- A minimum of a 3 metre wide land conveyance to the City on the
Wellesley Street West frontage for road widening purposes together
with a building setback and possible conveyance to the City of an
additional 2 metres along the Wellesley Street West frontage for
publicly accessible sidewalk purposes, are required.
The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (March 18, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To report on recommendations to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit
development of the north block of the East of Bay Lands at the south east corner of Bay and
Wellesley Streets for approximately 825 dwelling units, 4,180 square metres of street-related retail
and service uses and a 2,017 square metre public park.
Recommendations:
(1) That the City Solicitor be requested to submit draft by-laws to amend the Official Plan and
Zoning By-law for the lands known as 909, 931, 935 and 945 Bay Street, 14, 16, 20, 26, 30
and 38 Breadalbane Street and 11 and 25 Wellesley Street West (North Block - East of Bay
Lands), substantially as set out in Appendix A and B of this report dealing with such matters
as density, height, phasing, development parameters and conditions relating to Section 37 of
the Planning Act.
(2) That, prior to the introduction of the bills in Council, the owner shall have entered into an
agreement authorized under Section 37 of the Planning Act. This agreement must make
provision for the facilities, services and matters as substantially set out in Appendix C of this
report dealing with such matters as the payment of $150,000 to the City for parks
improvement purposes, construction of lanes, conveyance of and improvements to public
sidewalks and walkways, environmental, parks conveyance and development, public art,
urban design and various collateral matters.
(3) 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 loading lane, at least 3.5 metres in width adjacent to the one-way portion of the driveway system generally as shown on the Phasing Diagram
(Drawing No. PD-1) dated September 4, 1997, prepared by Fliess Gates McGowan
Eastan Architects;
(c) Provide and maintain parking for the residential condominium units in accordance
with the following ratios:
Type of Unit Minimum Parking Requirement
Bachelor units 0.3 spaces/unit
1 Bedroom units 0.7 spaces/unit
2 Bedroom units 1.0 spaces/unit
3 or more Bedroom units 1.2 spaces/unit
Visitor Parking Requirement 0.06 spaces/unit
(d) Provide and maintain parking for the commercial component of the project in
accordance with the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law;
(e) Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 0.31
m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the west limit of the north-south public lane extending northerly from Breadalbane 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;
(f) Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 3 m
wide strip of land and a 5 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting
the south limit of Wellesley Street West and the east limit of Bay Street, respectively,
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 to the Grantor until such
time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;
(g) Provide all Reference Plans of Survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario
Co-ordinate System that will be required for the various agreements, conveyances
and /or land exchanges, including the lane and road widenings referred to in
Recommendation Nos. 1(e) and 1(f) above;
(h) Submit to the Commissioner of City Works 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 the introduction of a bill in
Council;
(i) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of City Works Services, prior
to the introduction of a bill in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with
City Council's requirements;
(j) Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the
Commissioner of City Works Services that the development has been designed and
constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the
Commissioner of City Works Services; and
(k) Provide and maintain and operate the project in accordance with the noise impact and
traffic impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the respective
plan/studies approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services.
(4) That the owner be advised 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
City Works 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.
(5) That the owner be advised that in the event that a storm drain is required for the project, that
it will be necessary to connect the storm drain to the Wellesley Street West storm sewer.
(6) That the owner be required to submit and have approved by the Commissioner of City Works
Services, a grading and drainage plan for the site prior to approval of the first site plan
application for the site.
(7) That the owner be advised of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge
associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection.
(8) In connection with the Site Plan Review Applications to be submitted for each phase:
(a) Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of City Works Services
prior to filing a formal application for each building permit;
(b) Provide additional details depicting the proposed location of the Type G loading
space(s) within the service lane;
(c) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to
the front of the Type G loading space(s);
(d) Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading spaces on the site, with a generally level
surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward
motion;
(e) Construct the Type G loading spaces 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;
(f) Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the
Type G loading space(s) 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;
(g) Provide and maintain level, hard-surface service connections for the residential and
commercial uses of each phase, between the refuse/recyclable storage room and the
loading space proposed to serve that phase;
(h) Provide and maintain service connections between the residential moving rooms,
each commercial use and the proposed loading lane;
(i) Agree to keep the designated loading space free and clear of parked vehicles on
refuse/recyclable collection days;
(j) Provide details of the parking layout, including proposed location of knock out
panels, details of the proposed physical separation between the residential and non-residential components of the garage; and
(k) Provide details of the proposed tunnel under Breadalbane Street, if proposed.
(9) That the lands conveyed to the City under Recommendation Nos. 3(e) and 1(f) above, be laid
out and thereafter dedicated, by the City, for public highway purposes.
(10) That the owner be advised of the need to receive approval of the Commissioner of City
Works Services for any work to be carried out within the existing and proposed road
allowance.
(11) That the owner be advised of the need to obtain building location and streetscape permits
from the Transportation Department prior to the construction of this project.
(12) That the owner shall immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify
all existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the
subject site. This report should be submitted for review by the Medical Officer of Health,
prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.
(13) That the owner shall conduct a site audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on
site. The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of
Labour and Ministry of Environment and Energy Guidelines. A report on the site audit
should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the introduction of
a Bill in Council.
(14) That the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and
Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes
remediation options to be submitted for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to
the introduction of a Bill in Council.
(15) That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental
consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved
by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site
environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation
has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.
(16) That the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan for approval by the
Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any building permit and that the owner
shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of
Health.
(17) That the provisions of the Section 37 agreement include the following broad terms and
conditions respecting parks matters:
(a) the conveyance of parkland on the site will coincide with the phasing of the
development lands as is generally shown on the Phasing Diagram denoted as PD-1,
prepared by Fleiss Gates McGowan Easton Architects and dated March 6, 1998 and
on file with the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services, and
will be such that the final area of the Parklands shall be no less than 2 017 square
metres, exclusive of the area taken up by stairwell access to the underground garage;
(b) the owner will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the interim
parklands until a decision is made by the Director of Development and Support,
Toronto Parks and Recreation, to commence installation of permanent parkland
improvements which shall be no later than:
(i) 5 years following occupancy of the Phase 3 development; or
(ii) following conveyance of the Phase 4 parklands;
whichever comes first; or
(iii) upon such other terms as may be agreed to by the owner and the city.
(c) the owner will provide on the day before issuance of each first building permit for
each individual phase of the proposed development, a Parks Contribution as follows
(these values are as at March, 1998; the agreement will provide for escalation to then
current dollars depending on timing of construction):
(i) Phase 3: $331,388 (ii) Phase 4: $403,498
(iii) Phase 5: $279,549 (iv) Phase 6: $167,352
such Park Contributions shall be deposited into a segregated interest-bearing reserve
fund that shall be designated as the "East of Bay Parks and Vicinity Reserve Fund",
such funds will be used solely for the purposes of permanent improvements to the
East of Bay Parklands, as well as parkland acquisitions and improvements within the
boundaries of Ward 24, in accordance with the recommendation of the Director of
Development and Support, Toronto Area Parks and Recreation.
(d) the details of the parkland conveyances and park contributions shall be in accordance
with the requirements of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks
and Recreation, and shall be set out in the Section 37 Agreement, in accordance with
existing precedent arrangements.
(18) That subject to execution of the Section 37 Agreement, and in view of agreements made
therein securing the conveyance of 2 017 sq.m. of public parkland and the provision of the
Park Contributions referred to in 17.(c) above, that City Council authorize an amendment to
Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Lands for Parks Purposes, of the Toronto Municipal
Code, to exempt therefrom the development of the lands to the extent permitted by the
subject Zoning By-law Amendment.
(19) That upon the coming into force of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for the
North Block, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report on the zoning
of the East of Bay south block parkland (25 Breadalbane Street) from CR to G.
Background:
The north block of the East of Bay lands at the south east corner of Bay and Wellesley Street is
owned by the Province of Ontario through the Ontario Realty Corporation and is part of the
Province's land holdings in the immediate area which have been incrementally redeveloped over the
last five years. Past proposals on the north block have included the Ballet-Opera House and housing
development in 1989 and a social and market housing development in 1993. Both of these proposals
were not pursued further by the Province.
A redevelopment for the south block of the East of Bay lands (between Grosvenor and Breadalbane
Streets) received Site Plan Approval in 1996; the project complied with the Official Plan and Zoning
By-law and required a lane closing to proceed. The project, which is nearing completion, is
comprised of 313 condominium units in two 16-storey buildings aligned with Bay Street, with retail
at-grade, a new public park on Breadalbane Street and below-grade parking.
As part of the south block approvals, all private development companies involved (East of Bay
Development Corporation, Goldlist Development Corporation and Korank Development
Corporation) and the Ontario Realty Corporation entered into a Master Plan Agreement with the City
of Toronto. The agreement set out development parameters for the north block in order to achieve
development which would be consistent and complimentary to the south block.
Development of the south block included provision for the conveyance to the City of the surface
rights of a 1,733 square metre portion of the site known as 25 Breadalbane Street for a public park.
This portion of the site is zoned for approximately 6,700 square metres of residential development
which the owner is proposing, through this current application, be redeployed as residual density
from the south block to the north block.
With respect to the current application, the old City of Toronto Land Use Committee adopted the
Preliminary Report on May 15, 1997. A public meeting was held by the Planning Advisory
Committee in the community on June 24, 1997. A second public meeting was held by the applicant
on November 26, 1997 to present certain revisions to the project. The issues raised by the public are
addressed in Section 2.12 of this report.
The Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application is being processed in advance of
separate Site Plan Approval applications for the phased development of the north block. Phase I and
II have been constructed on the south block while Phases III, IV, V and VI are to be developed on
the north block. The applicant filed for Site Plan Approval on February 4, 1998 for Phase III.
It should also be noted that on February 19, 1998, pursuant to Section 22(7) and 34(11) of the
Planning Act, the applicant appealed Council's failure to adopt the Official Plan and Zoning By-law
amendments which have been requested.
Comments:
1.0 Description of Project: Uses, Built Form and Density
The comprehensive redevelopment of the north block is to include approximately 825 condominium
units built in four phases, containing a total gross floor area of 78,400 square metres, including
approximately 4,180 square metres of street-related retail and service uses fronting on Bay and
Wellesley Streets, a private recreation facility, below-grade parking and a new 2,017 square metre
public park.
The redevelopment includes four buildings, with a continuous podium aligned with Bay and
Wellesley Streets and the east edge of the new public park. Proposed buildings would be higher
along Bay Street and lower in the interior of the site as one moves east toward Yonge Street. The
buildings will have a podium height along Bay Street and Wellesley Street West expressed in
stepbacks at the 7, 8 and 9 storey level before buildings rise to the heights set out below:
Proposed heights measured from the average grade proposed for the adjacent streets:
Phase: Stories: Proposed Height in Metres Measured from Average Grade of:
III 27 78.50 105.98 m. along Bay Street
IV 33 91.64 106.22 m. along Bay Street
V 9 30.00 107.02 m. along Wellesley Street
VI 10 30.00 105.99 m. along Breadalbane Street
The Zoning By-law permits an additional five metres for mechanical penthouses. 30.0 metres is
listed for Phases V and VI as this is the existing permitted height limit and it is not proposed to be
changed.
Based on a site area of 15,018.5 square metres (3.71 acres, excluding a portion of the east/west city
lane within the proposed public park), the proposed density of the project is:
Gross Floor Area Density
Residential 74,220 square metres 4.94
Non-residential 4,180 square metres 0.28
Total 78,400 square metres 5.22
The total residential gross floor area may be adjusted upward if the non-residential space is not fully
built out. The total proposed gross floor area above includes 6,734.2 square metres of gross floor
area which was not constructed on the south block of the East of Bay lands. The phasing statistics
are as follows:
Phase Residential GFA Approximate Suite Count Non-Residential GFA
Square Metres Square Metres
III 21,490 232 500
IV 25,800 259 975
V 16,360 170 2190
VI 10,570 120 515
The suite count is approximate. The by-laws are proposed to permit up to 825 units.
1.1 Site and Surrounding Area
The lands comprising this application include the properties in the block bounded by Bay, Wellesley,
Breadalbane Streets and the existing lane which runs parallel and west of Yonge Street. The subject
site does not include any Yonge Street frontage. The site is currently used for parking and temporary
open space purposes and is bisected by two city lanes. (See Context Map).
The surrounding area contains a mix of residential, institutional and commercial uses. A provincial
office complex (buildings ranging in height between 49 and 100 metres) is located on the west side
of Bay Street, the Sutton Place Hotel (100 metres or 33 storeys) and Century Plaza at 24 Wellesley
Street West (86 metres or 29 storeys) are located to the north and the low-rise Yonge Street retail
strip is to the east. Phase I and II of the Opera Place condominiums (16 storeys or 46 metres) and
the existing downtown YMCA facility are to the south of the subject site.
The site is partially within the higher density Bay Street corridor which extends from Bloor Street
south to the downtown core and is partially within the area between Bay and Yonge Streets where
the planning policies encourage a transition in building height and density down to the lower scale
pedestrian shopping area on Yonge Street.
1.2 Planning Controls
(i) Official Plan
The subject site is split designated: High Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area "A"
along Bay Street and Medium Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area for the
remainder of the site, permitting up to 6.0 and 4.0 times the area of the lot in gross floor area
respectively.
(ii) Zoning By-law
The subject site is zoned CR T6.0 C1.0 R6.0 with a height limit of 46 metres on Bay Street
and is zoned CR T4.0 C1.0 R4.0 with a height limit of 30 metres on the interior of the site
along Wellesley and Breadalbane Streets.
(iii) Site Plan Approval
Development of the site is subject to Site Plan Approval. Each phase will be assessed as to
its compliance with the overall development parameters for the site.
(iv) Master Plan Agreement
As noted above, the site is subject to a Master Plan Agreement which provides general
development parameters for the site.
1.3 Reasons for the Application
(i) The distribution of buildings on the site increases the density to 7.9 coverage,
exceeding the 6.0 times coverage permitted within the Bay Street frontage area which
is designated High Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area "A" in the Official
Plan. Overall, the proposed density is 5.22 coverage.
(ii) The proposed building heights of 78.50 and 91.64 metres, exclusive of mechanical
penthouses, exceed the permitted 46 metre height limit along Bay Street.
(iii) The proposal along Bay Street penetrates the 60 degree angular plane requirement
of the Zoning By-law.
2.0 Planning Considerations
2.1 Comprehensive Redevelopment
The application proposes the comprehensive redevelopment of a major component of the
East of Bay lands, lands which were originally assembled in the 1970's by the Provincial
government for various purposes. The benefits of comprehensive redevelopment include
the achievement of housing intensification objectives, provision of community amenities and
high quality urban design, all of which help to build the economic and social stability of this
part of the downtown as a mixed-use neighbourhood.
The development parameters for the site are set out in the Master Plan Agreement, the intent
of which is to guide the phased development of the north block in a manner which is
compatible with the development of the south block and achieves municipal planning
objectives. The proposed development for the north block is in accordance with the Master
Plan Agreement in that it represents development which is compatible with the south block
of the East of Bay lands including such matters as the alignment and design of service lanes
and the north and south components of the new public park, the achievement of a compatible
and consistent massing, the conceptual design and the public sidewalk and pedestrian
walkway treatment.
2.2 Redeployment of Density
The massing and density on the north block is a partly a function of reallocating density from
two locations:
(a) approximately 6,700 square metres from the south block which was not developed
at 25 Breadalbane Street
(b) density attributable to the north block parkland (not including density attributable to
the area of the city lane within the parkland)
The appropriateness of redeploying the density has been evaluated based on physical
planning considerations including priority given to a high standard of urban design and the
benefits associated with the establishment of the north/south park in this neighbourhood. On
a gross site basis for the two blocks of the East of Bay lands, no overall increase in density
is proposed.
2.3 Built Form Impacts including Height Increase
The configuration of the built form has been reviewed to assess compliance with relevant
built form policies of the Official Plan including the physical impacts of shadow and wind,
compliance with the light, view and privacy standards, impact and relationship to the public
realm and visual appearance with respect to terracing, stepbacks and the building's
relationship to grade.
The proposal calls for two separate, relatively slender building towers sitting on a podium
aligned with Bay Street. This arrangement, in combination with the density proposed,
generates the need for two main areas of zoning relief : the increase in height and the
penetration of the angular plane along Bay Street. This built form has been contrasted with
a lower, more boxy massing form which could potentially be constructed as-of-right. Key
considerations in comparing these two alternatives are: what impacts result and what benefits
are derived from separating the massing into two towers along Bay Street.
Shadow:
The proposed buildings allow sunlight to reach the east and west sidewalk of Bay Street for
most of the required 3 hours at median times of the year and both sidewalks of Wellesley
Street West. Shadow conditions in the north block parkland benefit from separating the
massing along Bay Street allowing for later afternoon sunlight. The parkland otherwise
benefits from the low scale built form to the east and south which allows for a high level of
sunlight throughout the morning and afternoon hours.
Wind:
Wind tunnel testing has been undertaken to assess pedestrian comfort in pedestrian areas in
and around the proposed development. The conditions were found to be similar or improved
when the proposal was compared to the development which would be permitted as-of-right.
The most significant improvements in wind conditions were measured at Bay and Wellesley
where the presence of the proposed buildings will have the effect of reducing the impact of
northerly and westerly winds.
Light, View and Privacy:
The proposed development achieves all light, view and privacy standards. In relation to the
buildings on the north side of Wellesley Street: the proposed north tower (Phase IV) and the
Sutton Place are 30.2 metres apart above the podium of the proposed building and 25.8
metres below the podium height. In addition, the two building footprints are offset so as to
provide views past, to the east and west. This arrangement creates a situation which exceeds
the City's standards for light, view and privacy. Further to the east along Wellesley Street
West, there will be, at its closest point, a 25.8 metre separation between Century Plaza (24
Wellesley Street West) and the Phase V building. This arrangement also complies with city
standards.
With respect to buildings on site, no zoning relief is being requested and all building walls
facing each other will have to comply to minimum on-site separating distances of 11 metres.
The Bay Street towers will be no closer than 12 metres at the podium level and will generally
be 16 metres apart.
Visual Impact:
The urban design of the development allows for continuity of built form, provides a sense
of enclosure for the adjacent streets and open spaces, respects street proportions and a quality
pedestrian environment through the use of podia and achieves a height transition west to east
and north to south. The degree of building articulation and modulation, terracing and
stepbacks all add visual relief and interest.
The overall built form of Phase III and IV will be compatible with Phase I and II now under
construction south of Breadalbane Street. Phase V and VI along Wellesley Street and on the
north side of Breadalbane Street will not exceed the height limit and will be a continuation
of the design principles employed in the rest of the project. The lower buildings of the north
block development will be adjacent and to the south of 24 Wellesley Street West which sits
at an angle to the street. This arrangement mitigates impacts and provides residents of 24
Wellesley with views west and south into the new public park.
A particularly beneficial feature of the design will be the continuation of a colonnade and
canopy treatment begun on the south block providing weather protection for pedestrians.
The final details of each phase will be determined as part of the Site Plan Approval in
accordance with the Urban Design and Site Plan Guidelines in the Master Plan Agreement
which will be carried forward in the Section 37 Agreement.
2.4 (a) Public Lane Issues
Two public lanes are affected by this application. The east west lane bisecting the site is to
be closed and conveyed to the developer. The surface rights of a portion of the lane which
is located within the new public park are to be conveyed back to the City at a later date, to
be set out in an agreement between the City and the applicant. The north south lane is to
closed and conveyed. It will be replaced with a new north south lane aligned with an existing
north south lane in order to provide a straight and complete connection between Wellesley
and Breadalbane Streets, providing access for properties fronting on Yonge Street. The
feasibility analysis for these closures has identified requirements to be addressed by the
applicant including improvements required for an existing Toronto Hydro vault.
In addition, the creation of the new north south lane created the need to merge remnant pieces
of property with several properties fronting on Yonge Street which was approved by the
Committee of Adjustment in January, 1998. It is noted that the owners of the abutting
properties would extinguish their rights-of-way when the new lane outlet to Wellesley Street
West is completed.
The new north/south lane will be constructed by the applicant at their cost, to City
specifications. The Commissioner of City Works Services has also recommended a 0.31
metre widening of the existing north south City lane in order for the final lane width from
Breadalbane to Wellesley to have a uniform 6.1 metre width.
(b) Proposed Private Lane System
The site will be serviced by a new U-shaped private lane system which will be established
as the four phases on the north block are established. The configuration of the lane will be
modified several times as the phased development proceeds. The final configuration will be
as shown on Map 2 attached to this report. The detailed implementation of this private lane
will be addressed as part of the Site Plan Approval process for each phase.
Agreements entered into between the City and the applicant should protect the City's interest
in respect of the important linkage between recommendations for the approval of Official
Plan and Zoning By-law amendments and closing and conveyancing of city lanes.
2.5 Public Park Conveyance and Phased Development
The redevelopment of the East of Bay lands provides an opportunity to achieve a significant
permanent new public open space for this area of south midtown Toronto. The south and
north block public parks will total 3,750 square metres or just under one acre. This area
combined with the 5 metre wide conveyance on the Bay Street frontage for a pedestrian
promenade represents 24 percent of the total site for open space purposes. Broken down, the
south block park and promenade area accounts for 48% of the south site while the north
block park and promenade area accounts for 17% of the north site. These figures do not
include building setbacks on Wellesley Street for an improved sidewalk and two public
pedestrian walkways from Wellesley Street south into the north block park.
The south and north block parkland will be a strata conveyance as there will be below grade
parking for the residential development. The conveyance of land to a depth of 1.524 metres
is required to permit mature development of landscaping in addition to various performance
requirements to the satisfaction of civic officials.
The Official Plan policies respecting parks speak to the need to establish adequate parkland
as residential intensification occurs and require an alternative requirement for large site
rezonings to permit residential development (eg. large tracts of industrial land being
redesignated for residential). As the zoning of the East of Bay lands permit medium and high
density residential as-of-right and no overall density increase is sought, the alternative
requirement does not apply. Further, the Plan's intent of achieving substantial parkland
development in high density residential areas has been met through the establishment of the
park and promenade areas on both the south and north blocks of the East of Bay lands.
With respect to the south block park development and potential parks development in the
vicinity of the site within Ward 24 including such opportunities as potential parks just to the
east of Yonge Street, the proponent has advised that a cash contribution of $150,000 is being
provided to be secured in the Section 37 agreement. This is acceptable in consideration of
the nature of the amendments, the overall land area being dedicated and the parks
contributions which will also be generated to support the design and development of park
land in a timely manner.
In addition, in view of the public parkland which is to be conveyed, the permanent
improvements which are required for the East of Bay park which total just under one-acre
in size including the north and south block, as well as parkland acquisition and improvement
purposes within the vicinity of the site, it is being recommended that the site be exempted
from the Municipal Code requirements for Parks Conveyance purposes and in lieu thereof,
that Parks Contributions in respect of East of Bay be designated in an "East of Bay Parks and
Vicinity Reserve Fund" for the purposes set out above.
The south and north block parkland will be designed and developed by the City in
consultation with existing and new resident client groups in the area and other interested
parties such as the downtown YMCA. It is anticipated that the south block parkland will be
developed in 1998 and 1999.
The north block parkland development will take place in stages, first as interim landscaping
treatment associated with the phased development of the north block. The open space area
is adjusted with each phase of development as the internal U-shaped service lane is created.
The objectives during this period of build-out are to establish an area which is as wide as
possible, to ensure that it is landscaped on a temporary basis throughout the period of time
and to delay the City's obligations for permanent improvements and maintenance until such
a time as it is desirable to do so, likely following occupancy of Phase V or during
construction of Phase VI. The agreements between the City and the applicant should address
phasing, interim landscaping, default dates in the event development or parkland conveyance
does not occur, construction impacts and other matters of concern to the civic officials as set
out in the draft conditions contained in the Appendix of this report.
2.6 Streetscape and Public Walkways
The proposal includes the conveyance to the City of a 5 metre wide strip of land along Bay
Street. This land will form part of a pedestrian promenade which will be constructed to City
standards with a double row of street trees. This setback area will compliment setbacks areas
on the west side of Bay Street and serve to greatly enhance pedestrian amenity in this area.
Two public walkways are planned to provide pedestrian access from the southeast corner of
Bay and Wellesley Streets and from Wellesley Street west of Yonge Street south into the
new public park.
A 3 metre conveyance is required along Wellesley Street West for road widening and
improvements. A further 2 metre building setback is proposed to provide for an improved
public sidewalk space.
These conveyances and improvements will enhance the amenity and accessibility of this area
for both pedestrians and vehicles. All streetscape and walkway improvements on public and
private land will be constructed to the City's specifications at the developer's cost.
2.7 Environmental Remediation
The applicant has advised of their intention to commence the environmental remediation of
the entire north block site in advance of any development on the north block. This will
include the lands to be dedicated to the City for lane purposes. This work will be undertaken
in compliance with the conditions required by the Medical Officer of Health. Required
reports are to be submitted and approved prior to the introduction of the bills in Council.
2.8 Public Art
The applicant has presented and had approved a Percent for Public Art Plan by the Public Art
Commission. The public art budget will be allocated to the provision of integrated art works
within the south and north block parkland and the Bay and Wellesley Street setback areas and
secured in the Section 37 Agreement.
2.9 Transportation and Servicing
A traffic study was originally submitted to the City in conjunction with development on both
the south and the north block in 1996. As noted, the north block development includes a
two-way north south public lane between Breadalbane and Wellesley Street West, on-site
servicing and private access lane and a widening on Wellesley Street. On the basis of
information and analysis submitted and the beneficial nature of the improvements proposed,
the Commissioner of City Works Services has advised that the traffic generated by the
proposed development can be adequately accommodated by the existing road network with
the access configuration and lane system proposed.
Parking is to be provided in accordance with the City's surveyed parking demand exhibited
by other condominium projects in the area in addition to parking for visitors and for
commercial uses.
2.10 Use
The development will be primarily residential with street related retail and service uses. The
Zoning By-law currently requires 60 percent of the frontage on Bay Street to be retail. In
view of the comprehensive nature of this development and the desirable role retail uses play
in animating the street, I am recommending that the site specific by-law also require the
minimum 60 percent retail frontage on the south side of Wellesley Street West.
2.11 Other Circulation Comments
(i) Metro Trunk Sewer: The development has been deemed to be included in the
allocation of the Simcoe Trunk Sewer capacity given that the total development
density for the south and north block East of Bay lands does not exceed the density
permitted as-of-right.
(ii) I have been advised verbally by the Toronto District School Boards that no objection
will be raised with respect to this application. The Toronto Separate School Board
has not advised the City of its final position as of the date of this report.
2.12 Issues raised by the Public
Two public meetings have been held in the community: one by the Planning Advisory
Committee on June 24, 1997 and one by the applicant on November 26, 1997. Issues raised
at the meetings included the design and safety of the public parkland, concerns about existing
conditions in the area (safety, prostitution), parking for commercial uses, traffic impact,
building height and impacts.
The Sutton Place Hotel and the applicant have agreed on a height reduction to address
concerns expressed by the Hotel earlier in 1997. The applicant has reduced the north tower
from 35 to 33 storeys; such a reduction in total height has been provided, including the
mechanical penthouse, sufficient to allow for the preservation of the existing panoramic view
from Stop 33 restaurant at the top of the Sutton Place Hotel, a prime concern of the Hotel.
I have received several letters from residents of 24 Wellesley Street West and the residential
component of the Sutton Place hotel (floors 19 to 32). Concerns have been expressed about
the impact of the proposal on wind and sunlight conditions, the need to maintain open space
in the area and the further intensification of the neighbourhood. I have had regard for these
comments in discussions with the applicant and addressed these issues in this report. The
applicant and city staff have also met with the Condominium Executive of 24 Wellesley
Street West to explain the proposal and the nature of the existing development permission
on the lands.
While this development is a substantial change from the existing temporary open space on
the site today, it should be emphasized that the site is zoned for substantial residential
development. The City, in discussions with the province over the last several years, and the
community at many public meetings, has worked with the current applicant toward achieving
development which includes substantial public amenities and high quality urban design
which will contribute in a way which minimizes impacts and provides positive
improvements to the general environment of this neighbourhood balanced with the
achievement of housing development goals.
2.13 Implementation
The timing of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments should be co-incident with
the lane closing approvals being requested by the applicant. Necessary agreements should
be entered into prior to the introduction of the bills in Council and should protect the City's
interests in respect of the timing of the lane closing and the potential development scenarios
in the event the phasing does not take place as proposed.
(a) Official Plan Amendment
The Official Plan amendment recommended would permit the total density proposed and
permit the use of Section 37 to secure benefits in exchange for increases in height and
density.
(b) Zoning By-law Amendment
The Zoning By-law Amendment proposed would permit the height and density allocated to
each phase of the development with the required exemptions for height, density and the Bay
Street angular plane. The By-law would also set out the phasing and Section 37 provisions
of the approval. The matters to be secured in the Section 37 Agreement are set out in the
Appendix of this report.
(c) Site Plan Approval
Each phase will be subject to separate Site Plan Approval applications.
Conclusions:
The approvals recommended by this report will secure high quality development of the East of Bay
lands in a comprehensive, well-designed and orderly manner. The development will increase the
economic and social stability of this part of the central core, serve the housing intensification goals
of the Official Plan and respect and achieve objectives for physical form and amenity of public
space.
The increase in height is in keeping with transitions in height within the area and complies with City
standards with respect to visual and physical impacts, light, view and privacy. The approvals
recommended include a benefit package which includes land and funding for a new park just under
one acre in size, off-site parks funding, a new, fully constructed public promenade on Bay Street,
various pedestrian walkways bisecting the site, a new public lane, public art, full environmental
remediation and urban design standards for the future build-out of the site.
I am recommending approval of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments recommended
in this report.
Contact Name:
Gregg Lintern
City Planning Division, East
Phone: 392-7363
Fax: 392-1330
E-mail: glintern@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
Application Data Sheet
| Site Plan Approval: |
N |
|
Application Number: |
197014 |
| Rezoning: |
Y |
|
Application Date: |
April 28, 1997 |
| O. P. A.: |
Y |
|
Date of Revision: |
September 3, 1997 |
Confirmed Municipal Address: 909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street, 14, 16, 20, 26, 30, 38
Breadalbane Street, 11 and 25 Wellesley Street West.
| Nearest Intersection: |
East side of Bay Street; north of Breadalbane Street and south side of
Wellesley Street West. |
|
|
| Project Description: |
To construct a high density mixed use commercial/residential
development. |
| Applicant:
East of Bay DAV. Corp.
65 Overlea Blvd. #300
421-3020 |
Agent:
East of Bay DAV. Corp.
65 Overlea Blvd. #300
421-3020 |
Architect:
Fliess Gates McGowan Easton
1129 Leslie Street
445-1136 |
PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)
| Official Plan
Designation: |
HDMCR"A" / MDMCR |
Site Specific
Provision: |
No |
| Zoning District: |
CR T4.0 C1.0 R4.0; CR
T6.0 C1.0 R6.0 |
Historical Status: |
No |
| Height Limit (m): |
30.0; 46.0 |
Site Plan Control: |
Yes |
PROJECT INFORMATION
| Site Area: |
15018.5 m2 |
|
Height: |
Storeys: |
33 |
| Frontage: |
|
|
|
Metres: |
91.64 |
| Depth: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indoor |
Outdoor |
|
|
| Ground Floor: |
|
|
Parking
Spaces: |
786 |
|
|
|
| Residential GFA: |
74220.0 m2 |
|
Loading
Docks: |
2 |
B |
|
|
|
|
| Non-Residential
GFA: |
4180.0 m2 |
|
(number, type) |
2 |
G |
|
|
|
|
| Total GFA: |
78400.0 m2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Dwelling Units |
|
Floor Area Breakdown |
| Tenure: |
Condo |
|
|
|
Land Use |
Above Grade |
Below Grade |
| Total
Units: |
825 |
|
|
|
Residential |
74220.0 m2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commercial |
4180.0 m2 |
|
| Proposed Density |
|
|
| Residential Density: 4.94 |
Non-Residential Density: 0.28 |
Total Density: 5.22 |
| Status: |
Preliminary Report dated May 13, 1997 adopted by LUC on May 15, 1997. June
1997 public meeting. Applicant submitted revised drawings. |
| Data valid: |
March 6, 1998 |
Section: |
CP East |
Phone: |
392-7333 |
--------
Appendix A
Proposed Official Plan Amendment
Section 18 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto is amended by adding as Section 18.__
the following text and map substantially as set out below:
Lands known as 909, 931, 935 and 945 Bay Street, 14, 16, 20, 26, 30 and 38 Breadalbane Street and
11 and 25 Wellesley Street West (North Block - East of Bay Lands).
(1) Despite any of the provisions of this Plan relating to the residential and non-residential
density pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, Council may pass by-laws respecting the
lot shown on Map 18. __ to increase the height limits and the maximum residential gross
floor area permitted on the lot to 74,220 square metres and to decrease the amount of non-residential gross floor area permitted on the lot to 4,180 square metres, if the Owners of the
lot are required by the by-law to:
(a) pay to the City of Toronto $150,000 in cash or provide security for that amount by
letter of credit for park improvements at the time a zoning by-law is passed pursuant
to this amendment;
(b) construct to City standards the new public lane east of the lot prior to the closing and
conveyance of the existing lanes on the lot;
(c) provide space within the development for the construction of utility vaults and access
holes;
(d) provide improvements to the public boulevard and public sidewalk and parts of the
lot adjacent to thereto or pay for the improvements to be provided;
(e) compliance with Noise Impact Statement
(f) compliance with Soil and Groundwater Management Plan for the entire lot and the
land to be conveyed to the City;
(g) identify and secure in detail, obligations relating to the establishment of a park on the
lot, including the maintenance and repair of the underground parking structure,
conveyance, indemnification, insurance, legal descriptions and plans of survey,
interim maintenance of the park, park improvements, letters of credit, public
consultation, park utilities and services, design and construction drawings, grading
and fill and top soil quality and depth inspection, certifications, default, warranties,
remedial work, preparation and implementation of a tree plan, access and lighting of
pathways, construction and maintenance of the park, park design and changes, load
bearing capacity of the roof of the underground structure, drainage, the restoration
of the park after construction, rough grading, ground and storm water management,
phasing of park improvements, operation of abutting private roadways, finished
elevations, lighting of the park, condition of abutting lands and structures, linkage of
the park to Bay and Wellesley Street West, and provision of interim landscaping on
all unfinished Parcels;
(h) amendments to the Section 37 Agreement as may required for each phase of
development
(i) convey a contiguous 2,017 square metre parcel of land to the City to create a new
park on the lot, in whole or in phases subject to agreement
(j) not apply for the issuance of above grade building permits until the Medical Officer
of Health of the City receives a satisfactory site verification testing report,
certification that the remediation of the lot has been completed in accordance with
the approved Soil and Groundwater Management Plan and verification that a Record
of Site Condition has been submitted to the Minister of the Environment and Energy
(k) convey a five metre wide strip of land along Bay Street, for nominal consideration
and free of encumbrances;
(l) convey a 3 metre wide strip of land along Wellesley Street West for nominal
consideration and free of encumbrances;
(m) provide Public Art in accordance with the approved Public Art Plan;
(n) provide and maintain satisfactory public walkways through the Wellesley and Bay
Street frontages to the Park;
(o) implement development in accordance with the Urban Design Guidelines;
(p) convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 0.31
metre wide strip of land to the full extent of the lot abutting the west limit of the
north-south public lane, free and clear of all encumbrances;
(q) not apply for the issuance of above grade building permits until the Medical Officer
of Health of the City receives a satisfactory site verification testing report,
certification that the remediation of the lot has been completed in accordance with
the approved Soil and Groundwater Management Plan and verification that a Record
of Site Condition has been submitted to the Minister of the Environment and Energy;
(r) provides all Reference Plans of Survey, that will be required for the various
agreements, conveyances and/or land exchanges, including the lane and park
conveyances and road widenings;
(s) submits a satisfactory grading and drainage plan for the entire lot prior to approval
of the first building permit on any Parcel on the lot.
(t) implement the facilities services and matters set forth in sections 1(1)(a) to (t) within
the time frames provided for each such facility, service or matter in the agreement
referred to in section 1(1)(r);
(u) enter into one or more agreements satisfactory to the City of Toronto, pursuant to
Section 37 of the Planning Act, to secure the facilities, services and matters required
to be provided by subsections (1)(a) to (q) and such agreement is registered on title
to the lot as a first charge against the lands;
(v) phase the development of the north block in accordance with the following maximum
square metre limitations identified by parcel on Map 18.__:
Phase Maximum Residential Maximum Non-Residential
Gross Floor Area Gross Floor Area
3 21,490 500
4 25,800 975
5 16,360 2190
6 10,590 515
(2) Section 16.10 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto does not apply to the lands
established as the new north south public lane as widened provided the lands are conveyed
to the City for fair market value.
Map to be attached showing lot, parcels for each phase, Bay and Wellesley Street West widenings,
land conveyed for parks and lane purposes.
--------
Appendix B
Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment
That the Zoning By-law , By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended substantially set out below so
as to:
(a) exempt the site from Sections 4(2)(a), 8(3)PART I 1, 8(3) Part I 1(3)(a) and
12(2)260 (I) of By-law 438-86, as amended;
(b) permit the erection and use of a building, constructed in phases, in four above grade
buildings, provided:
(i) the lot on which such buildings are located comprises at least those lands
delineated on Map 2 attached to this report;
(ii) no part of the building above grade extends beyond the area shown on Map
2 attached to this report;
(iii) the heights of the building do not exceed the heights in metres above grade
shown on Map 2 attached to this report exclusive of parapets and rooftop
structures and elements permitted by and complying with Sections 4(2) (a)
(I) or (ii) of the By-law 438-86;
(iv) not more than the gross floor area in square metres is erected and used in
accordance with the following table:
Phase Maximum Residential Maximum Non-residential
Gross Floor Area Gross Floor Area
3 21,490 500
4 25,800 975
5 16,360 2,190
6 10,590 515
(v) the parking facilities required by By-law 438-86 shall apply to each parcel of
the lot except that parking shall be provided only in an underground garage
located on the lot and in the case of dwelling units, parking shall meet the
following standards:
not less than 0.3 parking spaces for each bachelor dwelling unit;
not less than 0.7 parking spaces for each one bedroom dwelling unit ;
not less than 1.0 parking spaces for each two bedroom dwelling unit;
not less than 1.2 parking spaces for each three or more bedroom dwelling
unit, and
not less than 0.06 parking spaces for each dwelling unit, for visitors;
(vi) the lot is developed in not more than four phases as shown on Map 2 attached
to this report
(vii) non-residential gross floor area is restricted to street-related retail and service
uses
(viii) at least 60 percent of the aggregate length of the portion of the frontage
abutting Wellesley Street West is used for the purpose of street-related retail
and service uses
(ix) a loading lane, at least 3.5 metres in width adjacent to the 1-way portion of
the portion of the internal at grade driveway system is provided and
maintained;
(x) the owner of the lot, at their expense, enter into of a Section 37 Agreement
in accordance with the Planning Act to secure those facilities, services and
matters set out in the Official Plan Amendment contained in Appendix A of
this report;
2. Definitions:
(1) Colonnade means a covered publicly accessible pedestrian walkway with a
row of columns along one side and an exterior wall of the building along the
other side, with a width, free of obstructions including columns and supports,
of not less than 3.5 metres and a clear height of not less than 6.5 metres, save
and except for any canopy erected therein
(2) a) for the Phase 3 lands, grade means 105.98 metres Canadian Geodetic
Datum;
b) for the Phase 4 lands, grade means 106.22 metres Canadian Geodetic
Datum;
c) for the Phase 5 lands, grade means 107.02 metres Canadian Geodetic
Datum;
d) for the Phase 6 lands, grade means 105.99 metres Canadian Geodetic
Datum;
(3) height limit means the level above grade for each area shown outlined on
Map 2 attached to this report;
(4) public art means site-specific artworks created to enhance the lot or City-owned lands through artistic interpretations that range from independent
sculpture to integrated architectural treatment and landscape design and
within or clearly visible from publicly accessible areas;
3. Section 12(6) of By-law 438-86 does not apply to the lands to be established as a
new north south lane as widened provided the lands are conveyed to the City for fair
market value.
Maps to be attached showing lot, Parcels for each Phase, Bay Street and Wellesley Street
West widenings, park and north south lane conveyances substantially as set out on the Maps
attached to this report.
--------
Appendix C
Section 37 Agreement Provisions
The provision of the facilities, services and matters substantially as set out below shall be secured
in a Section 37 Agreement between the City and the owner. Further reference should be made to the
Final Report dated March 18, 1998 and to provisions contained in existing agreements entered into
between the City and the owner including the January 23, 1997 Land Exchange Agreement and the
April 30, 1997 Master Plan Agreement all of which shall form the basis of the Section 37
Agreement, all to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor in consultation with the appropriate civic
officials.
1. Urban Design and Site Plan Guidelines (including provision for public pedestrian walkways)
2. Environmental Remediation of the North Block
3. Conveyance of North Block Parkland / Support / Easements / Indemnity / Insurance and the
development and funding of North and South Block Parkland including such matters as set
out in the Memo from the Director, Development and Support, Parks and Recreation,
Toronto dated March 17, 1998 including the establishment of the "East of Bay Parklands and
Vicinity Reserve Fund" comprised of Park Contributions from the phased development of
the North Block
4. Payment of $150,000 to the City in respect of the increase in height and density on the lot
5. Bay Street Conveyance
6. Wellesley Street Conveyance and Setbacks
7. East/West Lane Conveyance
8. North/South Lane Replacement/Reconstruction
9. Public Art
10. Physical Improvements within City Right of Ways / On-site public pedestrian walkways
11. Transformer Vaults, Hydro, Bell and Sewer
12. Development Phasing
13. Noise Impact / Material Recovery and Waste Reduction
14. Other conditions required to protect City interests
--------
Appendix D
Comments from Civic Officials
1. City Works Services, March 6, 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 loading lane, a least 3.5 m in width adjacent to the 1-way
portion of the driveway system generally as shown on the Phasing Diagram (Drawing
No. PD-1) dated September 4, 1997, prepared by Fliess Gates McGowan Eastan
Architects;
(c) Provide and maintain parking for the residential condominium units in accordance
with the following ratios:
Type of Unit Minimum Parking Requirement
Bachelor units 0.3 spaces/unit
1 Bedroom units 0.7 spaces/unit
2 Bedroom units 1.0 spaces/unit
3 or more Bedroom units 1.2 spaces/unit
Visitor Parking Requirement 0.06 spaces/unit
(d) Provide and maintain parking for the commercial component of the project in
accordance with the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law;
(e) Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 0.31
m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the west limit of the north-south public lane extending northerly from Breadalbane 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;
(f) Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 3 m
wide strip of land and a 5 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting
the south limit of Wellesley Street West and the east limit of Bay Street, respectively,
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 to the Grantor until such
time as said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;
(g) Provide all Reference Plans of Survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario
Co-ordinate System that will be required for the various agreements, conveyances
and/or land exchanges, including the lane and road widenings referred to in
Recommendation Nos. 1(e) and 1(f) above;
(h) Submit to the Commissioner of City Works 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 the introduction of a bill in
Council;
(i) Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of City Works Services, prior
to the introduction of a bill in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with
City Council's requirements;
(j) Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the
Commissioner of City Works Services that the development has been designed and
constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the
Commissioner of City Works Services; and
(k) Provide and maintain and operate the project in accordance with the noise impact and
traffic impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the respective
plan/studies approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services.
2. That the owner be advised 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
City Works 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.
3. That the owner be advised that in the event that a storm drain is required for the project, that
it will be necessary to connect the storm drain to the Wellesley Street West storm sewer.
4. That the owner be required to submit and have approved by the Commissioner of City Works
Services, a grading and drainage plan for the site prior to approval of the first site plan
application for the site.
5. That the owner be advised of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge
associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection.
6. In connection with the Site Plan Review Applications to be submitted for each phase:
(a) Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of City Works Services
prior to filing a formal application for each building permit;
(b) Provide additional details depicting the proposed location of the Type G loading
space(s) within the service lane;
(c) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to
the front of the Type G loading space(s);
(d) Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading spaces on the site, with a generally level
surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward
motion;
(e) Construct the Type G loading spaces 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;
(f) Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the
Type G loading space(s) 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;
(g) Provide and maintain level, hard-surface service connections for the residential and
commercial uses of each phase, between the refuse/recyclable storage room and the
loading space proposed to serve that phase;
(h) Provide and maintain service connections between the residential moving rooms,
each commercial use and the proposed loading lane;
(i) Agree to keep the designated loading space free and clear of parked vehicles on
refuse/recyclable collection days;
(j) Provide details of the parking layout, including proposed location of knock out
panels, details of the proposed physical separation between the residential and non-residential components of the garage; and
(k) Provide details of the proposed tunnel under Breadalbane Street, if proposed.
7. That the lands conveyed to the City under Recommendation Nos. 1(e) and 1(f) above, be laid
out and thereafter dedicated, by the City, for public highway purposes.
8. That the owner be advised of the need to receive approval of the Commissioner of City
Works Services for any work to be carried out within the existing and proposed road
allowance.
9. That the owner be advised of the need to obtain building location and streetscape permits
from the Transportation Department prior to the construction of this project.
Comments:
Location
A rectangular parcel on the east side of Bay Street, extending between Breadalbane Street and
Wellesley Street West.
