Lands.

(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 October 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Councillor Adams declared an interest in this matter in that he owns property within the Committee of Adjustment notice area of the subject site.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated) submitted by Councillor Bossons, pertaining to the application to permit tree injury at 7 Gange Avenue and requesting that the Toronto Community Council's decision be overruled.)

(Councillor Adams, at the Council meeting on October 26 and 27, 1999, declared an interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he owns property within the Committee of Adjustment notice area of the subject site.)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for the removal the subject trees at 150 Roehampton Avenue, conditional on:

(a) the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the tree;

(b) the applicant submitting a certified cheque in the amount of $3820.55 to cover the value of the City-owned tree, its removal and replacement costs; and

(c) the applicant committing to plant a minimum of seven (7) 70 - 80 mm replacement trees in accordance with Landscape Planting and Lighting Plan L2 prepared by NAK Design Group, date stamped as received on August 26, 1999 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been filed under the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article I and III, for permission to remove one City-owned and one tree situated on private property in connection with a development proposal for 150 and 152 Roehampton Avenue. The application has been filed by Ms. Sibylle von Knobloch of NAK Design Group, on behalf of the owner of 150 and 152 Roehampton Avenue, Teddington Limited (Attention: Mr. Brian Magee, President), 15 Birch Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4V 1E1.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1) That if Toronto Community Council approves the request for the removal the subject trees that the approval be conditional on:

(i) the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the tree;

(ii) the applicant submitting a certified cheque in the amount of $3820.55 to cover the value of the City-owned tree, it's removal and replacement costs; and

(iii) the applicant committing to plant a minimum of seven (7) 70 - 80 mm replacement trees in accordance with Landscape Planting and Lighting Plan L2 prepared by NAK Design Group, date stamped as received on August 26, 1999 by Urban Planning &

Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services; or

(2) That permission to remove the subject trees be denied.

Background:

This request for tree removals has been received in connection with Site Plan Approval Application No. 398114 which is a proposal to construct a 14 storey condominium apartment building with 2, two storey townhouse units. The proposed development precludes the retention of the trees in question given the size and scale of the development.

Comments:

We are in receipt of a request from Ms. Sibylle von Knobloch, NAK Design Group, 362 Dupont Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5R 1V9, on behalf of the owner of 150 and 152 Roehampton Avenue, that the City consider the removal of one city-owned tree and one tree situated on the private property of 150 Roehampton.

The City-owned tree, located on Roehampton Avenue, is a thirty-seven (37) centimetre diameter Norway Maple in fair condition. The tree is within the proposed point of vehicular access.

The private tree is situated in close proximity to the north property line of the subject site. The tree in question is a thirty-two (32) centimetre diameter Manitoba Maple in fair condition. This tree requires City Council approval to permit its removal. The proposed development in its present form precludes the retention of the subject tree given the size and scale of the development.

The landscape plan, which has been filed with the development application for this site, indicates the planting of seven (7) large growing shade tree species throughout the development site.

As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was posted on the subject property for the required minimum 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. Two written objections have been received in response to the application to remove the privately owned tree in question. A copy of these two letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for review by Toronto Community Council.

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, 392-0494 Vicky Jeffery, 392-7390

Mr. Chris Bohme, NAK Design, Landscape Architects, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(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 October 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, amended this Clause, in accordance with the report dated October 25, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations:

"(1) That the Draft By-law contained in Clause No. 16 of Report No. 13 of The Toronto Community Council be amended to replace the reference under Column 6, Drawing No./Date with the following:

'421F-5497, dated October, 1999'; and

(2) That the Draft By-law, as amended, be approved.")

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to consult with the Ward Councillors on the precise location of the first speed hump south of Bloor Street West and to report thereon directly to Council.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 52 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Kennedy Avenue between Bloor Street West and Morningside Avenue (High Park)", which was adopted by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on September 20, September 27, October 4 and October 11, 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. 7 , Clause No. 52, as adopted by Council on May 11 and 12, 1999

Enacted by Council:

Bill No.

