July 6, 1998

 To:Toronto Community Council

 From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

 Subject:Final Report: Rezoning Application No. 197022 to permit the conversion of an industrial building at 245 Carlaw Avenue to 76 live/work units, commercial office space and light industrial uses (Don River).

 Purpose:

 This report recommends draft by-laws to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the introduction of live/work units and commercial office space into the building at 245 Carlaw Avenue in line with the recommendations set out below.

 Source of Funds:

 Not applicable

 Recommendations:

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

 "18.__ Lands known as 245 Carlaw Avenue

 Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands indicated on Map 18.___ to permit office commercial uses provided the non-residential gross floor area used for such office commercial uses does not exceed 465 square metres".

 2.That Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to :

 (a)redesignate the site I1 D3;

 (b)exempt the site from Section 4(6)(c) and Section 9(1)(f) of By-law 438-86 as amended;

(c)permit the use of the existing building containing, in addition to light industrial uses:

 (i) not more than 76 live/work units;

 (ii)not more than 300 square metres for industrial catering service purposes;

 (iii) not more than 465 square metres of office uses;

 (iv)a restaurant or take-out restaurant on the ground floor of the building provided that the use does not exceed 475 square metres and only one restaurant or take-out restaurant is provided;

 provided that:

 (1)residential amenity space is provided to the extent of at least 152 square metres of indoor space and at least 178 square metres of outdoor space;

 (2)not less than 93 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the site, including not less than 53 parking spaces for the exclusive use of residents;

 (3)a loading space Type G is provided and maintained on the site, but the loading space may have dimensions of 4m by 6.1m;

 (4)the combined above-grade residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor areas does not exceed 10, 953 square metres;

 3.That the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

 4.That I report to City Council in consultation with the City Solicitor, on the Parks Levy issue outlined in Section 4.11 of this report.

 Summary

 The applicant is proposing to convert the existing five and one-half storey industrial building at 245 Carlaw Avenue into a building with 76 live/work units, 465 square metres of office space and some light industrial uses. 97 parking spaces will be provided in a surface lot just north of the building. Indoor and outdoor residential amenity space will be provided for the exclusive use of residents for social or recreational purposes. A detailed landscaping plan will improve the overall visual amenity of the site.

 I am recommending an Official Plan amendment which is required to permit the applicant to locate his property management offices servicing all his properties in this building. A site-specific by-law amending the City's Zoning By-law redesignating the site from I2D3 to I1D3, while permitting an industrial catering service, a restaurant, a take-out restaurant, the office component and the 76 live/work units, is also recommended. I will be reporting separately on conditions to be included in an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

 Background

 The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of December 8, 1997, adopted the recommendations of my Preliminary Report of November 24, 1997. The latter report authorized the holding of a public meeting in the area and requested the owner to submit revised plans responding to the issues raised in the report. Issues included the provision of residential amenity space, wheelchair accessibility, garbage handling, landscaping details and requirements for additional plans and information.

 The proposal to permit the introduction of live/work units into the 245 Carlaw Avenue building is the third such application in the Carlaw Avenue Industrial Area for residential permissions in what to date have been industrial buildings. Earlier applications were received for 233 Carlaw Avenue (Application No. 197005) and 320 Carlaw Avenue (Application No. 197006).

 My June 10, 1997 Preliminary Report on Application Nos. 197005 and 197006 explained that the applications triggered a review of the City's Official Plan policies for the Carlaw Avenue area which was designated at that time a Restricted Industrial Area. The former City's Part I Official Plan requires that, prior to assessing the merits of any site-specific application which proposes a change in designation from Restricted Industrial Area to any non-industrial designation, an area study examining potential economic impacts must first be considered.

 The Carlaw Area Study dated April 17, 1998 recommended that the Restricted Industrial Area designation on both sides of Carlaw Avenue be replaced with a Mixed Industrial-Residential Area designation with the exception of a parcel fronting on Logan Avenue which would be redesignated as Low Density Residence Area. Toronto City Council on May 14, 1998 enacted a redesignation by-law 238-98 (Official Plan Amendment 122), which has been forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and By-law 239-98 amending the City's Zoning By-law.

 1. The proposal

 The applicant is proposing to convert the existing five storey and basement building into 76 live/work units, 465 square metres of office space in addition to continuing to house an industrial caterer, artists' and photographers' workshops and other light industrial uses.

