June 9, 1998

 To:Toronto Community Council

 From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

 Subject:Fine Tuning of the Planning Regulations for the King-Parliament and King-Spadina Reinvestment Areas. (Wards 24- Downtown and 25 - Don River).

 Purpose:

 To introduce amendments to the planning regulations for the King-Parliament and King-Spadina Reinvestment Areas based on experience working with these planning regulations since their implementation in April 1996.

 Source of Funds:

 Not applicable.

 Recommendations:

 1.That By-law 1996-0236, being the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan, be amended substantially as set out in Appendix A of this report.

 2.That By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended substantially as set out in Appendix B of this report.

 3.That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report back regarding the feasibility of seeking an amendment to the Ontario Building Code to permit employees who do not live in a live/work unit to work in such premises.

 Background

 In April 1996, the former Toronto City Council adopted new planning regulations for the King-Parliament and King-Spadina shoulder areas of the downtown (see Map 1). The planning regulations replaced traditional planning controls by deregulating land use, density, mixing, and parking controls. The new system of controls is focussed on the re-use of existing buildings and the development of new buildings within a built-form-oriented Zoning By-law system. The new regulations have helped spur substantial new development activity in both areas, but during the review of developments in both areas, certain technical problems with the new Reinvestment Area (RA) Zoning By-law provisions have arisen. Recent work experience has shown that some policies need clarification and some minor technical errors need to be eliminated in order to fully implement the intent of the Reinvestment Area policies.

 Comments:

 1.Retail Policies

 The former City of Toronto's planning regulations restrict retail stores and entertainment uses to 1,800 square metres in some districts, and in other districts allow up to 8,000 square metres, through rezoning approval.

 The Official Plan for King-Spadina contains retail policies in Section 8 whose intent is to exempt retail and entertainment uses from these size limits for conversions. For additions and new buildings, development is exempted from the size limits provided certain siting requirements are met. However, corresponding retail policies in the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan were omitted. This report simply recommends, as a technical matter, that these retail policies be incorporated into the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan.

 2.Depth Restrictions on a Lot

 The Zoning By-law regulations for RA districts limit the total depth of new buildings, or additions to existing buildings, to 50 metres. The policy was designed to control building depths on large deep lots, most typically found in King-Spadina. In such situations the depth control encouraged multiple street related buildings to be developed on the lot in conjunction with common open space, public lane or mid block pedestrian connections in the mid lot area.

 Recent experience has shown that some new buildings cannot conform to these traditional rules regarding floor plate size and building depth. This is particularly true of "urban entertainment complexes " such as the Festival Hall and narrow, deep lots which are developed individually.

In order to more easily accommodate nontraditional building types in RA districts, I am recommending that the 50 metre building depth restriction be eliminated.

 3.Basement and Integral Garages

 The former City of Toronto regulated basement and integral garages in residential buildings. Basement garages which gain access by a reverse grade driveway are now prohibited. Integral garages with at grade access from the front of the house where the garage is part of the dwelling are not permitted in most circumstances. The new regulations require parking to be taken at grade from the side or the rear of the house, except where the lot is wider than 7.6 metres. These policies are intended to ensure a high level of residential amenity within neighbourhoods.

 The integral garage policies were never extended to RA districts because it was not anticipated that low density residential housing would be economically feasible. However, recent experience has shown that interest exists in constructing low density residential development in RA districts especially in King-Parliament. I am therefore recommending that the zoning provisions regulating integral and basement garages be incorporated into the RA Zoning By-law provisions.

 4.Permissions for Apartment Buildings

 The City's Zoning By-law defines an apartment building as a building originally constructed to contain at least three dwelling units and no other principal use. Therefore, the conversion of a building within an RA District to an apartment building is not permitted as-of-right. In order to permit the conversion of buildings in RA Districts to residential uses, the definition of apartment building should be amended to delete the requirement that the building be originally constructed for such purposes, for RA Districts only .

 5.Leasing of off- site Accessory Parking for Residential Uses

 RA zoning permits accessory parking for residential development to be provided on the lot or within 300 metres of the lot. A zoning problem arises when a land owner attempts to lease off-site parking in an RA district. The site from which the parking is leased is then considered as a commercial parking lot, which is not a permitted use in an RA zone. I am recommending that the planning regulations be amended to permit existing commercial parking lots to be used to provide off-site accessory parking to a residential development within 300 metres.

6.Setback Requirements on Shallow Lots

 The current RA zoning regulations require a 7.5 metre setback along the rear lot line of a development lot, to ensure adequate light, view and privacy conditions in the centre of blocks. A 7.5 metre setback is also required along the side lot line, except for that portion of the lot within 25 metres of the street line, where no side yard setback is required. The side yard setback is deleted near the street to encourage a continuous "street wall" effect. However, because of the way the setback provisions of the by-law were drafted, there is some confusion how this by-law should be interpreted for situations where the entire lot is within 25 metres of a street. It is possible to read the by-law in such a way as to have no setback requirement along the rear lot line, as well as the side lot line in this case.

 Since this was not the intention of the built form controls, this report recommends clarification so that a rear setback is required no matter how deep the lot is. For most lots in both revitalization areas, it is possible to create substantial development even with a 7.5 metre rear setback.

 7.Projections Permitted into Setback areas

In RA districts, a 3.0 metre setback is required at a height of 20.0 metres above street level, 16.0 metres on King Street, in order to create a street wall that is similar in height to existing buildings. The current Zoning By-law provisions do not permit any encroachments into the setback, and as a result the roof space created at the setback area is unusable. I am recommending that hand railings or fences be permitted in this area so that the setback area can be used as a private roof space or outdoor amenity space.

 8.Exclusion of Accessory Parking from Parking Calculations

 The parking regulations for RA districts are drafted in a way that includes in the calculation of parking requirements the gross floor area used for parking. Since parking itself does not generate a demand for additional parking, there is no planning rationale for this unintentional requirement. I am recommending new wording in the Zoning By-law to eliminate this anomaly.

 9.Facing Distance for End Walls of Balconies

 Many residential conversions have difficulty meeting the light, view and privacy requirements on side lot lines. The RA Zoning By-law provisions require that, after a depth of 25 metres, a side yard setback of 7.5 metres be achieved. Some conversions attempt to meet the intent of this provision by insetting private outdoor balconies into the building face along the side lot line with facing windows at each end of the balcony. In this manner the indoor habitable space of the dwelling unit is pulled away from the side property line. However, this solution creates another variance to the Zoning By-law. The facing interior walls of the balcony are currently required to be 11 metres apart in order to protect privacy. In almost all circumstances the end walls belong to the same dwelling unit and therefore such a regulation is unnecessary. I am recommending that, when the end walls of the interior balcony belong to the same unit, the facing distance requirement be deleted.

 10.Definition of Live/work Unit

 In 1996 the Ontario Building Code was amended and a definition of live-work unit was introduced. This definition prohibits the occupancy of the live/work unit by outside employees in order to meet certain fire safety requirements. However, the Zoning By-law definition for live/work units in RA districts permits their use by outside employees of the business. Therefore, the Zoning By-law and the Ontario Building Code definitions are contradictory. I am recommending that the Zoning By-law definition be amended.

 However, since it is still desirable to allow some outside employees to work within a live/work unit, I am also recommending that my staff investigate and report back on the feasibility of seeking an amendment to the Ontario Building Code to permit a limited number of outside employees to work in live/work units located within RA districts.

 Conclusion:

 This report contains a number of changes to the Official Plan or Zoning By-law provisions affecting Reinvestment Areas that were either overlooked or are desirable due to the recent land development experiences in both King-Spadina and King-Parliament.

