October 26, 1998

To:Toronto Community Council

From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:Final Report, Application No. 197030, 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a mixed use building containing ground floor retail uses and 252 residential condominium units (Downtown)

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations respecting an application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments, and respecting authorization for City staff to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board, for a mixed use development at 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That, subject to the completion of the matters set out in Recommendation 5, below, the Official Plan be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

A18.483Lands known as 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street

See Map 18.483 at the end of this Section

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lot shown on Map 18.483, to permit an increase in the density and height of development otherwise permitted, for the erection and use of a mixed commercial and residential building, including below-grade parking, provided that:

a)the maximum combined residential and non-residential floor area of the building does not exceed 17,398 m2, of which:

i) not more than 17,078 m2 of residential gross floor area shall be used for residential uses; and

ii) not more than 330 m2 is used for non-residential uses; and

b)the owner of the lands enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

i)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $50,000.00 for the development of the public park at 13 Isabella Street;

ii)the provision of a generally rectangular easement of indefinite term, in favour of the City of Toronto, at the southeast corner of the site, extending 13 metres in length from the south property line and 2.5 metres in width from the east property line, for the purposes of the construction, provision and maintenance of a public walkway across the site, connecting the existing exterior public walkway on the abutting lands to the east, known as 121 Bloor Street East and 117 Hayden Street, with a future public walkway on the lands to the south, known as 52 Hayden Street, to provide in total a continuous public walkway from Bloor Street to Hayden Street, with such walkway over the easement to be implemented if the City secures the necessary portion of the public walkway from the south end of the easement to Hayden Street, to be secured to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

iii)the conveyance by the owner to the City, at nominal cost, of a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

iv)the carrying out of streetscape improvements on the public sidewalk/boulevard for Bloor Street East across the frontage of the site, generally as stipulated on approved Plans, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, or at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services make a cash contribution to the City equal to the value of the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part of a comprehensive program;

v)the provision, maintenance and operation by the owner of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for approved Plans;

vi)that the building be set back a minimum of 2.7 metres from the Bloor Street property line at the east end of the frontage, with the building face aligned generally parallel to the centre line of Bloor Street East;

vii)that the owner 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; and

viii)provision of 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;

ix)the owner shall maintain within the development site a pedestrian walkway over the easement referred to in clause (ii), above, and that such pedestrian walkway shall:

a)remain open and accessible to the public at all times during the hours of operation of the Toronto Transit Commission subway system and such access may be refused, or a person may be required to leave the pedestrian walkway, in the case of a person who:

i)unreasonably interferes with the ability of other members of the public or lawful occupants to use the pedestrian walkway;

ii)carries on an unlawful activity;

iii)acts in a manner unreasonably inconsistent with the intended use of the premises;

iv)injures or attempts to injure any person, property or property rights;

v)obstructs or injures any lawful business or occupation carried on by the building owner or person in lawful possession of the premises; or

vi)commits any criminal or quasi-criminal offence; and

b)be illuminated to a minimum average intensity of 10 lux on the pedestrian walkway surface; and

c)be maintained clear of snow and ice at all times;

and that this provision be implemented if and when the City secures the necessary portion of the through-block pedestrian walkway from the south end of the easement on the site to Hayden Street and the walkway has been constructed over the easement.@

2.That, subject to the completion of the matters set out in Recommendation 5, below, the Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

a)exempt the site from the following sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

2definition of Aparking space@;

4 (2)Height limits of buildings and structures;

4(16)Hard surfaced driveway;

8(3) PART I 1 Maximum total density;

8(3) PART I 3(a) Maximum residential gross floor area; and

12(2)259(ii)Minimum retail frontage;

b)permit the erection and use of a mixed use building containing residential and non-residential uses and a below-grade parking facility, on the lot shown on Map 1 and known municipally as 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street, provided:

i)the combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 17,398 m2;

ii)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 17,078 m2;

iii)the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 330 m2;

iv)the number of dwelling units does not exceed 252;

v)Section 4(2) shall apply except that the mechanical penthouse may have a maximum height of 8.0 metres above the height limit, a flag mast is permitted on the roof with a maximum height of 12.0 metres above the height limit, indoor residential amenity space is permitted on the roof to the extent of a maximum floor area of 65 m2 with a maximum height of 5 metres above the height limit, and a proposed structure for open air recreation may be permitted less than 2.0 metres from an adjacent outside wall or vertical projection of the wall; and

vi)the Section 2 definition of Aparking space@ shall apply except that no more than 8 spaces may have minimum horizontal dimensions of 2.7 m in width by 4.5 m in length; and

vii)not less than 156 parking spaces are provided on site to serve the project;

viii)one Type G loading space is provided and maintained on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

ix)an easement is provided for an indefinite term, in favour of the City of Toronto, with dimensions of 2.5 m in width and 13.0 m in length, in the southeast corner of the site, for the purposes of a future public walkway connection between the existing exterior public walkway on the abutting lands to the east and a public walkway which may be obtained on the abutting lands to the south, in order that a public walkway from Bloor Street East to Hayden Street is possible;

x) Section 12(2)259(ii) shall apply except that the minimum percentage of the frontage for retail and service uses shall be 50%; and

xi)the owner shall maintain within the development site a pedestrian walkway over the easement referred to in clause (ix), above, and that such pedestrian walkway shall:

a)remain open and accessible to the public at all times during the hours of operation of the Toronto Transit Commission subway system and such access may be refused, or a person may be required to leave the pedestrian walkway, in the case of a person who:

i)unreasonably interferes with the ability of other members of the public or lawful occupants to use the pedestrian walkway;

ii)carries on an unlawful activity;

iii)acts in a manner unreasonably inconsistent with the intended use of the premises;

iv)injures or attempts to injure any person, property or property rights;

v)obstructs or injures any lawful business or occupation carried on by the building owner or person in lawful possession of the premises; or

vi)commits any criminal or quasi-criminal offence; and

b)be illuminated to a minimum average intensity of 10 lux on the pedestrian walkway surface; and

c)be maintained clear of snow and ice at all times;

and that this provision be implemented if and when the City secures the necessary portion of the through-block pedestrian walkway from the south end of the easement on the site to Hayden Street and the walkway has been constructed over the easement;

all provided that the owner enters into an Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure the following facilities, services and matters:

i)a cash contribution to the City in the amount of $50,000.00 for the development of the public park at 13 Isabella Street;

ii)the provision of a generally rectangular easement of indefinite term, in favour of the City of Toronto, at the southeast corner of the site, extending 13 metres in length from the south property line and 2.5 metres in width from the east property line, for the purposes of the construction, provision and maintenance of a public walkway across the site, connecting the existing exterior public walkway on the abutting lands to the east, known as 121 Bloor Street East and 117 Hayden Street, with a future public walkway on the lands to the south, known as 52 Hayden Street, to provide in total a continuous public walkway from Bloor Street to Hayden Street, with such walkway over the easement to be implemented if the City secures the necessary portion of the public walkway from the south end of the easement to Hayden Street, to be secured to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor;

