Fine Tuning of the Planning Regulations for the
King-Parliament and King-Spadina Reinvestment Areas
(Downtown, Don River)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June9,1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To introduce amendments to the planning regulations for the King-Parliament and King-Spadina Reinvestment Areas
based on experience working with these planning regulations since their implementation in April 1996.
Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1)That By-law 1996-0236, being the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan, be amended substantially as set out in
Appendix A of this report.
(2)That By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended substantially as set out in Appendix B of this report.
(3)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report back regarding the feasibility of
seeking an amendment to the Ontario Building Code to permit employees who do not live in a live/work unit to work
in such premises.
Background
In April 1996, the former Toronto City Council adopted new planning regulations for the King-Parliament and
King-Spadina shoulder areas of the downtown (see Map 1). The planning regulations replaced traditional planning
controls by deregulating land use, density, mixing, and parking controls. The new system of controls is focussed on the
re-use of existing buildings and the development of new buildings within a built-form-oriented Zoning By-law system.
The new regulations have helped spur substantial new development activity in both areas, but during the review of
developments in both areas, certain technical problems with the new Reinvestment Area (RA) Zoning By-law
provisions have arisen. Recent work experience has shown that some policies need clarification and some minor
technical errors need to be eliminated in order to fully implement the intent of the Reinvestment Area policies.
Comments:
1.Retail Policies
The former City of Toronto's planning regulations restrict retail stores and entertainment uses to 1,800 square metres in
some districts, and in other districts allow up to 8,000 square metres, through rezoning approval.
The Official Plan for King-Spadina contains retail policies in Section 8 whose intent is to exempt retail and
entertainment uses from these size limits for conversions. For additions and new buildings, development is exempted
from the size limits provided certain siting requirements are met. However, corresponding retail policies in the
King-Parliament Part II Official Plan were omitted. This report simply recommends, as a technical matter, that these
retail policies be incorporated into the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan.
2.Depth Restrictions on a Lot
The Zoning By-law regulations for RA districts limit the total depth of new buildings, or additions to existing
buildings, to 50 metres. The policy was designed to control building depths on large deep lots, most typically found in
King-Spadina. In such situations the depth control encouraged multiple street related buildings to be developed on the
lot in conjunction with common open space, public lane or mid block pedestrian connections in the mid lot area.
Recent experience has shown that some new buildings cannot conform to these traditional rules regarding floor plate
size and building depth. This is particularly true of "urban entertainment complexes" such as the Festival Hall and
narrow, deep lots which are developed individually.
In order to more easily accommodate nontraditional building types in RA districts, I am recommending that the 50
metre building depth restriction be eliminated.
3.Basement and Integral Garages
The former City of Toronto regulated basement and integral garages in residential buildings. Basement garages which
gain access by a reverse grade driveway are now prohibited. Integral garages with at grade access from the front of the
house where the garage is part of the dwelling are not permitted in most circumstances. The new regulations require
parking to be taken at grade from the side or the rear of the house, except where the lot is wider than 7.6 metres. These
policies are intended to ensure a high level of residential amenity within neighbourhoods.
The integral garage policies were never extended to RA districts because it was not anticipated that low density
residential housing would be economically feasible. However, recent experience has shown that interest exists in
constructing low density residential development in RA districts especially in King-Parliament. I am therefore
recommending that the zoning provisions regulating integral and basement garages be incorporated into the RA Zoning
By-law provisions.
4.Permissions for Apartment Buildings
The City's Zoning By-law defines an apartment building as a building originally constructed to contain at least three
dwelling units and no other principal use. Therefore, the conversion of a building within an RA District to an
apartment building is not permitted as-of-right. In order to permit the conversion of buildings in RA Districts to
residential uses, the definition of apartment building should be amended to delete the requirement that the building be
originally constructed for such purposes, for RA Districts only .
5.Leasing of off- site Accessory Parking for Residential Uses
RA zoning permits accessory parking for residential development to be provided on the lot or within 300 metres of the
lot. A zoning problem arises when a land owner attempts to lease off-site parking in an RA district. The site from
which the parking is leased is then considered as a commercial parking lot, which is not a permitted use in an RA zone.
I am recommending that the planning regulations be amended to permit existing commercial parking lots to be used to
provide off-site accessory parking to a residential development within 300 metres.
6.Setback Requirements on Shallow Lots
The current RA zoning regulations require a 7.5 metre setback along the rear lot line of a development lot, to ensure
adequate light, view and privacy conditions in the centre of blocks. A 7.5 metre setback is also required along the side
lot line, except for that portion of the lot within 25 metres of the street line, where no side yard setback is required. The
side yard setback is deleted near the street to encourage a continuous "street wall" effect. However, because of the way
the setback provisions of the by-law were drafted, there is some confusion how this by-law should be interpreted for
situations where the entire lot is within 25 metres of a street. It is possible to read the by-law in such a way as to have
no setback requirement along the rear lot line, as well as the side lot line in this case.
Since this was not the intention of the built form controls, this report recommends clarification so that a rear setback is
required no matter how deep the lot is. For most lots in both revitalization areas, it is possible to create substantial
development even with a 7.5 metre rear setback.
7.Projections Permitted into Setback areas
In RA districts, a 3.0 metre setback is required at a height of 20.0 metres above street level, 16.0 metres on King Street,
in order to create a street wall that is similar in height to existing buildings. The current Zoning By-law provisions do
not permit any encroachments into the setback, and as a result the roof space created at the setback area is unusable. I
am recommending that hand railings or fences be permitted in this area so that the setback area can be used as a private
roof space or outdoor amenity space.