Proposal
Construction of a 4-phase project (identified as Phases 3, 4, 5 and 6) consisting of 4 mixed-use
towers and a park. The project will contain approximately 825 condominium dwelling units and
approximately 3,350 m² of commercial space. An underground garage containing a total of 786
parking spaces is proposed to extend beneath the entire project. No details have been provided to
date with respect to the layout or phasing of the parking garage(s) and location of knock-out panels
(if any).
Previous Application
The current proposal supercedes Rezoning Application No. 2339 for the site, which dealt with a
mixed office/retail/residential proposal.
Lane Closing
The project is contingent on the closing of an east-west public lane extending easterly from Bay
Street and a north-south public lane extending southerly from Wellesley Street West, and the
opening of a new 6.09 m wide north-south public lane extension to Wellesley Street West. The lane
closing application is currently being processed under separate cover. There are matters which must
be satisfactorily resolved prior to the closing, including resolution of certain land
ownership/easement issues and the possible relocation of a Hydro transformer vault. Given that the
first phase of construction includes part of the east-west public lane proposed to be closed, it will be
necessary to secure the construction of the new lane outlet to Wellesley Street West, to City
standards, prior to approval of the proposed rezoning.
Road Widenings/Conveyances
The plans show a proposed 5 m widening to the full extent of the site abutting Bay Street, and a 3
m widening coupled with an additional 2 m wide setback to the full extent of the site abutting
Wellesley Street West. In addition, a 0.26 m widening is proposed along the west limit of the 5.49
m wide north-south public lane to be extended in conjunction with the aforementioned Lane Closing
Application.
The 3 m widening along the south side of Wellesley Street West was originally requested in
connection with a previous development proposal to, in part, accommodate passenger pick-up and
drop-off activity associated with the then-proposed Ballet-Opera House. There is merit in
maintaining this requirement to improve traffic operations and pedestrian environment in the area,
and therefore, the widening requirement is being maintained in connection with the current
development application.
The proposed 5 m conveyance to widen Bay Street is consistent with the Phase 1 and 2 application
currently under construction on the block between Grosvenor and Breadalbane Streets. Although
not required for public highway purposes from a traffic perspective, the City secured the widening
to provide for enhanced pedestrian environment and urban design features. If a similar conveyance
is required in connection with the current application, the applicant should be required to submit an
application to the Commissioner of City Works Services for improvements to the
sidewalk/boulevard area generally as shown on a Landscape Plan. These improvements must be
acceptable to your Department and the owner must agree to undertake such improvements in
accordance with the plan approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services within a reasonable
period of time or, at the request of this Department, make a cash contribution to the City equal to the
value of the improvements for the work to be undertaken by the City as part of a comprehensive
program. It will also be necessary to identify the lands to be conveyed to the City as a separate
PART on a Reference Plan of Survey.
The existing north-south public lane has a width of 5.49 m and in accordance with City Council
policy for lanes serving commercial properties should be widened to a minimum width of 6 m. The
proposed conveyance of a 0.26 m wide strip of land is in accordance with City policy, but in order
to align with the proposed 6.1 m wide lane outlet, the widening should be increased to 0.31 m.
Requirements for the conveyance are set out in Recommendation Nos. 1(e), 1(f) and 1(g) above.
Work Within the Road Allowances
The proposal will include the installation of new sidewalk, decorative paving and trees within the
abutting road allowances. It will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this
Department in respect of the work.
The applicant is required to obtain building location and streetscape permits from the Transportation
Department prior to construction of this project. Other permits associated with construction
activities (such as hoarding, pilling/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.
Proposed Tunnel
An earlier proposal for the East of Bay Lands located on the block to the south of this site indicated
a proposed tunnel under Breadalbane Street connecting the parking garages for the two projects. If
the owner intends to proceed with the tunnel application, further information should be provided on
the plans which must be submitted for Site Plan Review for the project.
Municipal Services
The existing water mains and storm and sanitary sewers in the vicinity of the site are adequate to
accommodate the proposed development.
It is noted that the development has been deemed to be included in the allocation of the Simcoe
Trunk Sewer capacity given that the proposed redeploying of unused density from the south block
of the East of Bay development to the north block (current proposal) results in a total development
density for the East of Bay lands which is equivalent to the "as-of-right" density.
Parking and Access
The proposed provision of about 786 parking spaces including 50 spaces for residential visitors and
34 spaces for the commercial component satisfies the estimated demand for 779 spaces (based on
the surveyed parking demand exhibited by other condominium projects in the area) and the estimated
Zoning By-law requirement, as far as can be ascertained, for 594 spaces. Given that the proposed
unit mix has not been finalized, the parking requirement for the residential component, by unit size
should be secured in the Site Plan By-law as set out in Recommendation No. 1© above. The
detailed parking requirement could then be determined in accordance with the Site Plan By-law in
conjunction with the Site Plan Review applications to be submitted for each phase.
No details have been provided to date with respect to the commercial uses (e.g. retail, restaurant,
office, etc.). Parking for the commercial component should be provided in accordance with the
minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law.
It will be necessary to physically separate the residential and commercial components of the parking
garage. The residential visitor spaces could be provided in either the residential component or the
commercial component. These details must be illustrated on the plans submitted for Site Plan
Review.
Access/egress to and from the parking garage are proposed from an internal driveway connecting
to Breadalbane Street. The proposed access configuration is acceptable.
Traffic Study
A traffic study was undertaken by B-A Consulting Group Limited, and submitted under date of
May 10, 1996, for the Phase 1 and 2 lands, immediately to the south of the site. Comments were
provided to the consultant, copy to your Department, in an August 6, 1996 Departmental letter.
This study, which included an assessment of the traffic generated by Phases 3 to 6 of this
development, has been re-evaluated with specific reference to the current proposal. The latest
proposal is for development of a total of 1138 units (all phases) as compared to 1113 units
considered in the Traffic Impact Study submitted in 1996. It is estimated the latest proposal will
generate less than 10 additional vehicle trips onto the road network during the peak hours compared
to the original proposal, with no more than one or two additional vehicles per hour added to any one
turning movement. This increase over the original traffic assessment figures is acceptable since it
is well within the range of variation in day-to-day traffic volumes and will have a negligible impact
on the street system.
The introduction of the two-way public lane between Wellesley Street West and Breadalbane Street
in conjunction with this development will serve to provide an alternative choice for the site traffic
accessing Yonge Street and Bay Street northbound. In particular, it could be a benefit to northbound
traffic flow at the intersection of Bay Street/Wellesley Street West in the evening peak hour and
eastbound left turn movements at the intersection of Breadalbane Street/Yonge Street in the morning
peak hour, both of which are forecast to experience some congestion and delay as a result of volume
of background traffic.
On the basis of the information and analysis submitted by the consultant, the traffic generated by the
proposed development can be adequately accommodated by the existing road network with the
access configuration and lane system proposed.
Refuse Handling, Storage and Disposal
The City will provide the residential components of the project with the bulk lift method of refuse
collection service in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid
Waste. This requires the provision and maintenance of a Type G loading space(s) designed so that
trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion.
A continuous loading lane is proposed along the building side of the circular driveway off
Breadalbane Street serving all four buildings. The driveway is proposed to be one-way in a
clockwise direction, except for short segments on the easterly and westerly legs which provide two-way access/egress for the two proposed parking ramps to the underground garage. This proposal is
acceptable in principle subject to the following:
- The provision of adequate turning radii to enable trucks to enter from and exit to
Breadalbane Street in a forward motion. (This appears to have been provided for in
the current plans);
- That the actual location of the Type G loading space(s) is (are) depicted within the
loading lane by means of pavement markings and/or different pavement treatment;
- The owner agreeing to keep the loading lane free and clear of parked vehicles on
refuse and recyclable collection days;
- That a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% be provided adjacent to the
Type G loading space to store the appropriate number of bins (to be determined in
conjunction with the Site Plan Application to be submitted);
- That level service connections, paved in concrete or other hard surface, be provided
between each refuse/recyclable storage room for each building and the Type G
loading space proposed to service that building, details to be provided in conjunction
with the required Site Plan Application; and
- That the Type G loading space and all driveways and passageways providing access
thereto, be constructed 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;
Requirements for garbage and recycling storage rooms and commercial collection will be
determined in conjunction with the more detailed project information to be supplied for the Site Plan
Review Applications which are required for the 4 phases.
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.
Material Recovery and Waste Reduction
Eligibility for an exemption from the requirement for Material Recovery and Waste Reduction
reports will be determined in conjunction with the Site Plan Applications.
Noise Impact Statement
The owner is required to submit a satisfactory Noise Impact Statement for the project.
Storm Water Management
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 is not the ground is not
feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the
Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787)."
2. Metro Planning, October 7, 1997
"We have reviewed the application from a Metropolitan perspective and have no objections to its
approval subject to the City confirming that the proposed development has been included in its plan
for allocation of the Simcoe Trunk Sewer capacity.
Sanitary flow from the subject development will drain to the Metropolitan Toronto mid Toronto
Interceptor for treatment at the Main Sewage Treatment Plan. As a result of construction of the
Simcoe Trunk Relief Sewer, additional capacity for sanitary flow for an equivalent population of
47,000 can now be allocated for redevelopment applications involving rezoning to higher densities
in the Interceptor's drainage area in the City of Toronto.
This trunk sewer relief capacity may be the only capacity available for the next five years unless the
expansion of the Main Treatment Plant receives an early Ministry of Environment and Energy
approval following an individual environmental assessment, and approval of its construction by the
new Council.
The applicant should be requested to investigate any opportunity to reduce the volume and rate of
stormwater runoff and to improve the quality of stormwater discharges in accordance with Metro's
Official Plan policies 177 to 179. Storm and sanitary drainage from the proposed development
should be separated and be consistent with the City of Toronto's programme of sewer separation.
Metro Works have advised us that the water supply for this area will be provided from our No. 2
pressure district and will be adequate.
The Toronto Transit Commission have noted that there is an existing northbound bus stop on Bay
Street, south of Wellesley Street, and no driveway accesses should be located within 30m of the
stop."
3. Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings Section, January 29, 1998
"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description: Construct mixed-use development
Zoning Designation: CR T4.0 C1.0 R4.0/CR 6.0 C1.0 R6.0Map:50H 323
Applicable By-law(s): 438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by: Fliess Gates McGowan Easton ArchitectsPlans dated:September 17, 1997
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 maximum permitted height of 46.0 metres for the portion of the lot wholly within
the CR T6.0 zoning district is being exceeded. Proposed is 100.0 metres. (Section
4(2)(a)) |
| 2. |
The requirements of Section 4(10)(a),(c) and (d) are to be complied with. |
| 3. |
The by-law limits the maximum combined non-residential gross floor area and
residential gross floor area to not more than 6.0 times the area of the portion of the lot
located wholly within the CR T6.0 zoning district: 35,275.56 square metres. The
proposed building has 46,500.0 square metres of combined non-residential gross floor
area and residential gross floor area. (Section 8(3) PART I 1) |
| 4. |
The by-law limits the maximum residential gross floor area to not more than 6.0 times
the area of the portion of the lot located wholly within the CR T6.0 zoning district:
35,275.56 square metres. The proposed residential gross floor area of the building is
45,100.0 square metres. (Section 8(3) PART I 3(a)) |
| 5. |
The windows of the dwelling units must be 11 metres from a window of another
dwelling unit located on the same lot. (Section 8(3) PART II 1(a)(I)) |
| 6. |
The windows of dwelling units must be 5.5 metres from a lot line that is not a street line.
(Section 8(3) PART II 1(a)(ii)) |
| 7. |
The requirements with respect to "street-related retail and service uses" are to be
complied with (Section 12(2) 259) |
| 8. |
The proposed building is to be within a 60 degree angular plane measured at a height of
34 metres above the average elevation of the sidewalk along the Bay Street frontage
(Section 12(2) 260(I)) |
| 9. |
Please note that this report will be subject to change as the plans submitted improve. |
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. |
The proposal DOES NOT require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of
the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989. |
| 4. |
The property is located in a heritage conservation district, and the proposal requires the
approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act. |
| 5. |
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." |
4. Public Health, August 18, 1997
Thank you for your request of May 20, 1997 to review and comment on the above referenced
application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer
the following comments.
Comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a High Density Mixed Use Residential/Commercial
development. A review of the files available to us indicates that this site was zoned industrial in
1949.
Additional information is required by EHS staff in order to adequately conduct a review of the
environmental conditions at the subject site. This should include a Historical Review, Site and
Building Audit, Soil and Groundwater Management Plan and a Dust Control Plan, details of which
are included in the enclosed attachment.
This information will help to identify any environmental concerns with respect to the subject
property.
Recommendations:
1. That the owner shall immediately conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify all
existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the subject
site. This report should be submitted for review by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the
introduction of a Bill in Council.
2. That the owner shall conduct a site audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site.
The removal of these materials should be conducted in accordance with Ministry of Labour and
Ministry of the Environment and Energy Guidelines. A report on the site audit should be
submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the introduction of a Bill in
Council.
3. That the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and
Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil conditions and proposes remediation
options to be submitted for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the introduction
of a Bill in Council.
4. That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental
consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by
the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site
environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has
been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.
5. That the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan for approval by the
Medical Officer of Health prior to the issuance of any building permit.
6. That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical
Officer of Health.
By copy of this letter please inform the applicant with respect to this matter. If you have any
questions contact me at 392-7685".
5. Parks and Recreation, March 17, 1998.
The following comments are provided with respect to the proposed development of Phases 3 through
6, the North Block, of the East of Bay lands. It is my understanding that a Section 37 agreement will
secure matters related to project phasing, required parkland conveyances and parkland
improvements, including but not limited to interim and long terms maintenance responsibilities,
timing of conveyances and parkland improvement contributions, interim site and parkland
landscaping, and park utilities and services. Further, issues relating to each site, such as streetscape
improvements, on-site landscaping and other site specific matters will be secured as part of the
individual applications for Site Plan Approval. I would ask that you ensure that proposed activities
to occur within and abutting the "ring road" around the park seek to animate and enrich parkland
activities; service functions within the lane should be well-designed and integrated into the building,
parking should not be permitted on the lane, etc.
The funding contribution attributable to the S. 37 bonus is to be allocated in the following manner:
First to East of Bay Parkland improvements; and any remaining funds to parkland improvements in
Ward 24.
With respect to the proposals around parkland and park improvements for the site, the attached draft
terms and conditions generally represent the agreements that have been reached with the owner's
representatives. We will work closely with legal and planning staff on the detailed wording of the
various provisions for the agreement over the next few weeks. The following recommendations
should be included in your report:
That the provisions of the Section 37 agreement include the following broad terms and conditions:
(a) the conveyance of parkland on the site will coincide with the phasing of the development lands
as is generally shown on the Phasing Diagram denoted as PD-1, prepared by Fleiss Gates
McGowan Easton Architects and dated March 6, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of
Planning and Urban Development Services, and will be such that the final area of the Parklands
shall be no less than 2 017 square metres, exclusive of the area taken up by stairwell access to
the underground garage;
(b) the owner will be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the interim parklands until
a decision is made by the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation,
to commence installation of permanent parkland improvements which shall be no later than:
(i) 5 years following occupancy of the Phase 3 development; or
(ii) following conveyance of the Phase 4 parklands;
whichever comes first; or
(iii) upon such other terms as may be agreed to by the owner and the city.
(c) the owner will provide on the day before issuance of each first building permit for each
individual phase of the proposed development, a Parks Contribution as follows (these values
are as at March, 1998; the agreement will provide for escalation to then current dollars
depending on timing of construction):
(i) Phase 3: $331,388 (ii) Phase 4: $403,498
(iii) Phase 5: $279,549 (iv) Phase 6: $167,352
such Park Contributions shall be deposited into a segregated interest-bearing reserve fund that
shall be designated as the "East of Bay Parks and Vicinity Reserve Fund", such funds will be used
solely for the purposes of permanent improvements to the East of Bay Parklands, as well as
parkland acquisitions and improvements within the boundaries of Ward 24, in accordance with
the recommendation of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Area Parks and
Recreation.
(d) the details of the parkland conveyances and park contributions shall be in accordance with the
requirements of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, and
shall be set out in the Section 37 Agreement, in accordance with existing precedent
arrangements.
That the Planning report include the following recommendation with respect to the Parks Levy:
(__) subject to execution of the Section 37 Agreement, and in view of agreements made therein
securing the conveyance of 2 017 sq.m. of public parkland and the provision of the Park
Contributions referred to in ____ above, that City Council authorize an amendment to
Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Lands for Parks Purposes, of the Toronto Municipal
Code, to exempt therefrom the development of the lands to the extent permitted by the
subject Zoning By-law Amendment.
Attached are draft provisions dealing with Parkland matters. These provisions are largely taken from
existing precedent park arrangements.
Please feel free to contact Rob Watson of my staff (2-0582) should you have any questions or require
any further clarification.
--------
DRAFT PARK AND PROVISIONS
EAST OF BAY - PHASES 3 - 6 DEVELOPMENT LANDS
Conveyance of Parkland:
With respect to each phase of the project, conveyance of the Parkland shall occur prior to the earlier
of:
i) prior to the first occupancy of the respective residential condominium buildings; or
ii) prior to the release of the final plan of the respective condominium for registration.
the owner shall convey to the City the lands generally identified as:
i) the surface area of the lands identified as Interim or Proposed Park on the Phasing Diagram
denoted as PD-1, prepared by Fleiss Gates McGowan Easton Architects and dated March 6, 1998
and on-file with the Commissioner of Planning and Urban Development Services on March ,
1998.
ii) the 1.524 metre required strata depths of the above-noted parklands, such conveyance shall not
include the sub-surface elements, ventilation equipment related to the sub-surface elements,
stairwell access/egress related to the sub-surface elements or the "Garage Protection System"
which may be installed above the concrete slab, or any vehicular/pedestrian circulation/access
requirements related to the Development Lands. For the purposes of this agreement "Garage
Protection System" means:
"All those facilities and appurtenances constructed and owned by the Owner and located in the
Subsurface Property between the roof of the underground parking garage and the lowest levels
of the Lands, without limiting the foregoing, this includes the waterproofing membrane on top
of the filter cloth, the roof drainage system, and any other facilities that may be constructed by
the owner to protect the garage roof slab."
Park Area:
The owner shall provide a strata conveyance of public parkland not less than 2017 square metres in
size, exclusive of the stairwell structure. Such strata conveyance shall be in accordance with the
requirement s of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation.
Required Plan of Survey and As Built Survey Plan:
Prior to conveyance of the Parklands to the City and prior to installation of the Interim Landscaping,
the Owner shall have prepared and shall submit for review and approval by the City a Plan of Survey
which represents the as-built condition of the underground structural elements below the parklands
which construction is to have occurred consistent with the strata descriptions set out above in _____,
such that the parkland will generally have 1.524 m soil depth above the garage protection system.
The Plan of Survey shall be prepared in a form acceptable to City Works Services, in consultation
with Parks and Recreation.
Temporary Parkland Improvements
The owner shall prepare a plan detailing the proposed temporary improvements to the initial
parkland conveyance for review and approval of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto
Parks and Recreation. Such improvements shall be carried out by the owner, at the owner's expense
and in accordance with the approved plan.
Condition of Parkland upon Conveyance:
The owner shall provide in connection with the parklands that are to be conveyed as part of the
development of each of Phases 4, 5 and 6 (described above in ____), "Interim Landscaping". For
the purposes of this agreement "Interim Landscaping" shall include "Backfill", "Topsoil" and "Sod"
such that:
All Backfill material used to restore the grade and elevation of the said lands shall meet the
unrestricted land use criteria set forth in the Ontario Ministry of the Environment's interim soil
management policy , including without limitation, that such backfilled material shall be selected
material from excavation or other sources for the use intended, unfrozen and free of rocks larger than
75 mm, cinders, ashes, sods, refuse or other deleterious materials; all backfill material shall be
approved by Parks and Recreation prior to its installation. All backfill material is to be compacted
to 80% standard proctor density and that the backfilled material should include, as a top layer, a
minimum of 4 inches of topsoil that has been fine graded to remove all debris and stones. Prior to
installation of the Backfill material, the owner shall request a representative of the Director of
Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, to inspect and approve the said material
prior to it being used on the site.
"Topsoil" shall mean fertile, friable, natural loam, containing not less than 4% organic matter for
clay loams and not less than 2% organic matter for sandy loams, to a maximum of 15%, and capable
of sustaining vigorous plant growth, free of sub-soil contamination, roots and stones over 50
millimetres in diameter, soil sterilants and growth inhibitors, reasonably free of weeds, and having
a pH range from 6.0 to 7.5.
The owner shall install the Sod, including installation of a 50 mm diameter water line for watering
the sod, all to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation in accordance with good
landscaping/horticultural practices. For the purposes of this Subsection "Sod" shall mean Certified
No. 1 cultivated turf grade sod, grown in accordance with Metric Guide Specifications for Nursery
Stock prepared by the Canadian Nursery Trades Association and to be:
i) Number 1 Kentucky Bluegrass grown from minimum 60 % Kentucky Bluegrass and 40 %
Creeping Fescue;
ii) in healthy, vigorous growing condition at the time of installation; and
iii) kept moist and protected if it cannot be laid immediately upon arrival on the site.
Interim Maintenance of Parkland:
Subsequent to the conveyance of the initial Parklands to the City, the owner shall be responsible for,
but not limited to, the maintenance, insurance, taxes, charges and the like until the City commences
installation of permanent improvements in accordance with Section ___ of this agreement. The
owner shall maintain the Initial Parklands and the Temporary Parkland Improvements in a manner
consistent with other public parklands owned and operated by the City of Toronto, until such time
as the City commences Permanent Parkland Improvements in accordance with ___ of this
Agreement. During this maintenance period, the owner shall insure the Initial Parklands in a manner
as would normally be secured by a prudent owner from time to time to 100% of the replacement
value of the Parkland against loss or damage by perils of "all risks" (being the perils from time to
time included in the standard form of "all risks" policy issued by insurers from time to time) to the
extent available and generally obtained from time to time by owners of park development properties
in the City. Such policies shall, in addition, insure both the City and the Owner during all phases
of construction and maintenance by the Owner as their interests may appear.
The owner shall also be responsible for the maintenance of the subsequent parkland conveyances
which are improved in accordance with the basic standards referred to in ____ until such time as the
city formally accepts responsibility for the parkland as conveyed.
Timing of Interim Landscaping and Parkland Conveyance:
The Interim Landscaping and conveyance of the respective phases of Parkland to the City shall occur
in accordance with the phasing plans and be completed the earlier of:
i) prior to the first occupancy of the respective residential condominium buildings; and
ii) prior to the release of the final plan of the respective condominium for registration.
Upon conveyance, the Interim Landscaping shall be completed to the city's specifications.
(Securities to ensure this is so?
Description of City Parkland Ownership:
For clarity, the conveyance of Parkland to the City shall include the ownership in fee simple of the
surface, strata below grade (described in provision __ above) and of all air space lying above the
Parklands.
In order to ensure that adequate funding is available for permanent park improvements on the East
of Bay Lands and for the acquisition of local area parkland and for carrying out local area parks and
recreation improvements, as appropriate, within the boundaries of Ward 24, the owner will deposit
the Parks Contribution attributable to each phase of the development in a segregated interest-bearing
reserve fund which will be designated as the "East of Bay Parks and Vicinity Reserve Fund".
Parkland Improvement Contribution:
The Parkland Contribution shall be the following amounts:
(i) Phase 3: $331,388 (ii) Phase 4: $403,498
(iii) Phase 5: $279,549 (iv) Phase 6: $167,352
Such amounts are valued as at March, 1998, and upon payment shall be escalated in accordance with
the Construction Price Statistics, dated at Toronto ... to the date of the issuance of the building permit
for the respective development phase.
In view of the conveyance of parkland, contributions to improvements and other payments, the City
agrees to process an amendment to Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Lands for Parks Purposes
of the Toronto Municipal Code, to exempt therefrom such development as is permitted and only to
the extent permitted by the Zoning By-law Amendment for the subject development lands.
Permanent Improvements to the Parklands
The City will carry out permanent improvements to the public parkland conveyed pursuant to the
subject agreement as follows:
i) 5 years following occupancy of Phase 3; or
ii) following conveyance of the Phase 4 parklands
whichever comes first; or
iii) upon such other terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the owner and the City.
Construction Access
Construction access to subsequent development sites is intended to occur via the remaining
undeveloped (Provincial) lands, the interim treatment of these lands and the construction impact on
the interim or final park should be carefully considered as part of Development Review for each
phase, including fencing, dust control, safety, etc. to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation.
As Built Garage Construction Drawings:
Upon conveyance of the Parkland to the City, the Owner shall provide a complete set of as-built
construction drawings detailing the sub-surface elements constructed under the Parkland. Following
any subsequent alterations to the sub-surface elements, the Owner agrees to provide the City with
revised as-built construction drawing details.
Easements Each to the Other:
The conveyance by the Owner to the City of the Parkland shall reserve each to the other, such
easements as are required for the intended use of the Parkland and for the purpose of maintaining
and repairing that portion of any structure beneath the Parklands recognizing the need for, without
limitation, life safety systems, utilities, drainage, support, access, ventilation, repair or rebuilding
and such other easements, satisfactory to the Parks and Recreation, acting reasonably, in respect of
the construction of surrounding buildings, provided such interruption is for as minimal a period as
possible and provided the Parklands are restored at no cost to the City to their former state. Without
in any way limiting the generality of the forgoing, the conveyance by the Owner to the City of the
Parklands shall reserve in favour of the Owner, at nominal cost, an easement(s) to allow the Owner
to construct, use maintain, repair and replace the stairwell structure. The aforesaid easements shall
be approved by the City Solicitor, acting reasonably, and in consultation with Parks and Recreation.
The exercise of the rights granted pursuant to the aforesaid easements or encroachments to repair,
rebuild or reconstruct the sub-surface structural elements and/or the Garage Protection System, or
any other structure or utilities which may exist beneath the Parkland, shall, except in an emergency,
require sixty (60) days prior notice to the other party, and where reasonably possible shall be
scheduled in whole or in part during the period between October 1 and April 30 of the following
year. The owner shall be responsible for all costs of necessary repairs to the Parklands in the opinion
of the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, resulting from the
exercise of these rights by the owner.
Load Bearing Requirements for Sub-Surface Slab:
The concrete roof slab, foundations, underpinnings, support columns and all other support structures
of all sub-surface elements shall be designed, engineered and constructed such that they will be
adequate and sufficient to support and withstand the loads imposed by a completed mature park
landscape, including but not limited to mature trees, park service vehicles, playground or other
equipment normally found in a local park, a water feature, the use of the area for the assembly of
people and a general soil depth above the Garage Protection System of 1.524 metres. The parties
agree that the provisions of this paragraph shall in no way act to commit the City to provide such
facilities in the park in the future.
Grades:
Prior to installation of the Interim Landscaping, the owner shall provide for approval by Parks and
Recreation a plan identifying the grading proposed for the Temporary Park Improvements in
connection with Phase 3 and the Interim Landscaping in connection with each of Phase 4, 5 and 6,
such that the final elevation of the completed park surface shall be consistent with the grades of the
abutting public streets and adjacent properties and graded in a manner that permits the site to drain
freely. Prior to installation of the Sod, the owner shall request a representative of the Director of
Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, to inspect the site to ensure that the final
grading meets with the approval of Parks and Recreation.
Air Intake Structures:
Any air intakes which may be proposed for the Parklands shall be an intake air supply shaft and shall
at no time be used as an exhaust vent.
Public Art:
The parties agree that a portion of the Public Art budget will be allocated to the provision of special
elements within the Parkland. In this regard, the owner shall use every effort possible to ensure that
the process for the selection of the public art shall be consistent and concurrent with the process for
the Permanent Park Improvements to be carried out by and under the direction of the Director of
Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, at a later date. The arrangements
respecting Public Art to be located within the Parkland shall detail the ownership of the art,
maintenance provisions, integration within the permanent park, among other relevant matters, to the
satisfaction of Parks and Recreation and Planning and Urban Development Services.
Rezoning of Parklands to "G":
The Owner does not object to the City rezoning the Parkland to a "G" zone designation, provided
such zoning permits the continued existence of an underground parking structure.
--------
Appendix E
Minutes of Public Meeting
June 24, 1997
Planning Advisory Committee
held at YMCA, 20 Grosvenor Street
Attending:
John O'Grady Planning Advisory Committee
Gregg Lintern Urban Development Services
Deborah Porte Urban Development Services
Rob Watson Community Services
For the Applicant:
Sharyn Vincent Vincent Planning
Terry Lustig East of Bay Development Corporation
Richard Kuchynski Ontario Realty Corporation
Terry McGowan Fliess Gates McGowan Easton Architects
Connie Tintinalli Fliess Gates McGowan Easton Architects
Approximately 15 members of the public
Mr. O'Grady gave an introduction.
Mr. Lintern gave an overview the history of the site, the development guidelines for the site, the
south block development under construction, the north block development proposal and the reasons
for the application.
Mr. McGowan gave an overview of the proposal including the guidelines for the site, mid-block
park, the configuration of the massing, promenade area along Bay Street and the servicing.
Questions/Comments
Issues of building height were raised at the beginning and the end of the meeting. Mr. McGowan
discussed the planning direction which has higher buildings along Bay Street and lower buildings
toward Yonge Street. A comment from the audience was made that the towers would allow more
sunlight. Mr. McGowan also said that the streets would be defined by the lower podium treatment
on the buildings. Mr. Lintern outlined the height permission and the buildings in the area which
exceed it through site specific exemptions.
There were a number of questions and comments about parks in the area, the misuse of these spaces
with drugs and prostitution. Comments were made that the design would be important. Mr. Watson
commented on the design process with the community which would be undertaken, the funding
issues and the importance of "eyes on the park" which the new development will provide.
Comments were made that the applicants should contact social agencies working in the area and that
night time use of the park should be taken into account.
Ms. Porte commented that the design of the development would be assessed by the police and that
the location of the open space will make it highly visible.
It was suggested that the vitality of the area is important to keep in mind.
Questions were asked about traffic. Mr. Lintern advised that all access will be from Breadalbane
Street and that Wellesley Street will be widened to improve the functioning of the Bay and Wellesley
Street intersection. It was also noted that there will be residential, visitor and retail parking.
Questions were asked about wind impact. The architect's wind consultant outlined the wind testing
which has been undertaken and how the built form proposed have been designed to improve the
impact of north and west winds.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 9:00 pm.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 2
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 3
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 4
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 5
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 6
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 7
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 8
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 9
909, 931, 935, 945 Bay Street
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To obtain City Council approval for the closing and conveyancing of the existing public lane in the
block bounded by Bay Street, Wellesley Street West and Breadalbane Street, and to create a new
lane outlet on the site in connection with a proposed development.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The proposal will generate revenues to the City as determined by the Commissioner of Corporate
Services and set out in this report. The net proceed from the sale of these lands should be credited
to the Capital Funds From Assets Sold Account.
Recommendations:
Subject to the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning of the lands comprising 909, 931, 935 and
945 Bay Street, 5, 11 and 25 Wellesley Street West and 14, 16, 20, 26, 30 and 38 Breadalbane Street
(Application No. 197014) being approved, together with any additional terms and conditions that
may be determined by Council in considering recommendations of the Toronto Community Council:
(1) That City Council consider passing of the by-law to close and convey the public lane shown as
Parcels A, B, C and D on the attached Plan SYE2851, at the same time, or subsequent to,
approving the by-laws for the proposed Rezoning of the site;
(2) That City Council, by by-law declare as surplus the public lane owned by The City of Toronto,
shown as Parcels A, B, C and D on Plan SYE2851;
(3) That City Council set the price for the public lanes to be conveyed to Ontario Realty
Corporation, at the rate of $1,375.96 per square metre;
(4) That City Council declare the proposed conveyance of the subject lands shown as Parcels A,
B, C and D on Plan SYE2851, to be in compliance with Section 3.3 of the Official Plan, Part
1 - Cityplan;
(5) That the public lane shown as Parcels A, B, C and D on Plan SYE2851, be stopped-up and
closed upon compliance by Ontario Realty Corporation with the following terms and
conditions:
(a) Indemnify the City, together with such other persons as the City Solicitor may require,
against all loss, cost, damage or action arising as a result of the closing;
(b) Prior to the public lane shown as Parcels A, B, C and D on Plan SYE2851 being
conveyed, the Ontario Realty Corporation convey to the City, the lands comprising the
new public lane, shown as Parcel E on Plan SYE2851, such lands to be free and clear
of all encumbrances and subject to a right of way in favour of the Grantor until such
time as the said lands have been laid out and dedicated for public lane purposes. These
lands must be constructed to City specifications and standards acceptable to the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. In this regard, Ontario Realty
Corporation shall:
(i) Engage the services of a qualified Municipal Consulting Engineer, satisfactory
to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, for the design and field
supervision of all underground and surface public works services and facilities;
(ii) Prepare and submit for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services, detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's
design policies and specifications for all underground and surface public works
services and facilities including a site grading plan, and construct all such
services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and
specifications;
(iii) Provide, upon completion of the work, "as constructed" drawings of all
underground and surface public works services and facilities, certified by the
Municipal Consulting Engineer that such services and facilities have been
constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;
(iv) Provide letters of credit in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for all
municipal infrastructure or such lesser amount as the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services may approve, for the development as determined by the
Municipal Consulting Engineer and approved by the Commissioner, prior to the
earlier of issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the
infrastructure for the development until completion of the work;
(v) Provide letters of credit in an amount equal to 25% of the value of completed
municipal infrastructure as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years
from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Municipal Engineer
and acceptance by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and
(vi) Construct all utilities underground.
(c) Pay the price, estimated to be $1,602,993.56 for the fee in the land comprising Parcels
A, B, C and D on Plan SYE2851, less the value of the land to be conveyed to the City
for the new lane outlet, based on the same unit rate, estimated to be $467,756.80, for
a balance owing of $1,135,236.76;
(d) Pay the applicable G.S.T. and Land Transfer Tax for the new lane lands, shown as
Parcel E on Plan SYE2851, with the exact amount to be determined by the
Commissioner of Corporate Services;
(e) Pay the cost of adjusting the City's public works facilities, estimated to be in the
amount of $14,000.00, consisting of:
(i) Abandoning the 300mm sewer in the lane; and
(ii) Replacing the existing ramp-type curbs and sidewalks on Bay Street and
Wellesley Street West with new standard curbs and sidewalks, including
boulevard adjustments.
(f) Pay the cost of adjusting the facilities of Toronto Hydro at the new lane outlet to
Wellesley Street West, including relocation of a hydro pole, estimated to be $4,000.00,
and adjustment to Cable Chamber (#6465) located on Wellesley Street West, with the
extent of the work and the estimated cost to be determined by Toronto Hydro.
(g) Provide Bell Canada and Rogers Cable with 2 months notice to remove or abandon
their cables located within the lane to be closed;
(h) Pay all out of pocket expenses that will be incurred by the City as a result of the closing
and conveyancing, estimated to be $1,500.00, and agree that any such money expended
will not be refunded in the event that the transaction is not completed;
(i) Provide a Reference Plan integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, showing the
Parcels to be closed and conveyed, and the new lane outlet, as separate PARTS thereon;
(j) Comply with such other terms and conditions relative to the proposal as the City
Solicitor may deem advisable to protect the City's interests;
(6) That upon acquisition by the City, the lands identified as Parcel E on Plan SYE2851, be laid
out and dedicated for public lane purposes;
(7) That upon compliance with the terms and conditions set out in Recommendation No. 5
above, and any other agreements to be entered into between Ontario Realty Corporation and
the City, the subject lane, shown as Parcels A, B, C and D on Plan SYE2851, be conveyed
to Ontario Realty Corporation; and
(8) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give
effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be
required, including the necessary Bill to amend Schedule "A" of By-law No. 1995-0194, and
provide notice to the public.
Comments:
An application has been submitted by East of Bay Development Corporation on behalf of Ontario
Realty Corporation (ORC), for the closing and conveyancing of the public lane 36.39 metres north
of Breadalbane Street, extending easterly from Bay Street, thence northerly to Wellesley Street West,
shown as Parcels A, B, C and D on the attached Plan SYE2851. In exchange for Parcel D a new lane
outlet, shown as Parcel E on Plan SYE2851, will be constructed privately at the east end of the
block. The new lane outlet will provide a continuous connection between Breadalbane Street and
Wellesley Street West, and serve as an access route for properties fronting on Yonge Street. The
private Rights-of-Way that currently exist at this location will be extinguished prior to the
conveyance of the new lane to the City. The new lane (Parcel E) will be constructed to City
standards by the applicant, at no cost to the City.
I have assessed the proposal and consider it feasible, provided the ORC complies with the terms and
conditions set out under Recommendation No. 5 above.
The ORC proposes to use Parcels A, B, C and D to consolidate its land holdings in the block for a
proposed mixed use redevelopment incorporating a series of residential condominium buildings
framing a central park to be constructed on the site. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development is currently processing Rezoning Application No. 197014 for the site comprising
Premises Nos. 909, 931, 935 and 945 Bay Street, 5, 11 and 25 Wellesley Street West and 14, 16, 20,
26, 30 and 38 Breadalbane Street, including the lane to be closed.
The City currently maintains a 300mm sewer in the lane to be closed, which will have to be
removed. The existing ramp-curbs and sidewalks will have to be replaced with new standard curbs
and sidewalks, including boulevard adjustments, on Bay Street and Wellesley Street West.
In addition, Bell Canada and Rogers Cable facilities within the lane to be closed will require
adjustment.
Toronto Hydro has advised that its Cable Chamber (#6465) located on Wellesley Street West at the
entrance to the proposed new lane outlet, will require adjustment, and has provided 2 options:
(i) Lower the roof of the cable chamber, at an estimated cost of $10,000.00; or
(ii) Rebuild the cable chamber, estimated to cost $30,000.00.
Additional costs may be incurred for cabling, as Toronto Hydro will require detailed plans showing
the extent of sidewalk construction proposed for Wellesley Street West before a determination is
made on the preferred option.
At the time of the initial review of the lane closing proposal, the surface lands of the area shown
hatched, identified as Parcel B, were proposed to be retained by the City for park purposes.
However, the conveyance for parkland on the site will coincide with the phasing of the development
lands and the terms will be secured by the Section 37 agreement between ORC and the City.
I have not confirmed the agreement of the applicant to the foregoing terms and conditions in time
to meet the agenda deadline for next meeting of the Toronto Community Council, although the
applicant's agent is aware of this report.
This undertaking is exempt from Environmental Assessment in accordance with the Class
Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act 1994
(Bill 163), Council must explicitly declare any real property owned by the City but intended to be
disposed of as surplus by by-law and give notice to the public of the proposed disposition. The
recommendations noted above ensure that this lane closing and conveyancing will fulfil the statutory
requirements and accordingly will conform to the process set out in By-law No. 1995-0146.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Laurie Robertson, Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings (392-7711)
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which have
been forwarded to City Council under separate cover:
- (March 30, 1998) from Ms. James A. Ramsay, P. Eng., President of the Board of Directors,
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 561; and
- (March 31, 1998) from Ms. Connie Tintinalli, B.E.S., B.Arch., Fliess Gates McGowan
Easton/Architects Inc.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Bay Street/Wellesley Street West/Yonge Street/Breadalbane Street
(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a
communication (April 8, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding submissions received with respect
to Draft Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment 909, 931, 935 and 945 Bay Street, 14, 16, 20,
26, 30 and 38 Breadalbane Street and 11 and 25 Wellesley Street West (North Block East of Bay
Lands) (Downtown) from the following individuals:
(i) (March 30, 1998) from Mr. James A. Ramsay, President of the Board of Directors,
Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 561; and
(ii) (March 31, 1998) from Ms. Connie Tintinalli, Fliess Gates McGowan Easton/Architects Inc.)
35
Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,
of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -
1219 Bloor Street West (Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve Application
No. l998023 requesting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto
Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign for third party advertising at 1219 Bloor
Street West, such approval being conditional upon the applicant being issued a building
permit for the reconstruction of the overall building.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 16, 1998) from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one
illuminated fascia sign.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council refuse Application No. 998023 respecting minor variances from
Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated fascia sign.
Comments:
The property is located on the south-west corner of Bloor Street West and Margueretta Street, in a
mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a two-storey vacant
building. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated fascia sign for the
purposes of third party advertising on the east elevation of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has
a length of 7.0 metres and a height of 3.0 metres, with an area of 21m².
The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
(1) the proposed sign will be located within 60 metres from another third party sign; and
(2) third party fascia signs are not permitted on building walls that face a street.
The first variance occurs because the sign is located within 60 metres from another third party sign.
The separation distance requirement was introduced into the Municipal Code in order to prevent sign
clutter. In this instance, however, the two buildings are approximately 30 metres apart and on
opposite sides of Bloor Street. The signs would be oriented in opposite directions, east and west,
and would not be visible from the same vantage point.
The second variance occurs because the Municipal Code only permits first party advertising signs
to face onto a public street. The intent of this provision is to ensure adequate first party signage for
the ground floor tenants of the building and to minimize the visual impact of signage on the
streetscape and on the buildings to which they are attached. In this instance, the 21m² sign would
cover the upper portion of the second storey and the parapet level of the building and in my opinion,
would be unnecessarily prominent for this mainstreet building.
I am recommending that this application be refused, as I find the variances requested to be
significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal
Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca, Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536
E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it,
during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (March 20, 1998) from Councillor
Pantalone, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
--------
Mr. Joe Rose, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
1219 Bloor Street West
Insert Table/Map No. 2
1219 Bloor Street West
36
Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,
of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -
1660 Bayview Avenue (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1) City Council refuse Application No. 997110 respecting a minor variance from Chapter
297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground
sign at 1660 Bayview Avenue; and
(2) the owner be advised that the term of the permit issued for the patio structure has
expired.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 23, 1998) from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one
illuminated ground sign.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council refuse Application No. 997110 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297,
Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one illuminated ground sign; and
(2) the owner be advised that the term of the permit issued for the patio structure has expired.
Comments:
The property is located on the west side of Bayview Avenue, in a mixed-use
(commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a two storey restaurant. The applicant
is requesting permission to install one illuminated ground sign near the north-east corner of the
property (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 2.4 metres and a height of 1.8 metres, with an area
of 4.3 m².
The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will be set back 0.3
metres from the streetline instead of 2.0 metres.
The setback requirements for ground and pedestal signs are aimed at ensuring that, where possible,
commercial streetscapes and view corridors are preserved and enhanced and sightlines for motorists,
cyclists and pedestrians are improved. In this instance, the sign would be located within a fenced-in
patio area. On February 2, 1995, Permit No. 360933 was issued to permit a patio enclosure, on a
temporary basis, at the front of the building. This patio is still existing and the owner should be
advised that a permit is required to make this enclosure a permanent structure.
In my opinion, a sign in this location which stands at a height of 4.2 metres above grade would have
a negative impact on the streetscape and could set an unfortunate precedent for other properties along
this section of Bayview Avenue.
I am recommending that this application be refused, as I consider the variance requested to be
significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal
Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca,
Telephone: (416) 392-0421
Fax: (416) 392-7536
E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
1660 Bayview avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 2
1660 Bayview avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 3
1660 bayview avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 4
1660 bayview avenue
37
Residential Demolition -
340-342 Huron Street (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
In accordance with former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 146, Article II, Demolition
Control, I refer the demolition applications for 340-342 Huron Street to you to recommend to City
Council whether to grant or refuse the applications, including conditions, if any, to be attached to
the permits.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council authorise me to issue the residential demolition permits for 340-342 Huron Street,
and that the permits bear the condition that the lots be re-graded and landscaped, substantially in
accordance with the March 2, 1998 landscaping plan, no later than one year after demolition of the
existing buildings has begun.
Comments:
On March 3, 1998 the University of Toronto applied for permission to demolish the residential
buildings at 340-342 Huron Street. The vacant buildings are the two end units of a row house, and
each used to contain a single dwelling unit.
The building at 340 Huron Street was significantly damaged by a fire in the spring of 1996. The
same fire also caused damage to the building at 342 Huron Street. My staff inspected these properties
at the time and again in January of this year. These inspections revealed that although the buildings
were in need of repair, they appeared to be structurally sound, rather than unsafe.
The University does not intend to redevelop the site now, but wants to remove the two buildings, re-grade the site to match the adjoining lands and landscape the site with sod. On March 9, 1998,
Councillor Olivia Chow wrote to me to express the support of the University of Toronto Area
Liaison Committee for the University's plan. The Liaison Committee includes representatives of
the Huron Sussex Residents Organization, the Sussex Ulster Residents Organization, the Annex
Residents Association, various area institutions, as well as the University of Toronto.
The Official Plan of the former City of Toronto encourages the physical maintenance and, where
appropriate, upgrading of the existing housing stock in the City. However, at its meeting of
December 18, 1995 the Council of the former City of Toronto adopted the following policy where
a replacement building is not proposed or anticipated at the time of application:
Where there is no intention to rebuild, or circumstances warrant, Council may apply alternate
conditions such as allowing the payment of a penalty and requiring the footprint of the
demolished building be landscaped to match the remainder of the lot, or other conditions as
Council may deem appropriate.
Conclusion:
In light of the state of the buildings, the support of the University of Toronto Area Liaison
Committee and the stated policy of the former City of Toronto, I recommend that City Council
authorize me to issue the residential demolition permits for 340-342 Huron Street, on the condition
that the lots be re-graded and landscaped in accordance with the landscaping plan on file with me.
Contact Name:
David Brezer, P.Eng, Telephone: (416) 392-0097, Fax: (416) 392-0721
E-mail: dbrezer@city.toronto.on.c a
(A copy of the Demolition Permit Application referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.)