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:

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 52 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Kennedy Avenue between Bloor Street West and Morningside Avenue (High Park)":

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Kennedy Avenue from Bloor Street West to Morningside Avenue by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $13,500.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

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

"The construction of speed humps on Kennedy Avenue from Bloor Street West to Morningside Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5364, dated April 1999";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Kennedy Avenue from Bloor Street West to Morningside Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; 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 Councillor David Miller and area residents, Works staff conducted an investigation to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Kennedy Avenue from Bloor Street West to Morningside Avenue to reduce vehicle speeds.

Kennedy Avenue between Bloor Street West and Morningside Avenue operates two-way with a variable pavement width of 8.5 to 9.4 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

Works staff conducted 24-hour speed and volume counts on Kennedy Avenue between Bloor Street West and Morningside Avenue and found that on average the street carried 2000 vehicles per day. On a daily basis, approximately 23% of vehicular traffic travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

Kennedy Avenue has been evaluated against the primary criteria for speed hump installation contained in the Speed Hump Policy adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting on August 21, 1997 (Clause 28 in City Services Committee Report No. 10) and it has been determined that the installation of speed humps is technically warranted.

In accordance with the above noted Speed Hump Policy, once it has been determined that the primary criteria for speed hump installation has been satisfied, a formal poll must be conducted of adults, 18 years of age and older, whose residence directly abuts Kennedy Avenue or whose sole access to their residence is from Kennedy Avenue. Further, at least 60 per cent of returned ballots must be in favour of the installation of speed humps in order to proceed with the proposal. Accordingly, staff will conduct this poll and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project.

The speed hump proposal, as illustrated on the attached copy of Drawing No. 421F-5364 dated April 1999, consists of 9 speed humps. A speed limit reduction from the present 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Kennedy Avenue concurrent with the installation of the speed humps would be appropriate. No alterations to the parking regulations are required nor will the number of on-street parking spaces be affected.

The intent of Council to enact a by-law to install speed humps on Kennedy Avenue constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Consequently, the proposed changes to the roadway must be advertised and be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with emergency service agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the design and layout of speed humps does not adversely affect their operations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, Transportation Operations Co-ordinator; 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of a speed hump poll of Kennedy Avenue residents and to advise that conditions for the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Kennedy Avenue have been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, in adopting Clause No. 52 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, approved the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Kennedy Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of affected residents. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above will be advertised in a daily newspaper on four consecutive weeks in September and October 1999, and will be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on October 12, 1999.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations and that at least 60 percent of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Kennedy Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Morningside Avenue in August and September 1999, showed that 138 of the 269 eligible voters responded to the poll (51 percent). Of these, 95 (69 percent) supported the installation of speed humps and 38 (28 percent) did not.

Accordingly, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, have been satisfied on the subject section of Kennedy Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator; 392-7771

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (undated) from Ms. Sarah Grant, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 25, 1999) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a Toronto Community Council request for a report on the precise location of the first speed hump on Kennedy Avenue, just south of Bloor Street West.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That the Draft By-law contained in Clause 16 of Report No. 13 of Toronto Community Council be amended to replace the reference under Column 6, Drawing No./Date with the following:

" 421F-5497, dated October, 1999"; and

2. That the Draft By-law, as amended, be approved.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 12, 1999, recommended that City Council enact a by-law to implement a speed hump plan on Kennedy Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Morningside Avenue. The Community Council also requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to consult with the Ward Councillors on the precise location of the first speed hump south of Bloor Street West and to report thereon directly to Council at its meeting of October 26, 1999 (Clause 16 of Report No.13 of Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

As a result of concerns expressed by a constituent with the proposed location of the first speed hump on Kennedy Avenue south of Bloor Street West, staff have reviewed this matter and consulted with the Ward Councillors. To alleviate concerns, it has been desided to relocate the speed hump approximately 5 metres south (to a distance of 51 metres south of Bloor Street West). This change is incorporated in the attached revised Drawing No. 421F-5497, dated October, 1999 and Recommendation No. 1 above.

