City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules

City of Toronto Council and Committees

All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 10

1Hearing - Stopping Up, Closing and Conveyancing -Part of Public Highway - Sudbury Street (Trinity-Niagara)

2Hearing - Alteration of Spring Road and Parkside Drive Curbside Realignment (High Park)

3Hearing - Alteration of Lansdowne Avenue from Queen Street West to Rideau Avenue (High Park)

4Hearing - Alteration of Spruce Street, River Street, Gifford Street and Nasmith Avenue and Installation of Speed Humps (Don River)

5Hearing - Alteration of Palmerston Avenue -Bloor Street West to North of Bloor Street West (Midtown)

6Hearing - Chatham Avenue and Strathcona Avenue and Proposed Designation of Bicycle Lanes for Jones Avenue (Don River and East Toronto)

7Official Plan and Rezoning Application -50 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

8South Eglinton Area (East) Traffic Calming Project (Phase 1) -Poll Results (North Toronto)

9Spadina Road between St. Clair Avenue West and Montclair Avenue - Design Refinements to the Approved Roadway Narrowing Plan(Midtown)

10Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays -Spadina Avenue Between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, Between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street (Downtown)

11Prohibition of Parking - Cherry Street, Both Sides, from Villiers Street to the Ship Channel South of Polson Street (Don River)

12Prohibition of Stopping at Anytime South Side of Front Street West(Downtown)

13Implementation of a "No Standing Anytime"Prohibitions- Boon Avenue, Both Sides, from St. Clair Avenue West to North Limit of Ward (Davenport)

14Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces (Trinity-Niagara, Davenport and East Toronto)

15Proposed Road Narrowings -Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street(Davenport)

16Introduction of a "No Stopping Anytime" Prohibition - Annette Street, North and South Sides, and West of Pacific Avenue (High Park)

17Adjustment to Six Months Alternate Side Parking Regulations - Harvard Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Callender Street (High Park)

18Implementation of a "No Parking Anytime" Prohibition- South Side of Davenport Road, East of Rains Avenue(Davenport)

19Adjustment of Parking Regulations -Vermont Avenue, West of Bathurst Street (Midtown)

20Establishment of a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone"- West Side of Markham Street(Midtown)

21Temporal Adjustments to Existing Traffic/Parking Regulations on Streets in the Vicinity of Exhibition Place During Annual Caribana and Canadian National Exhibition (Trinity-Niagara, High Park)

22Reduction of Permit Parking Hours -Manning Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

23Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street

from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue (Danforth)

24Parking Restrictions on Belsize Drive (North Toronto)

25Parking Restrictions on Castleknock Drive(North Toronto)

26Installation of Speed Humps- Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue (High Park)

27Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning -2079-2111 Yonge Street, 5, 9, 11 and 21 Hillsdale Avenue East and 12, 14 and 16 Manor Road East (North Toronto)

28Technical Corrections -Zoning By-law No. 438-86of the former City of Toronto (All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)

29Amendment to Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the Former City of Toronto - East Bayfront (Downtown and Don River)

30Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -245 Carlaw Avenue (Don River)

31Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -200 and 220 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street (Downtown)

32Heritage Easement Agreement - Nos. 363-373 Adelaide Street East,55-59 Sherbourne Street, and 226-230 King Street East(Don River)

33Extension of Existing Part Lot Control Exemption By-law, -Eaton Centre, 1 Dundas St. W and 20 Salvation Square(Downtown)

34Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -(Downtown, Davenport)

35Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -631-651 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

36Site Plan Approval -365 Dundas Street East (Don River)

37Revised Settlement - King Spadina Part II Plan -250 Wellington Street West (Downtown)

38Fine Tuning of the Planning Regulations for the King-Parliament and King-Spadina Reinvestment Areas (Downtown, Don River)

39Status Report - Revised Plans -Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning -2230, 2324 and 2336 Gerrard Street East (East Toronto)

40Removal of City-Owned Trees - 1 Shaftesbury Avenue (Midtown)

41Removal of City-Owned Trees -650 Queens Quay West (Downtown)

42Removal of City-Owned Trees -800 King Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

43Proposed Closing of the Portion of Eastern Avenue Linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road Extension and Public Lane- 1641 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

44Construction of Hydro Transformer Vault178-192 Redpath Avenue (North Toronto)

45Proposed Closing to Vehicular Traffic of the Public Lane Extending Southerly from Queen Street West (Downtown)

46Application for a Temporary Street Closure -Logan Avenue Taste of the Danforth (Don River)

47Special Street Name Sign -Phantom Boulevard (Downtown)

48Special Street Name Signs -Port Area (Don River)

4943 Turner Road - Committee of Adjustment(Davenport)

50Hillcrest Village Business Improvement Area (BIA)- 1998 Operating Budget

51Appointments to Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre of Management

52Appointments to the Scadding Court Community Centre Board of Management

53Appointments to Swansea Town Hall - Board of Management

54St. Lawrence Co-operative Housing Corporation Condominium- Request for Release of a Portion of the Lands from a Heritage Easement Agreement for Rack House "H"of the Gooderham and Worts Distillery Site (Downtown)

55Committee of Adjustment - 30 Hayden Street(Downtown)

56Appointments to Board of Management -Balmy Beach Park

57Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -731 Yonge Street (Downtown)

58Status Report on the Ontario Municipal Board -1947-97 Bloor Street West (High Park)

59Impact of Big Box Retail Development on the Toronto Community's Retail Strips

60Various Uses of the City Street Allowance -1930, 1975, 1982, 2024, 2026 and 2028 Queen Street East(East Toronto)

61Vehicular Access Ramp - 214 Westminster Avenue (High Park)

62King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan (Downtown)

63Residential Demolition Application -500 Manning Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

64Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - Lake Shore Boulevard West Bailey Bridge(Trinity-Niagara)

65Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 2549 Dundas Street West(John Shelley Turner House) (Davenport)

66Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -226 King Street East (Imperial Bank) (Don River)

67Designation Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -363-365 Adelaide Street East (Paul Bishop's Houses) (Don River)

68Designation Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) (East Toronto)

69Construction of Trellis and Gate -405 Carlton Street (Don River)

70Construction of a Trellis and Gate -403 Carlton Street (Don River)

71Appeal of Denial of Commercial Boulevard Parking -142 Westmount Avenue(Convenience Address for 1151 St. Clair Avenue West)(Davenport)

72Construction of a Stone Wall, Gates and Screens -110 Charles Street West (Downtown)

73Maintenance of Fence - 833 Carlaw Avenue (Don River)

74Modifications of Fence - Palmerston Avenue Flank of1 Palmerston Gardens (Midtown)

75City-Owned Tree Relocation/Removal -30 Ossington Street (Trinity-Niagara)

76Tree Removal - 300 Gainsborough Avenue (East Toronto)

77Tree Removal - 53 Hillholm Road (Midtown)

78Tree Removal - 88 Lonsdale Road (Midtown)

79Request to Remove One Tree and Injure Two Trees -2543, 2545, 2549 Dundas Street West and22R Jerome Street (Davenport)

80Boulevard Marketing - 405 Bloor Street East -Street Smarts (Downtown)

81Appeal of Denial of Boulevard Cafe Application - 581-583 Markham Street and Lennox Street Flankage (Trinity-Niagara)

82Whitlock's Restaurant - "Extension of Hours of Operations" -Boulevard Cafe on the Kenilworth Flankage of1961 Queen Street East (Toronto East)

83Application for Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue Flankage of1340 St. Clair Avenue West - Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. (Davenport)

84Shoxs Billiard Lounge - Operation of Boulevard Cafe at2827 Dundas Street West (Davenport)

85Appeal of Denial of Boulevard Cafe Application - De Lisle Avenue Flankage of 1510 Yonge Street (Midtown)

86Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -1 Balmoral Avenue (Midtown)

87Dufferin Jog Elimination - Planning and Setback Issues(High Park)

88Requests for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licensing Purposes

89Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 10

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on July 22, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998

Hearing - Stopping Up, Closing and Conveyancing -

Part of Public Highway - Sudbury Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 26 of Corporate Services Committee Report No. 7, titled, "Disposal and Sale of City-owned Vacant Land to Adjoining Owners - 20 Sudbury Street (Ward 20 - Trinity-Niagara)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, notice of its hearing on July 22, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 30, July 7, July 14 and July 21, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No.

Intended for first presentation to Council: July 29, 1998.

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To stop up and close part of the public highway Sudbury Street and to authorize the sale thereof, together with a previously closed portion of Sudbury Street, to Dufflet Pastries Inc.

WHEREAS by Clause of Toronto Community Council Report No. , adopted by Council at its meeting held on July 29, 1998, it is recommended that part of the public highway Sudbury Street be stopped up and closed as a public highway and that the portion of Sudbury Street so stopped up and closed, together with a portion of Sudbury Street stopped up and closed by City of Toronto By-law 544-93, be sold to Dufflet Pastries Inc. upon the terms and conditions contained in Clause 26 of Corporate Services Committee Report No. 7, adopted by Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998;

AND WHEREAS notice of Council's intention to stop up and close the said portion of Sudbury Street and to sell the closed portions of Sudbury Street as aforesaid was advertised in a daily newspaper on _______________.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Part of the public highway Sudbury Street, described by W. Kowalenko, Esq., O.L.S., as follows:

Part of Parcel Sudbury Street-1 in the Register for Section A-878

Being part of the public highway Sudbury Street, dedicated by City of Toronto By-law No.410-67 and comprising part of the Provincial Lunatic Asylum grounds, being part of the Ordnance Reserve, according to a Plan by Dennis and Gossage, Provincial Land Surveyors dated January 1, 1857, registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), designated as Part 12 on Plan 66R-16652 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66)

In the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario

is hereby stopped up and closed as a public highway.

2.The soil and freehold of the portion of the highway stopped up and closed by section 1 of this By-law, together with the portion of the highway previously stopped up and closed, described by W. Kowalenko, Esq., O.L.S., as follows:

Part of Parcel Sudbury Street-1 in the Register for Section A-878

Being Part of the Provincial Lunatic Asylum grounds, being part of the Ordnance Reserve, according to a Plan by Dennis and Gossage, Provincial Land Surveyors dated January 1, 1857, registered in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64), formerly part of Sudbury Street closed by City of Toronto By-law 544-93 (C873376), designated as Part 5 on Plan 66R-16652 deposited in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Metropolitan Toronto (No. 66)

In the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario

shall be sold to Dufflet Pastries Inc. upon the terms and conditions contained in Clause 26 of Corporate Services Committee Report No. 7, adopted by Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and5, 1998.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 26 of Report No. 7 of the Corporate Services Committee, headed "Disposal and Sale of City-Owned Vacant Land to Adjoining Owners - 20 Sudbury Street (Ward 20 - Trinity-Niagara):

--------

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Corporate Services Committee recommends the adoption of the following report (May7,1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to obtain City Council approval:

(a)to stop up and close a portion of a public highway shown as Part 12 on Plan 64R-13923;

(b)to declare as surplus City-owned lands shown as Parts 5, 7, 12 (a portion of a dedicated public highway), and 13, Plan 64R-13923; and

(c)to authorize the sale of and accept the Offer to Purchase from Dufflet Pastries Inc., the owners of 41 Dovercourt Road, to purchase the adjoining City-owned lands at 20Sudbury Street and shown as PARTS 5, 7, 12 and 13, Plan 64R-13923 for the sum of $15,000.00.

Financial Implications:

The net proceeds of the sale of these lands should be credited to the Capital Funds from Assets Sold Account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the portion of public highway shown as Part 12 on Plan 64R-13923 be stopped up and closed and be conveyed to the owner of 41 Dovercourt Road provided the said owner complies with the following terms and conditions:

(a)indemnifies 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 public highway closing;

(b)pays the purchase price of $15,000.00 for the fee in the said Part 12 (Note - this fee also includes compensation for Parts 5, 7, and 13, Plan 64R-13923;

(c)pays all out-of-pocket expenses that will be incurred by the City as a result of the public highway closing and conveyancing, estimated to be in the amount of $1,500.00, and any such expenses paid by the applicant will not be refunded in the event that the transaction is not completed; and

(d)agrees to such other terms and conditions as the City Solicitor may deem advisable to protect the City's interests;

(2)City Council, by By-law, declare as surplus City-owned parcels of land shown as Parts 5, 7, 12 and 13 on Plan 64R-13923;

(3)City Council authorize the sale of and accept the Offer to Purchase from Dufflet Pastries Inc., the owners of 41 Dovercourt Road, to purchase the adjoining City-owned lands at 20Sudbury Street and shown as Parts 5, 7, 12, and 13 on Plan 64R-13923, for the sum of $15,000.00, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the aforementioned Offer to Purchase, including a condition that Part 5, Plan 64R-13923 is being conveyed subject to an easement in favour of Consumers Gas;

(4)City Council declare the proposed conveyance of the closed portion of Sudbury Street (Part5 on Plan 64R-13923) and of the portion of Sudbury Street to be closed ( Part 12 on Plan 64R-13923) is in compliance with Section 3.3 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan, Part 1- Cityplan;

(5)the Director, Property Services be directed, in accordance with S. 95-5 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to give notice to the public of the proposed sale to the owner of 41Dovercourt Road of the parcels of City-owned land declared surplus shown as Parts5, 7, 12 and 13 on Plan 64R-13923;

(6)the City Solicitor be authorized to complete this transaction according to the terms and conditions of the Offer to Purchase including the termination of the outstanding lease/conveyance provisions of the land exchange agreement between the City and Dufflet Pastries Inc. dated September 28, 1993, in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and pay any expenses incurred by the City incidental to the closing or otherwise; and

(7)the appropriate Civic officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing recommendations, including introducing the necessary bills in Council.

Background:

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting held on June 1, 1993, amended and adopted ClauseNo.8, of Executive Committee Report No. 10 and thereby approved a land exchange between the City and Dufflet Pastries Inc., the owner of 41 Dovercourt Road, whereby the City would stop up, close and convey to Dufflet Pastries the portion of public highway shown as Parts3 and 14 on Plan64R-13923 in exchange for certain lands owned by Dufflet Pastries shown as Parts 2, 7, 8, 9, and 13 on Plan 64R-13923. (A schematic sketch of these Parts is shown on the attached Map 1.) Pursuant to the land exchange agreement approved by Council, following completion of the land exchange, Dufflet Pastries was also to have a number of other leasing and conveyancing rights and obligations pertaining to the lands that would then be owned by the City. Clause No.8 also authorized the stopping up, closing and retention by the City of the portions of public highway shown as Parts5 and 12 on Plan 64R-13923. The foregoing arrangements arose out of a settlement that was reached with Dufflet Pastries in connection with an objection filed by Dufflet Pastries to a proposed Bramalea development at King Street and Sudbury Street. As a result of the arrangements approved by Council, Dufflet Pastries agreed to withdraw its objection to the proposed Bramalea development.

The land exchange between the City and Dufflet Pastries was completed on February 4, 1994. Part5 on Plan 64R-13923 was stopped up and closed as a public highway but Part 12 on Plan 64R-13923 was not stopped up and closed as a public highway as it was anticipated that it would form part of a new public highway to be created as part of Bramalea's development.

Bramalea's development never proceeded and, accordingly, the outstanding leasing and conveyancing provisions in the land exchange agreement between the City and Dufflet Pastries are no longer relevant. Dufflet Pastries have now approached the City and indicated an interest in purchasing Parts5, 7, 12 an 13 on Plan 64R-13923, containing an area of approximately 1,600square feet.

Comments:

Negotiations have been conducted and Dufflet Pastries have executed an agreement of Purchase and Sale whereby it has agreed to pay the appraised market value of $15,000.00 for the City's lands. This Agreement of Purchase also includes a provision that the closing of the transaction is to take place as soon as possible.

The provisions of the Planning and Municipal Statute Amendment Act, 1994 (Bill 163) respecting the sale of real property, by the City, its agencies, boards and commissions took effect January 1, 1995. This legislation requires that, before the selling of any property, City Council:

(1)must declare the property to be surplus by by-law or resolution at a meeting open to the public;

(2)give notice to the public of the proposed sale; and

(3)must obtain at least one appraisal of the market value of the property, unless exempt by regulations passed under the legislation.

Staff of Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services, and Community and Neighbourhood Services have indicated that they have no objections to the sale of these lands to the owners of 41 Dovercourt Road and are in agreement with the content of this report.

An appraisal of the current market value of the site has been completed by City staff.

Conclusion:

Parts 5, 7, 12 and 13 on Plan 64R-13923 are surplus to City requirements and the sale of this land to the abutting owners would consolidate this City-owned land into a larger privately owned parcel and result in $15,000.00 being paid to the City for the land.

Contact Name:

Ron J. Banfield

Telephone - 392-1859

Fax - 392-1880

E-mail - rbanfiel@city.toronto.on.ca (cs98055.wpd)

(A copy of the maps attached to the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of Council with the May 25, 1998, Corporate Services Committee Agenda, and a copy thereof is also on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Dovercourt/Sudbury

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Dovercourt/Sudbury

Hearing - Alteration of Spring Road and Parkside Drive

Curbside Realignment (High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 59 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 5, titled, "Curb Realignment at the South-West Corner of Spring Road and Parkside Drive (High Park)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, notice of its hearing on July 22, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June30, July 7, July 14 and July 21, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 6(59), June 3, 1998

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the realignment of the curb at the south-west corner of the Spring Road/Parkside Drive intersection.

WHEREAS notice of a proposed By-law regarding the proposed alteration was published in a daily newspaper on , , and , 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at a public meeting held on , 1998 and it is appropriate to amend the by-law to permit the alteration.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", is amended:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "C-2" (Curb Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner) Repair) From)To)No./Date)

Springsouth-westrealignmentSK-2193

Road/of curbdated

ParksideMay 1998

Drive

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

________

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 59 of its Report No. 6, headed "Curb Realignment at the South-West Corner of Spring Road and Parkside Drive (High Park)":

________

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (May13,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the realignment of the curb at the south-west corner of Spring Road and Parkside Drive.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the curb realignment in the estimated amount of $10,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 292810.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to realign the existing curb at the south-west corner of the SPRING ROAD/PARKSIDE DRIVE intersection as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2193, dated May, 1998; and

(2)That the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

The former Metropolitan Council at its meeting of September 24 and 25, 1997 in considering ClauseNo. 44 in Planning and Transportation Committee Report No. 19 authorized, among other things, the installation of traffic signals at Parkside Drive and Spring Road. During the detailed design stage of the signal installation, staff have established that it would be advisable to realign the curb at the south west corner of the Spring Road/Parkside Drive intersection, and have suggested the paving of the boulevard area created by the curb realignment to facilitate pedestrian crossings and improve pedestrian access into the park. Staff of Parks and Recreation have been consulted on this matter and concur with the proposed work.

The realignment of the curb as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2193 dated May, 1998, will also improve the channelization of vehicular traffic and will not adversely affect the functioning of the intersection.

The proposed curb realignment constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

J. Niedra, Manager

Programmes, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Curb Realignment

Hearing - Alteration of Lansdowne Avenue

from Queen Street West to Rideau Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that City Council enact a By-law in the form of the draft bill embodied in the Clause and that leave be granted to introduce the necessary bill to give effect thereto.")

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 17 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, titled, "Lansdowne Avenue from Queen Street West to Rideau Avenue - Proposed Road Narrowings (High Park)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, notice of its hearing on July 22, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 30, July 7, July 14 and July 21, 1998, and the following appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Estella Matthews, Toronto, Ontario

-Ms. Anna Thaker, Toronto, Ontario

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Item 29, June 24, 1998

Intended for first presentation to Council:July 22, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

The Council of The City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-3" (Pavement Narrowing) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side orDrawing

Street)Location)Width)From)To)No./Date)

Lansdowne from: 14.0 mQueen Rideau SK-2199

Avenueto: 10.0 m -Street WestAvenue dated

14.0 mJune 10, 1998

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN, NOVINA WONG,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 17 of its Report No. 8, headed "Lansdowne Avenue from Queen Street West to Rideau Avenue - Proposed Road Narrowings (High Park)":

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Lansdowne Avenue between Queen Street West and Rideau Avenue to facilitate the planting of trees and landscaping of the boulevards while providing a measure of traffic calming on the street, as part of scheduled road reconstruction work in 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the planned reconstruction work on Lansdowne Avenue have been accommodated with the 1998 Capital Budget. No additional funding is required to narrow the road and provide the landscaping, as outlined in this proposal.

Recommendations:

1. That approval be given to narrow the pavement on Lansdowne Avenue described as follows:

"the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 14.0 m to a width varying from 10.0m to 14.0 m on LANSDOWNE AVENUE between Queen Street West and Rideau Avenue, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2199, dated June10, 1998;

2. That the City Solicitor and City Clerk be requested to commence the statutory advertising process of the draft by-laws to authorize the narrowings of Lansdowne Avenue such that ads are placed the weeks of June 29 and July 6, 13 and 20, 1998, to enable the hearing of deputations on this matter at the July 22, 1998 Toronto Community Council meeting; and

3. That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Comments:

Existing Conditions

Lansdowne Avenue between Queen Street West and Rideau Avenue is primarily residential in nature with a fire hall on the west side and Parkdale Public School and West Lodge Park on the east side. The street has a width of 14.0 m and carries two-way traffic with a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit. Frequent bus service is provided by the Toronto Transit Commission, with buses every six minutes during peak periods. Approximately 12,000 vehicles per day use this portion of Lansdowne Avenue, with 48% of vehicles exceeding the 40 km/h speed limit and 7% exceeding the limit by at least 10 km/h. Pedestrian crossovers are located at Seaforth Avenue (south side), approximately 170 metres north of Seaforth Avenue and about another 190 metres further north.

The following parking regulations are in effect:

East side-No Parking anytime.

West side-No parking anytime from Queen Street West to a point 60 metres north thereof.

No parking anytime from Rideau Avenue to a point 30.5 metres south thereof.

No parking between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday.

The pavement, sidewalks and curbs on Lansdowne Avenue between Queen Street West and Rideau Avenue were constructed in 1946 and are scheduled for reconstruction this year. These facilities have reached the end of their economic life-cycle.

Proposed Plan

Lansdowne Avenue could comfortably carry the existing traffic volume as a two-lane road. Accordingly, it is proposed to narrow the road approximately two metres on each side, generally as indicated in the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2199 dated June 10, 1998. In addition, it is proposed to plant a row of trees in each boulevard approximately one metre away from the existing curbs. As the trees mature, this would gradually transform the appearance of the street.

Parking will be retained on the west side, and the existing evening peak parking prohibition will be rescinded, so that parking is available 24 hours per day. There are two bus stops on the east side of the street and four on the west. On the east side, two-metre wide bus bays will be provided (so that at bus stops, the existing curb location will not change). No special provisions are needed to accommodate buses on the west side, as statutory "No Standing" regulations are already in place at the bus stops.

Consultation and Approval Process

Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller will be hosting a public meeting on July 14, 1998 to solicit feedback from residents. Discussions with TTC and emergency services staff have been initiated and will continue as necessary. Any modifications which are found to be desirable or necessary can be reported to subsequent meetings of Community Council or City Council.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environment Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

The narrowing of the pavement on Lansdowne Avenue constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provision of the Municipal Act. The statutory requirements of The Municipal Act provide that notice of the intent to enact a by-law in respect of the work shall be published once a week for 4 successive weeks and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. Having regard to these statutory requirements coupled with the schedule of Council meetings for the months of August and September, it will be necessary to begin advertising the proposed alteration after endorsement by the Toronto Community Council on June 24, 1998, but prior to City Council approval on July 8. Specifically, it is recommended that this matter be advertised during the weeks of June 29, July 6, July13 and July 20, 1998, and be scheduled as a deputation item for the July 22, 1998, meeting of the Toronto Community Council, with final approval by City Council on July 29, 1998. Adhering to this schedule will allow work to commence in August, prior to the commencement of the school year in September. Of course, should City Council not endorse the plan at its July 8, 1998 meeting, the advertising would be discontinued.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Macbeth, Manager

Transportation Management Section, 392-1799

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Pavement Narrowing on Lansdowne Avenue

Hearing - Alteration of Spruce Street, River Street,

Gifford Street and Nasmith Avenue and Installation of

Speed Humps (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause96(nn) of Toronto Community Council Report No. 3, titled, "Spruce Street Traffic Calming Project (Don River)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on April 16, 1998, notice of its hearing on July 22, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 30, July 7, July 14 and July 21, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 3(96), April 16, 1998

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To further amend former City of Toronto By-law No. 602-89, being "A By-law To authorize the construction, widening, narrowing, alteration and repair of sidewalks, pavements and curbs at various locations", respecting the alteration of Spruce Street by the narrowing and realignment of the pavement and the installation of speed humps from Parliament Street to River Street, the alteration of each of Gifford Street and Nasmith Avenue at their intersections with Spruce Street by the realignment of curbs to narrow the pavement and the alteration of River Street from Spruce Street to the Bayview Avenue ramp by the narrowing and realignment of the pavement.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-3" (Pavement Narrowing) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side orDrawing

Street)Location)Width)From)To)No./Date)

Sprucefrom: 5.49 mParliamentRiver421F-5198,

Streetto: 10.30 mStreetStreet421F-5199

from: 3.49 mdated

to: 6.30 mApril 1998

Riverfrom: 5.49 mSpruce Bayview421F-5198,

Streetto: 3.49 m -StreetAvenue421F-5199

5.49 mrampdated

April 1998

(2)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-4" (Pavement Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side/ Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner)Repair)From)To)No./Date)

Spruce StreetAlterationParliamentRiver 421F-5198,

consistingStreetStreet421F-5199

of thedated

installationApril 1998

of speed humps

(3)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "C-2" (Curb Alteration/Repair) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side/ Alteration/Drawing

Street)Corner)Repair)From)To)No./Date)

GiffordeastalterationSpruce421F-5198,

StreetStreet421F-5199

intersectiondated

April 1998

NasmitheastalterationSpruce421F-5198,

AvenueStreet421F-5199

intersectiondated

April 1998

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 25, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing and realignment of certain sections of the pavement on Spruce Street to promote reduced vehicular speeds, discourage cut-through traffic and generally enhance safety for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists.

Financial Implications:

The incremental costs involved with implementing the Spruce Street Traffic Calming Plan are estimated to be $70,000.00, funds for which are available in the Works and Emergency Services' 1998 Capital Budget, Account No. 296-802.

Recommendations:

1. That approval be given to narrow and alter specified sections of the pavement on Spruce Street from Parliament Street to River Street, on Gifford Street and Nasmith Avenue at their intersection with Spruce Street and on River Street from Spruce Street to the ramp leading to Bayview Avenue for traffic calming purposes, as described in the body of this report and generally as shown on Drawing Nos. 421F-5198 and 421F-5199, dated April 1998, and as follows:

(a) The narrowing and realignment of the pavement on Spruce Street from Parliament Street to River Street from a width varying from 5.49 metres to 10.30 metres to a width varying from 3.49 metres to 6.30 metres and installation of speed humps;

(b) The reconfiguration and narrowing of the pavements on Gifford Street and Nasmith Avenue at their respective intersection with Spruce Street from a width of 8.53 metres to a width varying from 8.53 metres to 6.53 metres; and

(c) The narrowing and realignment of the pavement on River Street from a width of 5.49 metres to a width varying from 3.49 metres to 5.49 metres;

2. That the speed limit on Spruce Street from Parliament Street to River Street and on River Street from Spruce Street to the ramp to Bayview Avenue be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming project;

3. That the parking prohibition at anytime on the south side of Spruce Street from a point 25.0 metres east of Rolston Avenue to Sackville Street, be rescinded;

4. That stopping be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on the north side of Spruce Street from a point 38.0 metres east of Sackville Street to a point 85.0 metres further east;

5. That parking be prohibited at anytime on;

(a) The south side of Spruce Street from a point 38.0 metres east of Rolston Avenue to a point 18.5 metres further east;

(b) The south side of Spruce Street from a point 67.0 metres east of Rolston Avenue to a point 16.0 metres further east;

(d) The north side of Spruce Street from a point 26.0 metres east of Gifford Street to a point 25.0 metres further east;

(e) The east side of Gifford Street from Spruce Street to a point 15.0 metres south;

(f) The east side of Nasmith Avenue from Spruce Street to a point 15.0 metres south;

(g) The east side of Sumach Street from Spruce Street to a point 20.0 metres north;

6. That permit parking, operating from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily, be implemented on the south side of Spruce Street from Rolston Avenue to Sackville Street except on the sections identified in Recommendation 5 (a), (b) and (c) above; and

7. 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:

The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1998 in considering a communication from Councillor Pam McConnell respecting the Spruce Street Traffic Calming Plan adopted the recommendations contained in the communication and in doing so authorized staff to conduct a poll of residents on Spruce Street and nearby streets which are directly accessed by way of Spruce Street to determine the level of community support for the installation of the traffic calming plan (Clause 96 [nn] in Toronto Community Council Report No.3). This poll has been completed and the results are outlined in the body of this report.

Comments:

Over the past two years, concerned residents of Spruce Street in consultation with Councillor Pam McConnell and City staff, have developed a traffic calming plan for Spruce Street incorporating speed humps and selected roadway narrowings intended to deter speeding and through traffic movement on this street.

Existing Conditions

Spruce Street from Parliament Street to River Street operates two-way between Parliament Street and Sackville Street on a pavement width of 10.3 metres and one-way eastbound from Sackville Street to River Street on a pavement width of 5.49 metres. River Street from Spruce Street to the ramp leading to Bayview Avenue is about 40 metres in length, has a pavement width of 5.49 metres, operates one-way southbound and essentially is the southerly continuation of Spruce Street connecting with the arterial section of River Street from the top of the Bayview Avenue ramp to King Street East. The following standing/parking regulations are in effect on Spruce Street between Parliament Street and River Street:

North Side

- standing is prohibited at anytime from a point 53.3 metres east of Parliament Street to a point 18.3 metres further east;

- parking is prohibited at anytime between River Street and a point 47.2 metres west and from a point 45.7 metres east of Sumach Street to a point 15.7 metres west thereof;

- permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily and

- parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of 3 hours.