38
Residential Demolition -
17 Howard Street (Don River)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
In accordance with former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 146, Article II, Demolition
Control, I refer the demolition application for 17 Howard Street to you to recommend to City
Council whether to grant or refuse the application, including conditions, if any, to be attached to the
permit.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council authorize me to issue the residential demolition permit for 17 Howard Street.
Comments:
On February 12, 1998 the Director of Realty Services applied on behalf of the City of Toronto for
a permit to demolish the mixed-use building at 17 Howard Street. The vacant building used to
contain commercial space and a single dwelling unit.
The City does not intend to construct a replacement structure, but to re-grade and landscape the site
for parks purposes. The Council of the former City of Toronto approved the acquisition and
redevelopment of this property for parks purposes at its meeting held on June 5 and 6, 1995 when
it adopted Clause 27 of Executive Committee Report No. 15.
Conclusion:
In light of the 1995 action taken by the Council of the former City of Toronto to acquire and develop
this property for parks purposes, I recommend that City Council authorize me to issue the demolition
permit.
Contact Name:
David Brezer, P. Eng.,
Telephone: (416) 392-0097
Fax: (416) 392-0721
E-mail: dbrezer@city.toronto.on.ca .
(A copy of the Demolition Permit Application referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.)
39
Residential Demolition - 292 Bathurst Street
(Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue the residential
demolition permit for 292 Bathurst Street.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 5, 1998) from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
In accordance with former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 146, Article II, Demolition
Control, I refer the demolition application for 292 Bathurst Street to you to recommend to City
Council whether to grant or refuse the application, including conditions, if any, to be attached to the
permit.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council refuse to issue the residential demolition permit for 292 Bathurst Street.
Comments:
On November 3, 1997, Sam Tom applied on behalf of the owner, Tai Bay Buddhist Temple, for a
permit to demolish the residential building at 292 Bathurst Street. The vacant building used to
contain a single dwelling unit. The owner does not have any current plans to construct a replacement
structure on the property.
The Planning Act allows that where no building permit has been issued for a replacement building
on the property, City Council may issue or refuse to issue a demolition permit.
Section 6.19 of the Official Plan of the former City of Toronto states:
It is the policy of Council not to issue demolition permits for the demolition of residential
property containing dwelling units where, pursuant to the Planning Act, it is lawful to refuse
their issuance, and where, in the opinion of Council:
(a) such demolition is not to be followed within a reasonable period of time either by
new development on the lot which contains the residential property, or by the reuse
of the lot in accordance with the Zoning By-law; or
(b) such demolition would result in:
(i) the loss of residential property or dwelling units in good structural repair; or
(ii) the loss of residential property or dwelling units which serve a necessary
social housing need; or
(iii) the undue hardship of relocation upon the occupants of the building to be
demolished.
The owner's architect, Sam Tom, has written to me to express his concern that the building is unsafe
to occupy. Section 15(2) of the Building Code Act defines unsafe as:
(a) structurally unsound or faulty for the purpose for which it is used; or
(b) in a condition that could be hazardous to the health or safety of persons in the normal
use of the building, persons outside the building or persons whose access to the
building has not been reasonably prevented.
My staff inspected this property on November 18 and 25, 1997, and found that although the building
was in need of repair, the structure appeared to be sound, rather than unsafe. The owner has been
asked to provide a report from a structural engineer identifying the specific elements of concern,
however, I have not received this report.
Conclusions:
In light of the policy embodied in the Official Plan of the former City of Toronto, I recommend that
City Council refuse to issue the demolition permit.
Contact Name:
David Brezer, P.Eng
Telephone: (416) 392-0097
Fax: (416) 392-0721
E-mail: dbrezer@city.toronto.on.ca
(A copy of the Demolition Permit Application referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the
office of the City Clerk).
40
Residential Demolition Application - 33 Gloucester Street
(Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council defer consideration of the
application for a demolition permit at 33 Gloucester Street until such time as a building permit
has been issued for a replacement building on this property.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 5, 1998) from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
In accordance with former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 146, Article II, Demolition
Control, I refer the demolition application for 33 Gloucester Street to you to recommend to City
Council whether to grant or refuse the application, including conditions, if any, to be attached to the
permit.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council defer consideration of the application for a demolition permit at 33 Gloucester
Street until such time as a building permit has been issued for a replacement building on this
property.
Comments:
On February 17, 1998, Marcos Developments Inc. applied for a permit to demolish the residential
building at 33 Gloucester Street. The existing vacant residential building is a semi-detached house
containing one dwelling unit.
Marcos Developments also filed an application with me to construct a replacement structure
consisting of a two-storey detached house. Plan examination of this building permit application is
currently underway to establish conformity with the Building Code Act, the Zoning By-law and
applicable law.
In accordance with the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 146, Article II, Demolition
Control, I refer the demolition application to you because I have received objections to the
application from 21 residents. The central objection raised by the residents is that the structure has
significant heritage value. The structure is neither designated under the Ontario Heritage Act nor
listed on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties. Heritage Toronto will be reporting separately
to you with their comments on this issue.
The Planning Act requires City Council to issue a demolition permit where a building permit has
been issued for a replacement building on the property. However, should City Council decide to
designate this property, a separate demolition application will be required under the Ontario
Heritage Act.
If the heritage status of this property remains unchanged, and a building permit for a replacement
building is issued, I intend to recommend that City Council authorize me to issue a demolition
permit subject to the standard conditions as set out in §146-16B(5) of the Municipal Code,
specifically:
(a) That the applicant for the permit construct and substantially complete the new building to
be erected on the site of the residential property to be demolished not later than two (2) years
from the day demolition of the existing residential property is commenced.
(b) That, on failure to complete the new building within the time specified, the City Clerk shall
be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal taxes,
the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for each dwelling unit contained in the
residential property in respect of which the demolition permit is issued and that such sum
shall, until payment, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect of which the permit to
demolish the residential property is issued.
Conclusions:
That City Council defer consideration of the application for a demolition permit at 33 Gloucester
Street until such time as a building permit has been issued for a replacement building on this
property.
Contact Name:
David Brezer, P. Eng
Telephone: (416) 392-0097
Fax: (416) 392-0721
E-mail: dbrezer@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
(A copy of the Demolition Permit Application referred to in the foregoing report is on file in the
office of the City Clerk and copies of the communications addressed to the Chief Building Official,
Department of Buildings and Inspections, City Hall, referred to in the foregoing report were
forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on
April 1, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
41
Railway Lands Central and West
(Downtown)
(Council on April 16, 1998 amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the report dated April 15, 1998, from the City Solicitor,
embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:
'It is recommended that:
(1) the City Solicitor be authorized to report, if necessary, directly to the May 13,
1998 and June 3, 1998 meetings of City Council upon any potential
settlement regarding the Ontario Municipal Board hearing scheduled to
commence on June 15, 1998, in respect of the Railway Lands Central and
West official plan amendments and zoning by-laws;
(2) the City Solicitor be authorized to advise the Ontario Municipal Board at the
May 8, 1998 prehearing conference that the City agrees that:
(i) the Board may amend the Railway Lands Central Zoning By-law; (a)
to clarify that a temporary office is permitted on block 22 for the
construction management and sale of the Concord Adex project, and
(b) to increase the size of the temporary sales/management office
from 950 to 2,000 square metres, without limit to the number of
accessory parking spaces, upon the conditions referred to in the
April 14, 1998 letter of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services to the City Solicitor; and
(ii) the Board may issue an order permitting the temporary
sales/management office in advance of the commencement of the
June 15, 1998 hearing; and
(3) authority be granted for the City to enter into an agreement with Concord
Adex to secure the conditions referenced in Recommendation No. (2)(i)(b).'")
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1) Council adopt the Terms of Reference for an Urban Design Task Force for the Railway
Lands Central and West as set out in Appendix 1 of the report (March 19, 1998) from
the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services;
(2) Council approve the membership of the Urban Design Task Force as set out in
Appendix 3 of the report (March 19, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning
and Development Services;
(3) staff prepare, in consultation with the Urban Design Task Force, an open space master
plan for the Railway lands west of SkyDome, including linkages to publicly accessible
open space and streets, to be incorporated into the Urban Design Guidelines for the
Concord Adex lands and to amend the Urban Design Guidelines for public spaces in
the Railway Lands Central and West;
(4) Urban Planning and Development Services staff report to the June 24, 1998 meeting
of Toronto Community Council on the recommendations of the Urban Design Task
Force;
(5) Urban Planning and Development Services and Community and Neighbourhood
Services (Housing) staff be requested to test the urban design and massing of Blocks 31,
32 and 36 in the Railway Lands West in terms of delivering affordable housing and in
the context of recent changes to the built form on adjacent development blocks and that
staff identify, upon completing the built form study, any requirements to hire outside
consultant staff to assist in refining and costing and a budget to be included in the
City's 1999 Community and Neighbourhoods Services budget;
(6) Urban Planning and Development Services and Community and Neighbourhood
Services (Housing) staff report to Toronto Community Council on the results of the
urban design study, ongoing discussions with Concord Adex and terms of reference for
a request for proposals to affordable housing providers to identify the full range of
opportunities for development of the affordable housing sites on the Railway Lands
West;
(7) the City secure, in the Precinct Agreement for the Railway Lands West, the City's right
to prebuild Bremner Boulevard between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street;
(8) the City secure, through Precinct and Section 37 Agreements with landowners in the
Railway Lands West and Bathurst/Strachan Area, contributions toward the
construction of the Bathurst Street/Bremner Boulevard/Fort York Boulevard
intersection based on a 33 per cent public/66 per cent private cost sharing formula;
(9) the City- owned affordable housing sites in the Railway Lands West be considered a
pilot project in support of the City's broader strategy to create new affordable housing
in keeping with the objectives of the Task Force on Homelessness, the Council Strategy
Committee for People without Homes, and that the results of the studies and
discussions noted in Recommendation Nos. (5) and (6) be forwarded to the inter-departmental staff team supporting affordable housing development;
(10) the Railway Lands Environmental Task Force be reactivated;
(11) Urban Planning and Development Services staff provide background information on
the Railway Lands Environmental Task Force, as included in the Official Plan for the
Railway Lands and Ontario Municipal Board decisions, to the Toronto Community
Council for its meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998;
(12) Urban Planning and Development Services staff consult with interested Members of
Council in the preparation of the review of the role and function of the Task Force;
(13) Urban Planning and Development Services staff, in consultation with other appropriate
officials explore the possibility of the housing for the Olympic Village being provided
in the City-owned blocks; and
(14) Urban Planning and Development Services staff report to the Toronto Community
Council on the various objectives for Garrison Creek and how it fits with the plan for
the Railway Lands.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 19, 1998) from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
At its meeting of October 6, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council adopted amendments to the
Railway Lands Central and West Part II Official Plans and Zoning By-laws as requested by Grand
Adex Developments (now Concord Adex Developments Corp.). In response to issues raised at the
Council meeting, Council also requested staff to report back to the new Council in March 1998 on:
(1) the membership and terms of reference for an Urban Design Task Force;
(2) ways to implement affordable housing;
(3) investigating the feasibility of advancing the construction of Bremner Boulevard between
Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street; and
(4) responding to the TTC request to cost-share the construction of the Bathurst Street/Bremner
Boulevard/Fort York Boulevard intersection to accommodate left-turn lanes.
This report responds to these Council requests.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Based on the former City of Toronto Council recommendation of October 6, 1997, funding in the
amount of $20,000 needs to be added to the 1998 Urban Planning and Development Services
($10,000) and Community and Neighbourhood Services ($10,000) operating budgets to pay for an
urban design study for the City's housing blocks as described in this report.
Recommendations:
(1) That Council adopt the Terms of Reference for an Urban Design Task Force for the Railway
Lands Central and West as set out in Appendix 1 of this report.
(2) That Council approve the membership of the Urban Design Task Force as set out in
Appendix 3 of this report.
(3) That staff prepare, in consultation with the Urban Design Task Force, an open space master
plan for the Railway lands west of SkyDome, including linkages to publicly accessible open
space and streets, to be incorporated into the Urban Design Guidelines for the Concord Adex
lands and to amend the Urban Design Guidelines for public spaces in the Railway Lands
Central and West.
(4) That Urban Planning and Development Services staff report to the June 24, 1998 meeting
of Toronto Community Council on the recommendations of the Urban Design Task Force.
(5) That Urban Planning and Development Services and Community and Neighbourhood
Services (Housing) staff be requested to hire outside support, as authorized by the former
City of Toronto Council at its meeting of October 6, 1997, to carry out an urban design study
of the City housing blocks in the Railway Lands West and that the study budget not exceed
$20,000 (funding in the amount of $10,000 each be added to the 1998 operating budgets of
Urban Planning and Development Services and Community and Neighbourhood Services).
(6) That Urban Planning and Development Services and Community and Neighbourhood
Services (Housing) staff report to Toronto Community Council on the results of the urban
design study, ongoing discussions with Concord Adex and terms of reference for a request
for proposals to affordable housing providers to identify the full range of opportunities for
development of the affordable housing sites on the Railway Lands West.
(7) That the City secure, in the Precinct Agreement for the Railway Lands West, the City's right
to prebuild Bremner Boulevard between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street.
(8) That the City secure, through Precinct and Section 37 Agreements with landowners in the
Railway Lands West and Bathurst/Strachan Area, contributions toward the construction of
the Bathurst Street/Bremner Boulevard/Fort York Boulevard intersection based on a 33 per
cent public/66 per cent private cost sharing formula.
Background:
In April 1997, Grand Adex Developments Corp.(Grand Adex), later renamed Concord Adex, made
an application to the City of Toronto to amend the Part II Official Plans and Zoning By-laws for the
portions of the Railway Lands Central and West which it was purchasing from the Canada Lands
Company. These lands are shown on Map 1. In response to this application, on October 6, 1997
Council approved changes to the Railway Lands Central and West Part II Official Plans and Zoning
By-laws to permit: residential uses on Blocks 21 and 28; more flexibility in the built form to permit
taller towers and lower base buildings; adjustments to individual block densities without increasing
the overall density permitted; and changes to above-grade parking permissions on some blocks.
Minor changes were made to local streets in the Railway Lands West. No changes were made to the
approved parks and open space system.
When approving the amended by-laws the former City of Toronto Council also requested staff to
report back on a number of issues related to these amendments as follows.
Urban Design Task Force
"Established an Urban Design Task Force on the public spaces in the Railway Lands Central and
West and that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services be requested to report back to the
Land Use Committee or its successor in March 1998 on specific terms of reference, participants and
funding requirements for the Task Force."
Affordable Housing
"Directed staff to continue discussions with Grand Adex on potential options for developing
affordable housing on the City's housing lands and prepare a report on the discussions and a detailed
outline on how the City's housing lands could be developed to the Land Use Committee or its
successor in March 1998 and authorized staff within the Board of Management approval limits, to
hire outside support to facilitate these goals."
Early construction of Bremner Boulevard
"Directed that the extension of Bremner Boulevard to provide westerly access to the Railway Lands
West portion of the proposed development be required as part of the commitments (by the city
and/or landowners) associated with the development.
Directed that the extension of Bremner Boulevard be completed as soon as possible, but at least as
soon as commencement of construction of any buildings on the Railway Lands west of Spadina
Avenue."
Left-turn lanes and cost-sharing of Bremner Bathurst intersection
"Adopted, in principle, the recommendations contained in the communication (October 6, 1997)
from the Toronto Transit Commission; which are:
"That staff be directed to ensure that the design of the future connection of Bremner
Boulevard to Bathurst Street include separate left-turn lanes, and relocated streetcar tracks
to allow these lanes, ... ;
That the associated costs of these improvements be included in the financial contributions
requested from all private and public development interests in the area, who will benefit
directly from the upgraded infrastructure; this would be analogous to contributions required
for other basic community services such as schools, parks and daycare centres; and
That this matter be brought forward for consideration by the new City of Toronto Council,
with the recommendation that the new Council allocate additional funds for the planned
rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge at Bremner Boulevard, currently scheduled for
1998-1999 to cover the remainder of the costs of upgrading the intersection of Bathurst
Street and Bremner/Fort York Boulevard".
Requested staff to meet with the Toronto Transit Commission and the developers in the area
and report to the new Council on issues raised in the communication (October 6, 1997) from
the Toronto Transit Commission."
Comments:
(1) Urban Design Task Force
(a) Background
The former Council's establishment of an Urban Design Task Force for the Railway Lands
Central and West responded to former Councillor Leckie's motion and the resulting
recommendation from the September 30, 1997, Land Use Committee meeting requesting the
Commissioner of Urban Development Services to report directly to Council on (among other
things):
"The establishment of a design competition and task force on the urban design of
public spaces in the Railway Lands Central and West, including but not limited to:
- provision of on and off road pedestrian and bicycle connections;
- interface of private and public spaces;
- parks needs and designs;
- appropriate sidewalk widths and furniture;
- the design of 2 pedestrian bridges over the rail corridor;
- linkages with Fort York;
- public art;
- linkages over/under the Gardiner Expressway to the waterfront;
- water features;
- storm water ponding/treatment.
Membership of the Task Force is proposed to include representation from the Niagara
Residents' Association, the Draper Street Residents' Association, Friends of Fort York,
Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association, Harbourfront Condominium Association,
Toronto Entertainment District Association and Harbourfront Corporation"
This section of the report and the Terms of Reference attached as Appendix 1 respond to
these requests.
The Urban Design Task Force is intended to provide an opportunity for area landowners and
community and business groups to review the urban design work done to date in the Railway
Lands Central and West and to give advice to staff on public space issues -- streets and
parkland -- in the Railway Lands Central and West.
The Task Force process may also help to address concerns raised by four of the parties which
made Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) appeals to the Concord Adex amendments to the
Railway Lands Plans. At the pre-hearing conference dealing with the appeals, the OMB
directed City staff to review the urban design issues raised by these appellants as part of the
work of the Task Force. These appellants have therefore been added to the membership of
the Task Force.
In order to provide a framework for the Task Force, in January, 1998, Urban Planning and
Development Services staff set up an urban design work group. Four architects and one
landscape architect were asked to look at the changes to the Official Plans and Zoning By-Laws for the Concord Adex lands and to make suggestions for the development of urban
design guidelines. The participants were: David Anselmi, George Baird, Ken Greenberg,
Michael Kirkland, and Bruce Kuwabara. City staff and representatives of Concord Adex
provided background information to the work group. The recommendations of the work
group are attached as Appendix 2 to this report.
(b) Terms of Reference for the Urban Design Task Force
The detailed Terms of Reference are attached as Appendix 1 to this report. In summary,
members of the Urban Design Task Force will be asked to give advice on:
(i) identifying issues related to public space to be addressed in the urban design
guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West;
(ii) creating an open space master plan for the Railway Lands Central and West;
(iii) developing criteria for and design details of the public space system,
streetscape and civic design;
(iv) developing design objectives for the pedestrian bridges at Portland Street and
between Portland Street and Spadina Avenue; and
(v) locating and phasing public art.
(c) Membership of the Task Force
The Task Force will be chaired by Councillor Olivia Chow (Ward 24) and include two City
Councillors, area landowners and leaseholders, community and resident groups and four
OMB appellants as listed in Appendix 3.
The Urban Design Task Force will be supported by a technical advisory team led by Urban
Planning and Development staff and include staff from Parks, Works, Property, Housing and
representatives of the City Cycling Committee, Safe City Committee, Toronto Transit
Commission (TTC) and Heritage Toronto. In addition, the following interested parties will
be kept informed of agendas and recommendations of the Task Force: Urban design work
group members; English Language Separate District School Board No. 40; Toronto District
School Board; and the Toronto Society of Architects.
(d) Timing and Number of Meetings
The Task Force is proposed to meet four times as follows:
Meeting 1 - April 7, Awareness
City staff will define the scope of work of the Task Force, provide background
information on the existing area, context and planning controls and describe the
expected outcome of the process.
Meeting 2 - April 20, Brainstorming
The urban design work group will present its ideas and recommendations and each
member of the Task Force will have the opportunity to raise any issues which they
feel the group should address. City staff will provide a draft outline of the urban
design guidelines to help focus the work of the Task Force. This will be followed by
general discussion.
Meeting 3 - April 27, Action
City staff will present a summary of the discussions of Meeting 2 to begin to help the
group to define recommendations for draft urban design guidelines.
Meeting 4 - May 4, Recommendations
The recommendations of the Task Force will be summarized by City staff for review
and approval at its final meeting. These recommendations, along with the relevant
previous recommendations of the work group will then be brought forward to
Toronto Community Council in June to be incorporated into the revised urban design
guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and West.
(2) Affordable Housing
City staff have met with Concord Adex representatives to continue discussions about opportunities
to develop affordable housing on the City housing lands in the absence of funding programs.
Concord Adex is interested in continuing discussions with the City and has defined options for the
City's consideration. The following reviews the City's objectives for the provision of affordable
housing in the Railway Lands, summarize recent discussions with Concord Adex, and describe next
steps.
(a) City Objectives
In order to meet the objectives of the City's Part I Official Plan, in 1986 CN Real Estate
provided 4.45 acres of land to the City to accommodate approximately 1,500 affordable
housing units. The City's housing blocks are located in the Railway Lands West and
originally comprised blocks 31,32,33 and 36. In 1995, the City transferred Block 33 to
Wittington Properties Limited in exchange for parkland west of Bathurst Street and land to
be dedicated to public streets. The City continues to own the remaining three blocks in the
Railway Lands West which could accommodate up to 1,100 affordable housing units. In
order to address the City's Official Plan objectives and the ongoing need for affordable
housing in the City, City staff's objectives for its blocks are to:
(i) provide long-term, affordable rental units;
(ii) provide a full range of unit types to accommodate families, seniors and
singles; and
(iii) continue to distribute the affordable units across the Railway Lands West in
accordance with the City's current ownership.
(b) Update on current discussions
In a recent meeting with City staff, Concord Adex representatives indicated that they are
willing to continue discussions about a number of different approaches to help the City
develop affordable housing, including:
(i) working with the City to develop a mix of market and affordable rental units
on the City blocks;
(ii) purchasing a portion of the City's density from its affordable housing blocks
which would be transferred to other blocks owned by Concord Adex; or
(iii) purchase of all or some of the City blocks allowing the City to use the funds
to provide affordable housing elsewhere.
Options (i) and (ii) above could help the City to achieve a number of its housing objectives
and are consistent with the direction being taken by an internal staff working group looking
at the rental housing supply across the City. Option (iii) does not address the City's housing
policy objectives and staff are not recommending that the City sell its lands in the Railway
Lands West. This position was supported by the former City of Toronto Board of
Management.
From a housing policy perspective, the Railway Lands provide a unique opportunity for the
City to build affordable rental housing, which is in increasingly short supply. The City owns
the land and could use the land's value in partnership with Concord Adex or another housing
provider to produce self-financing affordable rental housing. Based on recent studies carried
out for the former Metro Toronto, it appears that with zero land costs, low interest rates,
advantageous tax rates and a mix of market and affordable housing to permit cross-subsidies,
it may be possible to deliver affordable rental housing in the absence of conventional housing
programs.
The large land area and potentially high unit count offers the City a rare chance to develop
a well-planned, mixed-income community with a range of unit types and a mix of tenures.
Incorporating market and affordable rental units will help to make the development more
financially viable. In addition, the City's most westerly housing blocks are well-positioned
in that they are close to existing TTC service, parkland and a new school and community
centre in Bathurst Quay which could allow for their early development.
According to Housing and Real Estate staff, from a financial perspective it appears that,
based on current land prices, the sale of the City housing blocks would not yield sufficient
funds to permit the delivery of a significant number of affordable units elsewhere. If the City
is not in a position to proceed with development in the near future, it would be preferable to
hold onto the lands until the City is in a position to develop or the land value increases as a
result of the development of the Concord Adex blocks.
C. Next Steps
To move forward in defining ways in which the City can effectively deliver affordable rental
housing in the Railway Lands West, I am recommending a two step process: hiring an urban
design consultant to assist City staff in reviewing the development options and built form for
its sites; and preparing a request for proposals to rental housing providers to help to ensure
that the City has identified all available options for its lands.
(i) Hiring an Urban Design Consultant
The Council action of October 6, 1997 directed staff to continue discussions with
Concord Adex and "within the Board of Management approval limits, to hire outside
support to facilitate these goals." In order to develop a request for proposals and to
assess the Concord Adex proposal that the City sell a portion of its density, the first
step would be hiring an urban design consultant experienced in the delivery of
affordable housing. The consultant would then:
(1) test density and massing options on the City's housing blocks to
ensure that the City can build cost-effective buildings which can
respond to market demand;
(2) determine if there is excess density that the City could sell to finance
affordable rental development or if the density should be retained;
(3) ensure that the built form on the housing sites is compatible with the
recently approved built form on the Concord Adex blocks to allow for
the physical integration of the affordable housing into the
neighbourhood;
(4) provide preliminary unit counts and costs to develop the City's sites;
and
(5) determine whether Official Plan and zoning by-law amendments are
required for the City lands.
The urban design study is expected to take approximately 2 months to complete and
is estimated to cost a maximum of $20,000. City staff would consult with Concord
Adex and Wittington during the process.
In order to develop building proposals for the City's housing sites and cost estimates
to help test financially viable approaches to developing the City sites, it is necessary
to bring in consultants with broad experience in the design of affordable and market
rental housing and in costing all aspects of housing projects. The City does not have
the expertise or staff resources to complete this study in-house.
This funding request was not previously included in our 1998 operating budget as it
was necessary to do a preliminary review of options for the housing sites to define
the work required of outside consultants. It is only in the past week that staff have
been able to establish a consultant budget for architects and quantity surveyors to
help staff test the feasibility of various options.
(ii) Issue request for proposals to affordable housing providers
In order to ensure that the City has identified all opportunities and to allow other
housing providers to make proposals to the City which may be more advantageous
than those Concord Adex may propose, the City should, after completion of the
urban design study and further discussions with Concord Adex, issue a proposal call
to affordable rental housing providers. Proponents will be asked to provide proposals
to build affordable housing either on their own or in association with the City.
Concord Adex will, of course, be welcome to respond to this proposal call if it
wishes.
City staff will continue discussions with Concord Adex on various options for affordable housing
as it refines its options for its lands.
(3) Early construction of Bremner Boulevard
The existing Stadium Precinct Agreement secures, on title, two-thirds funding by CN Real Estate
(the previous owner) and one-third funding by the City for the section of Bremner Boulevard
between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street. Funding the City's one-third share of Bremner
Boulevard between Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue is already contained in the City's 5-year
Capital Works Program. Concord Adex has agreed to build Bremner in stages to serve its
development and to front end its two-thirds share of Bremner to Bathurst Street at the time of the
first occupancy permit on Block 26 shown on Map 1.
Council has directed that Bremner Boulevard be completed as soon as possible "...but at least as
soon as commencement of construction of any buildings on the Railway Lands west of Spadina
Avenue." Should the City chose to prebuild Bremner Boulevard, it could do so at any time since
the lands are in escrow and the right of the City to prebuild will be secured in the Precinct
Agreement with Concord Adex.
Staff have met with representatives of Concord Adex to discuss its prebuilding the entire length of
Bremner Boulevard as soon as it begins development west of Spadina. Concord Adex has seriously
considered Council's direction but cannot commit to advancing its trigger for construction of
Bremner as it significantly affects soil management and carrying costs of the development. Concord
Adex has indicated that it may consider advancing the trigger if the City agrees to reduced
contributions to other public infrastructure elements in order to be able to afford the additional cost
of building the road, however I cannot recommend that other arrangements be changed.
In approving the Concord Adex by-laws City Council also approved, in principle, a risk assessment
approach to soil management which would permit Concord Adex to place, under certain conditions,
soil which does not meet residential guidelines, under City streets and parks. Concord Adex plans
to place soils as development proceeds. If the City prebuilds Bremner, Concord Adex will have to
either pre-excavate and fence its development sites or forego the significant cost savings of risk-based soil management. The City, as a landowner, would also forego cost savings which it may
realize through risk-based soil management for its housing sites.
If the City prebuilds Bremner Boulevard, the implication is that the City would front-end the entire
construction cost until Concord Adex begins development on Block 26, when it is required to
contribute its two-thirds share. If Concord Adex chooses to pre-excavate its development sites, the
City may also be faced with a major new street bounded by fenced, pre-excavated development sites.
I am therefore not recommending a change to the Concord Adex trigger for Bremner Boulevard, but
that the City secure, in the Precinct Agreement for the Railway Lands West, the City's right to
prebuild Bremner at any time.
(4) Left turn lanes and cost-sharing of Bathurst Street/Bremner Boulevard/Fort York Boulevard
intersection
(a) Review of Bathurst Street/Fort York Boulevard/Bremner Boulevard intersection
options
The intersection of Bathurst Street/Fort York Boulevard/Bremner Boulevard was reviewed
in some detail in 1996 as part of the work of the Bathurst/Strachan Transportation Working
Committee. The mandate of this Working Committee was to explore the range of
transportation measures which might be considered to accommodate traffic and transit
demands resulting from development of the Bathurst/Strachan lands and adjacent areas.
With respect to the intersection of Bathurst Street/Fort York Boulevard/Bremner Boulevard,
two potential measures were identified to minimize delays to streetcar service:
implementation of transit priority; or reconstruction of the north and south approaches to the
intersection to include separate left turn lanes.
The Working Committee also noted that, due to the fact that this section of Bathurst Street
is on a bridge structure, widening of the structure to provide turn lanes would incur a
substantial premium, which has since been determined to be as much as $4.3 million. By
comparison, it is estimated the cost to implement transit priority at this one location would
be less than $100,000.
In response to the TTC request (outlined in its communication of October 6, 1997) that left-turn lanes be built on Bathurst Street to minimize transit delay, Planning, Transportation and
TTC staff took a detailed look at the feasibility and potential benefits of implementing transit
priority and/or left-turn lanes under forecast operating conditions. In order to undertake this
assessment, the following assumptions were established:
(i) a long-term forecast would be used since the present rehabilitation work on
the Bathurst Street bridge is intended to have a 30 year plus life;
(ii) that the Railway Lands and Bathurst/Strachan Area would likely achieve full
build-out; and
(iii) that the Front Street extension to the F. G. Gardiner Expressway would be
completed.
The review also considered the configuration of the future Fort York Boulevard west of
Bathurst Street. Currently, approvals are in place to extend Fort York Boulevard westerly
to Fleet Street, however, as part of the work of the Bathurst/Strachan Transportation
Working Committee, selective analysis of an option to extend Fort York Boulevard to Lake
Shore Boulevard West was also undertaken.
If "full-turns" are assumed at the intersection, the analysis indicated average delay to
vehicles on Bathurst Street (including TTC vehicles) would increase by as much as 2 minutes
in the morning peak hour compared to existing conditions. In this case, without north-south
left turn lanes, it would be necessary to introduce a morning peak period southbound left turn
restriction in order to provide a base level of operating conditions conducive to transit
service. This would be necessary with or without the Front Street extension.
Similarly, the application of transit priority as a mitigating measure would only be effective
if a morning peak period southbound left-turn restriction was introduced at the intersection
and the Front Street extension is in place. Notwithstanding this finding, the southbound turn
restriction would limit local access to lands east of Bathurst Street which is not desirable.
TTC staff also argued that a turn restriction would not constitute a permanent measure to
address transit concerns, since the implementing by-law could, in theory, be withdrawn at
any time in the future.
Construction of north-south left turn lanes would take left turning traffic on Bathurst Street
out of the through traffic stream during the peak hours and at all other times of the day. The
preliminary analysis indicated implementation of north-south left turn lanes would permit
"full-turns" at the intersection at all times and would not be dependant on the Front Street
extension to off-load arterial traffic. TTC staff have indicated this continues to be the
preferred option due to the fact that the turn lanes are "permanent", and the risk that the Front
Street extension may not be in place when the intersection is built.
As a result of the preliminary technical analysis, staff concluded that the provision of
north-south turn lanes would result in a "balanced" set of operating conditions with transit
vehicles incurring some minor delay but in general maintaining acceptable operating
conditions. Additionally, arterial traffic would continue to operate at reasonable levels of
service and all local access to the adjacent lands would be maintained through the
intersection.
Upon conclusion of this preliminary analysis, City staff met with the area landowners
(Railway Lands West and Bathurst/Strachan Area) to discuss the analysis and cost-sharing
of the intersection. The landowners appeared to agree in principle with the need for the left-turn lanes. City staff will be continuing discussions on cost-sharing based on more detailed
cost estimates which are being developed.
(b) Cost-Sharing
The Precinct and Section 37 Agreements with the various landowners should include:
(i) cost-sharing of the Bathurst Street/Bremner Boulevard/Fort York Boulevard
intersection based on a 33 per cent public/66 per cent private formula;
(ii) the requirement for a follow-up traffic review at the time that the intersection
is to be built to confirm the need for left-turn lanes based on traffic conditions
at the time;
(iii) a peer review process to allow each of the private landowners to review the
traffic/transit analysis and conclusions; and
(iv) an updated design and cost-estimate for intersection improvements.
As noted, the construction cost of this intersection, which includes filling and rebuilding
retaining walls, is estimated to be maximum of $4.3 million based on available information.
Following from discussions at the meeting with the landowners, City staff are preparing
more detailed cost estimates for a range of construction options, to be available by the end
of March, 1998. The construction costs of the left-turn lanes was not included in the current
rehabilitation of the Bathurst Street bridge as the bridge repair work did not extend as far
south as the proposed intersection and the left turn lanes will not be required until Fort York
or Bremner Boulevard is built.
In terms of cost-sharing of the intersection, the formula that has been applied to Bremner
Boulevard would continue, 33 per cent public/66 per cent private. The City's 33 per cent
share for left-turn improvements would be divided between City Works and TTC capital
budgets in a manner to be determined. The City's share of Bremner Boulevard is contained
in the 5-year projection of capital works. The remaining two-thirds will be cost-shared
amongst the landowners in the Railway Lands West and Bathurst/Strachan Area in a manner
to be determined. I am recommending that this two-thirds be secured through Section 37 and
Precinct Agreements with the landowners as they apply for as-of-right zoning for their
landholdings. The Bathurst Street/Bremner Boulevard intersection is not specifically
addressed in the previous Precinct Agreements and was not part of recent discussions with
Concord Adex. The existing Stadium Precinct Agreement does, however, address the private
landowners obligation to "construct intersections with existing highways".
Conclusions:
The Urban Design Task Force will assist the City both to complete the urban design guidelines for
the Railway Lands Central and West and to possibly settle or narrow four of the eight appeals of the
Concord Adex by-laws which are currently before the Ontario Municipal Board.
In response to Council's request that staff report on potential options for implementing affordable
housing on the City blocks in the Railway Lands West, the urban design study will help to identify
options and provide:
(1) the basis for the City to respond quickly to any opportunities which may arise -- such
as tax incentives or new programs -- to build affordable housing in the Railway
Lands West;
(2) an opportunity for development of the City lands to occur in parallel with the private
development blocks; and
(3) some certainty to Concord Adex and Wittington about the form of development on
the City blocks.
City staff are continuing discussions with Concord Adex representatives to finalize the Precinct
Agreement which would permit Concord Adex to begin development of its lands in the Railway
Lands West. The Precinct Agreement for the Railway Lands Central has already been executed.
Addressing the timing of the construction of Bremner Boulevard and cost-sharing of the Bremner
Boulevard/Fort York Boulevard/Bathurst Street intersection as set out in this report will allow City
staff to complete these sections of the Agreement.
Contact Name:
Lynda Macdonald
Telephone (416) 392-7618
Fax: (416) 392-1330
E-Mail: lmacdon1@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
Appendix 1
Terms of Reference
Urban Design Task Force, Railway Lands Central and West
Objectives:
To provide a forum for community input into the urban design of the public space system,
streetscape and civic design.
To give advice on the development of an open space master plan that will enhance the public realm
within the Railway Lands Central and West.
To give advice on the development of Urban Design Guidelines for the Railway Lands Central and
West.
To make recommendations for the design of the Pedestrian Bridges at Portland Street and between
Portland Street and Spadina Avenue.
To give advice on public art locations and phasing
Tasks:
(1) Review the existing open space (Fort York, Northern Linear Park from Spadina to the
Skywalk, Roundhouse Park, Harbourfront) and approved open space plans in the area,
(Garrison Creek Community Project proposals, King/Spadina Community Improvement
Plan).
Establish objectives for an open space master plan. Particular objectives should include:
north-south and east-west linkages such as public linkages to the waterfront, Fort York,
neighbourhoods to the north, and over or under the Gardiner Expressway.
(2) Review and comment on the recommendations of the urban design work group. A summary
of the recommendations of the work group are attached as Appendix 2 to this report.
Review the recommendation by the work group that staff prepare concept plans for the
Portland Street vehicular bridge and Brant Street pedestrian bridge, including cost estimates
in order to expedite construction of both bridges.
(3) Review urban design work done to date for the Railway Lands Central and West, including:
(a) draft outline of Urban Design Guidelines, prepared by City staff
(b) structure Plan, as contained in the Official Plan
(c) streetscape design proposals
(4) Give advice on the design of the public spaces and pedestrian bridges including:
(a) criteria for parks and open spaces with particular regard for safety; microclimate and
pedestrian comfort; lighting; interface with streets and the rail corridor; public
furniture; opportunities for tree planting; storm water management; grading;
opportunities for water features;
(b) programming of uses for parks and open spaces and their effect on design;
(c) circulation patterns for cycling and pedestrian linkages to waterfront and how they
impact the design of the parks and open spaces;
(d) location and design of the permanent pedestrian bridge;
(e) design of temporary pedestrian bridge at Portland;
(f) identify projects and suggest criteria for possible design competitions;
(g) identification of potential public art opportunities;
(h) design of the interface between private and public spaces; and
(i) location of proposed utilities to maximize the potential for street trees.
(5) Review streetscape and civic design details including: tree planting on streets, publicly
accessible open spaces and setback areas; streetscape design including sidewalk widths and
pavement patterns; and public furniture such as benches, light standards and waste
receptacles.
(6) Review the agreed-upon phasing for the construction of the public spaces and give advice
on priority public art locations.
Appendix 2
Recommendations of the Urban Design Work Group
February 1998
The following proposed changes to the Official Plan, Zoning By-law, Urban Design Guidelines and
Agreements are the recommendations of the Concord Adex urban design work group and will be
considered in the context of the Task Force meetings:
Official Plan
Railway Lands Central
Spadina/Bremner - add wording to the Official Plan regarding the role of Spadina Avenue and
Bremner Boulevard as major north-south and east-west connectors in the city, and strengthen the
need for consistent design elements and strong edges.
Railway Lands West
Spadina/Bremner - add wording to the Official Plan regarding the role of Spadina Avenue and
Bremner Boulevard as major north-south and east-west connectors in the city, and strengthen the
need for consistent design elements and strong edges.
Change the alignment of buildings on the north side of Bremner Boulevard to require buildings to
follow the street alignment. This should be reflected in the Structure Plan, which is included in the
Official Plan.
Zoning By-law
Railway Lands West
Adjust the setbacks requirement along north side of Bremner to allow buildings to follow the road
alignment.
Additions to Urban Design Guidelines
Emphasize the role of Spadina and Bremner "two powerful streets which traverse the plan north-south and east-west". These streets should have all the characteristics of great urban boulevards and
as such, should have well defined edges, publicness, lively uses and attractive sidewalks.
Define the location of towers and their role in framing streets, parks, defining intersections, and as
part of a coherent overall composition
Establish more detailed design guidelines for the landmark tower on Block 22, to describe base, shaft
and cap definitions and potential for a tapering floor plate.
Add descriptions of several building typologies including towers, mid-rise and row housing.
Encourage a public route along the entire southern edge of the northern linear park, including
vehicular access, if appropriate and feasible, to enhance safety and publicness of the northern linear
park.
Encourage strong, continuous streetwalls and emphasize the fact that heights in zoning by-law are
minimums. Encourage heights recommended by the work group to define the edge of the street, and
a hierarchy of street wall heights related to hierarchy of streets.
Encourage continuous arcades or canopies along Spadina Avenue, including along spaces between
buildings and across the bridge. Weather protection on Bremner Boulevard should be encouraged
and could vary depending on the type of building facing the street. Minimum dimensions of arcades
should be established.
Emphasize "gateways" on Spadina Avenue at Front Street and Lakeshore Boulevard, and be more
prescriptive about streetwall and towers at these locations. More prescriptive measures should be
set out at the site plan approval stage when the first Development Context Plan is prepared.
Encourage a wide landscaped boulevard on the north side of Bremner Boulevard to accommodate
a double row of trees, cafes, benches, bicycle parking, etc., exclusive of any weather protection.
Encourage any grade-related units to be at the same level as the street, and encourage higher floor-to-ceiling heights to permit a range of uses. Guidelines should also address treatment of residential
uses at grade.
Consider a datum line for colonnades and arcades along Spadina Avenue, as well as base buildings
to provide consistency to the streetwall and continuity with the King-Spadina built form.
Examine a split sidewalk along Spadina Avenue to permit access to retail at the ground floor of the
buildings as well as a sidewalk following the sloping grade of the street. Examples and precedents
should be identified.
Examine the potential for a view terminus at Bremner Boulevard and Spadina Avenue.
Recognize the long-term potential for retail on the Spadina Avenue bridge.
Address the need for a unified design approach for the new neighbourhood to support its
development as a place and emphasize the need for Bremner Boulevard and Spadina Avenue to act
as unifying elements.
Include a structure plan in the urban design guidelines which shows the context of Harbourfront,
Bathurst/Strachan and King Spadina.
Agreements
Add a statement indicating that all development proposals shall have regard for the Urban Design
Guidelines.
Maintain permissions in the Agreements for a lane along the northern limit of Block 29, and to
maintain emergency access route along northern limit of Block 24.
Consider a lane along northern limit of Block 32 in the terms of reference for housing provider on
this site.
Maintain the option for the pedestrian bridge to line up with either Draper Street or Brant Street.
Recommendations to Council:
That staff prepare an open space master plan for the Railway Lands west of SkyDome, including
linkages into publicly-accessible open space and public streets, which should be incorporated into
the Urban Design Guidelines for the Concord Adex lands, and to amend the Urban Design
Guidelines for the remainder of the Railway Lands West
That staff prepare preliminary design drawings for the Portland Street vehicular bridge and (Brant
Street) pedestrian bridge including cost estimates in order to expedite construction of both bridges.
Urban Design Task Force
That the recommendations of this work group be forwarded to the Urban Design Task Force, with
additions by staff, for the Task Force to build and comment on.
--------
Appendix 3
Membership of Urban Design Task Force
Railway Lands Central and West
City Councillors:
Councillor Olivia Chow (Ward 24), Chair
Councillor Kyle Rae (Ward 24)
Councillor Joe Pantalone (Ward 20), Chair of Urban Planning and Development Committee
Landowners and Leaseholders in the Railway Lands Central and West:
Concord Adex Developments Corp.
Wittington Properties Ltd.
SkyDome
Canada Lands Company
TrizecHahn
GO Transit
CN Rail
Toronto Terminals Railway Company
City of Toronto Housing
Royal Bank Data Centre
Community and Residents Groups:
Harbourfront Square Residents Association
Harbourfront Residents Association
Harbour Terrace
Niagara Residents Association
Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association
Draper Street Residents Association
Toronto District Entertainment Association
Friends of Fort York
Harbourfront Centre
Garrison Creek Community Project
Ontario Municipal Board Appellants:
City Front Developments Inc.
R. Scott James
J. Robert Naylor
Trees for Toronto G.T.A. Regeneration Trust Inc.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (April 2, 1998) from Mr. Mark
Noskiewicz, Goodman Phillips and Vineberg, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Railway Lands West & Central
(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the
following report (April 15, 1998) from the City Solicitor:
Purpose:
To report, as requested, upon potential settlements and other issues regarding the May 8, 1998
Ontario Municipal Board prehearing conference in respect of the Railway Lands Central and West
official plan amendments and zoning by-laws passed by the Council of the former City of Toronto
on October 6, 1997.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
No further funding is required arising from the recommendations of this report.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) the City Solicitor be authorised to report, if necessary, directly to the May 13 and June 3,
1998 meetings of City Council upon any potential settlement regarding the Ontario
Municipal Board hearing scheduled to commence on June 15, 1998 in respect of the Railway
Lands Central and West official plan amendments and zoning by-laws;
(2) the City Solicitor be authorised to advise the Ontario Municipal Board at the May 8, 1998
prehearing conference that the City agrees that:
(i) the Board may amend the Railway Lands Central Zoning By-law:
(a) to clarify that a temporary office is permitted on block 22 for the construction
management and sale of the Concord Adex project; and
(b) to increase the size of the temporary sales/management office from 950 to
2,000 square metres, without limit to the number of accessory parking
spaces, upon the conditions referred to in the April 14, 1998 letter of the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to the City
Solicitor, and
(ii) the Board may issue an order permitting the temporary sales/management office in
advance of the commencement of the June 15, 1998 hearing; and
(3) authority be granted for the City to enter into an agreement with Concord Adex to secure the
conditions referenced in Recommendation (2)(i)(b).
Council Reference/Background/History:
On October 6, 1997 the Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto passed official plan
amendments and zoning by-law amendments in respect of certain blocks owned by Concord Adex
within the Railway Lands Central and the Railway Lands West. Eight appeals were filed. The
Ontario Municipal Board held a preliminary prehearing conference on March 3, 1998 at which time
the Board set May 8, 1998 for a further prehearing conference and also reserved four weeks,
commencing on June 15, 1998, to hear the appeals.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
One appellant, Environmental Probe Ltd., has withdrawn and while I anticipate agreement may be
reached with most, but not all of the remaining appellants, I am not yet in a position to report on
any of the potential settlements. As I may, on short notice, require instructions to implement
settlements at the commencement of the hearing on June 15, 1998, I request that I be allowed to
report directly to the Council meetings to be held on May 13, 1998, and on June 3, 1998.
