May 13, 1998

 To:Toronto Community Council

 From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

 Subject:Final Report - 2 Bloor Street West (Cumberland Terrace) - Application 12258 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a mixed retail and 305-unit residential development. (Midtown)

 Purpose:

 This report recommends approval of Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a 27-storey, 305-unit residential building, which includes retail uses and above-grade parking. The proposal, by Hammerson Canada, will replace the existing Cumberland Terrace retail mall, located on the south side of Cumberland Street, between Bay Street and the CIBC complex on Yonge Street.

 Source of Funds:

 Not applicable.

 Recommendations:

1.That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan respecting the Toronto Community (the former City of Toronto, prior to January 1, 1998), for lands known as 2 Bloor Street West, substantially as set out below:

 ANotwithstanding any of the provisions of the Official Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands, known in the year 1998 as 2 Bloor Street West, which is divided into Parcels A and B as shown on Map 1 attached to this report, to permit:

 (a)on the lands comprising Parcel A, a mixed retail and residential building including above-grade parking, provided the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 48,145 m2, of which:

i)not more than 32,610 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

ii)not more than 9710 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for above-grade parking purposes; and

iii)not more than 5825 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes and publicly-accessible pedestrian connections;

(b)on the lands comprising Parcel B, the commercial-office and retail building in existence on May 1, 1998, provided that:

i)the non-residential gross floor area, excluding below-grade areas, does not exceed 48,760 m2; and

ii)the continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection through Parcel B to Parcel A continues to be provided and maintained;

provided that the applicant for the lands comprising Parcel A:

(i)pays to the City the sum of at least $250,000 for off-site streetscape and parkland improvements in the vicinity of the lands;

(ii)provides and maintains One Percent for Public Art in publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(iii)provides and maintains a continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection through Parcel A, which connects to the continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection located on Parcel B and the TTC Subway entrance access located below Bay Street;

(iv)provides and maintains an at-grade publicly-accessible connection from Bay Street to the Concourse Level;

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

(vi)enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in (i) to (v) above.@

2.That the City Solicitor be requested to submit, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, a draft by-law to amend the City=s Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) as it affects the lands known as 2 Bloor Street West so as to:

(a)exempt, the lands comprising Parcel A on Map 1 attached to this report, from the following Sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

4 (2) Height Limits: Buildings and Structures;

4 (5) Parking Spaces (b) and (h);

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

8 (3) Part I - Density;

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

(b)permit, on the lands comprising Parcel A, the erection and use of a mixed retail and residential building including above-grade parking, provided that:

i)the maximum combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 48,145 m2, of which:

 a)not more than 32,610 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential dwelling purposes;

 b)not more than 9710 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for above-grade parking purposes; and

 c)not more than 5825 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes and publicly-accessible pedestrian connections, of which not less than 2285 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes on the Concourse Level and not less than 1805 m2 of non-residential gross floor area shall be used for retail purposes on the Ground / 1st Floor;

 ii)not less than 244 above-grade parking spaces are provided for the residents of the residential building on Parcel A;

 iii)the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed 305;

 iv)the height of such building does not exceed 82 metres at its tallest, exclusive of the parapet and an 8.5 metre tall elevator room measuring 5.0 metres by 14.0 metres in area, and the lower heights as shown on the plans and drawings submitted with this application, including a 44 degree angular plane at 10 metres in height along the eight-storey Cumberland Street street-edge. However, this provision is not intended to prevent the erection or use of other structural elements permitted by Sections 4 (2) Height Limits (a) (i) and (ii) of the Zoning By-law which may extend vertically beyond such building envelope;

v)a publicly-accessible pedestrian connection of a width of not less than three metres is provided and maintained on the Concourse Level, and such connection provides continuous access from the existing building on Parcel B to Bay Street and the TTC Subway station entrance access located below Bay Street; and

vi)an at-grade publicly-accessible pedestrian connection is provided and maintained from Bay Street to the Concourse Level and connect to the TTC Subway station entrance access below Bay Street;

