(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of Council to be held on May 13, 1998.)

(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.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council receive the following report (March 11, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor:

Purpose:

To retain outside planning/urban design assistance to provide evidence at upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in respect of 5, 7 and 9 Sultan Street, in the former City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds are available in Legal Services Division Account No. 76539.

Recommendation:

That authority be granted to retain Urban Strategies (Ken Greenberg) to provide expert testimony at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in connection with 5, 7 and 9 Sultan Street at an upset limit of $20,000.00 inclusive of GST and disbursements, with funds to be payable from Legal Services Division Account No. 76539.

Council Reference/Background:

At its meeting held on May 12, 1997, Council for the former City of Toronto gave consideration to Clause 13 of Report No. 7 of the Land Use Committee regarding the above-noted site and approved the introduction of By-laws to permit the construction of a ten-storey residential tower to the rear of the 5, 7 and 9 Sultan Street containing 25 residential units, with commercial uses in the bottom two storeys. By-law Nos. 1997-0500 and 1997-0501 were passed by City Council on September 22, 1997 following the execution of the required Heritage Easement Agreement by the property owner to preserve the historic frontages of the three-storey designated heritage dwellings on the site.

Two appeals have been received to the Zoning By-law and Official Plan Amendment on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 555, which owns the property known as 1166 Bay Street, and on behalf of Sultan Developments Inc., the owner of the property known as No. 23 St. Thomas Street.

Discussion and Justification:

The appeals received focus upon the scale, height, massing and density of the project, which would be permitted by the aforementioned By-laws. The then-Commissioner of Urban Development Services did not support the proposal for 5, 7 and 9 Sultan Street at the density and height described in the By-laws, and it will therefore be necessary to retain outside planning/urban design assistance in order to present the City's position effectively at the upcoming Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. The estimated length of time for the hearing is six days.

The property owner has already retained an expert planning witness, however, it is recommended that an expert with strong urban design or architectural background also be retained to complement the planning case as many of the issues focus upon the appropriateness of the building's scale within the Sultan-St. Thomas Area of Special Identity. Accordingly, I have contacted and would recommend the retention of Ken Greenberg, a respected and knowledgeable architect/urban designer who has provided me with a Work Plan which details the professional work required in connection with the hearing and with an upset limit of $20,000.00. The Work Plan covers preparation of the evidence, assisting in preparation of the City's case and appearance as an expert witness at the Board Hearing, which is likely to occur in July. The firm of Urban Strategies, of which Mr. Greenberg is a principal, is agreeable to signing the standard form Letter of Retention with the City.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that Ken Greenberg be retained by the City to provide additional urban design/architectural evidence and support of the proposal for 5, 7 and 9 Sultan Street, as previously supported by Council for the former City of Toronto.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7225;

Fax: (416) 392-0024

(City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

(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.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends adoption of the following report (March 19, 1998) from the Toronto Community Council Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report recommends an amendment to the settlement of the appeals of By-law No. 1994- 0601 of the former City of Toronto.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

N/A

Recommendations:

That Recommendation No. 1(a) dealing with the proposed definition of a place of amusement, of the City Solicitor's report dated September 29, 1997, adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997 as embodied in Clause No. 118 of Executive Committee Report No. 23, be amended by deleting the following words from the introductory paragraph:

"an establishment for interactive electronic games, occasional personal use of computer equipment on the premises for which a fee may or may not be charged,".

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, the Council of the former City of Toronto instructed the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to settle the outstanding appeals of By-law No. 1994-0601 on the basis set forth in Recommendations Nos. 1 and 2 of the report (September 29, 1997) of the City Solicitor (see Appendix 1).

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

At its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, the Council of the former City of Toronto instructed the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services to settle the appeals of Greek town on the Danforth Business Improvement Area and Andonis Artemakis to By-law No. 1994-0601. This By-law amended the General Zoning By-law respecting places of amusement, places of assembly, clubs and concert halls and related parking requirements.

Subsequent to the October 6 and 7 meeting of Council, I received a letter from the solicitor for certain numbered Ontario companies requesting that reference to establishments for interactive electronic games be deleted from the proposed amended definition for places of amusement. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has advised me such an amendment would be appropriate and could be effected by deleting the following words from the proposed definition of a place of amusement:

"an establishment for interactive electronic games, occasional personal use of computer equipment on the premises for which a fee may or may not be charged,".

This would be consistent with the limitation on the number of pinball and other mechanical and electronic game machines set forth in subsection (a)(ii) of the proposed definition and eliminate any potential ambiguity.

The solicitor for the appellants has agreed to the proposed change.

Conclusions:

I am recommending the settlement proposal previously adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto be amended to reflect this proposed change to the definition for a place of amusement.

Contact Name:

Sharon Haniford

Telephone: (416)392-6975

Fax: (416)392-0024

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing matter, Appendix 1 - Recommendation embodied in Clause No. 118 of Executive Committee Report No. 23, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997; and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

96

(City Council, at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998, struck out and referred Item (ff), entitled "Park Drive Ravine, Ontario Municipal Board Decision, Dismissal of Two Appeals to Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369 (Midtown)", embodied in this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council, for further consideration.)

(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.)

(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.

(City Council on April 16, 28 and May 1, 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, an Ontario Municipal Board Decision issued on December 16, 1997, dismissing two appeals to Zoning By-law No. 1997-0369 (Midtown), submitted by Councillor Adams.)

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, April 1 and 2, 1998

(Report No. 3A of The Toronto Community Council, including an addition thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council at its Special Meeting on April 28 and May 1, 1998.)

Clause Page

43 Retention of Expert Planning Witness -
5, 7 and 9 Sultan Street (Downtown) 3380

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) 3382

96 Other Items Considered by the Community Council 3384