October 1, 1998

To:Toronto Community Council

From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:15, 35 and 65 Shaftesbury Avenue: Site Plan Application No. 398042 respecting the construction of an apartment building containing 59 units and Application to amend the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement. (Midtown)

Purpose:

To provide recommendations respecting an application for Site Plan Approval for a new 59 unit apartment building and amendments to the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend Section 12 of the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement to permit the use of a portion of the green space within Block 75, for the temporary placement of refuse bins for pickup, for the provision of a loading area and for a service vehicular access route which is compatible with the landscaped space.

2.That City Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement so as to ensure that the easement over the laneway located within Blocks 10 and 11 on Plan 66M-2315 has been secured to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

3.That, subject to the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement being amended and approval of the zoning variances, City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely Plans:

A-100Site Plan + Roof Plan(redlined September 9, 1998)

A-104Gallery Floor (West & Central Portion) (redlined September 9, 1998)

A-105Atrium + Gallery Floor (Central Portion)

A-106Gallery Floor (Central Portion)

A-108Ground Floor (West Portion

A-109Second Floor Plan (West Portion)

A-110Third Floor (West Portion)

A-111Fourth Floor (West Portion)

A-112Fifth Floor (West Portion)

A-114Ground Floor (Central Portion)

A-115Second Floor (Central Portion)

A-116Third Floor (Central Portion)

A-118Basement Floor (East Portion)

A-201Elevations

A-202Elevations

date stamped as received on September 2, 1998, prepared by Victor J. Heinrichs Architect; and

L-1Hard Landscape and Grading Plan (redlined September 9, 1998)

L-2Planting Plan

L-3Landscape Details

date stamped as received on September 2, 1998, prepared by John Quinn, Ferris + Quinn Associates Inc., all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and as a condition of City Council approval, the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act requiring that:

A.Develop and Maintain Substantially in Accordance with Plans

(1)the proposed development, including all landscaping related thereto, shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the drawings referred to above;

B. Garbage

(2) the owner shall provide and maintain a garbage room to serve the apartment building substantially in accordance with the Gallery Floor Drawing (A-104) stamped September 2, 1998 and redlined September 9, 1998 and install and maintain a bag compactor unit in the garbage room;

(3)the owner shall provide and maintain a garbage/recyclable room beneath the townhouse units including a chute access system to access the storage bins for the recyclable and non-recyclable waste generated by the entire project and equip this room with a total of 5 bulk lift bins for both refuse and recyclable materials;

(4)the owner shall install and maintain overhead doors for the garbage room located beneath the townhouse units on the Gallery Floor level in a manner that maintains a minimum clear depth of a least 2.5 m and designed to permit garbage bins to be rolled directly into and out of the garbage bin bays;

(5)the owner shall install and maintain the chutes above the garbage/recycle bins in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

C. Loading

(6)the owner shall provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(7)the owner shall provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage and manoeuvring of at least 5 compactor containers on collection day, such base pad to include the area labelled as "pavers" on the north side of the concrete base pad as illustrated on Plan L-1, Hard Landscape and Grading Plan, stamped September 2, 1998 and redlined September 9, 1998;

(8)the owner shall pave the route between the garbage bin loading bays and the concrete pad adjacent to the Type G loading space in concrete, or other similar hard surface;

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

(10)the owner shall construct any decorative unit paver surface (including turfstone, if applicable) to be used within any portion of the Type G loading space or area used to access the loading space, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and indemnify the City against any damage that may be caused to the decorative unit pavers through the regular use of the area by City garbage trucks and bins;

(11)the owner shall agree to keep the Type G loading space and manoeuvring area free and clear of parked cars, snow and ice on collection day;

(12)the owner agrees to leave the gate across the mouth of the access to the refuse/recyclable collection facilities open on collection day;

D.Parking

(13)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 74 parking spaces on the site to serve the project, including a minimum of 51 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project, and a minimum of 15 parking spaces for visitors;

(14)the owner shall designate the visitor parking spaces by means of clearly visible signs;

(15)the owner shall provide and maintain the proposed vehicle access system for visitors with intercom systems at the access gates and remote control devices, as more particularly set out in the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report dated September 3, 1998;

(16)at least one space of those required to be provided by the Zoning By-law shall be designated for the exclusive use by people with disabilities, by means of the International Symbol of Accessibility for the Handicapped;

E. Access

(17)the owner shall provide and maintain a physically separated pedestrian facility for access to the townhouse units;

(18)the owner shall provide and maintain a physical separation between the service driveway and the driveway provided to access the parking spaces;

