November 5, 1998

To:Toronto Community Council

From:Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services

Subject:Final Report on Application 197021 for Site Specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to permit the existing Union Carbide Building to be replaced with an 18-storey Residential Condominium Apartment Building at 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue ( Ward 22)

Purpose:

To recommend approval of this application to permit the replacement of the existing Union Carbide Building at 123 Eglinton Avenue East with an 18-storey, 183 units residential condominium apartment building at a residential density of 5.5 times the lot area.

Recommendations:

1.That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to give effect to an amendment to the Official Plan substantially as set out below:

add to Section 18 a new subsection as set out below:

ALands known as 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue

See Map 18.-- at the end of this Section.

(a)Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, City Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands indicated on Map 18.-- to permit the erection and use of a building containing residential uses provided the residential gross floor area does not exceed 21,460 square metres and the total number of dwelling units does not exceed 183.@

2.That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, as it affects the lands known municipally as 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue, shown on Map 1 attached to this report, so as to permit the erection and use of a residential building on the site provided:

(i)the maximum number of dwelling units does not exceed 183;

(ii)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 21,460 square metres;

(iii)the building is contained within the building envelope shown on Map 1;

(iv)the heights of the building do not exceed those shown on Maps 2, 3 and 4, and the maximum building height does not exceed 54.1 metres, including the mechanical penthouse;

(v)not less than 194 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot, of which at least 172 spaces shall be reserved for the exclusive use of residents and at least 22 spaces shall be reserved for residential visitors;

(vi)not less than 72 bicycle parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot;

(vii)there is no vehicular access permitted off Eglinton Avenue East; and

(viii)the site is exempted from the appropriate provisions of Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, identified by the Chief Building Official in the letter dated September 24, 1998, and forming part of Appendix A to this report.

3.That the owner enter into a Statement of Approval/Undertaking delegated to me under Chapter 165, Article IV of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to secure Site Plan Approval prior to the introduction of any Bill in Council.

Background:

1.Application:

Application received on July 25, 1997 and revised on July 24, 1998 from Del Real Estate Consultants Inc. on behalf of the owner, Lombard Towers Holdings Limited, 77 Bloor Street West, Suite 1205, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1M2.

2.Site and Surrounding Area:

This 3,895 square metre site is located on the south side of Eglinton Avenue East and occupies all of the Eglinton Street frontage between Lillian Street and Redpath Avenue. A 10-storey, 45.7 metres high office building (Union Carbide Building) exists on the site but has been vacant for a number of years. The site is the subject of By-law 494-95 designating the existing structure as having architectural value or interest. Currently, no parking is available to serve the existing building.

The site forms part of the high density mixed commercial-residential use district along Eglinton Avenue between the Yonge-Eglinton Centre and Mount Pleasant Road. This portion of Eglinton Avenue East contains a variety of structures with building heights as low as one storey and as high as 12 storeys. Similarly, existing densities range from less than 1x to 7.6x the lot area.

Immediately surrounding uses are:

North:Office commercial uses with retail at grade in structures ranging from 2 to 10 storeys in height;

East:an 8 storey office building with retail uses at grade;

South:a recently completed 4 storey condominium townhouse complex;

West:an existing 5 storey commercial building at the corner of Eglinton and Lillian Streets, to the immediate south of which a 6 storey condominium apartment building has recently received OMB approval.

3.Proposed Development:

The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing Union Carbide office tower and replace it with an 18 storey residential condominium apartment building having 183 residential units and a total of 280 below-grade parking spaces of which 30 will be reserved for visitors. The building will be sculpted above the 12^th floor and reach at maximum a height of 54.1 metres including the mechanical penthouse. Vehicular access to the building and the underground parking garage will be from a private east-west driveway along the south side of the building. The grounds surrounding the building will be well landscaped and include an outdoor swimming pool on the west side of the building. Grade related residential units with garden terraces will front onto Redpath Avenue. A publicly accessible garden area will be created in the north-westerly corner of the site.

4.Public Meeting:

On November 17, 1997, a Public Meeting was held, notes of which are attached to this report as Appendix B. The meeting was attended by approximately 30 area residents whose concerns focussed on the potential for conversion of the existing historically designated structure, the proposed density of the new building, on-site traffic circulation and impacts from the development on this already high traffic area.