I am also requesting authority to consent, at the May 8, 1998 prehearing conference, to Concord
Adex's request:
(1) to amend the Railway Lands Central Zoning By-law by increasing, from 950 to 2,000 square
metres, the size of the temporary sales/management office permitted on block 22 with no
restriction on the number of accessory parking spaces; and
(2) to permit the immediate construction of the temporary sales/management office in advance
of the June 15, 1998 hearing.
Appended as Appendix "A" to this report, is a letter dated April 14, 1998 from the Commissioner
of Urban Planning and Development Services, in which the Commissioner recommends that City
Council concur with Concord Adex's request subject to certain conditions.
Conclusions:
It is appropriate for Council to adopt the above noted recommendations.
Contact Name:
Stephen Bradley, Solicitor, Telephone: (416) 392-7790, Fax: (416) 392-0024.
Appendix "A"
(Communication dated April 14, 1998 from
the Commissioner Urban Planning and Development Services
to the City Solicitor)
Concord Adex has advised that it wishes, at the May 8, 1998, preliminary hearing, to ask the
Ontario Municipal Board to increase the size of the temporary sales/management office permitted
on block 22 in the Railway Lands Central from 950 to 2,000 square metres and to issue an order
permitting the immediate construction of the office notwithstanding that the appeals of the by-law
will not be heard until June 15, 1998. Concord Adex has asked me to provide you with my opinion
on its request so that you may obtain instructions from Council, at its April 15, 1998 meeting, to
permit you to address this issue at the May 8, 1998 prehearing conference.
None of the appeals of the Concord Adex By-laws relate to the provision of a temporary sales office.
Planning staff have reviewed the preliminary plans for the temporary sales/management office and
have no planning concerns. The temporary office will house sales staff, display areas and a model
suite and the site will be landscaped. The larger sales office offers the advantage of providing a
stronger urban edge to Spadina Avenue in accordance with the City's objectives for the Railway
Lands. I am therefore recommending that City Council concur with Concord Adex's request subject
to the condition that Concord Adex enter into an agreement with the City to ensure that:
(i) the parking area associated with the temporary sales/management office not be used
as a commercial parking lot;
(ii) the landscaping of the temporary sales/management office and associated parking
area be implemented and maintained substantially in accordance with the
preliminary plans on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services; and
(iii) the temporary sales/management office be removed upon the completion of the
construction and sale of the Concord Adex project.
As set out in Chapter 165 of the Municipal Code, the sales/management office is not subject to site
plan review as it is a temporary use.
Planning staff have also reviewed preliminary plans with permit services staff who have requested
that By-law 1997-0612 Section 19 be amended to more explicitly define a temporary office for sales
and management of real estate as a permitted use. Please include this request in your report to the
April 15, 1998 meeting of City Council.)
42
Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,
of The City of Toronto Municipal Code-
(Trinity-Niagara, Midtown, Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
(March 30, 1998)Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit 9 non-illuminated banner signs, one illuminated "bridge" sign and one illuminated roof sign.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council approve Application Nos. 998007 and 998022 respecting minor variances from
Chapter 297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 9 non-illuminated
banner signs, one illuminated "bridge" sign and one illuminated roof sign.
(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application Nos. 998007 and 998022, of the
requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services.
Comments:
The property is located on the block bounded by Lakeshore Boulevard East, Lower Jarvis Street and
Queens Quay East, in an industrial (IC) district. The property accommodates a two storey grocery
store. The applicant is requesting permission to install 6 projecting banner signs on the east
elevation of the building, one illuminated "bridge" sign, three projecting banner signs on the south
elevation of the building and one illuminated roof sign. In addition to the 11 signs that are part of
this application, an additional 4 signs, which are permitted under the Municipal Code, will be
installed as illustrated on attached Figure 1.
The projecting banner signs each have a length of 0.9 metres and a height of 4.5 metres, with an area
of 4.1 m², the "bridge" sign has a length of 5.3 metres and a height of 1.0 metre, with an area of
5.3 m² and the roof sign has a length of 17.4 metres and a height of 3.0 metres, with an area of
52.2 m².
The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
(1) the area of the projecting banner signs on Queen's Quay East (12.54 m²) exceeds the
maximum permitted area of 6 m² and the area of the projecting banner signs on Jarvis Street
(25 m²) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 10 m²;
(2) a "bridge" sign is not a defined sign type and is therefore not permitted; and
(3) a roof sign is not permitted.
The first variance relates to the size of the projecting banner signs. The maximum area for a
projecting sign is based on the amount of frontage the unit has on the street. This development
consists of a grocery store on the south end with an attached parking garage structure on the north
end. As illustrated on Figures 2 and 3 the signs would be attached to the section of wall related to
the grocery store which is 95 metres long on Jarvis Street and 55 metres long on Queen's Quay
West, and in my opinion, the signs are appropriately sized to identify this block-long retail facility.
The second variance occurs because a "bridge" sign is not defined under Chapter 297 of the
Municipal Code and is therefore not permitted. The sign would consist of individual letters mounted
against the bridge which connects the grocery store to the parking garage structure (see Figure 5).
The sign would be externally lit and would be used to identify the entrance to the parking garage
which I consider appropriate.
The third variance occurs because a roof sign is not permitted in the Gardiner Expressway Corridor.
This restriction resulted from a growing concern that signs were becoming increasingly larger and
higher and were obstructing the panoramic views along the Gardiner Expressway and the Don
Valley Parkway, the City's gateway corridors.
In this instance, the roof sign would consist of individual metal letters mounted on the north side of
the building. Unlike the large vertical support structures typically associated with roof signs, the
letters would be individually supported on 2.4 metre high steel poles. The sign would be mounted
at the base of the pre-finished metal roof which rises sharply to a height of 7.3 metres. The roof
would provide a backdrop for the sign which, when viewed from the street, would more closely
resemble a fascia sign (see Figure 4). While the classification of a "roof" sign in this instance is
arguably a technical matter in that the sign would be anchored to the roof of the building, the sign
has none of the locational or structural attributes associated with such signs and would not obstruct
or otherwise interfere with significant views along this gateway corridor.
For these reasons I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested
to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca
Telephone: (416) 392-0421
Fax: (416) 392-7536
E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
10 Lower Jarvis Street
Insert Table/Map No. 2
10 Lower Jarvis Street
Insert Table/Map No. 3
10 Lower Jarvis Street
Insert Table/Map No. 4
10 Lower Jarvis Street
Insert Table/Map No. 5
10 Lower Jarvis Street
Insert Table/Map No. 6
10 Lower Jarvis Street
Insert Table/Map No. 7
10 Lower Jarvis Street
Insert Table/Map No. 8
10 Lower Jarvis Street
(March 16, 1998)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council approve Application No.998009 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297,
Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign.
(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998009, of the requirement to
obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services.
Comments:
The property is located on the south-west corner of Adelaide Street West and Bay Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates an 18 storey office building. The
building is designated historical under the Ontario Heritage Act.
The applicant is requesting permission to install one non-illuminated fascia sign on the east elevation
of the building (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 3.5 metres and a height of 0.5 metres, with
an area of 1.9 m².
The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will be located above
the second storey of the building.
Signs are permitted to be located within the first two storeys of a building. The intent of this
provision is to prevent oversignage and to limit the possible negative impact of signage on the
streetscape and on the appearance of buildings. A site visit by staff has confirmed that no reasonable
opportunities for signage exist within the first two storeys. Further, the modestly sized sign would
be non-illuminated and would be in keeping with other signs along this section of Bay Street, which
I consider acceptable.
Heritage Toronto has advised that they have no concerns regarding this application.
I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be
minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca, Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536
E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
320 Bay Street
Insert Table/Map No. 2
320 Bay Street
(March 6, 1998)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one
illuminated fascia sign.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement::
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council approve Application No. 997121 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297,
Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign.
(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 997121, of the requirement to
obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services.
Comments:
The property is located on a block bounded by Lake Shore Blvd. East, Ferdinand Street, Queens
Quay East and Cooper Street, in an industrial (IC) district. The property accommodates a 5 storey
commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign
in the form of a corporate logo on the north elevation of the building (see Figures 1 & 2). The sign
has a length of 8.23 metres and a height of 1.98 metres, with an area of 16.3 m².
The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:
(1) the sign projects 0.59 metres from the wall of the building instead of the 0.45 metres
permitted; and
(2) the sign is not located above the required height of 34 metres.
The first variance results from the extent of the sign's projection from the building face. The sign
exceeds the permitted maximum projection of 0.45 metres by 0.14 metres. In this instance, however,
the sign is located 16.7 metres above grade and it will not endanger nor inconvenience pedestrians.
Respecting the second variance, the Municipal Code requires illuminated corporate logo signs to be
located within the uppermost storey of buildings higher than 34 metres above grade in order to
reduce their visual impact on the streetscape, on the buildings to which they are attached and on
adjacent uses. In this instance, the sign is located at the penthouse level of the building at a height
of 16.7 metres. Given the industrial nature of the area, the fact that the proposed sign is well within
the permitted size for logo signs and located at the top of the building, there is no negative visual
impact on either the streetscape or the building. Further, the nearest building from which the sign
is visible is approximately 200 metres away and across the Gardiner Expressway.
I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be
minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca
Telephone: (416) 392-0421
Fax: (416) 392-7536
E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
55 lake shore boulevard east - downtown
Insert Table/Map No. 2
55 lake shore boulevard east - downtown
Insert Table/Map No. 3
55 lake shore boulevard east - downtown
Insert Table/Map No. 4
55 lake shore boulevard east - downtown
(March 12, 1998)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council approve Application No. 998006 respecting a minor variance from Chapter
297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign.
(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998006, of the requirement to
obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services.
Comments:
The property is located on the south-west corner of Richmond Street West and Portland Street, in
a Reinvestment Area (RA) district. The property accommodates a 12 storey building on the west
part of the site and a two storey building on the east part of the site. Both buildings are used for
commercial purposes. The applicant is requesting permission to install one non-illuminated fascia
sign on the north elevation of the two storey building on a part of the building that is recessed from
the main front wall (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 0.9 metres and a height of 0.4 metres,
with an area of 0.36 m².
The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will be located on a wall
that is not part of the tenant's commercial unit.
The Municipal Code requires signs to be located on the portion of wall belonging to a particular
commercial unit so that each commercial unit is allowed to be identified. The sign would be located
directly below an existing sign which currently identifies one of the three tenants in the building.
In my opinion, the location of the proposed sign will not preclude the provision of appropriate
signage for the other tenants in this building.
I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and
within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca, Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536
E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
543 Richmond street west (downtown)
Insert Table/Map No. 2
543 Richmond street west (downtown)
Insert Table/Map No. 3
543 Richmond street west (downtown)
(March 12, 1998)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one non-illuminated fascia sign.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council approve Application No. 998010 respecting a minor variance from Chapter
297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one non-illuminated fascia
sign.
(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998010, of the requirement to
obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services.
Comments:
The property is located on the south side of Queen Street West between Bathurst Street and
Tecumseth Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates
a two storey building with residential uses on the upper storey and commercial uses at grade. The
applicant is requesting permission to maintain one non-illuminated fascia sign for the purposes of
identifying the ground floor commercial tenant (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 4.5 metres
and a height of 0.6 metres with an area of 2.7 m².
The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will not be located
entirely on a wall that is part of the commercial unit.
The Municipal Code requires signs to be located on the portion of wall belonging to a particular
commercial unit so that each commercial unit is allowed to be identified. In this instance, the sign
extends over the doorway which provides access to the second floor residential units. However, its
location does not preclude the provision of appropriate signage for other commercial tenants in this
building.
I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and
within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca, Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536
E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
713 queen street west (trinity)
Insert Table/Map No. 2
713 queen street west (trinity)
Insert Table/Map No. 3
713 queen street west (trinity)
(March 20, 1998)
Purpose:
To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit two non-illuminated fascia signs.
Financial Implications:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) City Council approve Application No. 998005 respecting a minor variance from Chapter
297, Signs, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two non-illuminated fascia
signs.
(2) The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998005, of the requirement to
obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services.
Comments:
The property is located on the north-east corner of Bay Street and Bloor Street, in a mixed-use
(commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 14 storey commercial building.
The applicant is requesting permission to install two non-illuminated fascia signs in the form of a
corporate logo on the south-west corner of the building (see Figure 1). The signs would identify the
main tenant of the building and each would have a length of 1.0 metre and a height of 5.7 metres,
with an area of 5.7 m².
The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the height of the signs (5.7
metres) will exceed the maximum permitted height of 3.0 metres by 2.7 metres.
The height of sign is regulated in order to reduce the visual impact of signs on the streetscape and
on the buildings to which they are attached. In this instance, the proposed signs would consist of
individual sculpted aluminum letters running vertically along the south and west faces of the
building's precast corner column. The signs would be appropriately sized, reflecting the height of
the visually identifiable mechanical penthouse. Further, the proposed signs would be well within
the permitted 25 m² size limit for logo signs. In my opinion, closer compliance to the requirements
of the Municipal Code would not meaningfully reduce the visual impact of the proposed signs.
Given these reasons, I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance
requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the
Municipal Code.
Contact Name:
Lora Mazzocca, Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536
E-Mail: lmazzocc@city.toronto.on.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
60 Bloor
Insert Table/Map No. 2
60 bloor
Insert Table/Map No. 3
60 bloor
43
Retention of Expert Planning Witness -
5, 7 and 9 Sultan Street (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998 deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of
Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)
(See Clause No. 43 of Report No. 3A of The Toronto Community Council.)
44
Propane By-law No. 193-91 of the
former City of Toronto
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the confidential report
(March 19, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting Propane By-law
No. 193-91 of the former City of Toronto (All Wards in the former City of Toronto), which was
forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.
(Confidential report dated March 19, 1998,
addressed to the Toronto Community Council
from Sylvia N. Watson, Toronto Community Council Solicitor,
respecting Propane By-law No. 193-91 of the former City of Toronto
[All Wards of the former City of Toronto])
Purpose:
To address the appeals of the Propane By-law, in view of the decision of the Ontario Court of
Appeal.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
N/A.
Recommendations:
It is recommended:
1. That Council authorize the City Solicitor to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board to
settle the outstanding appeals of By-law No. 193-91 by agreeing to allow the appeals on the
basis of the decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the matter of the City of York
Propane By-law, given the similarities between the by-laws.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In 1991 the former City of Toronto enacted By-law No. 193-91 regulating propane transfer facilities
and motor vehicle fueling system conversion and repair shops. Superior Propane Inc., the Propane
Gas Association of Canada Inc. and the Ontario Committee of the Propane Gas Association of
Canada Inc. appealed this by-law but a hearing was not scheduled because a similar by-law enacted
by the former City of York was under appeal to the Courts based on an issue of jurisdiction (whether
or not the provisions of the Energy Act and its regulations had occupied the field such that
municipalities could not enact by-laws relating to propane facilities).
The City of York by-law was eventually determined by the Ontario Court of Appeal to be invalid
and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused.
The solicitor for Superior Propane Inc. and the Propane Gas Association of Canada Inc. has
requested that the City repeal By-law No. 193-91.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
In my view the Court decision has left scope for municipal regulation of such facilities provided it
is limited to land use planning. At the most basic level that would include regulating the districts
these facilities may locate in.
In an article in the Digest of Municipal and Planning Law, a municipal lawyer wrote: "It must be
assumed that the reasoning of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Superior Propane decision does
not stand for the proposition that municipalities cannot in any way control the location or character
or businesses dispensing propane gas. To hold otherwise would mean that propane stations could
be established in any residential zone as-of-right and, although one interpretation of the decision
could lead to this result, it would certainly not be a sensible outcome." I concur with this statement.
Allowing the Appeals:
The effect of allowing the appeals would be that the by-law would not come into force. However,
propane fueling and conversion facilities would for the most part fall under various fueling and
automotive repair type uses which are already regulated in the former City of Toronto's general
Zoning By-law and therefore would be regulated in the same manner as such uses. For example,
"automobile service and repair shops", "automobile service stations", "motor vehicle repair shops,
class A or class B", "public garages", "gas bars", and "wholesale fuel supply yards" are uses which
do not differentiate based on the type of fuel involved. Accordingly, if propane fuel is involved in
an activity that falls within one of these definitions, the activity would be regulated under the
existing general Zoning By-law.
One use addressed by By-law No. 193-91 which may not fit within any existing use in the general
Zoning By-law is a transfer facility which does not involve the filling of automobiles. Such a use
may be accessory and would be permitted as long as the principal use allows accessory uses.
However if such a transfer facility were to comprise a principal use, the general Zoning By-law does
not list such as permitted and therefore would be prohibited unless it could be determined to fall
within some other permitted use.
Thus allowing the appeals would for the most part result in propane transfer, fueling and conversion
facilities being regulated under the general Zoning By-law, in the same manner as facilities where
other fuels are involved.
Conclusions:
It is clear that By-law 193-91 will not be upheld and therefore the appeals should be allowed.
Contact Name:
Sharon Haniford
Telephone: (416)392-6975
Fax: (416)392-0024.
45
Settlement Report -
550 Queens Quay West - Harbourfront
Parcel SQ-2 (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(March 31, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
This report seeks Council's endorsement of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) settlement of a
Committee of Adjustment appeal with the developer of 550 Queens Quay West. The proposed
settlement is acceptable to City staff and to the Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association, one of
the appellants.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to settle the appeal of the Committee of
Adjustment decision regarding 550 Queens Quay West, at the Ontario Municipal Board,
substantially in accordance with the terms set out in Appendix A of this report, with support from
the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services as deemed necessary.
Comments:
On March 4, 1998, City Council directed the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning
and Development Services to appear at the OMB in support of the Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood
Association's (BQNA's) appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision (Clause 50, TCC Report
No. 2). An OMB hearing has been scheduled for April 27, 1998.
Further to my status report of March 18, 1998, I can now advise that settlement negotiations between
the developer, City planning staff and the BQNA have concluded, and all three parties are agreeable
to the following amendments to the building proposal:
(a) Any permission for surface parking is deleted. This will improve the quality of open space
at grade on the site.
(b) Retail at grade shall be secured, so that the ground floor of the building will have a minimum
of 39.5 linear metres of retail along the Queen's Quay West frontage, to a minimum depth
of 7.5 metres. This will meet, and in fact exceed, the Harbourfront By-law stipulation that
50% of the Queens Quay West frontage be occupied by street-related retail uses.
(c) Within the required retail area described above, dwelling units and personal recreation space
shall be prohibited. However, at-grade dwelling units and personal recreation space would
be permitted behind the required retail zone (i.e., about 11 metres back from the Queens
Quay West frontage). This is acceptable from a planning perspective, since the Queen's
Quay West frontage itself would be reserved for uses with a more lively, public face.
(d) The angular plane on Queens Quay West is still being penetrated, but to a lesser degree than
before, and with building step-backs to reduce the scale of the building. The drawing in
Appendix A (Schedule A) of this report illustrates the new profile to be provided along the
building faces adjacent to the Queens Quay West property line.
The proposed building profile is acceptable because it is similar to the approved building
profile at 600 Queens Quay West, immediately to the west, across Portland Street.
(e) The building would exceed the heights permitted in the Harbourfront by-law in a minor way:
34 metres above grade in lieu of 31 metres, and 28.2 metres in lieu of 28 metres. To mitigate
any impact of the height increase, the developer has agreed to step the building back 1.6
metres on all frontages above a height of 105.2 metres Canadian Geodetic Datum (i.e. 28.4
metres above grade) as shown in Schedules A & B. In my opinion, this renders the height
increase acceptable.
It is agreeable to all three parties that some aspects of the building design would not require
amendment. In other words, the following variances granted by the Committee of Adjustment are
acceptable:
(a) The allowance that Parcel SQ2-W, below grade, does not include all of the lands illustrated
in the Harbourfront By-law. This is a technical variance, the granting of which would have
no negative impact on the site or its surroundings.
(b) The addition of "live-work" to the list of permitted uses. This would be acceptable since
"live-work" is now a common residential type of use in new urban buildings in Toronto (but
was not a common concept in 1993, at the time the Harbourfront By-law was brought into
force and effect).
(c) An increase of the maximum permitted gross floor area (GFA), which includes both
residential and non-residential uses, from 20,500 m2 to 21,730 m2. This represents an
increase of 6%, which is minor in this instance and is acceptable in view of the setback and
step-back restrictions to be imposed.
(d) Within the total GFA, an increase of residential GFA from 19,000 m2 to 21,230 m2. Aside
from the street-related retail GFA which is to be secured on this site, an increase in
residential use in the rest of the building would be acceptable within the permitted built form
envelope.
In summary, the reason for settling this matter before the Ontario Municipal Board is that the
amended proposal will come closer to achieving the built form objectives for Harbourfront than that
approved by the Committee of Adjustment.
I have advised the other appellant, Increasing Investments Inc., the purchaser of a condominium unit
at 600 Queens Quay West, about the negotiations with the developer and the BQNA, and the
proposed terms of settlement, which Increasing Investments Inc. is now reviewing.
Contact Name:
Anne Milchberg
Telephone (416) 392-7216
Fax (416) 392-1330
E-mail: amilchbe@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
Appendix "A"
List of Variances Required
1. The Parcel SQ-2W, below grade, does not include all of the lands illustrated in the by-law.
(Section 4, definition of "lot", and Appendix C)
2. The proposed "live-work units" are not listed as permitted. (Section 13)
3. The by-law limits the maximum combined non-residential gross floor area and residential
gross floor area to not more than 20,500 square metres. The proposed building will have a
maximum combined non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area of
21,730 square metres. (Section 14(1) and Appendix E)
4. The by-law limits the maximum residential gross floor area to not more than 19,000 square
metres. The proposed building will have a maximum residential gross floor area of
21,230 square metres. (Section 14(1) and Appendix E)
5. The building will penetrate through the angular plane that limits the height of the building
along the southernmost building wall not exceeding the building envelope shown on
Schedule "A" attached hereto. The angular plane is projected over the building at an angle
of 40 degrees from an elevation of 94 metres, Canadian Geodetic Datum (17.2 metres above
grade, which is defined as 76.8 metres, Canadian Geodetic Datum) along the southernmost
wall of the building. (Section 15(1)(I))
6. The by-law requires the main floor level used for commercial purposes to have width of at
least 60% of the building's frontage on Queens Quay West. The proposed commercial use
will occupy an area having dimensions of not less than 39.5 metres in aggregate width
fronting on Queens Quay West. (Section 18(I))
7. Dwelling units and personal recreation space are not allowed on floors between grade and
3 metres above grade. The proposed dwelling units will be located not closer than
11.0 metres to the northerly limit of Queens Quay West. (Section 17)
8. The building will exceed the heights permitted by the by-law. The height contraventions,
not including mechanical penthouses shall not exceed the following: 34 metres in lieu of
31 metres and 28.2 metres in lieu of 28 metres; and shall incorporate the step-backs at 105.2
metres, Canadian Geodetic Datum, as shown on Schedules "A" and "B" attached hereto.
(Section 20)
Insert Table/Map No. 1
550 Queens Quay
Insert Table/Map No. 2
550 Queens Quay
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to advise Toronto Community Council of the status of an OMB appeal
regarding 550 Queen's Quay West. Settlement discussions between the developer, City planning
staff and the Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association (BQNA) are under way, and I will be
reporting further to Toronto Community Council if time permits, or directly to City Council, on the
outcome of these discussions.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that I report further on the settlement discussions directly to the April 1, 1998
Toronto Community Council meeting if time permits, or directly to City Council on April 16, 1998.
Comments:
The subject site is located at the northeast corner of Queen's Quay West and Portland Street, at 540,
560 and 570 Queen's Quay West. It is the second phase of a residential condominium complex with
retail and office uses at grade, previously known as "The Pavilions". The first phase of the
development, at 500 Queen's Quay West, is now under construction. Phase II is still subject to a
revised Site Plan Application, which has not yet been submitted.
In December, 1997, the proponents for 550 Queen's Quay West submitted an application for minor
variance to the Committee of Adjustment. Ten variances were sought, and all were granted by the
Committee on December 17th, 1997. The Committee granted its approval notwithstanding a
December 5th letter from myself, which recommended that the requested variances be refused in the
form applied for, and that they be amended to yield a more satisfactory building design and site plan.
The Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association (BQNA) appealed the Committee of Adjustment
decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), as did a condominium unit owner at
600 Queen's Quay West, a building now under construction. On March 4th, 1998, City Council
directed the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to
appear at the OMB in support of the BQNA's appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision
(Clause 50, TCC Report No. 2).
An OMB hearing has been scheduled for April 27th, 1998. The City Solicitor has contacted the
OMB to secure party status in the upcoming hearing. Settlement discussions between the developer,
City planning staff and the BQNA are underway, and considerable progress has been made.
I will report further on the outcome of the settlement discussions, including terms of settlement, if
any. Depending on the time required to pursue settlement, the timing of the follow-up report will
be either April 1, 1998 (as an accompanying report to Toronto Community Council), or,
alternatively, directly to City Council at its meeting of April 16, 1998.
Contact Name:
Anne Milchberg
Telephone: (416) 392-7216
Fax: (416) 392-1330
E-Mail: amilchbe@city.toronto.on.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Part of 540, 560 & 570 Queen's Quay West
46
Residential Demolition Permit Conditions
- 2393 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 27, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:
Purpose:
To recommend the extension of conditions related to a residential demolition permit at 2393 St. Clair
Avenue West.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That City Council extend the conditions attached to residential demolition permit 345606 to
September 7, 1998 on condition that, upon failure to complete the new building within the specified
time, the City Clerk shall enter on the collector's roll, to be collected in like manner as municipal
taxes, the sum of $20,000.00 for each dwelling unit in respect of which the demolition permit was
issued, and that such sum shall, until payment thereof, be a lien or charge upon the land in respect
of which the permit to demolish the residential property was issued.
Council Reference/Background/History:
On October 12 & 15, 1993, the Council of the former City of Toronto approved the issuance of a
permit to demolish the detached house at 2393 St. Clair Avenue West. The permit was issued on
condition that a new building be erected no later than two years from the day demolition of the
existing residential property commenced.
The permit was granted on a further condition that upon failure to complete the new building within
the specified time frame, the City Clerk should be entitled to enter on the collector's roll, to be
collected in like manner as municipal taxes, the sum of $20,000 for each dwelling unit in the
residential property in respect of which this demolition permit was issued and such sum should, until
paid, be a lien or charge upon 2393 St. Clair Avenue West.
Demolition of the single family detached house commenced on September 7, 1994. The new
building was required to be completed by September 7, 1996. The foundations were poured, but
construction was suspended. On January 29, 1997 the then Commissioner of Urban Development
Services reported that because the applicant did not meet the terms of the former City of Toronto's
"Guidelines for Considering Requests to Extend Residential Demolition Permits", the extension
should be refused and the $20,000.00 charge should be applied.
At its meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997, the Council of the former City or Toronto
considered Clause 8 of Neighbourhoods Committee Report No. 4 and referred it to the new City of
Toronto.
Comments:
In October of 1997, the owner obtained a revised Site Plan Approval/Undertaking, and on
November 18th, 1997 a building permit to construct a two storey mixed-use building in-lieu of the
original 3 storey building. Construction of the revised project is well underway. The owner has
indicated to me that it is reasonable to expect that construction will be substantially complete by
September 7, 1998.
Conclusion:
In light of the new Site Plan Approval, building permit and active construction, the demolition
conditions for 2393 St. Clair Avenue West should be extended to September 7, 1998.
Contact Name:
David Brezer, P.Eng
Telephone: (416) 392-0097
Fax: (416) 392-0721
E-mail: dbrezer@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it,
during consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause No. 8 contained in the former City of Toronto
Neighbourhoods Committee Report No. 4, which was referred back for resubmission by City
Council of the former City of Toronto from its meeting of September 22, 1997.
47
Settlement of Objection to By-law No. 1994-0601 -
Definitions of Club, Concert Hall, Place of Amusement,
Place of Assembly and Related Requirements
(All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998 deferred consideration of this Clause to the Special Meeting of
Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)
(See Clause No. 47 of Report No. 4A of The Toronto Community Council.)
48
Special Occasion Permit -
Rosedale Moorepark Association (Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council Committee recommends that Council, for LLBO purposes,
advise the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario that it is aware of the proposed beer garden at the
Mayfair event, to be held in Rosedale Park, on May 9, 1998, and indicate that it has no
objection to it taking place.
The Toronto Community Councils submits the following communication (March 17, 1998)
from Ms. L.A. Sayer, Chair, Beer Garden Committee, Rosedale Moorepark Association:
This letter is to inform you of the application of this Association for a Special Occasion Permit for
Rosedale Park for the above date.
The intention is to operate a beer garden in the same manner as has been done for several years now.
The attached sketches show the location of the enclosure in the west end of the park, and the layout.
The hours of operation will be from 11:00 A.M. to 5 P.M., and the enclosure will consist of two
snow fences separated by a distance of 5 feet, and the event is open air.
We expect up to 1,600 people to use the beer garden throughout the day. Security will be maintained
by a security force who will monitor all exits and check for proof of age. Food will be served
consisting of sausages, hamburgers and potato chips and soft drinks and juice will also be available.
If there are any questions, please call me at 975-1433 (work) or 483-7320 (home).
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Scholfield Avenue
49
Special Occasion Permit - Danforth Collegiate
and Technical Institute Celebration (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for LLBO purposes, declare
the 75th Anniversary of Danforth Collegiate and Technical Institute, to be held on May 1 and
2, 1998, to be an event of municipal significance, and indicate that it has no objection to it
taking place.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 23, 1998)
from Mr. Robert J. Gooding, Danforth Collegiate and Technical Institute:
The staff and students of Danforth Collegiate & Technical Institute will be celebrating the 75th
anniversary of the school on May 1 and 2, 1998. The May 1st Friday evening program is fairly
low-key and is not expected to draw a heavy crowd. However, there is an expectation that thousands
of graduates, former students and staff will return to Danforth on Saturday, May 2, 1998 between
11:00 a.m and 4:00 p.m.
I have attached a brief summary of the key attractions to show you the scope and nature of the
events. So far we have had responses from across Canada and the United States.
Without doubt the celebration will be disruptive to the typical traffic flow of a Saturday afternoon.
We have sent a letter to the Metropolitan Toronto Police outlining the following provisions that we
will be making. We shall provide parking on the school grounds at Danforth and Wilkenson Public
School. The parking lot at Eastern High School of Commerce and possibly Monarch Park Collegiate
may east the crush. Visitors will probably try to park on side streets in the area. I would hope that
parking infraction rules could be enforced generously that day although I recognize that residents
must have access to their driveways. I hope visitors will park sensibly.
We have applied for a special liquor permit for the occasion. We plan to serve beer and wine only
in an enclosed tent positioned in the north-east corner of our football field. We have been offered
professional bartender assistance to ensure that the liquor laws are enforced correctly. Barbecues
and pasta booths will be nearby to ensure that food is consumed along with the beer and wine.
We will be collecting money for the purchase of souvenirs, food and liquor and many visitors will
be making donations for scholarships. We will also have a number of valuable automobiles on
display. We intend to hire off-duty police officers and perhaps some private security staff to
maintain security in key locations throughout the day. Arrangements will also be made to ensure
St. John's Ambulance staff are on-site to assist with first aid.
We have tried to prepare for all eventualities, however, with your experience you may think of
something we may have overlooked. Please contact me at 393-0595 if you have concerns, questions
or advice and please accept our invitation to join us on May 1st, even if just for a few moments.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, a copy of the Itinerary - May 1 - 2, 1998, a copy of
which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
50
No. 162 Bloor Street West - Request for Release
of Heritage Easement Agreement as it Applies to
No. 150 Bloor Street West (Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 3, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor:
Purpose:
Request for release of a Heritage Easement Agreement from the 150 Bloor Street West lands since
the agreement relates to the preservation of a church which sits on a separate parcel of land.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare, and the appropriate City officials execute, a release
of the Heritage Easement Agreement registered on title as Instrument No. C-167911 in respect of
the portion of the lands known as No. 150 Bloor Street West.
Council Reference/Background/History:
See comments section.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Gardiner, Roberts, Solicitor for the Great-West Life Assurance Company, the owner of No.
150 Bloor Street West (a commercial/residential building known as Renaissance Court), have by
letter dated February 9, 1998, requested release of a Heritage Easement Agreement drawn pursuant
to the Ontario Heritage Act as it applies to those lands.
The agreement between Fidinam Properties Inc./Bramalea Limited and the former City of Toronto
was registered on title on October 11, 1984, as Instrument No. C-167911.
The intent of the agreement is to ensure the preservation of the historical, architectural, aesthetic and
scenic character and condition of property known as the Church of the Redeemer, located at No. 162
Bloor Street West ("the church").
The agreement was registered on title against both No. 150 Bloor Street West (Renaissance Court)
and No. 162 Bloor Street West (the church).
Subsequently, the church lands were severed in a Committee of Adjustment decision dated
March 27, 1985 and sold to The Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Toronto.
The request is for a release of the subject agreement from the 150 Bloor Street West lands since the
agreement relates to the preservation of a church which sits on a separate parcel of land.
Staff of Heritage Toronto indicate no opposition to the above request.
Conclusions:
Not applicable.
Contact Name:
William Hawryliw, Solicitor
Telephone: (416) 392-7237
Fax: (416) 392-0024
E-Mail: whawryli@city.toronto.on.ca
51
Execution of Section 37 Agreement -
Urban Design Guidelines -
Marine Terminal 27 - 25 Queens Quay East (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 19, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor:
Purpose:
To obtain authority for the execution of the required Section 37 Agreement respecting 25 Queens
Quay East and provide an update on the amendments to By-law No. 1996-0483 recently sent to the
Ontario Municipal Board and the proposed Urban Design Guidelines for the Site.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
With this development, the City achieves a package of public benefits including waterfront parkland,
money for basic park improvements, community services and public art as described in this report
and in the site specific by-law.
Recommendations:
It is recommended:
(1) That Council approve the terms of the Section 37 Agreement required by By-law
No. 1996-0483, as amended, of the former City of Toronto and authorize the appropriate
City officials to execute such agreement provided the Toronto Community Council Solicitor,
in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and
any other appropriate Commissioners, is satisfied both as to its form and that it is
substantially as described in her report of March 19, 1998.
Council Reference/Background/History:
City Council for the former City of Toronto at its meeting of October 7 and 8, 1996, requested the
Acting City Solicitor to report directly to City Council or the Land Use Committee on the terms of
the Section 37 Agreement required by Zoning By-law No. 1996-0483 which, as amended, is
currently before the Ontario Municipal Board.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
Further to the settlement discussions between City staff, Avro Quay Limited ("Avro", being the
owner of the 25 Queens Quay East Lands to which By-law No. 1996-0483 applies) and Redpath
Industries Limited ("Redpath"), an amended By-law No. 1996-0483 has been sent to the Ontario
Municipal Board (the "settlement by-law") in accordance with City Council's instructions of
October 6 and 7, 1997. Accompanying the by-law was a request that the Board issue its decision
on the by-law but withhold the order until such time as the required Three Party Agreement (which
secures offsite noise mitigation on the Redpath Lands at 95 Queens Quay East) and the Section 37
Agreement have been executed and registered as first charges against, in the case of the Three Party
Agreement - the Avro and the Redpath Lands, and in the case of the Section 37 Agreement - the
Avro Lands. The Three Party Agreement has now been settled and was the subject of a report to
Council at its meeting of March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.
The settlement by-law for 25 Queens Quay East (the "Site") requires an agreement under Section
37 of the Planning Act. One of the purposes of this report is to advise Council of the substantive
terms of the proposed Section 37 Agreement and to obtain Council authority for the execution of an
agreement based on the terms set out herein. While drafting and negotiations continue I am satisfied
at this point that we are in a position to put the substantive terms of the proposed agreement before
you, subject to the requirement for detailed review and consultation on the final document with the
appropriate Commissioners.
The facilities, services and matters to be secured are set forth in the settlement by-law attached as
Appendix I.
The Section 37 Agreement provisions can be summarized as follows:
(1) Conveyance of Lands for Parks, Dockwall and Parks Improvements
The Section 37 Agreement requires Avro to convey (and in part sublease or assign the lease with the
Toronto Harbour Commissioners) to the City the lands required by the settlement by-law
comprising a 25.0 metre wide water's edge promenade identified as Setback Area A on Plan 1A of
the By-law and a contiguous area of land of not less than 1 535.0 square metres within the hatched
area forming part of Setback Area B on such Plan 1A, for parks purposes.
The park lands shall be conveyed to the City with the first building permit for the Site for other than
a sales pavilion of up to 4 000 square feet, or they may be conveyed to the City incrementally
provided a phasing plan is approved by the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood
Services (Parks) in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services as part of the Master Concept Plan, including a requirement for an acceptable utility
phasing plan. In addition, following the first conveyance of park lands, each subsequent conveyance
must be contiguous to a previously conveyed parcel and each parcel conveyed must be publicly
accessible as well as accessible by parks vehicles. No parcel to be conveyed shall be less than 1 200
square metres in size. All of the park lands shall be conveyed to the City no later than 8 years
following the date the settlement by-law first comes into full force and effect. An escrow deed or
deeds for the park lands will be required to be provided to the City prior to the approval of the
Master Concept Plan.
The owner shall decommission the lands to applicable standards for public park purposes prior to
the conveyance, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services
(Parks). The conveyances shall not allow for parking below the park lands.
A parks levy exemption will be provided for the Site, to the extent of the development permitted by
the settlement by-law. The timing for the exemption will be determined as part of the Master
Concept Plan.
Dock Wall:
The owner must carry out a dockwall study in consultation with the Commissioner of Community
and Neighbourhood Services (Parks), by a qualified marine/structural engineer which shall amongst
other matters, thoroughly assess the state of the dockwall, identify the location of the structural
elements, any limitations on the construction and maintenance of the park, recommend any measures
required to ensure its continued existence in a safe and practically maintenance free condition for
at least 50 years from the date the park is conveyed. The required restoration work shall be carried
out by the owner prior to any park land conveyance. The City will thereafter, subject to warranties,
be responsible for the dockwall.
As the results of the study will inform the Master Concept Plan, the study must be carried out
concurrent with or prior to the submission of the Master Concept Plan for approval.
Park Improvements:
The owner agrees to pay the City the sum of not less than $107.64 for each square metre of land
conveyed to the City for park purposes for the construction of basic park improvements on the lands
to be conveyed. Such improvements will be designed and constructed by and under the direction
of the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services (Parks). The monies shall be paid
to the City prior to the issuance of the building permit(s). The City shall not be obligated to carry
out the park improvements until such time as sufficient land has been conveyed for park purposes.
(2) Construction and Conveyance of Public Street
The Section 37 Agreement requires the owner to convey to the City in fee simple for public street
purposes all of the lands comprising Setback Area B with the exception of the contiguous area of
park land addressed above. The street will be an extension of Freeland Street and will include a
turnaround area at its southerly terminus and will connect to the parklands to be conveyed to the
City. The owner will design and construct the street to City standards and in accordance with the
requirements of appropriate City officials. The road will be completed and conveyed prior to the
occupancy of the first building on the Site unless the owner satisfies the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services at the Master Concept Plan stage that the work may be phased or that other
timing would be acceptable, in which case the timing of the conveyance will be in accordance with
the approved Master Concept Plan. The owner provides a 2 year warranty respecting the road work.
The owner shall decommission the lands to applicable standards for public road purposes prior to
the conveyance to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.
The owner will reserve a right-of-way over the lands in favour of the abutting lands until such time
as the lands are dedicated for public use.
(3) Community Services and Facilities
Basic Contribution:
The settlement by-law contains requirements for the owner to provide and maintain on the Site, for
a term of 99 years, at nominal rent, free of all operating expenses and municipal taxes, a fully
equipped and furnished 33 space non-profit daycare together with 497 square metres of community
services and facility use space or at the option of the City an equivalent payment.
The agreement provides that the basic contribution may be satisfied through the provision of the
above-referenced daycare in a location on the Site which is acceptable to the Commissioner of Urban
Planning and Development Services or by the payment by the owner to the City of the cash
equivalent, the value of which will be determined by agreement between the owner and the City,
failing which by arbitration. Any cash payment must be used only towards the provision of
community services and facilities within the area bounded by King Street, Bathurst Street, Cherry
Street and Lake Ontario. If a cash payment is elected, the standard of the community service and
facility shall be that of the St. Lawrence Community Centre, excluding swimming pool.
The owner shall provide the basic contribution in conjunction with any development of the Site
which would cause the aggregate non-residential gross floor area and residential gross floor area to
exceed 76 720 square metres (the Threshold).
The agreement entitles the City to elect to require the owner to construct, finish, furnish and equip
the community service and facility space on the Site entirely as a community service and facility use
other than a daycare centre.
The City will lease or own the community service and facility space, at its election, and the City
shall be responsible to arrange for an appropriate non-profit daycare provider and for the operation
of the daycare and community service and facility use space.
The agreement will contain a warning clause to ensure purchasers are aware of the ongoing and
capital expenses connected with the community service and facility obligations at an early stage and
in any event before they purchase any interest in the Site.
The community service and facility space shall be primarily at the ground floor level, in a location
acceptable to the City. The location must have a significant amount of frontage on Queens Quay
East and the frontage must allow for direct entrance off the street and clear views from the street into
the space.
In the event facilities are provided by the owner or their successors, the ongoing maintenance, repair
and operating expenses will be required to be carried by all owners on the Site, not just the building
in which such facilities may be located and such obligations shall be included in appropriate
condominium documents. In the case of condominiums, these ongoing expenses will be treated as
a common expense of all of the condominium units that exist on the Site from time to time. Each
condominium corporation shall contribute its pro rata share based on the floor area contained within
the particular condominium building and based on annual budgets prepared by the City.
The capital costs may be secured prior to the issuance of the building permits for each development
on the Site.
Option to Lease Contiguous Space:
The City may elect to lease up to an additional 1 000 square feet (92.9 sq. m) of contiguous space.
The City would pay only nominal rent but would be required to pay its share of expenses.
Bonus Contribution:
The settlement by-law contains requirements in the event the owner brings forward plans in excess
of specified floor area limits, for the owner to provide and maintain for the same term and free of
the same expenses as described above a community service and facility use space of not less than
1 300 square metres, including a fully equipped and furnished 52 space non-profit daycare. In the
event the bonus contribution is elected, a cash equivalent is not available to the City.
The owner must advise the City no later than the submission of a site plan application which would
result in development on the Site in excess of the Threshold whether the owner intends to provide
the Bonus Contribution.
In the event the owner elects the bonus contribution, the owner shall provide the basic facility as
specified above prior to the occupancy of the any floor area on the Site in excess of the Threshold
until such time as a development approval is submitted which causes the floor area erected on the
Site to exceed 142 616 square metres in aggregate or the non-residential floor area erected on the
Site to exceed 71 308 square metres, at which time the Bonus Contribution shall be required to be
provided prior to the occupancy of such floor area.
(4) District Heating and Cooling
The agreement contains provisions for a process for the consideration by the owners of a proposal
by the Toronto District Heating Corporation (TDHC) to service the Site with district heating and
cooling. At least 3 months prior to making the first site plan application for residential development
on the Site, the owner shall provide TDHC with written notice of its intention. The notice shall set
out particulars of the proposed development. TDHC shall have 45 days to prepare and submit to the
owner a written proposal to service the proposed development with district heating and cooling. The
owner agrees to give full consideration to such proposal. The final decision whether to incorporate
the TDHC proposal rests with the owner.
(5) Public Art Program
The owner agrees that one percent of the gross construction costs of each building and structure
erected on the Site which comprises a development in excess of 20 000 square metres of floor area
shall be paid or contributed in accordance with the City's public art program. Costs related to
community service and facility use space or public pedestrian walkways shall not be included in the
valuation. A comprehensive public art plan is required to be submitted by the owner for approval
by the City in conjunction with the Master Concept Plan. It is expected that a portion of the public
art contribution will be deployed in the park.
(6) Master Concept Plan
The master concept plan required by the settlement by-law is addressed in more detail below. In
addition the agreement provides that no application or request for subdivision or severance or
conveyance of any part of the Site or request for lifting part lot control shall be made, other than a
conveyance of the whole Site, until such time as the Master Concept Plan has been approved by the
City.
(7) Noise Mitigation and the Three Party Agreement
The agreement includes various provisions addressing noise mitigation, the content of which have
been reviewed and agreed to by Redpath.
The owner agrees that land use applications for the Site shall address a number of principles,
including the following:
(i) using the building bulk at the eastern property line as a sound and view barrier,
(ii) using single loaded corridor with no windows at the eastern property edge,
(iii) prohibiting openings on the easterly facades at the eastern property edge,
(iv) special treatment in terms of sound isolation for facades of buildings which may be subject
to noise impact from sound sources on the Redpath Lands and which are not fully screened
by buildings and which might otherwise place Redpath in non-compliance with the City's
Noise By-law or Ministry of the Environment noise guidelines.
Three Party Agreement:
The owner agrees to enter into the Three Party Agreement to provide the reimbursement by the
owner and the implementation and operation and maintenance by Redpath of the offsite acoustic
measures which take place on the Redpath Lands.