(c)permit, on the lands comprising Parcel B, the commercial-office and retail building in existence on May 1, 1998, provided that:

i)the non-residential gross floor area, excluding below-grade areas, does not exceed 48,760 m2;

ii)a publicly-accessible pedestrian connection of a width of not less than three metres is provided and maintained on the Concourse Level, and such connection provides continuous access from Yonge Street to the development on Parcel A; and

iii)notwithstanding any loading required by the Zoning By-law, an at-grade loading zone is provided on Parcel A, comprising one Type G and two Type B loading spaces, for the shared use of the proposed building on Parcel A and the existing building on Parcel B;

 provided that the applicant for the lands comprising Parcel A:

(i)pays to the City the sum of at least $250,000 for off-site streetscape and parkland improvements in the vicinity of the lands;

(ii)provides and maintains One Percent for Public Art in publicly-accessible portions of the lands or on City-owned lands adjacent thereto;

(iii)provides and maintains a continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection through Parcel A, which connects to the continuous publicly-accessible pedestrian connection located on Parcel B and the TTC Subway entrance access located below Bay Street;

(iv)provides and maintains an at-grade publicly-accessible connection from Bay Street to the Concourse Level;

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

(vi)enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in (i) to (v) above.

 3.That site-specific By-laws 310-70 and 140-82 be repealed, on the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended in Recommendations 1 and 2 above.

 4.That, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

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

 ii)the applicant provide the City Solicitor with any postponements as required; and

 iii)the applicant provide to the City a Letter of Credit satisfactory to the City Treasurer in the amount of $250,000 to secure the cash payment for the off-site streetscape and parkland improvements in the vicinity of the lands; and

 (b)i)the issue of the requirement for the applicant to enter into an Agreement to Purchase or Agreement to Lease the lands identified as Parcel A from the City be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

 ii)the applicant agree to relinquish any existing rights to build over the 10-foot strip of land on Bay Street and two 0.16-foot strips of land on Cumberland Street and Mayfair Mews which are owned by the City; and

 iii)the Section 37 Agreement provide that, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit pursuant to the subject amending by-laws, the conveyance or a new lease of such lands must have been completed to the satisfaction of the City.

5.That the Commissioner of Corporate Services (Facilities and Real Estate) be requested to report to the Toronto Community Council, at the public meeting pursuant to the Planning Act, on the status of the purchase or lease negotiations referred to in Recommendation 4. (b) above.

6.That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Noise Impact Statement and Vibration Study, and be required to:

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

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

 7.That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan, and be required to provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services.

 8.That the applicant submit, to the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, at least three weeks prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council:

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

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

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

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

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

 10.That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Toronto Transit Commission, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:

(a)Site and Foundation Plans, which include:

 i.shoring drawings;

 iia plot plan, showing the subway structure;

 iii.structural calculations showing loads;

 iv.a soils report; and

 v.excavating, de-watering and landscape plans; and

 (b)enter into an Agreement with the Toronto Transit Commission specifying, among other things, the developer=s responsibility for provision and maintenance of pedestrian connections to the subway stations.

 11.That the applicant submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit:

 (a)a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan; and

 (b)be required to implement the measures in the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

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

 13.That the applicant be advised:

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

 (b)of the comments of Metro Planning respecting the requirements of the Toronto Transit Commission for approval of the development;

 (c)of the comments of the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services respecting the shared loading zone;

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

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

Background:

(1)Applicant:

The application and revised plans were submitted by Stephen Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors, Suite 4700, Toronto Dominion Bank Tower, T-D Centre, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1E6, on behalf of Hammerson Canada Inc.

 (2)Site:

 No. 2 Bloor Street West contains the 34-storey CIBC commercial-office tower on the north-west corner of Bloor and Yonge Streets, and a connected two-storey and below-grade retail and office mall on the south side of Cumberland Street, known as the Cumberland Terrace, built in 1974.

 The applicant=s redevelopment proposal relates to the Cumberland Terrace portion of the site, not the whole 2 Bloor Street West site. (See Proposal section of this report.)

 (3)Surrounding area:

 The north side of Cumberland Street, between Bay Street and Yonge Street, contains a mix of commercial and retail uses, including an above-grade Parking Authority garage. A variety of retail uses, and some residential uses, are located to the west in the Village of Yorkville. A large 12 times coverage commercial-office building at 60 Bloor Street West and the Holt Renfrew building at 50 Bloor Street West are located immediately south of the site.

