Confirmed Municipal Address: 34 Noble Street

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

1. Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (October 9, 1998)

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on September 15, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

If sufficient space exists, the applicant should provide large growing shade trees to be planted within the City road allowance as part of this application. A detailed landscape plan must be provided which indicates the exact location of all existing City owned trees and any proposed trees to be planted within the City road allowance including details with respect to proposed tree species, caliper and quantity. A planting plan should provide the best possible, natural, planting environment for trees. It is preferred that trees be planted in turf when possible. If no room exists for turf boulevards with trees, raised planting beds or continuous tree pits should be considered. Trees indicated for planting on the City road allowance must be planted in accordance with the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to the City.

Street Trees in Turf: In accordance with Planting Detail No. 101 for Balled and Burlapped Trees in Turf Areas, dated March, 1997.

Street Trees in Raised Planters: In accordance with Planting Detail No. 102 for Raised Tree Planter - Concept, dated March, 1997.

Street Trees in Tree Pits: In accordance with Planting Detail No.'s 103, 103-1, 103-2, & 103-3 for 1.2 m x 2.4 m Tree Pit, dated March, 1997. Tree pits must be constructed in accordance with the Continuous Tree Pit details outlined in the Construction Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as Drawing No.'s RE-1833M-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -6, 1 of 2 & 2 of 2.

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 Basement Plan prepared by Climans Green Liang Architects Inc., date stamped as received on August 25, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services is acceptable provided that the condition(s) noted above is fulfilled.

2. Medical Officer of Health (February 4, 1999)

Further to my letter of June 12, 1998, the applicant has provided for review a "Detailed Site History for 34 Noble Street Toronto, Ontario", prepared by Hatch Associates Limited (Project 22039.001, November 24, 1998). I have reviewed this information and provide the following comments.

The consultant has provided additional information filling in the gaps identified in the previous historical information, that was provided in the phase 1 environmental report of November 1997. The consultant referred to Fire Insurance Maps and City Directories for this information. Past occupants of the site include:

- Kraft-Phenix Cheese Co. Ltd. (1935-1938)

- Truck & Tractor Equipment Co. Ltd. (1939-1947)

- Imperial Spring & Mattress Mfg. Co. (1947-1954)

- Davis L. Textiles (1955-1960)

- Perfect Chrome Furniture Co. Ltd. (1960-1988)

- Rental Apartments (1988-present)

The furniture company assembled kitchen sets by applying upholstery and laminating table tops with glue. No chrome plating activities took place on the subject site. The consultant advises that no truck or tractor repair, or maintenance was conducted on the site. According to the consultant, the mattress manufacturing company and the textile company are considered to be environmentally low risk activities. I would note that no specific information has been provided with respect to the activities conducted by the textile company. During a telephone conversation on January 21, 1999, the consultant advised that they have been unable to determine the nature of the on-site activities associated with the former textile plant. The consultant has indicated that there is no record of the use, or storage of hazardous materials on the site and no evidence of site activities which would cause concern.

It is my understanding, based on a December 9, 1998, telephone conversation with Pav Penna (the consultant), that all building renovations have been completed and no excavation activities will be conducted on this site. Based on the specific information available to Environmental Health Services, the conclusions presented by the consultant are reasonable, therefore, the previous request for a soil and groundwater management plan and a dust control plan are rescinded. However, since this is a conversion from industrial to residential use, the Medical Officer of Health requests that a verification report be provided that confirms the soils within the building footprint are suitable for residential use.

Recommendations:

1. That the owner shall submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the soils remaining on-site meet the Ministry of Environment criteria for residential use, prior to the issuance of any permits.

Please inform the applicant with respect to this matter. If you have any questions please call me at 392-7685.

3. (June 12, 1998)

Further to my letter of July 15, 1997, the applicant has provided for review a "Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of 34 Noble Street", prepared by Hatch Associates Limited (Project 21959.001, November, 1997). I have reviewed this information and provide the following comments.

Site History:

The consultant has provided limited information on this site from 1944 to 1989. Following 1989 the site has been used for residential purposes. The site history provided, consists of a listing of previous owners, based on title search records and discussions with the owner's representative. It would seem that no other sources were researched for background information. The title search provided the names of owner/occupants, but no information is provided with respect to the site activities for the years 1944-1947 and 1954-1989. Furthermore, no mention is made of the Truck & Tractor Equipment Co., (Siccode 32) that our records indicate was located on this site in 1939.

I would note that there are several sources available for researching past land uses, specifically, as a minimum, Goads Fire Insurance Plans, the Map Office of the Metropolitan Toronto Reference Library, the Cartographic Section of Archives of Ontario, Canadian Trade Indexes, Ministry of Natural Resources Aerial Photographs and Might's Directories. Information is also available from various government agencies. It seems that none of the above were contacted in preparing the historical information for this site.

The consultant has indicated that there is no record nor evidence of the use, or storage of hazardous materials on the site and no evidence of site activities which would cause concern. To support this statement, references are made to the mattress manufacturing that took place from 1947 to 1954.

No references are made to the textiles company that occupied this site from 1954 to 1960. Textile plants have been identified with the use of solvents, xylene, ketones, mercury, benzene etc. in their operations.

It is my opinion that the information provided is incomplete. Therefore the conclusions presented are premature and further research is required. Based on the information available to Environmental Health Services, a Phase II study should be conducted taking into consideration the past activities that have been identified on this site.

Recommendations:

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

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

3. 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.

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

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

Please inform the applicant with respect to this matter. If you have any questions please call me at 392-7685.

4. Works and Emergency Services (October 7, 1998)

Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

(a) Provide and maintain a minimum of 2 leased parking spaces within 300 m of the site for use of residents of the project;

(b) Provide and maintain a rodent proof garbage storage area at least 9 mē in total area for the storage of refuse generated by this project between collections;

(c) If any agreements are required to be entered into, submit 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;

(d) Submit a separate application to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in respect of any proposed encroachments within the Noble Street road allowance;

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

(f) Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact facilities and strategies stipulated in the report approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Comments:

Location

North side of Noble Street, west of Strickland Avenue.

Proposal

To legalize the use of the existing 17 unit non-residential building for use as 17 live-work units.

The proposal was dealt with in the Departmental report dated December 4, 1997. The above consolidated recommendations supercede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking

Given that the existing building occupies virtually all of the site, there is no on-site parking proposed to serve this project. Departmental records show that 2 boulevard parking spaces are available by permit to occupants of the building, but only 1 of these spaces has been leased recently. No on-street parking permits have been issued to residents of the building. The typical estimated parking demand for a project of this nature would be for 5 spaces for occupants, whereas the Zoning By-law requirement, as far as can be ascertained, is for 17 spaces. In this regard, the owners agent has submitted a letter indicating that according to their records, 4 of the current residents own cars. The owner's agent further advises that one of the tenants parks in one of the boulevard spaces in front of the project, one leases a parking space at the north west corner of Queen Street West and Noble Street and 2 park at other unknown locations. The owner has recently leased 2 spaces at the north west corner of Queen Street West and Noble Street for use of residents. Given site constraints, the availability of commercial boulevard spaces adjacent to the site, combined with the relative difficulty in obtaining leased parking in the vicinity of the site, the proposed provision of 2 leased parking spaces to serve this project is acceptable in this instance.

Refuse Handling, Storage and Disposal

The City will continue to provide the project with regular curbside refuse collection service in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste.

It will be necessary for the owner to provide a storage room or other rodent proof space on private property at least 9mē in total size for the storage of garbage and recyclable materials generated by the building occupants between collections. The refuse storage facilities illustrated on the plans is acceptable for this purpose.

Any manufacturer's or trade waste and hazardous waste must be stored separately and safely and be collected by a private refuse collection firm licensed to handle these materials.

Noise Impact Statement

The Noise Impact Statement for the renovated building was approved by this Department on June 3, 1998. The recommendations above ensure that the project will be constructed and maintained in accordance with the approved Noise Impact Statement.

Proposed Canopy Encroachment

The plans show a proposed canopy within the Noble Street road allowance. It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department in respect of this canopy.

5. Urban Planning and Development Services (February 3, 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 by-law requires a minimum of 17 parking spaces be provided on the subject lot. The number of proposed parking spaces is 0. (Section 4(4)(b))

2. The proposed use, live-work units, is not permitted. (Section 9(1)(f))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

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

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

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

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

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

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

- (April 19, 1999) Mireno Wild; Acvest Investment Ltd., and Arthur Wild;

- (April 19, 1999) Petition signed by 6 area residents; and

- (April 19, 1999) Petition with 17 additional signatures in opposition.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 29, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding submissions regarding Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 34 Noble Street (High Park):

(i) (April 19, 1999) from Mirene Wild, Acvest Investment Ltd.;

(ii) (April 19, 1999) Petition with 6 signatures in opposition: and

(iii) (April 19, 1999) Petition with 17 signatures in opposition.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (April 23, 1999) of the City Solicitor be amended so as to exclude the following uses for the site:

place of assembly, club, massage establishment, commercial baths, video arcade (place of amusement), and pawnbroker's shop;

(2) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (April 23, 1999) of the City Solicitor, as amended, be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto;

(3) Recommendation No. 3 of the report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be amended to read as follows:

(3) That prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the owner shall:

a) enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act, and

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

(4) Recommendation Nos. 1, 2, 3 as amended, 4, 5 and 6 of the Final Report (April 14, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development be adopted; and

(5) no further notice be give with respect to the draft by-laws.

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 April 28, 1999, and Ms. Natalie Zlodie, Little Italy Residents' Association, addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 23, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Draft By-laws to permit the mixed-use building proposed for 457, 459, 463, 467, 471 College Street and 301 Markham Street. The project involves a 9 storey mixed-use building containing up to 75 dwelling or live-work units with retail and service shops at grade along College Street and may include a commercial parking garage.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

(2) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (April 23, 1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto, subject to:

(a) receipt by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of a Noise Impact Statement satisfactory to such Commissioner and in accordance with City Council's requirements; and

(b) receipt of a signed Undertaking pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act; and

(3) Recommendations 1 - 6 of the Final Report (April 14, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

You will have before you the report (April 14, 1999) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending approval of the above described Draft By-laws.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which if enacted will give effect to the planning report.

Contact Name:

Sharon Haniford, Solicitor

Telephone: 392-6975

Fax: 392-0530

E-mail: shanifor@toronto.ca

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

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

respecting lands known as 457, 459, 463, 467 and 471 College Street and 301 Markham Street.

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

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

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. .

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

________________________________ ___________________________

MayorCity Clerk

1. Section 18 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto is amended by adding a new Section 18. and Map 18. as follows:

"18. Lands known as Nos. 457, 459, 463, 467 and 471 College Street and 301 Markham Street

Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map 18. to permit the erection and use of a mixed-use building having a maximum residential gross floor area of 6 221 square metres, a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 617 square metres and a maximum total gross floor area of 6 838 square metres.

For the purposes of this amendment, the term "mixed-use building" shall have the same meaning as in By-law No. 438-86, of the former City of Toronto, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended."

(Map to be inserted)

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

as adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

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

with respect to lands known as Nos. 457, 459, 463, 469 and 471 College Street

and 301 Markham Street.

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

1. None of the provisions of Sections 2(1) respecting the definition of parking space, 4(2)(a), 4(4)(b), 4(12), 4(13) respecting bicycle parking spaces for visitors, 4(14)(a), 8(1)(f) respecting the use of the property for the purposes of a commercial parking garage, 8(3) PART I 1 or 8(3) PART I 3(a) of By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the lot of a mixed-use building, provided:

(1) the lot consists of at least the lands outlined by heavy lines on the attached Plan 1;

(2) no portion of the building located above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the area delineated by heavy lines as shown on the attached Plan 2;

(3) the aggregate of the residential gross floor area and the non-residential gross floor area erected or used on the lot does not exceed 6 838 square metres, of which

(a) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 6 221 square metres, and

(b) the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 617 square metres;

(4) the height of the building, does not exceed the heights shown on Plan 2, exclusive of the elements referred to in Section 4(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of By-law No. 438-86 provided such elements comply with the restrictions set out in such Sections;

(5) not less than 56 parking spaces are provided on the lot in an underground garage for the exclusive use of the residents of such building;

(6) in the event a commercial parking garage is not erected and maintained on the lot, visitor parking for the building is provided in accordance with the requirements of Section 4(4)(b) of By-law No. 438-86;

(7) the aggregate number of dwelling units and live-work units contained in the building does not exceed 75;

(8) not less than 600 square metres of retail and service shop uses are located at grade with their principal entrances from College Street;

(9) all of the provisions of Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(f) of Bylaw No. 438-86 shall continue to apply to the lot with the exception that a commercial parking garage containing up to 40 parking spaces is a permitted use and provided no portion of the lot is used for the purposes of a club, a place of amusement or a place of assembly ;

(10) not less than 42 square metres of indoor residential amenity space are provided and maintained on the lot and despite Section 4(12) of By-law No. 438-86 a kitchen and washroom are not required to be provided;

(11) a minimum width of at least 5.5 metres is provided and maintained for all driveways serving two way traffic on the lot;

(12) a minimum width of at least 5.5 metres is provided and maintained for the access ramp leading to the underground garage on the lot;

(13) the parking spaces within the commercial parking garage may have a minimum length of 5.18 metres;

(14) subject to subsection (13) herein, for the purposes of this by-law a parking space shall have a length of 5.8 metres or more and in all other respects the definition of a parking space pursuant to Section 2(1) of By-law No. 438-86 continues to apply to the lot;

(15) at least one loading space- type G is provided and maintained on the lot; and

(16) Section 4(13) of By-law No. 438-86 respecting bicycle parking spaces for occupants continues to apply to the lot.

2. For the purposes of this by-law:

(1) except as otherwise provided herein each word or expression which is italicized herein shall have the same meaning as such word or expression as defined in the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86;

(2) "height" means the level above grade for each area shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 2; and

(3) "retail and service shop uses" means those uses listed in the chart set out in Section 8(1)(f)(b)(iv) under the heading "Retail and Service Shops", with the exception of a pawnbroker's shop which is not a permitted use on the lot.

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

_____________________________ _________________________

MayorCity Clerk

(Plans to be inserted)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of a revised application to construct a nine storey, mixed-use building and a commercial parking garage at 457-471 College Street and 301 Markham Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) Section 18 of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto is amended by adding a new Section ______ as follows:

"______ Lands known as 457, 459, 463, 467, 471 College Street and 301 Markham Street

Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map _____ to permit the erection and use of a mixed-use building having a maximum residential gross floor area of 6221 square metres, a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 617 square metres and a maximum total gross floor area of 6838 square metres."

(2) The Zoning By-law 438-86 be amended as it applies to 457, 459, 463, 467 and 469 College Street, and 301 Markham Street, so as to permit the construction of a mixed-use building by exempting the site from sections 2(1) respecting the definition of parking space, 4(2)(a) height, 4(4)(b) parking, 4(12) amenity space, 4(13) bicycle parking spaces for visitors, 4(14) (a) setbacks, 8 (1)(f) commercial parking garage, 8(3) PART I 1 total density 8(3) Part I, 8 3(a) residential gross floor area, of such By-law, as amended, provided that:

(i) the residential gross floor area does not exceed 6221 square metres;

(ii) the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 617 square metres;

(iii) the combined residential and non-residential gross floor area for the site does not exceed 6838 square metres;

(iv) the heights of the building do not exceed those shown on Plan __ and the maximum building height does not exceed 30 metres, exclusive of the elements referred to in Section 4(2)(a)(I) and (ii) provided such elements comply with the restrictions set out in such Sections;

(v) a minimum width of 5.5 metres is provided for all driveways serving two-way traffic;

(vi) a minimum width of 5.5 metres is provided for the access ramp leading to the underground garage;

(vii) not less than 56 parking spaces are provided for the exclusive use of the residents;

(viii) within the commercial parking garage 40 parking spaces may have a length of not less than 5.18 metres;

(ix) in the event a commercial parking garage is not provided, visitor parking is provided in accordance with the requirements of S. 4(4) of By-law 438-86;

(x) one loading space- type G is provided on the site;

(xi) no portion of the mixed-use building above grade is located outside of the area delineated by heavy lines as shown on Map _____ attached to the By-law;

(xii) subject to (viii) above, for the purposes of this by-law a parking space shall have a length of at least 5.8 metres;

(xiii) not less than 42 sq. m. of indoor residential amenity space is provided which need not contain a kitchen or washroom;

(xix) the provisions of Section 4(13) of the By-law as they relate to bicycle parking spaces required for occupants are satisfied;

(xx) all of the provision of Section 8 (1) (a) and in 8 (1)(f) shall continue to apply to the site with the exception that a commercial parking garage containing not more than the 40 parking spaces shall be a permitted use;

(xxi) the number of units and live-work units contained in the building does not exceed 75; and

(xxii) not less than 600 m2 of retail and service shop uses are located at grade with the main entrances from College Street.

(2) That prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, the owner shall:

(a) enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act, and

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

(3) The owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

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

(b) Final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the building envelope plans;

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

(4) The owner convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit:

(i) a 0.77 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the west limit of the north-south public lane;

(ii) a 1.98 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the east-west public lane; and

(iii) a 1.5 m by 1.5 m triangular splay at the north-west corner of the intersection of the north-south public lane and the east-west public lane, as widened;

such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles, and subject to below grade rights in favour of the Grantor to a depth not less than 0.5 m below finished grade for the purpose of constructing an underground structure on such terms and conditions as to support and otherwise as are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor, and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as the said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

(6) The owner be advised of the requirement to:

(a) comply with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code prior to issuance of the building permit;

(b) convey land for parks purposes, or payments in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act;

(c) obtain approval of Works and Emergency Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts;

(d) obtain approval from Works and Emergency Services for the proposed encroaching canopy and for all work within the City's road allowance;

(e) pay a service charge associated with the provisions of City containerized garbage collection; and

(f) note that all recyclable material generated by this project eligible for collection under the City's recycling programmes must be set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables.

Background:

The proposal represents the first stage of developing the retail and residential uses at the south-west corner of Bathurst and College Streets. This infill project will replace an existing building. It will contribute to the creation of a gateway to College Street and to an area that has become one of the most successful commercial and entertainment areas in the City. The proposal also tries to integrate the building into the adjacent residential neighbourhood by stepping down the Markham Street elevation, thereby providing a transition into the residential area on Markham Street. The project now includes a third level of underground parking, the first one and one half levels of which are proposed to be used for a commercial parking garage to be operated by the Parking Authority of Toronto.

Comments:

1. Location

The property, known as 457-471 College Street and 301 Markham Street, is located on the south side of College Street, half a block west of Bathurst Street.

2. Site

A three storey commercial building exists on the site and the retail use will be relocating to another location on Bathurst Street. To the east of the site is an existing parking lot. To the west and north of the site is the College Street commercial strip known as "Little Italy" and characterized predominantly by restaurants and other commercial uses. The condominium and Church at the northwest corner of the College and Bathurst Street intersection begin to give a sense of entrance and definition to the street. Residential uses exist to the south of the site.

3. Current Planning Controls

The site is designated Low Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area under the Part I Official Plan and Council may pass by-laws to permit residential buildings having a gross floor area of up to 3.0 times the area of the lot. At 5.0 times coverage this proposal exceeds the maximum density permitted by the Official Plan by 2.0 times the lot area. An Official Plan Amendment is required.

The site is zoned CR T3.0 C3.0 R3.0, which permits a wide range of commercial and residential uses to a maximum density of 3.0 times the lot area. The proposal does not comply with the zoning by-law in that the development exceeds the permitted density by 2 times the lot area, and exceeds the permitted 18 metre height limit by 12 metres. In addition, a commercial parking garage is not a permitted use in a CR district. Other relief is required for the Zoning By-law provisions.

4. Project Revisions

The December 22, 1998 Preliminary Report on this application listed specific issues that needed to be resolved in the processing of the application. This report discusses those issues, and others raised at the public meeting held on March 1, 1999. Revised plans submitted on March 24, 1999 and April 6, 1999, retain the proposed nine-storey mixed-use building with underground parking, with the following revisions:

(i) the residential units contain a mix of one, two and three bedroom units;

(ii) the reduction of the second floor exterior amenity space in response to concerns of overlook and possible noise raised by the residents of Markham Street;

(iii) the introduction of a public parking garage, to be operated by the Parking Authority of Toronto, for up to 40 parking spaces to help alleviate the shortage of parking on College Street;

(iv) the redesign of the parking entrance to Markham Street to allow for access to the public parking garage and the residential parking garage;

(v) the provision of a physical separation between the residential and the public portions of the parking garage to secure the availability of the residential parking; and

(vi) the provision of 52 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building.

5. Planning Issues

5.1 Height, Built Form and Density

The design of this building evolved through several stages of review and discussion over a period of several months. The present proposal has been designed to respond to design issues raised by planning staff and the community. The building was also redesigned to reduce its impact on houses along Markham Street to the south, by placing the bulk of the building on College Street, while stepping down to the rear of the site.

The second floor outdoor amenity area has been reduced in response to concerns expressed by residents to the south, and design consideration imposed by the revised entrance to the parking garage. Retail uses are supported by the community and retail units are retained along the College Street frontage.

The additional height is warranted since College Street is wider than most arterial roads at this location and the proposed building will help to define the streetscape. Shadow impacts are acceptable, and the height of the building is not out of context when compared to some of the other buildings in the immediate area.

This density adjustment will provide an opportunity to diversify the residential mix in the neighbourhood and utilize the site to its full potential. The proposed building will serve as an "entrance" into College Street and "Little Italy."

5.2 Housing

The project provides an appropriate location for housing on College Street where shopping, community facilities and transportation are all in good supply. The proposed mix of units will offer a variety of housing options and bring enhanced residential and retail uses to this significant corner of College Street. The proposed building is an opportunity to continue the economic revitalization process underway in this section of College Street, while satisfying market demand for housing in this neighbourhood.

5.3 Parking, Traffic and Vehicular Access

The plans indicate the provision of 96 parking spaces in a 3-level underground parking garage, consisting of 56 spaces for residents of the building, and 40 parking public parking spaces proposed to be operated by the Toronto Parking Authority. Access and egress to the parking garage is proposed directly off Markham Street, adjacent to the north limit of the existing east-west public lane. This is acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Zoning By-law would require 84 parking spaces to serve the proposed development comprising 68 residential spaces, 8 visitor spaces and 8 spaces serving the retail component. The application proposes 56 parking spaces serving the residential building, with visitor and retail parking accommodated within the proposed 40 space commercial parking garage. In the event the commercial parking garage is not erected, visitor parking for the residential and retail components is required to be provided in accordance with usual standards.

The reduction in parking for the residential building is considered to be appropriate since the site is well located near the junction of two streetcar routes. The site is also near the boundary of the commercial area where the Downtown Parking and Loading Standards apply. If those parking standards were used to review this project the parking requirement would be approximately 46 parking spaces for the proposed 68 residential units.

6. Other Issues

Other matters raised in the Preliminary Report such as landscaping, streetscape and design will be secured in the Statement of Approval for this application.

Contact Name:

Susanne Pringle

Telephone: (416) 392-0413

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: springle@toronto.ca

Confirmed Municipal Address: 457, 459, 463, 467, 469, 471 College Street, 301 Markham Street.

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

1. Medical Officer of Health (November 19, 1998)

Thank you for your request of October 28, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing buildings and construct an 8 storey mixed use commercial residential development with 2 levels of underground parking on this site. EHS has no information in our files for this property.

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

Recommendations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (January 14, 1999)

I am writing in response to the above-noted official plan amendment and rezoning application which you circulated for comments and review. The Ministry has reviewed the amendment application and has no objection to the redevelopment of the site for an eight storey mixed-use commercial/residential building.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 585-6041.

3. Toronto Transit Commission (January 6, 1999)

It is noted that the subject development is within the zone of influence of the 506 Carlton streetcar line. Therefore, please inform the applicant that the Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants. Since noise and vibration may be transmitted from street traffic and from our transit operations, the developer should apply attenuation measures so that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest level technically feasible. The developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, through a clause in the purchase or rental agreements, of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such effects.

4. Works & Emergency Services - Fire Prevention (March 31, 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.

5. Works & Emergency Services (April 9, 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) Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit:

(i) a 0.77 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the west limit of the north-south public lane;

(ii) a 1.98 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the east-west public lane; and

(iii) a 1.5 m x 1.5 m triangular splay at the north-west corner of the intersection of the north-south public lane and the east-west public lane, as widened;

such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles, and subject to below grade rights in favour of the Grantor to a depth not less than 0.5 m below finished grade for the purpose of constructing an underground structure on such terms and conditions as to support and otherwise as are satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor, and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as the said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

(c) Provide and maintain a minimum of 55 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project;

(d) Provide and maintain a physical separation between the residential and the public portions of the parking garage to secure the availability of the residential parking;

(e) Construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of the streetline, and not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;

(f) Provide and maintain minimum widths of 5.5 m for all driveways serving two-way traffic;

(g) Provide and maintain a minimum width of 5.5 m for the access ramp leading to the underground garage;

(h) Provide and maintain separate garbage room and a recyclable materials storage rooms with minimum sizes of 25 square metres and 10 square metres, respectively, for the shared use of the residential and non-residential components, and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(i) Provide and maintain double or overhead doors of sufficient size to accommodate the movement of container bins between the garbage and recycling storage rooms and the Type G loading space;

(j) Provide and maintain access to the garbage and recycling storage rooms for the retail component of the project;

(k) Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the abutting streets in a forward motion;

(l) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 4 compactor containers on collection day;

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

(n) Provide and maintain a convex mirror and appropriate signage at the rear of the loading space, to aid and improve visibility for drivers using the loading space;

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

(p) Provide and maintain a level service connection between the garbage room/recycling room and the Type G loading space for the transporting of container bins;

(q) Provide and designate a fully trained employee to assist in the loading operations on garbage collection days;

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

(s) Submit to 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 lands required for the widening of the public highways, the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto;

(ii) Final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the building envelope plans;

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

(t) In connection with the construction of the underground garage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. That the owner be advised:

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

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

(c) That all recyclable materials generated by this project eligible for collection under the City's recycling programs must be set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables.

Comments:

Location

South-east corner of College Street and Markham Street.

Proposal

Construction of a mixed-use building comprising 68 residential condominium units and 617 mē of retail space. The project now includes the addition of a third level of underground parking, the first one and a half levels of which will be used for commercial parking purposes.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated March 19, 1999. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans.

Parking and Access

The plans indicate the provision of 96 parking spaces in a 3-level underground parking garage, consisting of 56 spaces for residents (23 spaces within level P2 and 33 spaces within level P3) and 40 public parking spaces (33 spaces on level P1 and 7 spaces on level P2). The estimated parking demand generated by this project is for 71 spaces, based in part on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 55 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, 8 residential visitor spaces and 8 spaces for the non-residential component. As far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement is for 68 spaces for the residents of the project. Given the provision of 40 parking spaces for public purposes, which would accommodate both residential and retail visitors to this project, the provision of 56 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, which satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the residents, is acceptable.

The plans indicate that all of the residential parking spaces will have a substandard length of 5.8 m instead of 5.9 as required by the Zoning By-law. Given that the 6.4 m wide driveways will provide adequate manoeuvring space for vehicles to access/egress the parking spaces, the substandard parking spaces are acceptable.

The dimensions of the ramps and driveways, the slope of the access ramps, the location of the physical separation and parking layout are acceptable. Access to and egress from the parking garage is now proposed directly off of Markham Street, adjacent to the north limit of the east-west public lane and is acceptable. As a result, the provision of convex mirrors at the top of the ramp of the parking garage is no longer required.

Lane Widening

There are two lanes abutting the site. The east limit of the site abuts a 4.57 m wide substandard lane, which in accordance with the City standard for commercial lanes, should ultimately be widened to 6 m. In order to provide for the widening, a 0.72 m wide strip of land along the full extent of the site, abutting the west limit of the 4.57 m wide portion of the public lane, should be conveyed to the City. In addition, the south limit of the site abuts a 3.05 m wide substandard lane which, in accordance with the City standard for commercial/residential lanes, should ultimately be widened to 6 m. The plans indicate a proposed widening of the north-south lane by 0.77 m, a 1.98 m widening of the east-west lane, together with a 1.5 m x 1.5 m triangular splay at the north-west corner of the intersection of the north-south public lane and the east-west public lane as widened. This is acceptable.

Loading

The plans show the provision of 1 Type G loading space which satisfies the estimated loading demand generated by this project, based on the shared-use of loading spaces between the residential and non-residential components, for 1 Type G loading space and, as far as can be ascertained, the loading requirement of the Zoning By-law for a like number.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project, including the non-residential component, with the bulk lift method of refuse and recyclable materials collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste) provided that all recyclable materials generated by this project are set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables. This will require the provision of a Type G loading space, sufficient manoeuvring area for trucks to safely enter and exit the abutting streets in a forward motion and the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(h) to 1(p), above. The plans indicate the provision of a separate garbage room of 40.33 mē with a stationary compactor unit and a recycling room of 20.41 mē. The recycling room is shown to be accessible to the residents and non-residential components of the project, without providing access to the garbage room. This is acceptable. The compactor unit which must be installed in the garbage storage room must be compatible with the charger door on the City's bulk lift containers. The dimensions of the charger door are 91.44 cm horizontally by 72.39 cm vertically and the compaction level of the unit should not exceed 800 p.s.i.

The proposed Type G loading space at the rear of the building, is configured such that City trucks will enter the site and the loading space via the public lane from Markham Street. Upon completion of the loading operations, trucks will back-up into the lane from the loading space to exit the site in a forward motion, via the north-south public lane onto College Street. It should be noted that trucks will be required to make several back and forth manoeuvres in order to access and egress the Type G loading space. Although this situation is not desirable, it is acceptable subject to the owners ensuring that the loading space is kept free and clear of all cars and obstructions and the provision of building maintenance staff to assist the driver, if required, to safely enter and exit the loading space and assist in the loading operations on garbage collections days to ensure that container bins are not left on the laneway. A convex mirror and appropriate signage should also be installed to aid and improve visibility for drivers using the loading space, so that drivers, when backing up will be able to see oncoming vehicles. It should be noted that the plans show the concrete base pad with a maximum slope of 2%, at the rear of the Type G loading space, instead of adjacent to the front of the loading space. The concrete base pad must be relocated to the front of the loading space and the plans revised, prior to the issuance of a building permit, accordingly.

As a result of insufficient turning radii at the intersection of the lane and College Street and the location of the traffic island on College Street which would obstruct the path of the trucks exiting the site to the east, bulk lift trucks will be restricted to left turn movements only.

It is the policy of City Council to levy a service charge on all new developments, payment of which is a condition for receiving City containerized garbage and recycling collection. The levy is currently $34.50 per month, including taxes, multiplied by the number of garbage containers on site. The levy includes the provision and maintenance of City garbage and recycling containers. Should the owner choose to provide private garbage containers, the levy will still be charged and the containers must meet City specifications and be maintained privately at the expense of the building owner. Further information regarding the above can be obtained by contacting the District 1 - Solid Waste Collections Division at 392-1517.

Work within the Road Allowance

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received from this Department. Please note that curb returns are not permitted at driveway entrances; concrete sidewalks are to be extended across driveways.

Encroachment

The plans indicate the installation of a canopy which will encroach onto the Markham Street road allowance and, as a result, will require the submission of a separate application to your Department.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development. The applicant should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Municipal Numbering

The site is comprised of several properties, which should be amalgamated for assessment and Official Record municipal numbering purposes. The owner should submit a separate application to this Department, including a plan showing the location of the principal access points prior to filing a formal application for a building permit.

6. Urban Planning & Development Services (April 12, 1999)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Construct nine storey mixed-use building comprising retail stores and 68 dwelling units with three levels of below grade parking including the establishment of a commercial parking garage.

Zoning Designation: CR T3.0 C3.0 R3.0

Map: 49H 313

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

Plans prepared by: Walkman Clews Bergman Architects

Plans dated: March 24, 1999 and April 6, 1999

Residential GFA: 6221 m²

Non-Residential GFA: 617 m²

Zoning Review

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

1. The by-law requires a parking space to have minimum unobstructed dimensions of at least 5.9 metres in length by 2.6 metres in width. Some of the proposed parking spaces will be madras in length and the remainder will be 5.8 metres in length. (Section 2, definition of "parking space".)

2. The proposed building height exceeds the maximum permitted 18.0 metres. (Section 4(2)(a))

n/b The proposed parapets are not exempted from the height limit.

The proposed mechanical rooms and stair tower on the roof level are not exempted from any height limit unless the provisions of so(2)(a)(I)AB. and C are complied with.