Contact:

Spiros Stamopoulos

Traffic Investigator

Tel: 392-7771)

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 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 38 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Construction of a Layby - Eglinton Avenue East, South Side, between Redpath Avenue and Lillian Street in front of 123 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)", which was adopted by City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on September 20, September 27, October 4 and October 11, 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. 11, Clause No. 38

as adopted by Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999

Enacted by Council:

Bill 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 consisting of the widening of the pavement by the construction of a lay-by on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East near Redpath Avenue .

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , 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-2" (Pavement Widening) the following:

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 38 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, titled "Construction of a Layby - Eglinton Avenue East south side, between Redpath Avenue and Lillian Street in front of 123 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)":

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July 6, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of a layby on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East, in front of Premises No. 123 as previously approved by Council in connection with a proposed development project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

All costs associated with this proposal are to be borne by the developer (Eglinton Place Inc. - Tridel).

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East, from a point approximately 28 m west of Redpath Avenue to a point approximately 33 m further west, for the construction of a layby as described below:

"The construction of a layby on the south side of EGLINTON AVENUE EAST from a point approximately 28 m west of Redpath Avenue to a point approximately 33 m further west, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5415, dated July, 1999;" 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:

City Council, at its meeting held on October 28, 29, and 30, 1998, received Clause No. 70(b) of Report No. 12 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled Final Report - Application 197021 - Site Specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit the Existing Union Carbide Building to be Replaced with an 18-storey Residential Condominium Apartment Building at 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue (North Toronto). Toronto Community Council requested, among other things, that "the City take whatever action is necessary to permit a layby access to the site from Eglinton Avenue East, including the amendment of site plan drawings which will form part of the Statement of Approval/Undertaking to include a layby access from Eglinton Avenue East and the issuance of the necessary permits".

The Statement of Approval/Undertaking, dated November 25, 1998, between the City of Toronto and Eglinton Place Inc., the owner of the above site, includes provisions for the construction of a layby at the applicant's cost as well as conveyance to the City of a 2.18 m wide by 31.5 m long right-of-way along the south limit of Eglinton Avenue East, behind the layby, to provide for a widening of the remaining sidewalk within the Eglinton Avenue East road allowance, so that a 4.5 m wide sidewalk is maintained.

Comments:

Further to the direction to provide a layby in connection with the development on adjacent lands, as noted in the above-reference Clause, a design has been developed to provide layby access on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East, between Redpath Avenue and Lillian Street, in front of Premises No. 123 Eglinton Avenue East. The Union Carbide building is currently undergoing demolition in preparation of the construction of the condominium building approved by City Council.

Eglinton Avenue, in the vicinity of Premises No. 123, is a 5 lane arterial roadway with a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour. On the south side, standing is prohibited at anytime from Redpath Avenue to a point approximately 62 m west thereof (a transit stop zone) and from that point to Lillian Avenue, 4 parking meter spaces are provided which operate from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Stopping is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, in conjunction with the reserved transit/taxi/bicycle lane which operates during the same time periods in the southerly most eastbound traffic lane.

The proposed layby is shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5415 and commences at a point approximately 28 m west of Redpath Avenue to a point approximately 33 m further west. This layby will accommodate 3 passenger vehicles and under the existing "No Standing Anytime" regulation associated with the existing TTC bus stop, will allow for passenger pick up/drop off activities within the layby. Alternative loading facilities have been incorporated into the design of the new building for the loading of goods and/or merchandise.

The applicant has been required to convey to the City a 2.18 m by 31 m right-of-way to be added to the remaining sidewalk on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East to compensate for the sidewalk space to be lost by the construction of the layby. It is noted that all costs associated with the construction of the layby and the sidewalk reconstruction/widening are to be borne by the owner of Premises No. 123 Eglinton Avenue East.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin

Manager of Traffic Operations, District 1

(Central Area)

(416) 392-7771.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 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 51 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of Speed Humps - Kennedy Avenue between Bloor Street West and Morningside Avenue (High Park)", which was adopted by City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on September 20, September 27, October 4 and October 11, 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. 7 , Clause No. 51, as adopted by Council on May 11 and 12, 1999

Enacted by Council:

Bill 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 Morningside Avenue by the installation of speed humps

from Rambert Crescent to Windermere Avenue.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on and , 1999 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1999 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