 2. Site and surrounding area

 The site is located on the east side of Carlaw Avenue in a row of industrial buildings stretching from the rear of the Queen Street East properties to the CNR tracks north of Dundas Street East. To the north and to the west across Carlaw Avenue are more industrial buildings. To the east is a low rise residential community along Boston Avenue.

3. Current Official Plan and By-law Designations

 Upon final approval of Official Plan Amendment 122, the Official Plan will designate the area as a Mixed Industrial Residential Area thereby permitting industrial uses up to three times density, residential uses, through rezoning, up to two times the lot area and a mix of industrial and residential uses up to three times, provided the residential component does not exceed the two times density limit. In addition, proposals to convert existing buildings which already exceed Official Plan densities would be exempt from the maximum density provisions.

 The Zoning By-law designates the site as I2D3 with a height limit of 18 metres. This permits a range of light industrial uses to a maximum density of three times the lot area.

 4. Planning issues

 4.1Public response

 A public meeting held on January 15, 1998 raised issues respecting the compatibility and safety of combining industrial uses and live/work units in the same building. Other issues raised related to garbage handling, the status of the condominium application and safe bicycle lock-ups. Residents attending the meeting generally welcomed the introduction of live/work units into the building. Minutes of the meeting are contained in Appendix B.

4.2 Residential amenity space

 The applicant is proposing to provide an area of 152 square metres of indoor residential amenity space in the basement of the building on the north side for the exclusive use of residents of the building for social and recreational purposes. The area includes a kitchen and washroom and is directly connected to an area of 178 square metres of outdoor amenity space screened from the parking lot for privacy reasons.

 4.3Wheelchair access

 The alteration of grade levels adjacent to the north side of the building as part of the provision of the outdoor amenity space provides an opportunity to provide wheelchair access to the building

via the north entrance. It is not feasible to provide such access via the front entrance on Carlaw

Avenue as there is a difference of several feet (and several steps) between the street level and the ground floor level of the building.

 4.4Compatibility of industrial uses with live/work units

 In addition to the 76 live/work units, the applicant is proposing to retain a certain amount of space in the basement, on the ground floor and fourth floor for continued industrial use. The proposed

industrial uses include artist's or photographer's studios, sound studios, storage warehousing, a communication and broadcasting establishment and an industrial catering service.

 I am proposing that the site be rezoned from I2D3 to I1D3 in order to limit the range of industrial uses that would be permitted in combination with the live/work units to those uses which are the "lightest" industrial uses and therefore most compatible with residential use. The industrial uses proposed by the applicant are all permitted uses under the I1 category with the exception of the industrial catering service, restaurant or take-out restaurant uses which are I2 uses. The caterer presently occupies most of the one-storey northern wing of the building. Since this use has continued for some time and seems to be compatible with the residential use, I am recommending that the site-specific by-law continue to permit the "industrial catering service" use. In addition, I concur with the applicant's request to permit a restaurant or take-out restaurant in the building at some time in the future. Such uses could enliven the Carlaw Avenue streetscape.

 4.5Property management offices

 The applicant is proposing to move his property management offices, currently at another location, into the 245 Carlaw Avenue building at the rear of the ground floor. Since these offices would not just be servicing the 245 Carlaw building ( in which case they would be considered a permitted accessory use) but would in fact be servicing all the properties owned by the applicant, they would not be permitted under the proposed I1 zoning. Nor would they fall within the definition of "industrial" use contained in the Official Plan. For this reason, I am recommending that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be amended to permit the office use to a maximum gross floor area of 465 square metres.

 4.6 Parking, loading and refuse collection

 The provision of 97 parking spaces in the large surface parking lot to the north of the building

satisfies the parking demand of 93 spaces estimated by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. 53 spaces would be reserved for the exclusive use of residents, 9 spaces for the use of residential visitors, 5 spaces for the office component and the remainder for the industrial uses.

 The two proposed loading areas at the east end of the building on the north and south faces of the building are acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

 The applicant has indicated his intent to continue to maintain the private garbage collection system currently in place. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is requiring that the owners and tenants of the units be advised that refuse and recyclables generated by this building will be collected by a private refuse collection firm.