South Side

- standing is prohibited at anytime from a point 21.5 metres east of Parliament Street to a point 20.0 metres further east; and

- elsewhere, parking is prohibited at anytime.

Parking is prohibited at anytime on both sides of River Street from Spruce Street to the ramp leading to/from Bayview Avenue.

Spruce Street is located in permit parking Area 7D where as of June 12, 1998, all parking permits have been issued for the 818 spaces available and a wait list of 144 applicants has been established. Specifically on Spruce Street/River Street between Parliament Street and the Bayview Avenue ramp, 69 permits have been issued to residents against 69 parking spaces available on the street.

Several 24-hour traffic speed and volume surveys have been conducted over the past five years on different sections of Spruce Street between Parliament Street and River Street. Weekday traffic volumes appear to vary considerably ranging between 900 and 1,900 vehicles daily, depending on which section of the street the survey was taken, with about 30% of the recorded vehicles exceeding the 40 kilometres per hour speed limit and about 5% travelling at a rate of speed in excess of 50 kilometres per hour. Of note is that the highest traffic volume and incidence of speeding occurs on the section of Spruce Street between Sackville Street and Nasmith Avenue where Spruce Court School is located.

Overview of the Traffic Calming Plan

Spruce Street is scheduled for resurfacing and reconstruction work in 1998. This work provides an opportunity to incorporate the traffic calming and parking elements proposed for Spruce Street, as shown on the attached drawings and outlined in specific detail below, into the reconstruction project at an estimated incremental cost of about $70,000.00, funds for which are available in our Department's 1998 Capital Budget. The elements of the plan, in combination, are intended to promote reduced vehicular speed and enhance safety for all road users, including pedestrians and cyclists. Reductions in traffic volume are not expected to be significant.

Physical Measures:

The traffic calming plan features a series of six speed humps spaced at regular intervals, seven curb realignments to narrow the pavement, and textured surface treatments to enhance motorists' awareness of pedestrian crossing areas at several locations between Parliament Street and the River Street ramp. These measures will be located as follows:

Speed Humps

i) at a point 90 metres east of Rolston Avenue, in front of Premises Nos. 41 & 42 Spruce Street;

ii)at a point 52 metres east of Sackville Street, near the west side of Premises No. 70 Spruce Street (Spruce Court School);

iii) at a point 18 metres east of Gifford Street, near the east side of Premises No. 70 Spruce Street;

iv) at a point 13 metres east of Nasmith Avenue, in front of Premises No. 82 Spruce Street;

v) at a point 58 metres east of Sumach Street, in front of Premises Nos. 120-123 Spruce Street; and

vi) at a point 18 metres east of Sword Street, in front of Premises No. 142 Spruce Street;

Curb Realignments

i) a pinch-point in front of Premises Nos. 20 & 27;

ii) bullnose corner extensions on the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of Spruce Street and Sackville Street;

iii) a bullnose corner extension on the southeast corner of the intersection of Spruce Street and Gifford Street;

iv) a road narrowing at the school crossing immediately west of Premises No. 74;

v) a bullnose corner extension on the southeast corner of the intersection of Spruce Street and Nasmith Avenue;

vi) a bullnose corner extension on the northwest corner of the intersection of Spruce Street and Sumach Street; and

vii) a channelization bullnose on the northeast corner of the intersection of River Street and the ramp to/from Bayview Avenue.

It should be noted that in ground tree pits will be constructed where feasible within the widened sidewalk/boulevard areas created by the localized narrowing and bollards will be installed if and where required.

Textured Surface Treatments

i) Brushed concrete pedestrian crossing areas:

a) across Spruce Street at the east side of Parliament Street;

b) on all four sides at the intersection of Spruce Street and Sackville Street;

c) across Gifford Street at the south side of Spruce Street;

d) across Spruce Street at the south side of Nasmith Avenue;

e) on all four sides at the intersection of Spruce Street and Sumach Street; and

ii) Inter-locking brick pavers at the school crossing in front of Spruce Court School.

The realignment and narrowing of the pavements on Spruce and River Streets constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Act. This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Parking Adjustments:

Representatives of Spruce Court School have requested that stopping be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday in front of the school to discourage motorists from standing in this area where parking is currently prohibited and to enhance advance sight lines between children leaving the school property (which is not fenced in on the Spruce Street frontage) and motorists travelling on Spruce Street.

Construction of the curb realignments noted above will eliminate 2 parking spaces on the north side of Spruce Street, immediately east and west of the school crossing in front of Spruce Court School, 2 parking spaces on the east side of Sumach Street, immediately north of Spruce Street (to ensure that a suitable turning radius is maintained for motorists turning from eastbound Spruce Street onto northbound Sumach Street) and 1 parking space respectively at each location on the east side of Gifford Street and on the east side of Nasmith Avenue, immediately south of Spruce Street. An additional 7 parking spaces would be provided between Rolston Avenue and Sackville Street by allowing parking on sections of the south side of the street where it is now prohibited, resulting in a net gain of one parking space in the area.

Speed Limit:

As the proposal for Spruce Street/River Street will have a significant number of traffic calming elements and calming effect, I suggest that the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour, under special Provincial legislation granted to the former City of Toronto. This reduced speed limit would reinforce the anticipated speed reductions on Spruce Street that will result from the traffic calming measures outlined above and should further improve safety for all road users. The reduction of the speed limit would take effect coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming plan.

Consultation Process and Poll Results

Meetings attended by Works staff were held in 1996 with the Spruce Street residents traffic committee, staff of Spruce Court School and staff of Councillor Pam McConnell's office to develop a traffic calming plan for this street. Although several ideas were discussed, interest in finalizing a traffic calming plan waned in 1997 as members of the residents' traffic committee either moved away or could no longer devote time to the issue. However, with the addition of speed humps to the City's inventory of traffic calming measures, interest in implementing a traffic calming plan on Spruce Street incorporating speed humps into the design was re-kindled in 1998, resulting in the initial acceptance by residents of a new traffic calming plan which maintained many of the elements of the original proposal and added speed humps and parking modifications to the plan.

As noted in the background section of this report, staff have completed a poll of residents on Spruce Street and nearby streets which are directly accessed by way of Spruce Street to determine the level of community support for the installation of the traffic calming plan. Under the City's Speed Hump Policy (adopted by the previous Toronto City Council at its meeting of August 21, 1997) the poll of residents requires that at least 60% of valid responses to the poll endorse the proposal. A total of 364 ballots were mailed out of which 141 (about 39%) of the eligible voters returned valid responses to the poll and the results are as follows:

In support of the traffic calming plan 111 votes (79%)

Opposed to the traffic calming plan 26 votes (18%)

Spoiled ballots 4 ( 3%)

Comments on the initial traffic calming plan developed in 1996 were requested from the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief, the Commissioner of Ambulance Services, and staff of the former City of Toronto's Planning and Parks Departments. Comments received in response thereto generally expressed no concern for the traffic calming plan. With the exception of the addition of speed humps to the traffic calming plan, the integrity of the original 1996 plan remains unchanged. I have forwarded copies of the drawings showing the traffic calming plan for Spruce Street and this report to Mr. Daniel Egan - Toronto City Cycling Committee, Mr. Alan Speed - Toronto Fire Chief, Mr. David Boothby - Toronto Police Chief, and Mr. Ron Kelusky - Acting General Manager of Ambulance Services. Deputations on the draft by-laws to implement the pavement alterations will be considered by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 22, 1998.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton, Transportation Operations Coordinator, 392-1806

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Traffic Calming Spruce Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Traffic Calming Spruce Street

Hearing - Alteration of Palmerston Avenue -

Bloor Street West to North of Bloor Street West (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a by-law in the form of the draft by-law be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 6 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 5, titled, "Narrowing of the Pavement - Palmerston Avenue (Midtown)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on May 13 and 14, 1998, notice of its hearing on July 22, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 30, July 7, July 14 and July21, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-law:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 5(6), May 13, 1998

Intended for first presentation to Council:July 22, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

The Council of The City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-3" (Pavement Narrowing) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side orDrawing

Street)Location)Width)From)To)No./Date)

Palmerstoneastfrom: 7.28 mBloor11 m northSK-2194

Avenueto: 5.5 m -Street Westof Bloor dated

7.28 mStreet WestApril, 1998

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 6 of its Report No. 5, headed "Narrowing of the Pavement - Palmerston Avenue (Midtown)":

(City Council on May 13 and 14, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April22,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the existing pavement on Palmerston Avenue at Bloor Street West to discourage through traffic, decrease pedestrian crossing distances and physically deter the unlawful entry of vehicles into the one-way street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The incremental cost of the Palmerston Avenue pavement narrowing is nominal, as it is being carried out with previously scheduled reconstruction work, which in turn is accommodated within the funds approved under the extended Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works Programme, Account No.271-716-39223-7FEAT-C1201.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to narrow the pavement from a width of 7.28 metres to a width varying from 5.5 metres to 7.28 metres along the east side of PALMERSTON AVENUE from Bloor Street West to 11 metres north of Bloor Street West, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2194, dated April 1998"; and

(2)That the appropriate City Officials be requested to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that are required.

Comments:

The extended Canada Ontario Infrastructure Works Programme approved by the Council of the former City of Toronto last year includes, among other things, the reconstruction of the sidewalks on both sides of Bloor Street West between Bathurst Street and Christie Street. In connection with the ongoing work in this area, Councillor John Adams has requested the installation of a pinch point on Palmerston Avenue just north of Bloor Street West, in a configuration similar to the pinch points installed in 1996 at a number of streets intersecting Bloor Street West between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street.

Palmerston Avenue, from Bloor Street West to London Street, is a one-way southbound residential street with an existing pavement width of 7.28 metres. The speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour. This section of Palmerston Avenue is located in permit parking area 'P' with authorized parking on the east side.

The provision of a pinch point, or minor pavement narrowing to a width of 5.5 metres and corresponding widening of the east sidewalk as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2194 dated April 1998, will deter the unlawful entry of northbound vehicles, decrease the length of the pedestrian crossing and increase sidewalk/boulevard space. It should be noted that the pavement on this section of Palmerston Avenue is over 90 years old and requires replacement at the Bloor Street West intersection in connection with the ongoing sidewalk reconstruction. As a result, the incremental cost of the minor pavement narrowing is nominal and can be accommodated within the overall project budget.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environment Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

The narrowing of the pavement on Palmerston Avenue constitutes an alteration to public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, Manager of Programmes,

Tel. No. 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Map

Hearing - Chatham Avenue and Strathcona Avenue and

Proposed Designation of Bicycle Lanes for Jones Avenue

(Don River and East Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the draft by-laws be amended by deleting reference to the proposed Jones Avenue bicycle lane and the components of the Danforth Avenue By-Pass bicycle route involving Chatham Avenue, and that the by-laws, as so amended, be enacted, and that the necessary Bills be introduced in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the report (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services, contained in Clause 34 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, as amended by his further report (July 20, 1998) be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the proposed Jones Avenue bicycle lane and the components of the Danforth Avenue By-Pass bicycle route involving Chatham Avenue until its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause 34 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, titled, "Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route - Broadview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes - Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East (Don River and East Toronto)", which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, notice of its hearing on July22, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 30, July 7, July 14 and July 21, 1998.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following draft by-laws:

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 6(34), June 3, 1998

Intended for first presentation to Council:July 22, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

The Council of The City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

(1)by inserting in Columns 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively, of Schedule "B-3" (Pavement Narrowing) the following:

(Column 1 (Column 2(Column 3(Column 4(Column 5(Column 6

Side orDrawing

Street)Location)Width)From)To)No./Date)

Chathamsouthfrom: 8.6 mJones Avenuea point421F-5211

Avenueto: 6.6 m -15 metresdated

8.6 meastMay 1998

Strathconasouthfrom: 7.4 mPape Avenuea point421F-5211

Avenueto: 5.4 m -15 metresdated

7.4 meastMay 1998

Strathconanorthfrom: 7.3 mPape Avenuea point421F-5211

Avenueto: 5.3 m -20 metresdated

7.3 mwestMay 1998

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

--------

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. 6(34), June 3, 1998

Intended for first presentation to Council:July 22, 1998

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To amend former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 194, Footpaths, Bicycle Lanes and Pedestrian Ways, to designate Jones Avenue, both sides, between Danforth Avenue and Queen Street East, and Strathcona Avenue, north side, from Pape Avenue to Carlaw Avenue, and south side, from Pape Avenue to Blake Street, as bicycle lanes.

WHEREAS City Council at its meeting of June 3, 1998, adopted Clause 34 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, approving the by-law amendments required to implement the bicycle lanes on Jones Avenue, both sides, from Danforth Avenue and Queen Street East and Strathcona Avenue, north side, from Pape Avenue to Carlaw Avenue, and south side, from Pape Avenue to Blake Street;

AND WHEREAS notice of a proposed by-law regarding the designation of the bicycle lanes was advertised in a daily newspaper on June 30, July 7, 18 and 21, 1998 and interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard at the public meeting on July 22, 1998; and

AND WHEREAS City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 1998, adopted Clause of Toronto Community Council Report No. , approving the by-law amendments required to implement the bicycle lanes;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Chapter 194, Footpaths, Bicycle Lanes and Pedestrian Ways of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code is amended by adding in alphabetical order to the list of lanes in � 194-6A the following:

(In Column 1)	(In Column 2)	(In Column 3)
Jones Avenue	Both, adjacent to the curb lane used for parking	Danforth Avenue and Queen Street East
Strathcona Avenue	North, adjacent to the curb (westbound only)	Pape Avenue and Carlaw Avenue
Strathcona Avenue	South, adjacent to the curb lane used for parking (eastbound only)	Pape Avenue and Blake Street

ENACTED and PASSED this ______ day of ______________, A.D. 1998.

MEL LASTMAN,NOVINA WONG,

MayorCity Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the report (July 20, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on refinements to the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes Proposal, which was approved by Toronto City Council at its meeting of June 3, 1998. The revisions are based on the results of public consultation and further development of the proposed plan.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The minor refinements to this proposal will not result in any changes to the overall cost of the project as set out in the Works and Emergency Services report of May 19, 1998.

Recommendations:

1.That the draft by-law to authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Chatham Avenue east of Jones Avenue, Strathcona Avenue east of Pape Avenue and Strathcona Avenue west of Pape Avenue be amended to incorporate the design refinements described in the text of this report and generally as illustrated in the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5232, dated July 1998, as follows:

- delete Section (1) and replace with the following:

(Column 1

Street)

(Columns 2

Side or Location)

(Columns 3

Width)

(Column 4

From)

(Column 5

To)

(Columns 6

Drawing No./Date)

Strathcona Avenue

south

from: 7.4 m

to: 5.4 m - 7.4 m

Pape Avenue

a point 9 metres east

421F-5232, July 1998

and the draft by-law, as amended, be enacted;

2.That the traffic and parking regulation amendments identified in Appendix B contained in Clause 34 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, adopted by Council at its meeting of June 3, 1998, be rescinded, and replaced by the amendments identified in Appendix A attached hereto, and the regulations as amended be approved; and

3.That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

Toronto City Council, at its meeting of June 3, 1998, in adopting Clause 34 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 6, authorized the statutory advertising of by-laws necessary to implement the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route (including contra-flow bicycle lanes on Strathcona Avenue between Carlaw Avenue and Jones Avenue), and bicycle lanes on both sides of Jones Avenue between Danforth Avenue and Queen Street East. Toronto Community Council will be hearing deputations and considering this proposal at its July 22, 1998 meeting. A number of meetings have been conducted in the community, and certain refinements to the proposal have emerged and are discussed in this report.

Comments:

1. Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

During the months of May, June and July 1998, a total of four public meetings were held with the Ward Councillors and residents of Strathcona Avenue between Carlaw Avenue and Jones Avenue, and Ward Councillors and residents of Chatham Avenue between Jones Avenue and Greenwood Avenue. A number of elements of the plan have been changed based on the views expressed by residents at these meetings.

a) Strathcona Avenue between Carlaw and Pape Avenues - The original plan called for the rescindment of the current one-way eastbound operation in order that both east and west bound bicycle operations could be accommodated. As well, the alternate side parking would be replaced by parking only on the south side and a traffic island was to be installed at Pape Avenue to deter motor vehicle entry to Strathcona Avenue as a means of simulating the current operation.

Residents at the meetings expressed concern about rescinding the one-way operation. As a result, rather than changing this operation, staff developed an alternative using a contra-flow (westbound) bicycle lane which would be placed adjacent to the north curb. Parking is still proposed to be located continuously on the south side. The road narrowing on the north side of Strathcona Avenue, west of Carlaw Avenue is no longer necessary and has been deleted from the plan. On the basis of these changes, residents at the meetings were generally satisfied with the proposal as modified.

b) Strathcona Avenue between Pape Avenue and Blake Street - The original plan called for the rescindment of the current one-way westbound operation on this block in order that eastbound as well as westbound bicycle operation could be accommodated. Parking was to be shifted from the south side to the north side. Again, as a result of similar concerns, the plan has been changed to provide a contra-flow (westbound) bicycle lane adjacent to the parking which will remain on the south side in lieu of rescinding the current one-way operation. The proposed traffic island on the south side of Strathcona Avenue is recommended to be located 6 m closer to Pape Avenue in order to maintain the current parking supply.

c) Chatham Avenue between Jones Avenue and Byron Avenue - Residents at a public meeting called to consider the element of the plan involving the rescindment of the current one-way operation on Chatham Avenue from Jones and Byron Avenues and associated roadway narrowing on the south side, east of Jones, in order to deter motor vehicle entry and simulate the one-way conditions, expressed a great deal of opposition to the proposal. An alternative using a contra-flow (eastbound) bicycle lane was prepared by staff, similar to the Strathcona solution, but was also rejected. Accordingly, the Chatham Avenue section of the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route should be deferred.

Cyclists will be permitted only in the westbound direction between Jones Avenue and Byron Avenue Legally, eastbound cyclists will be required to dismount and walk on Chatham Avenue or use Danforth Avenue or an alternative street (which is the current situation). If consensus can be achieved or monitoring of the Strathcona Avenue operation reveals no difficulties, as anticipated, this issue may be brought back for further consideration since it does create a notable gap in the overall plan.

Recommendation Nos. 1 and 2 above provide for the changes to the Strathcona Avenue portions of the plan discussed in the foregoing, as well as the elimination of the Chatham Avenue portion.

2. Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

Since the approval by Council of the plan to install bicycle lanes on both sides of Jones Avenue between Danforth Avenue and Queen Street East, detailed assessments of the impacts on parking have been completed as summarized below:

a) Between Danforth Avenue and Myrtle Avenue there are approximately 48 parking spaces and 102 permits have been issued (deficit of 54 spaces). The addition of bicycle lanes will create approximately 78 parking spaces, thus providing convenient parking for the 54 permit holders who currently cannot find spaces on this section of the street; and

b) Between Myrtle and Queen Street there are approximately 141 spaces and 132 permits have been issued. The addition of bicycle lanes on Jones Avenue will have no significant impact on parking between Myrtle Avenue and Queen Street.

With regard to traffic operations, an analysis of the impact of introducing bicycle lanes at the four signalized intersections on Jones Avenue (Danforth Avenue, Gerrard Street East, Dundas Street East and Queen Street East) has been completed. No significant impact on traffic operations is anticipated at these locations.

To date, no community meetings have been held with interested parties abutting Jones Avenue. Although the statutory advertising has been completed, should Councillors wish to conduct further consultation, this is not precluded.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nigel Tahair, 392-771

Transportation Management Section

_______

APPENDIX A

Parking Regulation Amendments Required to Implement the

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

1.Delete the following:

�400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Greenwood Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and Mountjoy Avenue	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Sat., Sun. and public holidays
Jones Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and Myrtle Avenue	Anytime
Jones Avenue	East	Gerrard Street East and Endean Avenue	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	Anytime, from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive

2.Add the following:

�400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Greenwood Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and a point 50 m south of it	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Sat., Sun. and public holidays
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	Anytime

3.Add the following:

�400-77 - Schedule XXIV - No Stopping

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Jones Avenue	East	A point 30.5 metres south of Danforth Avenue and Chatham Avenue	Anytime
Jones Avenue	East	Boultbee Avenue and Myrtle Avenue	Anytime
Jones Avenue	West	Boultbee Avenue and a point 148 metres south thereof	Anytime

4.Delete the following:

�400-79 - Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking

Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Strathcona Avenue	Even	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	20	All times, except no parking 16^th day to the last day of each month, inclusive, from Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive; and no parking anytime from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	20	All times, except no parking first day to the 15^th day of each month, inclusive, from Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive

5.Add the following:

�400-79 - Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking

Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Jones Avenue	Odd	From Endean Avenue to Chatham Avenue	82	All times
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	25	All times

6.Delete the following:

�400-81 - Schedule XXVIII - Alternate Side Parking

Highway	Side	Between	Parking Restrictions	Hours/Days
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	No parking; from Apr. 1 to Dec. 1	16^th day to the last day of each month, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	South	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	No parking; from Apr. 1 to Dec. 1	First day to the 15^th day of each month, inclusive

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Strathcona

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 34 of its Report No. 6, headed "Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route - Broadview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes - Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East (Don River and East Toronto):

________

(City Council on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the bicycle route identified in Drawing No. 421F-5211 entitled "Proposed Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes", May 1998, attached to the report (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services be approved in principle;

(2)approval in principle be given to narrow the pavement in order to facilitate the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route, at the locations described as follows:

(a) The narrowing of the pavement on the south side of Chatham Avenue from a width of 8.6 metres to a width ranging from 6.6 metres to 8.6 metres, from Jones Avenue to a point 15 metres east thereof;

(b) The narrowing of the pavement on the south side of Strathcona Avenue from a width of 7.4 metres to a width ranging from 5.4 metres to 7.4 metres, from Pape Avenue to a point 15 metres east thereof; and

(c) The narrowing of the pavement on the north side of Strathcona Avenue from a width of 7.3 metres to a width ranging from 5.3 metres to 7.3 metres, from Pape Avenue to a point 20 metres west thereof.

(3)bicycle lanes be approved in principle on both sides of Jones Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East as detailed in Appendix A attached to the report (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services;

(4)in conjunction with the implementation of the bicycle route, roadway alterations and bicycle lanes identified in Recommendation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, the traffic and parking regulations detailed in Appendix B attached to the report (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services be approved in principle;

(5)bicycle lanes be approved in principle on Strathcona Avenue as follows:

(a)from Pape Avenue to Carlaw Avenue on the north side for westbound cyclists; and

(b)from Pape Avenue to Blake Street on the south side adjacent to the parking lane for eastbound cyclists.

(5)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (May 19, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To initiate the process of establishing an on-street bicycle route parallel to Danforth Avenue from Broadview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue, and establishing bicycle lanes on Jones Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the proposed work in the estimated amount of $70,000 are available under Capital Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That the bicycle route identified in Drawing No. 421F-5211 entitled "Proposed Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes", May 1998 be approved;

(2)That approval be given to narrow the pavement in order to facilitate the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route, at the locations described as follows:

(a) The narrowing of the pavement on the south side of Chatham Avenue from a width of 8.6 metres to a width ranging from 6.6 metres to 8.6 metres, from Jones Avenue to a point 15 metres east thereof;

(3)That bicycle lanes be approved on both sides of Jones Avenue from Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East as detailed in Appendix A attached hereto;

(4)That, in conjunction with the implementation of the bicycle route, roadway alterations and bicycle lanes identified in Recommendation Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively, the traffic and parking regulations detailed in Appendix B attached hereto be approved; and

(5)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

The Toronto City Cycling Committee released a report in late 1993 entitled "Proposed New Bicycle Lanes and Routes - Various Locations". This document set out a rough master plan for establishing a network of on-street lanes and routes for bicycles. The former Toronto City Services Committee directed staff to report on the feasibility and implementation of these facilities. Over the past few years, staff have incrementally reported on and implemented the identified on-street bicycle facilities to the stage where there are now over 50 km of bicycle lanes in place. One of the remaining facilities which Works was requested to assess and report on is the Danforth By-Pass Bicycle Route between Broadview Avenue and Woodbine Avenue. This project was specifically identified in a report entitled "Enhancing Bicycle Safety" which was adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its February24, 1997 meeting.

A bicycle route is a recommended route for cyclists on streets, and is identified by circular blue and white bicycle route signs. Bicycle lanes, by way of comparison, are exclusive on-street traffic lanes to be used by bicycles only. They are identified by white edge lines, diamonds and bicycle logo symbols on the pavement, and regulatory (black and white) bicycle lane signs. Motor vehicles are not allowed to drive or park in bicycle lanes, whereas a bicycle route is not exclusive to cyclists.

Comments:

(1) Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route - Broadview Avenue to Woodbine Avenue

Existing Conditions

Danforth Avenue is the busiest cycling street east of the Don Valley. Many cyclists, however, do not feel safe cycling on Danforth Avenue. Recent pavement marking changes have improved general traffic operations and cycling safety on Danforth Avenue between Broadview Avenue and Pape Avenue, but the intense traffic and parking activities on the street remain a deterrent for many cyclists. The east-west residential streets, generally to the south of Danforth Avenue, provide a good alternative for these cyclists. In addition, there are numerous schools and public parks in this area which attract young cyclists and families who could benefit from the by-pass route.

As the attached drawing entitled "Proposed Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes", May 1998 shows, it is possible for cyclists to by-pass Danforth Avenue and travel between Broadview Avenue and Woodbine Avenue. Although many cyclists already choose this option, eastbound cyclists do so illegally, as there are no connecting streets between Jones Avenue and Pape Avenue which permit eastbound traffic. In addition, the westbound route is somewhat indirect if cyclists abide by the existing one-way regulations.

Many of the one-way regulations on streets in this neighbourhood were originally introduced to reduce the amount of motor vehicle traffic. Unfortunately, these regulations also affect cyclists, although cyclists are not the concern of most residents.

Proposal Details

The Danforth By-Pass is designed to maintain the restrictions to motorised traffic while allowing cyclists to legally and safely use the neighbourhood streets. In order to accomplish this, the following one-way regulations would be rescinded:

(1) Strathcona Avenue between Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue (one-way eastbound);

(2) Strathcona Avenue between Pape Avenue and Blake Street (one-way westbound); and

(3)Chatham Avenue between Jones Avenue and Byron Avenue (one-way westbound).

In conjunction with the rescindment of the one-way restrictions, entry onto these streets would be prohibited at one end to simulate the current operating conditions. For example, entry onto Strathcona Avenue at Pape Avenue would be prohibited at all times and from all directions, except for bicycles. This has two advantages. Cyclists would legally be able to enter the street from both directions and in addition residents and others who are parked on the street or in the rear lane-ways would be able to travel in either direction and exit the street at either end. The potential for motorised through traffic would still be avoided by means of the entry prohibitions.

Besides the one-way designation changes and entry prohibitions, traffic islands would also be installed at the three locations where entry is to be prohibited. The attached "enhanced" photograph entitled "Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route - Proposed Chatham Avenue/Jones Avenue Changes", March 1998, illustrates the proposed concept. The purpose of the traffic island is to physically discourage illegal entry by motor vehicles onto the street, and also to enhance the safety of bicycle, motor vehicle and pedestrian operations. This concept (in various design forms) is currently used in the United States, Europe and in a number of Canadian cities, including Edmonton, Vancouver and Ottawa, but has not yet been implemented in Toronto.

The changes will not impact the parking supply on Chatham Avenue and Jones Avenue. On Strathcona Avenue between Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue, the existing alternate side parking regulation would be rescinded and parking authorized only on the south side of the street to reflect

the predominantly eastbound flow of traffic. On Strathcona Avenue between Pape Avenue and Blake Street the parking would be changed from the south side to the north side of the street to reflect the predominantly westbound flow of traffic. There would be a reduction in the parking supply on Strathcona Avenue as follows:

STRATHCONA AVENUE	PARKING SPACES				PERMITS ISSUED (As at April 1998)
	EXISTING		PROPOSED
	North	South	North	South
Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue (Existing Alternate Side Parking)	27	27	n/a	25	17
Pape Avenue to Blake Street (Existing Parking on South Side)	n/a	37	18	14	23

Although the proposed plan would result in the loss of 2 parking spaces between Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue, and 5 spaces between Pape Avenue and Blake Street, residents and visitors would have the added benefit of being able to drive in both directions on the street. This would also benefit visitors to Earl Grey Senior Public School on the north side of Strathcona Avenue.

The intersection of Greenwood Avenue and Chatham Avenue/Mountjoy Avenue is another key location along the by-pass route. At this off-set intersection cyclists must cross Greenwood Avenue without the aid of a traffic signal or pedestrian crosswalk. It is proposed that the 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. parking prohibition on the east side of Greenwood Avenue opposite Chatham Avenue be rescinded, and a 2.4 m wide "hatched" area be implemented in the centre of the road with adjacent 3.8 m travel lanes. The proposed changes are shown in the attached Drawing No. 421F-5184, April 1998.

The hatched area would provide storage for pedestrians and left-turning bicycles, and motor vehicles. The concept is similar to changes recently implemented on Danforth Avenue between Broadview Avenue and Pape Avenue. This option would increase the parking supply by allowing parking on the east side of Greenwood Avenue during the evening peak period.