iii)the conveyance by the owner to the City, at nominal cost, of a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

iv)the carrying out of streetscape improvements on the public sidewalk/boulevard for Bloor Street East across the frontage of the site, generally as stipulated on approved Plans, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, or at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services make a cash contribution to the City equal to the value of the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part of a comprehensive program;

v)the provision, maintenance and operation by the owner of the measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for approved Plans;

vi)that the building be set back a minimum of 2.7 metres from the Bloor Street property line at the east end of the frontage, with the building face aligned generally parallel to the centre line of Bloor Street East;

vii)that the owner 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;

viii)provision of 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; and

ix)the owner shall maintain within the development site a pedestrian walkway over the easement referred to in clause (ii), above, and that such pedestrian walkway shall:

a)remain open and accessible to the public at all times during the hours of operation of the Toronto Transit Commission subway system and such access may be refused, or a person may be required to leave the pedestrian walkway, in the case of a person who:

i)unreasonably interferes with the ability of other members of the public or lawful occupants to use the pedestrian walkway;

ii)carries on an unlawful activity;

iii)acts in a manner unreasonably inconsistent with the intended use of the premises;

iv)injures or attempts to injure any person, property or property rights;

v)obstructs or injures any lawful business or occupation carried on by the building owner or person in lawful possession of the premises; or

vi)commits any criminal or quasi-criminal offence; and

b)be illuminated to a minimum average intensity of 10 lux on the pedestrian walkway surface; and

c)be maintained clear of snow and ice at all times;

and that this provision be implemented if and when the City secures the necessary portion of the through-block pedestrian walkway from the south end of the easement on the site to Hayden Street and the walkway has been constructed over the easement.

3.That, upon the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended in Recommendations 1 and 2, above, Section 12(1) 346 of By-law 438-86 be repealed, the previous approval of Site Plans by the former City of Toronto Council at its meetings of January 24, 1991 and February 4, 1991 under Application No. 390073 be rescinded, and the City Solicitor be authorized to release Development and Collateral Agreements registered on title on September 20, 1991 as Instrument Nos. CA158422 and CA158423, respectively.

4.That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act and the Agreement be entered into prior to the adoption by Council of Recommendations 1 and 2, above, to secure the facilities, services and matters substantially as set out in Recommendations 1 and 2, above.

5.That prior to the adoption by Council of Recommendations 1 and 2, above:

a)the owner enter into an undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act;

b)the owner enter into an Agreement pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act;

c)the owner submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council=s requirements;

d)the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands to be conveyed to the City, the remainder of the site, and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto; and

e)the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to Council=s consideration of this matter.

6.That, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner:

a)convey to the City, at nominal cost, a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

b)submit a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

c)submit to, and have approved by, the Toronto Transit Commission, Site and Foundation Plans, which include:

i)shoring drawings;

ii) plot plan/sections/elevations showing relation to the subway structure;

iii) structural calculations showing loads;

iv) geotechnical report; and

v)excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans.

7.That the City Solicitor and other City staff as necessary be authorized to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board to represent the position of City Council in this matter, with such authorization subject to completion by the owner of the matters set out in Recommendation No. 5, above.

8.That the owner be advised of the comments of civic officials appended to this report, namely:

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;

b)that the Bloor Street East boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

c)to obtain building location and streetscape permits from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to construction of this project;

d)that the stormwater 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 run-off;

e)of the City=s requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection;

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

g)that the Toronto Transit Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants, that noise and vibration attenuation measures should be applied, and that prospective purchasers and lessees should be informed through a clause in purchase or rental agreements of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions;

h)that the proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act; and

i)that 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.

Background:

a)Applicant and Owners

Application submitted by Page and Steele Inc. Architects and Planners, 95 St. Clair Avenue West, 2^nd Floor, Toronto, Ontario M4V 1N6 on behalf of Lakeburn Land Capital Corporation, 48 St. Clair Avenue West, Suite 600, Toronto, Ontario M4V 3B6

b)Site

The 1904.5 m2 site is located in the east half of the block bounded by Bloor, Church, Hayden and Yonge Streets, with the main development site on Bloor Street. The property currently contains a 50-space commercial parking lot. The main frontage and development site is the 85 Bloor Street property, with the 44 Hayden Street property providing a minor frontage accommodating vehicular access from Hayden Street.

c)Surrounding Context

On the site to the east along the south side of Bloor Street is a 16 storey (61 m) office building, and to the east of that is a surface parking lot for the 6 storey (23 m) Salvation Army Grace Hospital fronting on Hayden and Church Streets. The 18 storey (73 m) Crown Life office building exists at the southeast corner of Church and Bloor Streets. To the west of the site along the south side of Bloor is a 1.5 storey restaurant, a 6 storey (23 m) Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario office building, the site of an approved 19 storey residential condominium with retail at grade, now under construction at 55 and 57 Bloor Street East, and a 76 m office building (Xerox Centre) at 31 Bloor Street East. On the southeast corner of Yonge and Bloor, a four year old, dormant Official Plan and Rezoning application for a 19-storey (84 m) office building is being reactivated, with frontage on Bloor, Yonge and Hayden Streets. That site is currently occupied by 2 and 3 storey commercial buildings.

On the north side of Hayden Street, 2 to 3 storey residential and commercial buildings exist on either side of the driveway, and further to the east are the 3 storey St. Andrew=s United Church and the Grace Hospital. To the west is the Chartered Accountants building, then the site of a proposed 13 storey residential condominium at 30 Hayden Street, and then the 76 m Xerox Centre office building at 31 Bloor Street East.

On the north side of Bloor Street is the Hudson Bay Centre, beginning at the northeast corner of Yonge and Bloor Streets and extending eastward to a point east of the subject site, containing retail, service and office uses, the 256 room Radisson Plaza Hotel, a 700 seat theatre and 400 dwelling units. The Centre has 2 main towers, with the westerly office tower reaching 134 m in height, and the easterly tower, almost directly opposite the proposed development, reaching 123.4 m in height. At the northwest corner of Church and Bloor Streets is a 9 storey (36.6 m) commercial building, also a Crown Life building.

d)Proposed Development

The proposed 20-storey (61.0 m) mixed use building contains ground floor retail uses and 252 residential condominium units, and 156 parking spaces in a below-grade parking garage. The building fronts on Bloor Street, from where the main pedestrian access is obtained. The 44 Hayden Street site is used for a vehicular driveway for building occupants, visitors, and service vehicles. The loading and garbage storage areas are located at grade in the interior of the site. The vehicular ramp to the below-grade parking facility is parallel to Hayden Street and located at the south end of the 85 Bloor Street property, and provides a separation between the proposed building and the house form buildings on the abutting properties to the south.