(19)the owner agrees, that at such time as access to the property to the south of the site is required via the right-of-way designated as BLOCK 11 on Plan 66M-2315, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services or the party with a right to use the right-of-way pursuant to the existing easement agreement, to relocate the future westerly access gate to the east-west segment of the access driveway at least 6m east of the driveway located on BLOCK 11, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

F.Lane

(20)the owner shall construct the laneway, designated as BLOCK 11 on Plan 66M-2315, with slopes not exceeding 6% and a finished elevation not exceeding 124.48 at its south end;

(21)the owner shall submit suggestions for a suitable name for the proposed L-shaped laneway at the east end of the site in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No.22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting on July 11, 1988;

G.Studies required by Civic Officials

(22)the owner agrees that, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan will be prepared and submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health;

(23)the owner agrees that the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan, as approved by the Medical Officer of Health shall be implemented during excavation and construction activities for the project;

(24)the owner shall submit, prior to the substantial completion of the building, to the Medical Officer of Health a final verification report from the on site environmental consultant certifying that the remediation has been completed and soil remaining on the site meets the MOEE Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites (revised February 1997) for residential/parkland land use.

(25)the owner agrees to 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 and Railway Vibration Analysis approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(26)the owner agrees to submit an Air Quality Assessment report, prepared by a qualified consulting engineer/specialist, evaluating the ambient air quality and identifying corrective measures, if any, which may be required to permit construction on the site;

(27)the owner agrees to provide, maintain and operate the noise impact and vibration mitigation measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Noise Impact Statement and Railway Vibration Analysis approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(28)the owner agrees that, prior to substantial completion of the building, a qualified consulting engineer/specialist certify in writing to the Medical Officer of Health that the recommendations, if any, in the Air Quality Assessment have been incorporated in the design of said building and that the building has been constructed in accordance with these requirements; and

H.Rail Safety

(29)the owner agrees to, prior to the issuance of a building permit, have a qualified engineer certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services that the development has been designed in accordance with the requirements of Canadian Pacific Railway;

4.That the owner be advised:

(1)of the comments of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the Ontario Building Code;

(2)of the comments of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting City owned trees;

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

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

(5)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances;

(6)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 the site soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff;

(7)of the need to comply with the requirements of the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement; and

(8)of the need to provide and maintain a minimum of 15 Affordable Housing Units on the site in accordance with the Approved Affordable Housing Plan on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

1.Applicant

The application was submitted by Vincent A. Siu, V.A. Siu Design Consultants Architecture Associates, 596 Queen Street West, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1E3 on behalf of One Shaftesbury c/o Victor J. Heinrichs, Victor J. Heinrichs Architect, 156 Front St. W., 6^th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2L6.

2.Location

The site is located on the south side of Shaftesbury Avenue, east of Yonge Street and north of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor.

To the west of the site at the south-east corner of Yonge Street and Shaftesbury Avenue is a 6.5 storey commercial building that was erected in 1985. To the north of the site, is the Summerhill subway station and landscaped area for the mixed commercial residential development know as the "Ports". Also to the north is the Summerhill residential community, which consists of predominanely low rise residential house form buildings.

To the south of the rail tracks are the lands known as the Station District within the Yonge Summerhill planning area. These lands are currently vacant, but zoning approvals allow for four mixed use buildings, ranging in height from approximately 24 metres to 28 metres. To the south east is the South Rosedale Subdivision that will accommodate 47 semi and detached houses.

The subway runs under the western portion of the site in a north-south direction.

3.Site

The site is triangular in shape, with an area of approximately 7399 square metres.

4.Proposal

The proposal is to construct a residential complex consisting of a 5 storey building, containing 25 units, at the western end of the site and two rows of 3 storey townhouse units, containing 34 units, at the eastern end of the site. The project would contain a total of 59 units and have a gross floor area of approximately 9123 square metres. All three buildings would be connected by a two storey atrium, which would contain the common indoor amenity space for the development.

The proposed development would provide a total of 74 parking spaces (plus 3 tandem spaces) consisting of 59 spaces for residential plus 15 spaces for visitors. It is proposed that 2 spaces be provided outdoors, 15 spaces be provided in the garages adjacent to the rail corridor and 57 spaces be provided in the underground garage. Access to the parking areas would be via a private lane between the proposed apartment and 1133 Yonge Street.

5.Public Review

At its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, City Council required all Site Plan Applications within the Yonge Summerhill Area Part II Official Plan be approved by City Council and not be delegated to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services. Council also directed that an advisory committee made up of representatives of local residents associations be established to advise and assist the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Site Plan Applications within the Yonge - Summerhill area.