 The applicant is proposing to locate a large garbage bin next to the loading dock on the north face of the building and to enclose it with a fence of sturdy construction. A smaller garbage bin will be located at the north/east corner of the site to accommodate the food waste from the catering service and will be enclosed with a similar fence.

4.7Bicycle storage

 The applicant is providing 22 bicycle storage spaces indoors in the basement of the building where bicycles can safely be locked up. In addition, bicycle racks accommodating 6 bicycles are proposed outside the front entrance to the building.

  4.8Landscaping

 A landscaping plan for the site includes the landscaped screening of the parking area from the Carlaw Avenue sidewalks, tree planting along the sidewalks, landscaping of the outdoor amenity space just west of the north entrance in addition to another open space at the north east corner of the building.

 4.9Official Plan policies respecting change in use

 Section 9.41 of the former City of Toronto Part I Official Plan outlines the following matters for which the City shall have regard prior to passing by-laws to permit a change in use in Mixed Industrial-Residential Areas:

 "(a)the advisability of retaining existing industrial buildings or uses in terms of the retention of industrial jobs and the retention of industrial buildings in good structural condition or which may have architectural or historical merit;

 (b)the advisability of retaining existing residential buildings or uses in terms of the policies contained in Section 6 of this Plan and the standard of structural repair and architectural or historical merit of such buildings;

 (c)the extent to which a change in use would adversely affect the continued compatability of neighbouring uses, particularly in those areas where identifiable pockets of a consistent use, industrial or residential, exist;

 (d)the provisions of the appropriate Provincial legislation either governing the issuance of Certificates of Approval for industrial uses, or in any other manner regulating the standard of industrial performance; and

 (e)those matters as may be set out in Part II of this Plan."

 With respect to (a) above regarding the retention of quality industrial buildings and industrial jobs, the property at 245 Carlaw Avenue will be retained in its entirety, having already undergone significant renovation over the last few years with more upgrading expected as the proposed use changes to a primarily live/work emphasis. Light industrial uses will continue to occupy part of the building as well, thus retaining some industrial jobs in the area.

 The impact on the continued compatibility of neighbouring uses referred to in (c) above would appear to be minimal. The property at 245 Carlaw Avenue has contained live/work units on an informal basis for some time with little evidence of conflict between the residential and industrial uses.

 With respect to (d), the Ontario Building Code regulates the standards of industrial performance

as well as the types of industrial uses that would be permitted in association with live/work units.

 With Cityplan's introduction of more detailed policies into the Part I Official Plan, the former South Riverdale Part II Plan which applied to this area (see (e) above), has been deleted along with several other Part II plans. For this Mixed Industrial-Residential Area, the Part I Official Plan provisions for such areas are now the only applicable policies.

 4.10Site plan control

 The owner has also made application for site plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act. I will be reporting separately on the conditions to be contained in a Section 41 Undertaking, such Undertaking to be entered into prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council. One of the conditions of the Undertaking should be that the owner be required to inform all potential purchasers of the proposed condominium units that the mezzanine loft areas present in several of the units cannot be used as habitable space, i.e. a sleeping area or bedroom, because such use would violate provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

 4.11Parks levy

 The applicant is objecting to the proposed parks levy, arguing that the property is not subject to the provisions of Section 42 of the Planning Act or the Municipal Code, Section 165. In the alternative, the applicant's lawyer argues that the property should receive an exemption from payment of the parks levy.

 I will be reporting separately on this issue, in consultation with the City Solicitor.

 5.Notices of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board

 In a letter dated November 17, 1997, the applicant's solicitor filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board respecting the proposed Official Plan Amendment based on Council's failure to give notice of a public meeting. In a letter dated February 18, 1998 the solicitor informed the City that the applicant had filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board respecting the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment based on Council's refusal to amend the Zoning By-law. No hearing date has been set.

 Conclusion:

 Approval of this application will legalize the current informal use of this building for live/work purposes.

 Contact Name:

 Pat Zolf, Area Planner

City Planning Division, East Section

Tel: 416-392-0411

Fax; 416-392-1330

E-Mail: Pzolf@city.toronto.on.ca

    Beate Bowron

Acting Director, City Planning

Toronto Community

 (p:\1998\ug\uds\pln\to981645.pln - tm)

   APPLICATION DATA SHEET

 Confirmed Municipal Address:245 Carlaw Avenue.

 PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

 PROJECT INFORMATION

Appendix A

 Comments from Civic Officials

 1.Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings and Inspections, June 25, 1998

 "Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

 Description:Alterations to existing building for live/work units, office, communications and broadcasting establishment, industrial computer service, storage warehouse, cl

 Zoning Designation:I2 D3Map:52H 312

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

 Plans prepared by:Daniel Benson ArchitectPlans dated: March 25, 1998

 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 required one loading space - type G (3.5 metres by 11 metres with a vertical clearance of at least 4 metres) will only have dimensions of 4 metres by 6.1 metres. (Section 4(6)(c))

 2.The proposed live/work units (9,505 square metres) and offices (462 square metres) are not permitted in an I2 district. (Section 9(1)(f))

 3.Note: The combined RGFA & NRGFA of the building (excluding 1,952 square metres of basement space) is 10,953 square metres.

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."

2.Works and Emergency Services, April 15, 1998

 "Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required to:

 (a)Provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

 (b)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

 (c)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;

 (d)Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

 (e)Provide and maintain a minimum of 93 parking spaces on the site to serve the project including at least 76 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents;

 (f)Provide and maintain private refuse collection services for this project;

 (g)Agree to advise all owners and tenants of the units that refuse and recyclables generated by this building must be collected by a private refuse collection firm;

 (h)Provide and maintain the existing loading facilities located on this site to serve this development;

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

1. 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; and

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

 Comments:

 Location

 South of Dundas Street East between Carlaw Avenue and Boston Avenue.

 Proposal

 Renovation and conversion of an existing industrial building resulting in a building containing 76 live/work condominium units, 2,577.61m² of commercial/industrial space and 461.89 m² of office space.

 Previous Application

 The site was the subject of Draft Plan of Condominium application No. 497005.

 Parking and Access

 The provision of 97 surface parking spaces to serve the project satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 93 spaces, based in part on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 53 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project, 9 spaces for the use of the residential visitors and 5 spaces for the office component .

As far as can be ascertained, the proposed parking supply satisfies the Zoning By-law requirement for 81 spaces .

The parking space and aisle dimensions are acceptable and the parking layout is generally satisfactory.

 Access to the parking spaces is provided via a 6.35 m wide private north-south driveway directly off of Carlaw Avenue, along the west limit of the site. This is acceptable.

 Loading

 The plans indicate the provision of 2 loading areas: one measuring approximately 6.0 m by

10.2 m and the second indicated as a Type G loading space (but does not satisfy the dimensional requirements of the Zoning By-law for a Type G space). As far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requires the provision of 1 Type G loading space for the residential component of the project.

 The applicant has submitted a Loading Demand Study which identifies the level of loading activity associated with the current uses on the site. Based on the 7-day survey (between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.), it appears that the loading demand generated by the existing uses, including the twice-a-week refuse collection, is adequately accommodated by the on-site loading facilities. Furthermore, it would appear that with full occupancy of the building in the future, the existing loading facilities can adequately accommodate the forecasted loading demand. Consequently, the number of loading facilities proposed to serve this development is acceptable.

 Legal access to the loading areas is provided over the existing right-of-way from Carlaw Avenue, as identified in Instrument No. CA-8646. This is acceptable.

 Refuse Collection

 This project would be eligible for City bulk lift refuse and recyclable materials collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste), subject to the provision of the following facilities:

 - a garbage room with a minimum size of 25 m², equipped with a stationary compactor;

 - a recyclable materials storage room with a minimum size of 10 m²;

 - the garbage room and the recyclable materials storage room designed with overhead or double doors of sufficient size to accommodate the movement of container bins;

 - a Type G loading space located on site and designed such that garbage trucks using the loading space are able to enter and exit the abutting streets in a forward motion;

 - a concrete pad adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of 4 container bins on collection day.

 The plans do not show the provision of these required refuse collection facilities. The applicant has advised this Department of his company's intent to maintain the private garbage collection system currently in place at this address. This is acceptable. However, the owners and tenants of the units must be advised that refuse and recyclables generated by this building will be collected by a private refuse collection firm.

 Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

 The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development. It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787).

 The applicant must submit a grading plan of the site to this Department showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

 Work Within the Road Allowance

 Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received by this Department."

   3.Public Health, April 6, 1998

 "Thank you for your request of March 27, 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 revisions to the site plan have been noted and do not alter the previous recommendations made for this site. Please refer to this Department's letter dated October 14, 1997 for this information.