5.Revised Application:

In response to concerns raised at the public meeting and by civic officials, the applicant has revised his proposal as follows:

-The building has been shifted eastward to provide for a publicly accessible landscaped open space with seating areas along the west side of the building next to Lillian Street, and to create grade-related residential units with private garden terraces and direct access onto Redpath Avenue.

-The previously enclosed pool at the west side of the building has been replaced by an outdoor pool, screened from Lillian Street by brick walls, set into a dense landscape.

-Introduction of a publicly accessible landscaped open space areas with seating arrangements for pedestrian use at both the north-westerly and north-easterly corners of the building.

-Introduction of an urbane street scape design including a linear progression of curb-side light standards, interwoven paving patterns, main entry sculpture markers, deciduous trees in tree grates and raised landscaped terraces along Eglinton Avenue.

-The previously proposed circular driveway off Eglinton Avenue has been deleted in favour of a drop-off area at the rear entrance of the building.

-The number of car parking spaces has been increased from 256 to 280 spaces.

-The access to below-grade parking has been changed from an exterior ramp parallel to Redpath Avenue to an interior ramp accessible via the private rear lane. The portion of the lane from the ramp to Redpath Avenue is to be 6.4 m wide to provide for 2-way traffic, while the remainder of the lane will be 4.5 m wide and one-way east from Lillian Street to Redpath Avenue.

-Due to the internalization of the ramp, the east portion of the ground floor has been redesigned, and the number of units has been reduced to 3 from 4.

-The top 5 floors of the building have been terraced instead of only the 2 top storeys. To compensate for the loss of building area caused by this increased terracing, the building height has increased from 17 to 18 storeys. The 17^th floor suites have upper rooftop decks with individual stair access to the roof.

-The residential unit count has been increased from 177 to 183.

6.Planning Controls:

6.1Official Plan:

The Official Plan of the former City of Toronto designates this part of Eglinton Avenue East as AHigh Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area >A=@ where residential and/or commercial uses at a maximum density of 6 times the lot area are permitted. The Plan=s policies for this area designation aim at realizing the housing intensification objectives of the Plan while fostering a pedestrian friendly street environment, generally through retail and service commercial uses at grade.

The Yonge-Eglinton Part II Official Plan of the former City of Toronto designates the site as AMixed Commercial Residential Area B@ where mixed use buildings at densities up to 5 times are permitted provided neither the residential nor the commercial use exceeds 3 times the lot area.

6.2Zoning By-law:

The property is zoned CR T5.0 C3.0 R3.0 by By-law 438-86 of the former City of Toronto, permitting commercial and residential uses at a total density of 5 times the lot area , provided neither the residential nor the commercial use exceed a density of 3 times the lot area. The maximum permitted building height is 48 metres.

6.3Site Plan Control:

This site is within an area of Site Plan Control and subject to the delegated Site Plan Approval Process.

7.Historical Designation

On July 24, 1995, City Council of the former City of Toronto passed By-law 494-95 designating the property for architectural reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

On May 11, 1998, City Council adopted the following recommendation contained in my Directions Report (dated April 23, 1998) that ACouncil accept the applicant=s submission that the Union Carbide Building cannot be re-used economically and direct staff to prepare a Final Planning Report on the merits of the proposed new residential building@. This report responds to Council=s direction in this regard.

Comments:

8.Reasons for this Application:

The application requires amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law because the proposed residential density is 5.5 times the lot area, whereas both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law permit a maximum residential density of 3.0 times the lot area.

9.Comments from Civic Officials:

The application has been circulated among public officials whose comments are attached to this report as Appendix A. The Metropolitan Toronto Separate School Board has advised, in their letter dated December 12, 1997, of their concern that there is currently a lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding.

10.Reasons for Approving the Revised Application:

As discussed below, the revised application responds successfully to the concerns raised by public officials and at the public meeting and, consequently, I am recommending its approval.

10.1Built Form, Height and Site Design

Of major concern have been the potential negative impacts of high-rise re-development in terms of shadowing Eglinton Avenue and lack of transition to abutting low density residential development. In response to this concern, the building has been sculpted above the 12^th floor and incorporates a clearly defined 3 storey base with projecting cornices. Although these built form changes have resulted in increasing the proposed height from 17 to 18 storeys (including the mechanical penthouse area level), significant improvements have been achieved in terms of the bulk of the building as well as reducing the shadows on the north sidewalk of Eglinton Avenue East.