(4)Proposal:

The applicant proposes to replace the existing two-storey Cumberland Terrace portion of 2 Bloor Street West (Parcel A on Map 1) with a terraced 27-storey, mixed-use building, having a total gross floor area of 48,137 m2. No. 2 Bloor Street West has frontage of 200 metres along Cumberland Street. The proposal affects 161 metres of frontage, east from Bay Street. (Note: Parcel A has a site area of 3970 m2, exclusive of a 10-foot wide strip of land abutting Bay Street and 0.16-foot wide strips of land along the length of the site, which are owned by the City. The architect for the applicant advises me that their proposal will not be constructed over or beneath the above-referenced City-owned lands.)

The revised proposal, received March 20, 1998, shows 5823 m2 (or 1.5 times the area of the lot) for retail and pedestrian connection uses; four levels of above-grade parking (with a gfa of 9709 m2 or 2.5 times coverage); and 305 residential dwelling units (with a gfa of 32,606 m2 or 8.2 times coverage). The total density of the project is 12.1 times coverage. (See the Application Data Sheet and Maps attached to this report.)

 The proposal reaches a height of approximately 82 metres (27 storeys) to the main roof line. However, the proposed elevator room is large, and does not qualify for exemption from being included in the >countable= height of the building. Accordingly, the building is by definition 90 metres tall. The lower eight-storey component of the building along the Cumberland Street frontage will be 10 metres in height at the street-edge, then terrace back within a 44 degree angular plane.

 (5)History:

 This application was originally received on May 24, 1990. At that time, the applicant proposed to demolish the Cumberland Terrace and replace it with a predominantly residential development with two 13-storey tower components above a four-storey podium containing new street-related retail uses.

 Since 1990, the applicant has submitted several redesign proposals to the City. At times, and at the request of the applicant, the application went on hold to allow the applicant to consider revisions to the project.

 On December 28, 1995, the City received revised plans which abandoned the two tower concept and showed a larger single tower scheme, with most of the massing situated on the Bay and Cumberland Streets end of the site. The December 1995 proposal contained a terraced 22-storey tower, containing 175 residential dwelling units. The December 1995 scheme had a density of 9.0 times coverage, calculated on its own portion of the lot (Parcel A).

 On February 17, 1997, further revised plans were received which increased the number of dwelling units to 222 and the total density to approximately 10.2 times coverage, but the height remained at 22 storeys. The Department did not report on the February 1997 proposal.

 Later in 1997, the applicant hired new architects. Significant modifications were made to the February 1997 proposal, culminating in the revised plans, received March 20, 1998, which are the subject of this report.

 (6)Public review:

 Between 1990 and today, two public meetings were held in the community. These meetings occurred on December 17, 1991 and May 29, 1996.

Approximately 35 people attended the May 29, 1996 public meeting, which was held to discuss the 173-unit, 22-storey proposal, submitted in December 1995. Generally, the proposal was well received. Concerns related to potential shadow impacts, traffic congestion in the area, and the possible negative effects of the actual construction of the project on existing businesses on Cumberland Street.

 Although it is larger in size, the current proposal is conceptually similar to the proposal discussed at the May 29, 1996 public meeting. However, the latest plan revisions have not been subject of a public meeting.

 Comments:

(7)Planning Controls:

 Applicable Official Plan policies:

The Official Plan designates the site a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area B. As discussed in Section 13.12 of the Plan, a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area is largely built up with tall, high density commercial and residential buildings. According to the Plan, these areas should be developed to help realize the housing intensification objectives of the Plan and high density residential buildings in these areas generally contain retail uses at grade. In a High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area B, the maximum permitted total gross floor area is 7.8 times the area of the lot.

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

 Applicable Zoning:

 The City=s Zoning By-law (438-86, as amended) zones the site CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8. This high density mixed-use zone permits a mixed-use building with a maximum density of 7.8 times coverage. The governing Height Limit is 61 metres.