Noise Warning Clause:
Warning clauses have been agreed to which advise of the nature and operation of the industrial uses
on the Redpath Lands and warn of sounds and odours emanating from such lands. It is a condition
of any sale or lease that the owner require each purchaser/tenant to acknowledge in writing, with a
copy to Redpath, that they have read the noise warning clause and are prepared to accept the noise
and release the City and Redpath from liability therefrom and agree not to request the City to
prosecute in respect of noise existing on the Redpath lands prior to the date of purchase or lease.
Prior to entering into any agreement, noise warning clauses are to be provided to prospective
purchasers/tenants and the noise warning clause must be posted in sales pavilions on the Site. The
owner also agrees to include the noise warning clause in any Condominium Declaration and
purchasers are to be advised of the clause in the estoppel certificate. Failure to so warn is a breach
of the agreement and may allow purchasers/tenants to void any agreement prior to closing, without
penalty, at the option of the purchaser/tenant.
In addition to noise emanating from the Redpath Lands, the noise warning clause will recognize the
existence of the Toronto City Centre Airport and its operational needs.
Performance Standards:
The settlement by-law contains provisions requiring that certain openings in buildings be
"attenuated" openings in various circumstances. "Attenuated" is defined as an opening complying
with sound isolation performance standards described in the Section 37 agreement and they form a
schedule in the agreement. Noise and vibration consultant's retained by each of the owner and
Redpath have reviewed these schedules and find them acceptable. A noise and vibration consultant
was retained on the City's behalf to carry out a peer review of the settlement by-law and approach
to noise mitigation set forth in the Section 37 agreement and he was satisfied with the approach
being proposed. In addition, staff in the City's Noise Enforcement Section have been involved in
the review of these matters, however, by necessity the detailed review of each standard has been
carried out by the consultant's retained by the owner and Redpath. Staff have been given to
understand that the analysis is quite conservative.
Phasing:
The settlement by-law includes phasing provisions which require certain buildings or structures to
be constructed before others. The Section 37 Agreement contains a deeming provision which will
enable a building permit to issue prior to the completion of a required building or structure provided
the Chief Building Official is satisfied that permits for the required building or structure have issued,
that construction in accordance with the permit is diligently proceeding and in the case of a required
building the elevator core of such building has reached the highest floor level of the building vis a
vis the permit; in the case of a required structure the structure has been erected to at least half of the
required height and to the full extent of the vertical requirements set out in the by-law.
Noise Impact and Vibration Statement:
The owner must submit to the City a satisfactory noise impact and vibration statement prepared by
an experienced noise and vibration consultant for each site plan application respecting the possible
effects of and on the proposed development of the Site. In addition to the usual requirements, it must
contain such recommendations for noise mitigation or for adjustments to the site plan and
architectural design as are necessary to comply with the noise control and environmental sound
exposure objectives set out in the settlement by-law and the agreement.
The owner must provide a copy of the statement to Redpath on or before the date it is provided to
the City and Redpath will have 45 days within which the agreement provides the City will not
approve the statement in order to allow Redpath to provide written comments regarding the
statement to the City and the owner.
The owner agrees that all buildings and structures will be erected in accordance with the approved
statement and a noise and vibration consultant will provide a written opinion to the Chief Building
Official confirming that all building permit plans submitted have incorporated the noise and
vibration abatement measures. That opinion shall also be provided to Redpath at the time an
application for building permit is submitted to the City, together with a copy of the plans submitted
and confirmation to the City that Redpath has been provided with such material.
The agreement provides that the City will not issue a permit within a 45 day period to allow Redpath
to provide written comments to such official and the owner.
The owner agrees to provide, maintain and operate the stipulated noise impact measures, except the
offsite measures which are governed by the Three Party Agreement. On completion of each building
and prior to the occupancy of each building on the Site, the owner shall have a qualified and
experienced noise and vibration consultant provide an opinion in writing to the City that the
development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the approved statement.
The owner agrees to indemnify and release the City regarding any claims arising out of the adjacency
of the residential uses on the Site to the industrial uses on the Redpath Lands and the noises
emanating therefrom.
(8) Low End of Market Housing and Housing Suitable for Families with Children
The owner agrees to provide at least 30 percent of the units to be constructed on the Site as low-end
of market housing and at least 25 per cent of the units to be constructed on the Site shall contain at
least 2 bedrooms. These requirements need not be met on a building by building basis.
(9) Other Collateral Matters
The owner shall submit and implement satisfactory studies related to traffic, wind mitigation,
sunlight conditions, soil remediation and air quality at the time of each site plan application to the
City.
Update on Settlement By-law Amendments:
Zoning By-law No. 1996-0483, as enacted by the former City of Toronto Council, contained a
number of noise mitigation measures intended to buffer the industrial uses at Redpath from new
residential development on the Site. The by-law was part of a multifaceted package of measures
which represented a unique approach to locating these two uses side by side. These measures
included the following:
(a) mitigation of high level noises at-source on the Redpath Lands through funds provided by
Avro, the implementation of which was secured through a Three Party Agreement between
the City, Redpath and Avro,
(b) construction of a 12 metre high wall or building for the eastern edge of the Site prior to any
building permit being issued,
(c) provision of a build-to building on the eastern edge of the Site which would orient the
development away from Redpath and provide further noise mitigation and restrict views,
(d) establishment of noise control zones on the Site, in order to control the level and extent of
views into Redpath's property, based on proximity to Redpath and the height of the
individual unit,
(e) phasing of buildings to ensure that the build-to building is built at an early stage,
(f) noise impact statements to be prepared at the time of site plan control, and
(g) warning clauses to inform potential owners or tenants of the level of noise produced by
Redpath.
At the same time, the City took the step of appealing its own newly enacted site specific by-law for
the Site, because the required Three Party and Section 37 Agreements had not been agreed to or
executed nor had Redpath agreed to mitigate noise emanating from its lands. The school boards also
appealed, since the adoption of the by-law by Council, in the absence of accompanying agreements,
left them with no other way to secure their education levies. Redpath also appealed the by-law as
it was not satisfied with the noise mitigation approach reflected in the by-law.
In June 1997, it became apparent that Avro and Redpath were attempting to achieve a settlement.
City staff became officially involved in that process in August 1997. Staff informed Council of the
potential settlement and at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, Council adopted a recommendation
that
"the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the City Solicitor be instructed to
make amendments to the Council approved zoning by-law for MT 27 at the Ontario
Municipal Board, arising from the settlement discussions between Avro and Redpath, for the
purposes of settling the outstanding matters, if they are substantially in accordance with the
approved zoning by-law and represent good planning."
At the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in November 1997, staff of Urban Development Services
provided evidence in support of a draft by-law that had developed through the negotiation process
and which they felt was substantially in accordance with By-law No. 1996-0483 and represented
good planning. Due to the need to finalize certain noise-related details of the new by-law, the related
noise provisions for the Section 37 Agreement and Three-Party Agreement were not finalized at that
time. The settlement by-law was sent to the Ontario Municipal Board on March 2, 1998 with a
request for the Board to issue a decision but to withhold its order until such time as the required
Section 37 and Three Party Agreements are completed and registered as first charges against the
Avro Lands in the case of the former agreement and the Avro and Redpath Lands in the case of the
latter agreement, and until such time as the School Board agreements are registered next in priority.
I am advised by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services that City planning
staff are satisfied that the settlement by-law is in accordance with the Official Plan provisions for
the Site and represents the evolution of an approach set out in the Council enacted by-law. No
amendments have been made to the density, composition of uses or ultimate built form envelope
established over the past few years. Further, there has been no loss of any of the benefits that were
negotiated during the earlier stages of the project. The changes to the by-law are intended to reduce
the possibility of noise complaints from residents on the Site. This has resulted in a reduced level
of tolerance for views into and noise from Redpath. Specifically, views into the Redpath Lands for
its length and to a height of six metres are now restricted. Levels of noise attenuation are now
specifically prescribed by the by-law by reference to the Section 37 Agreement which contains the
detailed standards. Performance standards for any particular wall or opening with respect to noise
are now known at the by-law stage.
While the settlement by-law goes further than the enacted by-law in restricting the building
footprints, City planning staff have informed me they believe that it is the prerogative of the owner
of the Site, Avro Quay Limited, to bind itself to a greater level of restriction if it chooses. The
settlement by-law provides for greater certainty with proscribed building footprints for the eastern
portion of the Site, and somewhat looser restrictions for the western portion. Nevertheless, the
development permitted by this amended by-law could have been built within the previous by-law
regime, and City planning staff believe it represents one of the most preferable site plan variations.
In addition:
(a) the loss of an exterior connection at the eastern edge of the Site has been replaced with a
through-block connection through the north-east building, along with securing a public,
rather than a potentially private, street providing access into the Site and to the adjacent
proposed public parklands;
(b) certain blinder walls and ledges that obscure views of Redpath from the development will
protrude into the public park and setback area. However, each of these has been examined
to ensure that they begin as far above grade as possible and have no impact on free
movement of pedestrians; and
(c) a 12 metre high wall, as opposed to one of 6 metres is to be constructed to the water's edge
and Urban Design Guidelines will require that this wall be treated as a part of the park and
a distinct feature of the park. Acoustical studies indicated that it was possible to remove the
wall found in the north-east corner of the property and this is reflected in the settlement by-law.
The settlement by-law requires a Master Concept Plan for the Site be approved prior to the first
application for site plan approval and defines it as "a comprehensive set of plans prepared and
submitted by the owners of the site, to the satisfaction of the City, which sets forth the phasing of
development, the phasing of the parklands conveyance, the provision and phasing of pedestrian and
vehicular access to and within the site, including main entrances to buildings, the location of all
loading facilities, the location and extent of community service and facility use space, the provision
of a comprehensive public art plan and the provision and phasing of landscaping treatment for
outdoor areas within the site".
The Master Concept Plan stage is included in this development, and secured through the Section 37
Agreement, as a way to ensure that overall site design has been coordinated amongst the different
owners and developers of the Site and that the public benefits are achieved and delivered in an
organized and timely manner. Because it is anticipated that site development will be phased on a
yet unknown schedule, the Master Concept Plan will ensure that adequate public access to any
portion of the completed water's edge park is provided and secured throughout the development of
the Site.
Lastly, planning staff advise that the work involved in settling the by-law has resulted in a number
of unexpected benefits to the City. Certain of the acoustical studies that would have had to be done
at a later stage, are now complete. We also have the commitment from Redpath that within 9 months
of the approval of the by-law by the Ontario Municipal Board, the at-source mitigation at Redpath
will be complete, removing a significant level of uncertainty for all parties. And because building
envelopes have been established, urban design guidelines have been developed that are more
sensitive to the actual built form.
Urban Design Guidelines for Marine Terminal 27:
Section 14.32 of the Official Plan specifically requires urban design guidelines be prepared to
illustrate and describe urban design concepts for the Site, to provide a context for coordinated
incremental development, to assist Council in the appropriate zoning regulations for the Site and for
evaluating development applications for review under Sections 34 and 41 of the Planning Act.
The urban design guidelines for this Site have been prepared by City planning staff and agreed to
by Avro, and will form a schedule to the Section 37 Agreement. While they are intended to address
the development specifically at 25 Queens Quay East, I am advised planning staff expect that similar
guidelines would be developed for the adjacent Torstar site at 7 Queens Quay East.
Planning staff have indicated the urban design guidelines are based on the model set out in the Urban
Design Handbook of the former City of Toronto, consistent with the policies of Section 3 of the
Official Plan, and follow the format for urban design guidelines implemented in other complex and
high profile development areas like Harbourfront and the Railway Lands.
One aspect of these guidelines which sets them apart from others produced by the City, is the fact
that they address the site specific noise buffering features that are required on the Site by the
settlement by-law, including the buffer wall/building complex on the eastern property edge, and the
intrusion of architectural features into the air space above the required setbacks. In all cases, the
guidelines require that the design of these components be carefully integrated as a part of the public
space and architecture of the Site.
A copy of the Guidelines will be available at the City Council meeting.
Conclusions:
We expect to be in a position shortly to finalize the Section 37 Agreement. To-date most of the
provisions have been substantially agreed upon such that I am prepared to recommend Council to
authorize the execution of the Section 37 Agreement provided I am satisfied it is substantially as
described above and subject to consultation with the appropriate Commissioners.
Contact Name:
Sharon Haniford, Solicitor
Telephone: (416)392-6975
Fax: (416)392-0024
E-Mail: shanifor@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it
Appendix I - No. 1996-0483 A By-law, with respect to the property known in the year 1995 as No.
25 Queens Quay East, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Queens Quay East / Yonge Street
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Queens Quay East / Yonge Street
Insert Table/Map No. 3
Queens Quay East / Yonge Street
Insert Table/Map No. 4
Queens Quay East / Yonge Street
Insert Table/Map No. 5
Queens Quay East / Yonge Street
(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a
communication (April 16, 1998) from City Legal Services, submitting a copy of the Urban Design
Guidelines for 25 Queen's Quay East, referred to in the foregoing report (March 19, 1998) from the
Toronto Community Council Solicitor.)
52
59 Barton Avenue - Committee of Adjustment Decision
(Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner
of Urban Planning and Development Services be instructed to appear at the Ontario
Municipal Board hearing scheduled for May 5, 1998, in defence of the Committee of
Adjustment decision of January 14, 1998 respecting 59 Barton Avenue.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it during
consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (April 2, 1998) from Ms. Joan MacCullum
addressed to Councillor Bossons, forwarding the Committee of Adjustment Decision respecting 59
Barton Avenue, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Councillor Adams declared an interest in the foregoing matter in that he and his spouse own a
property located in the vicinity of the subject property.
(Councillor Adams, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared his interest in the
foregoing Clause, in that he and his spouse own a property located in the vicinity of the subject
property.)
53
The Italian Immigrant Monument Project -
1369 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April 2,
1998) from the Director, West Region, Toronto Parks and Recreation:
Purpose:
To provide for installation of the Italian Immigrant Monument at the entrance to the
Joseph J. Piccininni Community Recreation Centre, located at 1369 St. Clair Avenue West.
Source of Funds:
No City funding allocation is required
Recommendations:
That approval be granted for the installation of the Italian Immigrant Monument Project at the
entrance to the Joseph J. Piccininni Community Recreation Centre, located at 1369 St. Clair Avenue
West, and that appropriate City officials be authorized to take action necessary to give effect to this
approval.
Comments:
The Italian Canadian Immigrant Monument Project proposes to produce a monument dedicated to
Italian Canadian Immigrants, funded through private donations to the Canadian Immigrant
Commemorative Association, a registered charitable and not for profit organization. The project has
attracted broad community and financial support.
The association has requested permission to install the monument at the entrance to the Joseph J.
Piccininni Community Recreation Centre located at 1369 St Clair Avenue West.
Toronto Community Council should approve the request, and authorize the Director, West Region,
Toronto Parks and Recreation to work with Heritage Toronto and other City Officials to facilitate
the project, including installation and maintenance arrangements to the satisfaction of appropriate
City officials.
Contact Names:
Mario Zanetti, 392-7252 (telephone), 392-0845 (fax)
54
203 Dundas Street East - Public Kitchen Restaurant
(Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following motion from
Councillor Rae:
WHEREAS the Public Kitchen Restaurant at 203 Dundas Street East has been
a centre of illegal activities and neighbourhood disruption in the East
Downtown and has contributed to problems in the neighbourhood; and
WHEREAS local residents, businesses, police and the Ward Councillor's office
had significant and ongoing concerns with respect to drug dealing, violence and
weapons inside and outside of the premises when they were previously licensed;
and
WHEREAS the Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of
August 27, 1997 therefore adopted a resolution advising the Liquor Licence
Board of its concerns and requesting the revocation of the liquor licence; and
WHEREAS the operator of the premises surrendered the liquor licence on
February 25, 1998, prior to a revocation hearing scheduled for June 1, 1998;
and
WHEREAS the owner of the premises, despite being advised of the concerns
held by local residents, has now applied for a new liquor licence under the name
"Oriental Kitchen Restaurant"; and
WHEREAS the owner of the premises has been irresponsible in the
management of this property and negligent in his duties as a landlord; and
WHEREAS the Liquor Licence Act provides that a member of the Alcohol and
Gaming Commission of Ontario may direct that a notice of proposal be issued
to reject an application for any ground under subsection 6(2) of the Act that
would disentitle an applicant to a licence; and
WHEREAS subsection 6(2) (h) of the Act provides that an applicant is entitled
to be issued a licence to sell liquor except if the licence is not in the public
interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the
municipality in which the premises are located; and
WHEREAS section 7.1 of Regulation 719 under the Liquor Licence Act states
that, in the absence of receiving submissions to the contrary, the Board shall
consider a resolution of the council of the municipality, in which are located the
premises for which a person makes an application to sell liquor or holds a
licence to sell liquor, as proof of the needs and wishes of the residents of the
municipality for the purposes of clause 6(2)(h) of the Act;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
(1) City Council advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
that the liquor licence application for the Oriental Kitchen Restaurant
(previously known as the Public Kitchen) at 203 Dundas Street East is
not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the
residents of the municipality, and request the issuance of a notice of
proposal by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to review
the application; and
(2) the City Solicitor, in the event a hearing is scheduled with respect to this
matter, be authorized to attend on behalf of the City to object to the
issuance of the licence.
55
Applications for a Boulevard Cafe and to Construct and
Maintain a Temporary Marketing Enclosure (Canopy) -
St. Andrew Street Flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 19, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To report on and seek approval for a request for both a boulevard cafe licence and marketing
enclosure on the St. Andrew Street flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue. As the applicant would like
an opportunity to address the Community Council, it is scheduled as a deputation item.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council approve the applications for both a boulevard cafe and
marketing enclosure on the St. Andrew Street flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue, subject to the
applicant complying with the criteria in Municipal Code Chapter 313, including the possession of
a valid business licence from the Metropolitan Licensing Commission.
Background:
Mr. Peter Chee, on behalf of Mr. Thoi Nguyen, owner of Phuc Loi Company Ltd., o/a Pho Hung
Restaurant & Market, 350 Spadina Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M8Y 3N8, submitted applications on
August 1, 1997, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe and permission to construct a merchandise
display canopy on the St. Andrew Street flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue. Staff support the
proposal, as amended.
We are reporting on this request because it is unique and its approval would set a precedent for use
of the City boulevard. The Municipal Code currently permits both boulevard cafes and temporary
marketing enclosures, subject to certain conditions; however, this is the first application we have
received to license both uses at the same location. The Municipal Code is silent on the issue of
whether two licences for different uses of the boulevard may be issued at the same location.
Comments:
A sketch of the proposal, as amended following review and discussions with City staff, is included
as Appendix 'A'. The overall concept is for a restaurant, inside the building at 350 Spadina, which
will have a small area set aside for the sale of foodstuffs and other merchandise, such as dry and cut
flowers, and souvenirs.
Related to these two interior functions, the applicant proposes a large enclosed marketing area on
the City boulevard which would operate year round, as well as an open cafe, which would operate
only during the warm weather months of the cafe season.
The marketing enclosure would replace an existing structure on the St. Andrew Street flankage of
350 Spadina Avenue. The existing canopy was constructed in 1972, is in a deteriorated condition
and should be removed in any event.
The report provides details of each component, as amended, and comments on the unique nature of
this request.
Boulevard Cafe Application:
The proposed cafe area is approximately 31.2 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch
(Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 7 tables with a potential seating capacity of 30 people.
The application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of City of Toronto
Municipal Code Chapter 313.
The applicant has submitted an application to the Metropolitan Licensing Commission, however,
to-date, no business licence has been issued for the premises.
Application For Temporary Marketing Enclosure (Canopy):
The applicant's original proposal was to enclose the boulevard on the St. Andrew Street flankage
with two marketing canopies extending from the proposed cafe area to the end of the building, and
separated by the entrance on St. Andrew Street leading to the 2nd and 3rd floors (Areas 1 & 2 on
Appendix 'A'). The applicant proposed that Area 2 be used as a storage area.
Staff had some concerns with the original proposal:
(a) the Municipal Code does not permit shopkeepers to store their merchandise in the public
right of way; it must be stored on private property.
(b) Urban Development Services raised a number of fire safety issues, related to exits and
windows, as well as concerns about the structural details and choice of materials.
(c) Toronto Hydro requested a minimum clearance of 0.3 m between their utility pole and the
proposed canopy.
Staff met with the architect and applicant in order to discuss and resolve these issues. Subsequently,
Mr. Chee submitted revised drawings satisfactory to Urban Development Services and showing the
clearances requested by Toronto Hydro. In addition, Mr. Chee has eliminated the storage area.
Prior to obtaining a permit allowing for the construction of the canopy, the applicant must obtain a
boulevard marketing licence which includes the area enclosed within the canopy.
Why This Proposal is Unique:
This request is unusual because:
(a) it includes two distinct uses on the boulevard at the same address.
(b) the marketing area on the exterior is much larger than the space devoted to marketing inside
the building, by a ratio of approximately 4:1. Typically, the area licensed for marketing
outside a store, is a small fraction of the total merchandising area within the store.
However, Mr. Chee believes that this dual use of the business for a restaurant and marketing
replicates the elements of other restaurants on Spadina Avenue, and echoes the marketing activity
which is typical of Kensington Market, to the west. He also argues that this development, in its
totality, would provide a better entrance to Kensington Market from St. Andrew Street.
This proposal was discussed briefly at a recent meeting of the Kensington Market Street Scape
Committee. Committee members, who are local residents and business owners in the area had
identified the existing canopy as unsightly and possibly unsafe and supported the applicant's
proposal to replace it with something more aesthetically pleasing.
Conclusions:
This is a unique request to license both enclosed marketing and an open cafe on the boulevard on
the St. Andrew Street flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue. Staff have worked with the applicant to
modify the proposal to meet all our safety and design concerns. We support the proposal and believe
that it will be an improvement to this corner, particularly since the present structure is old and
dilapidated.
We are reporting on these joint requests because of their unique and precedent setting nature and
because the Municipal Code is silent on the issue of whether one location may hold licences for both
uses. However, on the merits of the concept, we are recommending that City Council approve both
applications.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
--------
Mr. Peter Chee, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Appendix "A" - St. Andrew Street
56
Espressimo Caffebar - Operation of the Boulevard Cafe During
the 1997 Cafe Season - Roxborough Street West Flankage of
1094 Yonge Street (Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (March 10,
1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to confirm that the applicant has requested an
extension of the hours of operation, and if so, that all property owners and tenants within the policy
area of the cafe be notified of the applicant's request for extended hours of operation on Sunday to
Thursday (from 9:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.), and that the matter be scheduled for deputations at the
meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 10, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094
Yonge Street during the 1997 cafe season.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That the licence for boulevard cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street
be renewed annually by staff, under the present terms and conditions.
Background:
The City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of November 20, 1996,
in considering the Department's report (November 6, 1996) entitled, "Roxborough Street West
flankage of 1094 Yonge Street - Operation of the Boulevard Cafe during the 1996 Cafe Season",
requested the Department to monitor the operation of the boulevard cafe during the 1997 cafe season
and report back, as a deputation item.
Comments:
A licence for the cafe on the Roxborough Street West flankage of 1094 Yonge Street (Espressimo
Caffebar) was issued on December 12, 1996.
During the 1997 cafe season, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Our
inspections confirmed that the proprietor complied with the restrictions and the other requirements
of § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, including the closing time restrictions.
In addition, we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service
pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.
Conclusions:
Given that the cafe operated during the 1997 cafe season without any incidents, I am recommending
that the licence be renewed annually under the present terms and conditions.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
57
Società - Operation of the Boulevard Cafe During the
1997 Cafe Season - Roxton Road Flankage of 796 College Street
(Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(February 27, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe on the Roxton Road flankage of 796 College Street
during the 1997 cafe season.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That the licence for boulevard cafe on the Roxton Road flankage of 796 College Street be renewed
annually by staff, under the present terms and conditions.
Background:
The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of March 24 and 25, 1997, approved the
application for a boulevard cafe on the Roxton Road flankage of 796 College Street, subject to the
applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and
Sidewalks, and that the following restrictions be applied:
(a) serving time limits of 10:00 p.m. during Sundays and weekdays, 11:00 p.m. on Fridays and
Saturdays;
(b) no music or amplified sound on patio at any time;
(c) owner to prevent any noisy parties or patrons from staying outside on the patio; and
(d) this permit be reviewed with deputations at the City Services Committee in March 1998.
Comments:
A licence for the cafe on the Roxton Road flankage of 796 College Street (Societ) was issued on
July 9, 1997.
During the 1997 cafe season, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Our
inspections confirmed that the proprietor complied with the restrictions and the other requirements
of § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, including the closing time restrictions.
In addition, we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service
pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.
Conclusions:
Given that the cafe operated during the 1997 cafe season without any incidents, I am recommending
that the licence be renewed annually under the present terms and conditions.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter a communication (March 31, 1998) from Robert
Milkovich, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
58
Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe
- Lakeview Avenue Flankage of 1212 Dundas Street West
(Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for
a boulevard cafe on the Lakeview Avenue flankage of 1212 Dundas Street West,
notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to:
(1) the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of the former City of
TorontoMunicipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
(2) the patio being closed at 10:00 p.m.;
(3) there being no music outside; and
(4) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services reviewing this matter in one year.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 19, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe on
the Lakeview Avenue flankage of 1212 Dundas Street West, because of a negative public poll.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:
(1) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Lakeview Avenue flankage
of 1212 Dundas Street West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that
such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in § 313-36 of
Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
OR
(2) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Lakeview Avenue flankage of
1212 Dundas Street West.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a
communication (July 12, 1997) from Ms. Kerri Larson on behalf of Mr. Jorge Dias, asked me to
report on his appeal, as a deputation item.
Comments:
Mr. Jorge Dias, owner of Cafe Aquario, 62A Primrose Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6H 3V3,
submitted an application on March 4, 1997, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the
Lakeview Avenue flankage.
The proposed cafe area is approximately 33.5 square metres, as shown on the attached sketch
(Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 8 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 30 people.
This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of City of Toronto
Municipal Code Chapter 313.
As the proposed cafe is within 25 metres of a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public
poll of owners and tenants within 120 metres from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots
cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the
Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same
purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.
A poll dated June 4 to July 4, 1997 was conducted on the west side of Lakeview Avenue from Nos. 4
and 26 and on the east side of Lakeview Avenue from Nos. 15 and 37 to determine neighbourhood
support. The poll was conducted in English, French, Italian and Portuguese as requested by the
former Councillor (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 4 languages). The results of
the poll were as follows:
Polling Summary
| Ballots cast
opposed 14
in favour 6 |
20 |
| No response |
62 |
| Returned by post office |
5 |
| Total ballots issued |
87 |
Mr. Jorge Dias was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued.
Conclusions:
Staff cannot issue Mr. Jorge Dias a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Lakeview Avenue flankage
because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied the poll was conducted properly.
On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to
recommend that City Council grant the appeal.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and copies thereof are
on file in the office of the City Clerk:
- (March 31, 1997) from Mr. Thomas A. Shields and Ms. Monica M. Sikk; and
- (March 31, 1998) from Ms. Kerri Larson.
Mr. Carlo Pierozzi, The Restaurant Experts, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in
connection with the foregoing matter.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
appendix a - c-2861
59
Appeal of Boulevard Cafe Application
- Tarlton Road Flankage of 495 Eglinton Avenue West
(Convenience Address for 483 Eglinton Avenue West)
(North Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for a
boulevard cafe on the Tarlton Road flankage of 495 Eglinton Avenue West.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 19, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe on
the Tarlton Road flankage of 495 Eglinton Avenue West, because of a negative public poll.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:
(1) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Tarlton Road flankage of
495 Eglinton Avenue West, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that
such approval be on condition that the applicant holds a valid business licence from the
Metro Licensing Commission, and subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set
out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
OR
(2) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Tarlton Road flankage of
495 Eglinton Avenue West.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a
communication (July 12, 1997) from Ms. Kerri Larson acting on behalf of Mr. Stephen Costa, asked
me to report on his appeal, as a deputation item.
Comments:
Mr. Stephen Costa, President, Autogrill Cafe, 495 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto, Ontario
M5N 1A7, submitted an application on April 3, 1997, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on
the Tarlton Road flankage.
The proposed cafe area is approximately 111.18 square metres, as shown on the attached sketch
(Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 25 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 100 people.
This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of City of Toronto
Municipal Code Chapter 313.
As the proposed cafe is within 25 metres of a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public
poll of owners and tenants within 120 metres from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots
cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority are opposed, the
Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same
purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.
A poll dated May 13 to June 12, 1997 was conducted on the east side of Tarlton Road from Nos. 19
and 39 Tarlton Road and on the west side of Tarlton Road from Nos. 22 and 42 Tarlton Road to
determine neighbourhood support, as follows:
Polling Summary
| Ballots cast
opposed 37
in favour 3 |
40 |
| No response |
16 |
| Returned by post office |
5 |
| Total ballots issued |
61 |
My staff also received a letter dated May 16, 1997, from an area resident within the prescribed
polling area who expressed concerns about the negative side effects on the surrounding community
if a boulevard cafe licence was issued. These might include increased noise, traffic and more illegal
parking on Tarlton Road.
Mr. Stephen Costa was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued.
The Metro Licensing Commission also advise that as of February 4, 1998, no business licence has
been issued for the premises. The restaurant owner has recently been charged for operating without
a Metro licence, and has subsequently reactivated the file with the Commission.
Conclusions:
Staff cannot issue Mr. Stephen Costa a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Tarlton Road flankage
because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied that the public poll was conducted properly, and
ballots were available in the two official languages.
On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to
recommend that City Council grant the appeal and issue the licence. However, should Council
decide to approve the application, I am recommending that no licence be granted until the business
has obtained a licence from the Metro Licensing Commission.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies thereof are on
file in the office of the City Clerk:
- (March 27, 1998) from Ms. Ruth MacKneson;
- (March 27, 1998) from Jan V. Matejcek and Ivana Hanja Matejcek;
- Petition from 42 residents of Tarlton Road;
- (Undated) from Myrna and William Collins;
- (March 27, 1998) from Antoine Darcy;
- (Not dated) from Mr. Steven Costa; and
- (March 31, 1998) from Ms. Kerri Larson
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
- Ms. Ruth Gelber, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Bill Knights, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Stephen Costa, President, Autogrill Cafe Incorporated; and
- Mr. Giancarlo Bastone, Owner/Manager, Autogrill Cafe Incorporated.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
c: 2877
60
Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe
- 2827 Dundas Street West (Davenport)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the applicant be granted permission to
erect a temporary patio subject to:
(1) the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services reporting to the meeting to be
held by the Toronto Community Council on June 24, 1998 on any problems with the
establishment at 2827 Dundas Street West;
(2) the owners being prohibited from playing music on the patio or having any music
emanating from within the cafe;
(3) the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m.; and
(4) the owners installing and maintaining garbage and recycling receptacles.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 19, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe
fronting 2827 Dundas Street West, because a written objection was received in response to the public
notification.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:
(1) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 2827 Dundas Street West,
as illustrated in Appendix 'A', notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice,
and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in §
313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
OR
(2) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 2827 Dundas Street West.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a
communication (October 4, 1997) from Mr. Konstantinos Koutoumanos, asked me to report on his
appeal, as a deputation item.
Comments:
Mr. Konstantinos (Gus) Koutoumanos, owner of 113666 Ontario Ltd, o/a Shoxs Billiard Lounge,
2827 Dundas Street West, Toronto, Ontario M6P 1Y6, submitted an application on July 21, 1997,
requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 2827 Dundas Street West, for an area of
approximately 24 square metres.
Boulevard cafes are governed by the criteria set out in § 313-36 of City of Toronto Municipal Code
Chapter 313. One of the provisions of the Municipal Code is that boulevard cafes on major
thoroughfares, such as Dundas Street West, shall not extend any closer to the curb than 2 m, in order
to allow enough space for pedestrians to pass by safely. A greater setback from the roadway may
be stipulated by the Commissioner. When assessing what is an adequate clearance from the curb,
we also consider the position of any street furnishings such as trees, planters, utility poles, etc.
Mr. Koutoumanos' proposal was reviewed for compliance with the Municipal Code, including
required clearances. Because there is an in-ground City-owned tree, utility pole and parking meters
in front of the location, only an area of approximately 9.96 square metres is suitable for licensing.
This will allow the proposed private property portion of the cafe to extend into the street allowance,
to accommodate an additional 2 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 8 people, as shown on
the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').
This application meets the other physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in § 313-36 of City of
Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313.
The Municipal Code also requires that where the cafe proposal is not within 25 metres of a
residential district, a notice must be posted on the property for not less than 14 days to determine
neighbourhood support. If a written objection is received, the application must be refused by staff,
but such refusal is subject to an appeal by the applicant.
As 2827 Dundas Street West is not within 25 m of a residential district, a 14 day notice was posted
on August 26, 1997, with an expiry date of September 9, 1997. Prior to the expiry date, we received
a letter of objection to the cafe proposal (Appendix 'B').
Mr. Koutoumanos was advised in writing that because of this negative response, we could not issue
a licence.
Conclusions:
Staff cannot issue Mr. Koutoumanos a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 2827 Dundas Street
West due to the negative response to the public posting.
On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to
recommend that City Council grant the appeal. If it grants the appeal, we recommend that this
approval be for the proposal as shown in Appendix 'A', not the original request for a larger area.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564.
--------
Appendix B
(Letter of objection dated September 5, 1997, from the owners
of the property next door, addressed to the Supervisor of
Commercial Licensing Section, City Hall)
I would like to register our proposal to the outdoor cafe privileges applied for by Shoxs Billiard
Lounge.
We own the property next door, just west of the building. Since the opening of this establishment
we have had groups of people hanging around the front of our building day and night, often causing
disturbances, ringing our doorbells and shouting into our intercoms, blocking the doorway to our
apartments and using the recessed entrance to our building and intimidates our clients who bring
their children to our offices. We feel that an outdoor patio would only increase the noise and
congregating on the sidewalk and further degrade the integrity of our largely residential
neighbourhood. Our neighbourhood has changed since this influx of people has occurred and not
for the better. To move more of them onto the street and provide seating for them is unacceptable.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and copies thereof are
on file in the office of the City Clerk:
- (March 30, 1998) from Mr. Michael Pecorella, Toronto Orthopedic Appliance Services Ltd;
- (March 30, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Pecorella;
- (March 29, 1998) from Mr. Charles Lund;
- (March 30, 1998) from Ms. Nancy Heaney, WestEnd Holistic Health Centre;
- (March 31, 1998) from Mr. Bob Bundy, Four Seasons Natural Food and Health Products;
- (March 30, 1998) from Ms. Mary Boudart;
- (March 31, 1998) from Mr. and Mrs. J. Graham; and
- (Not dated) from Gisele Potvin.
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
- Mr. Gus Koutoumanos, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. Renald Morin, Toronto, Ontario;
- Ms. Michele Morin, Owner of Lightview Apartments;
- Ms. Shelby Graham, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. James Graham, Toronto, Ontario;
- Ms. M. Lizotte, Toronto, Ontario; and
- Mr. Jim McDonald, Toronto, Ontario.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
appendix a - no. 2827
61
Boulevard Parking and Front Yard Parking -
272 Claremont Street (Trinity-Niagara)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1) a variance be granted to permit one boulevard parking space at 272 Claremont Street,
subject to the application fulfilling the physical requirements; and
(2) appropriate City officials be directed to take the necessary actions to implement
Recommendation No. (1).
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks,
and Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to permit boulevard parking and front yard parking. As this
is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a public hearing.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit
boulevard parking and front yard parking at 272 Claremont Street, as such a request does not comply
with Chapters 313 and 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of February 18, 1998, in considering a
communication (February 9, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone, respecting boulevard parking and
front yard parking at 272 Claremont Street, asked me to report to its meeting on April 1, 1998, and
that this matter be a deputation item. The Department has not received an application for front yard
parking or residential boulevard parking for this address.
Comments:
No. 272 Claremont Street is a corner property at the south-west corner of Claremont Street and
Mansfield Avenue. The lot contains a 7-unit apartment building and is serviced by a public laneway
at the rear of the property with access from Mansfield Avenue.
There are a total of 4 parking spaces on private property at this location. This includes: a 2 car garage
at the side of the property with access from Mansfield Avenue; a single garage accessed via the
public laneway at the rear; and an open parking area for one more car at the rear accessed from the
laneway.
In addition, residents at this address are eligible for permit parking in area 4F. Permit parking is
authorized on the odd side of this portion of Claremont Street, and on the odd side of Mansfield
Avenue. As of March 17, 1998, there are 447 licensed spaces in area 4F, against which we have
issued 404 permits. On the block of Claremont which includes 272 Claremont, 18 permits have been
issued against 16 spaces; on the block of Mansfield which includes 272 Claremont, 12 permits have
been issued against 9 spaces.
Residential boulevard parking and front yard parking are governed by criteria set out in City of
Toronto Municipal Code Chapters 313 and 400 respectively. 272 Claremont Street does not meet
three requirements of the legislation, as summarized in the table below:
| Municipal Code requirements for residential
boulevard and front yard parking: |
272 Claremont Street does not meet these
requirements because:
|
| Permitted for "residential buildings" only (i.e.
for buildings with up to 3 units) |
It is an apartment building with 7 units |
| Not permitted for properties where permit
parking is authorized on the street or property
is within a permit parking area |
It is located in Permit Parking Area 4F |
| Not permitted if property has access to an
existing parking facility on the lot |
It has 4 designated parking spaces on the lot |
Cars have been parking without authorization on the City boulevard on Claremont Street and on
Mansfield Avenue, and gaining access to the boulevard via the pedestrian access ramp at the corner.
The City has installed curb stones on the City boulevard on Mansfield Avenue in order to prevent
this unauthorized parking.
Conclusions:
As this is a multi-unit property, on a street authorized for permit parking, which has access to 4
parking spaces on the lot, it is not eligible for residential boulevard parking or for front yard parking.
This request should be denied by Council.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778
--------
Mr. Joe Panatalolvy, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in
connection with the foregoing matter.
62
Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code
Chapter 400, to Permit Front Yard Parking at
17 Marlborough Avenue (Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council grant the request for an
exemption to Municipal Code, Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking to permit front yard parking
at 17 Marlborough Avenue.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 10, 1998) from the
Director of By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to
permit front yard parking. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as
a public hearing.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit
front yard parking at 17 Marlborough Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400
of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a
communication (October 14, 1997) from Mr. Norman Day, appealing refusal of his front yard
parking application, asked me to report on his appeal, as a deputation item.
Comments:
Ms. Cynthia Day and Mr. Norman Day, owners of 17 Marlborough Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
M5R 1X5, submitted an application on September 4, 1997, requesting front yard parking for 1 motor
vehicle fronting 17 Marlborough Avenue.
The current front yard parking criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400 prohibits
front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street, or the property is situated within
an area authorized for permit parking.
In areas of the City without permit parking, the Commissioner may issue a licence for front yard
parking subject to certain physical criteria being met, as long as a public poll has been conducted on
the street, and the majority ballots cast are in favour of the request.
I note that no public poll has been conducted for this location as it did not pass the first criteria for
accepting an application, i.e. no permit parking on the street.
Permit parking is not authorized on this portion of Marlborough Avenue, however, the property is
within permit parking area 5H.
Conclusions:
As the property is situated within a permit parking area, this location is not eligible for front yard
parking. This request should be denied by Council.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (March 30, 1998) from Mr. Norman
Day, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Mr. Norman Day, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter.
63
Front Yard Parking - 6 St. Clair Gardens (Davenport)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council grant the request for an
exemption to Municipal Code, Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to permit front yard parking
at 6 St. Clair Gardens.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 19, 1998) from the
Director of By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on Councillor Disero's request on behalf of the homeowner to obtain a front yard parking
space which is not permitted under City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 400, Traffic and
Parking. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a public hearing.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the appeal to permit staff to accept and process an application for front yard
parking at 6 St. Clair Gardens be denied by City Council, as the property is not eligible for front yard
parking under Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
Councillor Disero has asked me to report on an application for front yard parking which was
returned to the applicant, because the property is not eligible for front yard parking.
Comments:
Mr. John Lisboa, owner of 6 St. Clair Gardens, Toronto, Ontario M6E 3V4, submitted an application
on December 18, 1995, requesting front yard parking for 1 motor vehicle fronting 6 St. Clair
Gardens.
At that time, front yard parking was governed by the criteria set out in Front Yard Parking By-law
No. 65-81. This by-law stipulated that front yard parking in this area (formerly Ward 12) was not
permitted if the property had vehicular access to an existing parking facility at the rear of the
property with 2 or more parking spaces by means of a public lane.
The application was refused since the property had access to a 2 car open parking space at the rear
of the property accessed by a public lane.
A second application was forwarded to the Department by Councillor Disero on behalf of Mr.
Lisboa, on March 20, 1997. The application was returned to the applicant since the application did
not meet the current front yard parking criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400.
On July 5, 1996, Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The
current front yard parking criteria of the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400:
(a) prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street or the property
is within an area authorized for permit parking; and
(b) prohibits front yard parking where a property has access to a parking facility on the lot.
Permit parking is not authorized on this portion of St. Clair Gardens, however the property is within
permit parking area 3A. Further, the property has access to a two car open parking area at the rear
of the property by means of a public laneway.
I note that for properties which do meet the basic eligibility criteria (i.e. no on-site parking, not in
a permit parking area), the application is then reviewed against a set of physical criteria (i.e.
clearances from trees, landscaping, etc.). If it meets these physical criteria, a positive response to
a public poll is also required before staff may issue a licence. These steps have not been followed
for 6 St. Clair Gardens, as no application has been accepted from the owner.
Conclusions:
As the property is situated within a permit parking area, it does not qualify for front yard parking
under current by-law. In addition, the property has access to a two car open parking area at the rear
of the property accessed by a paved public lane and was not eligible for front yard parking under the
previous more permissive by-law. Any request for staff to accept and process an application should
be denied by City Council.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778
--------
Mr. Jorge Lisboa, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter.
64
Appeal of Curblane Vending Privileges -
Scott Street, north of Wellington Street East (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the application for curblane vending on
Scott Street, east side, 16.7 metres north of Wellington Street East, by Mr. Gilbert Formella,
of Shibley's Gourmet On Wheels be refused.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that it has requested the
Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to expedite a new location in the area for curblane
vending by the applicant and report back to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting to be
held on May 6 and 7, 1998.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a curblane vending application. The application was
denied because a written objection was received.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not Applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that a permit be issued to Mr. Gilbert Formella, of Shibley's Gourmet On Wheels,
for curblane vending on Scott Street, east side, 16.7 metres north of Wellington Street East,
notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a
communication (January 20, 1998) from Mr. Gilbert Formella, of Shibley's Gourmet On Wheels,
regarding an appeal of his application for a curblane vending permit on Scott Street, east side, 16.7
metres north of Wellington Street East, requested me to report on this matter for consideration as a
deputation item.
Comments:
Mr. Gilbert Formella, owner of Shibley's Gourmet On Wheels, 80 Orchardview Boulevard,
Toronto, Ontario, M4R 1C2, applied on October 31, 1997 for curblane vending permit on Scott
Street, east side, 16.7 metres north of Wellington Street East, as shown on the attached sketch
(Appendix 'A'). Mr. Formella proposes to vend tacos, pitas, pasta, submarine sandwiches, salads
and drinks.
As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of City of Toronto
Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their
comments, if any. Mr. Andrew Gordon, Senior Commercial Manager, H&R Developments,
3625 Dufferin Street, Suite 500, Downsview, Ontario M3K 1N4, has submitted a letter of objection
dated December 18, 1997 (Appendix 'B'), regarding this location.
Under the procedural rules of the Municipal Code, where a written objection to the issuance of a
vending permit has been received in my office, I am required to refuse the application. The applicant
then has 30 days from receipt of our notice to request an appeal to the Toronto Community Council.
Staff have met with Mr. Formella and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under
Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, because we have received a letter of objection.
In order to assist your Committee with the evaluation of Mr. Gordon's concerns, they are
summarized below along with the staff response:
Concern # 1: The proposed vending location will adversely affect their tenant's (Leila's
Deli) business at 26 Wellington Street East
Staff Response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, requires a minimum separation
of 25 metres between a vending location and a business selling similar
products.
The proposed vending location is within a 32 metre radius of Leila's Deli.
Concern # 2: The proposed vending location would block ingress and egress from the
building
Staff Response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, prohibits vending directly in
front of an entrance to or exit from a building.
The proposed location does not front any entrance to or exit from the
building.
Concern # 3: The proposed vending location would mean the loss of a parking space that
visitors to the building could utilize
Staff Response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, requires the vendor to pay for
loss of revenue of the parking meter. If this application is approved,
Mr. Formella will be charged $3,000 per annum for the use of this curblane
space, calculated as: (52 weeks x 5 days per week x 10 hours per day x $1.00
per hour) + (52 Saturdays x 10 hours per day x $1.00 per hour) less an
allowance for statutory holidays. Staff have inspected the area and noted
that there are approximately 25 other parking meters within close proximity
to the building.
Conclusions:
As this application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal
Code, the application should be approved.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Lisa Forte, 392-1801
--------
(A copy of the communication from Andrew L.B. Gordon, referred to in the foregoing report was
forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on
April 1 and, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
- Mr. Gilbert Formella, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr Andrew Gordon, H&R Developments, Owner of 26 Wellington Street East;
- Mr. Jim Wilson, Toronto, Ontario;
- Mr. William Christmas, Toronto, Ontario; and
- Mr. Andrew Uy, Leila Deli.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Wellington Street East - Curblane Vending
65
Appeal of Denial of Application for a Sidewalk/Boulevard
Vending Permit - Wellington Street West, South Side, 184.5 Metres
West of Simcoe Street (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that a permit be issued to Mr. Kowalczyk for
sidewalk/boulevard vending on Wellington Street West, south side, 177.5 metres west of
Simcoe Street.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 19, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard vending application. The
application was denied because a written objection was received.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that a permit be issued to Mr. Kowalczyk for sidewalk/boulevard vending on
Wellington Street West, south side, 184.5 metres west of Simcoe Street, notwithstanding the
objection received by the adjoining property owner.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a
communication (December 1, 1997) from Mr. Kowalczyk, regarding an appeal of his application for
a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Wellington Street West, south side, 184.5 metres west of
Simcoe Street, requested me to report on this matter for consideration as a deputation item.