 By copy of this letter, I will inform the owner/applicant in respect to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number."

 4.Public Health, October 14, 1997

 "The applicant has provided for review a document titled "REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE I INVESTIGATION". (Frontier Engineering January 20, 1995) The applicant has also submitted for review, a subsequent report titled "REPORT ON REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, 245 CARLAW AVENUE, TORONTO ONTARIO".(Frontier Engineering Inc. December 11, 1995)

 Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed these documents and offer the following comments.

 Historical Review:

 The consultant has reviewed; the City Directory for Toronto between 1833 and 1994, historical maps in the Toronto Metropolitan Reference Library, aerial photographs from the federal government archives, Fire Insurance Records, discussions with members of the Toronto Fire Department and local residents, geotechnical data from McMaster University and Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) records, in order to compile information on the historical site conditions.

 The consultant reports that this site was first developed in 1916 and was occupied by various tenants such as, Wrigley Co.(Gum manufacturing),Shoup Co. Ltd.(paper boxes), British American Wax Paper Co. Ltd., McCaskey Systems Ltd., and Dominion Register Co. Ltd. In 1920 Dominion Register was no longer on site but there were 4 new tenants, Dunlop Tire Rubber Goods Co., The Canadian HW Gossard Co. Ltd.(factory), Hughes Electric Heating Co. Ltd., and Eaton T. Co. (Factory). By 1930 the tenants of 245 were Dyment Ltd., and DeForest-Crosley Ltd., both were manufacturing companies.

In 1940 the tenant list included Dyment Mining & Investment Ltd., Globe Envelopes, Blachford Shoe Mfg. Co. Ltd., Lambert Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., and Pro-Phy-Lac-Tic Brush Co. By 1971 #245 Carlaw was known as the Graphic Arts Building and was used for lithography, publishing, catering, silk screening, printing, knitwear and housewares. In the 1980's the building was used for warehousing and a theatre/movie staging company.

 Site and Building Audit:

 The consultant has advised that there were 3 underground storage tanks used to store furnace oil for the boiler on this site.

 The consultant's examination of the building and pipe insulation indicated that the mechanical piping located throughout the basement was encapsulated. The consultant indicates that the work was conducted by Packaged Maintenance Limited. The consultant advises that the roofing material consists of asphalt, gravel and a PVC type envelope system.

 The consultant's report indicates that there is an ongoing maintenance programme that ensures all painted surfaces are coated with non-lead based paint.

 Subsurface Investigation:

 The consultant constructed 8 boreholes to a maximum depth of 20 feet at strategic locations on the site. Soil samples were retrieved at varying depths from each borehole for comparison with the parameters contained in the MOEE Guidelines, and the MCCR Fuel Safety Branch Interim Guidelines for Operating Retail and Private Fuel Outlets in Ontario.

 The results of the sampling programme indicated exceedances of the guidelines were found in borehole 4 for total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and oil and grease. This borehole is located immediately south of the underground storage tanks. No other exceedances were noted.

 Subsequently, the underground storage tanks were emptied, purged, and removed for disposal along with any impacted soil. The hole was backfilled with 965 tons of sand and 103 tons of granular "A" backfill material. The consultant concludes that removal of the 3 tanks, their contents and approximately 703 tons of impacted soil resulted in successful site remediation with respect to the identified contaminants and therefore, no further environmental investigation is necessary.

Based on the specific information provided, the Public Health Division is not aware of any reason associated with the properties former use, why the applicant should not be issued with a permit for the subject site. This statement however, in no way amounts to the City of Toronto accepting liability for any future environmental problems that may arise at this site.

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

  5.Public Health, September 9, 1997

 "Thank you for your request of July 31, 1997, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

 Comments:

 The applicant proposes to develop a Studio Loft with 81 dwelling units and parking for 95 vehicles. A review of the files available to us indicates that this property was zoned Industrial in 1949.

 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 a Historical Review, Site and Building Audit, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan and a Dust Control Plan, details of which are included in the enclosed attachment.

 This information will help to identify any environmental concerns with respect to the subject property.

 Recommendations:

 1.That the owner shall immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject site. 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 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 for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, 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 for approval by the Medical Officer of Health 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 with respect to this matter. If you have any questions contact me at 392-7685."