In addition to the changes discussed above, other modifications along the by-pass route are also being investigated. A review is underway to assess the feasibility of modifying existing vehicle sensors at traffic signals so that they also detect (and respond to) bicycles at the following locations:

(a) northbound and southbound on Monarch Park Avenue at Danforth Avenue;

(b)eastbound and westbound on Hanson Street at Coxwell Avenue;

(d)northbound on East Lynn Avenue and southbound on Woodmount Avenue at Danforth Avenue.

The implementation of the Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route can be done independently of the Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes.

2.Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes - Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East

The 1993 report by the Toronto City Cycling Committee also recommended the implementation of bicycle lanes on both sides of Jones Avenue between Danforth Avenue and the CN Railway Overpass. Based on the current operating conditions on Jones Avenue, this investigation of bicycle lanes has been extended south from the railway overpass to Queen Street East.

Existing Conditions

Jones Avenue is 14 m wide with one travel lane in each direction and parking on both sides, except for the east side from Gerrard Street East to Danforth Avenue where parking is prohibited at all times. The permit parking program is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. The traffic volume on Jones Avenue is approximately 10,000 vehicles per day, which is well below the level on other streets which have successfully been converted to bicycle lanes. The No. 83 Jones TTC bus route also runs along Jones Avenue in both directions.

Proposal Details

The attached drawing entitled "Jones Avenue Bicycle Lane Proposal - Danforth Avenue to Queen Street East - Typical Cross-Section Before and After the Bicycle Lanes", April 1998 illustrates the proposed plan. Based on the existing conditions on Jones Avenue, the implementation of bicycle lanes is forecast to have a minimal impact on traffic and TTC operations. The impact on on-street parking on Jones Avenue is outlined in the table below.

JONES AVENUE	PARKING SPACES
	EXISTING		PROPOSED
	East	West	East	West
Danforth Avenue to Endean Avenue (one block south of Gerrard Street East)	0	92	82	92
Endean Avenue to Queen Street East	66	49	66	49
TOTAL	66	141	148	141

3. Public Notification - Danforth By-pass and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

Under the provisions of the Municipal Act, notice of Council's intent to enact any proposed by-law(s) to designate bicycle lanes or alter roadways must be advertised at least once a week for four consecutive weeks in a newspaper having general circulation in the community. This notice is also to indicate the date and time of the meeting at which Council will consider passing the proposed by-law(s) and hearing public deputations.

In accordance with procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting of July 24 and 25, 1995 set out in the joint report (June 13, 1995) from the City Clerk and Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment (Clause 27 in City Services Committee Report No. 10 contained in Executive Committee Report No. 19), additional notification will be given to occupants of affected properties by postal walk, and non-occupant owners by mail, advising in advance of the Toronto Community Council's meeting at which deputations will be heard on these proposals, and as soon as possible in advance of the meeting at which the draft by-laws are to be considered.

4. Implementation Programme

Works staff have initiated consultations with the emergency services and the Toronto Transit Commission regarding the proposals. Detailed design work in relation to traffic signal and transit operations is continuing. Refinements arising out of the above mentioned consultations, the deputation process and the detailed design work can be reported to subsequent meetings of the Toronto Community Council as necessary.

Due to the need to co-ordinate the implementation of the bicycle route and lanes in 1998, there is some urgency to initiate the approval process. Ideally, a greater level of prior public scrutiny of the plan would have been helpful, however, this has not been possible in this instance. Public consultation can continue concurrently with the approval process, and there are several opportunities through subsequent reports to the Toronto Community Council or City Council to make refinements to the plan, if necessary.

The narrowing of the pavement on Strathcona Avenue and Chatham Avenue and reconfiguration of its intersections as set out above constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the Municipal Act. This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Conclusions:

The proposal to implement the Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes would benefit cyclists and residents, and have a minimal impact on parking and traffic operations.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nigel Tahair, Transportation Technologist,

392-7711

________

APPENDIX A

Schedule Additions to Article IV

Required to Implement the Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

Add the following:

194-6 - Lanes designated principally for the use of bicycles

Highway

Side and Location

Between

Jones Avenue

Both, adjacent to curb lane used for parking

Danforth Avenue to

Queen Street East

APPENDIX B

Parking Regulation Amendments Required to Implement the

Danforth Avenue By-pass Bicycle Route and Jones Avenue Bicycle Lanes

1.Delete the following:

�400-54 - Schedule I - One-Way Highways

Highway	Between	Time or Days	Direction
Chatham Avenue	Jones Avenue and Byron Avenue	Anytime	From east to west
Strathcona Avenue	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	Anytime	From west to east
Strathcona Avenue	Pape Avenue and Blake Street	Anytime	From east to west

2.Add the following:

�400-63 - Schedule X - Entry on Certain Highways Prohibited

Prohibited Highway	Travelled Highway	Direction	Days and Times
Chatham Avenue east of Jones Avenue	Jones Avenue	Southbound and northbound	Anytime (bicycles excepted)
Strathcona Avenue east of Pape Avenue	Pape Avenue and Strathcona Avenue	Southbound, northbound and eastbound	Anytime (bicycles excepted)
Strathcona Avenue west of Pape Avenue	Pape Avenue and Strathcona Avenue	Southbound, northbound and westbound	Anytime (bicycles excepted)

3.Delete the following:

�400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Greenwood Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and Mountjoy Avenue	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Sat., Sun. and public holidays
Jones Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and Myrtle Avenue	Anytime
Jones Avenue	East	Gerrard Street East and Endean Avenue	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	Anytime, from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	North	Pape Avenue and Jones Avenue	Anytime

4.Add the following:

�400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Greenwood Avenue	East	Danforth Avenue and a point 50 m south of it	4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., except Sat., Sun. and public holidays
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	North	Pape Avenue and a point 17 m east of it	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	North	Jones Avenue and point 75 m west of it	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	South	Pape Avenue and a point 29 m west of it	Anytime
Strathcona Avenue	South	Pape Avenue and a point 195 m east of it	Anytime

5.Add the following:

�400-77 - Schedule XXIV - No Stopping

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Jones Avenue	East	A point 30.5 metres south of Danforth Avenue and Chatham Avenue	Anytime

6.Delete the following:

�400-79 - Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking

Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Strathcona Avenue	Even	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	20	All times, except no parking 16^th day to the last day of each month, inclusive, from Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive; and no parking anytime from Dec. 1 of one year to Mar. 31 of the next following year, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	20	All times, except no parking first day to the 15^th day of each month, inclusive, form Apr. 1 to Nov. 30, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From Pape Avenue to Blake Street	39	All times

7.Add the following:

�400-79 - Schedule XXVI - Permit Parking

Part A: 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m.

Street	Side	Location	Number of Spaces	Authorized Period of Use
Jones Avenue	Odd	From Endean Avenue to Chatham Avenue	82	All times
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From Carlaw Avenue to Pape Avenue	25	All times
Strathcona Avenue	Even	From Pape Avenue to a point 190 m east of it	18	All times
Strathcona Avenue	Odd	From a point 190 m east of Pape Avenue to Blake Street	14	All times

8.Delete the following:

�400-81 - Schedule XXVIII - Alternate Side Parking

Highway	Side	Between	Parking Restrictions	Hours/Days
Strathcona Avenue	North	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	No parking; from Apr. 1 to Dec. 1	16^th day to the last day of each month, inclusive
Strathcona Avenue	South	Carlaw Avenue and Pape Avenue	No parking; from Apr. 1 to Dec. 1	First day to the 15^th day of each month, inclusive

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Danforth Avenue By-Pass Bicycle Route

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 10, 1998) from Reverend R.E. Duncan, The Church of St. Clement, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Official Plan and Rezoning Application -

50 Prince Arthur Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)Application No. 197026 for Official Plan and Zoning By Law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit Eight Townhouses Behind an Existing 19 Storey Apartment Building at 50 Prince Arthur Avenue be refused;

(2)the application to remove three trees situated at 50 Prince Arthur Avenue be refused; and

(3)the City Solicitor be instructed to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, both in support of the refusal of Application No. 197026 and the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of the application, and that subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds which will be the subject of a further report to Council, he be instructed to retain outside planning advice, if necessary.

The above recommendations were carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Fotinos, Jakobek, McConnell, Miller, Pantalone, Walker - 11

Nays:Councillors Disero, Korwin-Kuczynski, Silva - 3

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend refusal of this application in its current form, and to request the applicant to submit a revised application which responds to the planning issues and concerns outlined in this report and provides an adequately increased separation distance between the proposed new development and existing low density residential development adjacent to the westerly edge of No. 50 Prince Arthur Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That this application be refused in its current form.

(2)That the applicant be requested to revise his current application to respond to the concerns outlined in Section 6.0 of this report.

History:

On March 1, 1968, Council of the former City of Toronto passed site specific By-law 64-68 to permit the existing apartment building on the subject site.

On April 15, 1979, the City expropriated certain lands to the north of the apartment site for purposes of creating a public park, known since then as Taddle Creek Park.

Last fall, the applicant sought minor variances from the Committee of Adjustment to permit a similar development proposal to that which is the subject of this report. At the time, the Committee of Adjustment refused the application on the basis that "this proposal exemplifies a significant departure from the original concept that was developed approximately thirty years ago and that the proposed development is excessive and would have significant impact on the surrounding neighbourhood". The applicant has appealed the Committee's refusal to the Ontario Municipal Board. To date, no hearing has been scheduled. In the interim, the applicant has filed the current application for amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

On February 19, 1998, the Toronto Community Council adopted my Preliminary Report (dated February 18, 1998) and requested at the same time, that "the owner be advised of the Toronto Community Council's serious concerns respecting the setbacks of the two most westerly townhouse units to the existing Lowther Mews, and the proximity and potential effects of the overall development on Taddle Creek Park".

A public meeting was held on May 4, 1998, notes of which are attached as Appendix A. The majority of those in attendance opposed any additional development on this site.

On May 27, 1998, Toronto Community Council deferred the applicant's request to permit removal of three mature trees from the subject site to facilitate the proposed infill project, until such time as the development application has been dealt with by City Council.

Background:

1.Application

As shown on the attached Map 1, the applicant proposes to build eight, 3-storey (9.3 metre high) townhouses on what is now a landscaped open space and a private 36 space surface parking lot serving the tenants of the existing 19-storey rental apartment building on the lot . To compensate for the loss of surface parking, it is proposed that 12 below grade parking spaces be added to the existing 163 spaces in the 2-level below grade parking garage on the lot.

Features of the project are shown on Map 1 and include:

-a 6 m building setback from the northerly property line adjacent to Taddle Creek Park;

-a 5.5 m building setback from the westerly property line adjacent to the Lowther Mews;

-a 0.78 m building setback from the westerly property line adjacent to 64 Prince Arthur Avenue where currently exists a two-and-a-half storey office building; and

-vehicular access from Prince Arthur Avenue and pedestrian walkways through the site from Bedford Road as well as from Prince Arthur Avenue.

The townhouses will require removal of three mature trees. The proposal is for improved landscaping of the entire site, including new tree planting and creation of pedestrian short-cuts and visual connections through the site.

2. Public Meeting

On May 4, 1998, a public meeting was held which was attended by approximately 35 members of the public, who -with only one exception- expressed their opposition to the proposed infilling project. Major concerns centred around:

-the loss of private open space between the apartment building and Taddle Creek Park;

-the loss of all surface parking for the existing apartment building;

-the lack of street frontage or "address" for the new development:

-the proposed development's proximity to existing houses to the west as well as to Taddle Creek Park;

-the requested increase in building coverage and density; and

-the lack of perceived public benefits resulting from the proposal.

Notes of the Public Meeting are attached as Appendix A.

3.Site and Surrounding Area

The site is located in the Annex, on the north-west corner of Prince Arthur Avenue and Bedford Road and contains a 19-storey, 150 rental unit apartment building, constructed in 1968, pursuant to site-specific By-law 64-68.

To the north is Taddle Creek Park. To the west is a three storey townhouse development known as the Lowther Mews, and to the south a 2.5-storey commercial building at 64 Prince Arthur Avenue. This property has a site specific by-law which would permit a building of about 9 storeys in height. On the south side of Prince Arthur Avenue is a 12-storey condominium at 55 Prince Arthur. On the east side of the street, at 25 Bedford Road, an 8 storey rental apartment building is located.

4.Planning Controls:

4.1Official Plan:

The Annex Part II Official Plan designates the southerly portion of the site where the apartment building is located, as "Medium Density Residence Area 'A'" permitting residential development at a maximum density of 2 times the lot area. The northerly portion of the site where the new town houses are proposed, is designated "Low Density Residence Area"permitting residential development at a maximum density of 1 times.

4.2Zoning By-law:

By-law 438-86 , as amended, zones the southerly portion of the site R2Z2.0 permitting residential development at a maximum density of 2 times the lot area, whereas the northerly portion is zoned R2Z1.0 where residential density is limited to 1 times the lot area.

The site is also subject to site-specific By-law 64-68 which permits the apartment building at a density of 2.7 times the entire lot area.

4.3Site Plan Control:

This application is subject to site plan control. The applicant has applied for Site Plan Approval.

Comments

5.0Reasons for this Application:

The application requires amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law because the proposed residential density for the apartment portion of the site is 3.53 x, and 1.72 x for the townhouse portion of the lot, which exceed the densities permitted in both the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

6.0Reasons not to Approve this Application in its current form:

From a land use planning and urban design perspective, the proposed 0.78 m and 5.5 m building setbacks from the westerly lot line are insufficient The relationship of the proposed new development to the existing homes in the Lowther Mews ought to be improved. This may be achieved by providing a building setback from the westerly lot line equal to the approximately 11 metre building setback of the existing Lowther Mews. Such increased building setback would improve the distance separation between the existing and proposed development and increase the amount of sky light available to the Lowther Mews townhouses.

Contact Name:

Feodora Steppat, City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-7740; Fax: 392-1330

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

________

Appendix A

Notes of Public Meeting

Subject:50 Prince Arthur

Date of meeting:May 4, 1998

Time:7:00 - 9:00 pm

Location:Huron Street Public School

Attendance:Michael Mizzi (City Planning Department)

Mal Williams(City Planning Department)

Feodora Steppat (City Planning Department)

Leo de Sorcy (City Planning Department)

John Adams (Ward Councillor)

Ila Bossons (Ward Councillor)

representatives of the Applicant including his architect and landscape architect

approximately 35 members of the public

Michael Mizzi introduced the purpose of the meeting. Subsequently, the applicant's representatives outlined the details of the application

Generally, the development proposal was received by the audience with a great deal of scepticism and, with one exception, there was no expression of support. Numerous concerns were raised with the proposal including the loss of the existing private open space between the apartment building and Taddle Creek Park, elimination of all surface parking for the existing apartment building, the lack of street frontage or "address" for the new development, the proposed development's proximity to existing housing to the west as well as to Taddle Creek Park, the requested increase in building coverage and density, and the perceived lack of public benefit resulting from the proposal.

Loss of Private Open Space and Surface Parking Lot:

Many in the audience were concerned that the proposal would not only replace surface parking but all of the private open space, including a number of mature trees north of the apartment building. It was noted that, albeit in private ownership, this open space visually complements and forms part of the L-shaped public open space of Taddle Creek Park. It was also noted that provision of this open space was a major condition for approving the original application to permit the higher density of the apartment building. At the time, a deal was struck which should remain intact. The proposal would result in apartment residents losing almost all of their open space amenity on site. Also seen as a problem was the loss of surface parking for apartment residents, several of whom expressed a preference for surface as compared to underground parking.

Lack of Street Frontage/Address:

Concerns were raised with the location of the proposed townhouses behind the existing apartment building, thereby creating residential units without street frontage and an identifying street address. The proposed pedestrian access from Bedford Road was seen as unsafe particularly at night time.

Setbacks:

The proposed setback for the townhouse units from the adjacent residential development to the west and from Taddle Creek Park was seen as insufficient. Loss of privacy and view, as well as over-shadowing of the existing yards to the west were seen as problematic. The proximity of the townhouses to the park was seen as an encroachment on the public open space. The proposed gate allowing residents of the townhomes direct access to the park was seen as diminishing the 'publicness' of the park, turning it into the 'backyard' of the townhouses.

Density:

It was pointed out by several members in the audience that the existing 2.7x density of the apartment building already exceeds the 2x density generally permitted by the Official Plan in high density residence areas. The additional development would exacerbate this non-conformity. Furthermore, if the townhouse units were to be severed from the apartment lot, the resulting net densities for the townhouse development would be approximately 1.5x and for the apartment building approximately 3.5x compared to existing as-of-right zoning permission of 1x and 2x, respectively. Not only were the proposed net densities perceived as out of character with the prevailing densities in this area, but also feared to set a precedent encouraging similar development on private open spaces surrounding tower-in-the-park development elsewhere in the Annex.

The prevailing opinion among those in attendance was that the lot is not big enough to accommodate any additional development, and that the existing private open space amenities should remain an integral part of the development as it exists today.

Public Benefit:

Several members in the audience posed the question as to what public benefit might result from the proposal. The applicant's response was that the new homes would provide additional 'eyes on the park',which may be expected to increase safety for park users. Members in the audience doubted the need for more 'eyes on the park' pointing out that more than half the apartments in the existing structure already face and overlook the park.

Taddle Creek:

Concerns were raised respecting the water table of Taddle Creek, the underground water course traversing this area. The applicants assured those concerned that they had examined this matter and were confident that the new homes would not be affected by the Creek's water table.

_______

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197026
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	November 19, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:50 Prince Arthur Avenue.

Nearest Intersection:	Northwest corner of Prince Arthur Avenue and Bedford Road.

Project Description:	To construct 8 townhouses on the north end of the site.

Applicant:

1213763 Ontario Inc.

625 Evans Ave., Suite 100

255-3451

Agent:

Peter Prattas (Miller Thomson)

20 Queen St. W., Suite 2500

595-2655

Architect:

Strasman Architects

1 Atlantic Ave., Suite 214

588-1800

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	Medium Density Residence 'A'	Site Specific Provision:	64-68
Zoning District:	R2 Z2.0; R2 Z1.0	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	14.0; 12.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	6068.0 m²	Height:	Storeys:	3
Frontage:	89.5 m		Metres:	9.50
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:	798.3 m²	Parking Spaces:	175
Residential GFA:	2353.1 m²	Loading Docks:		1
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	2353.1 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Private	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Total Units:	8	Townhouses	2353.1 m²
		Existing apartment bldg.	16530.9 m²

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 0.40	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 0.40

Comments:

Replaces Site Plan Approval application No. 397093. Application 197026 proposes to increase the density across the whole site from 2.7 X to 3.1 X. Application eliminates 36 surface parking spaces and adds 12 parking spaces to the existing underground garage.

Status:

Application received.

Data valid:

November 19, 1997

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

Insert Table/Map No. 1

50 Prince Arthur

Insert Table/Map No. 2

50 Prince Arthur

Insert Table/Map No. 3

50 Prince Arthur

Insert Table/Map No. 4

50 Prince Arthur

Insert Table/Map No. 5

50 Prince Arthur

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communication, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(June 25, 1998) from Ms. Esther Brooks and Mr. Ivan Feldman;

-(June 16, 1998) from Ms. Cynthia J. Goodchild, Chestnut Park;

-(June 17, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Jacot;

-(undated) from Ms. Beatrice Wittstock;

-(June 16, 1998) from Ms. Mary L. Flynn-Guglietti;

-(June 29, 1998) from Ms. Janice Shantz;

-(July 8, 1998) from Ms. Barbara D. Bruce;

-(undated) from M. McGuigan;

-(June 30, 1998) from M.J. Allen;

-(July 4, 1998) from Mr. Alan Wood;

-(July 4, 1998) from Mr. Tony Dyson;

-(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Frank Cunningham;

-(undated) from Ms. Marilyn Price;

-(undated) from Ms. Marni Price;

-(July 1, 1998) from Mr. Christopher Adamson;

-(July 3, 1998) from Ms. Nancy McDonald;

-(May 11, 1998) from A.G. Cefis and I. Santilli;

-(May 9, 1998) from Martin Betz and Linda Leviska-Betzi;

-(May 14, 1998) from Ms. Barbara A. Chisholm;

-(June 3, 1998) from Ms. Gordon Stewart;

-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. Tony Dyson;

-(July 3, 1998) from Mrs. J. M. Cottier;

-(July 5, 1998) from Dr. Ross McLean and Ms. Helen McLean;

-(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Janet Lewis forwarding petition with 31 signatures in opposition;

-(July 5, 1998) from Ms. Carol J. Swallow;

-(July 9, 1998) from Ms. Pandora D. Strasler;

-(July 8, 1998) from W.N. Horce;

-(June 3, 1998) from Ms. Barbara D. Bruce;

-(July 6, 1998) from Ms. Barbara A. Chisholm;

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Beatrice Wittstock;

-(July 13, 1998) from Mr. Fred and Ms. Joy Cherry Weinberg;

-(July 11, 1998) from Mr. David Slabotsky;

-(July 2, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Atwood and Mr. Graeme Gibson;

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Anne Valeri;

-(July 14, 1998) from Mr. Roger Jackson and Ms. Ida Jackson; and

-(July 17, 1998) from Mr. James Sherman, First Church of Christ, Scientist;

-(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Mary L. Flynn-Guglietti;

-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. James Botaitis and Ms. Carol Markusoff;

-(July 14, 1998) from Mrs. Margery Allen;

-(July 14, 1998) from Ms. Sandra Bartlett;

-(July 14, 1998) from Shafik Obrai;

-(July 10, 1998) from Ms. Suzanne Niwong;

-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Liz Radzick;

-(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Richard H. Brady;

-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Norman Crockan;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Joe Lewis and Ms. Janet Lewis;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. John McManus;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Harald Bohne and Ms. Jean Bohne;

-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Fanny Patterson;

-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Paul Martel;

-(July 21, 1998) from Luz Ruiz and Amarna Moscote;

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Belinda Morris;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Eric Jackson; and

-(July 21, 1998) from N.N. Dainard and J.A. Dainard.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Ivan Fleischmann, Miller Thomson, Barristers & Solicitors, on behalf of the Applicant;

-Mr. John Kerr, on behalf of the Annex Residents' Association;

-Ms. Mary Flynn-Guglietti, Goodman and Carr;

-Mr. Bill Hewick, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Paul Martel, Paul Martel Architect;

-Mr. Mark McQueen, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Barbara A. Chisholm, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Eric Jackson, Elgin Lowther Association; and

-Ms. Nancy Jenter, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition to the proposed redevelopment of 50 Prince Arthur Avenue - Taddle Creek Park:

(i)(July 22, 1998) from Mr. Hamish Buchanan;

(ii)(July 22, 1998) from Ms. N. Pritchard;

(iii)(July 22, 1998) from Mr. Al Yolles;

(iv)(July 22, 1998) from Ms. Ramona Rea;

(v)(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Belinda Morris, and suggesting that a viable resolution to the current dispute between the City, the public and the developers would be to extend the park physically for the benefit of the public while compensating the owners for their land, or the use of it;

(vi)(July 20, 1998) from Hugh and Ann MacKay; and

(vii)(undated) from Taivi Lobu)

South Eglinton Area (East) Traffic Calming Project (Phase 1) -

Poll Results (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998 on traffic calming, the various elements of traffic calming, and the experience so far, such report to provide options for the consideration of the Toronto Community Council and City Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report the results of a poll of residents and business owners and operators in the South Eglinton Area (East) bounded by Mount Pleasant Road, Eglinton Avenue East, Bayview Avenue and the Mount Pleasant Cemetery concerning the existing traffic calming measures in this area and recommend a course of action reflecting the poll results.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the costs of removing traffic calming islands and reinstating the prior traffic and parking conditions in this area, in the estimated amount of $100,000, can be accommodated under Capital Fund Code No. 296702 for traffic calming.

Recommendations:

1.That in order to authorize the removal of the traffic islands in the South Eglinton Area (East) illustrated schematically in the attached Drawing No. 421F-4556, revised January 9, 1997, and restore the roads to their pre-existing conditions, as reflected in the results of the poll of area residents, the following should be approved:

a)By-law No. 1996-0141 authorizing the narrowing of sections of streets in the area bounded by Eglinton Avenue East, Bayview Avenue, Mount Pleasant Cemetery and Mount Pleasant Road be rescinded;

b) The parking regulation changes implemented in conjunction with the traffic calming plan be rescinded to reinstate the prior parking conditions, as indicated in

Appendix C of this report;

2. That in light of the mandate from a majority of poll respondents in the South Eglinton Area (East) to pursue the development of alternative traffic management measures, Works and Emergency Services staff be authorized to provide technical assistance to the Ward Councillors and/or residents' traffic committee(s) that express an interest in developing such plans; and

3.That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of February 18, 1998, in considering a Works report (February 10, 1998) outlining the results of initial technical monitoring of the first phase of the South Eglinton Area (East) Traffic Calming Project, referred the matter to the North Toronto Ward Councillors to enable them to obtain public input and feedback.

Based on the results of two public meetings convened in the community in late March/early April by Councillors Anne Johnston and Michael Walker, and discussed in a subsequent Works status report (April 22, 1996), City Council at its meeting of May 13, 1998 authorized City staff to conduct a poll of residents in the South Eglinton Area (East) to determine whether the community wished to retain and improve the existing traffic calming measures, remove them or pursue other forms of traffic management.

Comments:

As authorized by Council, a ballot was conducted for adult area residents and business owners and operators. Individually-addressed ballots were sent out by mail commencing June 10, 1998. The poll closed on June 30, 1998. Each ballot was accompanied by a postage-paid reply envelope and a two-page background sheet. The ballot for residents and background sheet are attached as Appendix A of this report.

The response rate was 37%. The overall results were as follows:

Option Number	Description	Ballots in Support Number(Precent)
1.	Remove all traffic islands AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE and restore roads to their previous configuration, with no traffic calming measures of any kind.	1040(41%)
2.	Modify traffic islands, make improvements to their appearance, and develop and install ADDITIONAL traffic management measures. (This may involve removal of some islands.)	713(28%)
3.	Remove all traffic islands AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE, restore roads to their previous configuration, and then develop plans for other forms of traffic management.	800(31%)
	TOTAL	2553
	Total ballots distributed	7058

In addition, 53 ballots were spoiled (no option selected, multiple options) and not included in the above results. A detailed breakdown of the results by street is contained in Appendix B.

Overall, there was a clear majority (72%) of respondents in favour of removal of the traffic islands as soon as practicable (Options 1 and 3 combined). This was also the result for each individual street, although the level of support varied from 55% (Merton Street) to 100% (on Harwood Road, a small street with no traffic islands). Based on this result, it is apparent that the removal of the traffic islands as soon as practicable throughout the area is the appropriate course of action.

The first phase of the South Eglinton Area (East) traffic calming plan, as it currently exists in the field is illustrated schematically in the attached Drawing No. 421F-4556, revised January 9, 1997. In all, 85 traffic islands are installed to narrow roadways and intersections at 41 locations. In the event that Recommendation No. 1 above is adopted, Works would undertake the removal of the islands and reinstatement of the pre-existing parking regulations as soon as possible. Appendix C attached to this report sets out the corresponding parking regulation amendments needed to restore the previous parking arrangements. In addition, 15 m to corner parking prohibition signs were installed at the intersections listed in Appendix D to ensure adequate turn manoeuvring space in the vicinity of certain islands. With the removal of the islands the signs will also be taken out, leaving the statutory 9 m to corner parking prohibition in effect.

The removal of the traffic islands would constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to the Municipal Act. Given the extensive polling that has just taken place of all adult residents and business operators, not to mention the previous public meetings and ongoing dialogue in this community, and that the proposal represents a continuation of the on-going process for traffic management in this area, there would not appear to be a requirement to re-advertise.

Although there is a clear result to remove the existing traffic islands, a majority of respondents (59%) also expressed support for the development of additional or other forms of traffic management (Options 2 and 3 combined). As was pointed out on the ballots, the process of developing and installing new traffic management measures as envisaged by Options 2 or 3 would involve residents, staff and the Ward Councillors. Public meetings and further polling in the neighbourhood once a proposal is advanced could be expected.

It is evident from the poll results that interest in pursuing other traffic management alternatives is stronger on some streets, such as Merton Street (74%) than others. Residents on these streets may wish to initiate a review of options within a shorter time frame. It is also important to note that the option of speed humps is available now which was not authorized at the time the South Eglinton plan was developed. A review of the primary criteria as set out in the Council-approved policy indicates that many of the area streets would qualify for consideration of this measure. The policy also establishes a formal polling procedure to determine whether residents would support the installation of speed humps.

Given the poll results that indicate residents support the development of alternate traffic management measures, it is appropriate to authorize staff to assist residents who wish to pursue such plans as indicated in Recommendation No. 2 above. These alternatives may continue to emerge on an area-wide basis or can be considered on individual streets if the impacts would not be overly detrimental on other streets.

Conclusions:

The results of a poll of residents and business owners and operators in the South Eglinton Area (East), bounded by Eglinton Avenue East, Bayview Avenue, Mount Pleasant Cemetery and Mount Pleasant Road, indicate that 72% of respondents favour removal of the existing traffic islands in the neighbourhood. It is therefore recommended that authority be granted to remove these measures as soon as practicable.

On the other hand, 59% of respondents indicate that they support the development of alternative traffic management measures. In view of this mandate, it is also recommended that staff be authorized to assist the Ward Councillors or residents' traffic committee(s) who express interest in pursuing such plans.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Andrew Macbeth

Manager, Transportation Management Branch

392-1799

________

Insert Table/Map No. 1

South Eglinton

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix B

Appendix C -Parking Regulation Amendments Required to Rescind South Eglinton Area (East) Traffic Calming Plan

1.Delete the following

400-77 - Schedule XXIV - No Stopping

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times
Merton Street	South	Bayview Avenue and a point 27 metres further west	Anytime

2.Add the following

400-77 - Schedule XXIV - No Stopping

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times
Merton Street	South	Bayview Avenue and a point 40 metres further west	Anytime

3.Delete the following:

400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Cleveland Street	west	Manor Road East and a point 20 m north	Anytime
Cleveland Street	west	Hillsdale Avenue East and a point 20 m south	Anytime
Cleveland Street	west	Belsize Drive and a point 21 m south	Anytime
Cleveland Street	west	Manor Road East and a point 21 m south	Anytime
Cleveland Street	west	Belsize Drive and a point 19 m north	Anytime
Davisville Avenue	south	A point 146 m east of Mt. Pleasant Road and a point 58 m east	Anytime
Davisville Avenue	south	Bayview Avenue and a point 35 m west	Anytime
Davisville Avenue	south	Mt. Pleasant Road and a point 40 m east	Anytime
Davisville Avenue	south	A point 86 m west of Belle Ayre Boulevard and a point 61 m west	Anytime
Forman Avenue	west	Soudan Avenue and a point 23 m north	Anytime
Forman Avenue	west	Belsize Drive and a point 22 m south	Anytime
Forman Avenue	east	Millwood Road and a point 23 m north	Anytime
Forman Avenue	east	Belsize Drive and a point 24 m north	Anytime
Merton Street	south	A point 356 m east of Mt. Peasant Road and a point 6 m east	Anytime
Merton Street	south	A point 278 m east of Mt. Pleasant Road and a point 8 m east	Anytime
Merton Street	south	A point 86 m west of Cleveland Street and a point 78 m west	Anytime
Merton Street	south	Cleveland Street and a point 20 m west	Anytime
Merton Street	south	A point 310 m east of Mt. Pleasant Road and a point 11 m east	9:30 a.m.- 11:00 a.m. Monday-Friday
Millwood Avenue	north	Forman Avenue and a point 27 m east	Anytime
Taunton Road	west	A point 45 m south of Eglinton Avenue East and a point 9 m south	Anytime

4.Add the following:

400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway

Side

Between

Prohibited

Times or Days

Davisville Avenue

south

a point 146 m east of Mt. Pleasant Road and a point 58 m east

8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Monday - Friday

Merton Street

south

a point 107 m west of Cleveland Street and a point 22 m west

Anytime

Appendix D -Statutory 15 m Corner Parking Prohibition Signage To Be Removed

Location No.	Street	Side	From	To	Spaces Gained
11	Forman Avenue	west	Soudan Avenue	15 m north	1
11	Forman Avenue	west	Soudan Avenue	15 m south	1
11	Soudan Avenue	north	Forman Avenue	15 m west	1
14	Hillsdale Avenue East	south	Mt. Pleasant Road	15 m east	0
15	Hillsdale Avenue East	south	Forman Avenue	15 m west	1
15	Forman Avenue	west	Hillsdale Avenue East	15 m north	1
16	Hillsdale Avenue East	north	Cleveland Street	15 m east	1
17	Hillsdale Avenue East	north	Bayview Avenue	15 m west	0
20	Cleveland Street	west	Manor Road East	15 m south	1
24	Cleveland Street	west	Belsize Drive	15 m north	1
24	Cleveland Street	west	Belsize Drive	15 m South	1
26	Millwood Road	north	Mt. Pleasant Road	15 m east	0
27	Forman Avenue	west	Millwood Road	15 m south	1
33	Forman Avenue	west	Davisville Avenue	15 m north	1
	Forman Avenue	west	Davisville Avenue	15 m south	1
34	Cleveland Street	east	Davisville Avenue	15 m south	1
36	Balliol Street	north	Bayview Avenue	15 m west	0
40	Cleveland Street	east	Merton Street	15 m north	1

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 22, 1998) from the Chair, South East Residents and Ratepayers Association Traffic Committee, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(A copy of Appendix A, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 28, 1998) from Mr. John Lightfoot, submitting comments in opposition to the traffic calming devices in South Eglinton.)

Spadina Road between St. Clair Avenue West and

Montclair Avenue - Design Refinements to the

Approved Roadway Narrowing Plan (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the findings of a trial road narrowing plan on Spadina Road between St. Clair Avenue West and Montclair Avenue which was implemented by means of parking arrangements, and resulting minor refinements to the approved roadway narrowing plan to be built in conjunction with planned road reconstruction this year.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The minor refinements to the roadway narrowing plan for Spadina Road will not result in any changes to the overall cost of the approved work.

Recommendations:

1. That the draft by-law approved by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997 to authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Spadina Road between St. Clair Avenue West and Montclair Avenue be amended to incorporate the design refinements described in the text of this report and illustrated in the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5233, dated July 1998, as follows:

- delete the entry in Section (1) under Column 6 and replace with the following:

(Column 1(Columns 2(Columns 3(Column 4(Columns 5(Columns 6

Street) Side of Width) From) To) Drawing

Location) No./Date)

Spadina Road11 m-8 mSt. ClairMontclair421F-5233

AvenueAvenueJuly, 1998

West

and the draft by-law, as amended, be enacted.

2. That in order to remove one parking meter on the west side of Spadina Road between Heath Street West and Bantry Avenue and install two parking meters on the west side of Spadina Road between Lonsdale Road and Strathern Boulevard, the parking regulation changes outlined in Appendix A attached hereto be approved; and

3. That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the following, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Background:

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997 authorized the enactment of a by-law to narrow Spadina Road between St. Clair Avenue West and Montclair Avenue, from a current width of 11 m to a width varying from 8 m to 11 m. The work was to be carried out in conjunction with a planned reconstruction project under the annual Capital Programme. Council also directed, among other things, that implementation of the work would be subject to a report back on the results of a trial narrowing to assess the impact on traffic operations in the Spring of 1998, which was accomplished by means of allowing parking at all times at specified locations and providing left turn lanes at key intersections. (Clause 23 in City Services Committee Report No. 11).

Comments:

The approved roadway narrowing on Spadina Road from St. Clair Avenue West to Montclair Avenue was based on reducing the current width of 11 m to a new width, generally, of 8 m, which would provide one travel lane in each direction. Left turn lanes would be provided at the intersections of Heath Street West and St. Clair Avenue West. The reduced roadway width would not decrease the current traffic volume capacity. The plan would result in the elimination of 6 parking spaces on the west side of Spadina Road south of Heath Street West and one metered parking space north of Heath Street West. However, peak period restrictions would be rescinded on four metered spaces south of Montclair Avenue and two new spaces were proposed for the Village. A key component of the plan was the introduction of 1.5 m wide boulevard areas on both sides that could accommodate the planting of grass or trees.

As a result of concerns expressed largely by area businesses related to potential traffic congestion and parking, Council directed that a trial narrowing be conducted and monitored. On May 25, 1998 the peak hour parking restrictions on the west side of Spadina Road between St. Clair Avenue West and Montclair Avenue were rescinded, and northbound and southbound left-turn lanes on Spadina Road at Heath Street were implemented. These changes constituted the trial measures approved by the former Toronto City Council at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997.

Traffic volumes on Spadina Road were recorded after the implementation of the trial measures for a period of one week beginning on June 22, 1998. The volumes were compared with previous data collected on Spadina Road, and the results are summarized in the table below:

24-HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES ON

SPADINA ROAD

LOCATION	DATE	PRIOR TO THE TRIAL PLAN	DATE	DURING THE TRIAL PLAN
St. Clair to Heath	October 1996	16,300	June 1998	15,900
St. Clair to Heath	February 1997	15,700	June 1998	15,900
Heath to Montclair	October 1996	17,900	June 1998	17,550

Factoring in the variation that can be expected in traffic flows, we can conclude that there has been no significant change in the traffic volumes as a result of rescinding the peak period parking restrictions (which in effect produce a trial road narrowing) and implementing the left-turn lanes at Heath Street West.

The results of the trial roadway narrowing were considered at a meeting held in June 1998 between representatives of Spadina Road residents, members of the Forest Hill Village BIA, representatives of the Ward Councillors' offices, an independent traffic consultant, and City staff. Based on the trial and assessment, certain design refinements to the approved plan were advanced. The amended plan is shown in the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5233, dated July 1998. The refinements include the following:

-maintaining parking on the west side of Spadina Road between St. Clair Avenue and Heath Street;

-narrowing the width of Spadina Road to 8 m by extending the curb on the west side, for a distance approximately 45 m south of Heath Street and approximately 55 m north of St. Clair Avenue;

-extending the length of the southbound left-turn lane at St. Clair Avenue; and

-staggering the northbound left-turn lane at Heath Street West to facilitate westbound to southbound left-turning traffic.

It was further agreed that in lieu of the removal of the parking meter on the west side of Spadina Road between Heath Street West and Bantry Avenue, two parking meters would be added on the west side of Spadina Road between Lonsdale Road and Strathern Boulevard, as shown in the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5176, dated March 20, 1998. The parking regulation changes required to implement the new parking meters are outlined in Appendix A.

Given that the proposed design refinements to the approved road narrowing plan for Spadina Road will serve the same purpose, within the same limits as the original, I am of the view that this represents a technical amendment which does not alter the intent or fundamental function of the plan, and accordingly should not require readvertising of the by-law.

Conclusions:

The traffic counts conducted after the implementation of the trial parking and traffic operation changes on Spadina Road between St. Clair Avenue West and Montclair Avenue indicate that there is no significant change in the daily traffic volumes. Consequently, it is recommended that the planned reconstruction of Spadina Road incorporate the proposed narrowing with the minor design refinements documented in this report. The planned reconstruction is anticipated to begin by late August or early September 1998.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nigel Tahair, 392-7711

Transportation Management Branch

________

Appendix A

Parking Regulation Amendments Required to Remove One Parking Meter

on Spadina Road Between Heath Street and Bantry Avenue and Add Two New Meters

on Spadina Road Between Lonsdale Road and Strathern Boulevard

1.Delete the following:

�400-83 - Schedule XXX: Parking Meters

Highway	Side	Between	Hours	Fee; Time Limit	Maximum Parking Period
Spadina Road	West	Heath Street West and Montclair Avenue	9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Mon. to Fri.; 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; Mon. to Sat.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	60 mins
Spadina Road	West	A point 85.9 metres north of Lonsdale Road and a point 35 metres further north	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mon. to Sat.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	60 mins
Spadina Road	West	Montclair Avenue and a point 131.3 metres north of Lonsdale Road	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mon. to Sat.	$0.05 for 6 mins. $0.10 for 12 mins. $0.25 for 30 mins.	60 mins

2.Add the following:

�400-83 - Schedule XXX: Parking Meters

Highway

Side

Between

Hours

Fee; Time Limit

Maximum Parking Period

Spadina Road

West

Bantry Avenue and a point 41 metres south of Strathern Boulevard

8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mon. to Sat.

$0.05 for 6 mins.

$0.10 for 12 mins.

$0.25 for 30 mins.

60 mins

3.Delete the following:

�400-77 - Schedule XXIV: No Stopping

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times
Spadina Road	West	Montclair Avenue and Eglinton Avenue West	7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., except Sat., Sun. and Public Holidays

4.Add the following:

�400-77 - Schedule XXIV: No Stopping

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times
Spadina Road	West	Heath Street West and Bantry Avenue	Anytime

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Spadina Road

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Spadina Road

Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays -

Spadina Avenue Between Queen Street West and

Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, Between

Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated July 27, 1998, from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be adopted, wherein it is recommended that:

(1)should a further 'Summons' for excessive marketing be issued to the licence holder of 70 Huron Street, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report to the Toronto Community Council on the possible cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence and the applicant be given the opportunity to be heard by the Committee; and

(2)after the hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council recommend to City Council the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services be amended by deleting:

(a)Licence No. M-1912 (264 Spadina Avenue) from Appendix A;

(b)Licence No. M-1138 (437 Dundas Street West) from Appendix B; and

that the report, as amended, be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to examine the possible reduction of boulevard marketing at 70 Huron Street and to report directly to Council if reduction is necessary.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on licensed marketing locations within Toronto District's downtown Chinatown (Spadina Avenue between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street), on the following:

(a)the cancellation of licences for locations selling merchandise on the sidewalk/boulevard opposite their respective business, unrelated to what is being sold within the main business (i.e. hardware store selling fruits and vegetables on the sidewalk); and

(b)the reduction of previously approved marketing areas to provide a minimum clear sidewalk width of 3.05 m.

Councillor Olivia Chow has requested me to report on these matters.

As licence holders must be given the opportunity to be heard before a Committee or Council prior to cancellation or amendment of their licence, this matter is scheduled as a deputation item.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to clearly indicate that merchandise being sold within the licensed boulevard area be the "same or similar" to the merchandise being sold within the business;

(2)(a)All licensed holders listed in Appendices 'A' and 'B' be notified of the proposed cancellation of their boulevard marketing locations and be given 30 days to modify their business practices so that merchandise being sold within the licensed marketing area is the same or similar to the merchandise being sold from within the premises;

AND

(b)I report to your Committee at its meeting of September 16, 1998 the results of the notification and recommendations on possible cancellations of boulevard marketing licences and that permit holders be notified and be given the opportunity to be heard by your Committee;

(3)(a)All licensed holders listed in Appendix 'C' be notified of the proposed reduction of their boulevard marketing areas as outlined in this Appendix and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council;

AND

(b)After hearing of deputations, your Committee recommend that City Council approve the reduction of boulevard marketing on Spadina Avenue as listed in Appendix 'C' of this report; and

(4)The appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Comments:

Toronto's downtown Chinatown has enjoyed impressive economic growth over the years, but its very success has created problems that threaten its ability to compete with other commercial areas, including other "Chinatown" in Agincourt, the former City of Scarborough, East Chinatown etc. The local business community wants to restore Chinatown's former economic and social vitality and in turn make a significant contribution to Toronto's local economy.

Regulations pertaining to Boulevard Marketing

Boulevard marketing is regulated under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and licences are issued subject to the applicant meeting the following criteria:

-applicant must be the ground floor business occupant;

-sufficient sidewalk space to accommodate pedestrian traffic (2 m - 3.6 m) must be provided;

-proper display stands must be provided;

-applicant must enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

With respect to merchandise being sold in the boulevard area, Section 313-35 A(2), refers to "sale of merchandise" and is silent as to the relation of the merchandise being sold within the business. However, the intent of the by-law and the practice of this Department has been that merchandise being sold within the City boulevard is to relate to the merchandise being sold within the business.

Boulevard Marketing

One of the unique characteristics of Chinatown is an open market environment created through the use of the sidewalks for the sale and display of merchandise. The marketing displays enhance the culture of Chinatown which serves the community and is a tourist attraction. However, by virtue of the volume of pedestrians and merchandise being sold, it also results in congestion of pedestrian traffic and major accumulation of garbage which is stored daily at curbside. In an effort to deal with these issues, our Department has been working closely with Councillor Olivia Chow, the various businesses in the Spadina and Dundas West area and the Toronto Chinatown Community Development Association on a multi-phase strategy to clear up the City sidewalks and boulevards in the Spadina/Dundas area. Our objective is to try and keep the sidewalks clean and free of garbage, maintain pedestrian flow and the merchandise within the licensed display areas to prevent unauthorized vending.

Part of this multi-phase strategy included the review of all licensed boulevard marketing locations on Spadina Avenue, between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and on Dundas Street West, between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street. The review identified many licensed boulevard marketing locations which are selling merchandise unrelated to the use of the main business ( i.e. hardware store selling fruits and vegetables on the sidewalk), as shown in Appendices 'A' and 'B'. In addition, Appendix 'C' identifies licensed boulevard marketing locations where the licensed marketing areas impede pedestrian traffic, given the width of the available sidewalk and the volume of pedestrians.

All licensed holders listed in Appendix 'C' of this report have been notified by the City Clerk of the proposed reduction of their boulevard marketing areas.

Conclusions:

In reviewing the locations listed in Appendices 'A' and 'B', we concluded that none of the locations sell merchandise that are the same or similar to the merchandise being sold within the premises. The licensed holders of premises No. 264 and 449 can easily modify their business practices so that merchandise being sold within the licensed area is the same or similar to the merchandise being sold within the premises. With respect to the other licensed holders listed on these two Appendices, cancellation of the licences is appropriate. With respect to locations listed in Appendix 'C', their boulevard marketing areas should be reduced as outlined in the Appendix to permit more room for pedestrian traffic.

However, the automatic cancellation of boulevard marketing locations without the opportunity of permit holders to pursue means of rectifying the problem would undermine the economic vibrancy of this area. Therefore, I am recommending that all licence holders listed in Appendices 'A' and 'B' be notified and be given an opportunity to bring their boulevard marketing areas into conformity within 30 days of notification. If within 30 days they have not complied, I would report on the cancellation of all marketing display areas and that the licence holders be notified and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of September 16, 1998.

In addition, the licensed holders listed in 'Appendix 'C' be notified and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council, on proposed reduction of their boulevard marketing areas.

In order to clarify what should be sold within the licensed boulevard marketing area, I am also recommending that Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to clearly indicate that merchandise being sold within the boulevard area must be the "same or similar" to the merchandise being sold within the business.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Hua Van-Hao, Owner, New Asia Supermarket;

-Mr. David Huynh, on behalf of 254 Spadina Avenue;

-Mr. Walter Kwok, on behalf of Toronto Chinatown Community Development Association; and

-Mr. Jon Hewson, Toronto, Ontario.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix a, b, c

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix a, b, c

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix a, b, c

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the possible cancellation of the licensed boulevard marketing fronting 70 Huron Street, because of ongoing excessive display of goods.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

(1)That, should a further "Summons" for excessive marketing be issued to the licence holder of 70 Huron Street, I report to the Toronto Community Council on the possible cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence and the applicant be given the opportunity to be heard by the Committee; and

(2)That, after the hearing of deputations, the Toronto Community Council recommend to your Council the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of July 22, 1998, in considering a report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assisting Director, entitled "Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street", recommended, as amended, adoption of the report and requested me to examine the possible reduction of boulevard marketing at 70 Huron Street and report directly to Council.

Comments:

Boulevard marketing is regulated under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and licences are issued subject to the applicant meeting the following criteria:

-applicant must be the ground floor business occupant;

-sufficient sidewalk space to accommodate pedestrian traffic (2 metres - 3.6 metres) must be provided;

-proper display stands must be provided; and

-applicant must enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

The location is licensed for boulevard marketing allowing the licensee to display goods in an area of 23.7 square metres on the City street allowance, and is currently set back 2.43 metres back of the City curb.

Staff of this department visited the location on numerous occasions and issued several "Notices of Advice" and "Summonses" to 1229920 Ontario Inc., operating as Hong Fat Seafood Market, for excessive marketing. Currently, there are two outstanding "Summonses" for excessive marketing at this location, and to date one conviction has been registered for excessive marketing.

To ensure the licensee confines the marketing within the licensed area, staff on July 24, 1998 re-painted the sidewalk to delineate the marketing area.

Conclusions:

The current setback is sufficient to accommodate pedestrian traffic at 70 Huron Street. However, given that there has been a long history of excessive marketing at this location, I would recommend that Mr. Whai Tea, owner of Hong Fat Seafood Market, 1229920 Ontario Inc., be notified that, should there be a further infraction of excessive marketing at this location, I report to the Toronto Community Council on the possible cancellation of the boulevard marketing.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou

Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement

City Works Services

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416) 392-1525

Fax (416) 392-0816

e-mail "aantonio@city.toronto.on.ca")

(City Council also had before it during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications in opposition to the proposed cancellation of licences for sidewalks/boulevards and the reduction of previously approved marketing areas:

(i)(July 22, 1998) from Mr. Charles Reiner, Quality Fashions; and

(ii)(July 22, 1998) from Mr. Richard Chow, All Friends Bakery Limited.)

Prohibition of Parking - Cherry Street, both sides,

from Villiers Street to the Ship Channel

South of Polson Street (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

This regulation is intended to enhance traffic operation and pedestrian safety.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That parking be prohibited from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. daily:

(a)on the east side of Cherry Street from Villiers Street to the ship channel;

(b)on the west side of Cherry Street from Villiers Street to Polson Street; and

(2) 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.

Comments:

At the request of a representative of The Docks Entertainment Complex (Premises No. 11 Polson Street), Works staff have reviewed the possibility of prohibiting parking in the late evening and early morning hours to improve traffic operation to/from the port lands by way of Cherry Street and enhance pedestrian safety.

The Docks Entertainment Complex often generates in excess of 10,000 patrons in the evening hours, particularly on Friday night and on weekends. Public transit service in the port lands area is limited with the result that the majority of patrons frequenting The Docks arrive either by private automobile or taxicab. The Docks provides off street parking for patrons at a moderate charge. However, with the exception of sections of the west side of Cherry Street, north and south of Commissioners Street and south of Polson Street, where parking is currently prohibited at anytime, many patrons choose to park on Cherry Street between Villiers Street and the ship channel (where parking is allowed on both sides for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and for a maximum period of three hours at other times).

Parking and traffic congestion on Cherry Street and on Polson Street has been a significant concern of representatives of The Docks since its opening in 1996. Based on observations made on weekend evenings during the summer of 1996 in the vicinity of Cherry Street and Polson Street, it became advisable to prohibit parking from 6:00 p.m. of one day to 4:00 a.m. of the next following day, on both sides of Polson Street from Cherry Street to the west end to ensure that unimpeded access to this street was maintained. Although The Docks strongly urged that a similar parking prohibition be implemented on both sides of Cherry Street from Commissioners Street to the Ship Channel (south of Polson Street) conditions on Cherry Street did not justify Works staff taking such action at that time. Our assessment of this matter was outlined in detail in a report in 1997 to the former City Services Committee (Clause 21 in City Services Committee Report No. 7).

Notwithstanding, in the past year, expansion of The Docks Entertainment Complex has continued to attract more patrons to the area in the late evening and early morning hours when the complex is at peak operation, with the result that the Cherry Street/Polson Street intersection has become increasingly congested with vehicular and pedestrian traffic during these periods. Site observations have confirmed that southbound traffic often backs up from Polson Street to Commissioners Street, as motorists either slow down or double park while looking for on-street parking spaces on Cherry Street. Similar back ups occur in the northbound direction as vehicles queue while crossing the lift bridge and waiting to access Lake Shore Boulevard East. Also, there is significant mid-block conflict and interaction between moving traffic and pedestrians.

In view of the foregoing, there is justification to prohibit parking in the evening and early morning hours on Cherry Street from Villiers Street to the ship channel south of Polson Street to mitigate these problems to a significant degree and enhance traffic operation and pedestrian safety.

Although a parking prohibition in the early evening hours might inconvenience other businesses on Cherry Street, a parking prohibition from 9:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. daily would essentially apply after normal operating hours for these businesses and have little if any impact on them. Notwithstanding, this regulation would eliminate about 90 on-street parking spaces during the hours of operation. As new development is anticipated in the port lands area which could potentially have a need for on-street parking, implementation of this parking prohibition is with the understanding that future adjustments to parking regulations might be required to meet the needs of all area businesses.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton

Transportation Operations Coordinator

392-1806

Prohibition of Stopping at Anytime

South Side of Front Street West

(Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To discourage vehicles from blocking disabled ramps located on the south side of Front Street West fronting Union Station.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Front Street West:

(a) from a point 110 metres west of Bay Street to a point 6 metres further west;

(b)from a point 150 metres west of Bay Street to a point 6 metres further west; and

(2)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.

Comments

At the request of Mr. Richard Chorkawy, Superintendent of Toronto Terminals Railways, Works staff have investigated concerns regarding vehicles illegally parking across two disabled ramps located on the south side of Front Street West fronting Union Station.

Front Street West in the vicinity of Union Station is a four lane arterial road. At present, standing is prohibited at anytime on the south side of Front Street West from Bay Street to York Street. Additionally, the following curb lane uses have been delineated by advisory signs indicating:

1.Bus Stops (GO, PCL,etc.), from Bay Street to a point 100.2 metres west;

2.Passenger Pick-up and Drop-off, from a point 100.2 metres west of Bay Street to a point 75.3 metres further west; and

3."Taxicab Stand" from a point 175.3 metres west of Bay Street to a point 67.7 metres further west.

Obstruction of the disabled ramps occurs throughout the day and is generally caused by private autos, taxis and buses parking unlawfully for short duration across these ramps.

Although Works staff will paint the disabled ramps yellow to enhance motorists' awareness of the ramp locations, in order to discourage the blockage of the disabled ramps, stopping should be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Front Street West from a point 110 metres west of Bay Street to a point 6 metres further west, and from a point 150 metres west of Bay Street to a point 6 metres further west.

Implementation of this suggestion would not impact on the use of the existing bus stops, passenger pick-up and drop-off area or the designated taxi stand.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Crocco, Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Implementation of a "No Standing Anytime"Prohibitions

- Boon Avenue, both sides, from St. Clair Avenue West

to north limit of Ward (Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June29,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To implement a "No Standing Anytime" prohibition on both sides of Boon Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to the first lane north, in order to reduce the incidence of illegally parked vehicles.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the alternate side parking prohibition which operates from St. Clair Avenue West to the north limit of Davenport Ward be adjusted to operate from the first lane north of St. Clair Avenue West to the north limit of Davenport Ward;

(2) That standing be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Boon Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to the first lane north; and

(3) 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.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, in consultation with Toronto Fire Services, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of introducing a "No Standing Anytime" prohibition on both sides of the above noted section of Boon Avenue to reduce traffic congestion, resulting from illegally parked vehicles on both sides of the roadway.

The subject section of Boon Avenue operates one-way northbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Stopping is currently prohibited on both sides of the roadway from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. daily and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours on an alternate side basis.

Toronto Fire Services staff have requested that more stringent parking restrictions be implemented on the section of Boon Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to the first lane north, to assist in reducing the incidence of illegally parked vehicles. Site investigation conducted by Works staff has confirmed that on many occasions the subject section of roadway was rendered impassable for fire trucks and other large vehicles, as a result of motorists parking on both sides of the street.

Experience has indicated that the higher set fine associated with "No Standing" prohibitions, as opposed to "No Parking" prohibitions, and increased willingness on the part of Toronto Police Service staff to tow vehicles parked in a "No Standing" zone, serve as effective deterrents in reducing the incidence of illegal parking.

The pick-up/discharge of passengers from vehicles that are temporarily stopped within a "No Standing" zone is permitted, however it should be noted that the loading/unloading of merchandise from curbside is prohibited and that such a restriction could negatively impact on businesses located within the subject section of Boon Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth

Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons

Parking Spaces (Trinity-Niagara, Davenport and East Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on requests for the installation/removal of a number of disabled on-street parking spaces.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation/removal of disabled on-street parking spaces as noted in Table "A" of this report be approved; and

(2)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 may be required.

Comments:

City Works Services has investigated the feasibility of installing/removing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.

All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits as issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space. Locations where on-street disabled persons parking spaces are to be removed result from applicants moving, holding expired permits or no longer requiring these on-street parking privileges.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, 392-7878

TABLE "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

21Peterborough Avenue, north side, from a point 345 metres east of Via Italia to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Mr. P. Palermo, a resident of Premises No. 50 Peterborough Avenue).

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

20St. Clarens Avenue, east side, from a point 250 metres south of Bloor Street West to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 354 St. Clarens Avenue has moved).

21Salem Avenue, east side, from a point 85 metres north of Hallam Street and a point 5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 271 Salem Avenue has moved).

26Kent Road, west side, from a point 55 metres north of Queen Street East to a point 5.5 metres further north.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 10 Kent Road has deceased).

26Parkmount Road, east side, from a point 70 metres south of Danforth Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 205 Parkmount Road has moved).

Proposed Road Narrowings -

Christie Street from Bloor Street West to Dupont Street

(Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the narrowing of the pavement on Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street to facilitate the planting of trees and landscaping portions of the boulevards and the traffic island at Bloor Street West while providing a measure of traffic calming on the street, as part of scheduled road reconstruction work in 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of the planned reconstruction work on Christie Street have been accommodated in the 1998 Capital Budget. Funds to cover the incremental costs of the curb realignments, boulevard landscaping and island adjustments are available in the Urban Planning and Development Services Capital Budget and under Capital Fund Code No. 296702 for Traffic Calming.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to narrow the pavement on Christie Street described as follows:

"the narrowing of the pavement from a width of 11 m to a width varying from 8 m to 10 m on CHRISTIE STREET between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street, and the narrowing of the pavement on the northbound leg of CHRISTIE STREET north of Bloor Street West from a width of 9 m to a width varying from 7 m to 8 m, as shown schematically on the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2200, dated July 6, 1998; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Comments:

Existing Conditions

Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street is an arterial route and has a width of 11 m. It carries two-way traffic under a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and serves a TTC bus route. Approximately 12,000 vehicles per day use this portion of Christie Street, with about 55% of vehicles exceeding the 40 km/h speed limit and about 9% exceeding the limit by at least 10 km/h. Traffic signals are located at the intersections of Christie Street with Bloor Street West, Barton Avenue and Dupont Street and pedestrian crossovers are located at Yarmouth Road and Follis Avenue. Abutting uses are primarily residential in nature with some retail/commercial sites. Christie Pits abuts the west side of the street south of Barton Avenue.

The following parking regulations are in effect:

East side- "Stopping" is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday.

- Parking is prohibited at all other times.

West side- "Stopping" is prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Monday to Friday.

- Parking is prohibited at anytime from Dupont Street to a point 67.6 m south thereof and along the one-way sections north of Bloor Street West.

- Parking is permitted for a maximum duration of one hour from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

- Permit parking operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum duration of 3 hours.

- Parking meters are in operation from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, for a maximum duration of one hour; and from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday for a maximum duration of three hours.

Christie Street was realigned a number of years ago at Bloor Street West to eliminate the jog with Grace Street to the south of Bloor Street West. This realignment resulted in the construction of a traffic island and channelized northbound leg which also provides access to commercial properties and a subway station on the east side of the street.

The pavement on Christie Street between Bloor Street West and Dupont Street was constructed in 1949 and is scheduled for reconstruction this year. In addition, portions of the sidewalks and curbs have reached the end of their economic life-cycle and also require reconstruction this year.

Proposed Plan

Staff of the Urban Design Division of Urban Planning and Development Services in consultation with staff of Works have developed a conceptual plan of streetscape improvements which includes a number of components. The main feature is the narrowing of the road by approximately one metre on the east side, generally as indicated in the attached print of Drawing No. SK-2200 dated July 6, 1998 and described in Recommendation No. 1 above. This will allow for the planting of a row of trees in the east boulevard. As the trees mature, this would gradually transform the appearance of the street.

A moderate level of traffic calming can be introduced at certain intersecting streets by providing localized sidewalk extension/road pavement narrowings on the west side of Christie Street to "frame" the on-street parking and at the same time provide more generous pedestrian space at intersections. Specifically, these sidewalk extensions measuring about 2 m in width are proposed at:

Melville Avenue- north and south sides

Yarmouth Road- south side

Garnet Avenue- north and south sides

Essex Street- north side

Pendrith Avenue- north and south sides.

Such sidewalk narrowings are precluded at other corners on the west side of Christie Street due to the presence of bus stops and the manoeuvring space needs.

Finally, a component of the proposal is a minor reconfiguration and enlargement of the existing traffic island just north of Bloor Street West, accomplished by narrowing the northbound leg of Christie Street. This will result in shorter pedestrian crossing distances and opportunities for additional landscaping and tree planting, while at the same time maintaining access to adjacent properties and facilitating bus turning movements.

Under the present configuration, the width of the street is not sufficient to accommodate parking on both sides. The one metre narrowing will allow the existing travel and parking lane arrangement to remain, and accordingly, will not adversely affect the functioning of the street. Parking will be retained on the west side, and the existing peak parking prohibitions will be rescinded, so that parking is available 24 hours per day.

Consultation and Approval Process

The narrowing of the pavement on Christie Street constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provision of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, it is anticipated that if this matter is recommended by Toronto Community Council at its July 22 meeting and endorsed by City Council at its July 29, 1998 meeting, the statutory advertising could proceed during the month of August. The required deputation hearing could be scheduled at the September 16, 1998 meeting of Toronto Community Council, with final approval by City Council on October 1, 1998. This schedule will allow for public consultation and an information session if deemed appropriate by the affected Ward Councillors in August or early September. Discussions with TTC and emergency services staff have been initiated and will continue as necessary. Any modifications to the proposal which are found to be desirable or necessary can be reported to the subsequent meetings of Community Council or City Council. The work is scheduled to be undertaken in the fall of this year.

This work is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environment Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Niedra, Manager of Programmes

Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division

Tel. No. 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Christie Street from Bloor Street West

Introduction of a "No Stopping Anytime" prohibition

- Annette Street, North and South Sides, and

West of Pacific Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June30,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit stopping at anytime on both sides of Annette Street, for a distance of 15 metres both east and west of Pacific Avenue, in order to eliminate the sight line obstruction created by vehicles parked too close to the intersection.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1) That stopping be prohibited at anytime on the north and the south sides of Annette Street from Pacific Avenue to points 15 metres both east and west of Pacific Avenue; and

(2) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

In consultation with High Park Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of implementing a "No Stopping Anytime" prohibition to replace the statutory 15 metres to corner parking prohibition on the north and south sides of Annette Street at Pacific Avenue to prevent the parking of vehicles too close to the corners on Annette Street at Pacific Avenue. These parked vehicles are obstructing the view of Pacific Avenue motorists trying to view approaching traffic on Annette Street prior to entering the intersection.

Annette Street in the vicinity of Pacific Avenue is a four lane arterial roadway which operates two-way with a pavement width of 14 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. The signalized intersection of High Park Avenue and Annette Street is located 130 metres to the west and the pedestrian crossover at Annette Street and Medland Street is located 110 metres to the east of Pacific Avenue respectively. The Toronto Transit Commission provides regularly scheduled bus service on this section of street.

Works staff had been requested to examine the feasibility of implementing traffic control signals at the intersection of Annette Street and Pacific Avenue and in applying the Provincial warrants, it was determined that traffic control signals are not warranted at this intersection because of the insufficient spacing between adjacent traffic controls (i.e. less than 215 metres).

However, an examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection revealed that over the three year period ending December 31, 1996, there were nineteen reported accidents involving Pacific Avenue northbound and southbound vehicles colliding with Annette Street eastbound and westbound vehicles. Eight of the nineteen collisions occurred during Saturday and Sunday daytime hours. It has been determined that a significant contributor to this collision pattern is the presence of vehicles parked on Annette Street too close to the corners primarily on Saturdays and Sundays. This reduces the sight lines for Pacific Avenue northbound and southbound motorists of approaching Annette Street traffic prior to them entering the intersection.

Because of the safety concerns noted above, the temporary halting of vehicles within the 15 metre to corner parking prohibited areas is not desirable. While these areas are sometimes used for loading purposes (a legal activity within a parking prohibited area), the hazard created as evidenced by the accident history at this location places motorists exiting from Pacific Avenue onto Annette Street at risk.

Accordingly, it is recommended that stopping be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Annette Street for a distance of 15 metres both east and west of Pacific Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Adjustment to Six Months Alternate Side Parking

Regulations - Harvard Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue

to Callender Street (High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June29,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To adjust the months of the parking regulations on Harvard Avenue for alternate side parking to six months at a time on one side of the street and six months at a time on the opposite side.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing six months alternate side parking regulations on Harvard Avenue, from Roncesvalles Avenue to Callender Street, be rescinded and replaced by the following:

(a)That parking be permitted on the north side for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, from December 1^st of one year to May31^st of the following year inclusive;

(b)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side from June 1^st to November30^th, inclusive;

(c)That parking be permitted on the south side for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, from June 1^st to November 30^th inclusive;

(d)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side from December 1^st of one year to May 31^st of the following year inclusive;

(2)That the permit parking system, which operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily, be adjusted to reflect the changes noted in Recommendation No. 1, above; and

(3)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, on behalf of residents of Harvard Avenue, Works staff have investigated adjusting the existing six months alternate side parking regulations on Harvard Avenue, from Roncesvalles Avenue to Callender Street to allow parking continuously on one side of the street for six months from December 1^st of one year to May 31^st of the following year inclusive, and on the opposite side for six months from June 1^st to November 30^th inclusive, to eliminate the change over that normally occurs between October 1^st of one year and March 31^st of the following year inclusive, and between April 1^st and September 30^th inclusive.

Harvard Avenue operates one-way eastbound with a pavement width of 6.4 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. The following parking regulations, based on the six months alternate side parking system, are currently in effect:

North side:

-Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, from October 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the following year inclusive; and

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from April 1st to September 30^th inclusive.

South side:

-Parking is permitted for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday, from April 1^st to September 30^th inclusive; and

-Parking is prohibited at anytime from October 1^st of one year to March 31^st of the following year inclusive.

The permit parking system, operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., daily, in accordance with alternate side parking and parking, when otherwise permitted, is allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

Residents have requested that the changes as noted in Recommendation No. 1 be implemented as these dates more closely meet their needs.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Implementation of a "No Parking Anytime" Prohibition

- South Side of Davenport Road, East of Rains Avenue

(Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June26,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To prohibit parking on the south side of Davenport Road, east of Rains Avenue, for the purpose of improving the visibility of eastbound motorists and cyclists for motorists exiting the garage on the flankage of Premises No. 39 Rains Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Davenport Road, from a point 21.5 metres east of Rains Avenue to a point 10 metres further east; and

(2) 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.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor Betty Disero, on behalf of residents at Premises No. 39 Rains Avenue, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of prohibiting parking on the south side of the above noted section of Davenport Road, to improve sight lines for motorists exiting the garage that services this location.

Parking on the south side of this section of Davenport Road is currently permitted for a maximum period of three hours. It was initially proposed that parking be prohibited from the northeast corner of Rains Avenue to the west limit of the driveway ramp, noted above. However this option would have resulted in the loss of four on-street parking spaces.

The parking prohibition as noted in Recommendation No. 1 above, will provide ten metres of unobstructed visibility for motorists exiting the garage that services Premises No 39 Rains Avenue, and will limit the loss of on-street parking opportunities to two spaces.

Accordingly, to improve safety for motorists exiting the garage at the flankage on Premises No. 39 Rains Avenue, the above prohibition should be implemented.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth

Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Adjustment of Parking Regulations -

Vermont Avenue, West of Bathurst Street (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June30,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To adjust the existing on-street parking regulations on Vermont Avenue, west of Bathurst Street to create an additional on-street parking space.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing "No Parking from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" regulation on the north side of Vermont Avenue from Bathurst Street to a point 42.7 metres west be adjusted to apply from Bathurst Street to a point 23.5 metres west; and

(2)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.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor John Adams, an investigation was conducted to determine the need for the existing daytime parking prohibition on the north side of Vermont Avenue, from Bathurst Street to a point 42.7 metres west.

Vermont Avenue from Bathurst Street to Palmerston Avenue operates one-way eastbound on a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a forty kilometres per hour speed limit. Parking on the south side is prohibited at anytime. Parking on the north side is prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday from Bathurst Street to a point 42.7 metres west. The remainder of this section has parking permitted for a maximum time period of 2 hours from 7:00 a.m. to 12 midnight. The permit parking system is in effect on this street from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m, daily.

Recent 24 hour automatic traffic counts have revealed that approximately 600 vehicles per day travel on the subject section of Vermont Avenue.

A review of Departmental records has revealed that the existing "No Parking from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Saturday" prohibition on the north side of Vermont Avenue from Bathurst Street to a point 42.7 metres west was originally implemented prior to 1967, and accordingly no background information as to the reason for this prohibition is available.

The existing parking prohibition could be adjusted on the north side of Vermont Avenue, as noted in Recommendation No. 1 above, without compromising the safety of traffic operations on this street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Thomas L. McCulloch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Establishment of a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone"

- West Side of Markham Street

(Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June29,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To consider the implementation of a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" on the above noted section of Markham Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1) That the "No Parking Anytime" prohibition on the west side of Markham Street, from London Street to Barton Avenue be rescinded;

(2) That parking be permitted for a maximum period of ten minutes from 8:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the west side of Markham Street, from a point 95 metres north of London Street to Barton Avenue;

(3) That parking be prohibited from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m., 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. of one day until 8:30 a.m. of the next following day, Monday to Friday, on the west side of Markham Street, from a point 95 metres north of London Street to Barton Avenue;

(4) That parking be prohibited on Saturday and Sunday on the west side of Markham Street from a point 95 metres north of London Street to Barton Avenue;

(5) That parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Markham Street, from London Street to a point 95 metres north; and

(6) 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.

Comments:

At the request of Councillor John Adams, Works staff met with the Principal of St. Peter's Catholic School to discuss the feasibility of implementing a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" on the west side of Markham Street, to assist parents in the pick-up/discharge of their children and to improve traffic operations in general, during the morning and afternoon pick-up/drop-off periods.

Markham Street, from London Street to Barton Avenue operates one-way southbound with a roadway width of 7.3 metres. Parking on the east side of the street is allowed for a maximum period of three hours outside of the 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily permit parking hours of operation and the "No Parking, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition. A "School Bus Loading Zone" has been established on the west side of the street, commencing at a point 52 metres north of London Street to a point 43 metres further north. Parking on the west side of the street is prohibited at anytime.

As noted above, parking is currently prohibited between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of the street and at anytime on the west side. In spite of the existing parking prohibitions, increased levels of traffic congestion often occur on the subject section of roadway during pick-up/drop-off periods, as parents engaged in this practice park their vehicles on both sides of the street, even though they are subject to tagging by Parking Enforcement Unit staff.

Implementation of a "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" on the west side of the street would allow parents to temporarily park their vehicles for a period of up to ten minutes within the designated pick-up/drop-off area (during the designated time periods), for the purpose of accompanying their children into the school. In this instance, the ten minute parking provision should also assist in reducing the incidence of illegal parking on the east side of the street, thereby improving the operational efficiency and safety of the roadway in general.

Should parents consistently arrive at the school prior to the commencement of the 8:30 a.m. drop-off period, consideration could be given to adjusting the hours of operation of the "Student Pick-up/Drop-off Zone" to commence at 8:00 a.m. or 8:15 a.m. However, it should be noted that this course of action would negatively impact on residents on the east side of the street, as a corresponding change to the existing east side temporal prohibition would also have to be implemented.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Colin Booth

Senior Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Temporal Adjustments to Existing Traffic/Parking

Regulations on Streets in the Vicinity of Exhibition Place

During Annual Caribana and Canadian National Exhibition

(Trinity-Niagara, High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services be adopted;

(2)the "Tow-Away" zones be enforced during the Caribana Festival;

(3)area residents be informed of the traffic/parking changes recommended in the report (July 10, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services; and

(4)local area residents holding parking permits be treated sensitively by parking enforcement officers during both the C.N.E. and the Caribana Festival.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 10, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To enhance traffic operation and pedestrian safety during this year's Caribana (August 1, 2 and 3, 1998) and Canadian National Exhibition (August 21 to September 7, 1998).

Recommendations:

(1)That in order to implement the temporal traffic/parking regulations on streets in the vicinity of Exhibition Place which are impacted during the annual Caribana and Canadian National Exhibition, the recommendations noted in appendix "A" and "B", of this report be approved. and

(2)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 may be required.

Comments:

Annually, Works staff implement a number of traffic and parking regulations on various streets in the vicinity of Exhibition Place which are impacted by events such as Caribana and the Canadian National Exhibition.

Having regard for the high volume of vehicle and pedestrian traffic generated during these events, the temporal traffic/parking regulations as shown on the attached table "A" (Caribana) and attached table"B" (Canadian National Exhibition) will help maintain safe and efficient traffic conditions in the general area while recognizing the impacts on local residents.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator - 392-7878

APPENDIX "A"

Traffic Regulation Associated with the Caribana

Insert the following:

�400-82 - Schedule XXIX - No Standing

Highway

Side

Between

Prohibited Times and Days

Fleet Street

both

Bathurst Street and Strachan Avenue

7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on

Aug. 1, Aug. 2, and Aug. 3, 1998

APPENDIX "B"

Traffic Regulation Associated with the Canadian Nation Exhibition

Insert the following:

�400-54 - Schedule I - One-way Highways

Highway	Between	Times or Days	Direction
Springhurst Avenue	Dufferin Street and Tyndall Avenue (east branch)	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon., Sept. 7, 1998	From east to west

Insert the following

�400-61 - Schedule VIII - Prohibited Turns

Intersection on Portion of Road	Direction	Turns Prohibited	Times or Days
Springhurst Avenue and Jameson Avenue	Westbound	Left	7:00 a.m to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mon. to Fri. from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998 to and including Mon., Sept. 7, 1998
Strachan Avenue between Fleet Street and Lake Shore boulevard West	Northbound and Southbound	U-turn	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998 to and including Mon., September 7, 1998

Insert the following

�400-76 - Schedule XXIII - No Parking Certain Times

Highway	Side	Between	Prohibited Times or Days
Cowan Avenue	West	Springhurst Avenue and the south end	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon., Sept. 7, 1998
Dufferin Street	East	Exhibition Park and Queen Street West	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998
Dufferin Street	West	Exhibition Park and a point 36.6 metres north of Springhurst Avenue	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon., Sept. 7, 1998
Dufferin Street	West	King Street West and Queen Street West	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon., Sept. 7, 1998
Fleet Street	Both	Strachan Avenue and Bathurst Street	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998
Fort Rouille Street	Both	Springhurst Avenue and the south end	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998
Gladstone Avenue	West	Queen Street West and Peel Street	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998
Jameson Avenue	East	Springhurst Avenue and Queen Street West	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998 to and including Mon., September 7, 1998
Peel Avenue	Both	Dufferin Street and Gladstone Avenue	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998
Spencer Avenue	East	Springhurst Avenue and the south end	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998
Springhurst Avenue	North	Dufferin Street and Jameson Avenue	Anytime, from and including Fri., Aug. 21, 1998 to and including Mon., Sept. 7, 1998
Tyndall Avenue	East	Thornburn Avenue and the south end	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998

Insert the following

�400-78 - Schedule XXV - Time Limit Parking

Highway	Side	Between	Times or Days	Maximum Period Permitted
Cowan Avenue	West	King Street West and Queen Street West	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from and including Fri. Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998	60 mins.
Gwynne Avenue	East	King Street West and a point 53 metres south of Queen Street West	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the 15^th day of Aug. And every day of Sept. up to and including the first Mon. In Sept of each and every year	60 mins.
Gwynne Avenue	West	King Street West and a point 53 metres south of Queen Street West	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on the 16^th day to the last day of Aug. of each and every year to and including Aug. 31 of each and every year	60 mins.
Melbourne Avenue	North	Cowan Avenue and Dufferin Street	8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. from and including Fri. Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998	60 mins.

Insert the following

�400-85 - Schedule XXXII - Taxicab Stands

Highway	Side	Location	Number of Taxicab	Hours
Dufferin Street	West	A point 36.6 metres north of Springhurst Avenue and a point 29 metres south of King Street West	29	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998
Strachan Avenue	West	A point 6.1 metres south of Manitoba Drive and a point 73.2 metres further south	12	Anytime, from and including Fri. Aug. 21, 1998, to and including Mon. Sept. 7, 1998

Reduction of Permit Parking Hours -

Manning Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July14,1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To amend the permit parking hours on Manning Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Harbord Street, from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Saturday, and 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Sundays.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Manning Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Harbord Street, be reduced from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., Monday to Saturday, and 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Sundays;

(2)Schedule QQ of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate Manning Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Harbord Street; and

(3)the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto, including the introduction of all necessary bills.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, had before it a report (March 20, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone, respecting 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 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 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., to 12:01 a.m. to 7:00a.m.

Comments:

Manning Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Harbord Street, is authorized for permit parking on an area basis, permit parking area 4B, and the hours of operation are 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

The reduction of permit parking hours on Manning Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Harbord Street, is a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former Toronto City Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders by posting a notice in the newspaper. A notice on the deprivation of permit parking hours was placed in the Toronto Star on April 23, 1998 and no objections have been received.

Conclusion:

Given that there were no objections received, the permit parking hours on Manning Avenue, between Bloor Street West and Harbord Street, should be amended to indicate 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Monday to Saturday, and 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. on Sundays.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

Installation of Speed Humps - Margueretta Street

from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue

(Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the General Manager, Transportation Services, be requested to submit a report to the Toronto Community Council on the feasibility of reverting St.Clarens Avenue, from Bloor Street West to Paton Road, back to a northbound, one-way street.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July15,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transpiration, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Margueretta Street between Bloor Street West and Wallace Avenue.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $13,200, funds for which are available in Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Margueretta Street, from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on MARGUERETTA STREET from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5234, dated July 13, 1998";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

(3)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Comments:

At the request of Davenport Councillors Disero and Fotinos and area residents, Works staff assessed the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue in response to concerns about the excessive speed of traffic on this section of street.

Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to Wallace Avenue, operates one-way northbound with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited on both sides of Margueretta Street from Bloor Street West to a point 76 metres north thereof. Alternate side parking is currently in effect on this section of street and the permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily.

Twenty four hour speed and volume counts were obtained over four consecutive days in September 1997 and it was found that, on average, Margueretta Street carries approximately 1,400 vehicles per day. Of these, 64% of all vehicles travelled at or below the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit and approximately 28% (400 vehicles per day) travelled between 41 kilometres per hour and 50 kilometres per hour. The percentage excessive speeding (vehicles recorded travelling at a rate of speed in excess of 50 kilometres per hour) is approximately 8% (120 vehicles per day) of all traffic.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5234 dated July 13, 1998, consists of six speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 km/h, as permitted by the City of Toronto Act, 1996, would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As prescribed by City Council Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the poll results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the Margueretta Street roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act.

The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Erin Holl (392-7892)

Co-ordinator - Transportation Operations

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Margueretta Street

Parking Restrictions on Belsize Drive (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a "NO PARKING: Monday to Friday, 8.00 a.m. - 10.00 a.m." restriction on the north side of Belsize Drive between Wilfrid Avenue and Acacia Road be established.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 10, 1998) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council recommend the establishment of a "NO PARKING: Monday to Friday 8am - 10am" restriction on the north side of Belsize Drive between Wilfrid Avenue and Acacia Road.

Background:

At the beginning of May 1998, several letters were received from residents on the north side of Belsize Drive between Wilfrid Avenue and Acacia Road regarding parking difficulties they had been experiencing on their street over the past several months. The residents requested that the existing one hour parking restriction be changed and that parking on that section of Belsize Drive be prohibited between the hours of 8am and 10am, Monday to Friday.

The parking problems were largely due to non-resident parking by patrons and employees of small businesses on Yonge Street and Mt. Pleasant Road. The existing one hour restriction was being ignored and was not enforced by police.

In response to these requests an informal poll of residents on the affected portion of Belsize Drive was carried out. The poll asked residents if they were in favour of amending the existing parking restriction to prohibit parking weekdays between 8am - 10am. The results were as follows:

Total # of polls sent out17

Total # returned "YES"05

Total # returned "NO"03

Total # not returned09

As a majority of residents support the implementation of these restrictions, I request that the Toronto Community Council adopt the above-noted recommendation.

Parking Restrictions on Castleknock Drive

(North Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that a "NO PARKING: Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 10:-0 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m." restriction on Castleknock Road between Crestview Road and Roselawn Avenue on the west side; and from Elwood Boulevard to Roselawn Avenue on the east side be established.

The Toronto Community Council submits the communication (July 10, 1998) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council recommend the establishment of a "NO PARKING: Monday to Friday 8am - 10am and 4pm - 6pm"restriction on Castleknock Road between Crestview Road and Roselawn Avenue on the west side; and from Elwood Boulevard to Roselawn Avenue on the east side.

Background:

At the beginning of May, 1998, several letters and telephone calls were received from residents of Castleknock Road between Crestview Road and Roselawn Avenue on the west side and Elwood Boulevard and Roselawn Avenue on the east side; regarding parking difficulties they had been experiencing on their street over the past several months. The residents requested that weekday parking restrictions be implemented on that section of Castleknock Road.

The parking problems were largely due to the fact that all other streets in the area had imposed rush hour parking restrictions. Non-resident parking by employees and patrons of the surrounding small businesses had therefore become concentrated on this portion of Castleknock Road.

In response to these requests an informal poll of residents on the affected portion of Castleknock Road was carried out. Residents were asked if they were in favour of establishing a "No Parking: Monday to Friday 8am - 10am AND 4pm - 6pm" restriction. The results were as follows:

Total # of polls sent out33

Total # returned "YES"16

Total # returned "NO"01

Total # not returned16

Respondents who were in favour of implementing the restrictions were also asked if they wanted both the morning and afternoon restrictions; just the morning restrictions; or just the afternoon restrictions. The results were as follows:

Total # supporting both morning and

afternoon restrictions12

Total # supporting just morning restrictions03

Total # supporting afternoon restrictions only00

Total # no preference01

As a majority of residents support the implementation of both the morning and afternoon restrictions, I request that the Toronto Community Council adopt the above noted recommendation.

Installation of Speed Humps

- Close Avenue from Queen Street West to

Springhurst Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July3,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Close Avenue.

Funding Source, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $13,500, funds for which are available in Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Close Avenue, from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to the favourable results of polling of the affected residents pursuant to the policy related to speed hump installation as adopted by the former City of Toronto Council:

"The construction of speed humps on CLOSE AVENUE from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5208, dated June, 1998";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

Comments:

At the request of Ward Councillor and area residents, Works staff assessed the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue in response to concerns about the volume and excessive speed of traffic on this street.

Close Avenue from Queen Street West to a point 43 metres further south, operates two-way with a pavement width of 6.1 metres, and from a point 43 metres south of Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue, operates one-way southbound with a pavement width which varies between 6.1 to 7.3 metres. The posted speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour.

Close Avenue is approximately 783 metres long and at its mid-point, intersects with King Street West. "Stop" sign controls are posted for northbound traffic at Queen Street West and for southbound traffic at King Street West and at Springhurst Avenue. Heavy trucks are prohibited at all times.

The following summarizes the data which was obtained from traffic counts undertaken by Works staff on Close Avenue in October, 1997:

24 Hour Speed and Volume Survey

Close Avenue from Queen Street West to Springhurst Avenue

(Maximum Speed Limit - 40 Kilometres per Hour)

Location

Direction of Travel

Total

Number of Vehicles

No. of Vehicles Travelling

40 Km/Hr or Less

No. of

Vehicles

Travelling

41 - 50 Km/Hr

No. of Vehicles Travelling

51 Km/Hr or More

Queen St. W. to King St. W.

Southbound

1,963

(100%)

1,084 (55.2%)

665

(33.9%)

215 (10.9%)

King St. W. to Springhurst Avenue

Southbound

1,570

(100%)

787

(50.1%)

616

(39.2%)

167 (10.7%)

As can be seen from the table, the incidence of motorists' travelling in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit on Close Avenue between Queen Street West and King Street West is approximately 45%. The percentage of vehicles recorded at a rate of speed in excess of fifty kilometres per hour is approximately 11% of all traffic. Similarly, the incidence of speeding in excess of the forty kilometres per hour speed limit on Close Avenue between King Street West and Springhurst Avenue is approximately 50%, with about 11% in excess of fifty kilometres per hour. This speed profile is of concern given the proximity of the adjacent schools along Close Avenue.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5208 dated June 1998, consists of nine speed humps at spacings of 45 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 km/h, as permitted by the City of Toronto Act, 1996, would be appropriate. No impacts on parking are anticipated, no changes to parking regulations are required, and the effects on snow removal, street cleaning and garbage collection should be minimal.

As stipulated in the Policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected section of street, and also households on side streets whose only access is from the street under consideration for speed hump installations. Under this policy, at least 60% of those responding should be in favour of the proposal to authorize implementation. Accordingly, staff will conduct a poll of residents and report on the poll results at the deputation meeting for the project.

The changes proposed to the Close Avenue roadway as set out above constitute an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. The intent of Council to enact a by-law to authorize any physical changes resulting in the alteration of the pavement configuration must be advertised and subsequently be subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies will be undertaken to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their respective operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Project.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Close/Queen/Springhurst

Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning -

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 5, 9, 11 and 21 Hillsdale Avenue East

and 12, 14 and 16 Manor Road East (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)subject to receipt of a signed Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act, the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 8, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the reports (April 20, 1998) and (July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on July 22, 1998, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Mr. Stephen Diamond, McCarthy/Tetrault

-Mr. J. B. Putt, South Eglinton Ratepayers Association; and

-Ms. Patricia Welsh

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit the residential project proposed for the above noted Yonge Street/Hillsdale Avenue East site. The project contains a total of 129 dwelling units comprising a six storey mixed-use building on Yonge Street and two separate townhouse components fronting on Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend:

(2)Subject to receipt of a signed Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act, that the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 8, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto."

Background:

Toronto Community Council had before it the final report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (April 20, 1998) at its meeting held on May 7, 1998 concerning the above noted subject. This report recommended, inter alia, that Draft By-laws be prepared by the City Solicitor to authorize the proposed residential project on the east side of Yonge Street between Hillsdale Avenue East and Manor Road East. The owner of the site is required to enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the by-laws being passed by Council and it is noted that a further report is required of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services concerning the application of the Rental Housing Protection Act to this proposal.

Comments:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the planning report.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7225

Fax:392-0024

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

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto

respecting lands known as 2079-2111 Yonge Street,

9 and 21Hillsdale Avenue East and 12, 14 and 16 Manor Road East.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.The text and map annexed hereto as Schedule"A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto.

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No. .

SCHEDULE "A"

1.Section 18 of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto is amended by adding a new Section 18. as follows:

"18. Lands known as 2079-2111Yonge Street, 9 and 21 Hillsdale Avenue East and 12, 14 and 16 Manor Road East

Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass By-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map18. to permit the erection and use of:

(a)a mixed-use building containing not more than 123dwelling units having a maximum residential gross floor area of 10005square metres, a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 1432square metres and a maximum total gross floor area of 11437square metres; and

(b)not more than four row houses and two semi-detached houses each having a maximum residential gross floor area of 247.35square metres.

For the purposes of this amendment:

(I)the terms "dwelling unit", "mixed-use building", "non-residential gross floor area" and "residential gross floor area", shall have the same meaning as those terms have for the purposes of By-law No.438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended; and

(ii)the terms "row house" and "semi-detached house" shall have the same meaning as such terms have for the purposes of the aforesaid By-law No.438-86, with the exception that each such building shall not be located on a separate "lot" and each building may be divided vertically from the other by a party wall."

_______

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend the General Zoning By-law No.438-86 with respect to lands known as

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 5, 9, 11 and 21Hillsdale Avenue East

and 12, 14 and 16 Manor Road East.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.District Map No. 51K-321 contained in Appendix "A" annexed to and forming part of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is amended by redesignating the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law from "R2 Z0.6" to "MCR T.3.0 C2.0 R2.5".

2.Height and Minimum Lot Frontage Map No. 51K-321 contained in Appendix "B" annexed to and forming part of this aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, is amended by redesignating the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law from "H.9.0" to "H. 16.0".

3.None of the provisions of Section2(1) with respect to the definition of "lot", "row house" and "semi-detached house" Sections4(2)(a), 4(13), 6(1)(a), 6(3)PARTII2, 6(3)PARTII3,6(3) PART II 4, 6(3)PARTII5, 6(3)PARTII6, 8(3)PARTII(4)(a), 8(3)PARTII4(c)(I), 8(3)PARTII4(c)(iii), 12(2)63, 12(2)118(iv), 12(2)119(iii) of the aforesaid By-law No.438-86, as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the lot of a mixed-use building containing not more than 123dwelling units and the erection and use of fourrow houses and two semi-detached houses, provided:

(1)the lot consists of at least the lands shown outlined by the heavy lines on the attached Map1;

(2)the residential gross floor area of the mixed-use building does not exceed 10005square metres;

(3)the non-residential gross floor area of the mixed-use building does not exceed 1432square metres;

(4)the combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the mixed-use building does not exceed 11437square metres;

(5)no portion of the mixed-use building above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the area delineated by heavy lines as shown on the attached Map2;

(6)the height of the mixed-use building does not exceed 20.55metres;

(7)the residential gross floor area of each individual row house or semi-detached house does not exceed 247.35square metres;

(8)no portion of the row houses above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the area delineated by heavy lines and labelled AreaB on the attached Map2;

(9)no portion of the semi-detached houses above grade is located otherwise than wholly within the area delineated by heavy lines and labelled AreaC on the attached Map2;

(10)the height of the row houses and semi-detached houses does not exceed 10.0metres;

(11)no pedestrian access is provided from Hillsdale Avenue East or Manor Road East to the non-residential uses in the mixed-use building;

(12)not less than 52 bicycle parking spaces-occupant and 13 bicycle parking spaces-visitor area provided and maintained on the lot; and

(13)not less than 84 parking spaces are provided and maintained by the owner on the lot of which not less than 74 parking spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the lot and of which 10 parking spaces are reserved for visitors to all uses on the lot.

2.For the purposes of this By-law:

(1)"row house" and "semi-detached house" shall have the same meaning as such terms have for the purpose of the aforesaid by-law No. 438-86 with the exception that each such building shall not be located on a separate "lot" and each building may be divided vertically from the other by a party wall; and

(2)each other word or expression which is italicized herein shall have the same meaning as such word or expression as defined in the aforesaid By-law No438-86.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 20, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of a mixed use development for this site which consists of most of the block frontage on the east side of Yonge Street between Hillsdale Avenue and Manor Road.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend the Official Plan substantially as follows:

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

"Lands known as 2079-2111 Yonge Street, 5,9,11 and 21 Hillsdale Avenue East, and 12, 14 and 16 Manor Road East

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

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, City Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands indicated on Map 18.-- to permit:

(i)a building containing residential and non-residential uses provided the residential gross floor area does not exceed 10,005 square metres, the total number of dwelling units does not exceed 123, the non residential gross floor area does not exceed 1,432 square metres, and the total gross floor area does not exceed 11,437 square metres; and

(ii)a maximum of 6 townhouse units, none of which is to exceed a maximum residential gross floor area of 247.35 square metres."

2.That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, as it affects the lands known municipally as 2079-2111 Yonge Street, 5,9,11 and 21 Hillsdale Avenue East, and 12, 14 and 16 Manor Road East, shown on Map 1 attached to this report, so as to:

a)permit a mixed use building on the site provided that:

(i)it does not contain more than 123 dwelling units;

(ii)it does not exceed a residential gross floor area of 10,005 square metres;

(iii)it does not exceed a non-residential gross floor area of 1,432 square metres;

(iv)it does not exceed a total gross floor area of 11,437 square metres;

(v)it is contained within the building envelope "A" shown on Map 1; and

(vi)does not exceed 20.55 metres in height.

b)permit 6 townhouse units provided that:

(i)each townhouse unit does not exceed a maximum residential gross floor area of 247.35 square metres;

(ii)they are contained within the building envelopes "B" and "C" shown on Map1; and

(iii)they do not exceed 10.0 metres in height.

c)provide a minimum of 84 parking spaces on the lot, of which at least 74 spaces shall be reserved for the exclusive use of residents and 10 spaces shall be reserved for residential visitors and retail parking;

d)provide a minimum of 65 bicycle parking spaces on the lot, including 13 spaces for visitors;

e)provide that no non-residential uses shall gain entrance from Hillsdale Avenue or Manor Road; and

f)exempt the site from the appropriate provisions of Zoning By-law 438-86 as amended, identified by the Chief Building Official in her letter dated March 26, 1998 and forming part of Appendix B to this report.

3.That the owner enter into an undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

4.That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report on the implications of the pending changes to the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989, for this application, no later than the statutory public meeting of your Committee to consider the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments referred to in Recommendations 1 and 2 above.

Background:

1. Application

Application received July 11, 1996 from Stephen D. Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault, Suite 4700, TD Bank Tower, TD Centre, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1E6, on behalf of the owner, Carvil Enterprises Limited, Shudell Investments Limited, Garthorne Investments Limited, 100 Scarsdale Avenue, Don Mills, Ontario, M3B 2R8.

2.Public Meeting

On October 10, 1997, Land Use Committee of the former City of Toronto approved the recommendations contained in the Preliminary Report (dated September 24, 1997) and requested that a Public Meeting be held in the neighbourhood to discuss the proposed development.

On December 5, 1997, a Public Meeting was held, notes of which are attached to this report as Appendix A. The meeting was very well attended. Many concerns were raised about the proposal including matters related to density, built form, and the intrusion of higher density development into a low density residence area.

3.Revised Application

In response to concerns raised at the Public Meeting, subsequent letters from area residents and by planning staff, the applicant has revised his proposals as follows:

-Originally, the project was to consist of one building with a height of six storey, terraced down to three storeys towards the easterly limit of the property. The modified proposal is for three building components: one 6-storey mixed use building fronting onto Yonge Street containing 123 residential condominium units plus 1,431.84 m2 grade related retail space; four 3-storey townhouse units fronting on Manor Road East; and two 3-storey town houses fronting on Hillsdale Avenue East.

-The residential unit count has been reduced from 143 to 129 units.

-The overall density of the project has been reduced from 3.19 to 2.93 x the lot area.

-The mix of uses has been changed from 1,170.5 m2 commercial and 12,898.3 m2 residential gross floor area to 1,431.84 m2 commercial and 11,488.86 m2 residential gross floor area.

-The 6-storey Yonge Street building is to be separated from the townhouses to the east by a two-way laneway, open to the sky, providing access to the underground garage from both Hillsdale Avenue and Manor Road.

-The 6th floor of the Yonge Street building has been substantially set back along the east edge of its north and south wings.

-Entrances to the commercial uses will be from Yonge Street only.

4.Site and Surrounding Area

The 4,406 m2 site includes all lots with frontage on the east side of Yonge Street between Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East except for No. 2075 Yonge Street at the corner of Manor Road East. In addition, the site contains three existing houses fronting on Manor Road, and a four-plex residential building and a vacant lot along Hillsdale Avenue. The residential units have been rented for some time.

Lots fronting on Yonge Street, are used for a variety of retail and service commercial uses at grade and residential or office uses above. One of the premises is used for a legal non-conforming use, namely an adult entertainment parlour called "Cheaters". The interior of the site is vacant but used as a parking lot with access from Manor Road East.

To the north of the site on Yonge Street is the Art Shoppe, a low rise furniture store. Low density residential uses extend east along Hillsdale. To the east of the site is a low density residential area consisting mainly of two and two-and-a-half storey single family homes. To the south along Yonge Street are mainly two storey mixed commercial/residential uses. Similar mixed commercial/residential uses are on the west side of Yonge Street.

5.Planning Controls

Official Plan:

The Official Plan designates the westerly half of the site fronting Yonge Street as a "Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area" where, subject to the Main Streets policies, residential intensification is encouraged in mixed use buildings between 3 to 5 storeys in height at a maximum density of 3 times the lot area. The easterly portion of the site is designated "Low Density Residence Area" where Council may pass by-laws to permit residential uses at a maximum density of 1 times the lot area.

The site is subject to the policies of the Yonge-Eglinton Part II Official Plan, as amended by a site specific Official Plan Amendment No. 304, permitting the majority of the site to be developed for a mixed commercial-residential building with a non-residential gross floor area not exceeding 1500 m2 and no more than 46 dwelling units. On the remainder of the site it provides that the three existing residences on the lots fronting on Manor Road be renovated and maintained in their residential use, and that the existing four-plex and vacant lot fronting on Hillsdale Avenue be developed for a maximum four dwelling houses.

Zoning By-law:

The site is subject to site specific By-law 809-84 which divides the site into three parcels as follows:

Parcel A is that portion of the site with frontage onto Yonge Street where retail and service commercial uses are permitted at grade with a maximum 46 residential units above. Building height is not to exceed 15.2 metres. At least 65 parking spaces are to be provided underground, and at least 19 parking spaces are to be at grade behind the building and accessible via driveways from both Hillsdale and Manor Road.

Parcel B consists of the easterly portion of the site with frontage onto Hillsdale Avenue East where no more than 4 attached one-family dwellings are permitted at a maximum height of 9 metres.

On Parcel C the currently existing three dwellings are to be renovated and maintained in their existing use.

Site Plan Control:

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

Comments :

1.Reasons For This Application:

This application does not conform with the following main aspects of site specific provisions of Official Plan Amendment No. 304 and Zoning By-law 809-84:

-53 residential units are permitted whereas the proposal is for 129 units;

-the existing houses on Manor Road are to be retained whereas the proposal is to replace them with 4 townhouses;

-the existing four-plex on Hillsdale Avenue is permitted for redevelopment as four attached dwelling houses, whereas the proposal is to replace it with 2 townhouse units.

-the maximum permitted building height along Yonge Street is 15.2 metres whereas the proposed mixed use building is to be 19.15 metres high; and

-the maximum building height in the residential area is either 9 metres or the current height of the existing houses. The proposed townhouses are to be at maximum 10 metres high.

2.Public Consultation

A public meeting was held by the Planning Advisory Committee on December 5, 1996, the notes of which are attached hereto as Appendix A. During the public meeting as well as in numerous letters received by the City subsequently, concerns were raised by area residents about the proposed density, building height, massing, the encroachment of the proposed building into the low density residence area, the perceived destabilizing effect on the residential neighbourhood and precedent-setting potential for requests of higher densities for redevelopment of Yonge Street between Soudan and Davisville Avenues.

On May 29, 1997, the South Eglinton Ratepayers Association held a public information meeting about the proposed development and invited City Planning staff to attend. At that time, staff noted that the applicants were in the process of modifying their proposal to respond to a set of Site Development Principles. This set of principles, discussed in detail in the following Section 4, was formulated by staff in response to public concerns about the original application. Copies of these Site Development Principles were made available to those in attendance at that meeting.

3.Comments from Public Officials

No major concerns were raised by Public Officials whose comments are attached hereto as AppendixB.

4.Reasons for Approving the Revised Application

As discussed below, the revised application responds successfully to the concerns raised in the Preliminary Planning Report and at the public meeting and is in keeping with the four basic Site Development Principles formulated for this site by staff and discussed at the Ratepayers' meeting on May 29, 1997.

4.1Integrity of District Boundaries

The proposed rear lane alignment should be considered the boundary between the Low Density Mixed Commercial Residential (LDMCR) portion of the site along Yonge Street and the Low Density Residential (LDR) portion of the site fronting on Manor Road and Hillsdale Avenue East.

The application has been revised so that a 6 storey high main streets type building will provide retail frontage on Yonge Street and a residential main entrance from the rear via a north-south two-way private lane which is open to the sky. To the east of this laneway will be two townhouse units on the south side of Hillsdale and four townhouse units on the north side of Manor Road. As such, the revised plan respects the important principle of maintaining the lane as the boundary between the residential neighbourhood and the higher density mixed use development along Yonge Street.

4.2.Main Streets Policies

The LDMCR portion of the site should be developed according to Main Streets policies with a building height not exceeding 6 storeys provided any portion above the fifth floor is set back an additional 2 metres.

The six storey building with retail at grade and residential condominium units above is generally consistent with Main Streets policies in the Official Plan. The sixth floor has no additional setback but been designed in a mansard style which visually sets this floor apart from the five floors below. As such, the applicant offers a satisfactory alternative design solution in response to the need to reduce the visual impact of the 6th floor level.

4.3.Integrity of the Low Density Residential Neighbourhood

The Low Density Residence portion of the site should be developed within the current policies respecting use, height and density ranges with house form buildings facing onto the adjacent streets.

The Low Density Residence portion of the site is now proposed for development of six, 3-storey townhouse units at maximum 10 metres high. As such the proposed building type is in keeping with current City policies for low density residence areas.

For purposes of calculating the proposed density, the centre line of the proposed laneway has been regarded as the dividing line between the 2,803.03 m2 portion of the lot reserved for the mixed use building fronting onto Yonge Street and the 1,602.97 m2 portion to the east where the six townhouses are to locate.

The townhouses will have at maximum a total gross floor area of 1,484 m2 resulting in a density of 0.93 x the easterly portion of the lot. As such, the proposal is in keeping with Official Plan policies regarding the Low Density Residence Area designation, where a maximum density of up to 1 x the lot area is permitted.

4.4.Creation of Rear Lanes behind Main Streets development:

A north-south private lane is proposed to service the development. Such lane should be open to the sky and provide a visual separation between the mixed use and the residential portions of the site.

The application has been revised to provide a private lane open to the sky and located between the mixed use building along Yonge Street and the townhouse units on the easterly portion of the site.

5.Rental Housing Protection Act:

While I am recommending approval of this application, it is important to note that until proclamation of rescinding legislation by the Province, the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA), 1989, continue to apply to this application as it involves displacement of 27 registered rental housing units. This means that until the new legislation has actually been proclaimed, no demolition or building permit will be issued unless Council approval has been granted pursuant to the provisions of the RHPA, 1989.

I am currently reviewing the implications of the pending changes to the RHPA on a City-wide basis and will be in a position to report back to your Committee on this issue as it relates to this application in particular, no later than the statutory public meeting of your Committee to consider the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments implementing this application.

Accordingly, I am recommending approval of this application subject to my further reporting on the pending amending legislation to the RHPA and the implications on related City policies on this development proposal.

Conclusion:

The original proposal has been modified successfully in response to concerns raised during the public meeting and by civic officials with the result that the overall density of the project was reduced, and compliance with the urban design guidelines for the sites was achieved. The proposal is generally consistent with the policies of the Official Plan. Accordingly, I am in support of this revised proposal.

Contact Name:

Feodora Steppat

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-7740

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

--------

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	196015
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	July 11, 1996
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	February 13, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:1079, 2081, 2085, 2087, 2093, 2097, 2103, 2105, 2107, & 2111 Yonge Street; 5, 9, 11, 21, Hillsdale Avenue East; 12, 14 &16 Manor Road East

Nearest Intersection:	East side of Yonge Street, between Manor Road East and Hillsdale Avenue East.

Project Description:	To construct a mixed use commercial and residential development.

Applicant:

S. H. Diamond

P.O. Box 48 T.D. Centre

601-8400

Agent:

S. H. Diamond

P.O. Box 48 T.D. centre

601-8400

Architect:

Lorne Rose, Rose & Bigauskas

95 Bridgeland Ave., Toronto

780-0702

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	LDMCRA ; LDRA	Site Specific Provision:	809-84
Zoning District:	MCR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5 ; R2 Z0.6	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	9.0; 16.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	4406.0 m²	Height:	Storeys:		3 and 6
Frontage:	68.9 m		Metres:		10.00, 17.55
Depth:	Irregular m
			Indoor		Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	84
Residential GFA:	11488.9 m²	Loading Docks:	1	G
Non-Residential GFA:	1431.8 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:	12920.9 m²

DWELLING UNITS		FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN
Tenure:	Condo	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Total Units:	129	Residential	11488.9 m²
		Commercial	1431.8 m²

PROPOSED DENSITY
Residential Density: 2.61	Non-Residential Density: 0.32	Total Density: 2.93

COMMENTS

Status:

Preliminary Report dated September 24, 1996 adopted by LUC on October 10, 1996. Application Revised on September 5, 1997 and February 13, 1998.

Data valid:

February 13, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix A

Notes of Public Meeting

for 2079-211 Yonge Street, 5, 9, 11 and 21 Hillsdale Avenue East,

and 12, 14 and 116 Manor Road East

Attendance:

Babak Abbaszadeh, Chair, PAC

Joanne Simonetta, Member, PAC

Feodora Steppat, City Planning, Urban Development Services

Deborah Porte, City Planning, Urban Development Services

Stephen Diamond, McCarthy Tetrault

The meeting commenced at 7:30 pm.

Approximately 100 members of the public were in attendance.

The chair briefly reviewed the role of the Planning Advisory Committee, the purpose of the meeting and the process the application will follow afterwards.

Feodora Steppat, the area planner, outlined the basic elements of and reasons for the application, its planning policy context and associated planning issues.

The applicant's architect explained the details of site and building design.

Concerns focused on the requested increase in density, building height and massing in terms of the precedent setting potential for future redevelopment of Yonge Street between the two subway nodes, as well as the impact on neighbourhood stability, parking and traffic circulation, and demands on parks and existing school facilities.

Regarding these major issues, the following particular concerns were identified:

Density, Building Height and Massing:

The City planner was requested to explain the proposed density in relation to the existing MCR and R zoned portions of the site. It was pointed out that it is difficult to accurately calculate density that way. However, in approximate terms, the total requested density of 3.19 times over the entire lot would translate into a density of about 4.4 times on the MCR zoned area of the lot and about 1.9 times on the R zoned portion.

The question was raised why one would want to entertain requests for increases in density on Yonge Street given that the City's Main Streets policies have only recently been implemented and should be conformed with unless undue hardship or need can be demonstrated. Members in the audience repeatedly made it clear that they did not feel there was any need to amend the current policies to accommodate the application. On the contrary, it was pointed out that increases in density along Yonge Street between the two subway nodes would diminish the importance of the nodes where a concentration of density currently exists and can be justified.

Regarding building height it was pointed out that the proposed 17 metres exceed the permitted 16m height limit on Yonge Street by only 1 metre. However, the easterly half of the building with location in the R zone, exceeds the permitted 9 m height limit by almost 100 %.

The proposed terracing of the easterly portions of the building was seen as insufficient to provide an effective transition into the abutting neighbourhood. Also noted was the potential loss amenity for abutting residential lots in terms of privacy as well as shadow casting.

The massing effect of the U-shaped building was seen as incongruent with the existing houseform in the abutting neighbourhood.

Precedence:

The point was made several times that the Art Shop should not be used as a precedent to justify encroachment of medium density development into the low density residence district.

Numerous times, concern was raised with the undesirable precedent this proposal would set for future redevelopment of Yonge Street in terms of building height, massing and site design as well as encourage land assembly of low density residential lots near Yonge Street.

Neighbourhood Stability:

The encroachment of this proposal into the Low Density Residence Area was seen as a very serious issue, particularly as this neighbourhood is currently experiencing pressures for redevelopment exceeding permitted densities also on Eglinton, Mount Pleasant and Merton Street. It was seen as a threat to neighbourhood stability and the area's continued desirability to purchase a home to raise a family.

Also noted was the fact, that the applicant owns a number of other residential properties near-by on Hillsdale and on Manor Road, all of which are currently rented. Fears were expressed that the applicant my attempt to achieve continuous ownership of residential lots east of the subject site and ask for increases in current density permissions to allow higher density residential development using the subject application, if approved, as the precedent.

The question was asked as to how long the applicant has owned the subject site. Mr. Diamond indicated that his client has owned the site for about 40 year. The question then was raised whether the applicant has intentions to actually develop the lands if his current application were granted. It was noted further by a member in the audience that increases in development potential of the subject site were granted in 1984 but never implemented.

A number of residential tenants in the existing developments on the subject site were in attendance at the meeting and asked whether they were in any way protected.

Parking and Traffic Circulation:

The number of proposed parking spaces was perceived as insufficient to satisfy the needs of condominium owners. The number of visitor parking spaces was also seen as insufficient.

Fears were expressed that the project would aggravate the currently unsatisfactory traffic and parking situation.

Now, deliveries to Yonge Street stores can be made from the existing rear lane. The new development would necessitate deliveries to be made only from Yonge Street, a seemingly less desirable situation.

Parks and Schools:

It was requested that this application be evaluated in terms of its effects on the area's schools, parks and social services. The area planner noted, that the application has been circulated to the School Board and City Parks Department soliciting their respective comments none of which are available to date.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm

________

Appendix B

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Comments from Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings, dated March 26, 1998.

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Build mixed use building containing retail stores and 129 dwelling units.

Zoning Designation:MCR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5 R2 Z0.6Map:51K-321

Applicable By-law(s):391-81, as amended

Plans prepared by:Rose and BigauskasPlans dated: February 13, 1998

Residential GFA:11489 m²

Non-Residential GFA:1432 m²

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

SEPARATE LOT AREA AND GROSS FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ARE REQUIRED FOR EACH OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS:

1.The building /addition will have a height of 20.55 metres instead of the maximum permitted 16.0 metres. Section 4(2)(a)

2.The building /addition will have a height of 10.0 metres instead of the maximum permitted 9.0 metres. Section 4(2)(a)

3.78 bicycle parking spaces-occupant required. 52 provided. Section 4(13)

4.19 bicycle parking spaces - visitor required . 13 provided. Section 4(13)

5.The proposed use(s) (a mixed use building) is/are not permitted in this district. Section6(1)(a)

6.The building/addition will be located 0 metres from the front lot line instead of the minimum required 5.0 metres. Section 6(3) PART II 2.

7.The building/addition will be located 0.45 metres from the east side lot line instead of the minimum required 7.5 metres. Section 6(3) PART II 3.

8.The building will have a depth of 71.0 metres instead of the maximum permitted 14.0 metres. Section 6(3) PART II 5.

9.The building will have external facing walls separated by a distance of 8.0 instead of the minimum required 11.0 metres. Section 6(3) PART II 6

10.The building will be located 0 metres from a lot in an R district in lieu of the minimum required 7.5 metres. Section 8(3) PART II.

11.The building will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane at an elevation of 13.0 metres above the street line. Section 8(3) PART II 4(c)(i).

12.The building will penetrate the 45 degree angular plane at an elevation of 10.0 metres 7.5 metres from an R district. Section 8(3) PART II 4(c)(iii).

13.The residential building will contain more than 6 dwelling units. Section 12(2)63.

14.82 parking spaces will be provided in lieu of the minimum required 106 parking spaces. Section 12(2)118(iv).

15.The building wall of the first storey will be located 0 metres from the street line in lieu of the minimum required 0.15 metres.

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 requires City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

4.The proposal DOES NOT require 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."

2.Comments from City Works Services, dated April 1, 1998.

"The proposal for the above noted site, located on the north-west corner of Yonge Street and Hillsdale Avenue East, was dealt with in Departmental report to you dated November 6, 1996 and November 6, 1997.

The project has now been revised, to among other things:

- increase the number of residential units in the mixed use building from 122 units to 123 units;

- reduce the total number of parking spaces from 117 to 84 on the plans, including a reduction in the total number of visitor parking spaces from 33 to 10, although the site statistics indicate the provision of 82 spaces;

- eliminate the second level of the underground parking garage, modify the parking layout and relocate the physical separation between the resident parking spaces and the residential visitor parking spaces;

- indicate the parking space dimensions and width of the access driveways;

- indicate that the slope of the access ramp to the underground garage would not exceed 5% within 6 m of the north-south private driveway and 15% along the remaining portions;

- indicate an inside turning radius of 5 m and an outside turning radius of 11.5 m for two way traffic, at all turns on the access ramp system;

- indicate a garbage storage room of 35 m� and a separate recycling room of 18 m� in size, respectively; and

- indicate a base pad adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space.

Parking

The provision of 84 parking spaces in a one-level underground garage as shown on the plans, satisfies, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for 81 spaces for the residents and residential visitors, whereas it does not require parking spaces for the retail component. The proposed parking supply is acceptable. The modified parking layout, relocation of the physical separation and dimensions of the parking spaces, driveway and ramp widths are acceptable.

Refuse Collection

A garbage storage room of 35 m� and a separate recyclable materials storage room of 18 m� have been shown on the plans and are acceptable. However, the plans should be revised to indicate that the recycling room will be designed with double doors leading to the loading facility to facilitate the movement of container bins and be accessible to residents, without providing access to the garbage room. A second garbage storage room (undimensioned) is shown within the underground garage and is acceptable. A garbage chute connecting the upper floors to the garbage room and a stationary compactor unit within the garbage room have not been shown on the plans.

The Type G loading space must be designed to permit trucks to enter and exit the site in a forward motion, as previously set out in both the November 6, 1996 and November 6, 1997 Departmental reports. The plans should be revised accordingly. In any event, it appears that the vertical clearance within the first 8 m of the proposed Type G loading space is less than the required 6.1 m.

Stormwater Management

In connection with City Council's policy requiring the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, the applicant should submit, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services, a grading plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities.

Work Within the Road Allowances

With respect to Yonge Street, the design of the boulevard must meet the Transportation Department's guidelines for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics. This includes providing or preserving a decorative band of impressed concrete 0.6 metres wide along the back of curb and trees every 6 to 8 metres along the Yonge Street frontage. If clarification is required on how these standards will apply to this site, the applicant can contact the Streetscape Program at 392-3808.

Permits

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

As a result of the foregoing, and for the sake of clarity, the following is a consolidation which updates and supersedes the recommendations contained in the previous reports.

1.That the owner be required to:

(a)Provide space within the development for the construction of transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b)Provide and maintain a minimum of 84 parking spaces on the site to serve the project, including at least 74 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and 7 spaces for the residential visitors;

(c)Provide and maintain a physical separation between the residential and commercial portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the resident parking;

(d)Construct the access to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of the streetline and not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;

(e)Provide and maintain a minimum inside turning radius of 4.5 m, with a minimum outside turning radius of 7.9 m for one-way traffic and 11.3 m for two-way traffic, at all turns on the access ramp system;

(f)Provide and maintain a heating system to prevent ice and snow build-up on that portion of the access ramp to the underground garage which will be exposed to the elements;

(h)Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 25 m� in size in the residential component of the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(i)Provide and maintain a recycling room at least 15 m� in size designed with double doors or an overhead door leading to the Type G loading space and conveniently accessible to all residents of the project;

(k)Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

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

(m)Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to and egress from the Type G loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed), a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3 m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

(n)Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of at least 4 compactor containers on collection day;

(o)Provide and maintain a level service connection between the garbage room and the recyclable materials storage room and the Type G loading space for the transporting of container bins;

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

(q)Submit to the Commissioner of City Works Services:

(i) Final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building to enable the preparation of the building envelope plans, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(ii)A grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services;

(r)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of City Works Services, prior to the introduction of a bill in Council:

(i)a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan addressing strategies for material recovery and waste reduction within the development;

(ii)a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirement;

(s)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;

(t)Provide, maintain and operate the material recovery and waste reduction and noise impact measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the respective plans approved by the Commissioner of City Works Services;

(u)Submit revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(h), 1(i), 1(k), 1(n), 1(o), and 1(q) (ii) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services;

2.That the owner be advised:

(a)Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of City Works services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance;

(b)That the Yonge Street Boulevard must be designed in accordance with the guidelines of the Transportation Department;

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

(d)That the storm water run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connection 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;

(e)Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for the proposed canopies within the Yonge Street and Hillsdale Avenue East road allowances;

(f)Of the need to submit a separate application for the review and approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services for the proposed steps within the Hillsdale Avenue East road allowance; and

(g)Of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of the City containerized garbage collection."

3.Comments from Toronto Parks and Recreation Community Services, dated March 11, 1998.

"This will acknowledge your Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning Circulation Form which was circulated on February 17, 1998 and contained revised plans for the above noted application. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

-There is/are eleven City owned tree(s) involved with this project which is/are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These tree(s) must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

-If sufficient space exists, the applicant should provide large growing shade trees to be planted within the City road allowance as part of this application. A detailed landscape plan must be provided which indicates the exact location of all existing City owned trees and any proposed trees to be planted within the City road allowance including details with respect to proposed tree species, caliper and quantity. A planting plan should provide the best possible, natural, planting environment for trees. It is preferred that trees be planted in turf when possible. If no room exists for turf boulevards with trees, raised planting beds or continuous tree pits should be considered. Trees must be planted in accordance with the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to the City.

Street Trees in Turf:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 101 for Balled and Burlapped Trees in Turf Areas.

Street Trees in Raised Planters:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 102 for Raised Tree Planter -Concept.

Street Trees in Tree Pits:In accordance with Planting Detail No.'s 103, 103-1, 103-2, & 103-3 for 1.2 m x 2.4 m Tree Pit. Tree pits must be constructed in accordance with the Continuous Tree Pit details outlined in the Construction Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as Drawing No.'s RE-1833M-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -6, 1 of 2 & 2 of 2.

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

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

-I advise that the plans prepared by Alexander Budrevics and Associates Limited, date stamped as received on February 13, 1998 by Urban Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above."

4.Comments from Toronto Public Health, dated March 30, 1998.

"Thank you for your request of February 13, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

The revisions to the site plan have been noted and do not alter the previous recommendations made for this site. Please refer to this Department's letter dated August 23, 1996, for this information.

Please inform the owner/applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of my comments. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number."

5.Comments from Toronto Public Health, dated August 23, 1996.

"Thank you for your request of July 16, 1996 to review and comment on the Site Plan Approval for the above referenced site. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The applicant proposes the construction of a mixed use commercial and residential development with parking for 145 vehicles on this site.

Under the City's revised environmental review process, City review of environmental site assessments for development applications will be reduced, with greater reliance placed on supervision and certification by qualified environmental professionals for those sites which will be cleaned up to established criteria.

A review of the files available to us indicates that the subject 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 this site. This shall include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, and could include a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, a Remedial Work Plan and a Site Specific Risk Assessment, 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 produce a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment which may include, but is not limited to, a detailed historical review to identify all existing and past land uses, identification of all hazardous materials on site, identification of Standard Industrial Classification codes for each type of activity and processes and chemicals used, and a demolition/excavation dust control plan. This report should be submitted to the Medical Officer of health for review, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

2.That the owner shall produce a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, if the results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment indicates a potential for contaminants to exist on-site.

3.That the owner shall produce a Remedial Work Plan which shall include, but is not limited to, site remediation, management and disposal options for any contaminated soil or groundwater and/or hazardous materials located on-site, if required by the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.

4.That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the measures in the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and the Remedial Work Plan and upon completion, submit an Owner/Consultant Statement for Site Remediation to the City, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Remedial work Plan and the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.

5.That the owner shall produce a Site Specific Risk Assessment, if a clean up to generic Ministry of Environment and Energy criteria is not being considered, which may include, but is not limited to, an examination of the nature and magnitude of risk attributable to the presence of a contaminant when considering human and ecological components and a LevelI or Level II Risk Management Program that provides details on the elements to be addressed for the protection of environmental health. This report should be submitted to the medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council, and upon approval, the owner shall complete the Owner/Consultant Statement for Site Remediation, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

By copy of this letter I will inform the applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of the attachments.

If you have any questions, please contact me at 392-7685."

6.Comments from Metro Planning Department, dated September 13, 1996.

"As requested, we have reviewed the proposal for 143 residential units and 12,600 sq. ft. of retail use and advise as follows.

The unit sizes range from 550-650 sq. ft. for the 36 one bedroom units and 825-1,000 sq. ft. for the 107 two bedroom units. The provision of smaller sized units is consistent with the affordable housing (minimum 25%) policies in the Metro Official Plan.

The developer will be required to satisfy the Metro Transportation Department's requirements for pedestrian accommodation, greening and aesthetics on the Yonge Street right-of-way. This includes provision of a decorative band of impressed concrete 0.6 metres wide along the back of curb and trees every 6 to 8 metres along the Yonge Street frontage. Consequently, the applicant is advised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (392-4960) of the Metro Transportation Department regarding their site-specific permit/licence requirements with respect to building location, construction activities and streetscaping"

7.Comments from Metro Planning Department, dated February 18, 1998.

"We have examined the application with respect to Metropolitan Official Plan policies. We note that, from our perspective, the changes are minor. Although the total gross floor area of the development and the overall density remains the same as the second revision, the number of residential units has increased from 128 to 129, while the retail gross floor area is unchanged. Building height has increased from 17.55 m to 19.15 m to provide for higher ceilings, the townhouses have been set back slightly from the east lot line and the parking garage has been redesigned reducing the amount of parking to 82 spaces. Vehicular access to the site from Hillsdale Avenue East and Manor Road East has not changed significantly from the earlier application.

Therefore, our requirements as specified in our letter of September 13, 1996 have not changed."

8.Comments from Metropolitan Separate School Board, dated July 29, 1996.

"Further to your request for comments regarding the above-noted matter, please be advised that the Metropolitan Separate School Board has no concerns with this proposal. The following schools serve the subject area:

St. Monica Catholic Elementary School

Loretto Abbey Catholic Secondary School

St. Patrick Catholic Secondary School

Ecole Elementaire catholique Sacre-Coeur

Ecole secondaire catholique Mgr-de-Charbonnel

If further information is requested, please contact the Planning Department at 222-8282, extension2277."

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 5

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 6

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 7

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 8

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 9

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 10

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

Insert Table/Map No. 11

2079-2111 Yonge Street, 9,21 Hillsdale Ave. E. And 12,14,16 Manor Drive East

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

On May 6, 1998, Toronto Community Council adopted the Final Planning Report (April 20, 1998) for this project, but requested at the same time, that the area Councillor facilitate further discussions between area residents and the applicant regarding vehicular access to the project from Yonge Street, mitigating the noise and visual impacts of the below grade garage access ramp, and the height and shadows of the proposed townhouses. In accordance with Community Council's request, I am reporting on the results of these discussions as well as on the implications of recent changes to the Rental Housing Protection Act for this project.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable:

Recommendations:

1.That the front yard building setback for the four townhouse units fronting on Manor Road East be 3 metres.

2.That the applicant be advised that it will be necessary to obtain a building permit for the proposed buildings prior to the issuance of a demolition permit for the existing buildings containing residential units.

Comments:

1.Results from further Public Consultation:

Arranged by Councillor Johnson, a meeting took place on June 18, 1998, attended by planning staff, representatives of the applicant, five area residents as well as a representative of the South Eglinton Ratepayers Association.

The discussion focussed on the following issues:

Vehicular Access from Yonge Street:

It was confirmed that the City's policy does not allow for direct vehicular access from a major arterial road such as Yonge Street when access may be obtained via a rear service lane/driveway as proposed by the applicant. The City's policy in this regard aims to protect pedestrian amenity and safety as well as to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow on major City roads. It is for this reason that staff continues to support the applicant's proposal for vehicular access to the site via Hillsdale Avenue East or Manor Road East.

Below Grade Garage Access Ramp

The owner of No. 18 Manor Road East, adjacent to the east of the four proposed townhouse units, expressed concerns about noise from vehicles using the garage ramp.

With a view to reducing car noise, two alternative solutions have been under discussion: to provide a structural cover for the ramp, or to raise the height of the retaining wall to the ramp, thereby creating a barrier shielding the south-easterly neighbour from the ramp's noise impact.

This issue will be addressed through the site plan approval process.

Townhouse Building Height and Shadows

The applicant has prepared shadow studies comparing the impact of an as-of-right 9 m high, flat roof project with the requested 10 metre flat roof townhouse units. As shown on Maps 2 and 3, the proposal slightly increases the shadow impact on the easterly neighbour's backyard. If the proposed 6 metre front yard setback for these townhouse units were reduced to 3 metres, as requested by the neighbouring property owner, a reduced shadow impact on his rear yard would be achieved. I am therefore recommending a 3 metre front yard setback for the Manor Road townhouses.

2.Rental Housing Protection Act:

The applicant has indicated that the site now has a total of 12 buildings which comprise 29 dwelling units. The maximum number of dwelling units contained in any one building is four. Under the applicant's proposal, all of these buildings will be demolished.

The property was subject to the Rental Housing Protection Act (RHPA). This Act, however, was repealed and replaced by the Tenant Protection Act (TPA) on June 17, 1998. Unlike the RHPA, the TPA does not provide any special powers for municipalities to help them control demolitions or other changes to the rental housing stock. The City is therefore limited to using its own mechanism to minimize the loss of rental housing.

At present, there are two mechanisms currently available in the former City of Toronto: Section 33 of the Planning Act and special demolition control legislation approved by the Province in 1984. Section 33 permits a municipality to designate an area within its jurisdiction as a demolition control area. Where this is done, the Council may refuse to issue a demolition permit for residential buildings, at least until a building permit has been obtained. The entire former City of Toronto has been designated as a demolition control area.

In addition to Section 33, the former City has also been given special legislation enacted under the City of Toronto Act which permits it to refuse to issue a demolition permit for up to one year following receipt of the demolition permit application (or the date the building permit is issued, whichever is later). However, this permission only applies to buildings containing six or more dwelling units. In the case of the subject properties, none of the existing buildings have more than four dwelling units. Furthermore, the applicant's solicitor has advised us that all of the buildings appear to be separate, and could therefore not be viewed as legal adjoining buildings which together contain six or more units.

At this point in time and in this particular instance, it appears that the City is limited to the use of Section 33 of the Planning Act which enables the City not to issue a demolition permit, until a building permit has been obtained. The applicant should be so advised.

Contact Name:

Feodora Steppat, City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-7740; Fax: 392-1330

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Yonge Street/Manor

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Yonge Street/Manor

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Yonge Street/Manor

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Yonge Street/Manor

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (July 15, 1998) from Councillor Johnston:

This is an update on the above-noted proposed redevelopment. Toronto Community Council will be again dealing with the proposal at its July 22, 1998, 10:45 a.m., in Rooms 308/309 Metro Hall, 55 John St. For further information, and if you wish to speak, call the City Clerk at 392-7033.

On April 22, 1998, I arranged a public meeting to discuss residents' concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment. On May 6, 1998 Toronto Community Council met to deal with the issue. I asked for more time to meet with a representative group of residents and City planners to review residents' concerns.

The concerns included: (1) the location of the garage ramp for the proposed condominium building, (2) the possibility of covering the garage ramp; (3) landscaping for the project; (4) height of the town houses on Manor Road East; (5) noise; (6) reduce neighbourhood traffic by using Yonge Street for access and egress to the project; (7) undertake a traffic calming study for South Eglinton (west of Mount Pleasant Road).

On June 18th I arranged a 7:30 a.m. breakfast meeting (the residents' choice of time) at Yonge and Davisville. Seven residents representing various facets of the concerns raised at the May 6th Council meeting were invited. Five residents attended, four of whom had made presentations at the May 6th Community Council meeting, plus planning staff, the developer's representatives and architect. The following decisions were reached re the above-noted concerns.

(1) the garage ramp access door will be moved to the bottom of the ramp; (2) the garage entrance is being moved to reduce the impact on the adjacent residence and lattice work added to improve the looks; (3) landscaping plan has been drawn up satisfactory to the City Urban Design staff; (4) town houses fronting on Manor Road East will have a front yard building set back of 3 metres to reduce shadows for abutting residents; (5) it is reported that with the changes proposed the noise from vehicles entering and leaving the garage will be "considerably" less than the present noise levels from air conditioning and heating equipment attached to the existing buildings on the site; (6) City policy requires access and egress from the flankage street; (7) I have written to the Toronto Community Council, and got approval, for the establishment of an area traffic management study in the area bounded by Yonge Street, Eglinton Avenue East, Mount Pleasant Road and the cemetery.

________

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 has been submitted to Council under separate cover:

- (May 5, 1998) from Mr. Richard Worzel

-(May 6, 1998) from Mr. Michael Freel, Chairman, Building and Development Committee, South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association

-(May 5, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Welsh and Mr. John Reid

-(May 6, 1998) from Mr. Julian Heller, Julian Heller and Associates

-(Undated) from Mr. Stephen Diamond forwarding Landscape Concept Plan

-(May 2, 1998) from Paul Hayden forwarding petition signed by 158 persons in opposition

-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. Walter and Mrs. Erna Relvik

-(April 29, 1998) from Mr. Paul Hayden and Mr. Michael Hall

-(July 7, 1998) from W. Norgate

-(July 7, 1998) from D.R. Schuller

-(July 8, 1998) from Mr. Paul Hayden

-(July 7, 1998) from Mr. Christopher Brawn and Ms. Liisa Freure

-(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Barbara Vininsky-Millar

-(July 19, 1998) from Gina and Mervyn Jackson

-(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Michael Freel, Chairman, Building and Development Committee, South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association

-(July 7, 1998) from P.J. Keirstead

-(July 7, 1998) from Tom Laurih

-(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Jennifer Harvey

-(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Katie Ellis

-(July 7, 1998) from John H. Martin

-(July 7, 1998) from R.E. Goeller

-(July 7, 1998) from Ms. D. Joan Gifford

-(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Welsh and Mr. John Reid

Councillor Walker declared an interest in the foregoing matter in that he resides within the notice area of the subject property.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (July 27, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council advises that the attached submissions were received by the City Clerk with respect to the foregoing Clause:

- (May 5, 1998) from Mr. Richard Worzel;

-(May 6, 1998) from Mr. Michael Freel, Chairman, Building and Development Committee, South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association;

-(May 5, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Welsh and Mr. John Reid;

-(May 6, 1998) from Mr. Julian Heller, Julian Heller and Associates;

-(Undated) from Mr. Stephen Diamond forwarding Landscape Concept Plan;

-(May 2, 1998) from Paul Hayden forwarding petition signed by 158 persons in opposition;

-(May 25, 1998) from Mr. Walter and Mrs. Erna Relvik;

-(April 29, 1998) from Mr. Paul Hayden and Mr. Michael Hall;

-(July 7, 1998) from W. Norgate;

-(July 7, 1998) from D.R. Schuller;

-(July 8, 1998) from Mr. Paul Hayden;

-(July 7, 1998) from Mr. Christopher Brawn and Ms. Liisa Freure;

-(July 7, 1998) from Ms. Barbara Vininsky-Millar;

-(July 19, 1998) from Gina and Mervyn Jackson;

-(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Michael Freel, Chairman, Building and Development Committee, South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association;

-7 identical letters in opposition; and

-(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Welsh and Mr. John Reid.)

(A copy of each of the submissions, referred to in the foregoing transmittal letter, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, communications (July7, 1998) from G. Parker and C. Naumoff.)

(Councillor Walker, at the meeting of City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that he resides within the notice area of the subject property.)

Technical Corrections - Zoning By-law No. 438-86

of the former City of Toronto

(All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report (July 14, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the report (June 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services' report addresses technical corrections to general Zoning By-law No. 438-86.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-law has no financial implications for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-law in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-law, it could recommend that:

(2)The Draft By-law attached to the report (July 14, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto.

(3)The report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Background:

Toronto Community Council has before it the final report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services concerning the above noted subject. The report recommends that a Draft By-law be prepared to make certain technical corrections.

Comments:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law, which, if enacted, will give effect to the planning report.

Contact Name:

John Paton, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7230

Fax:392-0024

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

________

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No.

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend By-law No. 438-86, the Zoning By-law, as amended,

to make certain technical corrections.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Section 2(1) of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by:

(1)amending the definition of "accessory" by italicizing the words "parking spaces";

(2)amending the definition of "club" by italicizing the words "non-residential building"; and

(3)amending the definition of "showroom" by deleting the words, "but does not include sales to the public".

2.Section 2(2) of By-law No. 438-86 is amended by:

(1)deleting the reference to section 10(3) in paragraph (b); and

(2)amending paragraphs (e) and (f) by:

(i)deleting the number "10" and replacing it with the number "9".

3.Section 4 of By-law No. 438-86 is amended by:

(1)amending the parking requirement of "a commercial bakery" by adding a semi-colon after the word "therein"; and

(2)amending subsection (5) Schedule I by deleting the expression "Adult Physical Culture Establishment" where they appear and substituting "Adult Physical Culture Establishment".

4.Section 6 of By-law No. 438-86 is amended by:

(1)amending subsection (3) PART IV 1 (d) (i) by italicizing the words "front wall".

5.Section 9 of By-law No. 438-86 is amended by:

(1)deleting the symbol "P" opposite the listing for a "showroom" in subsection (1) (f) (b) (iv) and replace the symbol with the symbol "q29"; and

(2)adding to subsection (2) qualification "29. as follows: A showroom is a permitted use, provided: (i) it does not include sales to the public".

6.Section 12(1) of By-law No. 438-86 is amended by:

(1)amending exception 17 by replacing the expression "land municipally known in the year 1988 as part of 1000 Mount Pleasant Road, as shown" with the word "lands";

(2)amending exception 42 (ii) by deleting "CR" and replacing it with "MCR";

(3)amending exception 52 by deleting "the I2 district within the area bounded by Roncesvalles" and replacing it with "the I1 district within the area bounded by Roncesvalles";

(4)amending exception 56 by deleting "Delisle Avenue" and replacing it with "De Lisle Avenue";

(5)amending exception 60 (i) by deleting "Lot 1" and replacing it with "Part of Lot 1";

(6)amending exception 87 by italicizing the word "frontage";

(7)deleting exception 276;

(8)amending exception 279 by:

(i) adding "to" before the word "prevent"; and

(ii)deleting the expression "the date of enactment of this by-law" and replacing it with "July 9, 1991";

(9)amending exception 331 by deleting "PARTS 13 to 22" from the map and replacing it with "PARTS 13 to 26"; and

(10)amending exception 369(v) by italicizing "residential gross floor area".

7.Section 12(2) of By-law No. 438-86 is amended by:

(1)amending exception 8 by adding "or the north limit of Lawrence Avenue East" following "on the north side of the street";

(2)deleting exception 58;

(3)amending exception 219 (b) by replacing CR T2.0 C1.0 R1.5 with MCR T2.0 C1.0 R1.5, deleting CR T2.0 C1.0 R2.0 and replacing MCR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5 to CR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5;

(4)amending exception 228 (i) G by deleting the expression "parking lot" and replacing it with "parking station", "commercial parking garage", "parking area", "parking garage", "commercial parking lot";

(5)amending exception 239 (v) by deleting the expression "parking station";

(6)amending exception 290 (a) (iv) by deleting "parking lot" and replacing it with "commercial parking lot";

(7)amending exception 295 by deleting "or" in (c) (ii) and adding "(iii) any purpose below grade other than a crawl space used for storage, heating, cooling, ventilating, electrical or mechanical equipment; or" and changing the existing (iii) to "(iv)"; and

(8)amending exception 305 by deleting "within the Old Stockyards District".

8.Section 12(3)(a) of By-law No. 438-86 is amended by:

(1)deleting "16 FEET (94.88 METRES)" and replacing it with "5 METRES"; and

(2)deleting "20 FEET OR LESS (6.10 METRES)" and replacing it with "6 METRES".

9.Section 13 of By-law No. 438-86 is amended by:

(1)deleting the line "By-law No. 325-69 respecting 123 Eglinton Avenue East";

(2)deleting the line "By-law No. 513-90 respecting 109 Front Street East";

(3)deleting the line "By-law No. 792-78 respecting 447 Church Street";

(4)deleting the address "1372 Bloor Street West" and replacing it with "77 Rankin Crescent";

(5)deleting the address "1386 Bloor Street West" and replacing it with "1380 Bloor Street West"; and

(6)deleting the address "123 Eglinton Avenue East" and replacing it with "108 Redpath Avenue" following "By-law No.1994-0312 respecting".

10.Height and Minimum Lot Frontage Map 47H-321 contained in Appendix 'B' of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, is amended by adding a 9.0 metre height limit for 199 to 211 Riverside Drive, 19 to 31, 30 and 32 Innisfree Court and 1 Worthington Crescent.

11.Height and Minimum Lot Frontage Map 47H-321 contained in Appendix 'B' of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, is further amended by adding to the Minimum Lot Frontage Chart a new symbol "D" for "any building or structure" and a 21.0 metre Minimum Lot Frontage, for the lands known municipally in 1997 as Nos. 199 to 211 Riverside Drive.

12.By-law No. 352-92 is amended to delete "gross floor area" and replace it with "residential gross floor area".

13.By-law No. 562-92 is amended to delete "meters" and replace it with "metres".

14.Section 4 of By-law No. 695-92 is amended as follows:

(i)to delete "no" and replace it with "No";

(ii)to delete the phrase "of By-law No. 438-86"; and

(iii)to delete "a tavern or public house" and replace it with the expression "deleted by By-law 425-93".

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (June 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services::

Purpose:

To authorize minor technical amendments to correct errors in Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That the attached draft by-law to amend Zoning By-law 438-86, to make the technical changes listed in Appendix A of this report, be approved.

Council Reference/Background/History:

With the many Zoning By-law amendments approved each year, minor technical errors occur from time to time and must be corrected. These may include spelling errors, definitions not shown in italics, changes in property addresses and numbers missing from height maps. Simple housekeeping matters and clean-up like these clarify the meaning or the intent of the By-law.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Necessary corrections to the Zoning By-law are periodically reviewed and grouped into one amending by-law. This report continues this process. Appendix A lists the sections of the Zoning By-law that require technical amendments.

With amalgamation of the City of Toronto it is important that the existing zoning by-laws be up to date and maintained until such time as a new City-wide Zoning By-law is adopted.

Conclusions:

The technical amendments for the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law outlined in this report include correcting spelling and punctuation errors, using italics to indicate terms that have definitions, updating terminology and references to new property addresses, changing out-dated zoning categories, including height limits, as well as including references to dates that have been omitted. None of the proposed amendments alter the intent of the relevant zoning provisions.

Contact Name:

Denise Graham

Telephone:(416) 392-0871

Fax:(416) 392-7536

E-Mail: dgraham1@city.toronto.on.ca

________

APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL BY-LAW AMENDMENTS

BY-LAW SECTION	ISSUE AND PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Section 2 (1) showroom	delete "but does not include sales to the public"
Section 2 (1) accessory	definition amended by 1995-0190 term "parking spaces" should be "parking spaces"
Section 2 (1) club	definition of club introduced by 1994-0601 as amended by 1997-0617 "non-residential building" should be "non-residential building"
Section 2 (2) (b)	delete "or 10 (3)"
Section 2 (2) (e) and (f)	change "10" to "9"
Section 4 (4) (b) a commercial bakery	add semi-colon at end
Section 4 (5) Schedule I - Adult Physical Culture Establishment	change "Adult Physical Culture Establishment" to "Adult Physical Culture Establishment"
Section 6 (3) PART IV 1 (d) (i)	change "front wall" to "front wall"
Section 9 (1)(f)(b)(iv) showroom	change P to q29
Section 9 (2) 29	insert "a showroom is a permitted use, provided: (i) it does not include sales to the public."
Section 12 (1) 17	replace "land municipally known in the year 1988 as part of 1000 Mount Pleasant Road, as shown" with the word "lands"
Section 12 (1) 42 (ii)	change "CR" to "MCR"
Section 12 (1) 52 (vii)	change "I2" to "I1"
Section 12 (1) 56	change "Delisle Avenue" to "De Lisle Avenue"
Section 12 (1) 60 (i)	change "Lot 1" to "Part of Lot 1"
Section 12 (1) 87	change "frontage" to "frontage"
Section 12 (1) 276	delete - redundant provision
Section 12 (1) 279	change "prevent" to "to prevent"
Section 12 (1) 279	change ""the date of enactment of this by-law" to "July 9, 1991"
Section 12 (1) 331	amend map to reflect "PARTS 13 to 26"
Section 12 (1) 369	change "residential gross floor area" to "residential gross floor area"
Section 12 (2) 8	add after street "or the north limit of Lawrence Avenue East"
Section 12 (2) 58	delete - redundant provision
Section 12 (2) 219 (b)	change CR T2.0 C1.0 R1.5 to MCR T2.0 C1.0 R1.5 delete CR T2.0 C1.0 R2.0(referred to A below? change MCR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5 to CR T3.0 C2.0 R2.5
Section 12 (2) 228 (i) G	change "parking lot" to "parking station", "parking garage", "commercial parking lot", "commercial parking garage" "parking area"
Section 12 (2) 239 (v)	delete "parking station"
Section 12 (2) 290 (a) (iv)	replace "parking lot" with "commercial parking lot"
Section 12 (2) 295	delete "or" in 12 (2) 295 (c) (ii) add " (iii) any purpose below grade, other than a crawl space used for storage, heating, cooling, ventilating, electrical or mechanical equipment; or" change (iii) to (iv)
Section 12 (2) 305	delete "within the Old Stockyards District"
Section 12 (3) (a) (i) SCHEDULE	change "16 FEET (94.88 METRES)" to "5 METRES"
Section 12 (3) (a) (ii) SCHEDULE	change "6.10" to "6"
Section 13 By-law 325-69	delete - repealed
Section 13 By-law 513-90	delete
Section 13	change "1372 Bloor Street West" to "77 Rankin Crescent"
Section 13	change "1386 Bloor Street West" to "1380 Bloor Street West
Section 13 By-law 1994-0312	change "123 Eglinton Avenue East" to "108 Redpath Avenue"
MAP 47H-321	add 9 metre height limit to 199 to 211 Riverside Drive add height limit to 19 to 31, 30 and 32 Innisfree Court and 1 Worthington Crescent
MAP 47H-321	add 21 metre minimum lot frontage to 199 to 211 Riverside Drive
By-law 352-92	change "gross floor area" to "residential gross floor area"
By-law 562-92	change "meters" to "metres"
By-law 695-92 Section 4	change "no" to "No" remove "of By-law No. 438-86" delete "a tavern or public house" and note "deleted by By-law 425-93"

Amendment to Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the

former City of Toronto -

East Bayfront (Downtown and Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the Draft By-law attached to the report (July 9, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on July 22, 1998, and Mr. Murray Blankstein, Nuko Investment Ltd. addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Draft By-law amendment to incorporate a parking standard for entertainment facilities in the East Bayfront Area.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-law has no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-law in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-law, it could recommend:

(2)That the Draft By-law attached to the Report (July 9, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto."

Background:

Toronto Community Council, at its meeting held on June 24 and 25, 1998 had before it the report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (June 10, 1998) recommending, inter alia, that the City Solicitor be requested to submit a Draft By-law to create a parking standard for entertainment facility uses in the East Bayfront Area.

Comments:

The Draft By-law attached to this Report, if enacted, will implement the recommended parking standard of one space for every 18 square metres of floor area used for entertainment facility purposes.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone:(416) 392-7225

Fax:(416) 392-0024

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

________

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend By-law No. 1997-0184 respecting lands

known as the East Bayfront.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Section 3(2) of By-law No.1997-0184, being "A By-law To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 with respect to lands known as East Bayfront.", is amended by adding to exception 312 following the phrase "the area of the lot" the following:

"and provided, in the case of an entertainment facility, one parking space is provided for every 18 square metres of floor area therein and where such calculation results in a fraction of one, such fraction shall only be counted as one if it is of a value equal to or greater than 0.5".

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause 3 of its Report No. 8, headed "Settlement Report - Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - East Bayfront (Downtown and Don River)":

________

(City Council on July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted this Clause without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June10,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with TABIA, to report on the cumulative impact of big box retail development on the Toronto Community's retail strips; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on July 22, 1998 on the communication (June 23, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas T. Macos.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend actions that will resolve some of the issues raised by the appellants to By-law No.1997-0183 (Official Plan Amendment No. 87) and Zoning By-law No. 1997-0184 - East Bayfront.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the curbside parking regulations on Richardson Street be amended to improve traffic circulation in the vicinity of 215 Lake Shore Boulevard East as follows:

(a)adjustment to the one hour maximum parking regulation from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily, on both sides of Richardson Street from Queens Quay East to Lake Shore Boulevard East, to apply:

(i)on the west side of Richardson Street from Lake Shore Boulevard East to Queens Quay East;

(ii)on the east side of Richardson Street from Queens Quay East to a point 46.0 metres north;

(iii)on the east side of Richardson Street from a point 100.1 metres north of Queens Quay East to Lake Shore Boulevard East;

(b)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the east side of Richardson Street from a point 46.0 metres north of Queens Quay East to a point 54.1 metres further north; and

(2)That appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to recommendation number 1, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may be required to authorize the work and amend the appropriate schedules of Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code accordingly.

(3)That City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to amend Zoning By-law 438-86 as amended by By-law 1997-0184 to require a parking standard of 1 parking space for every 18 square metres of floor area for entertainment facilities.

Background:

In 1997 the former City of Toronto passed Official Plan and Zoning amendments for the East Bayfront to create and promote a stable business environment by permitting a wider range of potential uses. Notices of appeal to By-law No. 1997-0183 (Official Plan Amendment No. 87) and Zoning By-law No.1997-0184 were received from 1227803 Ontario Limited and 1147390 Ontario Limited in May, 1997. The issues identified by the appellants were:

-The proposed zoning changes were being made without due regard to the traffic and parking problems which redevelopment will generate.

-The City should adopt zoning standards so to avoid the concentration of a specific use.

-The City should require parking and impact studies for all new development.

-Shared parking among entertainment, amusement and restaurant uses should not be permitted by the City.

-The City should not allow retail stores up to 4500 square metres in size east of Jarvis Street.

-The City should undertake improvements to the Cherry St./Lakeshore Blvd. East corridor prior to any new commercial development.

-The definition of "entertainment facility" should specifically exclude a "casino" to be consistent with the definition of entertainment facilities on Polson Quay.

At the initial Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) prehearing on the appeals (February 24, 1998), City staff advised the OMB that some of the issues raised by the appellants could be resolved prior to a full hearing of the Board. The two notable issues which could be resolved are the need for revised on-street parking restrictions along sections Richardson Street and a parking standard for entertainment facilities.

Comments:

City Works staff have advised that they are prepared to undertake adjustments to the signage in the vicinity of the intersection of Richardson Street/Lake Shore Boulevard East which will improve turning movements for vehicles exiting the property at 215 Lake Shore Boulevard East (Federal Express). These improvements were discussed with a representative of Federal Express on-site and are acceptable. Recommendations 1 and 2 give effect to these changes.

City Works and City Planning staff are also prepared to recommend that a parking standard of 1 space for every 18 square metres of floor area be applied to entertainment facilities in East Bayfront. This is the standard that the City recommended for entertainment facilities on Polson Quay in the Port Industrial District. The "Docks" restaurant, located at 11 Polson Street, has a site-specific parking requirement of 450 parking spaces. That requirement, and the specific direction that the spaces be provided on the property at 20 Polson Street was established by the Ontario Municipal Board at a hearing that concluded in April, 1997.

City planning staff will work with the appellants to try and resolve other issues prior to the commencement of the full OMB hearing.

Conclusion:

The recommendations in this report address some of the concerns raised by the appellants of By-law0183-1997 (OPA 87) and By-law 0184-1997. These recommended changes will be presented to the OMB at a prehearing conference scheduled for August 4 and 5, 1998.

Contact Name:

Blair Martin

Telephone 416 392-1317

Fax 416 392-1330

e-mail: bmartin@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 (June 23, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas T. Macos, Barrister & Solicitor, a copy of which is 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 (July 21, 1998) from Mr. Christopher J. Williams, Aird & Berlis, and a copy thereof has been submitted to Council under separate cover.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (July 27, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council advises that the attached submission (July 21, 1998) from Christopher J. Williams, Aird & Berlis was received by the City Clerk with respect to the foregoing Clause.)