The building is set back 2.7 m from the Bloor Street property line for most of the frontage, but because the frontage is irregular and the building remains generally parallel to the street, this setback is reduced at the west end of the frontage. Where primary windows face the east, west and south property lines, the face of the building is set back a minimum of 5.5 metres.

Indoor residential amenity space is located on the 1^st and 2^nd floors and a rooftop lounge (62 m2). Outdoor residential amenity space is located at grade and on the roof.

The proposed retail floor area is 320 m2 (0.17 times lot area), fronting on, and accessed by pedestrians from, Bloor Street. The residential floor area is 17,078 m2 (8.97 times lot area). The mechanical room on the roof is an additional 8 m in height, and the rooftop lounge is 5 m higher, than the 61 m high roof.

e)History

In early 1991, the former City of Toronto Council approved Site Plan Application No. 390073 for a 17 storey (61 m) mixed office/residential building containing 39 residential condominium units. The density, approved under the pre-Cityplan zoning using the Units Per Hectare method of density calculation, resulted in a total floor area equivalent to 9.14 times lot area, of which 4.5 times lot area was residential and 4.6 times lot area was commercial. Development and Collateral agreements were registered on title.

During the formulation of the Cityplan zoning amendments, the density maximum for the zoning district in which the site is located was established at 7.8 times lot area, with a maximum non-residential density of 4.5 times lot area. Through discussions with the owner of the site, the residential and non-residential gross floor areas necessary to permit the previously approved building were enshrined in a site-specific permissive exception in Section 12(1) 346 of the Zoning By-law.

In 1995, Site Plan Approval Application No. 394013 was approved for a 50 space surface commercial parking lot, and an Undertaking was executed. In 1996, Site Plan Approval Application No. 396057 to amend the previous parking lot approval by permitting a vehicular access to Bloor Street, was refused.

f)Public Review

A public meeting was held in the community on May 4, 1998, the minutes of which are attached as Appendix D to this report. Approximately 16 members of the public attended the meeting. The issues raised at the meeting included: shadow impact; traffic impact on Hayden Street; vehicular access from Bloor Street; adequacy of parkland in the area; the density increase vis-a-vis the Official Plan limits; public benefits; service vehicles; and a through-block public walkway.

Staff have also received a letter of objection on this application, reproduced in Appendix C to this report, from the owner of 44A Hayden Street which abuts the east side of the driveway over 44 Hayden Street. The issues raised in this letter include the adverse effects on his property due to the increase in vehicular traffic on Hayden Street and the driveway, including service vehicles. The objector requests traffic, noise and environmental impact studies be carried out. A traffic impact study has been carried out and is discussed below, and this report recommends that a noise impact study be submitted prior to Council=s adoption of this report.

The planning issues raised by the public have been addressed in the section of this report entitled APlanning Considerations@, below, as well as in other sections of this report.

g)Appeal of Current Application to Ontario Municipal Board

The owner, through his solicitor, has appealed the application to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) pursuant to Sections 22(7), 34(11) and 41(12) of the Planning Act, which permit such an appeal if the City has not made a decision within 90 days of the date of application in the case of Official Plan and Zoning amendments, and 30 days in the case of Site Plan Approval applications. The applicant=s solicitor did make it clear to planning staff that the applicant was not upset with the manner in which staff had dealt with the application, but was attempting to expedite the approval process. The OMB hearing is scheduled to begin on December 1, 1998.

Comments:

1.Planning Controls

a)Official Plan

The site is designated as High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area B in the Official Plan, which permits mixed use buildings at a maximum density of 7.8 times the area of the lot.

b)Zoning By-law

The zoning designation in the general Zoning By-law is CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8, which permits mixed use buildings with maximum total and residential gross floor areas of 7.8 times the area of the lot, and within the total maximum, a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 4.5 times the area of the lot. The height limit on the 85 Bloor Street East property, where the building is proposed, is 61.0 m, while the 44 Hayden Street property has a 46.0 m height limit.

A site-specific permissive exception (Section 12(1)346) pertaining to this site is contained in the Zoning By-law, which permits a mixed use building with a maximum residential gross floor area of 8,655 m2 (4.54 times lot area), and a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 8,743 m2 (4.59 times lot area). No exception to the height limit is included.

2.Planning Considerations

a)Density, Height, Massing

The proposed total density of 17,398 m2 is exactly that permitted by the existing site-specific permissive exception (Section 12(1)346 of the Zoning By-law), but the current application proposes to increase the residential density and decrease the commercial density within this maximum. Because office uses generally have higher floor to ceiling heights than residential uses, this reduction in the permitted non-residential uses, as compared to the originally approved building, results in a building with less overall mass than was originally approved in 1991. The 5.5 m side and rear yard setbacks required for primary windows in residential units have been maintained, and the bulk of the building, with the exception of some relatively minor rooftop facilities, is within the 61 m height limit of the Zoning By-law.

The proposed total density represents an increase of 2,543 m2 (1.34 times lot area) over the 14,855 m2 (7.8 times lot area) permitted in both the Official Plan and the general Zoning By-law. The density increase per se does not raise any planning issues of concern. The shadow and traffic impact of that increase are discussed below. The massing of the density is not out of context with other buildings, existing and approved, on Bloor Street East in the vicinity. The Official Plan does encourage residential intensification in the Central Area, and while that is not sufficient justification by itself for a residential density increase, the proposed development is furthering that Official Plan objective.

The Zoning By-law does not permit an indoor lounge on the roof of a building unless it is included in the height. The proposed lounge (62 m2 floor area) is an amenity for the occupants, including a washroom, storage room, sitting area/party room, and access to the exterior rooftop terrace. The roof level is accessed by elevator and stairs. This space is close to the centre of the building, set back from the sides, is behind the mechanical rooms and not visible to a pedestrian in proximity to the building. It is a beneficial addition to the building, and an amendment to the Zoning By-law to permit the rooftop lounge is recommended. Related to this lounge, the elevator machine room is 3 m higher than the permitted 5 metres as a result of the elevator access to the roof, and a zoning amendment to permit this height increase is also recommended. A flag mast of 12 m in height above the roof is proposed at the centre of the Bloor Street frontage of the building, and a Zoning By-law amendment to permit this mast is recommended.

b)Through-Block Public Walkway

A through-block public walkway is desirable in the vicinity of this project. Such a walkway was established on the abutting lands to the east, and secured in an agreement registered in 1981 as a result of the development of the former United Church property for the existing office building at 121 Bloor Street East, but the results have been less than desirable. The walkway extends from Bloor Street south across the hard-surfaced exterior space on the lands immediately abutting the east property boundary of the 85 Bloor Street site, and then through the interior of St. Andrew=s United Church to Hayden Street. The problem is that the Church has locked its doors, making the public walkway unusable, and the Church is unwilling to allow continued use of the walkway through its building for security reasons. The interior of the Church was not appropriately designed to accommodate a public walkway.