(8)Owner / Applicant:

In 1990, when the application was submitted, the owners of 2 Bloor Street West were identified as the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, the CIBC and the City of Toronto. Except for a 10-foot strip of land at Bay Street and two 0.16-foot strips of land along Cumberland Street and Mayfair Mews, Parcel A was owned by Metropolitan Toronto. As I understand it, CIBC leases the Parcel A lands from Metro Toronto, and Hammerson Canada sub-leases the lands from the CIBC.

At the time of the submission of the application, Metro Toronto had not signed the application for amendments. In 1991, Metro Toronto consented to the submission of the application.

 Metropolitan Toronto and the former City of Toronto are now one entity. The applicant has been engaged in on-going negotiations to purchase the lands, but to-date, the lands have not been sold to Hammerson.

 The City Solicitor had advised me to include a recommendation in the report which states that, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, the applicant be required to enter into an Agreement to purchase or lease for the lands on Parcel A from the City based on the redevelopment proposal and on terms satisfactory to the City. The applicant=s solicitor has indicated to the City Solicitor that they would like to have further discussions with civic staff with respect to this issue. Accordingly, in order to allow for the discussions and not prejudice the City=s position, I am recommending that prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council, this issue should be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. I have consulted with the City Solicitor on this recommendation.

 The City Solicitor also advises that the Section 37 Agreement provide that, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit pursuant to the amending by-laws, the conveyance or a new lease must have been completed.

 (9)Planning considerations:

 Density:

 The maximum total density which is permitted on this site by the Plan and base Zoning By-law provisions is 7.8 times coverage. As previously noted, the applicant proposes to construct a 48,137 m2 mixed-use building on a 3970 m2 parcel of land. The total density of the redevelopment proposal is approximately 12.1 times coverage on its own lot (Parcel A). A portion of this 12.1 times density figure results from locating all the parking above grade, because the Bloor-Danforth TTC Subway line is situated below the property. The above-grade parking comprises 2.5 times coverage.

 The total densities of other buildings in the immediate area are similar to the proposal. As examples: 60 Bloor Street West (on the north-east corner of Bloor and Bay Streets) has a density of 12.1 times coverage; 1200 Bay Street (on the north-west corner of Bloor and Bay Streets) is 11.5 times coverage; 55 Bloor Street West (Manulife Centre) is 10.2 times coverage; and 2 Bloor Street East (the Hudson Bay complex, including the former Workers= Compensation Board tower) is 11.5 times coverage.

Given the density context, and based on other considerations as discussed in this report, I am recommending amendments to permit the densities being sought.

Height and Massing:

 The proposed building is terraced in two directions. Firstly, the bulk of the massing is located on the Bay Street end of the site, where is reaches a height of 27 storeys. From Bay Street, it steps down to an eight-storey spine towards the centre and east end of Parcel A (See Map 5). Secondly, along the eight-storey spine of the building, it steps down to Cumberland Street with a four-storey street-edge (see Map 4).

 During the last week, the architect has redesigned the mechanical penthouse of the tower component to incorporate roof-top outdoor amenity space, which will reduce the size of the mechanical penthouse now shown on the March 20, 1998 plans. I have been provided with the new mechanical penthouse dimensions and height. However, formal revisions to the plans must still be submitted. The tower component will be 81.68 metres tall at the main roof line. A 1.07 metre parapet is proposed. Also, while the mechanical penthouse will be reduced in size, a portion of the elevator room will be 8.3 metres in height. The 8.3 metre height is needed to allow elevator access to the proposed outdoor amenity space.

 Along the eight-storey spine of the lower component of the project, the applicant has incorporated a 10 metre street-edge, with 44 degree angular plane, to allow sunlight access onto Cumberland Street (see Map 4).

 Section 10.3 (c) of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown states that ANew buildings should be located and designed to minimize overshadowing of the public sidewalk on the north side of Cumberland Street by ensuring that 60 percent of the sidewalk is in sunlight at noon on March 21/September 23.@

 Urban Design staff have reviewed the shadow impacts created by the proposal. The proposal does not meet the strict requirements of Section 10.3 (c) of the Design Guidelines for North Midtown. However, staff are satisfied that the proposal=s massing allows for acceptable sunlight access.