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

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

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

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 51 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 7, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Morningside Avenue between Rambert Crescent and Windermere Avenue (High Park)":

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Morningside Avenue between Rambert Crescent and Windermere Avenue by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $3000.00 can be accommodated in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Capital Budget.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter the roadway on Morningside Avenue between Rambert Crescent and Windermere Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Morningside Avenue between Rambert Crescent and Windermere Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5338, dated February 25, 1999";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on Morningside Avenue between Rambert Crescent and Windermere Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; 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 Councillor David Miller, Works staff conducted an investigation of excessive speeding on Morningside Avenue between South Kingsway and Windermere Avenue.

Morningside Avenue between South Kingsway and Windermere Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

Works staff conducted 24-hour speed and volume counts on the subject section of Morningside Avenue and found that on average the street carried 1700 vehicles per day. On a daily basis, approximately 4 percent of vehicular traffic travelled in excess of 55 kilometres per hour. The operating speed (the speed at which 85 percent of motorists travelled at or below) recorded was 48 kilometres per hour.

The subject section of Morningside Avenue has been evaluated against the primary criteria for speed hump installation contained in the Speed Hump Policy adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting on August 21, 1997 (Clause 28 of Report No. 10 of the City Services Committee) and it has been determined that the segment between Rambert Crescent and Windermere Avenue satisfies these criteria. The portion of Morningside Avenue between South Kingsway and Rambert Crescent has a grade of 9.8 percent which is substantially greater than the maximum grade of 5 percent allowed under the criteria.

In accordance with the above noted Speed Hump Policy, once it has been determined that the primary criteria for speed hump installation has been satisfied, a formal poll must be conducted of adults, 18 years of age and older, whose residence directly abuts the subject section of Morningside Avenue or whose sole access to their residence is from Morningside Avenue. Further, at least 60% of returned ballots must be in favour of the installation of speed humps in order to proceed with the proposal. Accordingly, staff will conduct this poll and report on the results at a deputation meeting for the project.

The speed hump proposal, as illustrated on the attached copy of Drawing No. 421F-5338 dated February 25, 1999, consists of two speed humps. A speed limit reduction from the present 40 kilometres per hour to 30 kilometres per hour on this segment of Morningside Avenue concurrent with the installation of the speed humps would be appropriate. No alterations to the parking regulations are required nor will the number of on-street parking spaces be affected.

The intent of Council to enact a by-law to install speed humps on Morningside Avenue constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Consequently, the proposed changes to the roadway must be advertised and be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with emergency service agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the design and layout of speed humps does not adversely affect their operations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl

Transportation Operations Co-ordinator

392-7771

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 27, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of a speed hump poll of Morningside Avenue residents and to advise that conditions for the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Morningside Avenue have been satisfied.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

City Council at its meeting of May 11, 12 and 13, 1999, in adopting Clause No. 51 of Report No. 7 of the Toronto Community Council, approved the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Morningside Avenue, subject to the favourable results of polling of affected residents. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above will be advertised in a daily newspaper on four consecutive weeks in September and October 1999, and will be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on October 12, 1999.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations and that at least 60 percent of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Morningside Avenue, from Rambert Crescent to Windermere Avenue in August and September 1999, showed that 29 of the 45 eligible voters responded to the poll (64 percent). Of these, 21 (72 percent) supported the installation of speed humps and 4 (14 percent) did not.

Accordingly, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, have been satisfied on the subject section of Morningside Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

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

- (September 16, 1999) from Mr. W.R. Slean

- Petition with 29 signatures in support

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 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 21 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Proposed Closing of the Remnant Portion of the Public Lane crossing Harris Road (Davenport)" and Clause 33 of Report No. 11 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Disposal and Sale of City-owned Vacant Land Part of the Remnant Portion of the Public Lane Crossing Harris Road (a Private Road) (Davenport)", which were adopted by City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on September 20, September 27, October 4 and October 11, 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. ( ), as adopted

by Council on

Bill No.