 Appendix B

 Notes of a public meeting on Rezoning Application # 197002 for 245 Carlaw Avenue

 January 15, 1998 Morse Street Public School, 180 Carlaw Avenue

 In attendance:

 Adam Krehm and Jonathan Krehm, owners of 245 Carlaw Avenue

Josie Miner, owner's agent

Councillor Pam McConnell

Monica Tang, assistant to Councillor Jack Layton

Pat Zolf, area planner

40 residents

 PLANNING CONTEXT

 Pat Zolf, area planner, explained that the meeting had been called to discuss a rezoning application for 245 Carlaw Avenue to permit the conversion of a substantial portion of the building into live/work units. She said that the proposed residential use is not permitted in either the City's Zoning By-law, which designates this area as I2D3, or in the South Riverdale Part II Official Plan which designates this as a Restricted Industrial Area. She noted that the City's Part I Official Plan, which outlines the City's broad planning policies governing the former City of Toronto, states that in a Restricted Industrial area such as this, any application to permit a non-industrial use requires a review of the Part II Official Plan policies before Council may consider any site-specific application for change such as that proposed for 245 Carlaw Avenue.

 She said that two previously-filed applications for 233 Carlaw Avenue and 320 Carlaw Avenue had triggered a review of the industrial policies for the Carlaw Restricted Industrial Area. A June, 1997 preliminary report on the study noted the decline in overall industrial employment in the area and the trend to having industrial space formerly used for manufacturing purposes carved up into smaller units. The former large chemical products manufacturers such as Colgate Palmolive and clothing/textile manufacturers such as Dylex and Diament Knitting Mills have left the area. Some smaller clothing /textile firms remain. But the area has attracted many artists and photographers, custom workshops, film-industry businesses and other small businesses that occupy the buildings in the area that have been renovated.

 Total employment in the area has declined from 2755 in 1988 to 2031 in 1995, a drop of around 700. At the same time the number of firms in the area has doubled from 125 in 1988 to 254 in 1995.

 Ms Zolf said that, in order to permit the live/work units proposed in the three applications, the Official Plan designation would have to be changed, most likely to a Mixed Industrial/Residential designation, which would continue to permit industrial uses but would allow residential uses as well. Proposals for the remainder of the Carlaw Restricted Industrial Area would be coming forward as well. Then site-specific by-laws would have to be drafted for each of the three properties.

 She said the applicant is preparing a revised set of plans which will be submitted shortly. She explained the planning process and urged all present to sign the sign-in sheet to ensure that they will be kept informed of the progress of this application and will be notified of meeting dates where they'll have an opportunity to speak on the subject.

 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL

 Adam Krehm said he is proposing that 76 of the building's 91 units be converted to live/work units with the remaining 15 to be allocated for industrial uses under the existing I2 zoning. Although his plans did not indicate which units were proposed for live/work and which were not, he gave a verbal description of the location of the various units. On the ground floor, most of the uses are proposed to be I2 uses, with the exception of some live/work units along the north face of the building. All of the upper floors are proposed for live/work units with the exception of a space on the fourth floor where Cantel rents a small space as an equipment room. The basement will be used for I2 uses and an indoor residential amenity space will be provided for residents to use for meetings, social activities, etc. Adjacent to the basement amenity space will be an outdoor amenity space with dimensions of approximately 38 feet by 50 feet which will provide some outdoor space for residents. It will be well landscaped to screen the amenity space from the parking lot.

 Mr. Krehm said he is proposing to landscape the Carlaw Avenue frontage and to replace existing City trees. At the front entrance he'll be putting in bicycle racks, installing lockstone pavers around the entranceway, etc.

 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

 Q. Isn't there a safety issue here? Is it appropriate in a residential building to have industrial uses on the main floor and in the basement? What about fumes and other by-products of industrial uses?

 A.I share your concern re safety of residents. The Zoning By-law stipulates the kinds of uses that can be permitted in the building. Also the condominium by-law protects tenants in that no uses are permitted that would affect the residents' quiet enjoyment of their premises.

 C.(Zolf) I would like to clarify that the City has received a condominium application for a proposed division of the building into industrial condominium units, not residential condominium units.

 Q.What specific industrial uses are you proposing and how are you prepared to deal with multiple-use of elevators where residents and children may be exposed to harmful materials which arise out of the industrial uses?

 A.There are 3 freight elevators and one passenger elevator. Residents could simply use the passenger elevator only.

 C.The community should be providing input now on the kinds of uses that they want to see permitted in the building. Now's our chance to speak.

  C.(Zolf) The compatability of proposed industrial uses with the proposed residential live/work uses is an issue that will be carefully examined by planning staff. Generally speaking I1 uses, considered the "lightest" of the industrial uses, would be more compatible with residential uses than the I2 uses proposed by the owners.

 Q.How can we ensure that the industrial uses which are permitted are compatible with residential uses?

 A.(Zolf) We can tailor the site-specific zoning by-law for this site to reflect the exact uses which we think are appropriate to the site.

 Q.Do you plan to renovate these units?

A. The construction work in the building has already taken place. There's a bathroom and a kitchenette in each unit . Building permits have been issued for all construction.

 C.(Zolf) I want to clarify that all building permits issued to date were issued for uses permitted under the industrial zoning, not for residential use. For example, I understand that the mezzanine loft areas that are already constructed do not meet the Ontario Building Code requirements for habitable space, i.e. for sleeping purposes. I understand that they can be used for storage only. I've told the applicant that a thorough review of the plans in terms of the Ontario Building Code requirements for live/work units and for other uses in the building is essential and that a by-law would not be recommended until this is completed.

 QWill your current tenants be able to afford to buy these units?

 A.The condo carrying costs and the rent would be similar. Rent is approximately $12 per square foot and condo price is $100 per square foot

 Q.Is a restaurant a permitted use under the current zoning?

 A.Yes, a restaurant is a permitted use in an I2 area but there is a size limitation of 475 square metres.

 Q.Would you consider having a safe bicycle lockup, i.e. an inside area for bicycles?

 A.Yes, I'm prepared to consider that.

 Q.Is there a list of what uses are there in the building now and where they are?

 A.I'll get you a list.

 Q.Do you have the latest in technological equipment in the building, i.e. wiring for computers, etc.?

 A.Computers don't have special requirements. There hasn't been any demand for cable in the building but we will entertain requests for that service.

 C.Rogers won't put cable into an industrial building.

 Q.Are you planning to install security at the front door?

 A.No, we have no plans to install an intercom system.

 Q.The preliminary report mentions your proposed garbage handling as a problem. What's being done to address this issue?

 A. We're proposing an 8-9 foot high enclosure of sturdy construction around the garbage dumpster areas.

 QWhen it's 95 degrees in the summer and the garbage is stinking wouldn't this affect the residents' enjoyment of the amenity space?

 A.Our experience is not one of garbage odour but of garbage containment.

 Q. Where will the garbage from Lisa's catering go?

 A.In the bin at the north/east corner of the site.

 Q.How often is garbage pickup?

 A. Two to three times a week.

 C.The garbage dumpster near the building is only for dry waste. Food garbage goes in the north/east corner of the site.

 Q.You mean residents have to walk all the way out there to dispose of their garbage?

 A.I have to walk my garbage to the rear of my yard.

C.Most of the tenants on Carlaw are artists and photographers. Space for woodworkers or a carpenter's shop are hard to find even though they are compatible with residential uses. I'm not talking about furniture refinishers or any noxious stuff. It would be a shame to see these industrial uses disappear.

 C .(Councillor Pam McConnell) I'd like to summarize the issues raised at tonight's meeting which the community would like to have examined:

 -safety and compatibility issues re mixing industrial and residential uses. These need to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction

 -uses that are complementary to each other should be encouraged, i.e. the light industrial uses that are compatible with residential keeps a healthy community where people can both live and work

 -bike-friendly lockups

 -list of current uses to be provided so that community members will be able to look at it

 Q.How will the Community Council deal with matters like this one?

 A.(McConnell) There's a proposal to set up two sub-committees of the Community Council, one that deals with development matters and one that deals with social issues. If that happens, then the final report will be considered by the development sub-committee and you'll have an opportunity to speak to the issues. If not, you'll be able to address the Community Council directly. However, the actual by-laws will have to go to the larger Toronto Council for approval.

 Q.Do you support this proposal or not?

 A.(McConnell) My job is to come here and listen to what the community has to say. If the owners respond in a positive way to the issues raised here tonight, then I'd be prepared to support it.