When the surface parking lot was approved on the 85 Bloor/44 Hayden site, a through-block walkway, although narrow, was secured down the west side of the site, and appears to be used. Three options for through-block public walkways involving the lands in the current application have been considered:

i)a continuation of the existing exterior walkway on the abutting lands to the east from in front of the church doors, south on the 85 Bloor site, across the rear of the site, and down the east side of the driveway on 44 Hayden Street;

ii)a walkway down the west side of the site; and

iii)a walkway from Bloor Street down the east side and across the rear of the site and down the east side of the driveway to Hayden Street.

These options have various design flaws which make them far from ideal, i.e. narrow width (1.0 to 1.2 m) as a result of the servicing, parking ramp, storage, amenity space and retail uses which need to be accommodated on the ground floor (all 3 options); convoluted layout causing poor site lines (Options (i) and (iii); lack of wheelchair accessibility (Option (i)); danger from vehicles (all 3 options); proximity to potentially unsafe areas (Option (ii)); creation of an undesirable Atunnel@ through the building (Option (ii)); creating a pathway abutting the rear of neighbouring properties to the south (Options (i) and (iii)); and leading the public past unaesthetic garbage and loading areas (Option (ii)).

Planning staff do not wish to promote a public walkway which is not used, is unsafe, or is unappealing. While the owner was willing to provide a walkway as per Options (i) and (iii), above, the results were not satisfactory in terms of design. At least one abutting property owner on Hayden Street objected at the community public meeting to a public walkway across the rear of his property.

Therefore, a compromise solution was reached with the applicant, to require an easement over the southeast corner of the 85 Bloor site which will provide for a future connection between the exterior walkway on the lands to the east and a possible future walkway over lands to the south, should they be redeveloped or come into City ownership. If such a through-block walkway came to fruition, it would extend over at least 4 properties in total. The easement is 2.5 m in width, allowing a more spacious walkway than could be provided over other portions of the site due to at-grade space constraints. Such an easement has been recommended. The actual construction of the walkway over the easement would not occur until the connection to Hayden Street had been secured.

If a walkway were to extend up the east or west side of the building to Bloor Street, as in Options (ii) and (iii), it would reduce the retail frontage to an amount below the minimum Zoning By-law requirement of 60%. Although such a walkway is not currently contemplated, site plans could later be amended if an acceptable design for such a walkway was agreed to. Therefore, an amendment to the Zoning By-law to reduce this required minimum retail frontage on Bloor Street to 50% has been recommended.

c)Shadow Impact

Given that the proposed building is, with the exception of relatively minor rooftop facilities, within the Zoning By-law height limit, the shadow impact on the public sidewalks (primarily Bloor Street) and public open spaces is not a planning issue. As previously discussed, the currently proposed building is, in any event, less massive than the previously approved building with the same total gross floor area but a greater proportion of office space, the density for which is permitted in the Zoning By-law.

At the May 4, 1998 community public meeting, residents of a building located some distance to the south and east (71 Charles Street East) expressed concern that their sunsets would be blocked from view. As was pointed out at that meeting, the blockage of sunlight to private residences is not a strong planning argument against a particular development. Any building built to the height limit on the site, even with no density increase, would block the sunset for those residents. Furthermore, staff is of the opinion that while sunset may be an aesthetically pleasing time, it represents only a few minutes of sunlight out of the day, and the degree of shadow impact on the residents= building would not be significant in terms of the duration of sunlight lost.

d)Hayden Street Interim Guidelines

On October 7 an 8, 1991, City Council adopted AInterim Guidelines for Hayden Street@, and adopted a minor correction on April 13 and 14, 1992. They were developed by the Hayden Street Ratepayers. Due to their status as both Ainterim@ and Aguidelines@, they are not rigidly applied. The intent was that they be used until more permanent policies could be produced in connection with the Cityplan Official Plan and Zoning By-law review process, which was completed in 1993 with the adoption of the resulting citywide amendments. Since the Cityplan Official Plan amendments were citywide in scope, the Guidelines were not seen as suitable for inclusion. The Guidelines have been of use in reviewing development applications.

The two matters contained in the Guidelines which are of particular relevance to this development are the 1.5 m road widening, and the through-block public walkway. The road widening is being recommended as a condition of approval of this development, and the through-block walkway is discussed above.

e)Section 37 Agreement

The owner=s solicitor has argued that because the total density being requested in this application is already permitted in the permissive exception in Section 12(1)346 of the Zoning By-law, that what was being sought was a shift in the proportion of residential and non-residential gross floor area rather than an overall density increase. Furthermore, the owner=s solicitor has argued that the Official Plan encourages residential intensification, and thus the increase in the amount of residential density, balanced by an equivalent decrease in non-residential density, is furthering the objective of the Official Plan. His conclusion was that the application did not represent a density increase, and thus the owner should not be required to provide public benefits pursuant to negotiations regarding Section 37 of the Planning Act as would be required if the permitted total density was being increased from 7.8 to 9.14 times lot area.

Having said that, the owner has volunteered to provide a $50,000.00 contribution for parkland development in the area, which would be secured in a Section 37 agreement, over and above the required parks levy. In 1999, a park is proposed for construction between Isabella and Gloucester Streets, just east of Yonge Street over the subway at 13 Isabella Street.

Staff is willing to accept that contribution without agreeing with the argument by the owner=s solicitor. The City Solicitor advises there is case law to the contrary. The application seeks an Official Plan amendment to increase the permitted total and residential density. It is not merely a re-apportionment of density permitted in the Zoning By-law. However, rightly or wrongly, the Zoning By-law currently permits the total density being sought, and an increase in the residential proportion of that overall permitted density is furthering the residential intensification objective of the Official Plan. If the application was seeking to increase the non-residential proportion and decrease the residential proportion of the overall permitted density, staff would recommend securing public benefits commensurate with the increase in non-residential density.

The other more common public benefits resulting from the application, which might otherwise have been secured in a development or collateral agreement, are also recommended to be included in the Section 37 agreement. The list of such public benefits is included in Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 of this report.

f)Traffic Impact

At the public meeting and in the letter of objection reproduced in Appendix C attached to this report, it was reinforced that traffic impact on Hayden Street is a major concern of the surrounding community, since the Hayden Street traffic becomes jammed, particularly during the evening peak hour. Hayden Street is one-way eastbound between Yonge and Church Streets. The left turn from Hayden Street onto Church Street while northbound Church Street traffic is backed up at the Bloor Street traffic lights is the major cause of the problem.