Comments:
Mr. Mark Kowalczyk, 51 Murrie Street, Etobicoke, Ontario M3V 1X6, applied on September 9,
1997 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Wellington Street West, south side, 184.5 metres
west of Simcoe Street, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). Mr. Kowalczyk proposes
to vend sausages, hot dogs and cold drinks.
As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of City of Toronto
Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their
comments, if any. Mr William Laht, Acting Director, Corporate Building Management, Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation, P.O. Box 500, Terminal A, Toronto, Ontario M5W 1E6, has submitted
a letter of objection dated October 31, 1997 (Appendix 'B') regarding this location.
Under the procedural rules of the Municipal Code, where a written objection to the issuance of a
vending permit has been received in my office, I am required to refuse the application. The applicant
then has 30 days from receipt of our notice to request an appeal to the Toronto Community Council.
Staff have met with Mr. Mark Kowalczyk and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under
Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, because we have received a letter of objection.
In order to assist your Committee with the evaluation of Mr Laht's concern, it is summarized below
along with the staff response.
Concern: The proposed vending location will subject CBC staff to odours and fumes
associated with the cooking of hot dogs at this location, due to the close
proximity to one of the fresh air supply vents for the building
Staff response: Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, does not require a minimum
separation from fresh air vents.
The proposed vending location is 7.5 metres north of the fresh air supply vent
on the north side of the building.
Conclusion:
As this application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal
Code, the application should be approved.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Lisa Forte, 392-1801.
--------
Appendix B
(Letter of objection dated October 31, 1997, from William Laht,
Acting Director/Chief Architect, Corporate Building Management,
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC))
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation objects to the application for Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending
Privileges on Welling Street West south side as this location is just north of air intakes to the fresh
air supply of the Canadian Broadcasting Centre. On many occasions the CBC staff working in the
Broadcasting Centre are exposed to car and truck exhaust fumes through the air intake when vehicles
are stopped in the area. The odour and fumes associated with the cooking of hot dogs in this area
would be just as aggravating to these staff members.
--------
Mr. Stan Makuch, Cassells, Brock and Blackwell, appeared before the Toronto Community Council
in connection with the foregoing matter.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
appendix a - v.no. 1155
66
Appeal - Driveway Widening -
17 Lynwood Avenue (Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the request for an
exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening at 17 Lynwood Avenue, as such a
request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on an application for driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements
of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, as requested by the former City Council. As this
is an appeal, it is scheduled as a public hearing.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit
driveway widening at 17 Lynwood Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of
the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
Former Councillor Howard Joy had asked me to report directly to the former City Council on a
request for a by-law exemption to permit driveway widening for 2 vehicles at 17 Lynwood Avenue.
Former City Council, at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, referred this matter for deputations
to the former City Services Committee, or its successor committee.
Comments:
Ms. Gina Tapper, owner of 17 Lynwood Avenue, submitted an application on July 21, 1997 to park
two motor vehicles on a pad on the City boulevard, situated partly at the end of her private driveway
and on a widened portion adjacent to the driveway in front of the property (see diagram in
Appendix 'A' and photograph in Appendix 'B').
The property has a private driveway 2.97 metres wide, which leads to a single car garage attached
to the house at the front wall. The driveway is 12.3 metres long from the back edge of the sidewalk
to the garage. Including the parking space in the garage, the property can accommodate parking for
3 vehicles (see diagram in Appendix 'C'). Although parking on private driveways in front of houses
is a zoning infraction, it is hard to enforce and is a fairly common practice throughout the former
City of Toronto. (City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86 governs any parking on the property.
It prohibits any parking on any portion of the lot beyond the front wall of a dwelling, but permits
casual parking on a properly surfaced driveway.)
Driveway widening is governed by the criteria set out in § 248-3 of Municipal Code Chapter 248
and Zoning By-law No. 438-86. This application does not meet three requirements of the legislation,
as summarized in the table below and explained further in the text.
| Municipal Code requirements for driveway
widening: |
17 Lynwood Avenue application does not
meet requirements because: |
| Driveway must be less than 2.6 m wide
|
Driveway is 2.97 m wide |
| There is no access to parking on private
property |
There is access to a private garage at end of
driveway |
| If all other criteria are met, only 1 space may
be licensed |
Does not meet other criteria and is requesting
licences for 2 spaces
|
Driveway widening is only permitted where the existing private driveway does not exceed a width
of 2.6 metres at its narrowest point. Another condition of the Code prohibits driveway widening if
the property has access to an existing parking facility on private property. At 17 Lynwood, neither
of these criteria are satisfied. As shown in the Appendices, the private driveway is over 2.6 metres
in width and leads to a garage on the property.
Ms. Tapper wants more parking on her property because she complains that it is hard for her guests
and tradespeople to find parking on the street, and this parking is limited to 1 hour. Therefore, she
is requesting licences for two spaces in the City boulevard--one at the end of her driveway, and an
additional space next to the private driveway. If licensed, this would effectively provide parking for
4 vehicles at 17 Lynwood. A further condition of the Code limits the licensing to one space only
in the front yard.
Accordingly, Ms. Tapper's application has been denied. She was advised of this by letter on July
25, 1997.
Conclusions:
As the property has access to a ground level garage at the front of the dwelling, by means of a private
driveway which is greater than 2.6 metres, this location is not eligible for driveway widening. Since
the proposal does not meet the current criteria, this request should be denied by Council.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778
--------
(A copy of Appendix B referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the
Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on April 1 and 2, 1998, and a copy
thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk)
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Appendices A and C
Insert Table/Map No. 2
Appendices A and C
67
Request to Licence Commercial Boulevard Parking
- 30 Alvin Avenue (Toronto Parking Authority)
(Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 12, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To report on the Toronto Parking Authority's application for a boulevard parking licence at its lot
at 30 Alvin Avenue. This application was submitted at the City's request in order to normalize a
long-standing situation which was not covered by a licence with the City of Toronto.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking at
30 Alvin Avenue, subject to the Toronto Parking Authority complying with the criteria set out in
§ 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.
Background:
The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a
communication (December 9, 1997) from Mr. M. J. Anderson, President, The Parking Authority of
Toronto, asked me to report on his request, as a deputation item.
Comments:
While discussing a proposal to re-align the driveways at the Toronto Parking Authority car park at
30 Alvin Avenue, it came to our attention that the Authority was using a portion of the City
boulevard for their parking operation. Although the Authority has similar arrangements at other lots
for which we have issued licences, that has not been done for the Alvin Avenue site.
We asked the Parking Authority to make an application in order to normalize the situation. The area
to be licensed is inside the parking lot, but within the City boulevard. It provides approximately 30
parking spaces. The Parking Authority advises us that this configuration has existed since 1955.
This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard parking as set out in § 313-42 of City of
Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313 and no alterations to the boulevard are required. However,
because the parking is in a residential district, it triggered the requirement of a public poll of owners
and tenants within 100 m of the subject property. (Technically speaking, a poll is required although
under the circumstances--the fact that this parking arrangement has been in place for over 40 years--
should arguably have been waived.)
A poll dated June 4 to July 4, 1997, was conducted on Alvin Avenue between Nos. 15 and 45A
Alvin Avenue, including No. 36 Alvin Avenue to determine neighbourhood support, as follows:
--------
Polling Summary
| Ballots cast
opposed 5
in favour 2 |
7 |
| No response |
29 |
| Returned by post office |
7 |
| Total ballots issued |
43 |
Because of the negative poll, staff could not issue a licence. However, given the long standing
nature of this use of the boulevard, and the fact that this parking is critical to the area, which is
already in short supply--I recommend that this location be licensed. Doing so at this point is
essentially a housekeeping matter.
Conclusions:
Given the long-standing nature of this parking arrangement, and the fact that it is in the City's
interests to maintain this parking, I recommend that the licence be issued.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
68
Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, Trees
- 14 Riverside Crescent, Toronto (High Park)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to
remove the trees located at 14 Riverside Crescent.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 23, 1998) from the
Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, Commissioner of
Community Services:
Purpose:
City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not
to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition
and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of
City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and
make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws
which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a
permit to remove two trees on private property that the applicant feels are overgrown and too close
to the house has been filed by Dyann Jane Sheppard, 14 Riverside Crescent, Toronto, Ontario,
M6S 1B6, owner of 14 Riverside Crescent.
Recommendations:
That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council
adopt either 1 or 2 below:
(1) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the trees;
(2) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant replacement
trees on her property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.
Comments:
The trees in question are thirty-five and thirty-seven centimetre diameter blue spruce in fair
condition. In the opinion of Urban Forestry staff, the two spruce trees are structurally sound and
viable specimens. The designated Humber Valley Ravine is in close proximity to the trees in
question and therefore these trees are important environmentally as part of a ravine system. The
spruce trees provide excellent habitat for many native bird species.
A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in
order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One
written objection was received in response to the application to remove the trees in question, a copy
of this letter has been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council
to review.
Contact Name:
Richard Ubbens, Telephone: (416) 392-1894, Facsimile: (416) 392-6657,
e-mail: rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
(A copy of a letter of objection dated February 2, 1998, mentioned in the foregoing report from the
owners of 210 Riverside Drive, addressed to Mr. Andrew Pickett, Toronto Urban and Forestry
Department, was forwarded to all Members of Council with the agenda of the Toronto Community
Council for its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1998, and a copy of thereof is on file in the office of the
City Clerk).
Ms. Dyann Sheppard, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in
connection with the foregoing matter.
69
Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, Trees
- 54 Wineva Avenue, Toronto (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit to
remove the tree located at 54 Wineva Avenue.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 25, 1998) from the
Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, Commissioner of
Community Services:
Purpose:
City Council is required under Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, to decide whether or not
to approve an application to injure or destroy trees on private property that are in a healthy condition
and thirty centimetres in diameter or greater. The Community Council as a standing Committee of
City Council under the procedural bylaw has been authorized to hear public deputations if any and
make recommendations to City Council on, among other things, matters covered by tree bylaws
which are contained in the above mentioned section of the Municipal Code. An application for a
permit to remove one tree on private property that is damaging a garage wall and obstructing the
entrance to the garage has been filed by Mr. Gennaro Di Gregorio, Beaches Investment, 22
Goodmark Place, Unit 9, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9W 6R2, owner's of 54 Wineva Avenue.
Recommendations:
That Toronto Community Council hear public deputations if any, and recommend that City Council
adopt either 1 or 2 below:
(1) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree;
(2) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement
tree on the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support.
Comments:
The tree in question is a seventy centimetre diameter black walnut in good condition. The black
walnut tree is native to southern Ontario and this specimen is a significant shade tree in Toronto's
urban forest. The garage that the tree is damaging is in quite a dilapidated state and would appear
to require demolition anyway. In the opinion of Urban Forestry staff every effort should be made
to incorporate this majestic tree into any new proposals for parking at this property.
A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in
order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No
written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.
Contact Name:
Richard Ubbens, Telephone: (416) 392-1894, Facsimile: (416) 392-6657,
e-mail: rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca
70
Tree Removal - 2 Cobalt Avenue (Davenport)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree
removal at 2 Cobalt Avenue conditional on the applicant planting a five inch caliper red oak
replacement tree upon completion of construction, as indicated in the plan accompanying the
application for tree removal.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 13, 1998) from the
Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:
Purpose:
An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property to allow for the construction of
a detached garage has been filed by Mr. Louis Velho, Velho Design, 644 St. Clarens Ave., Toronto,
Ontario, M6H 3W9, agent for the owner of 2 Cobalt Avenue.
Recommendations:
Either 1 or 2 below.
(1) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree requiring the applicant to reconsider his plans for
a detached garage.
(2) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant planting a five inch caliper red
oak replacement tree upon completion of construction, as indicated in the plan accompanying
the application for tree removal.
Comments:
The trees in question include an eighty-one centimetre diameter red oak that qualifies as hazardous
and meets the criteria for an exemption under Article III, Chapter 331 of the City of Toronto
Municipal Code. No permit is required for the removal of the red oak tree. The second tree is a
seventy centimetre diameter white oak in fair condition. The site plan, prepared by Velho Design,
that accompanies this application indicates the proposed new garage being in direct conflict with the
white oak tree. The applicant has indicated in the site plan that a red oak tree will be planted as
replacement if approval is granted for the removal of the white oak tree.
The white oak is a rare species in Toronto's urban forest and native to Southern Ontario. In the
opinion of urban forestry staff, the proposed garage should be redesigned to protect and retain the
white oak tree. If a garage cannot be designed that would adequately protect the tree during
construction, urban forestry staff are of the opinion that the plans for a garage should be abandoned.
A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in
order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No
written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.
Contact Name:
Richard Ubbens, Telephone: (416) 392-1894, Facsimile: (416) 392-6657,
e-mail: rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca
71
Tree Removal - 27 Glengrove Avenue East (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree
removal, conditional on the applicant planting a five inch caliper red oak replacement tree
upon completion of construction, as indicated in the plan accompanying the application for
tree removal.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 13, 1998) from the
Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:
Purpose:
An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for the construction of
a driveway to access a new home proposed to be built on the property has been filed by Mr. Stephen
Gill, 262 Jedburgh Road, Toronto, Ontario, M5M 3K4, agent for the owner of 27 Glengrove Avenue
East.
Recommendations:
Either 1 or 2 below.
(1) Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree requiring the applicant to redesign his driveway.
(2) Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant planting a five inch caliper red
oak replacement tree upon completion of construction as indicated in the plan accompanying
the application for tree removal.
Comments:
The tree in question is a thirty-three centimetre diameter Norway spruce in fair condition. The
arborist report, prepared by Kelly's Tree Care, that accompanies this application states that the
Norway spruce tree will have to be removed or the driveway rerouted. The plan, prepared by
Stephen Gill Associates, dated February 14, 1998, that accompanies this application indicates the
proposed new driveway being constructed within two feet from the base of the Norway spruce tree.
The tree would not survive the excavation involved with the driveway construction. The applicant
has stated in his application that a red oak tree will be planted as replacement if approval is granted
for the removal of the Norway spruce tree.
The construction activity proposed for this property will be extensive and it will be difficult if not
impossible to adequately protect the spruce tree from injury. The removal of the spruce tree,
conditional on the replacement planting of a red oak after construction is completed would be an
acceptable option in the opinion of urban forestry staff.
A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in
order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No
written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question.
Contact Name:
Richard Ubbens
Telephone: (416) 392-1894
Facsimile: (416) 392-6657
e-mail: rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca
--------
Mr. Steve Gill, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter.
72
Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties
76 Wychwood Avenue (St. Clair Carhouse) (Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998 amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:
"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Corporate Services, in consultation
with the Chief General Manager of the Toronto Transit Commission, be requested to submit
a report to the next meeting of the Toronto Community Council, for subsequent report
thereon to the Corporate Services Committee, on the implementation of the transfer of title
of this site from the Toronto Transit Commission to the City of Toronto.")
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1) the report (March 18, 1998) from the Acting Managing Director, Heritage Toronto and
the report (March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and
Development Services be adopted;
(2) the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report
to the Toronto Community Council on dedicating 25%-30% of the land for heritage
and/or parkland purposes, and how the remainder of the area can be developed in an
appropriate manner; and
(3) the Toronto Transit Commission be requested not to seek a demolition permit for this
site until the planning process has been completed.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Acting Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:
Purpose:
This report recommends that the property at 76 Wychwood Avenue (St. Clair Carhouse) be included
on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
(1) That City Council include the property at 76 Wychwood Avenue (St. Clair Carhouse) on the
City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.
(2) That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect
hereto.
Background:
In April, 1996, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 76 Wychwood Avenue
(St. Clair Carhouse) for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The TTC
was declaring the property surplus and there was neighbourhood concern for the future of the
property. The Board adopted the staff report recommending inclusion on June 18, 1996.
Following the June 18th meeting of the Board of Heritage Toronto, the TTC was advised of Heritage
Toronto's recommendation. The Board's recommendation was not forwarded to the Council of the
(former) City of Toronto because staff of the TTC, City Parks and Heritage Toronto were involved
in ongoing discussions concerning the reuse of the property.
The TTC agreed to retain the building in the interim.
In January 1998, the TTC Commissioners had before them a TTC staff report recommending
demolition. That was deferred for public comment. At a public meeting on February 24, 1998,
considerable support for the listing was expressed.
Comments:
Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it
is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property
(Category C). The Property Research Summary is attached.
Conclusion:
Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 76 Wychwood Avenue (St.
Clair Carhouse) on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood
Heritage Property.
Contact Name:
Mr. Richard Stromberg, Manager, Heritage Preservation, Heritage Toronto
Tel: 392-6827, ext. 236, Fax: 392-6834
--------
TORONTO HISTORICAL BOARD
PROPERTY RESEARCH SUMMARY
Basic Building Data:
Address: 76 Wychwood Avenue (southwest corner of Wychwood and Benson
Avenues)
Ward: 23 (Midtown)
Current Name: not applicable
Historical Name: St. Clair Carhouse
Construction Date: 1913, three-track carhouse with traffic office and storeroom
Architect: Office of R. C. Harris, City Engineer, Commissioner of Public
Works, and General Manager of Toronto Civic Railways
Contractor/Builder: City of Toronto Department of Works (Railway and Bridge Section)
Additions/
Alterations: 1916-1917, one three-track storage bay added by City of Toronto
Department of Works for Toronto Civic Railways;
1921, two three-track storage bays, one two-track repair bay, and
traffic office added by Jackson, Lewis Company, contractors, for
Toronto Transportation Commission;
1959, one-storey wing added to south wall of 1921 traffic office;
some openings altered
Original Owner: Toronto Civic Railway
Original Use: transportation (carhouse)
Current Use*: vacant
Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)
Recording Date: June 1996; revised March 1998
Recorder: HPD:KA
* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law
Property Research Summary
Description:
The property at 76 Wychwood Avenue is identified for architectural and historical reasons. In
1911, the City of Toronto formed the Toronto Civic Railways (TCR) to build and operate street car
lines in annexed areas beyond the jurisdiction of the privately-operated Toronto Railway Company
(TRC). The St. Clair line opened in August, 1913, from Yonge Street to Station Street (now
Caledonia Road). It was the second of five routes constructed and maintained by the City of Toronto
Department of Works for the TCR. In 1921, the newly-formed Toronto Transportation Commission
(forerunner of the Toronto Transit Commission) absorbed all existing street railway systems.
The St. Clair Carhouse was constructed by the Railway and Bridge Section of the Department of
Works on a City-owned park. A three-track nine-car storage bay, incorporating a traffic office and
storeroom, opened in on December 31, 1913. A second three-track storage bay for nine cars was
attached to the south end of the original section, opening in February, 1917. In November, 1921,
the TTC added two three-track storage bays on the south side of the 1917 section, and a new traffic
office with a two-track repair bay on the north side of the 1913 portion. The storage and repair bays
incorporated inspection pits. As completed in 1921, the facility accommodated 50 cars inside,
another 110 outside, with access to the yard via nine tracks.
The St. Clair Carhouse functioned as an operating division until 1978, when cars and personnel were
transferred to the Roncesvalles Division. The property was leased to the Ontario (later Urban)
Transportation Development Corporation for the testing and retrofitting of Canadian Light Rail
Vehicles (CLRVs). The Engineering and Construction Branch of the TTC occupied the traffic
office, while the yard was used for the storage of obsolete PCC (Presidents' Conference Committee)
cars, first introduced to Toronto on the St. Clair line in 1938. The single Prototype Articulated Light
Rail Vehicle (ALRV) received by the TTC was stored at the site in 1982. Three years later, linear
induction-powered Intermediate Capacity Transit System cars for the Scarborough Transit Line were
retrofitted here.
The St. Clair Carhouse, consisting of six single-storey components, is constructed of steel, concrete
and brick. The roofs of the storage bays have clerestorey openings. The various sections are linked
by a running wood cornice.
The earliest storage bays, dating to 1913 and 1917, are set in the centre of the complex. Oriented
east and west, their long side walls are concealed by abutting buildings. At the east and west ends,
truncated pediments with concrete are marked by date stones (reading "1913" and "1916") at the east
end, and blank rondelles on the west end. Round brick arches are visible above the triple wood
doors on both end walls.
Two storage bays, dated 1921, are attached to the south facade of the 1917 section. Their east walls
are flush with those of the earlier storage bays, but the buildings extend further west. At either end,
these sections have concrete trim and tripartite brick pediments with date stones (marked "1921")
on the east and blank rondelles on the west. The exposed south wall of the southernmost storage bay
extends 12 bays above a concrete foundation. Ten flat-headed openings with multi-paned sash
windows, brick lintels and concrete sills are organized by concrete pilasters with brick corbels.
Along the north edge of the property, the traffic office faces east onto Wychwood Avenue; the west
end of this section contains a two-track repair bay. The three-bay principal (east) facade is topped
by a brick cornice and divided into three oversized round-arched openings with multi-paned sash
windows and fanlights (the north (right) opening was altered for a door). The south wall is partially
concealed by abutting buildings (a lower brick section is not included in the significant exterior
features). The extended north wall along Benson Avenue has industrial-sized multi-paned sash
windows organized by concrete piers with brick corbels. The west wall has a blank rondelle beneath
a tripartite brick pediment. A large brick chimney rises from this section of the complex.
Located on the southwest corner of Wychwood and Benson Avenues, the property extends west to
Christie Street. The St. Clair Carhouse is set in a courtyard with cobblestones and a turning loop.
It is the oldest surviving carhouse built for the Toronto Civic Railway, a transportation system with
a significant role in the development of the annexed areas in the City of Toronto. With its complex
of buildings, the St. Clair Carhouse is an important neighbourhood feature.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
76 Wychwood Avenue
Insert Table/Map No. 2
76 Wychwood Avenue
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Director, City Planning and Chief Planner:
Purpose:
To initiate a study of the possible re-use of the existing building and future development of the
St. Clair Carhouse site for park and other purposes.
Source of Funds:
Unknown at this time. Possible funding required for a consultant to investigate the possible reuse
of the existing building.
Recommendations:
1. That City staff be directed to study the opportunities for community uses within the existing
buildings and future development of the site in consultation with Heritage Toronto, Toronto
Transit Commission, local Councillors and representatives from the local community.
2. That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report
further on the need to secure a consultant, if required.
Background:
The TTC has declared surplus the former St. Clair Carhouse site between Wychwood Avenue and
Christie Street, south of St. Clair Avenue West. They are also recommending the demolition of the
existing buildings on the site.
Corporate and Human Resources, Real Estate Division, are currently canvassing Civic Departments
on possible interest in the lands
Planning Controls:
The Bathurst - St. Clair part II Official Plan states that the north-west portion of Bathurst St. Clair
is deficient in parkland and that Council will, among other things, seek to ensure that if the TTC St.
Clair Carhouse property is redeveloped, that a park will be created on a portion of the site. It also
states that Council shall consider, in the event of the disposal of lands owned by various government
boards, agencies or commissions, the appropriateness of developing such lands for park and public
recreation purposes.
The Official Plan designates the site as Low Density Residence Area. However the site is zoned
"Tr" which permits transit uses. A rezoning would be required to permit residential uses. The
surrounding properties are designated Low Density Residential and are zoned R2 Z0.6 with a 12-metre height limit and R4 Z1.0 with a 10-metre height limit along Christie Street.
Site:
The site has an area of approximately 17,688 square metres. The existing building on the site has
a total floor area of 5,728 square metres.
Site History:
The Wychwood Carhouse was used for storage, maintenance and the repair of streetcars until 1978.
Since then, the property has been used from time to time for a variety of purposes, including the
commissioning of new transit vehicles, storage of derelict vehicles and other equipment, employee
parking, and emergency short turning of streetcars. The site is currently used for employee parking
(Hillcrest Yard staff). The Toronto Transit Commission at its meeting of July 15, 1997 declared the
site surplus to its needs.
The existing building was constructed in 1913, with additions in 1917 and 1921. The building is
not currently listed or designated. Toronto Heritage has express an interest in the building and will
be reporting to the April 1, 1998 Community Council meeting on listing the building. TTC staff have
indicated that the building is in poor condition and have recommended to the TTC Commission that
the building be demolished. The TTC Commission has deferred consideration of the demolition
requested so that TTC staff could meet with the local residents. The TTC Commission will consider
the TTC staff's report on the demolition at its March 25, 1998 meeting.
Comments:
There have been a number of neighbourhood meetings held to discuss the future use of this site. A
"good neighbourhoods committee" has been established to provide an opportunity for dialogue
between the TTC and the local residents adjacent to the St. Clair and Hillcrest yards. This
committee only meets when an issue arises in the community. A preliminary meeting was held in
May of 1996 when it was first rumoured that this site was to be declared surplus by the TTC. Staff
of TTC, Parks and Recreation, City Planning and Toronto Heritage attended the meeting. At that
meeting a number of neighbourhood interests and concerns were identified including: the historic
and architectural interests of the old car barns; the need for additional park and recreational facilities;
a concern about the TTC employee parking on the site and possible displacement of parking when
the site is redeveloped; and a concern that if there is to be any residential development that it reflects
the character of the existing neighbourhood.
The most recent meeting was held in February of this year. This meeting was convened in response
to the TTC's desire to demolish the existing building. The concerns and issues raised were similar
to those raised at the 1996 meeting. The neighbourhood also expressed a strong desire for the TTC
Commission to hold off on its consideration of the demolition of the existing building until the
neighbourhood had a chance to study the future development potential of the site. The Ward
Councillors have created a small committee of interested residents to consider some development
concepts for the site which would set out the communities needs. A meeting of this committee has
been set up for March 24, 1998 by Councillors Adams and Bossons.
In response to the Councillors' concerns regarding the possible demolition of the existing building
and sale of the site, staff of City Planning, Parks and Recreation, Heritage Toronto and Toronto
Artscape have met and had preliminary discussions on the possible reuse of the existing building and
future development of the site.
Parks and Recreation staff has identified uses for both indoor and outdoor spaces in the area,
including, among others: meeting rooms and gym space for volleyball, basketball and floor hockey,
as well as outdoor areas for junior baseball, soccer and play areas.
Toronto Artscape has indicated that there is a demand for studio and rehearsal spaces. The Creative
Spirit Arts Centre has also identified a need for space in the area.
This proposed local area study is not included in the 1998 Urban Planning Development Services
work program, however, it can be absorbed and should proceed given the longstanding planning
objective to examine the reuse of these lands. This is a one time opportunity, now that the site has
been declared surplus.
Conclusion:
In keeping with the Official Plan policies, which state Council shall consider the site for park or
recreational uses when it has been declared surplus, I am recommending that Council direct City
Staff to study the opportunities for community uses of the site. These could include the possible
reuse of existing buildings and options for future development of the site in consultation with
Heritage Toronto, Toronto Transit Commission, local Councillors and representatives from the local
community. Further study will be required to determine if the building could be renovated and if
the programming of interested community groups could be accommodated in the existing structure.
Contact Name:
Gregory Byrne
City Planning Division, North Section
Telephone: 392-0881
Fax: 392-1330
E-mail gbyrne@city.toronto.on.ca
Insert Table/Map No. 1
76 Wychwood Avenue
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 1, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Corporate Services:
Purpose:
To provide information on various matters regarding the TTC Wychwood car barn site.
Source of Funds:
Not applicable at this time.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that this report be received for information.
Background:
At a meeting with staff on March 27, the Ward Councillors requested the information contained in
this report be provided for the Toronto Community Council in considering the matter of the
Wychwood property.
Comments:
The TTC has declared the Wychwood Barn property surplus and, in accordance with TTC policy,
it will be sold. The TTC intends to use the proceeds from the sale to fund the acquisition of a new
garage site in East York. The issue of that property acquisition is before the Corporate Services
Committee. This report provides some information relating to the possible transfer of the property
to the City from the TTC and possible demolition of the Barn.
The site of the Wychwood Barn is currently zoned T (Transportation) and the site does not have a
high value because of this zoning and because of the existing car barns. Planning studies are
underway to establish appropriate zoning and this process will take perhaps a year to complete.
1. Possible transfer to the City
The idea of transferring the property to the City is to save the TTC costs. Approval is needed
from the TTC and from City Council to transfer the property. TTC policy is to sell the
property for market value. The City would take on the liability for maintenance and security.
Staff of the Chief Financial Officer advise that the TTC currently pays the City $185,000
yearly in a grant in lieu of taxes. This amount will be reduced to $123,00 under Current
Value Assessment. Upon transfer to the City, the TTC would no longer pay a grant in lieu
of taxes.
The building is vacant and therefore needs to be secured. Buildings and TTC staff made
a site visit on March 27 to review what should be done to the building if it is not to be
demolished for a period no longer than up to two years. Staff of the Toronto Chief Building
Official recommend that the building be further secured and that daily patrols be made. The
street car doors should be properly boarded up, some concrete beams should be shored up,
and fencing around the building should be completed. A budget figure for boarding and
shoring is being determined by staff. The steel and wood roof should be shored in areas
where the boarding has pulled away.
2. Obtaining a demolition permit
Staff of the Chief Building Official and the City Solicitor have provided the following
information.
Until the building is listed or designated, the TTC could obtain a demolition permit provided
that the Buildings staff are given information as to the way the building is to be demolished
and there are no hazards involved.
When a building is listed by the City, Building staff will seek comments from Heritage
Toronto with respect to the demolition. If it appears that an owner wishes to demolish a
listed building, City Council may choose to give notice of intention to designate the building
under the Ontario Heritage Act. This notice, once published and served pursuant to the Act,
will void any demolition permit which has already been issued and render the building
subject to the protections given to a designated property under the Act.
When a building within the boundaries of the former City of Toronto is designated under the
Act, the City of Toronto Act, 1987 will also apply to the demolition application. City
Council must decide on an application and give notice of its decision within 90 days of the
receipt of the application, or be deemed to consent to the application. Where Council refuses
a demolition application, a demolition permit will not be issued until:
(a) at least 180 days have passed from the date of Council's refusal; and
(b) the owner has obtained a building permit to erect a new building on the site of the
building to be demolished.
Contact:
Cathie Macdonald, Interim Lead Real Estate: 392-0449, fax 392-0029 (tcc98037.wpd).
--------
(A copy of a communication (March 30, 1998) from Mr. David L. Gunn, Chief General Manager,
Toronto Transit Commission, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of
the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on April 1 and 2, 1998, and a copy
thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).
(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a
communication (March 26, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission,
advising that, in considering a report dated March 25, 1998, entitled "Wychwood Carhouse
Demolition", the Commission has requested the Chair, TTC, the Chief General Manager, TTC, the
Commissioner of Corporate Services and appropriate Building officials to meet and report back to
the Commission on the issues of safety, security and transfer of title with respect to this site.)
73
Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -
4 and 8 South Kingsway (Rousseau Site) (High Park)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the report (March 18, 1998) from the
Acting Managing Director, Heritage Toronto be adopted.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that it has requested the
Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to convene a meeting in the community
on the latest version of Petro Canada's proposal to establish a gas bar, retail store and car washing
establishment at 8 South Kingsway, including the hours of operation; and report thereon to the
Toronto Community Council.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 18, 1998) from the
Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:
Purpose:
The report responds to Council's request that Heritage Toronto report on recognizing and
commemorating the site of the 1790's Rousseau trade post.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
1. That the property at 8 South Kingsway and a strip 30 metres wide, plus or minus,
immediately to the north and part of the adjacent property known as 4 South Kingsway
(Etienne Brulé park) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.
2. That appropriate officials be authorized to give effect hereto.
Council Reference/Background/History:
At its meeting on March 4, 1998, Council requested, "Heritage Toronto to report to the Toronto
Community Council on the possibility of designating the site under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage
Act and on further actions the City could undertake to recognize the importance of this site." Only
designation is discussed here. Options for commemoration must be discussed with other City
departments and will be reported to a future meeting.
Heritage Toronto considered designation at its meeting on March 18, 1998.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
In 1988, the Toronto Historical Board adopted a staff report containing the recommendation that part
of the property at 4 South Kingsway be included in the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage
Properties because it was the site of the 1790's Rousseau trade post. The land was owned by the
former Metro government and Metro asked that the listing be deferred for further study. Continuing
research has shown that the site probably straddled the property line separating the Petro-Canada
service station and the parkland to immediately to the north. As a result, we now recommend that
the gas station site and 30 metres, plus or minus, of the adjacent park be designated (see attached
plan; a formal description would need to be prepared in consultation with the City Surveyor).
Heritage Toronto adopted the recommendation to designate the site at its meeting on March 18,
1998.
Designation is intended to recognize and commemorate the long history of use of the mouth of the
Humber River. The site is recognized for historic reasons, including the potential for archaeological
remains. Designation is not intended to preserve the existing gas station or other structures on the
identified lands.
The following paragraph is the "Short Statement of Reasons," intended for publication in accordance
with the Ontario Heritage Act:
The east bank of the Humber River, near its mouth at Lake Ontario, was the southern
terminus of the Carrying Place Trail, the major portage route and short-cut used by Native
Peoples and French traders to travel between the upper and lower Great Lakes. In addition,
it was the site of Fort Toronto, built during the winter of 1750-1, and the Jean Rousseau trade
post, occupied ca. 1791-1795. Rousseau was familiar with local customs and languages. He
served as a guide and interpreter for Lt. Gov. Simcoe when the latter founded York, the town
that became modern Toronto.
Conclusions:
The indicated portions of the properties at 4 and 8 South Kingsway meet the criteria for inclusion
in the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties and should be designated under Part IV of
the Ontario Heritage Act.
Contact Name:
Richard Stromberg
Manager, Historical Preservation, Heritage Toronto
205 Yonge Street
Toronto M5B 1N2
phone: 392-6827, ext. 236
The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 25, 1998) from the
Toronto Community Council Solicitor:
Purpose:
To advise Council of the outcome of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing held on March 17, 1998
regarding the applications by Petro Canada to establish a gas bar, retail store and car washing
establishment at 8 South Kingsway.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
As directed by recommendation (2) of Clause 53, Report No. 2 of the Toronto Community Council,
adopted by City Council on March 4, 1998, I have retained an outside planner, Mr. Jassie Khurana,
to present evidence in support of the City's position before the Ontario Municipal Board. Mr.
Khurana's fee has been set at an upset limit of $9,000.00, inclusive of GST and disbursements,
payable from Account No. 76539.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to
the Toronto Community Council upon the latest version of Petro Canada's proposal to establish a
gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment at 8 South Kingsway.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Petro Canada had applied for site plan approval and variances from the City's zoning by-law to
establish a gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment on a parcel of land consisting of,
1. the property currently occupied by Petro Canada at 8 South Kingsway (the "Petro Canada
Lands"), and
2. an adjacent road allowance owned by the City of Toronto (the "Road Allowance").
As the City's Ravine Control By-law designates the site as a ravine, Petro Canada also applied for
permission to do work within the ravine.
At its meeting held on September 23 and 24, 1997 the Council of the Corporation of the City of
Toronto (as it then was) adopted the report of the Commissioner of City Works Services dated
August 29, 1997, which authorized City officials to provide notice under the Municipal Act in
respect of Council's intention to stop up, close and convey the Road Allowance to Petro Canada.
The public meeting has not yet been held and Council has yet to make a final decision on the
conveyance of the Road Allowance to Petro Canada.
By decision of the Committee of Adjustment dated October 29, 1997, the Committee granted the
variances sought by Petro Canada. The Swansea Area Ratepayers Group and the Ripley Area
Residents Group Ltd. appealed the Committee's decision to the Ontario Municipal Board (the
"Board"). Petro Canada appealed the site plan application and ravine application to the Board on
the basis that the City had not made a decision on these applications within the required time limits.
At its meeting held on March 4, 1998 City Council adopted, with amendment, Clause 53 of Report
No. 2 of the Toronto Community Council and authorised the City Solicitor to attend at the Board
hearing on March 17, 1998 to oppose Petro Canada's applications. Council also adopted a motion
which noted that Petro Canada's solicitor had just delivered a new plan (which excluded the Road
Allowance and located the gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment all within the Petro
Canada Lands) as a possible alternate plan and directed that, in the event Petro Canada tried to table
the new plan at the March 17 hearing, the City Solicitor should request the Board to defer the matter
to allow City Council adequate opportunity to consider the new plan and any associated variances.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
At the commencement of the Board hearing on March 17, 1998, the City Solicitor argued that the
Board had no jurisdiction to proceed on the matters before it and that, in any event, the Board should
defer the hearing to allow City Council adequate opportunity to consider the new plan and any
associated variances. Petro Canada's solicitor then advised the Board that Petro Canada was
withdrawing the applications in respect of the parcel which included both the Road Allowance and
the Petro Canada Lands and asked the Board to approve the new plan which located the gas bar, a
smaller retail store and the car washing establishment all within the Petro Canada Lands.
The Board adjourned the hearing to June 15, 1998 and advised Petro Canada to submit the new
application to the City for circulation to various agencies. The Board has scheduled five days for
the hearing.
Conclusions:
As City Council has not had adequate opportunity to review or determine the position to be taken
by the City upon the latest version of Petro Canada's proposal, the Commissioner of Urban Planning
and Development Services should report to the Toronto Community Council upon the proposal to
establish a gas bar, retail store and car washing establishment all within the lands currently
occupied by Petro Canada at 8 South Kingsway. Toronto City Council should then provide the City
Solicitor with instructions as to the position to be taken by the City at the continuation of the Ontario
Municipal Board hearing on June 15, 1998.
Contact Name:
Stephen Bradley, Telephone: (416) 392-7790, Fax: (416) 392-0024
--------
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
- Ms. Madeleine McDowell, Humber Heritage Committee; and
- Mr. Andrew Paton, Q.C., Barrister and Solicitor.
(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a
communication (April 14, 1998) from Mr. A. Paton, Q.C., on behalf of Petro Canada, requesting
City Council to reconsider the recommendations of the Toronto Community Council and refuse to
state an intention to designate the property at 8 South Kingsway as a heritage property.)
74
Grant of Easements Over Lands Adjacent to Yonge Street
to be Conveyed to Toronto Eaton Centre (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(March 18, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To obtain a technical amendment from City Council for authority to grant easements to various
utility companies as required, over lands previously authorized to be conveyed to Cadillac Fairview
Corporation on the west side of Yonge Street, adjacent to the Toronto Eaton Centre.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
N/A
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1) Approval be given to grant the necessary easements as required, in favour of the affected
utility companies, over the lands to be conveyed on the west side of Yonge Street, adjacent
to the Toronto Eaton Centre; and
(2) The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the actions necessary to
give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.
Background:
The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of August 21, 1997, adopted Clause 35 in
Executive Committee Report No. 19, and authorized the closing and conveyancing of certain
portions of the public highways abutting the Toronto Eaton Centre. In this connection, the former
Council passed By-law No. 1997-0578.
Comments:
At the time staff initially reviewed and reported on the proposed closing and conveyancing of
remnant road allowance lands along the west side of Yonge Street adjacent to the Toronto Eaton
Centre, it was noted that due to the compressed timeframe for submitting a report, the assessment
of utility requirements related to the lands had not been finalized. Although it appeared that
adjustments could be made, the completion of the detailed review indicates that certain utilities and
facilities (belonging to the Toronto District Heating Corporation, Toronto Hydro and the Toronto
Transit Commission) should remain in place. Therefore, it will be necessary for the City to reserve
easements as required, in favour of the affected utility companies, before any of the encumbered
lands are sold.
The exact location of the required easements will be determined by survey to be provided by the
purchaser.
This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental
Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Laurie Robertson, Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings, (392-7711, Fax No. 392-0856)
75
Acquisition of Lane, West of Lansdowne Avenue, Extending
Between Jenet Avenue and Paton Road (Davenport)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following
report (March 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City
Works Services:
Purpose:
To acquire the necessary lands for the establishment of a public lane west of Lansdowne Avenue,
extending between Jenet Avenue and Paton Road, in response to a request from the affected
residents.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds in connection with the acquisition of the private lane at this location, in an amount to be
recommended by the Commissioner of Corporate Services, can be provided from Capital Account
No. 296-601.
Recommendations:
That Toronto Community Council recommend that City Council:
1. Authorize an application to City Council for approval of the expropriation of all rights, title
and interests, for public lane purposes, of certain lands described as follows:
SCHEDULE "A"
In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of parts of Lots 23 and 24 according
to Plan 392-Y or 342-Y and part of the One Foot Reserved according to Plan 786, designated as
PARTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
and 28 on Plan of survey 64R-15608, said Plans being in the Land Registry Office for the Toronto
Registry Division (No. 64).
2. Authorize the service and publication of the Notice of such application required by the
Expropriations Act;
3. Authorize the appropriate Officials to forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the said
Act, any requests for hearings that are received;
4. Authorize the Commissioner of Corporate Services to obtain any appraisal reports required to
comply with The Expropriations Act;
5. Direct the appropriate City Officials to report further to Council as the occasion may require;
6. Authorize a by-law to lay out the lands to form the new lane as described in Schedule 'A'
above, and thereafter dedicate the lands for public lane purposes; and
7. Authorize the appropriate City Officials to take whatever action is necessary to give effect
thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.
Comments:
At the request of former Councillor Rob Maxwell, on behalf of the area property owners, I have
investigated the acquisition for public lane purposes, of the private lane at the above noted location.
The private lane is composed of Parts 1 to 28, inclusive, on Plan 64R-15608, a print of which has
been deposited with the City Clerk.
The assumption of the private lane by the City will involve:
(a) The acquisition of Parts 1 to 28, inclusive, on Plan 64R-15608 from the appropriate owners;
and
(b) The extinguishment of all interests and rights-of-way applicable to the lands referred under
Item (a) above.
Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of property owners who own this lane are willing to
convey their interests in the lane to the City, procedurally the most expeditious way to acquire all
the required land for the public lane is by expropriation.
This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental
Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
George J. Millers, Supervisor, Public Highway Systems (392-7711)
76
Acquisition of Lane North of Bloor Street West,
Extending Between Armadale Avenue and Willard Avenue
(High Park)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To acquire the necessary lands for the establishment of a public lane north of Bloor Street West,
extending between Armadale Avenue and Willard Avenue, in response to a request from the affected
residents.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Funds in connection with the acquisition of the private lane at this location, in an amount to be
recommended by the Commissioner of Corporate Services, can be provided from Capital Account
No. 296-601.
Recommendations:
That Toronto Community Council recommend that City Council:
1. Authorize the opening of a public lane over Part 15 on Plan 64R-15707;
2. Authorize an application to City Council for approval of the expropriation of all rights, title
and interests for public lane purposes, of certain lands described as follows:
SCHEDULE "A"
In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of parts of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 on
Plan 1508-York designated as PARTS 1 to 14, inclusive, 16 and 17 on Plan 64R-15707, both said
Plans being in the Land Registry Office for the Toronto Registry Division (No. 64).
3. Authorize the service and publication of the Notice of such application required by the
Expropriations Act;
4. Authorize the appropriate Officials to forward to the Chief Inquiry Officer, pursuant to the
said Act, any requests for hearings that are received;
5. Authorize the Commissioner of Corporate Services to obtain any appraisal reports required
to comply with The Expropriations Act;
6. Authorize the City Solicitor to make any necessary applications to a Judge of the Supreme
Court of Ontario to appoint the Public Trustee to represent the interests of any owners served
pursuant to subsection 1 of Section 5 of The City of Toronto Act, 1981;
7. Direct the appropriate City Officials to report further to Council as the occasion may require;
8. Authorize the appropriate City Officials to take whatever action is necessary to implement
the foregoing;
9. Authorize a by-law to lay out the lands to form the new lane as described in Schedule "A"
hereinabove, including Part 15 on Plan 64R-15707, and thereafter dedicate the lands for
public lane purposes; and
10. Authorize the appropriate City Officials to take whatever action is necessary to give effect
thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.
Comments:
At the request of former Councillor David Hutcheon, on behalf of the area property owners, I have
investigated the possibility of establishing a public lane at the above noted location, shown as Parts 1
to 17, inclusive, on Plan 64R-15707, a print of which has been deposited with the City Clerk.
In order to establish a public lane at this location, it will be necessary to:
(a) Acquire the residue lands with ownership dating back as far as 1911 identified as Parts 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 on Plan 64R-15707;
(b) Acquire Parts 6, 8, 9 and 10 on Plan 64R-15707, from the appropriate owners;
(c) Extinguish all of the interests and rights-of-way over the lands referred to in Items (a) and
(b) above; and
(d) Incorporate a 3.00 metre wide strip of City-owned land from the adjoining parking lot,
identified as Part 15 on Plan 64R-15707, in order to widen the lane to commercial standards.
Notwithstanding the fact that the majority of property owners with interests in the private lane are
willing to convey their interests to the City, procedurally the most expeditious way to acquire free
and clear title to the private portion of the lane is by expropriation.