In response to Council's request a number of meetings were held with the Summerhill Residents Association to discuss the Site Plan Application. Parking was the only concern raised by the residents association. (Appendix B)

6.Requirements of Civic Officials (Appendix A):

(a)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has identified various requirements in respect to the provision of access, parking, loading and garbage handling facilities.

(b)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that landscape plans submitted with this application are acceptable.

(c)The Medical Officer of Health has identified the requirement for a dust control plan and the need for a report certifying that the site remediation has been completed.

7.Committee of Adjustment

The proposed development does not comply with the current zoning provisions for the site and requires a number of variances. An application was made to the Committee of Adjustment for the required variances. The variances relate to the definition of apartment, parking, bicycle parking, driveway width, building setbacks, landscaped open space, gross floor area and use. A list of the specific variances are contained in the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services' Zoning Notice dated August 20, 1998, included in Appendix A.

At its meeting of September 9, 1998 the Committee of Adjustment granted the application. The Committee did not rule on the variance relating to bicycle parking, as this portion of the request was withdrawn by the applicant. The last day for appeal of this decision is October 6, 1998.

8.Planning Context

The Yonge Summerhill area was subject to a lengthy planning study resulting in a new Part II Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the area. The Part II Official Plan and Zoning By-law were approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1995.

The western portion of the site, where the five storey apartment is proposed, is designated by the Part II Plan as "Summerhill Station Mixed Commercial Residential Area" and is zoned CR, with a height limit of 16 metres. The eastern portion of the site, where the townhouses are proposed, is designated Low Density Residence Area and is zoned R2 with a height limit of 11 metres.

The Part II Plan required that a Master Plan for the Yonge- Summerhill Area be developed in order to co-ordinate the implementation of the Official Plan policies and Urban Design Guidelines incrementally as development proceeds in the Station and Shaftesbury district. The Master Plan for the Yonge- Summerhill area was approved by City Council in 1997.

For the Shaftesbury District, the Master Plan describes a concept consisting of a residential mix of apartments and townhouses, as shown on Map 6. The apartment building would be five storeys and would be located substantially over the subway tunnel with an atrium to the east. Three storey townhouses would be located to the east of the apartment and would have frontage on Shaftesbury Avenue and on the east-west private lane. Between the two rows of townhouses would be a landscaped courtyard with the atrium to the west and an open space to the east. Vehicular service and visitor parking would be provided by a private lane located to the west between the apartment building and 1133 Yonge Street. Detached garages for the townhouses are to be located along the south property line and would act as safety and acoustical barrier.

The form and massing of the proposed development is consistent with the Official Plan policies, zoning provisions and Master Plan for the Yonge Summerhill Area.

9.Parking

The main concern raised by the residents was the number of parking spaces proposed for the project. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed the proposed parking for the development and advises that the estimated demand for the proposed project is 66 parking spaces, although the Zoning By-law requires 104 parking spaces (including 15 visitor spaces). The Committee of Adjustment at its September 9, 1998 meeting granted the owner's application to reduce the number of parking spaces to 74 spaces. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services had no objection to the variances to reduce the parking supply to 74 spaces provided that 15 of these spaces are designated for the use by residential visitors. I am recommending that the applicant provide 74 parking spaces to serve the project, including 51 spaces for the residents and 15 spaces for visitors.

10.Amendment to Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement

An application was submitted to the City on August 10, 1998 to amend Section 12 of the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement.

Section 12 of the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement limits the type of development on the eastern portion of the site (Block 75). The area of the site east of Tacoma Avenue was defined as an area that would not be obscured from view of pedestrians on Shaftesbury Avenue. The subdivision agreement states that this area should be landscaped as green space. The applicant proposes to use a portion of this green space for loading, the temporary storage of garbage bins on collection day and for a service driveway. The subdivision agreement would have to be amended to permit these uses east of Tacoma Avenue.

The intent of the plan of subdivision was to maintain this area as an open space, clear of structures. The proposed loading and garbage storage areas will only be used for short periods of time. The applicant proposed to use turf stone for the service driveway to maintain the appearance of a green, landscaped space. The applicant also proposed to landscape the area adjacent to Shaftesbury Avenue so as to screen the proposed uses. The service driveway will only be used for service vehicles and no passenger vehicles would be permitted access to this portion of the site.

At the meeting held with the Summerhill Residents Association this proposed amendment to the subdivision agreement was discussed. In addition to this meeting the applicant submitted a full set of plans to the residents association for their review and comments. The president of the Summerhill Residents Association verbally indicated that the proposed amendment to the subdivision agreement is acceptable.