The applicant has submitted a traffic impact study, which has been reviewed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, who has accepted the assumptions and criteria contained in the traffic study. Works and Emergency Services staff advise that the study identifies the critical traffic operations difficulties on the eastbound approach to the unsignalized intersection of Church and Hayden Streets during the evening peak hour. A previous traffic study estimated that the former office building on the 85 Bloor/44 Hayden site contributed 17 vehicles to the eastbound peak hour traffic, and the existing commercial parking lot contributes 19 vehicles, as compared to the 15 vehicles forecast for the proposed development. Therefore, the proposed development has no adverse impact during the peak evening rush as compared to the existing or former situation. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is satisfied with the traffic impact study.

g)Vehicular Access from Bloor Street

Several comments from the public have suggested that vehicular access be obtained from Bloor Street, either permanently or during construction. The objective is to minimize the traffic impact on Hayden Street. Firstly, Bloor Street is a major traffic arterial and it is the City=s objective to provide vehicular access to sites from secondary streets or lanes whenever possible in order to maintain as efficient a traffic flow on arterials as possible. This has been a consistent position of the former Metro government for many years. Secondly, Bloor Street has a high pedestrian traffic flow, and it is desirable to minimize the disruptions to pedestrian traffic as much as possible, to maintain a high quality and safe pedestrian environment. Vehicular access from Bloor Street is not supported on planning grounds.

h)Service Vehicles

Comments from the public raised the issue of noise from service vehicles, entering and exiting the site and on-site. The loading and garbage storage area is close to the middle of the 85 Bloor Street site, rather than at the south end where it would increase noise for the property owners to the south. The loading space is located 22 m from the nearest Hayden Street property. Service vehicles using the driveway might increase noise for the abutting properties, but that appears to be an unavoidable fact of life in an urban situation such as this. Even if a development were proposed on the site which complied in every respect with the existing Zoning By-law, and only Site Plan Approval was required, service vehicles would still have to enter and exit the site.

i)Damage to Tree on Neighbouring Property

Forestry Services staff in Parks and Recreation have identified as an issue the fact that a tree exists on one of the Hayden Street properties, very close to the property line of the site. An arborist=s report has been submitted which indicates that the tree is in declining condition, but nonetheless still requires a permit for removal. Forestry staff have advised that the tree cannot likely survive the construction of the proposed development due to root damage and should be removed if the development proceeds in its present form. Under the provisions of the current by-law to protect trees on private property, the City cannot accept an application for a permit to injure or destroy a tree situated on an adjacent private property, which the applicant does not own, without the written consent of the owner of the adjacent property on which the tree is situated.

Forestry staff advise that Council has approved in principle amendments to the Tree By-law which would permit the owner of an abutting property to submit such an application, but to date, the Bill to implement those amendments has not been introduced in Council. By the time construction of this development could begin, such By-law amendments would very likely have been adopted, so the City will be in a position to consider an application. There may be a civil common-law issue which the respective property owners must resolve amongst themselves. The City will thus consider an application to damage the tree in due course.

j)Implications of Applicant Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board

As previously discussed, the applicant has appealed the Official Plan amendment, the Zoning By-law amendment, and the Site Plan Approval applications to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Consequently, while the adoption of the recommendations in this report will establish a Council position on the applications and authorize staff to attend the hearing to represent that position, the actual approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and the Site Plan application is up to the OMB. The OMB can approve, refuse or modify these applications as it sees fit. Council will not be adopting actual by-laws to implement the amendments.

The meeting of Toronto Community Council is thus not a statutory public meeting under the Planning Act, as would usually be the case when a Final Report recommending by-law amendments is considered. The recommendations of this report are structured so that City support for the proposed development is subject to completion by the owner of the matters set out in Recommendation No. 5. An implication of the December 1, 1998 hearing date is that this report must therefore be dealt with by Council at its meeting beginning November 25, 1998.

k)Request for Environmental Impact Statement

The letter of objection from a neighbour, attached as Appendix C, requests an environmental impact statement. An environmental impact statement is not required for a development of this nature. The perceived potential for garbage and debris being strewn along the access route for garbage trucks seems to be the reason for this request.

Garbage trucks already travel along Hayden Street to serve other developments, and thus the only proposed change is that the driveway access to the garbage storage area on the site would now also accommodate such trucks. Garbage and debris along the existing truck route has not been identified as a problem, and there is no reason why this development would cause any unique problem in that regard.

l)Site Plan Approval

As previously mentioned, the owner has also appealed the Site Plan Approval aspect of the application to the OMB. The Site Plan Approval is delegated to planning staff by Council. The Statement of Approval/Undertaking related to the site plans will be issued, and the Undertaking executed, prior to Council=s adoption of Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2, above. At the time of preparation of this report, revised landscape plans had not yet been submitted by the applicant, but their submission was apparently imminent. The plans and drawings of the proposed development submitted with the application, with the exception of the aforementioned landscape plans still outstanding, are satisfactory and ready for approval.

Conclusions:

The proposed development, with its associated increases in height and density, does not have any significant adverse planning impact on the surrounding properties or neighbourhood, and represents good planning. The appropriate amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are recommended, together with related conditions of approval. Authority to attend the OMB hearing to represent Council=s position regarding this application is recommended. Such recommendations are predicated on the applicant satisfying certain conditions prior to Council=s adoption of this report.

Contact Name:

Peter Langdon

Toronto City Hall

Telephone: (416) 392-7617

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

Beate Bowron

Director of Community Planning, South District

(p:\1998\ug\uds\pln\to981750.pln)-tm

Appendix A

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Confirmed Municipal Address:85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street.

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

Appendix B

Comments of Civic Officials

1.Director of Buildings Division, Urban Planning and Development Services dated October 19, 1998

AOur comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Build 20 storeys and 4 levels of basement parking of retail store and dwelling building with 252 dwelling units

Zoning Designation:CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8Map:51H321

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

Plans prepared by:Page & Steele ArchitectsPlans dated:October 6, 1998.

Gross Floor Area (GFA):17,398 m²

Residential GFA:17,078 m²

Non-Residential GFA:320 m²

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.