Overall, I believe that the height and massing of the proposal reflect the surrounding context and address sunlight access concerns.

 Section 37:

Not unlike other large projects which require amendments for significant increases in density and height, this application includes a cash contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act. The applicant has stated that they will provide $250,000 towards off-site streetscape and park improvements in the general vicinity of the project, including a possible access staircase to the Rosedale Ravine. I am recommending that the applicant enter into a Section 37 Agreement to secure the cash contribution and those facilities, services and matters referenced in Recommendations 1 and 2, prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council.

 Parking, Loading and Access:

The applicant proposes 244 above-grade parking spaces, plus two tandem parking spaces, on Floors 2 to 5 (see Map 4). Most of the above-grade parking spaces are located behind residential dwelling units which face Cumberland Street. The gross floor area of the proposed above-grade parking is 9709 m2. The proposed parking spaces are allocated to the residential dwelling units. The application does not contain visitor parking spaces or parking spaces for the proposed retail uses.

 Buildings= and City Works and Emergency Services= officials have advised me that the proposal meets the Zoning By-law parking requirement (of 185 parking spaces) for the proposed residential dwelling units, but the project does not meet the Zoning By-law parking requirements for 18 parking spaces for visitors to the residential building and 41 parking spaces for the retail component. However, staff of City Works and Emergency Services have reviewed the application, including area traffic and parking information provided by the applicant=s traffic and parking consultant, and concluded that the parking supply being proposed is satisfactory.

 Currently, no on site parking is provided for the existing retail mall. The Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services has advised me that, when compared to the existing Cumberland Terrace retail mall, the proposed retail uses will result in a net reduction in the parking demand generated by this component of the project, and the non-provision of parking for the proposed retail uses is not problematic.

 The Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services advises me that there is sufficient residual capacity in the Parking Authority public garage located across the street to accommodate the visitor parking demands generated by the proposal. Further, the site is also located at the intersection of the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth TTC Subway lines, encouraging visitor trips by public transit.

 Based on the assessment and conclusions of the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services, I am not recommending that the applicant provide visitor and retail parking.

The revised plans show loading spaces (one Type-G and two Type-B) located off the rear lane known as Mayfair Mews. The Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services has advised me that the proposed loading arrangement is satisfactory; however, he is recommending that the loading zone (which is situated within Parcel A) be shared with the existing CIBC tower complex on Parcel B. The Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services also recommends that the operation of loading facilities be co-ordinated by a dock manager whose responsibilities will be to ensure that the loading spaces are efficiently managed in order to minimize disruption to traffic flow on the public lane.

 The ingress / egress to the above-grade parking garage has been appropriately located on Cumberland Street where the street is two lanes wide.

 Streetscape:

 The applicant=s proposal will remove the existing at-grade mall-form retail uses and introduce street-related retail uses to Cumberland Street, which will greatly enhance and animate the street-edge, meeting an important planning objective.

 Staff have reviewed the applicant=s streetscape Landscape Plan. I advise that the Landscape Plan has been prepared in accordance with Bloor-Yorkville Business Improvement Area standards.

 When the application was submitted in 1990, the then Land Use Committee requested that I report on how the proposed development could provide a more direct connection to the Bloor-Danforth TTC Subway line. In a report dated October 29, 1990, I explained that the applicant proposed a new entrance and escalator down to the Concourse Level from Bay Street. I commented that the design would facilitate better pedestrian movement and be visible for pedestrians on Bay Street. The current plans do not show this connection. I believe this connection is still an important planning objective and I am recommending that the applicant be required to reintroduce this connection.

 Amenity Space:

 Plan revisions are expected which will meet the Zoning By-law requirements for Indoor and Outdoor Amenity Space.

 Public Art:

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

 Conclusions:

 The revised proposal for this site will bring new residents to the Yonge and Bloor Streets area with direct access to the TTC Subway. Also, the proposal will achieve an important urban design objective by replacing the existing retail mall with new street-related retail uses and introduce a better animated street-edge to Cumberland. Further, I am satisfied that the proposal has been designed to minimize shadowing impacts.

 Some revisions to the plans will be necessary to address needed modifications, such as the proposed redesign of the roof level of the tower to accommodate additional outdoor amenity space and the re-introduction of the pedestrian connection at Bay Street to the Concourse Level. I am recommending that the completion of the Site Plan Approval process be delegated to me.

 At this time, I am recommending the approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments discussed in this report.

Contact Name:Maldwyn Williams

Manager, City Planning Division, North

Telephone: 392-7333

Fax: 392-1330

   Paul J. Bedford

Executive Director and Chief Planner

 (p:\1998\ug\uds\pln\to981602.pln) - st

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Confirmed Municipal Address:2 Bloor Street West.

 PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

 PROJECT INFORMATION

Appendix A

 Comments of Civic Officials

1.Comments from Urban Planning and Development Services, Plans Examination, North-West Section, dated April 21, 1998.

 AZoning Review

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

1.The proposed building height of 87.96 metres, which includes the mechanical penthouse level, exceeds the maximum height of 61.0 metres by 26.96 metres. (Section 4(2)(a))

 2.The by-law requires a minimum of 18 parking spaces to be provided for visitors. The number of proposed parking spaces for visitors is 0. (Section and 4(5)(b) and 4(5)(h))

 3.The by-law requires a driveway, within a distance of 6 metres of a street, to have a maximum slope of 5% (driveway should be located no higher or no lower than 0.3 metres of the level of the street abutting the driveway). The proposed driveway slope within 6 metres of the street is not shown. (Section 4(10)(a))

 4.The by-law requires a driveway, beyond a distance of 6 metres of a street, to be inclined at a slope no greater than 15% (3 metres vertical to each 20 metres horizontal). The proposed driveway slope beyond a distance of 6 metres is not shown. (Section 4(10)(c))

 5.The by-law requires 610 square metres of indoor residential amenity space and 610 square metres of outdoor residential amenity space. The proposed indoor residential amenity space will be 440 square metres and outdoor residential amenity space will be 40.6 square metres. (Section 4(12))

 6.The by-law requires at least 183 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building, 46 bicycle parking spaces for visitors to the residential component and 6 bicycle parking spaces for visitors to the commercial component. The proposed building will contain bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building, however the number of proposed spaces is not shown. Parking spaces for visitors (residential and commercial) are not shown. (Section 4(13)(a) and (c))

 7.The by-law requires a building or structure to be set back 3.0 metres from the centre line of the public lane. The proposed building or structure is set back 2.7 metres from the centre line of the public lane. (Section 4(14)(a))

8.The by-law requires that the combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area be not more than 7.8 times the area of the lot: 31004 square metres. The proposed building has 48137.25 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1)

 9.The by-law requires that the residential gross floor area be not more than 7.8 times the area of the lot: 31005 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 42314.5 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

 10.The by-law requires the provision of at least 715.5 square metres of common outdoor space. The proposed common outdoor space is 0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART III 1(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. (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%). (Section 8(3) PART XI 2(3))

 13.The lot upon which the subject building is proposed and the lot upon which the existing building will remain (Phase 2 - the Easterly Wing) are not at least the lands described in s1 of Bylaw 310-70. (Section 2(1) of bylaw 310-70, as amended.)

 14.The total floor area of the portions of the buildings designated for pedestrian passageways is less than 51, 500 square feet. (Section 2(8) of bylaw 310-70, as amended.)

 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 property is under consideration to be included in a heritage conservation district.

 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.

Additional Comments

1.The proposed retail uses at the ground floor level must be in compliance with s12(2)259 of bylaw 438-86 as amended.@

  2.Comments from Metro Planning, dated July 2, 1997.

 AWe have reviewed the above revised application in accordance with Metropolitan Toronto Official Plan polices and advise the following.

 Our previous comments submitted by letter dated March 8, 1996 (copy attached) still apply. In addition, the applicant is required to obtain building location permits from the Metropolitan Transportation Department before construction of this project. Other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, piling/shoring, etc.) may also be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the applicable permits and should be advised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (RACS) at 392-4960 regarding the site-specific permit / licence requirements.@

3.Comments from Metro Planning, dated March 8, 1996.