8.Exclusion of Accessory Parking from Parking Calculations
The parking regulations for RA districts are drafted in a way that includes in the calculation of parking requirements
the gross floor area used for parking. Since parking itself does not generate a demand for additional parking, there is no
planning rationale for this unintentional requirement. I am recommending new wording in the Zoning By-law to
eliminate this anomaly.
9.Facing Distance for End Walls of Balconies
Many residential conversions have difficulty meeting the light, view and privacy requirements on side lot lines. The
RA Zoning By-law provisions require that, after a depth of 25 metres, a side yard setback of 7.5 metres be achieved.
Some conversions attempt to meet the intent of this provision by insetting private outdoor balconies into the building
face along the side lot line with facing windows at each end of the balcony. In this manner the indoor habitable space
of the dwelling unit is pulled away from the side property line. However, this solution creates another variance to the
Zoning By-law. The facing interior walls of the balcony are currently required to be 11 metres apart in order to protect
privacy. In almost all circumstances the end walls belong to the same dwelling unit and therefore such a regulation is
unnecessary. I am recommending that, when the end walls of the interior balcony belong to the same unit, the facing
distance requirement be deleted.
10.Definition of Live/work Unit
In 1996 the Ontario Building Code was amended and a definition of live-work unit was introduced. This definition
prohibits the occupancy of the live/work unit by outside employees in order to meet certain fire safety requirements.
However, the Zoning By-law definition for live/work units in RA districts permits their use by outside employees of
the business. Therefore, the Zoning By-law and the Ontario Building Code definitions are contradictory. I am
recommending that the Zoning By-law definition be amended.
However, since it is still desirable to allow some outside employees to work within a live/work unit, I am also
recommending that my staff investigate and report back on the feasibility of seeking an amendment to the Ontario
Building Code to permit a limited number of outside employees to work in live/work units located within RA districts.
Conclusion:
This report contains a number of changes to the Official Plan or Zoning By-law provisions affecting Reinvestment
Areas that were either overlooked or are desirable due to the recent land development experiences in both
King-Spadina and King-Parliament.
Contact Names:
King-Parliament
Lance Alexander, Planner
East Section, City Planning
Phone: (416) 392-7573
Fax: (416) 392-1330
E-mail: lalexand @ city.toronto.on.ca
King-Spadina
Rollin Stanley, Planner
West Section,City Planning
Phone: (416) 392-0424
Fax:(416) 392-1330
E-mail: rstanley @ city.toronto.on.ca
Appendix A
Recommended Part II Official Plan Amendments
1.That a new Section be added to the King-Parliament Part II the Official Plan substantially as follows:
"8. Retail Policies
8.1Notwithstanding Section 9.15 of the Part I Official Plan, Council may pass By-laws to permit the use of more than
8,000 square metres of non-residential gross floor area for retail and service commercial uses provided the
development is compatible with the surrounding area within King-Parliament with respect to built form, parking and
elements of neighbourhood structure and character, and is consistent with all other policies of this Plan."
2That all Sections of the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan after the new Section 8 be renumbered accordingly.
Appendix B
Recommended Zoning By-law Amendments
The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:
1.Section 2(1) of By-law 438-86 is amended by:
(a)amending the definition of "apartment building" by inserting the following phrase at the end of the definition:
", except in the case of a building in an RA district where such building does not have to be originally constructed so as
to provide therein three or more dwelling units";
(b)amending the definition of "live-work unit" by deleting the phrase A, except in an RA district where the dwelling
unit may also be used for work purposes by any number of persons"; and
(c)amending the definition of "parking garage"@ by:
(i) inserting a colon and a new paragraph reference "(i)" after the word "where"; and
(ii)inserting a colon and a new paragraph "(ii)" as follows, after the phrase "non-residential use":
"(ii)a parking garage or a portion thereof is accessory to a residential use in an RA district;".
2.Section 7(2)6 is amended by deleting subparagraph (ii) and replacing it with the following:
"(ii)in an (h) district, only those uses permitted in an IC district are permitted; and".
3.Section 7(3) PART II 1 is amended by:
(i)amending paragraph (i) by:
A.deleting the words "or a rear lot line"; and
B.deleting the word "and";
(ii)adding a new paragraph (ii) as follows:
(ii)7.5 metres to a rear lot line; and; and
(iii)amending the existing paragraph (ii) by:
A.redesignating the paragraph as paragraph "(iii)";
B.inserting a colon and a new subparagraph reference "A." after the word "excluding";
C.replacing the period at the end of the section with a semi-colon followed by the word "and"; and
D.inserting a new subparagraph "B." after subparagraph A, as follows:
"B.exterior walls which form the boundary of a balcony, provided:
(i)the balcony projects less than 1.5 metres from the wall adjacent to the longest portion of the balcony where it is
attached; and"
(ii)the exterior walls are attached to the balcony.".
4.Section 7(3) PART IV is amended by adding a new regulation "8", as follows:
"8.Restriction on front wall below grade and at grade integral garages
The provisions of section 6(3) PART IV shall apply to RA districts.".
5.Section 12(2)204 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c), as follows:
"(c)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), any commercial parking lot existing on (insert date of passing), may be used for
parking spaces required by this By-law, as an accessory use to a residential building located on a lot within 300 metres
of such commercial parking lot.".
6.Section 12(2)246 is amended by:
(a)adding to paragraph (a), the following phrase after the words "public lane":
"and no portion of the building or structure shall project into this setback except for a fence or safety railing not
exceeding 2.0 metres in height";
(b)deleting paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d) respectively;
(c)adding a new paragraph (e) as follows:
"(f)Nothing in this exception is to be interpreted to mean that the floor area provided for motor vehicle parking may be
used to determine the required number of parking spaces."
The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following
communication from Mr. Donald G. Rodbard, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk: