April 23, 1998

To:Toronto Community Council

From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:Directions Report: 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue - Application 197021 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to permit the existing historically designated structure to be demolished and replaced by a 16 storey, 177 residential units condominium apartment building (North Toronto)

Purpose:

This report evaluates alternative options available to Council in dealing with this application and seeks Council=s direction regarding the preferred approach.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That Council indicate that it is not satisfied with the studies conducted to date by the applicant respecting the preservation and re-use of the historically designated Union Carbide Building and, in light of a 1995 Committee of Adjustment application by a previous proponent to convert the building to residential use, that staff be directed to continue efforts with the applicant through the retention of independent professional expertise by City staff to be paid for by the applicant.

 OR 2.That Council accept the applicants= submission that the Union Carbide Building cannot be re-used economically and direct staff to prepare a Final planning report on the merits of the proposed new 16 storey residential building.

Background:

On September 18, 1997, Land Use Committee of the former City of Toronto adopted the Preliminary Planning Report (dated October 2, 1997) regarding the applicant=s request to demolish the Union Carbide building at 123 Eglinton Avenue East and replace it with a 16 storey condominium apartment building. At the time, the Committee directed that a public meeting be held in the neighbourhood and, further, that staff of Heritage Toronto and the City=s Planning Department meet with the owners to discuss means of preserving the heritage features of this property.

On November 17, 1997, a public meeting was held, notes of which are attached hereto as Appendix A. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 members of the public whose major concerns centred around the potential for re-use of the existing building, the density and bulk of the proposed new structure, on-site traffic circulation and traffic impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

On November 21, 1997, the City Clerk received the owner=s application to demolish the Union Carbide Building under the provisions of Section 34(1) of the Ontario Heritage Act.

On December 8, 1997, the Council of the former City of Toronto refused the demolition application.

In keeping with Land Use Committee=s direction, staff has met with the applicant on numerous occasions to explore strategies to retain and convert the building. The applicant has submitted analyses respecting the economic viability of converting the existing structure for residential apartments or restoring it for commercial offices. Letters from the applicant respecting these analyses are attached in Appendix B. The applicant has concluded that conversion is not feasible and therefore continues to seek permission to replace the historic structure with a new residential condominium complex.

Discussion:

1.0 POLICY CONTEXT

1.1Official Plan Heritage Preservation Policies

On July 24, 1995, City Council passed By-law 1995-0494 designating the subject property as being of architectural value and interest, and categorizing it as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

Section 5.1 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto states that Heritage Preservation is a priority. As further stated in Section 5.4, Ait is the policy of Council to designate property to be of historic or architectural value or interest and take all necessary steps to ensure the preservation and conservation of all buildings, structures and other significant features of the property.@

By contrast, the subject application seeks to demolish a designated heritage structure while also requesting permission for a substantial residential density increase from the current Part II Official Plan permission of 3.0 x the lot area to 5.5 x the lot. The Plan also permits a mixed use building of up to 5.0 x the lot area.

1.2Zoning By-law

The property is zoned CR T5.0 C3.0 R3.0 with a height limit of 48 metres. This zone permits commercial and residential uses at a total density of 5.0 x the lot area, provided neither the residential nor the commercial use exceeds a density of 3.0 x the lot area.

At 3.5 x the lot area, the existing office building has a total commercial floor area which exceeds the 3.0 x density provision of the Zoning By-law. The existing building has a height of 45.7 metres. The application is to replace the existing commercial structure with a residential condominium building of a similar height as the Union Carbide building but at a density of 5.5 x the lot area.

2.0FEASIBILITY OF CONVERSION

In keeping with City Council=s direction of September 18, 1997, staff has discussed with the applicant means of preserving the building=s heritage features. The applicant has submitted economic and architectural analyses which have been reviewed by staff of Heritage Toronto and my department. Letters from the applicant respecting this study are to be found in Appendix B. The applicant looked at both the continued use of the building for office use and its conversion to residential condominiums. However, without access to outside professional expertise, it is difficult for City staff to reach a reliable conclusion on the feasibility and economics of retaining and converting the building.

A factor that creates doubt about the economic conclusions is that, as recently as the spring of 1995, a previous proponent submitted an application to the Committee of Adjustment requesting permission to convert the existing building to 182 residential condominium units, while providing 144 parking spaces in the existing two basement levels of the building. At the time, the Committee refused the application on the basis that the number and magnitude of the requested variances was more appropriately the subject of a rezoning application. However, it is apparent that the applicant considered it an economically viable project.

2.1Further Consideration of Conversion

As noted earlier in this report, the applicant has maintained his position that conservation and re-use of the building is not economically viable and is anxious to proceed with review of his proposed new building. It therefore appears that further discussions are unlikely to result in the desired outcome of the building=s preservation and re-use unless the City can demonstrate economic viability.

The only means by which City staff could attempt this is to independently retain outside professional expertise to develop alternatives for residential conversion which are more cost effective. As the City has not budgeted for such study, it would be necessary to ask the applicant to pay for this assistance. Should Council wish to continue efforts to retain the building through conversion, Recommendation 1 of this report would direct staff and the applicant to proceed on this basis.

2.2Further Consideration of this Application:

Should Council agree with the applicant that no further study of conversion options are warranted and wish to proceed with consideration of the applicant=s current application for a replacement of the heritage building with a new 16 storey residential building, the third option would be to direct staff to prepare a final report on the merits of that application. This is achieved through Recommendation 2.

Conclusions:

The study of the feasibility of converting the Union Carbide Building to residential use is difficult to assess without the independent advice of outside professional experts. I am seeking direction from Council on this matter prior to giving consideration to the proposed Official Plan amendment and Rezoning application.

Staff Contact:Feodora Steppat

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-7740

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

Paul J. Bedford

Director, City Planning and Chief Planner

(p:\1998\ug\uds\pln\to981574.pln) - st

Appendix A

NOTES OF PUBLIC MEETING

November 17, 1997 at the North Toronto Memorial Community Centre

Application :123 Eglinton Avenue East

Attendance:

Sid Tannenbaum , Chair, Planning Advisory Committee

Julian Binks, Member, Planning Advisory Committee

Michael Walker, Councillor

Feodora Steppat, Urban Development Department, City Planning

John Blumenson, Heritage Toronto

Stephen Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault

Approximately 30 members of the public were present.

The Chair explained the purpose of the meeting. The area planner outlined the nature of the application and identified the basic issue as one of conflicting objectives, namely preservation of the existing historically designation versus its proposed replacement with a new residential structure with a gross floor area exceeding the existing as well as currently permitted levels of density. John Blumenson of Heritage Toronto explained the significance and effect of the historical designation and with reference to a hand-out, identified the significant architectural elements of the existing building. Subsequently, the applicant's lawyer, his architect and traffic consultant spoke to the details of the application including the proposed site design, structural details and traffic impacts.

Concerns raised at the meeting focussed on the potential for conversion of the existing structure, the proposed density of the new building, on-site circulation and traffic impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

The architect of the townhouse complex to the south was in attendance and noted that in his estimation, the existing building is a prime candidate for conversion and that the existing two basement levels of the building would lend themselves well as garage space accessible via the existing ramp off Redpath Ave. In his opinion the application to construct a new building with a density of 5.5 x the lot area is driven by land value to the exclusion of the designated building on the land.

Another person in the audience stated that he could not support the demolition of an historically designated building to make way for a density increase on these lands.

Another person expressed his dismay at the lack of the City's power to enforce its policies of protecting historic structures.

Someone in the audience noted that the building may be designated but that it is not particularly attractive. In answer to this, someone else in attendance pointed out that 40 year old buildings such as the one under consideration, tend to be temporarily out of fashion but regain their popularity with increased age.

A director of the Sherwood Park Ratepayers Association spoke on behalf of the Association thanking Tridel for consulting neighbourhood associations while developing their proposal. He also noted the Association's concern that an historic building is to be torn down. He also expressed concern with the proposed unit count and density as being too high and likely to result in increased traffic problems for this neighbourhood.

A representative of the South Eglinton Ratepayers' Association also thanked Tridel for their efforts to consult with the neighbourhood. He stated that in a perfect world, retention and re-use of the existing building would be desirable. Short of that, the proposals would appear to satisfy his association's concerns with maintaining if not decreasing the existing building mass although it would be desirable to achieve reductions in the currently proposed unit count. He spoke in support of providing a <green' building setback and circular drop-off area along Eglinton Avenue.