To stop up and close the remnant portion of the public lane crossing

Harris Road and to authorize the sale thereof

WHEREAS it is recommended that the remnant portion of the public lane crossing Harris Road be stopped up and closed as a public lane and be sold to the abutting owner on the terms and conditions set out in Clause 33 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, as adopted by Council at its meeting held on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999;

AND WHEREAS notice of the proposed by-law to stop up and close the said portion of lane and to authorize the sale thereof was published in The Globe and Mail on _____________________;

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

1. The remnant portion of the public lane crossing Harris Road, described as follows:

In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of part of the Public Lane lying to the north of Lots 37 and 38 on Plan 839-York, designated as PART 1 on Plan 64R-15877, both said Plans being in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64)

is hereby stopped up and closed as a public lane.

2. The soil and freehold of the portion of public lane stopped up and closed by Section 1 of this By-law shall be sold to the abutting owner on the terms and conditions set out in Clause 33 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, as adopted by Council at its meeting held on July 27, 28 and 29, 1999.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

MEL LASTMAN, NOVINA WONG,

Mayor City Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 21 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, titled "Proposed Closing of the Remnant Portion of the Public Lane crossing Harris Road (Davenport)":

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 22, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To obtain City Council authority for the stopping-up and closing of a remnant portion of the public lane crossing the private road "Harris Road".

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N\A

Recommendations:

Subject to any additional terms and conditions including compensation and costs, that may be determined by City Council in connection with the conveyance of the subject lane, as set out in the report to Toronto Community Council from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

(1) That the remnant portion of the public lane crossing Harris Road, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2893, be stopped-up and closed; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required, and give notice to the public.

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services has received and evaluated a request from Blake, Cassels and Graydon on behalf of 1260200 Ontario Inc., to stop up and close the remnant portion of the public lane crossing the private road "Harris Road", shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2893. The closing is required by the applicant in order to incorporate this land into the development site. The portions of the public lane to the east and west of the subject lands were previously closed by by-law. I have assessed the proposal and consider it feasible.

A separate report on the terms and conditions of the sale of these lands will be submitted to the Toronto Community Council by the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

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

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Laurie Robertson

Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings

(392-7711)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following Clause 33 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, titled "Disposal and Sale of City-owned Vacant Land Part of the Remnant Portion of the Public Lane Crossing Harris Road (a Private Road) (Davenport)":

(City Council on July 27, 28, 29 and 30, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 21, 1999) from the Chief Administrative Officer and Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain City Council approval:

(a) to declare as surplus City-owned lands shown as Part 1 on Plan of Survey 64R-15877, being a remnant portion of the public lane crossing Harris Road (a Private Road); and

(b) to authorize the sale of Part 1 to 1260200 Ontario Inc., the adjoining property owner at a sale price of $9,205.50.

Financial Implications:

The proceeds from the sale of these lands will generate revenues to the City as set out in this report. The net proceeds from the sale of these lands should be credited to the Capital Funds From Assets Sold Account.

Recommendations:

Subject to City Council approving the stopping up and closing of the remnant portion of the public lane crossing Harris Road (a Private Road), shown as Part 1 on Plan 64R-15877, (the "Remnant Lane") it is recommended that:

(1) City Council declare the proposed conveyance of the Remnant Lane to be in compliance with Section 3.3 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan, Part 1- Cityplan;

(2) the Remnant Lane be declared surplus;

(3) the Remnant Lane be sold to 1260200 Ontario Inc. upon compliance with the following terms and conditions:

(a) indemnify the City together with such other persons as the City Solicitor may require, against all lost, cost, damage or action arising as a result of the closing and/or the sale;

(b) pay to the City the sum of $9,205.50 for the Remnant Lane, reflecting an overall rate of $149.93 per square metre of land;

(c) pay all out-of-pocket expenses that will be incurred by the City as a result of the closing and conveyance, estimated to be $3,500.00, and agree that any such money expended will not be refunded in the event that the transaction is not completed, the cost for the City's out-of-pocket expenses is estimated and the applicant will be responsible for the actual cost; and

(d) comply with such other terms and conditions as the City Solicitor may deem advisable to protect the City's interests;

(4) upon compliance with the terms and conditions set out in Recommendation No. 3 above, the Remnant Lane be conveyed to 1260200 Ontario Inc.;

(5) the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to give notice to the public of the proposed sale to the adjoining property owner of the Remnant Lane;

(6) the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Executive Director of Facilities and Real Estate, be authorized to complete this transaction on the basis of such terms and conditions as required by the City Solicitor and in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

(7) the appropriate Civic Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including introducing the necessary bills in Council.