3. 56 parking spaces are proposed for the residential tenants of the building in lieu of the minimum required 68. (Section 4(4)(b))

4. The by-law requires the indoor residential amenity space be located in "contiguous multi-purpose rooms, at least one of which contains a kitchen and washroom". No kitchen or washroom is shown. (Section 4(12))

5. The minimum required indoor amenity space of 136 square metres is not provided. 42 square metres of indoor amenity space is proposed. (Section 4(12))

6. The minimum required outdoor amenity space of 136 square metres is not provided. 0 square metres of outdoor amenity space is proposed. (Section 4(12))

7. The minimum required 10 bicycle parking spaces for visitors have not been provided. (Section 4(13))

8. The by-law requires a building or structure to be set back 3.0 metres from the centre line of the public lane on the east side and 3.5 metres from the centre line of the public lane on the south side. The proposed building is set back approximately 2.3 metres and 2.5 metres from the centre line of the public lanes respectively. (Section 4(14)(a))

9. 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: 4182 square metres. The proposed building has 6838 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

10. The by-law requires that the residential gross floor area be not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot: 4182 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 6221 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

11. The by-law requires the main floor level of every commercial use to be within 0.2 metres of the level of the sidewalk opposite the door to such commercial use. The level of the floor of the proposed commercial use must be shown to be in compliance with this provision. (Section 8(3) PART XI 2(1))

12. The by-law requires all exterior commercial entrance doors to be directly accessible from the sidewalk by a level surface or a ramp having a slope not greater than 1 in 25 (4%). The proposed entrances are accessible by a steps. (Section 8(3) PART XI 2(3))

13. The proposed use, commercial parking garage, is not permitted. (Section 8(1)(f))

n/b The subdivision of the proposed retail space for future tenants may result in additional Zoning Bylaw contraventions.

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 Works and Emergency Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.

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

7. Separate approval will be required from Works and Emergency Services for the proposed encroaching canopy.

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

- (April 11, 1999) from Ms. Barbara D. Crocker;

- (April 9, 1999) from Mr. James R. Tennyson;

- (April 19, 1999) from Mr. Gaetano Rao, College Street Citizens Committee for Responsible Development;

- (April 16, 1999) from Harry and Margaret Little;

- (April 20, 1999) from Mr. Chris Grimaldi, Little Italy Residents Association;

- (April 27, 1999) from Ms. Anna Di Tommaso and Mr. Tony Percival; and

- (Undated) photographs and design from E. Root.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 29, 1999) from the City Clerk forwarding submissions from the following persons regarding Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 457-471 College Street and 301 Markham Street (Trinity-Niagara):

(i) (April 11, 1999) from Ms. Barbara D. Crocker;

(ii) (April 9, 1999) from Mr. James R. Tennyson;

(iii) (April 19, 1999) from Mr. Gaetano Rao, on behalf of the Steering Committee, College Street Citizens Committee for Responsible Development;

(iv) (April 16, 1999) from Mr. Harry and Ms. Margaret Little;

(v) (April 20, 1999) from Chris Grimaldi, Chair, Little Italy Residents Association; and

(vi) (April 27, 1999) from Ms. Anna Di Tommaso and Mr. Tony Percival.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 26, 1999) from Mr. Rocco Galati, on behalf of the Steering Committee, College Street Citizens Committee for Responsible Development, expressing concerns regarding the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 457-471 College Street and 301 Markham Street (Trinity-Niagara).)

(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 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To seek direction from City Council re Council's position in response to the appeal of Rezoning Application 198020 to use an adjacent house as administrative offices for St. Clements School

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable

Recommendation:

That City Council instruct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on June 16, 1999 to settle the rezoning appeal respecting 31 St. Clements Avenue based substantially upon the following terms:

A) that the rezoning by-law contain conditions which:

(i) permits only, in addition to existing R1S district uses, an administrative office for a 'private academic, religious or philanthropic school'; and

(ii) limits the gross floor area of such administrative office to 120 M2; and

(iii) restricts development of 31 St. Clements Avenue to the currently existing building.

Summary

On June 16, 1999 an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing will commence to hear an appeal by St. Clements School against a Committee of Adjustment decision refusing an application for minor variances to permit use of an adjacent house at 31 St Clements Avenue as administrative offices. Subsequent to that Committee's decision, Rezoning Application No. 198020 was made for the same purpose. The applicant has successfully added an appeal of Council's failure to make a decision within 90 days on the rezoning application to the June 16 OMB hearing.

City Council may wish to take a position on the rezoning application with a view to settling the appeal. This report advises that the planning staff supports a conditional approval of the rezoning application, and would, if directed, attend the OMB hearing to provide evidence accordingly.

Background:

The proposal to use the house at 31 St. Clements for office purposes by the adjacent St Clement's School was the subject of an application to the Committee of Adjustment heard December 1, 1998. The Committee did not approve the application on the basis that it was not considered a minor variance, and that decision has been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board (File V99-7). The date for hearing is June 16, 1999. The same matter was subsequently subject of a rezoning application submitted December 24, 1998 and as described in my preliminary report dated March 12, 1999 recommending the application be circulated and a public meeting in the community held. The Toronto Community Council adopted that recommendation.

The school's development program has been the subject of several planning applications over the years, most recently during the period 1989-1992 in respect of major additions to the school building at 21 St. Clement's. Neighbourhood opposition led to an appeal, but the OMB decision supported the City's approval of the applications.

Comments:

General

The site is a 7.6 x 40.8 metre lot having an area of 310.7 M2, developed with a two-storey detached house. Both house and lot are typical of the surrounding residential district. It is zoned R1S Z 0.6 and subject to a 9.0 m height restriction.

The zoning policy context is that a very limited number of community service buildings is permitted, or is conditionally permitted, within R1S districts, and here these are churches, public schools and day nurseries. Other residential zone districts are more permissive in this respect, and "private academic, religious and philanthropic schools" are permitted uses, and are common, within R2, R3 and R4 districts. The adjacent school site is now an R4A district.

The Official Plan, and the Yonge - Eglinton Part II Plan, designates the site and surrounding area west of the Yonge Street commercial strip as a 'Low Density Residence Area', where the Plan anticipates a wide range of community service land uses will occur together with residential uses. The Plan policy does not distinguish between public and private schools in this respect. There would not appear to be any Official Plan issues raised by the application.

While the house at 31 St. Clements has been owned by the school for many years, the prior applications and appeals did not address the future of this property. It has recently been renovated for office purposes, but office use is not a permitted use within this R1S district. Variance or amendment to the Zoning By-law is thus required to approve an office occupancy in the circumstances. Built form issues do not arise as there would be no external change to the existing house.

The Appeal

The planning staff took no position on the initial application before the Committee of Adjustment. Following the decision of that Committee, the applicant has made a rezoning application to the City. In my opinion, the applicant's request is more appropriately considered a Zoning By-law amendment than a minor variance.

The rezoning application, and subsequent appeal, expresses the same development objective. The proposed conversion of a house in these circumstances raises a somewhat difficult choice between a needed facility for an important local institution, and any potential compromise to general planning goals for stability, homogeneity of land use and preservation of housing within low density residential areas. These issues are to some degree inherent to the structure of residential planning policy within the former City of Toronto, which permits public and private schools to locate in most residential areas. However, as residential districts are virtually fully developed, a school expansion can normally occur only at the expense of some existing housing.

I do not see that the conversion of the house for office purposes represents any real increase in, or change to, the impacts of the school beyond that discussed and approved in the earlier expansion program and the conditions as they now exist. A by-law amendment as sought by the rezoning application should be made conditional upon securing the house to remain, which would preserve this portion of the residential streetscape. Conditions should also limit non-residential floor area to that of the existing house so as to restrict future additions or building replacements at 31 St. Clements. Staff of this Department would be prepared to advocate this position as a reasonable response to the rezoning application, and associated appeal, if requested.

In the normal course of reviewing a rezoning application, a public meeting is held in the affected community. However, given the imminent OMB hearing date, this report is intended to be dealt with as a deputation item before the Toronto Community Council, with notice to appropriate parties. I am reporting at this time to permit Council to determine its position sufficiently in advance to allow time for preparation for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled for June 16, 1999.

Contact Name:

Bruce McCormick

Telephone: 392-1306

e-mail: bmccormi@toronto.ca

Confirmed Municipal Address: 31 St. Clements Avenue

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Project Information

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

- Mr. Ted Heideman, Toronto, Ontario;

- Ms. Helen Heideman, Toronto, Ontario;

- Mr. Patrick Devine, Goodman and Carr; and

- Mr. Peter Jewett, St. Clement's School Foundation.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 191 Forest Hill Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property due to its large size and proximity to the house has been filed by Ms. Patricia Thomson, Thomson, Bruce and Associates, P.O. Box 27093, 500 Rexdale Boulevard, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9W 6L0, agent for the owner of 191 Forest Hill Road, Mr. Richard Ian Farb, 191 Forest Hill Road, Toronto, Ontario, M5P 2N3.

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 forty-five centimetre diameter blue spruce in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Thomson, Bruce and Associates that accompanies the application states that the tree is in fair health. The report states that the tree's large size, proximity to the house and the fact that the sight line to the front windows is obstructed are the reasons for requesting tree removal. The report indicates that the spruce is competing with a City owned linden tree and that branch dieback will soon occur due to the competition for sunlight.

In the opinion of Forestry staff, the spruce tree could be pruned to elevate the crown somewhat more than it already is and thus open the sight line to the front windows. The information included in the application did not contain documentation that the spruce tree is causing damage to the house as a result of its location. The matter of the spruce and linden competing for light and space on a small front lawn is not unique, but rather a natural process when two or more trees are in fairly close proximity to one another. If the spruce tree is approved for removal, there is no suitable location on the property that could accommodate replacement planting.

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

Mr. Richard Farb appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (May 4, 1999) from Ms. Gayle Farb, requesting that consideration of the application for the removal of a tree at 191 Forest Hill Road be deferred to the next meeting of City Council.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) City Council refuse to issue a permit for injury to the tree at 2505/2513 Danforth Avenue, requiring the applicant to redesign plans for the construction of the building in consultation with an arborist with the objective of protecting the tree located on the neighbour's property;

(2) the applicant be advised that the tree located at 2505/2513 Danforth Avenue cannot be injured due to the applicant either pruning the tree or constructing the building within close proximity to the tree; and

(3) the applicant be advised of Council's decision by registered mail.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Mr. Harpal Arora, 2 Secord Avenue, #1513, Toronto, Ontario, M4C 2C3, owner of 2505 Danforth Avenue, has filed an application for a permit to injure one tree on the private property of 2513 Danforth Avenue to allow for the construction of a new building on the property of 2505 Danforth Avenue.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) refuse to issue a permit for injury to the tree, requiring the applicant to redesign plans for the construction of the building in consultation with an arborist with the objective of protecting the tree located on the neighbour's property; or

(2) issue a permit for injury conditional on:

(i) the tree not being injured until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject property commence that warrant the destruction of the tree; and

(ii) the applicant contracting an arborist to implement a tree preservation plan during construction to minimize the injury to the tree.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty-three centimetre diameter Norway maple in fair condition. The tree is located adjacent to a building on the property of 2513 Danforth Avenue and it is growing completely surrounded by concrete. The tree requires remedial maintenance to correct improper pruning cuts made previously. The applicant is proposing to construct a new building on the adjacent property of 2505 Danforth Avenue that would require excavation approximately one metre from the base of the tree. The proposed construction would significantly impact the tree roots and substantial pruning of the crown would be required to provide clearance for the building.