A Board Member of the townhouse condominium to the south was present and thanked Tridel for having consulted with the Condominium Association prior to submission of their development application. The Board is generally in support of the proposal although there are concerns regarding potential negative traffic impacts. The applicant's traffic consultant stated that a traffic impact assessment has been undertaken showing that the peak hour impact is insignificant.

Concerns were expressed with the proposed service lane at the rear of the new building. It was suggested that gates be considered to control the use of the lane and avoid it becoming a short-cut not only for pedestrians but also for vehicular traffic.

The proposal to use the existing access ramp to the parking garage for the townhouse complex was expected by some in the audience to result in too high a traffic volume for that ramp and the potential for line-ups on Redpath at peak hours. There was the suggestion that below-grade access/egress to and from the parking garage for the new building be located off Eglinton Avenue.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.

Appendix B

Letters from the Applicant

 1.Tridel, dated April 16, 1998.

 AFurther to our April 8/98 meeting where we discussed the March 13/98 resubmission of our retrofit assessment (in support of our January 19/98 submission Mr. Paul Bedford), we are enclosing for your review a copy of the following supporting material addressing the additional comments and requests for further details:

(i)Retrofit Feasibility Study AHistoric Designated Cladding System@, prepared by D.T. Prohaska Engineering.

(ii)A letter dated April 15/98 from Alumiprime Window Limited, commenting on the existing curtain wall system. A Feasibility Report from Helyar & Associates will follow shortly.

(iii)Underground Parking Stall Plan Report dated April 14/98, prepared by Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan, further substantiated by a April 16/98 letter from Julian Jacobs, assessing the underground garage plan layout and functional stall count. Further addressing a Works Department meeting held April 9/98.

We believe that the above material addresses all your questions pertaining to the retrofit option, and allows us to proceed with a conclusive planning report to the May 6/98 meeting.

If you have any further question, please feel free to call either myself or any of the contacts reference in the attached correspondence.@

2.McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors, dated March 13, 1998.

AAs you are aware, we met on February 18, 1998 to review the City Planning Department's comments regarding our client's analysis of the potential to retain the building located at 123 Eglinton Avenue East and to convert it for residential purposes. Our client's analysis and response to several of the matters raised at the meeting is discussed below. We note that we have been delayed in providing this information to the City since the parking layout plans which we were asked to evaluate were only provided to our client by City Planning staff on 6 March 1998.

You have requested that our client provide a cost benefit analysis which would address the following matters regarding a converted residential building:

(1)the addition of retail use to the ground floor of the existing building;

(2)the elimination of balconies from the elevation; and

(3)the elimination of 2 elevators to the basement levels.

We have concluded that there will be cost savings with respect to these three items which would total approximately $500,000. However, this savings would still leave our client in a loss position on a conversion at approximately $3.7M. Please note that the loss related to a retrofit will actually be substantially greater than our original estimate of a $4.2M loss when the cost of the required new fire stairs and exterior curtain wall are taken into account.

In this regard, we enclose the correspondence from Julian Jacobs Architects Ltd. date 18 February 1998.

As requested, the alternate parking layout plans prepared by Wallman Clewes Bergman Architects have been evaluated by out client's architect, Julian Jacobs Architects Ltd., in consultation with the Transportation Planning Department of Marshall Macklin Monaghan. They have identified a number of deficiencies in the schematic diagrams and have concluded that a maximum of 86 parking spaces can be accommodated in a converted residential building with a desirable parking layout. Their detailed analysis is set out in the attached correspondence from Julian Jacobs Architects Ltd. and the memorandum from Marshall Macklin Monaghan both dated 12 March 1998.

Furthermore, in our client's opinion, a converted residential building that incorporates the elements suggested by City staff (eg. the elimination of balconies, the elimination of 2 elevators to the basement levels, an insufficient number of parking spaces, excessively long and steep parking garage ramps, and the provision of retail uses at grade) would seriously harm the marketing of a residential condominium development. In addition, from a planning perspective and as a result of our discussions with the existing residents in the community, we do not support the addition of retail uses along the Eglinton Avenue frontage of this property.

We understand that the City also requested that our client consider the potential to re-use the existing building for office/commercial purposes. In this respect, we are pleased to enclose herewith reports from Colliers International and CB Commercial which clearly indicate there is a limited potential to re-use the building for viable commercial uses.

Our client has been very patient in dealing with the City with respect to this matter. At this juncture, we are requesting that the City Planning Department finalize its position with respect to our client's application.@