Background:

1260200 Ontario Inc. is proceeding with a proposal to develop a large parcel of land on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West, extending easterly from Symes Road to Gunns Road. 1260200 Ontario Inc. has submitted an application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to stop up, close and convey the Remnant Lane. 1260200 Ontario Inc. is the only adjoining owner of this portion of public lane.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is reporting to the Toronto Community Council meeting of July 15, 1999 for referral to City Council for approval on July 27, 28, and 29, 1999, on this application to stop up and close this remnant portion of a public lane. Staff of Works and Emergency Services have indicated that they have no objections to the sale of the Remnant Lane to the adjoining property owner.

1260200 Ontario Inc. has expressed an interest in acquiring the Remnant Lane, containing an area of approximately 61.4 m² and has agreed to pay the sum of $9,205.50, being the estimated market value for Part 1.

Comments:

City Council, at its meeting held on July 31, 1998, passed By-law No. 551-98 to establish procedures governing the sale of Real Property. Where City Council has declared a site to be surplus in accordance with the Municipal Act, the Commissioner of Corporate Services shall give notice to the public of the proposed sale. An appraisal of the current market value of the site has been completed by City staff.

Conclusion:

The Remnant Lane is surplus to City requirements and, subject to City Council approving the stopping up and closing of the Remnant Lane as a public highway, the sale of this land at market value to the adjoining owners is acceptable. The sale will result in $9,205.50 being paid to the City for the land.

Contact Name:

Ron J. Banfield

Telephone: 392-1859

Fax: 392-1880

E-mail: rbanfiel@toronto.ca

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 8 Bin-Scarth Road, conditional on the applicant:

(1) agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(2) contributing $500.00 to the Urban Forestry Program for the planting of a tree on municipal property in the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by Ms. Ina Elias, Elias & Associates, Landscape Architects, 247 Davenport Road, Toronto, M5R 1J9, agent for the owner, Ms. Helene Rhind, 8 Bin-Scarth Road, Toronto, M4W 1Y1. The applicant would like to re-landscape the portion of the property where the tree is located.

Financial Implications:

N/A

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 a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 40 centimetre diameter black walnut in fair condition. The tree is located near a swimming pool and the applicant is concerned about the mess from the falling walnuts. The applicant has also been approached by neighbours who have stated their interests in having the tree removed. The neighbours have stated to the applicant that the allelotoxin, juglone, produced by the walnut has poisoned their trees and shrubs. There is a substantial list of plant material that is compatible with walnut trees, and careful selection of trees and shrubs will eliminate conflicts with adjacent plant material. Walnut fruit is quite large and a fairly regular schedule of cleanup is required in the late summer months to minimize the dilemma associated with falling fruit. The inconvenience of the fruit is minor when compared to the environmental and aesthetic benefits of this majestic shade tree species. The tree in question is an offspring of a much larger walnut tree, also on the applicants' property that will remain as a featured tree in the contemplated landscape.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

392-6644

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

- (September 11, 1999) from Mr. William & Ms. Lynda Malouin

- (October 11, 1999) from Mr. Walter and Ms. Joanne Ross

Ms. Ina Elias, Elias & Associates, Landscape Architects, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council approve for one year, the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 178 Bathurst Street (c/a 659 Queen Street West), as shown on Appendix 'A', attached to the report (June 29, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services, notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Toronto Community Council at the end of the 2000 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 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 a boulevard cafe fronting 178 Bathurst Street (c/a for 659 Queen Street West), because a written objection was received in response to the public notification. As applicants must be given the opportunity to be heard before Toronto Community Council, 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 deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 178 Bathurst Street (c/a 659 Queen Street West);

OR

(2) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 178 Bathurst Street (c/a 659 Queen Street West), as shown on Appendix 'A', notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Messrs. Tom Patterson and Ken Horne, 1275622 Ontario Inc., o/a The Paddock, 178 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario M5R 2V4, in a letter dated June 9, 1999, have requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a boulevard cafe fronting 178 Bathurst Street (c/a 659 Queen Street West).