The applicant had originally provided staff with an arborist report and a plan for the proposed building that would have provided adequate protection for the tree. In the opinion of staff the construction of a building that incorporates and provides adequate protection for the tree is the best solution for the community. If this tree is injured and requires removal there is no suitable site to plant a replacement on either property.

The Norway maple is an important tree to the owners of 2513 Danforth Avenue, as can be seen by the overwhelming support they have generated in the community. It is therefore essential that any proposed construction at 2505 Danforth Avenue have the best interests of the tree and the community in mind.

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. Nine letters of objection, and a petition with over one thousand five hundred signatures were received in response to the application to injure the tree in question. In addition, the applicant has submitted a petition with approximately six hundred signatures supporting his proposed construction. Copies of these letters and petitions have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett, 392-6644

(Copies of letters in opposition, petition with 2517 signatures in opposition, letter in support forwarding a petition with 602 signatures in support, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on April 28, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

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

- (April 28, 1999) from Mr. Mike Roussakis;

- (April 27, 1999) from Mr. Vern Christensen; and

- (April 26, 1999) from Roger, Susan, Andrew and Alexandra Read.

The following motion by Councillor Disero, was placed but not voted on:

That City Council issue a permit for injury to the tree located at 2505/2513 Danforth Avenue, conditional on:

(i) the tree not being injured until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject property commence that warrant the destruction of the tree;

(ii) a clearance of 6 feet be placed between the construction and the tree; and

(iii) the applicant contracting an arborist to implement a tree preservation plan during construction to minimize the injury to the tree.

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

- Mr. Harpal Arora, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Mr. Shambhu Dutt Sharma, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, amended this Clause, by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated May 10, 1999, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that should City Council approve the temporary installation, as a pilot project, of the commercial promotional kiosk within the public right-of-way:

(1) the Corporate Sponsorship Committee be requested to report back to Council at the end of the pilot project on commercial promotional kiosks within the public right-of-way; and

(2) that approval be subject to the kiosk owner agreeing to restrict the use for promotional purposes only, and not for the purpose of vending and agreeing to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto and the conditions as set out in Appendix "A" of this report and with such conditions as the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Corporate Services may deem necessary in the interest of the City of Toronto.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the temporary installation, as a pilot project, of the commercial promotional kiosk within the public right-of-way on Queen Street West, north side, 31 metres west of Soho Street, subject to the kiosk owner agreeing to restrict the use for promotional use only, and not for the purpose of vending, and agreeing to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and agreeing to:

(a) indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b) the applicant notify the Toronto Entertainment District Association of this proposal;

(c) the kiosk be placed on a pilot basis on Friday and Saturday evenings from May 21 to October 2, 1999, from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m.

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

(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on:

(a) guidelines for the installation of temporary commercial promotional kiosks within the public right-of-way; and

(b) the possibility of applying funds received from application fees for such kiosks to youth programs; and

(2) the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on whether this particular application for a commercial promotional kiosk within the public right-of-way on Queen Street West, north side, 31 metres west of Soho Street, should be considered a promotional kiosk or a vending operation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request to install a temporary kiosk promoting Labatt products on a pilot basis within the public highway at Queen Street West, north side, 31 metres west of Soho Street. As there is no specific provision for this type of installation in the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and there are implications with respect to commercial advertising on the public streets, it is necessary to report on this matter.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council refer the application for the installation of the temporary commercial promotional kiosk to the Corporate Sponsorship Committee for review and comments; OR

(2) City Council approve the temporary installation of the commercial promotional kiosk within the public right-of-way on Queen Street West, north side, 31 metres west of Soho Street, subject to the kiosk owner agreeing to restrict the use for promotional use only, and not for the purpose of vending, and agreeing to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and agreeing to:

(a) indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b) the applicant notify the Toronto Entertainment District Association of this proposal;

(c) the kiosk be placed on a pilot basis on Friday and Saturday evenings from May 21 to October 2, 1999, from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m.;

(d) pay the fee of $1,500.00;

(e) remove the kiosk upon receiving written notice within a reasonable time frame from the City so to do;

(f) accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the City; and

(g) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

Comments:

On March 25, 1999, Mr. Bruce Davis, of Urban Intelligence Inc., on behalf of Labatt, submitted an application for permission to install a temporary promotional kiosk on a pilot basis within the public sidewalk on Queen Street West, west of Soho Street.

The applicant notes that the kiosk will be used to increase the profile of Labatt products through the free distribution of promotional materials such as coupons and passes. No items of any kind will be sold. The proposal involves deploying the kiosk on Friday and Saturday evenings from May 21, to October 2 1999, from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. on a pilot basis.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this location and have determined that there are currently 7 licensed vendors, and that the location of the proposed kiosk will not obstruct the view of the licensed vendors, and does not negatively impact the right-of-way. It was also noted that there is sufficient sidewalk space to accommodate the promotional kiosk 31 metres west of Soho Street.

While technically, the kiosk could be accommodated, the proposal raises a number of significant policy issues. The policy in the former City of Toronto is that commercial advertising programs involving the use of public road allowances beyond the current transit shelter advertising program would not be considered.

Unlike the transit shelters, where a valuable public service is provided, with additional significant revenue accruing to the City, this application is almost entirely related to the promotion of the product. Nor is it associated with any particular special event. If the proposal is endorsed it is possible that the City will receive numerous similar applications for various stand-alone commercial product promotion ventures within the road allowance. In that case, it would be advisable to establish an overall framework, including criteria to deal with such initiatives.

In considering responses to a comprehensive Request for Proposals in 1995, it was pointed out that Council must decide on the fundamental notion of allowing the proliferation of commercial advertising in the public space, and more particularly in the road allowance. The public is already exposed to intense commercial advertising in the form of billboards, posters, advertising kiosks, etc., immediately beyond on adjacent private properties and buildings, however, crossing the line directly into the public streets is a question of principle. Another consideration is whether the overall concept of advertising within the streets, as well as individual elements, is compatible with the efforts and resources expended by the City over the years to streamline streetscape design and promote a simple, clean design in street furniture and facilities.

The other factor related to this application, should Council decide to authorize the proposal, is that there is currently no provision to do so in the applicable Municipal Code. Accordingly, approval would be subject to the proponent entering into an agreement with the City containing the terms and conditions generally established under Recommendation No. 2 above. We recommend that a fee of $1,500 be set, which is reflective of fees currently charged for a similar sized sidewalk/boulevard vending operation. This fee is specific to this application only, until such time as the Corporate Sponsorship Committee has established their recommendations on criteria and fees for outdoor advertising in the City of Toronto.

Details of the kiosk is shown on the attached drawing (Appendix "A").

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (April 26, 1999) from Ms. Jo-Anne Azzarello, Chair, Government Affairs and Planning, Toronto Entertainment District Association, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

A motion by Councillor Chow, to submit this matter to Council without recommendation, was placed but not voted on.

Mr. Bruce Davis, Urban Intelligence Inc., appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 7, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report on a request from the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 28, 1999, that the City Solicitor report directly to Council on whether the application for a commercial promotional kiosk within the public right-of-way on Queen Street West, should be considered a promotional kiosk or a vending operation.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

At its meeting of April 28, 1999, the Toronto Community Council considered the report (April 13, 1999) of Andrew Koropeski, Director, Transportation Services, Works and Emergency Services, concerning a request to install a temporary kiosk promoting Labatt products on a pilot basis within the public highway on Queen Street West, north side, 31 metres west of Soho Street.

The Toronto Community Council requested, among other things, that the City Solicitor report directly to Council on whether this particular application should be considered a "promotional kiosk" or "vending operation" for the purposes of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto. Chapter 315, Street Vending, defines "vending" as follows:

VEND - To sell or offer to sell by retail or to manufacture, display, place or expose for the purposes of sale by retail any service or any goods, wares, merchandise, products, crafts, jewellery, refreshments, foodstuffs, flowers, or any other items whatsoever, and "vending" shall have a corresponding meaning.

As indicated in Mr. Koropeski's report, no items of any kind will be sold in the promotional kiosk as requested and the benefit to the applicant would appear to be solely promotional in nature. It is therefore my view that such an operation would not be "vending" within the meaning of the Municipal Code.

Conclusions:

A temporary promotional kiosk, as described in the application from Labatt, would not be considered to be "vending" for the purposes of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Edward Earle

Legal Services

397-4058.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (May 10, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To respond to a number of questions posed by Toronto Community Council regarding an application to permit a temporary kiosk, promoting Labatt products on a pilot basis, within the public right-of-way on Queen Street West, north side, west of Soho Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That, should City Council approve the temporary installation, as a pilot project, of the commercial promotional kiosk within the public right-of-way:

1. the Corporate Sponsorship Committee be requested to report back to Council at the end of the pilot project on commercial promotional kiosks within the public right-of-way; and

2. that approval be subject to the kiosk owner agreeing to restrict the use for promotional purposes only, and not for the purpose of vending and agreeing to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto and the conditions as set out in Appendix 'A' of this report and with such conditions as the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Corporate Services may deem necessary in the interest of the City of Toronto.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 28, 1999, considered an application in conjunction with a staff report (April 13, 1999) regarding the installation of a temporary promotional kiosk within the public right-of-way on Queen Street West, north side, west of Soho Street. The Community Council is recommending approval of the temporary kiosk, as a pilot project, subject to specified conditions and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on:

(a) guidelines for the installation of temporary commercial promotional kiosks within the public right-of-way; and

(b) the possibility of applying funds received from application fees for such kiosks to youth programs.

In addition, the City Solicitor was requested to report on whether this particular application should be considered a promotional kiosk or a vending operation. This is the subject of a separate report. (Clause 11 in Report No. 7 of Toronto Community Council).

Comments:

As was pointed out in the previous staff report (April 13, 1999) the matter of setting physical criteria for similar promotional kiosks is relatively straight forward. In this regard, the criteria for sidewalk sales or vending respecting pedestrian clearances, proximity to similar activities, maintenance and insurance responsibilities are readily adjusted.

The more complex issue is the use of the public road allowance space for an activity that is essentially geared to promoting or advertising a commercial product or enterprise. As noted in the previous report, other than initiatives that provide a definite public use or service such as transit shelters, litter bins, etc., commercial advertising in the public space has generally not been endorsed. For this reason, it was suggested that a direction must ultimately be established in terms of whether the overall concept of advertising in the street allowance is compatible with the City goals and objectives.

Although we would have significant involvement, this decision process extends beyond the scope of Works and Emergency Services and requires input of several other City interests. It has not been possible within the limited time frame to convene the staff from various Departments necessary to address this issue. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Labatt application be considered as a stand alone initiative and that the criteria set out in Appendix 'A' be applied in this instance. The Corporate Sponsorship Committee should provide advice during the evaluation of this pilot project.

With respect to the matter of applying funds received from application fees for such kiosks, it is noted that the recommended fee is consistent with other activities within the road allowance. This level is sufficient to cover processing costs. If a portion of such fees charged for promotional kiosks is applied to another program, it is recommended that Council establish an amount over and above the above noted permit fee. In this specific case, while Labatt is prohibited by Regulation from directly sponsoring or contributing to activities involving minors, this does not prevent Council from applying fees collected for authorizing "promotional" permits for such purposes.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Andrew Koropeski, 392-7711

Director, Transportation Services, District 1

Barrie Chavel, 392-0839

Supervisor, Special Events, District 1

APPENDIX 'A'

TEMPORARY DESIGNATED AREA FOR A COMMERCIAL

PROMOTIONAL KIOSK PILOT PROJECT

Temporary Permit Conditions

A. No temporary permit shall be issued until the applicant has entered into an agreement with the City in which the applicant agrees:

(1) to provide a certificate of issuance to indemnify and save harmless the City from any actions, loss, costs, claims or damages arising from the use of the temporary installation of a commercial promotional kiosk within the designated area or anything undertaken or neglected to be undertaken in connection with the use of the designated area in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) per occurrence, and including a cross-liability clause;

(2) the Commissioner, the Commissioner's designate or any person authorized by a public utility may enter the designated area at any time without compensation to the temporary permit holder, for the purpose of installation, maintenance or repair of any pavement, pipes, cables, wires, poles or any other installation or utility;

(3) the temporary permit holder shall vacate the designated area when required to do so by a police officer or any person designated by the Commissioner, for any reason including parades, special events or pedestrian public safety;

(4) the temporary permit holder shall only occupy the designated area from 9:00 p.m. Friday to 1:00 a.m. Saturday and 9:00 p.m. Saturday to 7:00 a.m. Sunday from May 21, 1999 to October 2, 1999;

(5) the temporary permit holder shall display the permit so that it is clearly visible on the commercial promotional kiosk;

(6) the temporary permit holder shall only use the designated area for "promotional use" and not for the purpose of vending, as defined within the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, and in particular shall not distribute any coupons which may be redeemed for products manufactured by the permit holder;

(7) the temporary promotional kiosk shall not exceed 2.43 m long, 1.0 m wide and 2.13 m high, including any seat, lighting, waste receptacle, promotional materials and storage;

(8) the temporary permit holder shall ensure that any lighting or illumination is directed inwards and is operated only by a battery contained within the kiosk. Any lighting or illumination shall not impact on residents or businesses or vehicular traffic;

(9) no amplification of sound or music shall be permitted;

(10) the temporary permit holder shall maintain the designated area and adjacent pavement, sidewalk and boulevard in a clean and sanitary condition free from any promotional materials, papers, rubbish and debris, satisfactory to the Commissioner;

(11) the temporary permit holder shall not assign or transfer the right to use the designated area to any other person or company;

(12) the temporary permit holder shall not leave the commercial promotional kiosk unattended;

(13) the temporary permit holder agrees that, despite this agreement, Council may at any time without reason or compensation, cancel the permit, after giving written notice to the temporary permit holder and providing the temporary permit holder an opportunity to speak to the matter before Toronto Community Council;

(14) the temporary permit holder agrees that the Commissioner may, upon giving written notice to the temporary permit holder, suspend the temporary permit where the Commissioner had reason to believe that the agreement has been violated by the temporary permit holder or any person working within the designated area or where the Commissioner has reason to believe the safety of the public may be endangered by reason of the commercial promotional kiosk continuing to be located in the designated area, pending the consideration by the Toronto Community Council at its next appropriate meeting of a report from the Commissioner respecting the violations or safety concerns;

(15) the temporary permit holder agrees that the Commissioner or a police officer may at any time order that operation of the kiosk cease where, in the opinion of the Commissioner or a police officer, public safety may be endangered by crowds or other nuisance associated with the operation of the kiosk, and the temporary permit holder shall immediately comply with such order.

B. The applicant agrees to pay in advance, a non-refundable/non-renewable permit fee of one thousand and five hundred dollars ($1,500) for the temporary use of a public right-of-way designated area for the installation of a temporary commercial promotional kiosk, for a period from May 21, 1999 to October 2, 1999 from 9:00 p.m. on Friday to 1:00 a.m. on Saturday and from 9:00 p.m. on Saturday to 1:00 a.m. on Sunday.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issues a permit for injury to the tree located at 404 Dovercourt Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Mr. Phu Vinh Hoang, 404 Dovercourt Road, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 3E7, owner of 404 Dovercourt Road, has filed an application for a permit to injure one tree on private property that overhangs his parking area.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) refuse to issue a permit for injury; or

(2) issue a permit for injury.

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy centimetre diameter horsechestnut in fair condition. The tree is on the property line of 404/406 and 408 Dovercourt Road and approximately fifty percent of the crown overhangs the rear yard parking area of the applicant. The applicant would like to prune the tree to the property line to eliminate the problem of falling chestnuts in the late summer. The pruning desired by the applicant is excessive and is not proper arboricultural practice and it would lead to a decline in the health of the tree in question. To reduce the occurrence of fruit falling onto the applicants property, the tree would have to be removed completely. Alternatively the applicant could purchase a car cover that would eliminate damage caused by falling chestnuts. The chestnut tree is healthy and a specimen worthy of protection in the community.

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 injure the tree in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

392-6644

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (April 29, 1999) from Mr. Calvert Liburd regarding tree removal at 404 Dovercourt Road.)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 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 52 of Report No. 14 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Stop Up and Closing - Portions of Public Highway adjacent to Lawrence Subway Station (North Toronto)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on April 6, 13, 20 and 27, 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

May 11, 1999.

Bill No.

To stop up and close parts of the public highways Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue East

WHEREAS by Clause_____of Toronto Community Council Report No._____, as adopted by Council at its meeting held on May 11, 1999, it is recommended that parts of the public highways Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue East be stopped up and closed as public highways;

AND WHEREAS notice of Council's intention to stop up and close the said parts of Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue East was advertised in a daily newspaper on____________1999.

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

1. Parts of the public highways Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue East, described as follows:

In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of parts of the Public Highways Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue East dedicated by Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto By-law 161-74 registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64) as Instrument CT89806, being part of Lot 6 in Concession 1, East of Yonge Street, in the Geographic Township of York, designated as Parts 1 and 3 on Plan 63R-763 deposited in the said Land Registry Office

are hereby stopped up and closed as public highways.

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

_____________________________ ________________________

MEL LASTMAN, NOVINA WONG,

Mayor City Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 52 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 14, titled "Stop Up and Closing - Portions of Public Highway adjacent to Lawrence Subway Station (North Toronto)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998:

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To obtain authority for the stopping-up and closing of the portions of the public highway currently dedicated to form part of Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue East by Metropolitan By-law No. 161-74, and designating the lands as park lands in order to accommodate landscaping in the area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the out of pocket expenses for the statutory processing of the stopping-up and closing in the estimated amount of $3,500.00, are accommodated in Capital Fund Code No. 294-800.

Recommendations:

(1) That the portions of the public highway shown as Areas A, B and C on the attached Plan SYE2896, dated October 19, 1998, be stopped-up and closed as public highway and placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism;

(2) That the portion of the public highway shown as Area B on the attached Plan SYE2896, once stopped-up and closed as public highway, continue to be maintained as a taxi turnaround and stand;

(3) That easements be reserved, if necessary, for the City and Utility Companies, over the entire portion of the public highway to be closed, for access, operation, use, inspection, repair, maintenance, reconstruction or alteration of the existing utilities and for the construction of additional or new services; and

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

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services has received a request from Councillor Michael Walker, to stop-up and close the portions of the public highway, shown as Areas A, B and C on the attached Plan SYE2896, and to declare this land as "open space". Areas A and C will be landscaped, including the planting of trees, grading the lands and the installation of benches, while Area B, which is currently used as a taxi turnaround and stand to serve the subway station will be maintained. Although the lands were dedicated many years ago, they have never served a public highway purpose, and thus, it is appropriate that they be formally assigned for parkette purposes.

Due to time constraints associated with meeting the deadline for the Toronto Community Council meeting of November 12, 1998, it has not been possible to determine in detail the extent of municipal services or utilities within these lands, or to give the required notice pursuant to the screening process set out in "Schedule B" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects under the Environmental Assessment Act (EAA). In this instance, since the lands are to remain in City ownership and any improvements would be landscaping, there will be no immediate impacts on utilities.

The Departmental identification of municipal services and utilities and EAA notice will be completed prior to the introduction of the necessary Bills in Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Laurie Robertson

Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings

(392-7711)

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 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 57 of Report No. 16 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "All-Way 'Stop' Sign Control - Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue and Installation of Speed Humps - Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West (High Park)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on April 6, 13, 20 and 27, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, Clause No. 57, as adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 1998

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 Clause 57 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, titled "All-Way "Stop" Sign Control - Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue and Installation of Speed Humps - Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West (High Park)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998:

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an all-way "Stop" sign control at the Tyndall Avenue/Temple Avenue intersection and to reduce the incidence of speeding vehicles on Tyndall Avenue between Springhurst Avenue and King Street West by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $12,000, funds for which are available in the Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Tyndall Avenue, from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on TYNDALL AVENUE from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5300, dated November 25, 1998,"

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

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated the feasibility of installing an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue, as well as concerns regarding excessive speeding on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West with the view to implementing speed humps on this section of road.

Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West operates two-way on a pavement width of 8.8 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the west side of Tyndall Avenue and on the east side, parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily and for a maximum period of three hours at other times.

Temple Avenue runs east from Tyndall Avenue and operates one-way westbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres with a 40 kilometres per hour speed limit. Right-of-way at the intersection of these two streets is controlled by a "Stop" sign for westbound Temple Avenue traffic.

Request for an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue

A recent eight-hour manual traffic survey (which included the morning and afternoon rush periods and the midday off-peak periods) conducted by Works staff at the above intersection recorded combined total of 864 vehicles travelling on Tyndall Avenue and a total of 228 vehicles travelling on Temple Avenue. A total of 125 pedestrians was observed crossing Tyndall Avenue at Temple Avenue and 116 pedestrians crossed Temple Avenue at Tyndall Avenue.

An examination of the Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection revealed that from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997 (the most recent data available), there was only one reported collision, which was not pedestrian or cyclists related. This collision involved a westbound car stopped at the Temple Avenue "Stop" sign being rear-ended by another vehicle. The presence of an all-way "Stop" sign control would not have prevented this collision.

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs which encompass factors such as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and concluded that the warrants for an all-way "Stop" sign control have not been satisfied. Specifically, there are no physical characteristics at this intersection which impair visibility for either motorists or pedestrians approaching the intersection, and the intersection appears to be operating safely.

As the main complaint received from residents about traffic operation on Tyndall Avenue appears to be the speed of traffic using this street, the use of an all-way "Stop" sign control to reduce the incidence of speeding is not desirable. Experience has shown that the presence of a "Stop" sign will effect the speed of traffic only within a very short distance of the sign, usually 30 to 40 metres and that speeds increase somewhat farther away from the "Stop" as motorists attempt to make up for lost time. Further, without the presence of rigorous police enforcement, the rate of compliance with unwarranted all-way "Stop" sign controls is poor. In light of this, other measures, such as the installation of speed humps, have proven to be effective in lowering operating speeds, improving safety and are self-enforcing. Similar installations on nearby streets such as Springhurst Avenue and Close Avenue have proven successful in substantially reducing traffic speeds over the entire street and improving traffic safety.

Installation of speed humps on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West

Works staff recently conducted twenty-four automatic speed and volume surveys over a two-day period on the subject section of Tyndall Avenue. On average, Tyndall Avenue carries a combined total of 2,500 vehicles per day in both directions, with an operating speed (the rate of speed travelled at or under by 85% of all motorists) of 58 kilometres per hour and an average speed of 44 kilometres per hour. In order to address this speeding problem, Works staff have developed a traffic calming plan with the view of reducing operating speeds to range of 30 kilometres per hour.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5300 dated November 25, 1998 consists of six speed humps with spacings between the speed humps of approximately 40 to 86.5 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would also be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

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

The changes proposed to Tyndall Avenue, as described above, constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently by subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies have been undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Stephen Benjamin, Manager of Traffic Operations, District 1, 392-7773

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (December 4, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am writing to you regarding the report submitted by Transportation Services District I, with regards to installation of speed humps on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West, and an All-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue.

I am unable to attend the Toronto Community Council meeting on Thursday December 10, 1998, I am writing to support the installation of speed humps on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West, subject to a poll being conducted by Works and Emergency Services staff.

With regards to the request for an all-way "Stop" sign control, at the intersection of Tyndall Avenue and Temple Avenue, I am recommending to Toronto Community Council that this item be deferred until such time, that a poll is conducted to determine if there is community support for this request, and if the above-noted speed humps are implemented, will there still be a need for stop sign control at this location.

Your consideration of the above is greatly appreciated.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 20, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of a speed hump poll of residents and to advise that conditions for the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Tyndall 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 December 16 and 17, 1998, in adopting Clause 57 in Toronto Community Council Report No.16, approved the alterations of the pavement on the above noted street, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above was advertised in a daily newspaper on four consecutive weeks in April 1999 and will be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 28, 1999.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations and that at least 60% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Tyndall Avenue from Springhurst Avenue to King Street West in April 1999 showed that 282 of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these 197 (70%) supported speed humps, 69 (24%) opposed the plan and 16 (6%) did not indicate a preference.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, have been satisfied on the subject section of roadway.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, Co-ordinator, Transportation Operations

Tel: 392-7771

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 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 63 of Report No. 16 of the Toronto Community Council, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West (High Park)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998, notice with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on April 6, 13, 20 and 27, 1999, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following Draft By-law from the City Solicitor:

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, Clause No. 63, as adopted by Council on December 16 and 17, 1998

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 Clause No. 63 of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 16, titled "Installation of Speed Humps - Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West (High Park)", which was adopted, without amendment by City Council at its meeting held on December 16 and 17, 1998:

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West 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 $5,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5276, dated October 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comments:

At the request of Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West to reduce vehicle speeds. Six speed humps were installed on Springhurst Avenue from Dufferin Street to Jameson Avenue in December 1997.

Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Street to a point 85.3 metres south of King Street West has a pavement width of 6.2 metres, and 9.7 metres for the remaining portion closest to King Street West. This portion of Springhurst Avenue has a maximum speed limit of 40 km/h, and operates one-way westbound/northbound from Jameson Avenue to a point 85.3 metres south of King Street West, and two-way for the remaining portion. The following parking regulations are in effect on this block:

East Side

* The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m daily, and parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of one hour at other times, from Jameson Avenue to a point 85.3 metres south of King Street West.

* Parking is prohibited at all times from King Street West to a point 85.3 metres south thereof.

West Side

* Parking is prohibited at all times.

Twenty-four hour speed and volume surveys conducted between September 14, 1998 and September 19, 1998 recorded approximately 1100 to 1400 vehicles per day, and of these about 50% to 70% exceeded the posted speed limit of 40 km/h, while 10% to 20% travelled in excess of 10 km/h over the limit.

A suitable speed hump plan for this block would consist of five speed humps as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5276 dated October 1998. The proposal has one speed hump south of the sharp bend and four north of the bend.

In accordance with the Speed Hump implementation policy established by the former City Council, residents will be polled to determine whether there is community support for speed humps as outlined above. The poll will be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street. At least 60% of valid responses should support the plan in order to authorize the installation. The final decision rests with City Council.

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

Accordingly, the intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. It is noted that emergency services are being advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Joe Gallippi, Transportation Technologist, 392-7711

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (December 7, 1998) from Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski:

I am writing to you regarding the report submitted by Transportation Services District I, with regards to the installation of speed humps on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West.

I am unable to attend the Toronto Community Council meeting on Wednesday December 9, 1998, I am writing to support the installation of speed humps on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West and the recommendations in the report.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 20, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of a speed hump poll of residents and to advise that conditions for the installation of speed humps on the subject section of Springhurst 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 December 16 and 17, 1998, in adopting Clause 63 in Toronto Community Council Report No.16, approved the alterations of the pavement on the above noted street, subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents, pursuant to the former City of Toronto policy relating to speed hump installation. The proposed enactment of the draft by-law to give effect to the above was advertised in a daily newspaper on four consecutive weeks in April 1999 and will be considered by Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 28, 1999.

Comments:

The former City of Toronto's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) requires that a poll of adult residents (18 years of age or older) be conducted on streets being considered for speed hump installations and that at least 60% of the valid responses to the poll endorse the speed hump proposal.

The results of the poll undertaken on Springhurst Avenue from Jameson Avenue to King Street West in April 1999 showed that 42 of the eligible voters responded to the poll and of these 33 (79%) supported speed humps and 9 (21%) opposed the plan.

As indicated above, the criteria for the installation of speed humps as set out in the Speed Hump Policy, have been satisfied on the subject section of roadway.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl, Co-ordinator, Transportation Operations,

Tel: 392-7771

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for residential boulevard parking on the Cloverlawn Avenue flank of 1797 Dufferin Street, such approval to be subject to:

(1) the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-40 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, excluding the criterion that a poll to be conducted; and

(2) the applicant agreeing to plant a tree on the property at a location satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit residential boulevard parking which does not meet the requirements of the Municipal Code. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the request for residential boulevard parking on the Cloverlawn Avenue flank of 1797 Dufferin Street; OR

(2) City Council approve the request for residential boulevard parking on the Cloverlawn Avenue flank of 1797 Dufferin Street, and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-40 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, including a favourable poll.

Background:

Councillor Disero has asked me to report on a request for residential boulevard parking which does not meet the criteria of the Municipal Code. The department has not received an application for residential boulevard parking for this address.

Comments:

The property is located at the south east corner of Dufferin Street and Cloverlawn Avenue, and is serviced by a double garage accessed from Cloverlawn Avenue. In August 1995, a complaint was received for unauthorized boulevard parking at this location. An application was left for the owner to apply for the boulevard parking privileges in the paved area adjacent to the driveway.

Mr. Sam Pagano, owner of 1797 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario M6E 3N9, contacted the office as a result of the inspection and was advised of the procedures for licensing. He advised that he was contemplating in submitting the application, but no longer parks adjacent to the driveway, as his vehicles park in the double garage and on the driveway fronting the garages. The application was never submitted.

Further complaints were received in 1996 and 1997 that the unauthorized parking was occurring again. Other inspections conducted as a result of these complaints failed to confirm any unauthorized parking.

Consideration for residential boulevard parking is governed by Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. On July 5, 1996, Chapter 313 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current criteria:

(a) prohibits residential boulevard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property is within an area authorized for permit parking; and

(b) prohibits residential boulevard parking where the property has access to existing parking facilities on the lot or where adequate space for parking can be provided on the lot.

We have investigated the feasibility of residential boulevard parking at this location and we have determined that it does not meet the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, for the following reasons:

1. Permit parking is authorized on both side of Cloverlawn Avenue, within permit parking area 3A; and

2. The property has access to a double garage on the property accessed from Cloverlawn Avenue.

The letter states that the owner requires the parking space for his third vehicle. The owner had the opportunity to get this parking space licensed in 1995 prior to the changes in regulations. He decided to park on the driveway fronting the garages, and to forego licensing the parking space.

Including the parking fronting the garages, the property can accommodate parking for 4 cars. If this additional parking space is licensed, this would effectively provide parking for 5 vehicles (Appendix 'A').

I note that for properties which meet the basic eligibility criteria (i.e. no on-site parking, not in a permit parking area), the application is then reviewed against a set of physical criteria (i.e. clearances from trees, landscaping, etc.). If it meets these physical criteria, a positive response to a public poll is also required before staff may issue a licence. The polling has not been conducted for this property as no application has been received from the owner.

Conclusions:

As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking and has access to a double garage on the property, this location is not eligible for residential boulevard parking. In view of the above, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

Mr. Sam Padano appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the application for the commercial boulevard parking spot furthest to the east of Spadina Avenue on Cecil Street be denied;

(2) the application for 2 commercial boulevard parking spots on the Cecil Street flank of 377 Spadina Avenue be granted, on condition that

(a) landscaping be done directly in front of the building facing Cecil Street, and that such landscaping be satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(b) the applicant agree to plant a shade tree on the boulevard, or alternatively, to make a contribution to the Urban Forestry Program for the planting of a shade tree on the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

(3) the location of the landscaping be mutually agreed upon by the owner and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking on the Cecil Street flank of 377 Spadina Avenue, because of a negative public poll. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Cecil Street flank of 377 Spadina Avenue; OR

(2) City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking on the Cecil Street flank of 377 Spadina Avenue, notwithstanding the negative results of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Sam Louie, owner of Grossman's Tavern, in his letter of January 8, 1999, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his application for commercial boulevard parking on the Cecil Avenue flank of 377 Spadina Avenue.

Comments:

Mr. Sam Louie, owner of 302222 Ontario Ltd., o/a Grossman's Tavern, 377 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5T 2G3, submitted an application on September 16, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking for the parking of 3 vehicles, to be positioned parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').

We have examined this application and have determined that it meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in § 313-42 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.

As the proposed boulevard parking flanks a residential district, the Municipal Code requires that a public poll of owners and tenants within 100 m of the proposed parking be conducted to determine neighbourhood support. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated September 30, 1998 was conducted on the north side from 44 to 56 Cecil Avenue, including 144 Huron Street, and on the south side from 53 to 73 Cecil Avenue, including 138 Huron Street, to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Mr. Louie was advised in writing December 14, 1998 that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued. Furthermore, Mr. Louie was advised that a further application for commercial boulevard parking privileges at 377 Spadina Avenue could not be considered for 24 months from the closing date of the public poll which was October 30, 1998.