Given that the proposed amendment to the subdivision agreement, which would permit a loading area, temporary storage of garbage bins on collection day and a service driveway is in keeping with the original intend of the subdivision agreement and is acceptable to the residents most affected by the proposed change, I am recommending that City Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend the Station Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement.

In addition to the above amendment the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has also requested an amendment to the subdivision agreement as a condition of approval of the proposed development.

In the Master Plan access to the parking and service areas for Block D ( the property fronting on Yonge Street, north of the rail corridor) was provided via the private lane on the site. To ensure that future access over this private lane is protected for a development on Block D, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has required, that the subdivision agreement be amended. Specifically, the Commissioner is recommending that the subdivision agreement be amended to ensure that the easement over the laneway located within Blocks 10 and 11 on Plan 66M-2315 is secured to the Commissioner's satisfaction. The owner is in agreement with this requirement.

Conclusion:

The application meets the requirements of the Official Plan, adheres to the principles set out in the Master Plan and, with the approval of minor variances by the Committee of Adjustment, conforms to the Zoning By-law. It is recommended that this application be approved subject to Council's approval of the amendments to the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement.

Contact Name:Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone:392-0881

Fax:392-1330

E-mailgbyrne@city.toronto.on.ca

Beate Bowron

Director, Community Planning, South District

(p:\1998\ug\uds\pln\to981717.pln) - st

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Confirmed Municipal Address:15, 35 and 65 Shaftesbury Ave.

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services, dated September 3, 1998.

Comments:

Location

The project, located on the south side of Shaftesbury Avenue, east of Yonge Street, north of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor was the subject of the Departmental report to you of August 5, 1998.

Proposal

The project has now been revised to, among other things:

(a)Increase the number of dwelling units proposed from 57 to 59 by the inclusion of 15 affordable units within the project;

(b)Increase the number of parking spaces proposed from 69 to 74;

(c)Designate 14 parking spaces for use by visitors, including 2 surface spaces and 12 spaces in the underground garage;

(d)Provide for a physically separate pedestrian facility (1m wide sidewalk) for access to the townhouse units;

(e)Show the installation of 2 bollards at the easterly terminus of the east-west driveway;

(f)Provide bicycle parking in the residual spaces in the parking garage;

(g)Redesign the easterly garbage/recyclable bin storage room with 2.5m clearance between the front wall and the overhead door, as required;

(h)Provide a "bulky item" refuse storage area immediately to the east of the easterly garbage/recyclable bin storage area;

(i)Extend the concrete pavement for the bin storage platform;

(j)Indicate certain pavement treatments including asphalt/concrete pavers for the driveway at the rear of the site and turfstone for the garbage truck turnaround;

(k)Improve access to the Type G loading space by extending the turnaround area easterly;

(l)In conjunction with the easterly extension of the turnaround, extend the noise barrier wall easterly;

(m)Eliminate the encroachment of the gates, located at the east end of the site, over theShaftesbury Avenue road allowance, when opened;

Departmental comments on the revisions are set out below:

Parking

Given the increase in number of dwelling units, and revisions to unit mix, the revised estimated parking demand is for 66 parking spaces consisting of 51 spaces for residents plus 15 spaces for visitors. The revised plans provide for a total of 74 spaces (plus 3 tandem spaces) consisting of 60 spaces for residents plus 14 spaces for visitors.

The owner has submitted an application to be considered by the Committee of Adjustment at its meeting of September 9, 1998 for variances to, among other things, reduce the parking supply for the project from the 104 parking spaces required by the Zoning By-law (including 15 visitor spaces) to 74 spaces (including 14 visitor spaces). There is no Departmental objection to variance to reduce the parking supply to 74 spaces provided that 15 of these spaces are designated for use by residential visitors. In this regard, Space No. 46 on Plan No A-104 should be designated as a visitor parking space.

Visitor Parking Access Plan

The owner has advised that access to the visitor parking spaces will be controlled by a communications system located at the entry gate to the access lane at Shaftesbury Avenue. The gate is to be opened by remote control by the person contacted. There will also be control mechanism embedded in the floor of the ramp leading to the door of the parking garage which will lift the garage door automatically to admit the car which has passed through the entry gate at Shaftesbury Avenue. In the event that access is denied, the car would have to back out onto Shaftesbury Avenue. At such time as the gate is relocated to the east-west portion of the access driveway in accordance with the comments and recommendations below, visitors denied access could back out using the north-south portion of the right-of-way, then exit to Shaftesbury Avenue in a forward motion. The proposed visitor parking access is workable. Recommendation 1(o) below secures the provision and maintenance of the visitor access system.