Comments:

Messrs. Patterson and Horne, submitted an application on April 9, 1999, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 178 Bathurst Street (c/a for 659 Queen Street West), for an area of approximately 10.7 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 5 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 10 people.

The application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes as set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code requires that where a cafe proposal is to be located on a commercial frontage, a notice must be posted on the property for not less than 14 days to determine neighbourhood support. If a written objection is received, the application must be refused by staff, but such refusal may be subject to an appeal by the applicant.

A notice was posted on April 26, 1999, with an expiry date of May 10, 1999, to determine neighbourhood support. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, one letter of objection (Appendix 'B') was received in opposition to the proposed cafe.

Messrs. Paterson and Horne were advised in writing that because of the negative response, we could not issue a licence.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Messrs. Paterson and Horne a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 178 Bathurst Street (c/a 659 Queen Street West), due to the negative response to the public posting.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire

392-7564

(A copy of Appendix B referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on October 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 42 Balsam Avenue subject to the applicant contributing $500.00 to the Maple Cottage Rejuvenation Project.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by Mr. John Van Ekeren, Able Tree Service Inc., 8 Zachary Place, Brooklin, Ontario, L0B 1C0, agent for the owner, Ms. Maria Smith, 42 Balsam Avenue, Toronto, M4E 3B4. The owner is concerned that the tree is too close to the pool and may cause damage.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; or

(2) issue a permit for tree removal.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 40 centimetre diameter Norway maple in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Able Tree Service Inc., that accompanies the application states that the Norway maple is extremely close to the pool and that the roots of the tree may cause damage to the pool. There are several other trees on the property including two oaks and two Norway maples, and there is no suitable location to plant a replacement tree, as stated in the arborist report.

There has been no evidence included with the application indicating that damage has already occurred to the pool as a result of the Norway maple tree which is located approximately one metre from the pool edge. The tree is relatively young and this species will grow much larger. The continued increase in size of this tree combined with the location in relation to the pool may lead to structural damage to the swimming pool in the future.

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. Six written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

(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 October 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 77 Abbott Avenue, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and contributing $500.00 to the Urban Forestry Program for the planting of a tree on municipal property in the neighbourhood.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 20, 1999) from the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property has been filed by Mr. Andrew Yates, owner of 77 Abbott Avenue, Toronto, M6P 1H5. The applicant would like to re-landscape the rear yard and is of the opinion the tree has outgrown the property.

Financial Implications:

N/A

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 a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 40 centimetre diameter silver fir in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Al Miley & Associates, that accompanies the application, states that the fir tree is in fair condition but is a very tall top heavy tree due to past pruning of lower limbs. In the opinion of staff the tree is healthy and viable with a well balanced crown, and there are no safety concerns associated with the tree at this time. The tree is very large and it dominates the rear yard of the property. There are landscaping alternatives that can be implemented to incorporate this majestic tree, and the tree can accommodate pruning of some lower limbs to elevate the crown and allow the owner more use of the rear yard. The silver fir is a rare species in Toronto's Urban Forest, and this specimen is a significant tree in the community worthy of protection.

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

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

- (October 9, 1999) from Mr. Paul E. Abernethy and Ms. Elizabeth Abernethy

- (October 12, 1999) from Ms. Catherine Yates

(A copy of the letter referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on October 12, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on October 26 and 27, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the following report (October 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by adding a new recommendation to read:

"That the owner shall submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Utility Burial Plan, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, demonstrating how all utility services will be located underground within the development, provided that the burial plan does not inflict damage to mature trees; the owner hereby agrees to amend this agreement, as/if required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to provide for the maintenance and/or access to the approved below grade utilities."

and that the report, as amended, be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(1) to report to the Toronto Community Council by June, 2000 on a new requirement of development approval (Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Approval and Severance) to require owners to submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a Utility Burial Plan to the satisfaction of the relevant Commissioner, demonstrating how all utility services will be located underground within each development, subject to the preservation of existing significant trees, and that the owner agree to amend the development agreement, as/if required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, to provide for the maintenance and/or access to the approved below grade utilities; and

(2) given the possibility that the Loretto College School lands (bounded by Brunswick Avenue to the west, Lowther Avenue to the south, Walmer Avenue to the east and by a line southerly of Kendal Avenue to the north) could be redeveloped in the near future and given that the current zoning provisions would permit residential development on these lands twice that which is permitted within the surrounding residential neighbourhood and at a height exceeding the surrounding height limit by two metres, to review the existing Official Plan and Zoning By-law provisions on Brunswick Avenue east side, from the Loretto College School to Lowther Avenue, such review to undertake an urban design analysis that would address issues of appropriate built form, architectural character, streetscape, landscaping, access, parking and servicing, as the said lands lie within an area of the Annex that has a particular architectural character, wherein many of the dwellings are either listed or designated by Heritage Toronto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations respecting a settlement of the owner's appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board of applications for a Zoning By-law Amendment, Site Plan Approval and severances (consents) for a combined infill redevelopment and renovation project, including construction of nine midblock townhouses for 395, 397, 399 and 403 Brunswick Avenue, and part of 10A Kendal Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That City Council instruct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing commencing November 16, 1999, to settle the appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board respecting 395, 397, 399 and 403 Brunswick Avenue, and part of 10A Kendal Avenue, based on the following terms:

(a) that a draft Zoning By-law be authorized to amend the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law (438-86 as amended) as it affects the lands known in the year 1999 as 395, 397, 399 and 403 Brunswick Avenue, and part of 10A Kendal Avenue, substantially as set out below:

(i) exempt the lands shown by parcel on Plan 1, attached to this report, from the following Sections of By-law 438-86 as amended:

(a) for Parcel 1:

6 (3) Part II 3.C(I) Side yard setbacks;

12 (2) (280) Lot frontage;

(b) for Parcel 2:

2 Definition of "lot";

4 (11) (b) and (c) House behind a house;

6 (3) Part II 4 Rear yard setbacks;

6 (3) Part II 5 Building Depth;

6 (3) Part III 3(a)&(c) Front Yard soft landscaping;

6 (3) Part IV 4 (ii) Driveway width;

6 (3) Part IX 1 (b) One building per lot;

(c) for Parcel 3:

6 (3) Part II 4 Rear yard setbacks;

(d) for Parcel 4:

2 Definition of "lot";

6 (2) 21 Parking Station;

6 (3) Part II 3.C(I) Front yard setback;

6 (3) Part III 1.(b) Landscaped Open Space;

(e) for all parcels

6 (3) Part IX 1 (a) One building per lot

(ii) permit, on the lands shown by parcel on Plan 1, attached to this report, the erection and use of residential buildings, provided that:

(a) for Parcel 1,:

(i) the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 310 m2;

(ii) the lot frontage is not less than 10.03 metres; and

(iii) no part of any building or structure shall be closer to the side lot line than 0.12 metres on the north side; and

(b) for Parcel 2,:

(i) the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 2,500 m2;

(ii) the maximum number of residential units is 11;

(iii) no part of any building above grade extends beyond the area outlined by heavy lines in the plan to be attached to the By-law;

(iv) no building, either existing or to be erected on this parcel, shall be required to have its own lot; and

(v) the minimum driveway width shall be 5.5 metres; and

(c) for Parcel 3, :

(i) the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 425 m2;

(ii) the maximum number of residential units is 3;

(iii) no part of any building or structure that is erected shall be located closer than 5.4 metres to the rear lot lines;

(d) for Parcel 4,:

(i) the maximum residential gross floor area does not exceed 650 m2;

(ii) the maximum number of residential units is 6;

(iii) no part of any building above grade extends beyond the area outlined by heavy lines in the plan to be attached to the By-law;

(iv) no building shall be required to be assigned to a defined parcel of land or have a common basement and/or is to be connected above the natural level of the ground;

(v) the landscaped open space area shall be no less than 205 m2; and