This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental
Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
George Millers, Supervisor, Public Highway Systems (392-7711)
77
Implementation of Island Parking - George Street South
from Front Street East to The Esplanade (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council receive the following report
(February 23, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City
Works Services:
Purpose:
This proposal is intended to enhance operational safety by providing a measure of traffic calming
on the street and additional on-street parking spaces on a seasonal basis.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable
Recommendations:
(1) That the parking prohibition at anytime on the east side of George Street South from Front
Street East to The Esplanade, be rescinded;
(2) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of George Street South:
(a) from The Esplanade to a point 15.0 metres north of Jenoves Place;
(b) from a point 26.0 metres north of Jenoves Place to the lane first south of Front Street
East;
(c) from a point 86.0 metres north of The Esplanade to Front Street East;
(3) That parking be prohibited from December 1 of one year to March 31 of the next year on the
east side of George Street South:
(a) from a point 15.0 metres north of Jenoves Place to a point 11.0 metres further north;
(b) from a point 75.0 metres north of Jenoves Place to a point 11.0 metres further north;
(4) That parking be allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Monday to Saturday, April 1 to November 30 on the east side of George Street South:
(a) from a point 15.0 metres north of Jenoves Place to a point 11.0 metres further north;
(b) from a point 75.0 metres north of Jenoves Place to a point 11.0 metres further north;
and
(5) That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give
effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.
Background:
City of Toronto Council at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, in considering Clause 21 in
Executive Committee Report No. 24 entitled Measures to Enhance Safety for Children/Pedestrians -
George Street South, from Front Street East to The Esplanade, adopted the Clause without
amendment, and in doing so authorized the Commissioner of City Works Services to develop an
island parking plan for George Street South between Front Street East and The Esplanade and to take
whatever action is necessary to implement this plan.
Comments:
George Street South, from Front Street East to The Esplanade operates two-way on a pavement
width of 8.4 metres with a forty kilometres per hour maximum speed limit. The following parking
regulations are currently in effect on this section of George Street South:
East Side:
parking is prohibited at anytime.
West Side:
parking is permitted to a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday
to Saturday; and
parking is otherwise permitted to a maximum period of three hours.
The permit parking system does not operate on this street.
In developing an island parking plan for this street, consideration was given to the location of fire
hydrants, driveways and to the standard operating criteria, specifically: (a) island parking would not
occur during the winter months (December 1 to March 31) to allow for snow removal; (b) the
parking islands would be restricted to a maximum length of 11.0 metres (two vehicles) and a
maximum width of 2.0 metres; (c) a minimum separation of 36.0 metres between parking islands
would be maintained to allow for passage of fire trucks and service vehicles; and (d) a minimum
15.0 metre corner parking prohibition would be maintained at each intersection to provide adequate
turning radius for fire trucks and other service vehicles which might be required on the street.
The attached drawing No. 421F-5159 shows the island parking plan developed for George Street
South between Front Street East and The Esplanade. Two parking islands would be created resulting
in a total of 4 parking spaces being provided on the east side of the street from April 1 to November
30 of each year. The travelled portion of the roadway would be narrowed to about 4.4 metres at each
parking island essentially creating one lane for traffic and requiring either northbound or southbound
motorists to yield to the other within the narrowed section of the roadway.
In conjunction with the implementation of this parking plan, parking should be restricted to a
maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from April 1 to
November 31 within the parking islands to encourage parking turnover, promote equitable use of
the parking spaces and provide consistent temporal parking regulations on both sides of the street
during the time when island parking is authorized.
Although this plan would create a traffic calming effect promoting lower operating speeds on this
street similar to that evidenced on other streets in the City where similar plans have been
implemented, I note that sight lines between motorists and children playing on or near the sidewalk
would be reduced, somewhat off-setting the safety benefit derived from lower speeds. Additionally,
this would be the first application of island parking on a two-way street. Therefore, it would be
advisable to closely monitor the impact of this initiative on the safe and efficient operation of traffic
on George Street South.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ron Hamilton, 392-1806
Insert Table/Map No. 1
421f-5159
78
Request for Removal of a City-Owned Tree -
7 Gange Avenue (Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(February 27, 1998) from the Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and
Recreation:
Purpose:
City Council approval is required respecting staff decisions on applications for removal of trees on
municipal property pursuant to: Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article I; authority delegated to City
staff to plant, maintain or remove trees; and approved criteria.
The Toronto Community Council as a standing Committee of City Council under the Procedural
Bylaw has been authorized to hear deputations, if any, and make recommendations to City Council
respecting staff decisions, on among other things requests to remove trees located on City street
allowance.
An application has been received from Mr. Alex Boros, Architect for the removal of a City owned
tree in order to facilitate construction of professional offices.
Recommendation:
That City Council approve the following staff decision:
(1) the applicant submit payment for the value of the tree-of-heaven, removal and replacement
costs, a total of $1,746.76; and
(2) the applicant plant four new trees in turf on Gange Avenue City street allowance upon
completion of the project in accordance with Landscape Plan L1 prepared by Laura Starr
Landscape Ltd. date stamped February 9, 1998 by Urban Development Services.
Comments:
I have received a request from Mr. Alex Boros, Architect, 421 Eglinton Avenue West, Toronto,
M5N 1A4, that Toronto Community Council consider removal of a City owned tree-of-heaven at
the above noted address. Mr. Boros reports that the tree is in direct conflict with a proposed vehicle
entrance. The request forms part of a Site Plan Approval application filed with Urban Development
Services for the purpose of facilitating construction of professional offices.
The tree in question is a 37cm diameter tree-of-heaven. The tree stands in fair condition and is
valued at $878.19. Tree removal costs are $392.76 and tree replacement costs in turf are $475.62,
for a total of $1,746.57.
The applicant proposes to plant four new 'Autumn Blaze' Freeman maple in turf on Gange Avenue
as part of the landscape improvements associated with this project. The planting of these new trees
will enhance the streetscape in this area. I therefore recommend approval for removal of this tree
subject to conditions set out in this report.
Contact Name:
Warren Quan, Email: wquan@city.toronto.on.ca, Tel: 416-392-1940, Fax: 416-392-6657.
79
Removal of City-Owned Tree - 360 Kingswood Road
(East Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for removal of a City-owned
tree at 360 Kingswood Road be denied.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 9, 1998) from the
Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:
Purpose:
An application has been received from Mrs. Jennifer Wymer, 360 Kingswood Road, Toronto, M4E
3P1, for City Council to consider removal of a City owned Colorado blue spruce located at the above
noted address. Mrs. Wymer reports that the tree is unsightly and a continual nuisance as sap and bird
droppings are damaging the finish on their cars.
Recommendation:
The request for tree removal be denied.
Comments:
The tree in question is a 38 cm diameter Colorado blue spruce located on City street allowance. The
tree stands in fair condition and is valued at $1,487.00. Forestry staff inspected this tree on
October 28, 1997 and found that the tree is well pruned and the branches are clear from the house
and mutual driveway.
It is common for certain trees such as spruce to excrete small amounts of sap and this is very difficult
to remove from cars. Sap may cause discolouring of car paint. Perhaps a protective car cover could
be used to reduce the contact with sap and bird droppings. Since the Colorado blue spruce is not
structurally unsound, dead or dying, I recommend that the request for tree removal be denied.
However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, I recommend that the applicant
pay all costs involved; this includes the tree value of $1,478.00, the removal costs of $328.51, and
the costs to plant a replacement, $475.62, for a total of $2,291.13.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
the following communications, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:
- (undated) from Mr. Durward Anthony and Ms. Helga Anthony; and
- (undated) from Mr. Robert Wymer and Ms. Jennifer Wymer.
80
Removal of City-Owned Tree - 267 Forest Hill Road
(Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for removal of a City-owned
tree at 267 Forest Hill Road be denied.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (March 12, 1998) from the
Director, Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation:
Purpose:
An application has been received from Mr. Kenneth Cancellara, 267 Forest Hill Road, Toronto,
M5P 2N3, for City Council to consider removal of a City owned linden tree located at the above
noted address. Mr. Cancellara reports that the tree has aphids and drips honeydew on their cars.
Recommendation:
The request for tree removal be denied.
Comments:
The tree in question is a 30 cm diameter linden located on City street allowance. The tree stands in
fair condition and is valued at $1,151.01. My staff inspected this tree on October 29, 1997 and found
that the tree is well pruned and the branches are clear from the house. The tree was last pruned on
June 19, 1996.
Aphids are small insects that suck on leaves and succulent shoots. These insects excrete honeydew
which coats the leaves and often drips onto objects below. Aphids can be controlled by spraying
leaves with a water hose to wash them off. Perhaps a protective car cover could be used to reduce
the honeydew contact with the car. Since the linden is not structurally unsound, dead or dying, I
recommend that the request for tree removal be denied.
However, should Toronto Community Council approve tree removal, I recommend that the applicant
pay all costs involved; this includes the tree value of $1,151.01, the removal costs of $179.12, and
the costs to plant a replacement, $475.62, for a total of $1,805.75.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
a communication (March 31, 1998) from Kenneth C. Cancellara, Barrister and Solicitor, and a copy
thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
81
Tree Removal - 1669 Queen Street East (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 5, 1998) from the Director, Development & Support - Toronto Parks and Recreation:
Purpose:
City Council approval is required respecting staff decisions on applications for removal of trees on
municipal property pursuant to: Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article I; authority delegated to City
staff to plant, maintain or remove trees; and approved criteria.
The Toronto Community Council as a standing committee of City Council under the Procedural
Bylaw has been authorized to hear deputations, if any, and make recommendations to City Council
respecting staff decisions on, among other things, requests to remove trees located on City street
allowance.
An application has been received from MBTW for the removal of 11 City owned trees in order to
facilitate proposed building construction and streetscape work.
Recommendations:
That City Council approves the following staff decision:
(1) the applicant pay $5,546.57 for the value, removal and replacement cost for the 11 trees; and
(2) the applicant plant in accordance with Streetscape Landscape Plans LA-1 to LA-6 inclusive,
prepared by MBTW, dated July 9, 1997, and revised January 26, 1998.
Comments:
I have received a request from Mr. Peter Kanitsch, MBTW, 240 Duncan Mill Road, Suite 500
Toronto, Ontario M3B 1Z4, that City Council consider a request for removal of 11 City owned trees
fronting 1669 Queen Street East. Mr. Kanitsch reports that the trees cannot be preserved due to
conflicts with utilities, sidewalk locations and pedestrian circulation and the proposed building
construction and streetscape work.
Previously, there were a total of 18 city owned trees situated on the City road allowance adjacent to
the development site. Seven trees were approved for removal by the former City of Toronto Council
at its meeting held on April 14, 1997 (Clause 38, City Services Committee Report 5) in order to
accommodate construction of the 5 new streets proposed for the development site. There are
currently 11 City owned trees remaining on the City road allowance. The trees range in size from
6 to 23 cm in diameter. Eight trees are in good condition and three are in fair condition. The trees
have a cumulative value of $2,088.27. The cost to remove the 11 trees is $1,133.78 and the cost to
plant 11 replacement trees is $2,324.52.
The existing trees cannot be preserved in their current locations because of the extent of sidewalk
construction that will be required in conjunction with development of the site. Construction will
result in major damage to the tree roots and crowns which will ultimately lead to the demise of these
trees. The location of underground utilities will not permit the relocation of trees that are in good
condition. In addition, the trees are currently not in alignment along the sidewalk; some are located
directly behind the curb while others are located behind the sidewalk. This could result in conflicts
with pedestrian circulation following construction.
The developers for the site, EMM Financial Corporation have committed to the planting of 600 trees
throughout the site, including street trees. In addition to this, 33 new trees are currently proposed
for planting on the Queen Street frontage. The applicant proposes to provide replacement trees that
are 100 mm caliper which are to be planted in alignment behind the curb in continuous tree pits. The
applicant further intends to plant 39 new trees at the flanking intersections of Queen Street and the
5 new streets. All totalled, 79 new trees are proposed to be planted on Queen Street and the flanking
intersections with the new streets to replace the trees which are the subject of this application. This
represents a replacement of 4 trees for each original City owned tree.
The proposed streetscape treatment will use best environmental practices and will maximize tree
planting. The plan will provide a streetscape that is superior to what currently exists and this will
be beneficial in the long term. I therefore recommend approval for the removal of the 11 trees
provided that the applicant pays all costs.
Contact Name:
Richard Ubbens, City Arborist, 5th Floor East Tower, City Hall
Telephone: 392-1894, Email: rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca
82
Construction of a Wooden Fence - 59 Barton Avenue and on
Euclid Avenue (Midtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council not approve the request of
the owner of 59 Barton Avenue to construct a wooden fence within the City street allowance
at 59 Barton Avenue and on Euclid Avenue.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (February 19, 1998) from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on the homeowners' request to construct a wooden fence within the City street allowance
which complies with the height and setback requirements of the City of Toronto Municipal Code,
Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, but is objected to by a neighbour.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendations:
That City Council approve the construction of a wooden fence within the City Street allowance at
59 Barton Avenue and on Euclid Avenue, subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the
City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.
Background:
Councillor Adams has asked me to report on the request to construct this fence.
Comments:
Mr. David Amer, co-owner of 59 Barton Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5S 2T9, requests permission
to construct a 1.9 metre high wooden fence within the City street allowance on Barton Avenue and
a 1.0 metre high wooden fence within the City street allowance on Euclid Avenue. The fence, as
designed, meets the height and setback requirements of the Municipal Code.
We have received a letter from an area resident opposing construction of the fence. The resident
notes that the fence would be unsightly due to the length of the property on Barton Avenue. Because
an objection has been received, Municipal Code Chapter 313-33(2) requires that the application be
refused. The applicant may appeal this refusal.
Although Mr. Amer had begun construction of the fence, he has stopped work pending the outcome
of this appeal.
Staff inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and determined that this fence
would be consistent with the streetscape as there are other fences of similar height in the area, and
along Barton and Euclid Avenues.
This property is somewhat unusual, in that the frontage, as defined by the Zoning By-law, is the
shorter lot line (abutting Euclid Avenue), although it is not the side of the property with an entrance.
Details of this fence and letter from the area resident are on file with my Department.
Conclusion:
As this fence is in compliance with the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, and is
consistent with other fences in the area, the fence should be permitted.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Fani Lauzon, 392-7894.
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
a communication (March 30, 1998) from Ms. Joan MacCallum, and a copy thereof is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
Councillor Adams declared his interest in the foregoing matter insofar as that he and his spouse own
a corner property and have an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto regarding a fence
on the municipal boulevard.
(Councillor Adams, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared his interest in the
foregoing Clause, in that he and his spouse own a corner property and have an encroachment
agreement with the City of Toronto regarding a fence on the municipal boulevard.)
83
Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes
Toronto's Festival of Beer
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends, for LLBO purposes, that City Council declare
Toronto's Festival of Beer, taking place on August 7, 8 and 9, 1998, to be an event of municipal
significance and indicate that it has no objection to it taking place.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (undated) from Greg
Cosway, President, The Cottage Creek Corporation:
I am writing to you regarding the third annual "Toronto's Festival of Beer". Now well into our third
year, and riding high on the success of the 1997 Festival, "The Cottage Creek Corporation" is once
again set to invade Historic Fort York on the 7th, 8th and 9th days of August to start this premier
event.
With the level of success that the festival has enjoyed, and our tremendous growth rate many
observers now consider us, one of this cities premiere summer events. The festival has made bold
strides in supporting beer culture in Ontario, and is recognized in the industry as the leader in
festivals of this nature, we can safely be referred to as an "Annual Event" with 100 percent Canadian
content.
The Festival is expected to attract over 15,000 people from all across Ontario as well as visitors from
out of province and even a few from out of country, supporting Toronto's thriving summer tourist
industry. Also supported by the Festival are the local charity "Second Harvest", a food recovery
program for the poor and homeless in the City of Toronto.
We have again chosen "Historic Fort York", as it is an ideal sight known for its central location,
historical charm and significance and most importantly, the attraction of the Fort to people of all
ages. Historic Fort York offers what we view as an exceptional alternative for the younger festival
attendees, and only adds to our all ages' approach. We understand that beer is not for everyone, and
we envision a festival in the truest sense of the word. With this in mind, we will be featuring local
musicians performing blues and jazz throughout the entire weekend and Scottish pipe band will lead
the opening ceremonies. Also included in the weekend's itinerary will be educational seminars for
the youngest festival goers to the most experienced connoisseur. Local restaurants will also be on
sight preparing gourmet beer related dishes cooked by some of this cities finest chefs.
We at "The Cottage Creek Corporation" feel that "Toronto's Festival of Beer" continues to be
significant to the City of Toronto, and will continue to be for years to come. We look forward to a
festival intended for the people of Toronto and attendees worldwide. As well, we will highlight
many of this city's wonderful new Breweries, as well as the more experienced ones, not to mention
attracting breweries from across North America and the world to the City of Toronto.
We hope you agree with our plans for the 1998 festival and see fit to once again designate us
significant to the City of Toronto.
84
Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes -
North by Northeast Music Festival and Conference
(Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for LLBO purposes, declare
the North by North East event taking place on John Street, between Queen Street West and
Adelaide Street West, on June 13 and 14, 1998, to be an event of municipal significance, and
indicate that it has no objection to it taking place.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 27, 1998)
from Mr. Andy McLean, Managing Director, North by Northeast, Music Festival and
Conference:
I forward the following application for submission to the Toronto Community Council for
consideration and approval at their next meeting.
An application has been filed with the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to obtain a Special Occasion
Licence to serve alcoholic beverages within the City street allowance on John Street between Queen
Street West and Adelaide Street West in conjunction with a music festival.
The application covers the event hours of 12:00 noon on Saturday, 13 June, to 2:00 a.m. on Sunday,
14 June 1998, for which an application for a Street Occupation Permit has been filed with City
Works Services.
I look forward to receiving confirmation of the Council's approval. Please contact me at 416-469-0986 (FAX 469-0576) if additional information is required.
(A copy of the Street Occupation Permit Application referred to in the foregoing report was
forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on
April 1 and 2, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).
85
Private Awards Ceremony Reception -
519 Community Centre (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for LLBO purposes, declare
the private awards ceremony being held by the Cabbagetown Group Softball League in and
around the 519 Community Centre on July 5, 1998, to be an event of municipal significance,
and indicate that it has no objection to it taking place.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 19, 1998)
from Ms. Catherine Craig, Events Chair, Cabbagetown Group Softball League:
I am writing your office to provide you with notification of a private awards ceremony reception our
non-profit organization is having on Sunday July 5, 1998. We have applied for a "Special Occasion
Permit" with the City of Toronto Parks and Recreation as well as LCBO. The location of this event
will be in the 519 Community Centre as well as the fenced in area at the immediate rear of the
building. I am enclosing a copy of a sketch for your convenience. This is open to our members only
and will not be advertised to the public.
As Events Chair of our organization, I have obtained the guidelines for an event like this and will
ensure all provisions are adhered to. If I can be of further assistance in addressing any of your
concerns please contact me at 416-972-7338 or 416-921-7976.
Thank you for your co-operation in regards to this matter.
--------
(A copy of sketch referred to in the above mentioned communication is on file in the office of the
City Clerk)
86
Temporary Extension of Licensed Area - 99 Blue Jays Way
(Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council advise the Liquor Licence
Board of Ontario that it is aware of the event taking place at Wayne Gretzky's Restaurant,
99 Blue Jays Way, in conjunction with a corporate function on Mercer Street, and has no
objection to an extension of its liquor licence to cover the full street allowance on
Mercer Street from Blue Jays Way at the dates and times cited in the communication
(February 25, 1998) from Philip Noble, Street Events Management.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 25, 1998)
from Philip Noble, Consultant, Street Events Management:
On behalf of my client, Wayne Gretzky's Restaurant, I forward the following application for
submission to the Toronto Community Council for their consideration and approval at the next
meeting.
An application has been filed with the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario to cover the temporary
extension of the licensed areas of Wayne Gretzky's Restaurant, 99 Blue Jays Way, in conjunction
with a corporate function on Mercer Street. An application for a Street Occupation Permit in this
regard has been filed with City Works Services.
The application for extending the existing liquor licence will cover the full street allowance on
Mercer Street from Blue Jays Way for a distance of approximately 200 metres east thereof, between
the hours of 12:00 noon on Thursday, July 9, and 2:00 a.m. on Friday, July 10,1998.
I enclose a street plan which indicates the above location, together with a copy of my Letter of
Authority, and I look forward to receiving confirmation of the Council's approval. Please contact
me at 416-480-1962 (tel/fax) if additional information is required.
(Copies of the street plan mentioned above and the application letter submitted by Daphne Hunter,
General Manager, Wayne Gretzky's Restaurant were distributed to all the Members of Council with
the agenda of the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 1, 1998, and a copy thereof
is on file in the office of the City Clerk).
87
Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes -
Extension of Previous Request -
The Back of the Tranzac Club (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council advise the Liquor Licence
Board of Ontario that it is aware of the following events taking place at the TRANZAC Club,
292 Brunswick Avenue, and that it has no objection to their taking place; nor to an extension
of liquor licence #40010 to cover the area at the back of the TRANZAC Club:
(1) Caravan - The Sydney-Auckland Pavilion - June 12 to 20, 1998, inclusive; and
(2) The Fringe of Toronto Festival - July 2 to 12, 1998, inclusive.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (March 19, 1998) from
Ms. Linda Keyworth, General Manager, The Fringe of Toronto Festival:
Thank you for your help earlier this week. As per our telephone conversation, I am writing again
on behalf of the Toronto Australia New Zealand Club (The Tranzac) to request a notice of Municipal
Clerk/NON OBJECTION in writing. I understand that our earlier request has been granted which
is great news. This new request is that the Community Council consider extending our original
request to include the area at the back of the Tranzac club (please see the attached site diagram). The
shaded area represents the additional space that we were hoping to include under the extension to
our existing liquor licence # 40010.
This second extension request will be to cover the duration of The Fringe of Toronto Festival only.
Should you require any further information, please don't hesitate to contact Linda Keyworth at (416)
534-5919. Thank you for your assistance.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause No. 43 contained in Report No. 2 of the
Toronto Community Council, as considered by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting held
on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Marquee Layout
88
Boulevard Cafe - 1997 Cafe Season -
250 Eglinton Avenue West - Shoeless Joe's
(North Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(February 27, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe at 250 Eglinton Avenue West during the 1997 cafe
season.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That the licence for boulevard cafe at 250 Eglinton Avenue West be renewed by staff annually,
effective April 1, 1998.
Background:
The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of December 9 and 10, 1996, approved the
operation of a boulevard cafe fronting 250 Eglinton Avenue West for another cafe season, subject
to the applicant complying with the criteria in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 and
requested the Department to report back on the operation of the cafe at the end of the 1997 cafe
season.
Comments:
A licence for the cafe fronting 250 Eglinton Avenue West (Shoeless Joe's) was issued on
February 16, 1996. The cafe operated during the 1996 cafe season without any incidents.
During the 1997 cafe season, we received two minor complaints about garbage at this location. One
complaint pertained to some wood that had been deposited in the vicinity of 250 Eglinton Avenue
West. The origin of the wood could not be determined and it was removed by staff. On June 5,
garbage from Shoeless Joe's had been put out improperly. A notice was sent to the business operator
and the problem was resolved. No other complaints from the police or the public were received for
this address.
Conclusions:
Licences for boulevard cafes have to be renewed annually as of April 1. Given that the cafe has
operated during the 1996 cafe season without complaints and the 1997 cafe season with only one
minor incident related to proper garbage placement for collection, the licence for this location should
be renewed on an annual basis.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
89
The Second Cup - Boulevard Cafe
- McGill Street Flankage of 423 Yonge Street
(Convenience Address of 419 Yonge Street) (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(February 23, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To report on the extended hours of operation of the boulevard cafe, as approved on a trial basis for
the 1997 cafe season, on the McGill Street flankage of 423 Yonge Street.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That the boulevard cafe licensed on the McGill Street flankage of 423 Yonge Street retain its
1:00 a.m. closing time restriction as previously authorized by City Council.
Background:
The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of December 9 and 10, 1996, approved an
application to extend the operating hours of the boulevard cafe on the McGill Street flankage of 423
Yonge Street from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., on a trial basis for the 1997 cafe season, and requested
the Commissioner of City Works Services to report back at the end of the 1997 cafe season.
Comments:
A licence for the boulevard cafe on the McGill Street flankage of 423 Yonge Street was issued to
Mr. Sonny Azizi, 1091414 Ontario Limited, o/a The Second Cup on July 23, 1996, subject to the
cafe closing at 11:00 p.m. Subsequently, the former City of Toronto Council, on December 9 and
10, 1996, approved Mr. Azizi's request to extend the closing time restriction of his cafe to 1:00 a.m.
and requested me to report back at the end of the 1997 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.
A new owner, Ms. Julien Yu, took over the operation of the cafe in August 1997. The cafe licence
was transferred to Ms. Yu, subject to the same terms and conditions as applied to the previous
owner.
No complaints relating to this location have been received from the public or Toronto Police Service
during the 1997 season and no by-law enforcement has occurred with respect to garbage or noise
violations.
Conclusion:
Given that there were no complaints received regarding the operation of the cafe during the 1997
cafe season, I would recommend that the 1:00 a.m. closing time restriction remain in effect.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
(Mayor Lastman, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared his interest in the
foregoing Clause, in that his son is a Member of the Board of Directors of The Second Cup.)
90
Bella Napoli Trattoria (formerly Brutta Osteria) -
Operation of the Boulevard Cafe During the
1997 Cafe Season - 2419 Yonge Street (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(March 10, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe fronting 2419 Yonge Street during the 1997 cafe
season.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That the licence for boulevard cafe at 2419 Yonge Street be renewed by staff annually, effective
April 1, 1998, subject to the licence holder entering into a revised agreement to reflect the business
name change and the area of 9.7 sq. m., as illustrated in Appendix 'A'.
Background:
The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of June 2 and 3, 1997, approved the boulevard
cafe fronting 2419 Yonge Street, subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in
§ 313-36 of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, and that the matter
be brought back for further consideration at the end of the 1997 cafe season.
Comments:
A licence for the boulevard cafe fronting 2419 Yonge Street was issued on June 5, 1997.
The cafe operated during the 1997 cafe season. No complaints have been received from members
of the public or Toronto Police Service pertaining to its operation.
The cafe has been operating within a fenced enclosure of 9.7 sq. m., as illustrated in the plans
presented to Council when the licence was approved. Due to a clerical error, the licence agreement
itself refers to a greater area of 15.4 sq. m. Mr. Deviato, the operator, has paid the fee for this larger
area in 1997. We will be crediting Mr. Deviato for the amount which was charged in error.
As Mr. Deviato has changed the name of his restaurant operation to Bella Napoli Trattoria from
Brutta Osteria, if Council approves the continuation of his licence, staff will ask him to sign an
agreement to reflect the correct area and new name.
Conclusions:
Licences for boulevard cafes have to be renewed annually as of April 1. Given that the cafe has
operated during the 1997 cafe season without complaints, the licence for this location should be
renewed on an annual basis.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Appendix "A" - 2419 Yonge Street
91
Appeal of Charges for Sidewalk Snow Removal -
817 Broadview Avenue (Don River)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(February 23, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To report on the property owner's request that the charges for sidewalk snow removal at 817
Broadview Avenue be reconsidered by City Council. The owner has already been granted one
reduction (from $228.10 to $152.06) following a review by management.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Charges of $152.06 were added to the 1997 property taxes for 817 Broadview Avenue, and have
been paid in full. If City Council decides to reduce or cancel the charges, an adjustment will be
made to the 1997 tax account for the property.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the charges of $152.06 for sidewalk snow removal on February 4, 1997 at
817 Broadview Avenue stand and that City Council take no further action on this matter.
Background:
The City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of September 3, 1997,
in considering a communication (August 19, 1997) from Mr. Joseph Maniscola, asked me to report
on his request for reconsideration of sidewalk snow removal charges, assessed against
817 Broadview Avenue, of which he is the owner and landlord.
Comments:
City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 304, Snow and Ice Removal, requires all property owners
to remove snow and ice from the public sidewalk in front of or beside their properties within 12
hours after a snow storm and to keep the sidewalk clear. If the snow and ice is not removed, the City
can clear the sidewalk and charge the cost of removal to the property owner by way of Realty Taxes.
On January 29, 1997, staff inspected the sidewalks on Pretoria Avenue between Broadview Avenue
and Ellerbeck Street, following the snowfall which ended on January 28, 1997, and found that the
sidewalk flanking 817 Broadview Avenue had not been cleared. The by-law officer delivered a
Notice to the property to advise the occupant of the requirement and request that the sidewalk be
cleared immediately. Issuing this Notice is not a requirement of the Municipal Code.
A City crew came back on February 4, 1997 and the sidewalk was still covered with snow and ice.
The crew salted the sidewalk at 9:40 a.m. and cleared it at 1:55 p.m. Photographs (Appendix 'A')
taken beside 817 Broadview Avenue show that the public sidewalk was 75per cent covered on
February 4, 1997 at 9:40 a.m., while the lower picture, taken at 2:00 p.m., shows that the sidewalk
was completely cleared by the City crew.
History of Review of Charges at 817 Broadview Avenue:
We wrote to Mr. Joseph Maniscola, the property owner, on February 18, 1997 to advise that the cost
of this work was $228.10, including GST, and this charge would be added to his tax bill for 1997.
(The authorized charge per square metre of sidewalk cleared is $5.50. The area cleared was
51.68 sq. m. (30.4 m x 1.7 m), for a total of $228.10, including GST, based on 75per cent coverage.)
Mr. Maniscola then sent two letters (March 14 and 16, 1997) requesting that the charges for sidewalk
snow removal be revised or issued to his tenants instead. He notes that he does not reside at 817
Broadview Avenue and the lease agreements with his tenants require them to clear the snow.
We advised Mr. Maniscola that his agreement with his tenants does not eliminate his responsibility
as the property owner. However, we agreed to reduce the charges from 75per cent clearing to 50 per
cent, as this was a first offence, and Mr. Maniscola assured us that his tenants would clear the
sidewalk in future. The revised charge was $152.06, including GST.
Factor Considered in Management Review:
Each winter season, a small number of the property owners who are charged for sidewalk snow
removal ask for these charges to be reduced or cancelled. A review is then conducted by the
Director. In determining whether or not to grant reduction, I must consider a number of factors, and
in particular what other people in similar circumstances have been charged.
We do use some discretion in reducing snow charges where:
(a) the charge is for a first offence and the owner claims they were unaware of the by-law or did
not receive our courtesy notice;
(b) the "before" and "after" photographs do not clearly show the sidewalk; and
(c) the snow may have been pushed onto the public sidewalk by City plows.
Conclusions:
In granting a reduction to the initial charges, the review has taken these factors into consideration.
My decision to reduce the charges has weighed these factors, and in my opinion the revised charges
are fair in the circumstances.
Our ability to clear the sidewalks and charge the owner is an essential aspect of enforcing the Snow
and Ice Removal By-law and make the sidewalks safe for pedestrians. The charge also acts as an
effective deterrent against further offences.
I therefore recommend that City Council uphold the charges of $152.06 and take no further action
on this matter.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Ken McGuire, 392-7564
--------
(A copy of Photographs referred to as Appendix "A" in the report dated February 23, 1998, from the
Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services has been forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Toronto Community Council for its meeting on April
1, 1998, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it
during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (March 31, 1998) from Mr. Joseph
Maniscola, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
92
Relocate Fire Hydrant to Allow Driveway Widening -
128 Wolverleigh Boulevard (East Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 10, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement,
City Works Services:
Purpose:
To report on Councillor Jakobek's request to relocate a fire hydrant to allow driveway widening.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council approve the application for driveway widening at
128 Wolverleigh Boulevard, subject to the owner paying in advance for the relocation of the fire
hydrant at this address, to a point approximately 3.6 metres east of its existing location.
Background:
Councillor Jakobek has asked me to report on the above matter.
Comments:
Mr. Angelo Stavridis, owner of 128 Wolverleigh Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario M4J 1R9, submitted
an application on February 4, 1998, for driveway widening for one motor vehicle fronting
128 Wolverleigh Boulevard.
The area in the street allowance adjacent to the mutual driveway has recently been excavated and
landscaped in order to create a parking area at the front of the house. This landscaping was done
without the necessary approval and permits from the City. There is a fire hydrant located
immediately east of the mutual driveway between 126 and 128 Wolverleigh Boulevard. The
dimensions of the paved area, vehicle, location of the fire hydrant and clearances from the hydrant
are shown in Appendix 'A'.
The Fire Code requires that hydrants be readily available and unobstructed for use at all times. It
is departmental policy to maintain a minimum of 1.0 m clearance from hydrants to allow unrestricted
access.
The current driveway widening criteria of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking
Licenses, require that cars be parked no closer than 0.30 metres from the back of the City sidewalk
and to a wall or any part of the building.
The location cannot be approved for driveway widening because there is insufficient space for a
parking space which provides the necessary clearance from the base of the hydrant.
However, the location would meet the Fire Code and Municipal Code requirements if the fire
hydrant is relocated to a point approximately 3.6 metres from its existing position which will place
it just east of a retaining wall. The cost to relocate this fire hydrant is estimated at $8,000. If the
hydrant is moved, part of the retaining wall forming the east edge of the proposed parking area will
also need to be removed, with an associated cost of approximately $1,000.00.
Conclusions:
As there is insufficient space to accommodate a proper parking space adjacent to the mutual
driveway, due to the existing position of the hydrant, this location is not eligible for driveway
widening. However, this location can be licensed for driveway widening if the hydrant is relocated
as described above, at the owner's expense.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778.
Insert Table/Map No. 1
Appendix "A" - Wolverleigh Blvd.
93
Authorization of the Development of a Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Plan - Avenue Road Eglinton Community
Association (ARECA) (North Toronto)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report
(March 18, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works
Services:
Purpose:
To authorize the use of staff resources to assist the ARECA traffic committee in developing a
traffic management plan.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Not applicable.
Recommendation:
That Works and Emergency Services staff assist the Avenue Road Eglinton Community Association
(ARECA) traffic committee in developing a neighbourhood traffic management plan for the area
bounded by Latimer Avenue, Roselawn Avenue, Castlewood Road, Castlefield Avenue,
Rosewell Avenue, Edith Drive and Eglinton Avenue West.
Comments:
A written request dated March 9, 1998 has been received from Mr. R. J. Jessop, President of
ARECA, for staff assistance in developing a traffic management plan for the area bounded by
Latimer Avenue, Roselawn Avenue, Castlewood Road, Castlefield Avenue, Rosewell Avenue, Edith
Drive and Eglinton Avenue West. Residents are concerned about the volume of traffic and parking
issues, and about the potential traffic impacts of a new secondary school proposed at the south-east
corner of Avenue Road and Roselawn Avenue. The Association has formed a traffic committee and
will require considerable staff resources to undertake traffic counts and analysis, provide technical
advice on possible alternatives and develop plans and drawings. This approach has been established
through the City's Traffic Calming Policy (adopted by City Council at its May 30 and 31, 1994
meeting). Under the policy, authorization from the former City Services Committee was required
to dedicate the use of staff resources for such an activity.
Contact Name and Telephone Number:
Andrew Macbeth, Manager, Transportation Management, 392-1799.
94
Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes -
1998 Molson IndyFest
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends, for LLBO purposes, that City Council declare
the Molson Indyfest taking place in various locations to be an event of municipal significance,
and indicate that it has no objection to the issuance of Special Occasion Permits for the areas
indicated in the communication (February 25, 1998) from Molson Indyfest on the dates and
times requested.
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (February 25, 1998)
from Mr. Charlie G. Johnstone, Executive Director, Molson IndyFest:
I forward the following application for submission to the next meeting of the Toronto Community
Council for their consideration and approval.
As in previous years, applications are being made to the Liquor Licensing Board of Ontario for
Special Occasion Permits to serve alcoholic beverages at the events listed below. The Molson
IndyFest celebrations which are taking place this year from July 11 through 19, are held annually
under the auspices of the Molson Indy Festival Foundation in support of children's charities.
In 1998 street festivals will take place as follows:
(1) On Duncan Street between Richmond Street West and King Street West, a Street Festival
for Charity will be held on Wednesday, July 15, 1998, between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and
2:00 a.m.
This is a new location for 1998.
(2) On Danforth Avenue between Broadview Avenue and Playter Boulevard, the Molson Mini-Indy Road Races and Street Festival for Charity will be held on Wednesday, July 15, 1998,
between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m.
This is a new location for 1998.
(3) On John Street between Richmond Street West and Adelaide Street West, plus an area on
Nelson Street for a distance of approximately 200 metres east of John Street: application has
been submitted to the City Works Services for a street closure on Thursday, July 16, 1998,
between the hours of 12 noon and 6:00 a.m.
A Special Occasion Permit has been requested to serve alcoholic beverages within the above
street allowances.
This event has been held for the past two years without problems or difficulties.
(4) On Blue Jays Way and Mercer Street, the temporary extension of the licensed areas of
Wayne Gretzky's Restaurant, 99 Blue Jays Way, has been applied for in conjunction with
the Molson Indy Drivers' VIP Party for officials, participants and guests.
The application includes the extension of the existing liquor license to cover the street and
sidewalks from Wellington Street West to King Street West on Blue Jays Way, and the street
allowances on Mercer Street from Blue Jays Way to a point 200 feet east thereof from 12:00
noon on Friday, July 17 to 2:00 a.m. on Saturday, July 18, 1998.
The City of Toronto Neighbourhoods Committee had given approval for the past three years,
and no problems were encountered on those occasions.
At each of these Festival events, snack food and not dishes will be served by local restaurants and
cafes, proceeds from the sale of which will go to Molson Indy Festival Foundation in support of
children's charities.
Applications for Street Occupation Permits have been filed with City Works Services and Road
Allowance Control Section of the Transportation Department's, as appropriate.
I look forward to receiving confirmation of the Community Council's approval of the above. Please
contact me directly at (416) 966-6212 if any additional information is required.
--------
The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before
it, during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, and a copy thereof
is on file in the office of the City Clerk:
- (March 25, 1998) from the City Clerk, addressed to the Toronto Community Council; and
- (March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk, addressed to the Toronto Community Council.
95
Traffic Control Signals - Intersection of
Church Street and The Esplanade (Downtown)
(City Council on April 16, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Toronto Community Council recommends that:
(1) a flashing beacon be installed at the intersection of Church Street and The Esplanade;
and
(2) the appropriate City officials be directed to take the steps necessary to implement
Recommendation No. (1).
The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (March 5, 1998) from
the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, Works and Emergency
Services, addressed to Councillor Rae:
I refer to your letter of February 20, 1998 forwarding a copy of a letter (February 11, 1998) from
Mr. Gwyn Roberts, President, St. Lawrence Neighbourhood Seniors Non-Profit Housing Tenant's
Association, concerning the above.
In August of 1997, at your request, staff of City Works Services investigated various traffic
operational issues in the St. Lawrence Market Area, including the installation of traffic control
signals at the intersection of Church Street and The Esplanade. This issue was addressed within Item
1 of my letter to you dated October 26, 1997, copy attached for your reference.
Although the technical warrants for the installation of traffic control signals at the Church/Esplanade
intersection were not satisfied during this earlier review, measures were taken to enhance pedestrian
safety at this intersection, including the installation of larger "Stop" signs and pavement parkings.
Notwithstanding, staff of the Toronto Transportation Department, Metro Hall Division will
re-evaluate your request during this coming summer to see if conditions have changed significantly
enough to justify the installation of traffic control signals at this intersection and will advise you
accordingly.
--------
(Communication dated October 27, 1997, addressed to Councillor Rae
from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division)
Re: Market Street, Church Street and The Esplanade (St. Lawrence Market Area) - Various Traffic
Issues.
I refer to your letter of August 21, 1997, and subsequent E-mail transmittal of August 27, 1997 (sent
to you), from Mr. Ron Hamilton of City Works Services, regarding the above. With respect to each
issue, I note as follows:
1. The intersection of Church Street and The Esplanade - Operational Safety
Church Street and The Esplanade form a 4-way intersection with all-way "Stop" sign control.
Church Street is an arterial road operating two-way on a pavement width ranging from 12.0
metres to 14.0 metres with a maximum speed limit of fifty kilometres per hour. The
Esplanade is a collector road operating two-way on a pavement width ranging from 9.8
meters to 10.7 meters with T.T.C. bus service (route 121A, 121B) and a maximum speed
limit of fifty kilometres per hour.
During an 8-hour traffic survey conducted by staff of the City Works Services, which
encompassed both the morning and afternoon peak periods as well as the mid-day off peak
periods, 4,966 vehicles were recorded travelling through the intersection and 1,011
pedestrians were recorded crossing at the intersection during the same time period. A review
of Metropolitan Toronto Police Service's collision data records has revealed that 2 accidents
have been reported at the intersection of Church Street and The Esplanade from January 1,
1993 to December 31, 1995 of which none involved pedestrians attempting to cross at the
intersection. I am not aware of any accidents having been reported in 1996 or to date in
1997.
Given the recently completed construction of apartments/condominiums (approximately 500
units) for the elderly on the southwest corner of Church Street and The Esplanade, the
proximity of this intersection to a major entertainment area, presence of numerous restaurants
in the neighbourhood and the Municipal parking garages located on Church Street south of
The Esplanade, pedestrian volume and vehicular traffic volume at this intersection are likely
to increase noticeably in the near future. Therefore, I requested Commissioner D.P. Floyd,
of the Metro Transportation Department to evaluate the installation of traffic control signals
at this intersection. Accordingly, as you may be aware, I was advised by staff of the Metro
Transportation Department that the subject intersection does not satisfy the technical
warrants for the installation of traffic control signals.
Our review of the intersection revealed that "Stop bar" pavement markings and crossing
guidelines had faded which has reduced motorists' awareness of the all-way "Stop" control
and creates some confusion where motorists should stop, creating a potential hazard for
pedestrians.
Therefore, on August 29, 1997, the Operations Branch of the City Works Services re-painted
the "Stop bars" and crossing guide lines to enhance pedestrian safety and motorists'
awareness of the all-way "Stop" and on August 27, 1997 installed larger "Stop" signs
(75x75) and warning signs indicating "Watch for Elderly Pedestrians" in all directions in
advance of the intersection. Additionally, the intersection of Church Street and The
Esplanade will be included in the 1998 Capitol Re-construction Program during which time
concrete pavers will be installed to further delineate crossing locations.
A "flashing overhead beacon" could be installed to further enhance motorists awareness of
the all-way "Stop" control. However, the cost of installing this device would be
approximately $10,000.00 as there is no above ground power source or support poles. Given
the cost of installing a "flashing overhead beacon", I am of the opinion that further
consideration of this measure should be deferred.
2. The Esplanade, south side, between Church Street and Market Street fronting Premises Nos.
85-115 - Various traffic issues
At the request of the building managers from the new developments at Premises Nos. 85-115
The Esplanade, staff of City Works Services have investigated the feasibility of:
(i) establishing a "Loading Zone" fronting the moving doors to Premises No. 85;
(ii) establishing a Wheeltrans pick-up/drop-off area fronting the doors to Premises
No. 115;
(iii) installing parking meters elsewhere on the south side; and
(iv) relocating the first decorative lamp standard east of Church Street (located adjacent
to the moving doors to Premises No. 85) to enhance loading/unloading operations
to/from the building.
The Esplanade, between Church Street and Market Street operates two-way on a pavement
width of about 11.0 metres. Parking is regulated on both sides of this portion of The
Esplanade as follows:
North side
- parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
and for a maximum period of three hours from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to
Saturday and from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Sunday (controlled by parking meters).
South side
- parking is prohibited at anytime from Monday to Friday; and
- parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours at other times.
A T.T.C. bus operates on this portion of The Esplanade with a bus stop and signed transit
loading zone located on the north side at Church Street and at a point 25.0 metres west of
Market Street.
(i) Establishing a "Loading Zone" fronting the moving doors to Premises No. 85.
Having regard for Item (i), as you know under the authority of the Highway Traffic
Act, a vehicle while actually engaged in loading/unloading merchandise or
passengers may legally do so in a "No Parking" area.
In consideration of the existing parking regulations on the south side of The
Esplanade in the vicinity of Premises No. 85 (where the loading zone is requested),
loading and unloading activities are legally feasible when parking is prohibited at
anytime Monday to Friday. Therefore, installation of a loading zone at this location
would not provide any additional advantage during this time.
However, as parking is allowed for a maximum period of three hours on Saturdays
and Sundays and the entire block is usually parked solid on these days, it makes
loading/unloading operations extremely difficult in front of Premises No. 85. This
problem would occur on a daily basis if parking meters are installed on the south side
of The Esplanade, as described below, resulting in vehicles "double-parking" to
facilitate deliveries, thereby adversely affecting traffic operation and safety.
Therefore, to minimize this situation, parking should be prohibited at anytime on the
south side of The Esplanade (fronting the moving doors to Premises No. 85) from
Church Street to a point 30.5 metres further east.
This would result in the loss of two parking spaces (currently on weekends).
However, this should not adversely impact on parking or operational safety on The
Esplanade.
(ii) Establishing a Wheeltrans pick-up/drop-off area fronting the doors to Premises
No. 115.
In regards to Item (ii), at the request of the building managers of Premises No. 115
The Esplanade, staff of City Works Services have investigated the feasibility of
establishing a Wheeltrans pick-up/drop-off area to enhance the loading/unloading
operations and to encourage keeping the area fronting Premises No. 115 clear of
parked vehicles.
Based on our assessment, an on-street disabled loading zone could be established on
the south side of The Esplanade, from a point 116.0 metres east of Church Street to
a point 12.7 metres further east.
This would result in the loss of two parking spaces on the south side of The
Esplanade. However, in my view, the benefit to wheeltrans users at the Housing
Co-op, specifically Premises No. 115, out weigh the minor inconvenience that the
loss of these parking spaces will create for residents and nearby businesses in the
area.