Revised Driveway

The revised 5 m wide driveway with 1 m wide driveway is acceptable, subject to the owner obtaining the necessary variance from the Committee of Adjustment.

Installation of Bollards at East End of Driveway

The proposed placement of the bollards is in accordance with Recommendation No. 1(q) of the August 5, 1998 Departmental report and is acceptable.

Revised Bin Storage Room

The reconfigured bin storage room and bulky item storage is acceptable.

Revised Bin Storage Platform

The revised bin storage platform as shown on the Site Plan (Drawing No. A-100) is acceptable subject the area labelled "pavers" between the turfstone-paved area and the bollards being paved with concrete pavers and this area being maintained by the owner as a "level concrete surface". Of course, the City will not be liable for any damage caused to the pavers by City garbage bins.

The Landscape Drawing No. L-1 should be updated to show the enlarged concrete pad consistent with the Site Plan.

In addition, given that garbage/recycle bin wheels may become embedded in asphalt on hot days, it would be prudent for the owner to pave the driveway with concrete and not "asphalt/concrete" pavers as indicated on the plans.

Revised Garbage Truck Turnaround

The revised turnaround area for garbage trucks is acceptable. As indicated by Recommendation No. 1(i) of the August 5, 1998 Departmental report, the pavers must be designed to withstand truck traffic, and the owner must agree to indemnify the City from any damage to the turfstone which may be caused by the regular use of City-contracted garbage trucks.

Noise Wall

The owner has submitted an addendum to the Approved Noise Impact Statement for the project to reflect the easterly extension of the wall around the revised truck turnaround. The revisions to the Noise Impact Statement are currently under review. Comments on the revisions will be provided under separate cover.

Elimination of Encroachment of Gates

The easterly gates no longer encroach over Shaftesbury Avenue when opened, and are acceptable.

The August 5, 1998 Departmental report required that the westerly gates be relocated to the east-west leg of the driveway. This is to allow access via the right-of-way to the property to the south. Given that it is unlikely that access over this right-of-way to the property to the south will be required until the property to the south is redeveloped, the owner proposes to install a gate on the north-south leg of the access lane, and relocate the gate to the east-west leg at such time as the property to the south requires access over the lane.

In this regard, the owner has submitted a letter dated August 19, 1998 from Woodcliffe Corporation (owner of abutting properties), indicating its consent to the installation of the access gate across the right-of-way on the condition that the owner of the One Shaftesbury project agree to remove the access gate at its expense, upon request of the abutting owner(s) (Woodcliffe Corporation). Woodcliffe Corporation also required that a notice be registered on title to give affect to this condition.

This is acceptable provided that the right-of-way to the property to the south is also adequately secured in the revised Subdivision Agreement, as contemplated by Recommendation No. 6 of the August 5, 1998 report, and that the relocated gates on the east-west leg of the driveway be set back at least 6m (1 car-length) from the eastern limit of the north-south driveway. In this regard, the relocated gate illustrated on Site Plan A100, date stamped September 2, 1998 is generally acceptable, subject to the gate being shifted at least 6m east of the north-south driveway.

Consolidated Recommendations

Having regard for the revisions and the comments above, Recommendation Nos. 1(a), 1(f), 1(i), 1(m), 1(o), 1(r) 1(w) and 6 of the August 5, 1998 report should be amended, Recommendation No. 1(l) and 1(w) replaced and new Recommendation No. 1(x) added. For the sake of clarity, the consolidated recommendations below replace the Recommendations contained in the August 5, 1998 report.

Recommendations:

1. That the owner be required, as a condition of approval of the plans and drawings for the project, to:

(a)Provide and maintain a garbage room to serve the apartment building substantially in accordance with the Gallery Floor Drawing (A-104) stamped September 2, 1998 and install and maintain a bag compactor unit in the garbage room;

(b)Provide and maintain a garbage/recyclable storage room beneath the townhouse units including a chute access system to access the storage bins for the recyclable and non-recyclable waste generated by the entire project and equip this room with a total of 5 bulk lift bins for both refuse and recyclable materials;

(c)Install and maintain overhead doors for the garbage room located beneath the townhouse units on the Gallery Floor level in a manner that maintains a minimum clear depth of at least 2.5 m and designed to permit garage bins to be rolled directly into and out of the garbage bin bays;

(d)Install and maintain the chutes above the garbage/recycle bins in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

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

(f)Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage and manoeuvring of at least 5 compactor containers on collection day such base pad to include the area labelled as "pavers" on the north side of the concrete base pad;

(g)Pave the route between the garbage bin loading bays and the concrete pad adjacent to the Type G loading space in concrete, or other similar hard surface;