 Contact Names:King-Parliament

Lance Alexander, Planner

East Section, City Planning

Phone: (416) 392-7573

Fax: (416) 392-1330

e-mail: lalexand @ city.toronto.on.ca

  King-Spadina

Rollin Stanley, Planner

West Section,City Planning

Phone: (416) 392-0424

Fax:(416) 392-1330

e-mail: rstanley @ city.toronto.on.ca

Beate Bowron

Acting Director, City Planning, Toronto Community

 (p:\1998\ug\uds\pln\to981609.pln -tm)

Appendix A

 Recommended Part II Official Plan Amendments

 1.That a new Section be added to the King-Parliament Part II the Official Plan substantially as follows:

 "8. Retail Policies

 8.1Notwithstanding Section 9.15 of the Part I Official Plan, Council may pass By-laws to permit the use of more than 8,000 square metres of non-residential gross floor area for retail and service commercial uses provided the development is compatible with the surrounding area within King-Parliament with respect to built form, parking and elements of neighbourhood structure and character, and is consistent with all other policies of this Plan."

 2That all Sections of the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan after the new Section 8 be renumbered accordingly.

Appendix B

 Recommended Zoning By-law Amendments

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

 1.Section 2(1) of By-law 438-86 is amended by:

 (a)amending the definition of "apartment building" by inserting the following phrase at the end of the definition:

 ", except in the case of a building in an RA district where such building does not have to be originally constructed so as to provide therein three or more dwelling units";

 (b)amending the definition of "live-work unit" by deleting the phrase ", except in an RA district where the dwelling unit may also be used for work purposes by any number of persons"; and

 (c)amending the definition of "parking garage" by:

 (i) inserting a colon and a new paragraph reference "(i)" after the word "where"; and

 (ii)inserting a colon and a new paragraph "(ii)" as follows, after the phrase "non-residential use":

 "(ii)a parking garage or a portion thereof is accessory to a residential use in an RA district;".

1. Section 7(2)6 is amended by deleting subparagraph (ii) and replacing it with the following:

 "(ii)in an (h) district, only those uses permitted in an IC district are permitted; and".

 3.Section 7(3) PART II 1 is amended by:

 (i)amending paragraph (i) by:

 A.deleting the words "or a rear lot line"; and

1. deleting the word "and";

 (ii)adding a new paragraph "(ii)" as follows:

 "(ii)7.5 metres to a rear lot line; and"; and

 (iii)amending the existing paragraph (ii) by:

 A.redesignating the paragraph as paragraph "(iii)";

1. inserting a colon and a new subparagraph reference "A." after the word "excluding";

1. replacing the period at the end of the section with a semi-colon followed by the word "and"; and

1. inserting a new subparagraph "B." after subparagraph A, as follows:

 "B.exterior walls which form the boundary of a balcony, provided:

 (i)the balcony projects less than 1.5 metres from the wall adjacent to the longest portion of the balcony where it is attached; and"

 (ii)the exterior walls are attached to the balcony.".

 4.Section 7(3) PART IV is amended by adding a new regulation "8", as follows:

 "8.Restriction on front wall below grade and at grade integral garages

 The provisions of section 6(3) PART IV shall apply to RA districts.".

 5.Section 12(2)204 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c), as follows:

 "(c)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), any commercial parking lot existing on (insert date of passing), may be used for parking spaces required by this By-law, as an accessory use to a residential building located on a lot within 300 metres of such commercial parking lot.".

1. Section 12(2)246 is amended by:

 (a)adding to paragraph (a), the following phrase after the words "public lane":

 "and no portion of the building or structure shall project into this setback except for a fence or safety railing not exceeding 2.0 metres in height";

 (b)deleting paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d) respectively;

 (c)adding a new paragraph (e) as follows:

 "(f)Nothing in this exception is to be interpreted to mean that the floor area provided for motor vehicle parking may be used to determine the required number of parking spaces."