NOTE :THE SUBMITTED PLANS ARE NOT FULLY DIMENSIONED AND THIS REVIEW IS ONLY BASED ON THE DATA PROVIDED BY THE ARCHITECT ON PLAN SPA-01.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

2.Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated September 23, 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 Councils= 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 facilities and strategies stipulated in the plan approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e)Provide and maintain a minimum of 156 parking spaces on the site to serve the project;

(f)Designate individually the substandard parking spaces by means of clearly visible signs for use by small cars only;

(g)Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 40 square metres in size and a recycling room at least 20 square metres in size to serve the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(h)Provide and maintain access to the garbage room and the recycling room with double doors or large roll type doors to accommodate the transport of container bins;

(i)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;

(j)Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access thereto to the requirements of the Ontario Building Code, including allowance for City of Toronto bulk lift and rear bin vehicle loading with impact factors where they are to be built as supported structures;

(k)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;

(l)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 of at least 9 compactor containers on collection day;

(m)Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 1.5 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, such lands to be free and clear of all encumbrances, save and except for utility poles and subject to a right-of-way for access purposes in favour of the Grantor until such time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

(n)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i)A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands to be conveyed to the City the remainder of the site and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto;

(ii)Dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

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

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

2.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;

(b)That the Bloor Street East boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of this Department;

(c)To obtain building location and streetscape permits from this Department prior to construction of this project;

(d)That the storm water run-off 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 run-off;

(e)Of the City=s requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection; and

3.That the lands conveyed to the City under Recommendation No. 1(m) above, be laid out and thereafter dedicated by the City, for public highway purposes.

Comments:

Location

Between Bloor Street East and Hayden Street, west of Church Street.

Proposal

Construction of a mixed-use building comprising 252 residential condominium units and 320 square metres of ground floor retail space.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated March 24, 1998. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Previous Applications

The site was the subject of Site Plan Review Application No. 390073 resulting in Development and Collateral Agreements registered on September 20, 1991 as Instrument Nos. CA158422 and CA158423, respectively, Site Plan Review Application No. 394013 resulting in Statement of Approval/Undertaking No. U394013 and Site Plan Review Application No. 396057.

Parking and Access

The proposed provision of 156 parking spaces in a 4-level underground parking garage is less than the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 204 spaces, based in part on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 189 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project and 15 spaces for the use of residential visitors. However, as far as can be ascertained, the proposed parking supply satisfies the Zoning By-law requirement for 156 spaces. In this regard, the applicant has expressed the opinion that, given the accessibility to transit facilities, specifically the Yonge-University-Spadina and Bloor-Danforth subway lines, the requirements of the Zoning By-law would be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand generated by the residents. Furthermore, recognizing the availability of public parking facilities in the area to satisfy visitor parking, the elimination of the proposed visitor parking in order to provide 15 additional spaces for the residents, if the need arises, would be acceptable. Based on the foregoing, the proposed parking supply is satisfactory.

The parking layout is generally satisfactory and the dimensions of the parking spaces satisfy the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law, with the exception of 8 substandard spaces with a length of 4.5 m, which is acceptable.

Access to the underground garage is proposed via a two-way driveway from Hayden Street. Your staff has advised that the proposed pedestrian walkway shown along the east side of the access driveway will be eliminated. The proposed access is acceptable.

Traffic Impact Assessment

Hayden Street operates one-way eastbound and, therefore, all traffic entering the site must travel through the Yonge Street/Hayden Street intersection and all traffic leaving the site must use the Church Street/Hayden Street intersection. Previous studies indicate that these two intersections experience constrained conditions, operating essentially at capacity. In order to address these concerns, the applicant=s traffic consultant, DS-Lea Associates, has prepared a Traffic Impact Study dated July, 1998 which assesses the traffic impacts associated with this development. The study identifies an existing concern with traffic operations on the eastbound approach at the unsignalized intersection of Church Street/Hayden Street during the evening peak hour. A previous study estimated that the former office building on this site contributed 17 vehicles to the eastbound movement at this intersection during the evening peak hour, whereas, the current study indicates that the existing parking lot contributes 19 vehicles. By comparison, the study forecasts the proposed residential building (which has different arrival/departure patterns) to contribute 15 vehicles, which represents a nominal decrease compared to the previous uses. Consequently, the forecasted levels of peak hour traffic generated by this project would be adequately accommodated on the road network with no further impact on the critical eastbound approach at the Church Street/Hayden Street intersection. The assumptions and criteria provided in the report have been reviewed and are acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with the bulk lift method of refuse collection in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste). This will require the provision of the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(g) to 1(l ), above. The sizes of the garbage room, recycling room and the concrete pad used to store container bins on collection day, and the configuration of the Type G loading space are acceptable.

It is the policy of City Council to levy a service charge on all new developments, payment of which is a condition for receiving City containerized garbage and recycling collection. The levy is currently $34.50 per month, including taxes, multiplied by the number of garbage containers on site. The levy includes the provision and maintenance of City garbage and recycling containers. Should the owner choose to provide private garbage containers, the levy will still be charged and the containers must meet City specifications and be maintained privately at the expense of the building owner. Further information regarding the above can be obtained by contacting the Operations and Sanitation Division at 392-1517.

Widening of Hayden Street

As the Hayden Street road allowance width of 12.19 metres is substandard, a 1.5 metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of Hayden Street, should be conveyed, at nominal cost, for the purpose of providing additional public boulevard space within the public highway. The required widening is shown on the plans.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sewer systems are adequate to accommodate the 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 should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Work Within the Road Allowances

It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department in respect of any work within the road allowance. With respect to Bloor Street East, the design of the boulevard must meet this Department=s guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. This includes providing or preserving a decorative band of impressed concrete 0.6 metres wide along the back of curb. If clarification is required on how these standards will apply to this site, the applicant can contact the Streetscape Program at 392-3808.

Permits

The applicant is required to obtain building location and streetscape permits from this Department prior to construction of this project. Other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, piling/shoring, etc.) may also be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the applicable permits and should be advised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (RACS) at 392-4960 regarding the site specific permit/licence requirements.@

3.Director, Parks and Recreation, Central District, Economic Development, Culture, and Tourism, dated July 16, 1998

This will acknowledge your Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning Circulation Form which was circulated on July 10, 1998 and contained revised plans for the above noted application. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

:There is/are one City owned tree(s) involved with this project which is/are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These 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.

:There appear to be trees situated on private property which may be impacted by this development. City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, requires that a permit be obtained for the injury or destruction of trees situated on private property which are generally in good health and have a diameter of 30 cm or more. Trees which may be affected could be located on the subject development site or on lands adjacent to the development site. For all existing trees situated on private property that are to be retained and protected, a detailed report and plan must be provided which indicates the impact of the construction activities in connection with the proposed development on the trees in question and appropriate tree protection measures as determined by a Certified or Registered Consulting Arborist or Registered Professional Forester retained by the applicant.

:Your staff should contact Mr. Gary Le Blanc of my staff at 392-0494 regarding the applicant=s need to submit an application for permission to injure or destroy trees should the development continue in its present form. The City also encourages new tree planting on private property and encourages the protection of other existing trees situated on private property and construction which accommodates the preservation of trees.

:I advise that the plans prepared by Page + Steele Architects Planners, date stamped as received on July 3, 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.