 AAs requested, we have examined the above proposal in the context of Metropolitan planning and development principles and policies. Our review of the revised development proposal has revealed the following.

 Since the Yonge / Bloor subway station and the Yonge and Bloor-Danforth subway lines are adjacent to the site, it is necessary for the applicant to obtain the approval of site and foundation plans from the Toronto Transit Commission. Five sets of these plans should be submitted to the attention of Mr. Domenic Garisto in the TTC=s Property Management Department (392-444). The Property Management Department also requires shoring drawings, plot plan showing the subway structure, structural calculations showing loads, soils report and excavating, de-watering and landscape plans. Subsequent TTC approval of the development is subject to any conditions specified to the applicant by Mr. Garisto.

 With respect to the proposed pedestrian connection to the subway stations, the applicant should provide detailed drawings for the TTC=s review. The applicant will be required to enter into an agreement with the TTC specifying, among other things, the developers responsibility for provision and maintenance of the connection facility.

 The developer should be warned that noise and vibration may be transmitted from street traffic and transit operations into any building constructed over or near to transit facilities. The developer should apply attenuation measures in order that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest feasible level. The developer should notify prospective purchasers and lessees of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions.

 Storm and sanitary drainage from the property should be separated, consistent with the City of Toronto=s programme of sewer separation. Also, the Metropolitan Official Plan encourages the incorporation of appropriate design, practices and developments. In this regard, we request that the developer investigate opportunities to reduce the volume of stormwater runoff by detaining flows for gradual release into the ground and to improve the quality of stormwater discharges.@

4.Comments from Public Health, dated April 30, 1998.

 AFurther to our letter dated March 6, 1996 our Department has received additional information in support of the above referenced site. Staff at Environmental Health services (EHS) have reviewed a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (June 13, 1997) that was prepared by T. Harris Environmental Management Inc (THEM) and offer the following comments.

 Comments:

 The consultant states that during their investigation, the following hazardous building materials were observed:

.Lead: suspected to be a component of solder on copper pipes;

.PCBs: fluorescent light fixtures are used throughout the building. Disconnected or upgraded fixtures have had the ballasts removed and are now stored in the Retail Transformer Room. Several hundred fluorescent light fixtures were noted in Storage Room 6, however, these fixtures are relatively new and contain no PCB ballasts. Two PCB containing transformers were also noted to be in use in the Retail Transformer Room and they are PCB containing with a total volume of 320 imperial gallons;

- Mercury: observed in some mechanical controls;

-Silica: likely component of cementitious building materials;

-Asbestos: suspect ACMs were observed in mechanical insulation throughout the building. Suspect ACMs were also observed in surface texture coat on ceilings, bulkheads and outside columns, sprayed on fire proofing on deck and beams in rooftop penthouse, the cooling tower ecology unit room duct insulation.

 Stored chemicals were also observed on the subject site, which included in-use compounds for water treatment, descaling, desliming of building circulatory systems, and assorted cleaning and painting products. In addition, several steel containers of freon were observed in the penthouse. The report goes on to state that there was no evidence of an underground storage tank during their inspection or on any insurance plans.

 Dust Control Plan:

 The report did not provide details on measures that would be implemented during demolition/renovation/construction to control the generation of dust. This Department will require the incorporation of the following measures as a condition of the building permit that must be adhered to during all site activities:

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

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

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

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

-Tarping all trucks leaving the site which may have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris;

-An air monitoring program, if necessary, as determined through consultation with the Medical Officer of Health;

-Supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified Environmental Consultant.

 The report provides a series of conclusions and recommendation with respect to the handling of all identified hazardous and/or controlled materials, specifically ACMs, PCBs, mercury, silica and freon. This Department has reviewed these recommendations and is in agreement, and notes that these materials will require removal prior to the start of any demolition activities and handled/stored and /or disposed of in accordance with Ministry of Labour (MOL) and Ministry of Environment (MOE) Guidelines.

 Based on the information provided, I would indicate to you that I have no objection to the issuance of a building permit at this time. By copy of this letter I have advised the owner/applicant accordingly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 392-7685.@