To assist the Committee with the evaluation of the points raised by Mr. Louie in his letter of January 8, 1999 (Appendix 'B'), they are summarized below along with staff's response.

Concern No. 1 The premises had been licensed as Boulevard parking in the past.

Staff Response: According to the Department's available records, a boulevard parking licence was issued for the parking of 4 vehicles on the Cecil Street flank of the property which was cancelled in March 22, 1983. The licence was cancelled because the business occupant wanted to utilize the boulevard for cafe purposes in lieu of commercial boulevard parking.

In April 1989, Mr. Tonny Louie, on behalf of Grossman's Tavern, submitted an application for commercial boulevard parking for 1 vehicle. The application was refused because the proposed parking would block an entrance way and there was insufficient depth to accommodate a vehicle right angled to the travelled roadway and still maintain the required clearance requirements from the rear of the sidewalk. Commercial boulevard parking is governed under the criteria of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks (formerly Streets By-law No. 12519). One of the provisions of the Municipal Code requires a 0.91 m "No Parking" set back from the back of the City sidewalk.

A further application for consideration of commercial boulevard parking was submitted in October 1993 by Mr. Sam Louie, which was denied due to a negative poll.

Concern No. 2 The area in question adjoins the main street to the delivery entrance of the building. The boulevard parking enables trucks to back-up to the side door entrance to allow for the most efficient means of delivery of heavy cases of beer and kegs; this established method of delivery has occurred for over 25 years.

Staff Response: Commercial boulevard parking was introduced in 1953 to address parking requirements for business operators for their employees and or clients.

On the south side of Cecil Street in the vicinity of 377 Spadina Avenue, parking is prohibited at anytime. Under the authority of the Highway Traffic Act, a vehicle while actually engaged in loading/unloading merchandise or passengers may legally do so in an area where parking is prohibited. Accordingly, persons making deliveries may legally stop on the south side of Cecil Street, between Spadina Avenue and the 1st public laneway easterly thereof to load and unload.

Concern No. 3 The community response was 12 opposed and 8 in favour of the application whereas 66 of the 107 ballots issued did not respond. The low response may not represent an opposition to this application. Out of 107 ballots issued only 12 people opposed. Due to the consequence of the ruling, a judgement based on responses from all those who were sent a ballot would be more appropriate.

Staff Response: While I can appreciate that the response to the public poll was low in comparison to the total ballots issued, as indicated, the Municipal Code stipulates that if the majority of the ballots cast are not in favour of the application, the application must be denied.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Louie a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Cecil Street flank of 377 Spadina Avenue, because the poll result was negative.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

(A copy of a letter in support of the application, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on April 28, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 15 Glengowan Road, conditional on the applicant providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Mr. Greg Rudka, 110 Bloor Street West, Suite 1606, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2W7, owner of 15 Glengowan Road, has filed an application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that is growing adjacent to the rear of the house.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on:

(I) the tree in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject property commence that warrant the destruction of the tree; and

(ii) the applicant providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; or

(2) refuse to issue a permit for tree removal.

Comments:

The tree in question is an eighty centimetre diameter sugar maple in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Thomson, Bruce and Associates that accompanies the application states that the sugar maple is in fair health with little deadwood in the crown and a slow growth rate of approximately two to four centimetres. The report states that the tree has two main stems that are joined tightly showing included bark and dead tissue at the union. The report recommends removal of the tree due to its proximity to the house and the tight union described above. The main union of the tree should be monitored regularly, but at this time, in the opinion of Forestry staff, it is not a significant problem that would require the removal of the tree. An addition is planned for the rear of the house that will require substantial pruning leaving the tree with an unbalanced crown. The proposed addition can be constructed in a manner that will allow for preservation of the tree but the owner is concerned with the potential for damage to the property as a result of the tree's location being close to the house.

This property is adjacent to the Lawrence Park Ravine and the sugar maple plays an important role as a native seed source. If tree removal is approved it should be conditional on replacement planting with native species that will benefit the ravine system.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection was received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. A copy of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

392-6644

(A copy of a letter from Ted and Alice Kernaghan, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on April 28, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

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

- (April 26, 1999) from Mr. Greg Rudka and Ms. Sharon Westman; and

- (April 28, 1999) photographs from Mr. Greg Rudka.

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

- Mr. Greg Rudka, Toronto, Ontario; and

- Ms. Patricia Thomson, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Temperance Street, north side, 76 metres west of Yonge Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following (April 14, 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 sidewalk/boulevard vending application, which was denied because a written objection was received. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Temperance Street, north side, 76 metres west of Yonge Street; OR

(2) City Council approve the application for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Temperance Street, north side, 76 metres west of Yonge Street, notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Mr. Thomas W. Zwiebel, solicitor acting on behalf of Mr. John Andriopoulos, in his letter of February 11, 1999 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Temperance Street, north side, 76 metres west of Yonge Street.

Comments:

Mr. John Andriopoulos, 32 St. Dennis Drive, Suite No. 406, Toronto, Ontario M3C 1G5, applied on November 4, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Temperance Street, north side, 76 metres west of Yonge Street, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). Mr. John Andriopoulos proposes to vend hot dogs, sausages and cold drinks.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their comments, if any. Mr. Andrew Thomson, Director, Development, Trizec Hahn Corporation, BCE Place, 181 Bay Street, Suite 3900, Box 800, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2T3, has submitted a letter of objection dated November 26, 1998 (Appendix 'C') regarding this location.

Under the procedural rules of the Municipal Code, where a written objection to the issuance of a vending permit has been received, we are required to refuse the application. The applicant then has 30 days from receipt of our notice to request an appeal to the Toronto Community Council.

Staff have met with Mr. Andriopoulos and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, because we have received a letter of objection.

In order to assist your Committee with the evaluation of Mr. Thomson's concerns, they are summarized below along with the staff's response:

Concern No. 1: The proposed vending location is in close proximity of a road closure to facilitate the construction of a building on the south side of Temperance Street, municipal address No. 40 Adelaide Street West

Staff Response: A review of the approved plans for the road closure shows the closure is for the south sidewalk and south curb lane of Temperance Street. The proposed vending location is at the property line on the north side of Temperance Street.

Concern No. 2: The proposed vending location would hamper streetscaping treatments planned along Temperance Street, at the completion of the building construction

Staff Response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires that the vendor must vacate the area for utility maintenance or re-construction, without compensation from the City.

Concern No. 3: The proposed vending location would create an unsafe condition for the vendor and his patrons due to construction traffic and overhead crane activities

Staff Response: Inspection staff have determined that the closure of this area is not necessary during construction of the building and is safe for public use.

Conclusions:

This application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal Code. Staff cannot issue Mr. Andriopoulos a permit because of the written objection to this application.

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that the City Council grant the permit.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

(Copies of Appendices A and C, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with agenda for its meeting on April 28, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

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

- Mr. T. Zwiebel, Toronto, Ontario obo the applicant; and

- Mr. Mark Noskiewicz, Goodman Phillips & Vineberg obo Trizec Hahn Corporation.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 507 Glenlake Avenue conditional on the applicant providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 12, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

Mr. Jody Steiger, Ontario Tree Experts, 3015 Kennedy Road, Unit 13, Scarborough, Ontario, M1V 1E7, agent for the owner of 507 Glenlake Avenue, Ms. Lizanne Dobson, 61 Birchview Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, M6P 349, has filed an application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for the construction of an addition to the house.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1) issue a permit for tree removal conditional on:

(i) the tree in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject property commence that warrant the destruction of the tree; and

(ii) the applicant providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; or

(2) refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign plans for the addition.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-four centimetre diameter Norway spruce in fair condition. Any proposed addition at the rear of the house will require the removal of the tree in question due to its current proximity to the existing house. The spruce tree along with an adjacent spruce of a smaller diameter provide an effective privacy screen for several properties in the neighbourhood and if approval is granted for tree removal it should be conditional on replacement planting that will address the issue of privacy.

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 injure 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 communication (April 27, 1999) from E. Radkewycz, in support of the application, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Ms. Lizanne Dobson appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(City Council on May 11 and 12, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council:

(1) approve the applicant's request for an extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Boon Avenue flank of 1256 St Clair Avenue West, from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., 7 days a week (Area No. 2 on Appendix 'A' attached to the report dated April 13, 1999 from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1), such approval to be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2) request the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report back to the Toronto Community Council after the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (April 13, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's request for an extension of the hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Boon Avenue flank of 1256 St. Clair Avenue West (Area No. 2 on Appendix 'A'), from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., 7 days a week. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1) City Council deny the applicant's request for an extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Boon Avenue flank of 1256 St Clair Avenue West, from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., 7 days a week (Area No. 2 on Appendix 'A'); OR

(2) (a) City Council approve the applicant's request for an extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Boon Avenue flank of 1256 St Clair Avenue West, from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., 7 days a week (Area No. 2 on Appendix 'A'), and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b) Should City Council approve an extension of the hours, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back after the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours.

Background:

Mr. Bruno Comande, owner of the Jolly Italian Cafe Inc., o/a Jolly Italian Cafe, in his letter of March 16, 1999 (Appendix 'B'), has requested an extension of the hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Boon Avenue flank of 1256 St. Clair Avenue West, from 6:00 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., 7 days a week.

Comments:

City Council of the former City of Toronto, on December 14, 1987, adopted the recommendation that boulevard cafes on residential flanks be closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. Prior to this there was no standard boulevard cafe closing time established. Subsequently, City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting September 16, 1996, amended the Municipal Code respecting cafes on residential flanks to permit cafes to stay open beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction if so authorized by Council.

City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of September 23, 1982, approved the operation of a boulevard cafe on a portion of Boon Avenue flank of 1256 St. Clair Avenue West, (Area No. 1 on Appendix 'A') with no closing restrictions. Since this approval was obtained prior to December 14, 1987, no closing time restriction was applied.

Subsequently, City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of June 26 and 27, 1995, approved an extension to the cafe area with the condition that the cafe extension be closed and cleared by 6:00 p.m. (Area No. 2 on Appendix 'A').

Mr. Comande made a similar request to extend the operating hours of his cafe for Area No. 2 which was considered by City Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997. City Council of the former City of Toronto received the matter and in doing so, the hours of operation of the cafe on the Boon Avenue flank of 1256 St. Clair Avenue West (Area No. 2 on Appendix 'A') remain unchanged.

On June 9 and 10, 1998, staff observed that the boulevard cafe (Area No. 2 on Appendix 'A') was operating beyond the closing time restriction of 6:00 p.m. Following notification being given to Mr. Comande to ensure that this portion of his cafe be closed and cleared by 6:00 p.m., follow up inspections showed that Mr. Comande complied with our request.

Our records show that no recent complaints have been received pertaining to noise or the business operation. In addition, we have consulted with a representative of Toronto Police Service, Division No. 13, who advised that no complaints regarding the business operation are on file.

The Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 120 metres along both sides of Boon Avenue from the cafe area, advising of Mr. Comande's request.

Conclusions:

On hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the extension of hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Boon Avenue flank of 1256 St. Clair Avenue West (Area No. 2 on Appendix 'A').

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 April 28, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).