(iii) Installing parking meters elsewhere on the south side.
With respect to Item (iii), several recent site investigations by City Works staff
revealed that delivery vehicles and vehicles displaying a valid disabled persons
parking permit frequently park on the south side of The Esplanade, between Church
Street and Market Street, from Monday to Friday and on weekends by shoppers,
residents, visitors and restaurant/bar patrons.
This situation generally does not adversely impact on traffic operation as moving
traffic appeared to have no difficulty traversing the street on the 11.0 metre pavement
width.
Therefore, consideration should be given to allowing parking at anytime (with the
exception of within 30.5 metres of Church Street and within the wheeltrans
pick-up/drop-off area described above) on the south side of The Esplanade, between
Church Street and Market Street. An estimated 16 parking meters could be installed
and would operate for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m to 6:00 p.m.,
and for a maximum period of 3 hours from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday to
Saturday. This would ensure equitable use of the parking spaces by both area
residents and visitors.
(iv) Relocating the first decorative lamp standard east of Church Street (located adjacent
to the moving doors to Premises No. 85) to enhance loading/unloading operations
to/from the building.
The black decorative lamp standard in question is the first one east of Church Street
on the south side of The Esplanade. Management of Premises No. 85 The Esplanade
requests that the pole be relocated to a point further east where it will not interfere
with the moving/loading doors located directly adjacent to the light standard. As
relocation of the light pole is the purview of the Operations and Sanitation Division
of City Works Services, I am requesting Mr. Wayne Jackson, General Manager,
Operations Section to investigate this issue and advise you direct if this is feasible,
including cost and alternate location if practicable, and provide me with a copy of his
reply for my file.
Items (i), (ii) and (iii) require amendments to Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code and
cannot be accomplished during the current term of Council. However, I will be
pleased to receive your thoughts on these matters and if you concur, staff will report
to the City Cervices Committee or its successor early in 1998.
3. The intersection of The Esplanade and Market Street - Operational Safety
The Esplanade and Market Street form a 4-way intersection with Market Street operating
one-way southbound, north of The Esplanade and two-way south of. The Esplanade
currently is a through street and operates two-way with T.T.C. bus service and a maximum
speed limit of fifty kilometres per hour.
(i) Installation of "Watch for Elderly Pedestrians" advisory signs.
As a precautionary measure to advise motorists, the Operations Branch of City
Works Services installed larger "Stop" signs (75x75) on Market Street for
northbound and southbound traffic and signs indicating "Watch for Elderly
Pedestrians" in all directions in advance of the intersection, on August 26, 1997.
(ii) Installation of all-way "Stop" control, delineation of pavement markings and concrete
pavers to indicate pedestrian crossing.
A review of the collision records at this intersection from January 1, 1993 to
December 31, 1995 has revealed that 4 collisions have occurred of which none
involved pedestrians. I am not aware of any other collisions having been reported
at this intersection from January 1, 1996 to date.
Having evaluated this request against the technical criteria governing the installation
of "Stop" signs which encompasses such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular
and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration,
surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, I am of the opinion that this
intersection does not satisfy the operational elements for the installation of all-way
"Stop" sign control.
Additionally, I note the following:
- The intersection of market Street and The Esplanade is located only 58.0
metres west of the traffic control signals at Jarvis Street and The Esplanade.
This is too close to ensure operational safety and compliance with the "Stop"
signs, particularly by eastbound motorists who might be preoccupied with the
traffic control signals they are approaching; and
- Given the current volume of traffic on The Esplanade (about 6,000 vehicles
daily) and the proximity of Market Street to the traffic control signals a Jarvis
Street, the queuing of vehicles can be expected in the block between Market
Street and Jarvis Street. At times queued vehicles might encroach into each
intersection which would present a safety hazard.
Accordingly, the installation of all-way "Stop" sign control at this intersection is not
warranted or advisable.
As pavement markings and crossing lines at this intersection should only be installed
if all-way "Stop" control is established, given the foregoing, this work will not be
undertaken.
4. Market Street, east side, between Wilton Street and the south end and Wilton Street, south
side, between Market Street and Jarvis Street - Prohibition of stopping at anytime.
Recent site inspections by staff of the City Works Services have revealed that illegally
parked vehicles, particularly idling tour buses, park for extended periods of time on the east
side of Market Street, between Wilton Street and the south end and on the south side of
Wilton Street, between Market Street and Jarvis Street. These vehicles obstruct motorists'
sightlines across the southeast corner at Wilton Street and Market Street and severely hinder
two-way vehicular passage on Market Street.
To deter such activity and improve sightlines, stopping should be prohibited at anytime on
the east side of Market Street, between Wilton Street and the south end and on the south side
of Wilton Street, between Market Street and Jarvis Street.
Although enhanced parking enforcement might improve the illegal parking problem, Police
resources are limited and enforcement may only be sporadic. Therefore. a stopping
prohibition on the other hand could serve as a greater deterrent to illegal parking.
I will be pleased to receive your thoughts on this matter before taking any further action.
96
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on April 16, 1998, received this Clause for information, subject to deferring
consideration of Item (ff), entitled "Park Drive Ravine, Ontario Municipal Board Decision,
Dismissal of Two Appeals to Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369 (Midtown)", embodied in the foregoing
Clause, to the Special Meeting of Council to be held on Tuesday, April 28, 1998.)
(a) Stop Up And Close The Public Highway Known As Part Of The Public Highway
Queens Quay West (Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following matters to its meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998:
Draft By-law respecting Stop Up and Close the Public Highway Known as Part of the Public
Highway Queens Quay West (Downtown);
Clause 5 of City Services Report No. 4 titled "Realignment and Widening of Queens Quay
West between Lower Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street and construction of Portland Street
and Simcoe Street between Queens Quay West and Lake Shore Boulevard West (Ward 5)"
which was adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting held on April 1, 1996.
(b) Stop Up And Close The Unopened Lane Abutting Grenadier Pond And The Unopened
Road Allowance Of Grenadier Ravine Drive And To Authorize The Lease Of A Portion
Thereof to the Abutting Owner (High Park).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following matters to its meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998:
Draft by-law respecting Stop Up and Close the Unopened Lane abutting Grenadier Pond and
the Unopened Road Allowance of Grenadier Ravine Drive and to Authorize the Lease of a
Portion Thereof to the Abutting Owner (High Park);
Clause 38 of City Services Report No. 17 titled "Ellis Avenue Ravine and Rennie Park -West
Pond Ravine" which was adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting held
on December 3 and 4, 1990.
(c) Alteration Of Highland Avenue, Roxborough Drive And Scholfield Avenue (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following matters to its meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998:
Draft By-law respecting Alteration of Highland Avenue, Roxborough Drive and Scholfield
Avenue (Midtown);
Clause 43 of City Services Report No. 11 titled, "Proposed Traffic Circle - Highland
Avenue, Roxborough Drive and Scholfield Avenue (Ward 13)" which was adopted by the
former Toronto City Council at its meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997.
(d) Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - De Lisle Avenue Flankage of
1510 Yonge Street (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having:
(1) deferred consideration of the following report to the meeting of the Toronto
Community Council to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998;
(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to consider
ways to allow repolling in exceptional circumstances and to report back to the
meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998; and
(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit
recommendations on conducting a further poll for 1510 Yonge Street at its
meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998:
(March 10, 1998) Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services
respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - De Lisle Avenue
Flankage of 1510 Yonge Street (Midtown), and recommending that
(1) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue
flankage of 1510 Yonge Street, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll,
and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out
in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
OR
(2) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue
flankage of 1510 Yonge Street.
Mr. Tony O'Donohue, Environmental Probe, appeared before the Toronto Community
Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
(e) Appeal Of Denial Of Application For A Boulevard Cafe - Broadway Avenue Flankage
Of 2387 Yonge Street (North Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having:
(1) deferred consideration of the following report to the meeting of the Toronto
Community Council to be held on June 24, 1998; and
(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency to undertake a poll with
respect to the application and report thereon to the Toronto Community
Council for its meeting to be held on June 24, 1998:
(March 10, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - Broadway
Avenue Flankage of 2387 Yonge Street (North Toronto), and recommending that:
(1) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue
flankage of 2387 Yonge Street, notwithstanding the negative response to the public
notice, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria
set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
OR
(2) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Broadway Avenue
flankage of 2387 Yonge Street.
--------
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with
the foregoing matter:
- Mr. Gerard Shiels, Toronto, Ontario; and
- Mr. Tony O'Donohue, Environmental Probe
(f) Appeal Of Denial Of Application For Boulevard Cafe - Marjory Street Flankage of
1021 Gerrard Street East (Don River).
The Toronto Community Council reports having:
(1) deferred consideration of the following report to the meeting of the Toronto
Community Council to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998;
(2) requested the Ward Councillors to conduct an informal poll and staff to provide
all necessary assistance in this regard; and
(3) requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report
to the Community Council on providing the Ward Councillor with a list of those
addresses which have voted in a poll:
(February 19, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for Boulevard Cafe - Marjory Street
Flankage Of 1021 Gerrard Street East (Don River), and recommending that:
(1) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Marjory Street
flankage of 1021 Gerrard Street East, notwithstanding the negative result of the
public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the
criteria set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
OR
(2) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Marjory Street flankage
of 1021 Gerrard Street East.
--------
Ms. Kerri Larson, The Restaurant Experts, appeared before the Toronto Community Council
in connection with the foregoing matter.
(g) Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - Logan Avenue Flankage of 889
Queen Street East (Don River).
The Toronto Community Council reports having:
(1) deferred consideration of the following report to the meeting of the Toronto
Community Council to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998; and
(2) requested the Ward Councillors to conduct an informal poll and staff to provide
all necessary assistance in this regard:
(February 19, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City
Works Services respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - Logan
Avenue flankage of 889 Queen Street East (Don River), and recommending that:
(1) City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the Logan Avenue
flankage of 889 Queen Street East, notwithstanding the negative result of the public
poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria
set out in § 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks;
OR
(2) City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Logan Avenue
flankage of 889 Queen Street East.
Ms. Kerri Larson, The Restaurant Experts, appeared before the Toronto Community Council
in connection with the foregoing matter.
(h) Whitlock's Restaurant - Request to Extend the Hours of Operation for the Boulevard
Cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue Flankage of 1961 Queen Street East (East Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following report to its meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998:
(February 25, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services respecting Whitlock's Restaurant - Request to Extend the Hours of Operation for
the Boulevard Cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue Flankage of 1961 Queen Street East (East
Toronto), and recommending that:
(1) City Council approve the extension of the hours of operation for the boulevard cafe
on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage of 1961 Queen Street East to 11:00 p.m., 7 days
a week, as requested by the applicant;
OR
(2) the closing time restriction for the boulevard cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage
of 1961 Queen Street East remain unchanged at 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week;
AND
(3) Should City Council approve an extension of the hours, I be requested to report back
after the end of the 1998 cafe season
(i) Refusal of an Application for Boulevard Marketing - 1441 Dundas Street West
(Trinity-Niagara).
The Toronto Community Council reports having:
(1) deferred consideration of the following report; and
(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the
Toronto Community Council on whether a smaller area can be licensed, given
the new configuration of the store at 1441 Dundas Street West.
(March 18, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services respecting Refusal of an Application for Boulevard Marketing - 1441 Dundas Street
West (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that City Council deny the application for
boulevard marketing fronting 1441 Dundas Street West as the application does not comply
with the criteria set out in § 313-47 of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets
and Sidewalks.
(j) Presentation - Community Social Planning Council of Toronto.
The Toronto Community Council reports that it has recommended to City Council, for
its special meeting to be held on April 28, 29, 30 and May 1, 1998 for consideration of
the Capital and Operating Budgets that the Toronto Police Service not charge non-profit organizations for criminal records checks:
The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with
the foregoing matter:
- Ms. Shannon Wiens, Community Voices of Support, c/o Community and Social
Planning Council of Toronto;
- Ms. Susan Neal, Executive Director, Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre;
- Ms. Pam Jolliffe, Executive Director, Fred Victor Centre; and
- Ms. Shawnne Soong, Canadian Red Cross, Central Toronto.
(k) Appeal of Denial of Application for Boulevard Cafe - Galt Street Flankage of 1043
Gerrard Street East (Don River).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(February 19, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for Boulevard Cafe - Galt Street
Flankage of 1043 Gerrard Street East (Don River), and recommending that the report be
received for information.
(l) On-Street Disabled Persons Parking (All Wards In The Former City Of Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having:
(1) received the following reports for information:
(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report
further (on a City-wide basis) on:
(a) the number of provincial handicapped permits issued in the City of
Toronto;
(b) fines for abuse of these permits in other jurisdictions;
(c) obtaining an understanding of what, if any, procedures exist at the
Province for verifying whether if a permit holder is deceased, permits
are withdrawn;
(d) who issues the permits, how many permits are permanent, how many are
temporary, and the average length of a temporary permit;
(e) the feasibility of photo identification;
(f) whether the City should be charging a fee for meters, permit parking
and handicapped spots;
(g) whether the City can prohibit parking of handicapped stickered cars in
a "No Parking" area; and
(h) whether there are any other fees which may be warranted:
(March 18, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, Works and
Emergency Services respecting On-Street Disabled Persons Parking (All Wards in the
former City of Toronto), and recommending that the report be received for information.
(m) School Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zones (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(March 18, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works
Services respecting School Pick-Up/Drop-Off Zones (All Wards in the former City of
Toronto), and recommending that the report be received for information;
(March 31, 1998) from Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, Works and
Emergency Services - Supplementary Report.
(n) 25 Musgrave Street - Application for Commercial Boulevard Parking (East Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following report to its meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998, for deputations:
(February 19, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services respecting 25 Musgrave Street - Application for Commercial Boulevard Parking
(East Toronto), and recommending that staff proceed to issue the licence for commercial
boulevard parking fronting 25 Musgrave Street, subject to the applicant complying with the
criteria set out in § 313-41 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.
(o) Regulations Governing Front Yard Parking (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council report having:
(1) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the
Toronto Community Council on ways and means to assist and encourage
owners to landscape their properties where front yard parking has been
eliminated;
(2) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on
ward-by-ward local options as a general principle;
(3) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report, for
Trinity-Niagara and North Toronto only, on:
(a) front-yard parking being permitted when:
(i) no off-street legal parking space is available;
(ii) a poll in the vicinity receives a response of at least 25 per cent of
those polled, with a majority in favour;
(iii) physical requirements for such a space are available; and
(iv) design guidelines (if any) are met; and
(b) developing design guidelines including tree planting, landscaping and/or
pavement material;
(4) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to consult with
the local councillors on how the general principle of the local options can best
be addressed in their own wards;
(5) requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation
with appropriate officials, to report on discrete street space for local residents;
(6) referred the following motion by Councillor Miller to the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services for report thereon to theToronto
CommunityCouncil:
"That Front Yard Parking not be allowed if permit parking is
available all day, but that it be allowed if permit parking is
available for only part of the day." and
(7) affirmed that the present Front Yard Parking By-laws remain in place in the
Midtown, Downtown and Don River Wards:
(i) (March 19, 1998) from Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City
Works Services and recommending that, should the Toronto Community Council
wish to consider amendments to the current front yard parking regulations which
apply in Wards 19 through 26, they ask staff to prepare a report on the implications
of such amendments, and then schedule the matter for deputations at a specially
scheduled evening meeting;
(ii) (July 16, 1996) from City Clerk of the former City of Toronto forwarding Council's
Action respecting Clause 20 of Report No. 10 of the Land Use Committee, titled
"Draft Zoning By-law - Regulation of Below Grade and At Grade Integral Garages
and Front Yard Landscaping in Residential Districts (All Wards), which was
amended and adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting held on July
2, 1996;
(iii) (July 16, 1996) from City Clerk of the former City of Toronto forwarding Council's
Action respecting Clause 1 of Report No. 8 of the City Services Committee, titled,
"Solutions for Front Yard Parking and Boulevard Parking to Preserve
Neighbourhood Streetscape (All Wards)", which was amended and adopted by the
former Toronto City Council at its meeting held on July 2, 1998;
(iv) (January 22, 1997) from Assistant City Clerk, former City of Toronto, forwarding
Council's action of January 13, 1997;
(v) (April 25, 1997) from Assistant City Clerk, former City of Toronto, forwarding
Clause 30 of Report No. 5 of the City Services Committee, titled, "Permit Parking
Review", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting
held on April 14, 1997;
(vi) (March 30, 1998) from Mr. W. G. Posthumus;
(vii) (April 1, 1998) from Ms. Sheila Lippiatt;
(viii) (March 31, 1998) from Sherrie Luhtala;
(ix) (March 28, 1998) from Mr. David Vallance; and
(x) (April 1, 1998) from Ms. Toba Bryant and Mr. Dennis Raphael.
(p) Fences Within the City Street Allowance (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having:
(1) received the following reports; and
(2) affirmed its current policy with respect to fences within the street allowance:
(i) (March 18, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City
Works Services respecting Fences Within the City Street Allowance (All Wards in
the Former City of Toronto), and recommending that the Toronto Community
Council choose between the options for amending the current Municipal Code
requirements for fences on public property within the former City of Toronto, and the
public notification process as presented below:
(1) (a) That fences and ornamental walls within the City street allowance,
both at the front of a property and beyond the main front wall of the
building not exceed a height of 1.0 m;
OR
(b) That fences and ornamental walls within the City street allowance
located beyond the main front wall of the building not exceed a
height of 1.9 m and that such fences and ornamental walls be set back
a minimum distance of 2.1 m from the rear edge of the City sidewalk
or 3.8 m from the curb where there is no sidewalk;
AND
(2) (a) That notification of all fence and ornamental wall applications
continue to be forwarded to the Ward Councillors;
OR
(b) That the requirement for notification of fences and ornamental wall
applications to the Ward Councillor be eliminated;
OR
(c) That City staff post a notice on the property, of application for fences
and ornamental walls over 1.0 m in height for a period of 14 days;
AND
(3) That appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the
necessary action to give effect thereto.
(ii) (March 19, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting
Delegation of Fence Approval Process - Legal Issues
--------
Councillor Adams declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that he and his spouse own
a corner property and have an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto regarding
a fence on the municipal boulevard.
(q) Offence Notice Issued to Chan Choi, Beaches Fruit Market - 2038 Queen Street East
(East Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having forwarded the following
recommendation to the Budget Committee for its consideration:
"WHEREAS the fine issued to Chan Choi, Beaches Fruit Market, cannot
be revoked; and
WHEREAS the Toronto Community Council cannot approve
expenditures;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Toronto
Community Council forward to the Budget Committee its request for a
grant to be issued to Chan Choi of $125.00, such grant to be used for the
purpose of paying the by-law fine imposed against Chan Choi for an
offence notice issued July 1, 1997, and such grant to be deemed to be in
the interest of the municipality.
(March 10, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works
Services respecting Offence Notice Issued to Chan Choi, Beaches Fruit Market - 2038 Queen
Street East (East Toronto), and recommending that the report be received for information.
(r) Status Report on 510 Spadina Streetcar Line.
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following reports for
information:
(February 27, 1998) and (October 8, 1997) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit
Commission, respecting 510 Spadina Streetcar Line and recommending that the reports be
received for information.
(s) Delisle Avenue - Request for Amendments to Parking By-laws (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, for its
meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998, on the following communication:
(February 26, 1998) from Brian J. Kearney, Deer Park Crescent/Delisle Avenue Residents'
Traffic Group respecting Delisle Avenue - Request for Amendments to Parking By-laws
(Midtown)
(t) Preliminary Report on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No.
197012 to Permit Six Dwelling Units Above a Motor Vehicle Repair Shop, Class "A",
at 218, 220, 222 Geary Avenue (Davenport).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary
report:
(i) (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development
Services on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 197012
to Permit Six Dwelling Units Above a Motor Vehicle Repair Shop, Class "A", at
218, 220, 222 Geary Avenue (Davenport), and recommending:
(1) the applicant be requested to provide documentation supporting his claim that
the existing motor vehicle repair shop, class 'A' is a legal non-conforming
use;
(2) that the applicant be advised of the planning concerns relating to the
operation of a motor vehicle repair shop in conjunction with the proposed
residential uses; and
(3) that, provided the owner is willing to eliminate the motor vehicle repair shop
component of the development, I be requested to hold a public meeting in the
community to discuss the application and to notify owners and tenants within
300 metres of the site and the Ward councillors; and
(ii) (April 1, 1998) from Mr. Leonard J. Freed, Silverman & Freed, Barristers and
Solicitors.
(u) Preliminary Report - 888 Yonge Street (Masonic Temple) - Application No. 198001 for
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval for a 19-storey
Mixed-Use Building Containing 124 Residential Dwelling Units, and Retail Uses and
Above-Grade Parking (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary
report:
(i) (March 17, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development
Services on 888 Yonge Street (Masonic Temple) - Application No. 198001 for
Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval for a 19-storey Mixed-Use Building Containing 124 Residential Dwelling Units, and Retail
Uses and Above-grade Parking (Midtown), and recommending:
(1) That I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the
application, and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site
and the Ward Councillors.
(2) That the owner be requested to meet with staff of Urban Planning and
Development Services and the Toronto Historical Board to discuss design
solutions for preserving the significant heritage components of the building.
(3) That the owner be requested to submit a Pedestrian Level Wind Study and a
Shadow Impact Study, acceptable to me.
(4) That the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval, an owner may
be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement and a Material Recovery and
Waste Reduction Plan in accordance with City Council's requirements. The
owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this
project by the Commissioner of City Works Services.
(ii) (February 4, 1998) from Ms. Josephine Atri;
(iii) (February 7, 1998) from Mr. Adam Sobolak, addressed to Councillor Adams;
(iv) (February 4, 1998) from Mr. Adam Sobolak, addressed to Councillor Adams; and
(v) (February 9, 1998) from Mr. John MacMillan.
(v) Revised Preliminary Report: 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and
61 Delisle Avenue - Application No.12372 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit Two 12 Storey Residential Buildings
Containing a Total of 104 Units (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary
report:
(i) (March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development
Services on 56 and 60 St. Clair Avenue West and 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 Delisle
Avenue - Application No.12372 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments
and Site Plan Approval to Permit Two 12 Storey Residential Buildings Containing
a Total of 104 Units (Midtown), and recommending that:
(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the
revised application and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the
site and the Ward Councillors.
(2) The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the
owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance
with City Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these
requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of City
Works Services; and
(ii) (April 1, 1998) from Ms. W. Jane Beecroft.
(w) Preliminary Report: 208 Poplar Plains Road - Application No. 198002 for Zoning By-law Amendment for Permission to Maintain the 13 Dwelling Units in the Existing
Building (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary
report:
(March 19, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services on
208 Poplar Plains Road - Application No. 198002 for Zoning By-law Amendment for
Permission to Maintain the 13 Dwelling Units in the Existing Building (Midtown), and
recommending that:
(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application
and to notify owners and tenants within 120 metres of the site and the Ward
Councillors.
(2) The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner
may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City
Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as
they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of City Works Services.
(x) Preliminary Report: 9 Jackes Avenue - Application No. 198003 for Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit a 19 Unit Residential
Building (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary
report and having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development
Services to investigate securing appropriate community benefits related to this
development through Section 37 of the Planning Act and to ensure that such agreement
provides that benefits serve those in the neighbourhood in which the application is
located:
(March 18, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services on
9 Jackes Avenue - Application No. 198003 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit a 19 Unit Residential Building (Midtown),
and recommending that:
(1) I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application
and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward
Councillors.
(2) The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner
may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City
Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as
they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of City Works Services.
(y) Preliminary Report: 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street, Application No.
197030 to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to Permit a 20-storey (61 M)
Mixed Use Building Containing 252 Residential Condominium Units and Retail Uses
At Grade (Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary
report:
(March 13, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services on
85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street, Application No. 197030 to Amend the Official
Plan and Zoning By-law to Permit a 20-storey (61 M) Mixed Use Building Containing 252
Residential Condominium Units and Retail Uses at Grade (Downtown), and recommending:
(1) That I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the
application, and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the
Ward Councillors.
(2) That the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval, the owner may be
required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with Council's
requirements. The owner will be further advised of any requirements by the
Commissioner of City Works Services.
(z) Preliminary Report: 40 and 42 Gerrard Street East, Application No. 197020 to Amend
the Zoning By-law to Permit the Conversion of 113 Below-Grade Residential Parking
Spaces in an Existing 34-storey Apartment Building to a Commercial Parking Use and
to Permit a Convenience Store Use at Grade (Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary
report:
(March 13, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services on
40 and 42 Gerrard Street East, Application No. 197020 to Amend the Zoning By-law to
Permit the Conversion of 113 Below-Grade Residential Parking Spaces in an Existing 34-storey Apartment Building to a Commercial Parking Use and to Permit a Convenience Store
Use at Grade (Downtown), and recommending that I be requested to hold a public meeting
in the community to discuss the application, and to notify owners and tenants within 300
metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.
(aa) Directions Report: 9-15 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street - Application 197028
for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit
a Residential Development (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following directions
report:
(March 19, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services on
9-15 Christie Street and 388-402 Clinton Street - Application 197028 for Official Plan and
Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit a Residential Development
(Midtown), and recommending:
(1) That the applicant be required to submit, by May 1, 1998, evidence that the owners
of all lands comprising the application site have authorized the application and that
the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to not
process this application until the land ownership issue is resolved;
(2) That the applicant be informed that the height of the proposed building on Christie
Street should be more in keeping with the adjacent residential building at 33 Christie
Street;
(3) That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested
to report on this application to the May 27, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community
Council.
(bb) Implications of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 197029
for Bay/Dundas on the Proposed Civic Centre Complex (Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following report:
(March 16, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services,
respecting Implications of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No.
197029 for Bay/Dundas on the Proposed Civic Centre Complex (Downtown), and
recommending that the public meeting on this application be deferred pending notification
from the owner that he wishes the application to proceed.
(cc) Part of No. 110 West Toronto Street, Ontario Municipal Board Decision/Order, Official
Plan Amendments Nos. 78 and Zoning By-law No. 1997-0480 (Davenport).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(February 23, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting Part of No.
110 West Toronto Street, Ontario Municipal Board Decision/Order, Official Plan
Amendments Nos. 78 and Zoning By-law No. 1997-0480 (Davenport), and recommending
that the report be received for information.
(dd) 3130 and 3143 Yonge Street - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (North Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report:
(February 23, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting 3130 and
3143 Yonge Street - Ontario Municipal Board Decision (North Toronto), and recommending
that the report be received.
(ee) Ontario Municipal Board Dispositions, Zoning By-law No. 1997-0257 and Appeals
respecting No. 628 Bloor Street West and No. 754 Bathurst Street (Midtown and
Trinity-Niagara).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report:
(February 23, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting Ontario
Municipal Board Dispositions, Zoning By-law No. 1997-0257 and Appeals respecting No.
628 Bloor Street West and No. 754 Bathurst Street (Midtown and Trinity-Niagara), and
recommending that the report be received for information.
(ff) Park Drive Ravine, Ontario Municipal Board Decision, Dismissal of Two Appeals to
Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369 (Midtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report:
(i) (March 3, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor respecting Park
Drive Ravine, Ontario Municipal Board Decision, Dismissal of Two Appeals to
Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369 (Midtown), and recommending that the report be
received for information.
(ii) (April 1, 1998) from Mr. Michael J. McQuaid, Weir & Foulds; and
(iii) (April 1, 1998) from Brad Teichman, McCarthy, Tetrault, Barristers & Solicitors
(gg) 595 Bay Street, 20 and 40 Dundas Street West and 306 Yonge Street - Ontario
Municipal Board Decision (Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report:
(March 3, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor Respecting 595 Bay Street,
20 and 40 Dundas Street West and 306 Yonge Street - Ontario Municipal Board Decision
(Downtown), and recommending that the report be received.
(hh) Bell Canada Telephone Booth Advertising.
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following communication
for information:
(February 13, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the actions of the Urban Environment
and Development Committee of February 9, 1998.
(ii) Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils.
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following communication
for information:
(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 2 contained in Report No. 3
of The Special Committee to Review the Final Report of the Toronto Transition Team,
headed, "Draft Discussion Paper on the Roles and Responsibilities of Community Councils",
which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its meeting
held on March 4, 5 and 6, 1998.
(jj) Rental Housing Protection Act.
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following communication
for information:
(March 12, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Council's action respecting the delegation
of authority to the Community Councils to give notice and hold any public meeting
regarding applications under the Rental Housing Protection Act.
(kk) Relaxation of "Parking By Permit Only" Regulations on Manning Avenue from Bloor
Street West to Harbord Street on Sundays (Trinity-Niagara).
The Toronto Community Council reports having requested City Staff to initiate all
necessary action including the holding of a public hearing, at the Toronto Community
Council meeting to be held on May 6 and 7, 1998, on amending the Sunday "parking
by permit only" regulations on Manning Avenue (from Bloor Street West to Harbord
Street) from 12 midnight to 10:00 a.m. to 12 midnight to 7:00 a.m.:
(March 20, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone.
(ll) Toronto Arts Council Grants Report for the Period January 1 to December 31, 1997.
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(March 20, 1998) from Anne Collins, President, Toronto Arts Council respecting Grants
Report For The Period January 1 To December 31, 1997, and recommending that the report
be received for information as stipulated in the Grant Agreement between the City of
Toronto and the Toronto Arts Council.
(mm) 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, Boyz & Galz Inc. (Davenport)
The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of
Emergency and Protective Services to conduct a poll with respect to the application
respecting a boulevard patio licence for 1340 St. Clair Avenue West and to report back
to the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on June 24, 1998:
(February 24, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, Boyz
& Galz Inc. (Davenport)
(nn) Spruce Street Traffic Calming Project.
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the recommendations
contained in the following communication:
(undated) from Councillor McConnell respecting Spruce Street Traffic Calming Project and
recommending that the Toronto Community Council authorize the Commissioner of Works
and Emergency Services to conduct a poll of residents from Spruce Street from Parliament
Street to the east end on Rolston Avenue, from Spruce Street to Carlton Street, on Gifford
Street from Spruce Street to Gerrard Street East and on Sword Street from Spruce Street to
Gerrard Street East, to determine the level of community support for the installation of a
traffic calming project on Spruce Street which among other measures, will include the
installation of 6 speed bumps, and that contingent upon the above noted poll indicating a
favourable response of at least 60% of the valid responses, that the statutory advertising
required for highway alteration be undertaken.
(oo) 1998 City Planning Work Program.
The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Chief Planning Official
for the Toronto community to provide a briefing note to Members of the Toronto
Community Council on the impact of the Planning Department's budget on the
planning initiatives in the area covered by the Toronto Community Council, such
briefing to be provided after consideration of the operating budget by the Budget
Committee and prior to its consideration by City Council.
(March 24, 1998) from the City Clerk, respecting 1998 City Planning Work Program
(pp) 1985 Queen Street East - Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - Clarification of Previous
Authority (East Toronto).
The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following motion by
Councillor Jakobek:
"WHEREAS at its meeting of December 8, 1997, City Council had before it the City
Solicitor's report (December 5, 1997) and authorized the City Solicitor, the
Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the Commissioner of City Works
Services to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board (Clause 59 of Executive
Committee Report No. 25 adopted as amended by City Council), in opposition to the
owner's appeal of the Committee of Adjustment decision signed July 23, 1997,
refusing the application for minor variance involving an expansion of the premises
requiring parking relief for 1985 Queen Street East; and
WHEREAS the solicitor's report (December 5, 1997) advised of two further
applications by the owner of such property (also requiring parking relief) and which
were to be heard by the Committee of Adjustment on December 10, 1997 and the
report stated she would be seeking an adjournment of the December 16, 1997 OMB
hearing to avoid multiple hearings, allowing all matters to be heard together,
provided Council adopted the recommendation in the report; and
WHEREAS the report adopted by City Council dealt expressly with the July 23,
1997 decision of the Committee of Adjustment and implicitly authorized the City
Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the Commissioner
of City Works Services to attend before the OMB in opposition to the two further
applications; and
WHEREAS subsequent to Council's adoption of the December 5, 1997 report, the
City Solicitor did attend before the OMB and at her urging, the OMB did consolidate
the three hearings and the consolidated hearing will commence on April 2, 1998; and
WHEREAS the Commissioners of Urban Development Services and City Works
Services each recommended to the Committee of Adjustment that it refuse the
applications;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Toronto Community Council
confirm that the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and
Development Services and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be
authorized to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board at the hearing commencing
April 2, 1998, respecting 1985 Queen Street East, in opposition to each of the three
appeals brought by the owner in respect of the decisions of the Committee of
Adjustment (A-602-97, A-1061-97 and A-1062-97) refusing parking variances.
(qq) Operation Of Harbourfront Outdoor Antique Market For 1998 Season (Downtown).
The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(April 2, 1998) from the Director, Development Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation
respecting Operation of Harbourfront Outdoor Antique Market for 1998 Season
(Downtown), and recommending that the report be received for information.
(rr) Portuguese Day Festivities 1998 - Special Event Grant from the City of Toronto
(Trinity-Niagara).
The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Grant Review
Committee to evaluate the application by The Alliance for a special event grant from
the City of Toronto to offset event expenses such as policing, security and maintenance
of Trinity-Bellwoods Park for Portuguese Day Festivities 1998.
(ss) Use of Parks Levy Funding for St. Clare School (Davenport).
The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Strategic Policies and
Priorities Committee to give consideration to the following recommendation from the
Toronto Community Council, and to forward its recommendation to City Council for
its meeting to be held on April 16, 1998:
"That prior approval be granted for funds in the amount of $10,000.00 to be
allocated from the Parks Levy funding received in 1997 to match funds being
provided by the Toronto Catholic School Board and members of the local
community for improvements to the St. Clare School yard."
(City Council on April 16, 1998, had before it, during consideration of Item (ff), headed "Park Drive
Ravine, Ontario Municipal Board Decision, Dismissal of Two Appeals to Zoning By-law
No. 1997-0369 (Midtown)", embodied in the foregoing Clause, a communication (undated) from
Gayle Christie Associates, providing information with respect to the property at 15 Beaumont Road,
Toronto, and submitting various documents in regard thereto.)
(Councillor Adams, at the meeting of City Council on April 16, 1998, declared his interest in
Item (p), headed "Fences Within the City Street Allowance (All Wards in the Former City of
Toronto)", embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he and his spouse own a corner property and
have an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto regarding a fence on the municipal
boulevard.)
Respectfully submitted,
KYLE RAE,
Chair
Toronto, April 1 and 2, 1998
(Report No. 3 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as
amended, by City Council on April 16, 1998.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on April 16, 1998
TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 3
Clause Page
1 Hearing - Narrowing of Pavement -
Gould and Dalhousie Streets (Downtown) 2715
2 Expropriation of Private Lane - Rear of 58-66 Williamson Road
and 252 to 256 Glen Manor Drive West (East Toronto) 2720
3 Expropriation of a Limited Interest In and Over Lands for
Drainage Easement Purposes - Wychwood Park (Midtown) 2728
4 Adjustment to Parking Meter Hours of Operation - Hayden Street,
from Yonge Street to Church Street (Downtown) 2732
5 Bristol Avenue, from Geary Avenue to the north limit of
Bristol Avenue Parkette - Implementation of Alternate Side Parking
(Davenport) 2733
6 Colborne Street, South Side, from Leader Lane to
Scott Street/Victoria Street -
Prohibition of Standing at Anytime (Downtown) 2736
7 Installation of On-Street Loading Zones for Disabled Persons -
440 Gladstone Avenue and 112 Montrose Avenue
(Trinity-Niagara) 2737
8 Garden Avenue - Introduction of a One Hour
Maximum Parking Limit -
10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily (High Park) 2739
9 Harrison Street - Implementation of a "Day-Care Pick-Up
and Drop-Off Area" with a Fifteen-Minute
Maximum Parking Limit (Trinity-Niagara) 2741
10 Various Streets - Parking Regulations (Trinity-Niagara) 2743
11 Provision of Ten-Minute Parking in front of Linden School -
10 Rosehill Avenue (Midtown) 2746
12 Installation of Speed Bumps in
Public Laneways (Davenport) 2747
13 Installation of Parking Meters - Queens Quay West,
North Side, from Lower Spadina Avenue to
Portland Street (Downtown) 2752
14 Implementation of Alternate Side Parking on
a Year Round Basis - Rains Avenue, from Melita Avenue
to Davenport Road (Davenport) 2753
15 Implementation of West Side Parking -
Caledonia Road, from the First Lane North of Innes Avenue
to the Northerly Limit of the Davenport Ward (Davenport) 2756
16 Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control -
Bernard Avenue and Bedford Road (Midtown) 2757
17 Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled
Persons Parking Spaces
(Trinity-Niagara, Davenport, Don River, East Toronto) 2758
18 Rescindment of Parking Prohibition -
De Grassi Street, East Side, South of Wardell Street
(Don River) 2761
19 Traffic Regulations -
Robertson Crescent, South of Queens Quay West
(Downtown) 2762
20 Request for All-Way "Stop" Sign Control
- Intersection of Elvina Gardens and Erskine Avenue
(North Toronto) 2764
21 Intersection of Humberside Avenue and Quebec Avenue -
Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control (High Park) 2766
22 Intersection of Claude Avenue and Merrick Street -
Installation of a Northbound "Stop" Sign Control (High Park) 2768
23 Whitehall Road Between Highland Crescent and
Maclennan Avenue - Installation of Island Park (Midtown) 2769
24 Prohibition of Standing and/or Stopping - Bremner Boulevard,
Between Rees Street and Lower Simcoe Street (Downtown) 2771
25 Prohibition of Stopping at Anytime - Market Street, East Side,
from Wilton Street to the South End and Wilton Street, South Side,
from Market Street to Lower Jarvis Street (Downtown) 2773
26 Prohibition of Stopping at Anytime and Provision of a Commercial
"Loading Zone" - Piper Street, Both Sides, from York Street
to the Easterly End (Downtown) 2775
27 New Uniform Building Permit By-law - Related
Amendments to Former City of Toronto Municipal Code
(All Wards in the Former City of Toronto) 2776
28 Naming of Lane, North of Kingston Road, Westerly
Between Premises 24 and 26 Lawlor Avenue
(East Toronto) 2781
29 Naming of City-Owned Lanes - Renfrew Place,
St. Patrick's Market and St. Patrick's Square
(Downtown) 2784
30 Lansdowne Avenue, from Davenport Road to
St. Clair Avenue West - Adjustment and
Removal of Temporal Parking Regulation (Davenport) 2787
31 Traffic Regulations - 689 King Street West (Trinity-Niagara) 2789
32 Sign By-law - Technical Amendments -
Mural Signs 2793
33 Amendment to Former City of Toronto By-law No. 379-80 -
Designation of Employees as Provincial Offences Officers
Under the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, CH.P.33 2801
34 Draft Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment -
909, 931, 935 and 945 Bay Street, 14, 16, 20, 26, 30 and
38 Breadalbane Street and 11 and 25 Wellesley Street West
(North Block East of Bay Lands) (Downtown) 2803
35 Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,
of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -
1219 Bloor Street West (Trinity-Niagara) 2883
36 Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,
of The City of Toronto Municipal Code -
1660 Bayview Avenue (North Toronto) 2887
37 Residential Demolition -
340-342 Huron Street (Downtown) 2893
38 Residential Demolition -
17 Howard Street (Don River) 2894
39 Residential Demolition - 292 Bathurst Street
(Trinity-Niagara) 2895
40 Residential Demolition Application - 33 Gloucester Street
(Downtown) 2897
41 Railway Lands Central and West (Downtown) 2899
42 Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,
of The City of Toronto Municipal Code-
(Trinity-Niagara, Midtown, Downtorn) 2923
43 Retention of Expert Planning Witness -
5, 7 and 9 Sultan Street (Downtown) 2955
44 Propane By-law No. 193-91 of the
former City of Toronto 2955
45 Settlement Report -
550 Queens Quay West - Harbourfront
Parcel SQ-2 (Downtown) 2957
46 Residential Demolition Permit Conditions
- 2393 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport) 2966
47 Settlement of Objection to By-law No. 1994-0601 -
Definitions of Club, Concert Hall, Place of Amusement,
Place of Assembly and Related Requirements
(All Wards in the Former City of Toronto) 2967
48 Special Occasion Permit -
Rosedale Moorepark Association (Midtown) 2968
49 Special Occasion Permit - Danforth Collegiate
and Technical Institute Celebration (East Toronto) 2970
50 No. 162 Bloor Street West - Request for Release
of Heritage Easement Agreement as it Applies to
No. 150 Bloor Street West (Midtown) 2971
51 Execution of Section 37 Agreement -
Urban Design Guidelines -
Marine Terminal 27 - 25 Queens Quay East (Downtown) 2972
52 59 Barton Avenue - Committee of Adjustment Decision
(Midtown) 2990
53 The Italian Immigrant Monument Project -
1369 St. Clair Avenue West (Davenport) 2990
54 203 Dundas Street East - Public Kitchen Restaurant
(Downtown) 2991
55 Applications for a Boulevard Cafe and to Construct and
Maintain a Temporary Marketing Enclosure (Canopy) -
St. Andrew Street Flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue (Downtown) 2993
56 Espressimo Caffebar - Operation of the Boulevard Cafe During
the 1997 Cafe Season - Roxborough Street West Flankage of
1094 Yonge Street (Midtown) 2997
57 Società - Operation of the Boulevard Cafe During the
1997 Cafe Season - Roxton Road Flankage of 796 College Street
(Trinity-Niagara) 2998
58 Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe
- Lakeview Avenue Flankage of 1212 Dundas Street West
(Trinity-Niagara) 3000
59 Appeal of Boulevard Cafe Application
- Tarlton Road Flankage of 495 Eglinton Avenue West
(Convenience Address for 483 Eglinton Avenue West)
(North Toronto) 3004
60 Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe
- 2827 Dundas Street West (Davenport) 3008
61 Boulevard Parking and Front Yard Parking -
272 Claremont Street (Trinity-Niagara) 3013
62 Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code
Chapter 400, to Permit Front Yard Parking at
17 Marlborough Avenue (Midtown) 3015
63 Front Yard Parking - 6 St. Clair Gardens (Davenport) 3017
64 Appeal of Curblane Vending Privileges -
Scott Street, North of Wellington Street East (Downtown) 3019
65 Appeal of Denial of Application for a Sidewalk/Boulevard
Vending Permit - Wellington Street West, South Side, 184.5 Metres
West of Simcoe Street (East Toronto) 3023
66 Appeal - Driveway Widening -
17 Lynwood Avenue (Midtown) 3026
67 Request to Licence Commercial Boulevard Parking
- 30 Alvin Avenue (Toronto Parking Authority) (Midtown) 3031
68 Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, Trees
- 14 Riverside Crescent, Toronto (High Park) 3033
69 Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Article III, Trees
- 54 Wineva Avenue, Toronto (East Toronto) 3034
70 Tree Removal - 2 Cobalt Avenue (Davenport) 3035
71 Tree Removal - 27 Glengrove Avenue East (North Toronto) 3037
72 Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties
76 Wychwood Avenue (St. Clair Carhouse) (Midtown) 3038
73 Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -
4 and 8 South Kingsway (Rousseau Site) (High Park) 3051
74 Grant of Easements Over Lands Adjacent to Yonge Street
to be Conveyed to Toronto Eaton Centre (Downtown) 3055
75 Acquisition of Lane, West of Lansdowne Avenue, Extending
Between Jenet Avenue and Paton Road (Davenport) 3056
76 Acquisition of Lane North of Bloor Street West,
Extending Between Armadale Avenue and Willard Avenue
(High Park) 3058
77 Implementation of Island Parking - George Street South
from Front Street East to The Esplanade (Downtown) 3060
78 Request for Removal of a City-Owned Tree -
7 Gange Avenue (Midtown) 3064
79 Removal of City-Owned Tree - 360 Kingswood Road
(East Toronto) 3065
80 Removal of City-Owned Tree - 267 Forest Hill Road
(Midtown) 3066
81 Tree Removal - 1669 Queen Street East (East Toronto) 3067
82 Construction of a Wooden Fence - 59 Barton Avenue and on
Euclid Avenue (Midtown) 3069
83 Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes
Toronto's Festival of Beer 3070
84 Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes -
North by Northeast Music Festival and Conference
(Downtown) 3071
85 Private Awards Ceremony Reception -
519 Community Centre (Downtown) 3072
86 Temporary Extension of Licensed Area - 99 Blue Jays Way
(Downtown) 3073
87 Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes -
Extension of Previous Request -
The Back of the Tranzac Club (Downtown) 3074
88 Boulevard Cafe - 1997 Cafe Season -
250 Eglinton Avenue West - Shoeless Joe's
(North Toronto) 3076
89 The Second Cup - Boulevard Cafe
- McGill Street Flankage of 423 Yonge Street
(Convenience Address of 419 Yonge Street) (Downtown) 3077
90 Bella Napoli Trattoria (formerly Brutta Osteria) -
Operation of the Boulevard Cafe During the
1997 Cafe Season - 2419 Yonge Street (North Toronto) 3078
91 Appeal of Charges for Sidewalk Snow Removal -
817 Broadview Avenue (Don River) 3081
92 Relocate Fire Hydrant to Allow Driveway Widening -
128 Wolverleigh Boulevard (East Toronto) 3084
93 Authorization of the Development of a Neighbourhood
Traffic Management Plan - Avenue Road Eglinton Community
Association (ARECA) (North Toronto) 3087
94 Endorsement of Event for LLBO Purposes -
1998 Molson IndyFest 3088
95 Traffic Control Signals - Intersection of
Church Street and The Esplanade 3090
96 Other Items Considered by the Community Council 3096