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

(i) Construct any decorative unit paver surface (including turfstone, if applicable) to be used within any portion of the Type G loading space or area used to access the loading space, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and indemnify the City against any damages that may be caused to the decorative unit pavers through the regular use of the area by City garbage trucks and bins;

(j) Agree to keep the Type G loading space and manoeuvring area free and clear of parked cars, snow and ice on collection day;

(k)Agree to leave the gate across the mouth of the access to the refuse/recyclable collection facilities open on collection day;

(l) Locate the proposed future access gate on the east-west segment of the access driveway at least 6m east of the driveway located on BLOCK 11, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(m)Provide and maintain a minimum of 74 parking spaces on the site to serve the project, including a minimum of 51 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project, and a minimum of 15 parking spaces for visitors;

(n) Designate the visitor parking spaces by means of clearly visible signs;

(o) Provide and maintain the proposed vehicular access system for visitors with intercoms systems at the access gates and remote control devices, as more particularly set out in the body of this report;

(p) Provide and maintain a physically separate pedestrian facility for access to the townhouse units;

(q) Provide and maintain a physical separation between the service driveway and the driveway provided to access the parking spaces;

(r) At such time as access to the property to the south of the site is required via the right-of-way designated as BLOCK 11 on Plan 66M-2315, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services or party with a right to use the right-of-way pursuant to the existing easement agreement, agree to relocate the westerly access gate to the east-west portion of the private laneway in accordance with Recommendation No. 1(l) above;

(s)Construct the laneway, designated as BLOCK 11 on Plan 66M-2315, with slopes not exceeding 6% and a finished elevation not exceeding 124.48 at its south end;

(t)Submit suggestions for a suitable name for the proposed L-shaped laneway at the east end of the site in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No. 22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting on July 11, 1988;

(u)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 and Railway Vibration Analysis approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(v)Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact and vibration mitigation measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Noise Impact Statement and Railway Vibration Analysis approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(w)Designate Parking Space No. 46 on Plan No. A-104 as a visitor parking space;

(x)Submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit a grading and drainage plan and revised drawings/additional information with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(f), 1(l) and 1(w), above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2.That the owner be advised of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection;

3.That the owner be requested to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

4.That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances;

5.That the owner be advised 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; and

6.That the owner be required to provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor that the easement over the laneway located within BLOCKS 10 and 11 on Plan 66M-2315 have been adequately secured (e.g. cannot be released without the consent of the City), and that the use of such easement be secured in the revised Subdivision Agreement.

2.Parks, dated September 23, 1998

This will acknowledge your Site Plan Approval Circulation Form which was circulated on May 20, 1998 and contained new plans for the above noted development. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

:There is/are numerous City owned tree(s) involved with this project which is/are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. The plans filed appear to indicate that the applicant intends on removing City owned tree(s). A written request to remove the tree(s) in question must be filed by the applicant which outlines the reasons why they intend to undertake the removal. A written request for tree removal should not be filed until the Site Plan for the subject development is finalized with the developer. If City Council approves the request to remove the tree(s) in question, the applicant will be responsible for covering the monetary value of the tree(s), removal costs and replacement costs. If an adequate number of replacement trees are proposed for planting within the City road allowance as part of the development, funds to cover replacement costs do not have to be provided to the City. The remaining tree(s) must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

:Trees indicated for planting on the City street allowance must be planted in accordance with the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to the City.

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

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

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

:The tree(s) on private property which were indicated on the Arborist Report form filed with this development application are exempt from protection under Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III.

:I advise that plans prepared by Ferris + Quinn Associates Inc. and the plans prepared by Victor J. Heinrichs, all plans date stamped as received on April 27, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.

Dated September 23, 1998

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on August 13, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

:I received a request from Mr. John Quinn of Ferris + Quinn Associates Inc., that the City consider the removal of twenty-nine (29) City owned trees situated on the Shaftesbury Avenue City road allowance adjacent to the above noted development site.

:The trees in question are too large to successfully relocate and as such, the applicant must provide payment to the City in the amount of $21,079.44 to cover the monetary value of the trees in question, the associated removal and replacement costs. Forestry Services will schedule the removal of the trees in question once payment has been received and once permitted demolition and construction related activities in connection with the development as approved warrant the removal of the trees.

:There are twenty-five (25) City owned trees involved with this project which are situated to the east of the trees noted above, also on the Shaftesbury Avenue City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These trees must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

:I advise that Landscape Plans L-1, L-2 and L-3 prepared by Ferris + Quinn Associates Inc., date stamped as received on August 10, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services are acceptable provided that the conditions noted above are fulfilled.

3.Public Health, dated June 30, 1998.

Thank you for your request of May 20, 1998 to review and comment on the above referenced sites. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) are in receipt of an Environmental Investigation (December 1997) prepared by McClymont & Rak Engineers Inc. and offer the following comments.

Comments:

McClymont & Rak (MCR) were retained by the applicant to further examine the suspected source, level and extent of the contamination identified in areas of the site that were previously investigated by Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd and Conestoga Rovers & Associates. A total of 11 boreholes (BH1-BH11) were advanced onto the site ranging in depth from 1.2m-15.7m below grade. Boreholes 1-5 were placed along the southern boundary where no previous investigation had occurred, to investigate potential contamination from previous site uses. Boreholes 6-8 were placed in the parking lot area where significant contamination had been identified, and to further delineate its extent. Boreholes 9-11 were placed in the vicinity of the TTC subway line where no previous investigation was conducted.

A composite sample of the surficial fill material on top of the subway line was obtained for analysis of the general inorganic parameters; three samples of the fill material along the southern boundary of the site were submitted for metals, PAHs and TPH analysis; two samples which exhibited olfactory evidence of petroleum contamination were submitted for BTEX/TPH analysis; and two additional samples for TPH only. Groundwater samples from boreholes 1 and 4 were also submitted for compliance, as well as analysis for VOCs, PAHs and TPH. Results have indicated the following exceedances of the residential/parkland non-potable criteria:

- the surficial fill material sample from borehole 6 exceeded the criteria for several PAHs;

- the sample from borehole 8 exceeded the criteria for TPH;

- samples from boreholes 6, 7 and 8 exceeded the criteria for TPH.

The consultant states that there were no other exceedances for the residential/parkland non-potable criteria.

The current investigation identified the presence of up to a 3.5m layer of heterogeneous fill material covering the site. It is odorous and contains significant amounts of debris, including glass, cinders, ash, coal, brick and asphalt which exceed the residential/parkland criteria for metals, TPH and PAHs. Remediation of the fill layer will therefore be required and it is estimated that 96% of the surficial fill layer (top 1m) covering the site will require excavation in order to meet the residential/parkland criteria. In addition, 46% of the fill material below 1m will also require remediation. The total estimated volume is 6200 cubic metres of surficial fill material and 2100 cubic metres of fill material below 1m. Although the remaining fill material on site may satisfy the guideline, it is aesthetically impaired and an additional allowance of 2700 cubic metres should be provided for.

Based on the results of the petroleum analysis, 25% of the contaminated soil will require remediation. Approximately 750 cubic metres will require excavation and removal off site. In addition, a disposal allowance of 2250 cubic metres should be provided. The consultant states that the area of petroleum contamination may extend off site to the north and south, although no free phase petroleum product was encountered on top of the groundwater table, there is potential for free phase product in the area of petroleum contamination given the levels of TPH observed in the groundwater. The consultant provides a series of conclusions based on all environmental investigations to date which are as follows:

- a historical review indicated commercial/industrial use on the site from the late 1800's to the 1970's;

- no evidence identified to suggest the presence of asbestos, PCBs or other hazardous materials on the site;

- the previous Conestoga Rovers & Associates report identified the presence of an abandoned 5000 gallon UST in the south western corner of the site, and if present mus be removed along with any contaminated soil in accordance with the policies/procedures outlined in the Gasoline Handling Act/Fuel Oil Code;

- the current investigation identified the presence of a fill layer to a depth of 3.5 which contains odorous debris which exceeds the residential/parkland criteria for metals, TPH and PAHs in numerous locations;

- elevated levels of TPH (gasoline/diesel) in the fill and native soils in the central portion of the existing parking lot;

- approximately 9100 cubic metres of soil will require remediation with Ontario Regulation 347 results indicating that the soil would be classified as non-registerable non-hazardous;

- an allowance of 5000 cubic metres should also be provided for the remaining fill and native soil in the area of the petroleum contamination;

- the results of the groundwater analysis indicated no exceedances for the non-potable criteria.

Dust Control Plan:

The report did not provide details on measures that would be implemented during site activities to control the generation of dust. This Department will require strict adherence to the following measures that will also be incorporated as a condition of permit issuance:

- 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 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 the 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 Environmental Health Services;

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

Conclusion:

Based on the information submitted I would indicate to you that the report has been found to be satisfactory in terms of its scope and findings and the conclusions reached by the consultant. Therefore I have no objection to the issuance of a below grade permit in order to carry out the necessary remediation work. However, an above grade construction permit will only be granted upon the Medical Officer of Health receiving an final verification report from the on site environmental consultant certifying that the remediation has been completed and soil remaining on the site meets the MOEE Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites (revised February 1997) for residential/parkland land use.

4.Buildings, dated September 28, 1998

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct a 59 unit apartment building with 74 below-grade parking spaces

Zoning Designation:CR/R2Map:51J 321

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

Plans prepared by:Victor J. Heinrichs, ArchitectsPlans dated: September 2, 1998

Residential GFA:9123 m²

Zoning Review

A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal complies with the City's zoning by-laws, as varied by the Committee of Adjustment. The Committee of Adjustment decision is not final and binding at this time.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act. (This requirement is waived when the conditions of the Subdivision Agreement are met)

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

3.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

All pre-conditions to the issuance of any permit must be shown to be complied with at the time of permit application.

Dated, August 20, 1998

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct 59 unit apartment building with below grade parking

Zoning Designation:CR/R2Map:51J 321

Applicable By-law(s):The amendments to 438-86 contained in the subdivision agreement as amended by the Ontario Municipal Board and 438-86, as amended

Plans prepared by:Victor J. Heinrichs ArchitectPlans dated: Aug 10, 17 & 19, 1998

Residential GFA:8815 m²

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, followed by a list indicating where the proposal does not comply with the Subdivision Agreement, registered as CA411545 and subsequently amended by the Ontario Municipal Board.

1.The proposed complex does not meet the Zoning Bylaw definition of "apartment building ", as one building, in that it does not have a common basement. (Section 2, definition of "apartment building".)

2.The by-law requires a minimum of 104 parking spaces (including 15 visitor parking spaces) to be provided. The number of proposed parking spaces is 74 (including 14 visitor parking spaces). (Section 4(4)(b))

3.The by-law requires a parking facility to be accessible by a driveway having a minimum width of 5.5 metres, for two-way operation. The width of the proposed driveway that serves the parking spaces along the south lot line is approximately 5.0 metres. (Section 4(4)(c))

4.The by-law requires at least 35 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 9 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. The proposed building will contain 49 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 0 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. (Section 4(13)(a) and (c))

5.The by-law requires a building to have a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The proposed rear yard setback is 0 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 4)

6.The by-law limits a building in a (0.35, 0.6, 1.0, 2.0) zone to a maximum depth of 14.0 metres. The proposed depth is exceeds 14 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 5(i))

7.The external walls of the proposed building are less than 11.0 metres apart, 10.0 metres separation is proposed. (Section 6(3)PART II 6)

8.The by-law requires an apartment building to provide a minimum landscaped open space of 50% of the area of the lot: 3034 square metres. The proposed landscaped open space 2510 square metres (or 33.9%) . (Section 6(3) PART III 1(b))

9.The proposed residential gross floor area (5323 square metres) on the portion of the lot identified as Block F in the plan of subdivision exceeds the maximum permitted 4,680 square metres by 643 square metres.

10.The proposal contemplates the use of buildings for purposes other than detached houses, semi-detached houses, row houses and uses accessory thereto.(Section 15 of the amendments to Bylaw 438-86 contained in the Subdivision Agreement)

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act. (This requirement is waived when conditions of the Subdivision Agreement are met)

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

3.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.All proposed parking spaces must be at least 2.6m wide by 5.9m long.

2.The height of the proposed mechanical penthouse must be limited to 5.0 metres to be excluded from the calculation of height for the proposed building.

3.Proposed bicycle parking for visitors are not permitted in a room that may be locked.

4.The calculation of residential gross floor area must include the parking structures at grade and located along the south lot line.

5.Pursuant to s27 of the Subdivision Agreement, it must be indicated if there are any "affordable units" being proposed.

7.All pre-conditions to the issuance of any permit must be shown to be complied with at the time of permit application.

Appendix B

Comments from the Residents' Association

Summerhill Residents' Association, dated July 13, 1998.

Janice Merson (co-president)

Further to our meeting last week I'm writing to let you know the concerns of area residents regarding the 1 Shaftesbury development. Following our open house to look at the plans as expected, the only issue raised was parking.

Since this development will mean the loss of one of the very few parking lots in the area and that this neighbourhood already has a problem with parking, we would like to ask the following:

1)that no resident in the new development be eligible for a street parking permit

2)that parking metres be installed on the Summerhill Avenue bridge over the subway cut on both sides of the street

3)that the idea of converting the green space to the east of the Orion condominium to an attractively paved and landscaped parking lot with its entrance on Summerhill Avenue and exit on Woodlawn (to access the light) be considered

4)that the number of actual designated visitor parking spots be verified and that the number complies with all regulations.

Thank you for you consideration of our concerns. We welcome this development and look forward to its residents becoming a part of our community.