4.Manager, Service Planning, Toronto Transit Commission dated March 16, 1998

AIt is noted that the Bloor-Danforth subway line is adjacent to the subject site. It will, therefore, be necessary for the developer to obtain approval of site and foundation plans (5 sets) from the TTC (Attention: Domenic Garisto - Property Management Department) prior to receiving a building permit. The following supporting documentation is also required:

- shoring drawings

- plot plan/sections/elevations showing relation to the subway structure

- structural calculations showing loads

- geotechnical report

- excavating, de-watering and landscaping plans.

Subsequent approval of the foregoing development is subject to any conditions that may be specified to the applicant by Mr. Garisto.

Please inform the applicant that the Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants. Since noise and vibration may be transmitted from street traffic and from our transit operations, the developer should apply attenuation measures so that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest level technically feasible. The developer should inform prospective purchasers and lessees, through a clause in the purchase or rental agreements, of the potential for noise and vibration intrusions and the fact that the TTC accepts no responsibility for any such effects.@

5.Comments from Senior Coordinator of Planning, Toronto Catholic District School Board dated September 3, 1998

AFurther to your request for comments, please be advised that staff reviewed the above-noted proposal and wishes to re-affirm that children emanating from this development could be accommodated in permanent facilities at the following schools:

Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic School (JK-8)

St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School

Should your require additional information regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Joe Ruscitti at 222-8282, extension 2281.@

Appendix C

Correspondence from the Public

Letter dated May 20, 1998 from Haim Klein, owner of 44A Hayden Street, c/o Piller Investments Ltd., 234 Eglinton Avenue East, Suite 606, Toronto, Ontario M4P 1K5

AI am the owner of 44A Hayden Street in the City of Toronto.

I wish to file my objection to the above-noted Proposed Development primarily because the only access, both during construction and following occupancy, to the proposed site would be from Hayden Street, adjacent to my property. Such limited and restricted access would result in the following:

1.My property would be adversely affected due to the dramatic increases in vehicular traffic both on Hayden Street and immediately adjacent to my building. A traffic impact study should be prepared for community review.

2.Commercial vehicles would create noise and there would likely be more garbage and debris along this access route. A Noise Impact Statement and an Environmental Impact Study should be prepared by approved consultants for community review.

A general increase to the total density and the residential density as required by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law will affect the immediate area. Hayden Street is currently almost impossible at certain times during the day. This increase is not in keeping with the intent of the Official Plan and the corresponding zoning. The community must be in agreement with any changes.

Please advise me of any future meetings, reports, or revised drawings regarding this development.@

Appendix D

Minutes of the Community Public Meeting

Held at the YMCA, 42 Charles Street East, 9^th Floor Auditorium

on Monday, May 4, 1998, 7:00 p.m.

Application No. 197030 to amend the City of Toronto Official Plan

and Zoning By-law regarding 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street

Present:

Vladimir LosnerPage and Steele Architects Planners, architect

Peter Van LoanFraser and Beatty, applicant=s solicitor

Terry WallaceD. S. Lea and Associates, transportation consultant

Tony BarryRepresenting owner, Lakeburn Land Capital Corp.

Peter LangdonCity of Toronto Urban Planning & Development Services, Area Planner (chairperson of meeting)

Councillor Kyle RaeCity of Toronto Councillor, Downtown (Ward 24)

Attendance: Approximately 16 members of the public.

OPENING REMARKS

Peter Langdon opened the meeting by introducing the applicant=s team and Councillor Kyle Rae. He explained the purpose and structure of the meeting. The meeting was structured such that he would describe the planning context and issues, the applicant would describe in detail the proposed development, and questions and comments from the audience would then be entertained. Mr. Langdon then explained the application approval process, and described the additional opportunities for public comment in that process.

He then made a number of logistical announcements including: the location of the sign-in sheet if people wished to be included on a notification list for future meetings and events regarding this application; the location of Comment Sheets at the meeting should anyone wish to provide written comments; and the location at the meeting of copies of the Preliminary Report on the application from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

PLANNING CONTEXT AND ISSUES

Peter Langdon described the size and location of the site and the surrounding development, both existing and proposed. He utilized large mounted maps showing the location of the site on an Official Plan map and a map showing properties, building footprints and general Zoning By-law designations. The current use of the site is as a 50-space commercial surface parking lot. In 1991, Council approved a Site Plan Application for a 17-storey (61m) mixed office and residential building on the site at a floor area of 9.1 times the lot area. He explained the meaning of Adensity@ as used here. The current proposal is for 20-storey (61m) mixed use building containing 252 residential condominium units and retail at grade, at a total density of 9.14 times the lot area.

The Official Plan designation of the site is High Density Mixed Commercial-Residential Area AB@, which permits mixed use developments with a maximum total floor area of 7.8 times the lot area. The zoning designation is CR T7.8 C4.5 R7.8, the meaning of which was explained. The Zoning By-law height limits are 61m on 85 Bloor Street East and 46m on 44 Hayden Street. Amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law are required to increase the total density to 9.14 times lot area from the maximum permitted 7.8 times lot area. Further amendments to the Zoning By-law are required to increase the maximum residential density from 7.8 to 8.97 times lot area and to permit an interior lounge on the roof.

Mr. Langdon briefly described the planning issues which had arisen to date:

a)Through-block public walkway. The history of, and problems with, the existing walkway through the church property to the east, and the alignment and configuration of the proposed walkway were described. Mr. Langdon stated that a walkway alignment down the west property line of the site had been discussed with the applicant, but the applicant felt that an unsafe Atunnel@ would be created where the walkway went through the proposed building, and the walkway would have to pass the garbage storage areas and come very close to the truck turning area behind the proposed building. An alignment has also been discussed on the site down the east property line, then following the currently proposed route across the rear of the site. None of these proposed alignment was ideal;

b)Vehicle parking spaces. The Zoning By-law required 157 spaces, whereas 156 were proposed, and Works and Emergency Services staff had requested a higher number, and the matter is still under review;

c)Construction vehicle entrance. Peter Langdon explained that a concern had been raised by neighbours about the negative impact of construction vehicles queuing on Hayden Street, and he had consequently investigated with Works and Emergency Services staff the possibility of a construction vehicle entrance off Bloor Street. The answer had been an emphatic no; and

d)Setback of mechanical penthouse from front of building. Whereas planning staff had initially identified this as an issue in the preliminary report, they had come to the conclusion, after discussion with the applicant and further review, that the proposed penthouse was a deliberate, and not undesirable, architectural feature, and was satisfactory as proposed.

Peter Van Loan then described in greater detail the history of the previous City approval of a development on the site. In his view, the current proposal essentially represented a conversion of the commercial floor area in the already approved development to a residential use. In his opinion, this was in accordance with the spirit of the City=s current provisions to allow conversion of non-residential uses to residential, noting that the material difference was that the approved development had not yet been constructed. Vladimir Losner then gave a detailed description of the currently proposed development.

QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION

Questions and comments were then invited from the audience.

a) Gregory and Rosemary Kolesar, 71 Charles Street East, were concerned that the proposed building would block their view of the setting sun.

b) Gloria Collinson, 50 Hayden Street, stated that currently in the planning stage were 750 residential units, which would all generate more traffic for Hayden St., where traffic is already bad. Terry Wallace of D. S. Lea and Associates stated that southbound Church St. currently impedes left turns from Hayden Street, and right turns from Hayden are consequently blocked in the queue. He added that on-street parking takes up extra lanes. A member of the audience inquired as to why Bloor St. could not be used for traffic egress and ingress. Peter Langdon pointed out that the City=s traffic management staff would not permit this when an access to and from Hayden Street was available. Mr. Wallace pointed out that the direction of residential traffic is opposite to commercial traffic in the peak afternoon period, and he was of the opinion that outbound traffic from the proposed residential building would be less than that from the current surface parking lot.

c) Rosemary Kolesar inquired about parkland in the area, and why additional residential development was even being contemplated when more parkland was needed. Peter Langdon pointed out that parkland acquisition takes time and is costly. Peter Van Loan added that new development such as this proposal are required to pay a parks levy, which is intended for parks acquisition and improvements in the City. Councillor Rae later pointed out that a new City park was currently being constructed on the former Toronto Parking Authority site between Charles and Isabella Streets.

d) A resident of 50 Hayden St. asked why the developer could not sell 44 Hayden Street and thus obtain vehicular access from Bloor St. He does not want the entrance situated next to him. A member of the audience felt that the extra lane on the south side of Bloor Street could be used for access to the site. Peter Langdon stated that he had investigated whether a temporary entrance for construction vehicles could be created on Bloor St., and was given an emphatic no by Works and Emergency Services staff. Another resident of Hayden Street stated that garbage trucks entering this site would have to Azig-zag@ across the road, and another member of the public wondered what time of day the garbage trucks would be operating, and how much noise they would generate. Vladimir Losner pointed out that the garbage pick up area on the site was far from Hayden Street in the interior of the site.

e) Peter Van Loan stated that traffic generation should be compared to that of the already approved building. Terry Wallace stated that the existing approval would generate more traffic.

f) A member of the audience asked about the number of parking spaces. Vladimir Losner responded that 156 spaces would be provided, which complies with the Zoning By-law. Gloria Collinson was concerned about the impact of the proposed building on Hayden Street.

g) Nicholas Paul, 39 Hayden St., stated that the old approval was not built, and that the current proposal should be considered on its own merits. He asked why the additional density was necessary. Why not stick with the density permitted by the Official Plan and Zoning By-law? Peter Van Loan pointed out that the owner could build the existing approval, but that markets change. The existing approval is larger and generates more traffic. The proposed building generates a better financial return for the owner. Mr. Paul felt that the impact of accumulated density increases is important and could cause severe problems, particularly with traffic on Hayden St.

h) In response to a question about what the developer will contribute to the community, Peter Van Loan responded that the parks levy would be paid, and Vladimir Losner stated that the pedestrian walkway would be provided.

i) An audience member stated that the walkway should be routed down the west side of the site, and thus avoid abutting the existing properties on Hayden Street. Vladimir Losner described the walkway as being 5 ft in width, and that it might be temporary across the rear of the site. In future, it may be able to go directly south to Hayden Street, when the properties to the south are redeveloped. Robert Statton stated that the property to the east is 8 ft. higher, and wondered how this change in height would be handled. Vladimir Losner advised that the most recent discussions had concluded that an on-site walkway connecting to Bloor St. down the east property line would permit a gentle slope (about 1.5%) to accommodate wheelchairs. Mr. Statton advised that he would fight any proposal that involved a walkway across the rear of the site next to his property. He felt that represented a security problem for his property. He thought that the existing surface parking lot was well designed as far as a parking lot was concerned, with lighting, trees, and a walkway down the west property line.

j) Someone noted that one of the abutting properties on Hayden to the south of the site had been up for sale for about 12 years. Councillor Kyle Rae stated that the landowners want to maximize their return on their property, and are seeking a development premium, which is why the property has not sold to date.

k) Robert Statton asked how many floors and how many extra units are represented by the increase in density from 7.8 to 9.14 times lot area. Vladimir Losner responded that 2 extra floors could be built, with about 18 extra units. Robert Statton felt that a building on the site should be built in accordance with the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. He felt that the City should have pursued the issue with the church of maintaining open the existing approved public walkway through the church building. Councillor Rae advised that when the former Toronto City Council last dealt with that issue, the church would not cooperate, and in consultation with Mr. Statton and others, Councillor Rae had decided that the matter should not go to Council for a decision because Council would not have supported enforcing the existing agreements. Mr. Statton suggested a setback of the walkway from the Hayden Street properties, with buffering. He also felt that the open balconies would have an adverse impact on the neighbouring properties. He felt that the traffic study would not be adequate in that it would not examine ancillary traffic such as deliveries and taxis. While he favours residential development, he suggested that the developer meet with the neighbours regarding tree planting and buffers.

l) Councillor Rae felt that the proposal represented appropriate development, and that translating the existing approval of a 9.1 times commercial building to residential is a good idea. While traffic impact is a concern, access onto Bloor is problematic from a pedestrian traffic and arterial function and mitigate that argument. He felt that he and the community fought against the parking garage and lost with respect to traffic impact arguments. Density was not an issue for him; rather, the built form is important. He felt that people in this building would use their vehicles mainly on weekends, and primarily use public transit. He felt that there should be an agreement regarding public benefits under Section 37 of the Planning Act, perhaps money for parks. He was sorry about the potential blockage of sunset views, but historically, views of sunsets have not been protected by the Ontario Municipal Board, and in any event, the height permission for a building constructed at the 7.8 times density permitted in the Zoning By-law would also obscure the sun. He felt that it would be appropriate for surrounding building owners to talk to the developer to see if any resolution of issues, or a land purchase, could be reached.

m) Nicholas Paul questioned Councillor Rae as to why the 7.8 times density could not be adhered to. Councillor Rae responded that the Official Plan provides control for considering the merits of a proposed development, and that in this case, a more elegant building would result, in comparison to the existing approved building. Mr. Paul asked if the Official Plan was simply a reference point for development. Councillor Rae stated that the Official Plan was not written in stone, and Peter Langdon added that the Official Plan provides a framework for considering change through a public process.

n) Councillor Rae stated that in his opinion, the developer should consider a straight-through pedestrian walkway down the west property line.

o) Rosemary Kolesar asked if traffic lights could be installed at the Church/Hayden intersection. Councillor Rae responded that unfortunately, the intersection was too close to the Church/Charles and Bloor/Church intersections to permit traffic lights.

There being no further questions or comments, the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.