Concerns regarding the building=s relationship to the residential side streets as well as the abutting low-rise residential development have been addressed by shifting the building closer to Eglinton Avenue and further to the east, and by internalizing the garage access ramp which was originally proposed as an open, exterior ramp parallel to Redpath Avenue. Internalization of the ramp has made it possible to create grade-related residential units with individual garden terraces and direct access to Redpath Avenue, thereby simulating the condition found in the existing townhouse development immediately to the south. The building=s easterly shift has also resulted in additional open space along its west side on Lillian Street, facilitating location of a publicly accessible garden area on private property, including ample landscaping and seating walls for pedestrians. The generous landscaping has been continued along Eglinton Avenue.

The modified site and building design result in creating a publicly accessible parkette, a pedestrian friendly street environment along Eglinton Avenue, an improved interface with the low-rise development to the south, and maximizing sunlight on the north side of Eglinton Avenue as well as the north-westerly corner of the site, where the parkette is to be located.

10.2 Parking and Traffic Circulation

A major challenge has been to provide a convenient Adrop-off@ area for residents and their visitors without creating a circular driveway and lay-by, not only uncharacteristic for this portion of Eglinton Avenue East but also interfering with the flow and safety of heavy pedestrian traffic in this area .The proposal has been revised to create a private laneway along the entire south side of the building to serve the dual function of providing access to the below grade parking garage as well as to an at-grade drop-off area near a well defined rear entrance to the building. No parking will be allowed in this laneway, which is to be well landscaped and treed along its entire south side to provide a buffer for the abutting townhouse complex.

A total of 280 parking spaces are provided in a 3-level underground garage which more than satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the proposal for 194 spaces (based on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 172 spaces for the residents and 22 spaces for visitors) as well as the Zoning By-law requirement for 262 spaces. The proposed parking supply, general parking layout and dimensions of spaces are all to the satisfaction of the City=s Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

10.3Tree Removal

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the Landscape Plans received from the applicant are not acceptable at this time, primarily because of the need for City Council approval of the proposed removal of 7 City owned trees to facilitate the proposal. The applicant has submitted the necessary tree removal applications which are being reported on under separate cover at the same time as this report is being considered by this Community Council. .

Conclusions:

The original application has been revised with a view to satisfying the built form and traffic/parking concerns raised by public officials and during the Public Meeting . Accordingly, I am recommending approval of this application subject to the conditions outlined in the Recommendations Section of this report.

Contact Name:Feodora Steppat

Telephone:392-7740

Fax:392-1330

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

Beate Bowron

Director, Community Planning, South District

(p:\1998\ug\uds\pln\to981730.pln) - st

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Confirmed Municipal Address:123 Eglinton Avenue East.

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

PROJECT INFORMATION

Appendix A

Comment from Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services, dated September 29, 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)Provide and maintain a minimum of 194 parking spaces on the site to serve the project, including at least 172 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project and at least 22 spaces for visitors;

(c)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;

(d)Construct the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access hereto 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;

(e)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;

(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 of at least 5 compactor containers on collection day;

(g)Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 30 square metres in size in the building and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(h)Provide and maintain a recyclable material drop-off/storage room at least 10 m5 in size within the building;

(i)Provide and maintain ANo Parking@ signs within the east-west private driveway and adjacent to the Type G loading space;

(j)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building to enable the preparation of building envelope plans, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of a bill in Council;

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

(l)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;

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

(n)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)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 submit 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;

(b)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;

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

(d)Of the need to obtain building location and streetscape permits from this Department prior to construction of this project; and

(e)That any work within the Eglinton Avenue East boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of this Department.

Comments:

Location

South side of Eglinton Avenue East, between Redpath Avenue and Lillian Street.

Previous Application

The site (the north portion of the lot which fronts Eglinton Avenue East) was subject to Development Review Application No. 395021. As well, the south portion was subject to Development and Rezoning Application Nos. 391110, 1539 and 2336 and is subject to Development and Collateral Agreements registered on June 2, 1995 as Instrument Nos. CA348974 and CA348975, respectively.

Proposal

Construction of a residential building containing 183 condominium dwelling units.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated November 12, 1997. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The provision of 280 parking spaces located in a 3-level underground parking garage satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by the proposal for 194 spaces, based on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 172 spaces for the residents and 22 spaces for visitors, and, as far as can be ascertained, satisfies the Zoning By-law requirement for 262 spaces consisting of 216 residential spaces and 46 visitor spaces. The proposed parking supply, general parking layout and dimensions of the parking spaces are acceptable.

Access to the underground parking garage is proposed from the access ramp off of the east-west private driveway. The east-west private driveway extends between Lillian Street and Redpath Avenue. The plans indicate that the driveway is 6.4 m wide from Redpath Avenue to the access ramp which can accommodate two-way traffic and is 4.5 m from Lillian Street to the access ramp which is restricted to one-way eastbound traffic. ANo parking@ signs are shown on the plans prohibiting vehicles from parking within the driveway. The access ramp to the underground garage is shown as varying in width with a slope not greater than 15% and is satisfactory. The proposed access configuration is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with the bulk lift method of garbage 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(c) to 1(h), above. The proposed garbage room and recycling room are acceptable.

The plans indicate that the Type G loading space is to be located within the lay-by adjacent to the 4.5 m wide east-west private driveway at the south-west limit of the site. Garbage trucks using the loading space would enter the site from Lillian Street and exit to Redpath Avenue. This configuration is acceptable provided that ANo Parking@ signs are posted prohibiting vehicles from parking within the lay-by. The concrete storage pad adjacent to the loading space is shown on the plans and is 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.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development.

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water runoff into the ground for all new buildings, wherever 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 Section (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. If any work is proposed or required within the Eglinton Avenue East road allowance, the design of the boulevard must meet this Department=s guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. 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 may be 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 392-2984 regarding the site specific permit/licence requirements.

2.Buildings, dated September 24, 1998.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Build 18^th Storey Apartment Building (183 Dwelling Units) with 3 levels of underground parking garage

Zoning Designation:CR T5.0 C 3.0 R 3.0Map:51 K-321

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

Plans prepared by:Julian Jacobs Architects LtdPlans dated: Sept 18, 1998

Residential GFA:21459 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.

1.The by-law requires a horizontal Abicycle parking space@ to have minimum dimensions of 0.6 metres by 1.8 metres and a vertical clearance of 1.9 metres. The proposed bicycle parking spaces have no dimensions . (Section 2, definition of Abicycle parking space@.)

2.The by-law requires a vertical Abicycle parking space@ to have minimum dimensions of 0.6 metres by 1.2 metres and a vertical clearance of 1.9 metres. The proposed bicycle parking spaces have no dimensions . (Section 2, definition of Abicycle parking space@.)

3.The by-law requires at least 110 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 27 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. The proposed building will contain 72 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and no bicycle parking spaces for visitors. (Section 4(13)(a) and (c))

4.The by-law requires an apartment building having a residential gross floor area in excess of 2800 square metres to have a driveway that serves an entrance to the building and which allows vehicles to travel in one continuous motion. No driveway is proposed. (Section 4(16))

5.The by-law requires that the residential gross floor area be not more than 3.0 times the area of the lot: 11,688 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is 21,459 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a))

6.The by-law limits the proposed Apartment Building height to 48.0 metres. The proposed building has a height of 54.02 metres (incl. mech.). ( Section 4(2) of by-law 438-86 )

7.The by-law requires a minimum of 46 visitors parking spaces be provided. The number of proposed visitors parking spaces is 30. ( Section 4 (4) (b))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

2.The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

3.This property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. In accordance with Section 34, Part IV of the Act, an owner wishing to demolish a designated building must receive consent in writing from City Council.

4.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.

5.The proposal requires the approval of City Works Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.

6.All work within the City=s road allowance will require a separate approval by City Works Services.

3.Public Health, dated August 27, 1998.

Thank you for your request of July 29, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

The revisions to the site plan have been noted and do not alter the previous recommendations made for this site. Please refer to this Department's letter dated March 30, 1998, for this information.

Please inform the owner/applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of my comments.

dated March 30, 1998.

Thank you for your request of March 11, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and construct a 16 storey residential condominium containing 185 units, with underground parking for 231 vehicles.

EHS have previously commented on this site on June 5, 1995 (excavation permit #371246), September 22, 1995 (alteration building permit #373318), May 10, 1996 (sign off letter) and September 29, 1997 (demolition permit #402857). Copies of these letters are enclosed for your information. I would note that this division has consistently expressed no objection to the applicant receiving a permit for this site. Based on the specific information available, I have no objection to a permit being issued to the application for the proposed development.

Recommendations:

1.That the owner shall, upon completion of the soil excavation, submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the soils remaining on site meet the Ministry of Environment AGuideline For Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario@, criteria for residential use prior to any above grade permit being issued.

2.That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

Please inform the applicant with respect to this matter.

4.Parks, dated August 25, 1998.

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on July 29, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

:There is/are nine 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 (and replacing) 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.

:One of the City owned trees proposed to be removed qualifies for routine removal by Forestry Services. As such, Council approval for the removal of this tree is not required and the applicant will not be responsible for the costs noted above as they apply to this one tree.

:Trees indicated for planting on the City road 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.

: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.

:I advise that plans prepared by Julian Jacobs Architects Ltd. and the plans prepared by MBTW, all plans date stamped as received on July 24, 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.

5.Metropolitan Separate School Board, dated December 12, 1997.

At the regular meeting of the Board, held on December 11, 1997, the following resolution was approved regarding the application.

AThat the Metropolitan Separate School Board inform the appropriate authorities that the Board objects to the official plan amendment due to the lack of permanent facilities and overcrowding at St. Monica Catholic School, Marshall McLuhan and Loretto Abbey Catholic Secondary Schools.@

Appendix B

Notes of Public Meeting

November 17, 1997 at the North Toronto Memorial Community Centre

Application :123 Eglinton Avenue East

Attendance:

Sid Tennenbaum , Chair, Planning Advisory Committee

Julian Binks, Member, Planning Advisory Committee

Michael Walker, Councillor

Feodora Steppat, Urban Development Department, City Planning

John Blumenson, Heritage Toronto

Stephen Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault

Approximately 30 members of the public were present.

The Chair explained the purpose of the meeting. The area planner outlined the nature of the application and identified the basic issue as one of conflicting objectives, namely preservation of the existing historically designation versus its proposed replacement with a new residential structure with a gross floor area exceeding the existing as well as currently permitted levels of density. John Blumenson of Heritage Toronto explained the significance and effect of the historical designation and with reference to a hand-out, identified the significant architectural elements of the existing building. Subsequently, the applicant's lawyer, his architect and traffic consultant spoke to the details of the application including the proposed site design, structural details and traffic impacts.

Concerns raised at the meeting focussed on the potential for conversion of the existing structure, the proposed density of the new building, on-site circulation and traffic impacts on the surrounding neighbourhood.

The architect of the townhouse complex to the south was in attendance and noted that in his estimation, the existing building is a prime candidate for conversion and that the existing two basement levels of the building would lend themselves well as garage space accessible via the existing ramp off Redpath Ave. In his opinion the application to construct a new building with a density of 5.5 x the lot area is driven by land value to the exclusion of the designated building on the land.

Another person in the audience stated that he could not support the demolition of an historically designated building to make way for a density increase on these lands.

Another person expressed his dismay at the lack of the City's power to enforce its policies of protecting historic structures.

Someone in the audience noted that the building may be designated but that it is not particularly attractive. In answer to this, someone else in attendance pointed out that 40 year old buildings such as the one under consideration, tend to be temporarily out of fashion but regain their popularity with increased age.

A director of the Sherwood Park Ratepayers Association spoke on behalf of the Association thanking Tridel for consulting neighbourhood associations while developing their proposal. He also noted the Association's concern that an historic building is to be torn down. He also expressed concern with the proposed unit count and density as being too high and likely to result in increased traffic problems for this neighbourhood.

A representative of the South Eglinton Ratepayers' Association also thanked Tridel for their efforts to consult with the neighbourhood. He stated that in a perfect world, retention and re-use of the existing building would be desirable. Short of that, the proposals would appear to satisfy his association's concerns with maintaining if not decreasing the existing building mass although it would be desirable to achieve reductions in the currently proposed unit count. He spoke in support of providing a <green' building setback and circular drop-off area along Eglinton Avenue.

A Board Member of the townhouse condominium to the south was present and thanked Tridel for having consulted with the Condominium Association prior to submission of their development application. The Board is generally in support of the proposal although there are concerns regarding potential negative traffic impacts. The applicant's traffic consultant stated that a traffic impact assessment has been undertaken showing that the peak hour impact is insignificant.

Concerns were expressed with the proposed service lane at the rear of the new building. It was suggested that gates be considered to control the use of the lane and avoid it becoming a short-cut not only for pedestrians but also for vehicular traffic.

The proposal to use the existing access ramp to the parking garage for the townhouse complex was expected by some in the audience to result in too high a traffic volume for that ramp and the potential for line-ups on Redpath at peak hours. There was the suggestion that below-grade access/egress to and from the parking garage for the new building be located off Eglinton Avenue.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 pm.