(A copy of the submission (July 21, 1998) from Christopher J. Williams, Aird & Berlis, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

245 Carlaw Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to prepare a response to the communication dated July 20, 1998, from the Boston Association of Residents for a Clean Quiet Street (BARCQS) and the Commissioner be authorized to meet with members of BARCQS, if necessary.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 8, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on July 22, 1998, and Mr. Adam Krehm, Toronto, Ontario addressed the Toronto Community Council:

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit the conversion of a five and one-half storey industrial building to 76 live/work units, commercial office space and light industrial uses at 245 Carlaw Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)That the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend:

(2)That the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 8, 1998) of the Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto."

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the Report of Urban Planning and Development Services concerning the above-noted subject. This report recommends the amendment of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto, together with an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment which will permit the conversion of the existing industrial building to live-work units, commercial office space and light industrial uses on the subject site.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Conclusions:

N/A

Contact Name:

Raymond M. Feig, Solicitor

Telephone:(416) 392-7224

Fax: (416) 392-0024

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

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. ( )

Intended for the first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto

respecting lands known as 245 Carlaw Avenue.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.The text and map annexed hereto as Schedule"A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the City of Toronto.

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No._____.

SCHEDULE "A"

Section18 of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto is amended by adding a new Section18.____ as follows:

"18.____Lands known as 245 Carlaw Avenue.

Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass By-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map18.____ to permit office commercial uses up to a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 465 square metres.

(Map to be attached)

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority:Toronto Community Council

Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend the General Zoning By-law No.438-86

with respect to lands known as 245 Carlaw Avenue

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.District Map No. 52H-312 contained in Appendix "A" of By-law No. 438-86, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", as amended, is further amended by redesignating the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Map 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law to I1 D3.

2.None of the provisions of Sections 4(6)(c) and 9(1)(f) of By-law No.438-86, as amended, shall apply to prevent the use of the existing building located on the lot for not more than 76live-work units, not more than 300 square metres for an industrial catering service, not more than 465 square metres of office uses, a restaurant or take-out restaurant on the ground floor of the building and light industrial uses provided:

(1)the lot consists of at least the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on the attached Map2;

(2)the combined above-grade residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area in the building does not exceed 10,953square metres;

(3)a loading space - type G is provided and maintained on the lot;

(4)not less than 93parking spaces are provided and maintained on the lot, including 53 parking spaces for the exclusive use of residents of the building;

(5)residential amenity space is provided to the extent of at least 152 square metres of indoor space and at least 178 square metres of outdoor space; and

(6)the restaurant or take-out restaurant use on the ground floor of the building does not exceed 475 square metres, and only one restaurant or take-out restaurant is provided in the building.

3.For the purposes of this By-law:

(i)"loading space - type G" shall have the same meaning as defined in By-law No. 438-86, as amended, except that the width may be 4 metres and the length may be 6.1 metres; and

(ii)each other italicized word or expression shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression as defined in By-law No.438-86, as amended.

(Maps to be attached)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends draft by-laws to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the introduction of live/work units and commercial office space into the building at 245 Carlaw Avenue in line with the recommendations set out below.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

1. That the Official Plan be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18.__ Lands known as 245 Carlaw Avenue

Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws applicable to the lands indicated on Map 18.___ to permit office commercial uses provided the non-residential gross floor area used for such office commercial uses does not exceed 465 square metres".

2.That Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to :

(a)redesignate the site I1 D3;

(b)exempt the site from Section 4(6)(c) and Section 9(1)(f) of By-law 438-86 as amended;

(c)permit the use of the existing building containing, in addition to light industrial uses:

(i) not more than 76 live/work units;

(ii)not more than 300 square metres for industrial catering service purposes;

(iii) not more than 465 square metres of office uses;

(iv)a restaurant or take-out restaurant on the ground floor of the building provided that the use does not exceed 475 square metres and only one restaurant or take-out restaurant is provided;

provided that:

(1)residential amenity space is provided to the extent of at least 152 square metres of indoor space and at least 178 square metres of outdoor space;

(2)not less than 93 parking spaces are provided and maintained on the site, including not less than 53 parking spaces for the exclusive use of residents;

(3)a loading space Type G is provided and maintained on the site, but the loading space may have dimensions of 4m by 6.1m;

(4)the combined above-grade residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor areas does not exceed 10, 953 square metres;

3.That the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

4.That I report to City Council in consultation with the City Solicitor, on the Parks Levy issue outlined in Section 4.11 of this report.

Summary

The applicant is proposing to convert the existing five and one-half storey industrial building at 245 Carlaw Avenue into a building with 76 live/work units, 465 square metres of office space and some light industrial uses. 97 parking spaces will be provided in a surface lot just north of the building. Indoor and outdoor residential amenity space will be provided for the exclusive use of residents for social or recreational purposes. A detailed landscaping plan will improve the overall visual amenity of the site.

I am recommending an Official Plan amendment which is required to permit the applicant to locate his property management offices servicing all his properties in this building. A site-specific by-law amending the City's Zoning By-law redesignating the site from I2D3 to I1D3, while permitting an industrial catering service, a restaurant, a take-out restaurant, the office component and the 76 live/work units, is also recommended. I will be reporting separately on conditions to be included in an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act.

Background

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of December 8, 1997, adopted the recommendations of my Preliminary Report of November 24, 1997. The latter report authorized the holding of a public meeting in the area and requested the owner to submit revised plans responding to the issues raised in the report. Issues included the provision of residential amenity space, wheelchair accessibility, garbage handling, landscaping details and requirements for additional plans and information.

The proposal to permit the introduction of live/work units into the 245 Carlaw Avenue building is the third such application in the Carlaw Avenue Industrial Area for residential permissions in what to date have been industrial buildings. Earlier applications were received for 233 Carlaw Avenue (Application No. 197005) and 320 Carlaw Avenue (Application No. 197006).

My June 10, 1997 Preliminary Report on Application Nos. 197005 and 197006 explained that the applications triggered a review of the City's Official Plan policies for the Carlaw Avenue area which was designated at that time a Restricted Industrial Area. The former City's Part I Official Plan requires that, prior to assessing the merits of any site-specific application which proposes a change in designation from Restricted Industrial Area to any non-industrial designation, an area study examining potential economic impacts must first be considered.

The Carlaw Area Study dated April 17, 1998 recommended that the Restricted Industrial Area designation on both sides of Carlaw Avenue be replaced with a Mixed Industrial-Residential Area designation with the exception of a parcel fronting on Logan Avenue which would be redesignated as Low Density Residence Area. Toronto City Council on May 14, 1998 enacted a redesignation by-law 238-98 (Official Plan Amendment 122), which has been forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and By-law 239-98 amending the City's Zoning By-law.

1. The proposal

The applicant is proposing to convert the existing five storey and basement building into 76 live/work units, 465 square metres of office space in addition to continuing to house an industrial caterer, artists' and photographers' workshops and other light industrial uses.

2. Site and surrounding area

The site is located on the east side of Carlaw Avenue in a row of industrial buildings stretching from the rear of the Queen Street East properties to the CNR tracks north of Dundas Street East. To the north and to the west across Carlaw Avenue are more industrial buildings. To the east is a low rise residential community along Boston Avenue.

3. Current Official Plan and By-law Designations

Upon final approval of Official Plan Amendment 122, the Official Plan will designate the area as a Mixed Industrial Residential Area thereby permitting industrial uses up to three times density, residential uses, through rezoning, up to two times the lot area and a mix of industrial and residential uses up to three times, provided the residential component does not exceed the two times density limit. In addition, proposals to convert existing buildings which already exceed Official Plan densities would be exempt from the maximum density provisions.

The Zoning By-law designates the site as I2D3 with a height limit of 18 metres. This permits a range of light industrial uses to a maximum density of three times the lot area.

4. Planning issues

4.1Public response

A public meeting held on January 15, 1998 raised issues respecting the compatibility and safety of combining industrial uses and live/work units in the same building. Other issues raised related to garbage handling, the status of the condominium application and safe bicycle lock-ups. Residents attending the meeting generally welcomed the introduction of live/work units into the building. Minutes of the meeting are contained in Appendix B.

4.2 Residential amenity space

The applicant is proposing to provide an area of 152 square metres of indoor residential amenity space in the basement of the building on the north side for the exclusive use of residents of the building for social and recreational purposes. The area includes a kitchen and washroom and is directly connected to an area of 178 square metres of outdoor amenity space screened from the parking lot for privacy reasons.

4.3Wheelchair access

The alteration of grade levels adjacent to the north side of the building as part of the provision of the outdoor amenity space provides an opportunity to provide wheelchair access to the building via the north entrance. It is not feasible to provide such access via the front entrance on Carlaw Avenue as there is a difference of several feet (and several steps) between the street level and the ground floor level of the building.

4.4Compatibility of industrial uses with live/work units

In addition to the 76 live/work units, the applicant is proposing to retain a certain amount of space in the basement, on the ground floor and fourth floor for continued industrial use. The proposed industrial uses include artist's or photographer's studios, sound studios, storage warehousing, a communication and broadcasting establishment and an industrial catering service.

I am proposing that the site be rezoned from I2D3 to I1D3 in order to limit the range of industrial uses that would be permitted in combination with the live/work units to those uses which are the "lightest" industrial uses and therefore most compatible with residential use. The industrial uses proposed by the applicant are all permitted uses under the I1 category with the exception of the industrial catering service, restaurant or take-out restaurant uses which are I2 uses. The caterer presently occupies most of the one-storey northern wing of the building. Since this use has continued for some time and seems to be compatible with the residential use, I am recommending that the site-specific by-law continue to permit the "industrial catering service" use. In addition, I concur with the applicant's request to permit a restaurant or take-out restaurant in the building at some time in the future. Such uses could enliven the Carlaw Avenue streetscape.

4.5Property management offices

The applicant is proposing to move his property management offices, currently at another location, into the 245 Carlaw Avenue building at the rear of the ground floor. Since these offices would not just be servicing the 245 Carlaw building ( in which case they would be considered a permitted accessory use) but would in fact be servicing all the properties owned by the applicant, they would not be permitted under the proposed I1 zoning. Nor would they fall within the definition of "industrial" use contained in the Official Plan. For this reason, I am recommending that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be amended to permit the office use to a maximum gross floor area of 465 square metres.

4.6 Parking, loading and refuse collection

The provision of 97 parking spaces in the large surface parking lot to the north of the building satisfies the parking demand of 93 spaces estimated by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. 53 spaces would be reserved for the exclusive use of residents, 9 spaces for the use of residential visitors, 5 spaces for the office component and the remainder for the industrial uses.

The two proposed loading areas at the east end of the building on the north and south faces of the building are acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The applicant has indicated his intent to continue to maintain the private garbage collection system currently in place. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is requiring that the owners and tenants of the units be advised that refuse and recyclables generated by this building will be collected by a private refuse collection firm.

The applicant is proposing to locate a large garbage bin next to the loading dock on the north face of the building and to enclose it with a fence of sturdy construction. A smaller garbage bin will be located at the north/east corner of the site to accommodate the food waste from the catering service and will be enclosed with a similar fence.

4.7Bicycle storage

The applicant is providing 22 bicycle storage spaces indoors in the basement of the building where bicycles can safely be locked up. In addition, bicycle racks accommodating 6 bicycles are proposed outside the front entrance to the building.

4.8Landscaping

A landscaping plan for the site includes the landscaped screening of the parking area from the Carlaw Avenue sidewalks, tree planting along the sidewalks, landscaping of the outdoor amenity space just west of the north entrance in addition to another open space at the north east corner of the building.

4.9Official Plan policies respecting change in use

Section 9.41 of the former City of Toronto Part I Official Plan outlines the following matters for which the City shall have regard prior to passing by-laws to permit a change in use in Mixed Industrial-Residential Areas:

"(a)the advisability of retaining existing industrial buildings or uses in terms of the retention of industrial jobs and the retention of industrial buildings in good structural condition or which may have architectural or historical merit;

(b)the advisability of retaining existing residential buildings or uses in terms of the policies contained in Section 6 of this Plan and the standard of structural repair and architectural or historical merit of such buildings;

(c)the extent to which a change in use would adversely affect the continued compatibility of neighbouring uses, particularly in those areas where identifiable pockets of a consistent use, industrial or residential, exist;

(d)the provisions of the appropriate Provincial legislation either governing the issuance of Certificates of Approval for industrial uses, or in any other manner regulating the standard of industrial performance; and

(e)those matters as may be set out in Part II of this Plan."

With respect to (a) above regarding the retention of quality industrial buildings and industrial jobs, the property at 245 Carlaw Avenue will be retained in its entirety, having already undergone significant renovation over the last few years with more upgrading expected as the proposed use changes to a primarily live/work emphasis. Light industrial uses will continue to occupy part of the building as well, thus retaining some industrial jobs in the area.

The impact on the continued compatibility of neighbouring uses referred to in (c) above would appear to be minimal. The property at 245 Carlaw Avenue has contained live/work units on an informal basis for some time with little evidence of conflict between the residential and industrial uses.

With respect to (d), the Ontario Building Code regulates the standards of industrial performance as well as the types of industrial uses that would be permitted in association with live/work units.

With Cityplan's introduction of more detailed policies into the Part I Official Plan, the former South Riverdale Part II Plan which applied to this area (see (e) above), has been deleted along with several other Part II plans. For this Mixed Industrial-Residential Area, the Part I Official Plan provisions for such areas are now the only applicable policies.

4.10Site plan control

The owner has also made application for site plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act. I will be reporting separately on the conditions to be contained in a Section 41 Undertaking, such Undertaking to be entered into prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council. One of the conditions of the Undertaking should be that the owner be required to inform all potential purchasers of the proposed condominium units that the mezzanine loft areas present in several of the units cannot be used as habitable space, i.e. a sleeping area or bedroom, because such use would violate provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

4.11Parks levy

The applicant is objecting to the proposed parks levy, arguing that the property is not subject to the provisions of Section 42 of the Planning Act or the Municipal Code, Section 165. In the alternative, the applicant's lawyer argues that the property should receive an exemption from payment of the parks levy.

I will be reporting separately on this issue, in consultation with the City Solicitor.

5.Notices of appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board

In a letter dated November 17, 1997, the applicant's solicitor filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board respecting the proposed Official Plan Amendment based on Council's failure to give notice of a public meeting. In a letter dated February 18, 1998 the solicitor informed the City that the applicant had filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board respecting the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment based on Council's refusal to amend the Zoning By-law. No hearing date has been set.

Conclusion:

Approval of this application will legalize the current informal use of this building for live/work purposes.

Contact Name:

Pat Zolf, Area Planner

City Planning Division, East Section

Tel: 416-392-0411

Fax; 416-392-1330

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

________

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197022
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	July 30, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	March 25, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:245 Carlaw Avenue.

Nearest Intersection:	East side of Carlaw Avenue, north of Queen Street East.

Project Description:	To convert existing industrial building to 88 live/work units.

Applicant:

Adam Krehm

3284 Yonge St.

486-4686

Agent:

Adam Krehm

3284 Yonge St.

486-4686

Architect:

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:		Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	I2 D3	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	18.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	6340.0 m²	Height:	Storeys:	5
Frontage:			Metres:	24.25
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:		97
Residential GFA:	9505 m²	Loading Docks:		2
Non-Residential GFA:	1087.5 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:	10592.5 m²

DWELLING UNITS		FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN
Tenure:	Condo	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Total Units:	76	Live/Work	9505m²
		Industrial Office	625.6 m² 461.9m2

PROPOSED DENSITY
Residential Density: 1.5	Non-Residential Density: 0.17	Total Density: 1.67

COMMENTS

Floor area and density calculations exclude basement.

Status:

Preliminary Report dated November 24, 1997 adopted by Council on December 8, 1997. Application revised March 25, 1998 and May 27, 1998

Data valid:

July 6, 1998

Section:

CP East

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings and Inspections, June 25, 1998

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Alterations to existing building for live/work units, office, communications and broadcasting establishment, industrial computer service, storage warehouse, cl

Zoning Designation:I2 D3Map:52H 312

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

Plans prepared by:Daniel Benson ArchitectPlans dated: March 25, 1998

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 required one loading space - type G (3.5 metres by 11 metres with a vertical clearance of at least 4 metres) will only have dimensions of 4 metres by 6.1 metres. (Section 4(6)(c))

2.The proposed live/work units (9,505 square metres) and offices (462 square metres) are not permitted in an I2 district. (Section 9(1)(f))

3.Note: The combined RGFA & NRGFA of the building (excluding 1,952 square metres of basement space) is 10,953 square metres.

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 proposal DOES NOT require 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."

2.Works and Emergency Services, April 15, 1998

"Recommendations:

1.That the owner be required to:

(a)Provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

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

(c)Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been designed and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

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

(e)Provide and maintain a minimum of 93 parking spaces on the site to serve the project including at least 76 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents;

(f)Provide and maintain private refuse collection services for this project;

(g)Agree to advise all owners and tenants of the units that refuse and recyclables generated by this building must be collected by a private refuse collection firm;

(h)Provide and maintain the existing loading facilities located on this site to serve this development;

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

2.That the owner be advised:

(a)Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance; and

(b)That the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff.

Comments:

Location

South of Dundas Street East between Carlaw Avenue and Boston Avenue.

Proposal

Renovation and conversion of an existing industrial building resulting in a building containing 76 live/work condominium units, 2,577.61m� of commercial/industrial space and 461.89 m� of office space.

Previous Application

The site was the subject of Draft Plan of Condominium application No. 497005.

Parking and Access

The provision of 97 surface parking spaces to serve the project satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 93 spaces, based in part on the surveyed demand of condominium dwelling units, including 53 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project, 9 spaces for the use of the residential visitors and 5 spaces for the office component .

As far as can be ascertained, the proposed parking supply satisfies the Zoning By-law requirement for 81 spaces .

The parking space and aisle dimensions are acceptable and the parking layout is generally satisfactory.

Access to the parking spaces is provided via a 6.35 m wide private north-south driveway directly off of Carlaw Avenue, along the west limit of the site. This is acceptable.

The plans indicate the provision of 2 loading areas: one measuring approximately 6.0 m by

10.2 m and the second indicated as a Type G loading space (but does not satisfy the dimensional requirements of the Zoning By-law for a Type G space). As far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requires the provision of 1 Type G loading space for the residential component of the project.

The applicant has submitted a Loading Demand Study which identifies the level of loading activity associated with the current uses on the site. Based on the 7-day survey (between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00p.m.), it appears that the loading demand generated by the existing uses, including the twice-a-week refuse collection, is adequately accommodated by the on-site loading facilities. Furthermore, it would appear that with full occupancy of the building in the future, the existing loading facilities can adequately accommodate the forecasted loading demand. Consequently, the number of loading facilities proposed to serve this development is acceptable.

Legal access to the loading areas is provided over the existing right-of-way from Carlaw Avenue, as identified in Instrument No. CA-8646. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

This project would be eligible for City bulk lift refuse and recyclable materials collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste), subject to the provision of the following facilities:

- a garbage room with a minimum size of 25 m�, equipped with a stationary compactor;

- a recyclable materials storage room with a minimum size of 10 m�;

- the garbage room and the recyclable materials storage room designed with overhead or double doors of sufficient size to accommodate the movement of container bins;

- a Type G loading space located on site and designed such that garbage trucks using the loading space are able to enter and exit the abutting streets in a forward motion;

- a concrete pad adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage of 4 container bins on collection day.

The plans do not show the provision of these required refuse collection facilities. The applicant has advised this Department of his company's intent to maintain the private garbage collection system currently in place at this address. This is acceptable. However, the owners and tenants of the units must be advised that refuse and recyclables generated by this building will be collected by a private refuse collection firm.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development. It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Branch (telephone no. 392-6787).

The applicant must submit a grading plan of the site to this Department showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Work Within the Road Allowance

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received by this Department."

3.Public Health, April 6, 1998

"Thank you for your request of March 27, 1998, to review and comment on the above referenced application. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this application and offer the following comments.

The revisions to the site plan have been noted and do not alter the previous recommendations made for this site. Please refer to this Department's letter dated October 14, 1997 for this information.

By copy of this letter, I will inform the owner/applicant in respect to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at the above number."

4.Public Health, October 14, 1997

"The applicant has provided for review a document titled "REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE I INVESTIGATION". (Frontier Engineering January 20, 1995) The applicant has also submitted for review, a subsequent report titled "REPORT ON REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS, 245 CARLAW AVENUE, TORONTO ONTARIO".(Frontier Engineering Inc. December 11, 1995)

Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed these documents and offer the following comments.

Historical Review:

The consultant has reviewed; the City Directory for Toronto between 1833 and 1994, historical maps in the Toronto Metropolitan Reference Library, aerial photographs from the federal government archives, Fire Insurance Records, discussions with members of the Toronto Fire Department and local residents, geotechnical data from McMaster University and Ministry of the Environment and Energy (MOEE) records, in order to compile information on the historical site conditions.

The consultant reports that this site was first developed in 1916 and was occupied by various tenants such as, Wrigley Co.(Gum manufacturing),Shoup Co. Ltd.(paper boxes), British American Wax Paper Co. Ltd., McCaskey Systems Ltd., and Dominion Register Co. Ltd. In 1920 Dominion Register was no longer on site but there were 4 new tenants, Dunlop Tire Rubber Goods Co., The Canadian HW Gossard Co. Ltd.(factory), Hughes Electric Heating Co. Ltd., and Eaton T. Co. (Factory). By 1930 the tenants of 245 were Dyment Ltd., and DeForest-Crosley Ltd., both were manufacturing companies.

In 1940 the tenant list included Dyment Mining & Investment Ltd., Globe Envelopes, Blachford Shoe Mfg. Co. Ltd., Lambert Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., and Pro-Phy-Lac-Tic Brush Co. By 1971 #245 Carlaw was known as the Graphic Arts Building and was used for lithography, publishing, catering, silk screening, printing, knitwear and housewares. In the 1980's the building was used for warehousing and a theatre/movie staging company.

Site and Building Audit:

The consultant has advised that there were 3 underground storage tanks used to store furnace oil for the boiler on this site.

The consultant's examination of the building and pipe insulation indicated that the mechanical piping located throughout the basement was encapsulated. The consultant indicates that the work was conducted by Packaged Maintenance Limited. The consultant advises that the roofing material consists of asphalt, gravel and a PVC type envelope system.

The consultant's report indicates that there is an ongoing maintenance programme that ensures all painted surfaces are coated with non-lead based paint.

Subsurface Investigation:

The consultant constructed 8 boreholes to a maximum depth of 20 feet at strategic locations on the site. Soil samples were retrieved at varying depths from each borehole for comparison with the parameters contained in the MOEE Guidelines, and the MCCR Fuel Safety Branch Interim Guidelines for Operating Retail and Private Fuel Outlets in Ontario.

The results of the sampling programme indicated exceedances of the guidelines were found in borehole 4 for total Petroleum Hydrocarbons and oil and grease. This borehole is located immediately south of the underground storage tanks. No other exceedances were noted.

Subsequently, the underground storage tanks were emptied, purged, and removed for disposal along with any impacted soil. The hole was backfilled with 965 tons of sand and 103 tons of granular "A" backfill material. The consultant concludes that removal of the 3 tanks, their contents and approximately 703 tons of impacted soil resulted in successful site remediation with respect to the identified contaminants and therefore, no further environmental investigation is necessary.

Based on the specific information provided, the Public Health Division is not aware of any reason associated with the properties former use, why the applicant should not be issued with a permit for the subject site. This statement however, in no way amounts to the City of Toronto accepting liability for any future environmental problems that may arise at this site.

By copy of this letter I will inform the applicant in respect to this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at 392-7685."

5.Public Health, September 9, 1997

"Thank you for your request of July 31, 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 develop a Studio Loft with 81 dwelling units and parking for 95 vehicles. A review of the files available to us indicates that this property 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 I will inform the applicant with respect to this matter. If you have any questions contact me at 392-76

Notes of a public meeting on Rezoning Application # 197002 for 245 Carlaw Avenue

January 15, 1998 Morse Street Public School, 180 Carlaw Avenue

In attendance:

Adam Krehm and Jonathan Krehm, owners of 245 Carlaw Avenue

Josie Miner, owner's agent

Councillor Pam McConnell

Monica Tang, assistant to Councillor Jack Layton

Pat Zolf, area planner

40 residents

PLANNING CONTEXT

Pat Zolf, area planner, explained that the meeting had been called to discuss a rezoning application for 245 Carlaw Avenue to permit the conversion of a substantial portion of the building into live/work units. She said that the proposed residential use is not permitted in either the City's Zoning By-law, which designates this area as I2D3, or in the South Riverdale Part II Official Plan which designates this as a Restricted Industrial Area. She noted that the City's Part I Official Plan, which outlines the City's broad planning policies governing the former City of Toronto, states that in a Restricted Industrial area such as this, any application to permit a non-industrial use requires a review of the Part II Official Plan policies before Council may consider any site-specific application for change such as that proposed for 245 Carlaw Avenue.

She said that two previously-filed applications for 233 Carlaw Avenue and 320 Carlaw Avenue had triggered a review of the industrial policies for the Carlaw Restricted Industrial Area. A June, 1997 preliminary report on the study noted the decline in overall industrial employment in the area and the trend to having industrial space formerly used for manufacturing purposes carved up into smaller units. The former large chemical products manufacturers such as Colgate Palmolive and clothing/textile manufacturers such as Dylex and Diament Knitting Mills have left the area. Some smaller clothing /textile firms remain. But the area has attracted many artists and photographers, custom workshops, film-industry businesses and other small businesses that occupy the buildings in the area that have been renovated.

Total employment in the area has declined from 2755 in 1988 to 2031 in 1995, a drop of around 700. At the same time the number of firms in the area has doubled from 125 in 1988 to 254 in 1995.

Ms Zolf said that, in order to permit the live/work units proposed in the three applications, the Official Plan designation would have to be changed, most likely to a Mixed Industrial/Residential designation, which would continue to permit industrial uses but would allow residential uses as well. Proposals for the remainder of the Carlaw Restricted Industrial Area would be coming forward as well. Then site-specific by-laws would have to be drafted for each of the three properties.

She said the applicant is preparing a revised set of plans which will be submitted shortly. She explained the planning process and urged all present to sign the sign-in sheet to ensure that they will be kept informed of the progress of this application and will be notified of meeting dates where they'll have an opportunity to speak on the subject.

APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL

Adam Krehm said he is proposing that 76 of the building's 91 units be converted to live/work units with the remaining 15 to be allocated for industrial uses under the existing I2 zoning. Although his plans did not indicate which units were proposed for live/work and which were not, he gave a verbal description of the location of the various units. On the ground floor, most of the uses are proposed to be I2 uses, with the exception of some live/work units along the north face of the building. All of the upper floors are proposed for live/work units with the exception of a space on the fourth floor where Cantel rents a small space as an equipment room. The basement will be used for I2 uses and an indoor residential amenity space will be provided for residents to use for meetings, social activities, etc. Adjacent to the basement amenity space will be an outdoor amenity space with dimensions of approximately 38 feet by 50 feet which will provide some outdoor space for residents. It will be well landscaped to screen the amenity space from the parking lot.

Mr. Krehm said he is proposing to landscape the Carlaw Avenue frontage and to replace existing City trees. At the front entrance he'll be putting in bicycle racks, installing lockstone pavers around the entranceway, etc.

QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS

Q. Isn't there a safety issue here? Is it appropriate in a residential building to have industrial uses on the main floor and in the basement? What about fumes and other by-products of industrial uses?

A.I share your concern re safety of residents. The Zoning By-law stipulates the kinds of uses that can be permitted in the building. Also the condominium by-law protects tenants in that no uses are permitted that would affect the residents' quiet enjoyment of their premises.

C.(Zolf) I would like to clarify that the City has received a condominium application for a proposed division of the building into industrial condominium units, not residential condominium units.

Q.What specific industrial uses are you proposing and how are you prepared to deal with multiple-use of elevators where residents and children may be exposed to harmful materials which arise out of the industrial uses?

A.There are 3 freight elevators and one passenger elevator. Residents could simply use the passenger elevator only.

C.The community should be providing input now on the kinds of uses that they want to see permitted in the building. Now's our chance to speak.

C.(Zolf) The compatibility of proposed industrial uses with the proposed residential live/work uses is an issue that will be carefully examined by planning staff. Generally speaking I1 uses, considered the "lightest" of the industrial uses, would be more compatible with residential uses than the I2 uses proposed by the owners.

Q.How can we ensure that the industrial uses which are permitted are compatible with residential uses?

A.(Zolf) We can tailor the site-specific zoning by-law for this site to reflect the exact uses which we think are appropriate to the site.

Q.Do you plan to renovate these units?

A. The construction work in the building has already taken place. There's a bathroom and a kitchenette in each unit . Building permits have been issued for all construction.

C.(Zolf) I want to clarify that all building permits issued to date were issued for uses permitted under the industrial zoning, not for residential use. For example, I understand that the mezzanine loft areas that are already constructed do not meet the Ontario Building Code requirements for habitable space, i.e. for sleeping purposes. I understand that they can be used for storage only. I've told the applicant that a thorough review of the plans in terms of the Ontario Building Code requirements for live/work units and for other uses in the building is essential and that a by-law would not be recommended until this is completed.

QWill your current tenants be able to afford to buy these units?

A.The condo carrying costs and the rent would be similar. Rent is approximately $12 per square foot and condo price is $100 per square foot

Q.Is a restaurant a permitted use under the current zoning?

A.Yes, a restaurant is a permitted use in an I2 area but there is a size limitation of 475 square metres.

Q.Would you consider having a safe bicycle lockup, i.e. an inside area for bicycles?

A.Yes, I'm prepared to consider that.

Q.Is there a list of what uses are there in the building now and where they are?

A.I'll get you a list.

Q.Do you have the latest in technological equipment in the building, i.e. wiring for computers, etc.?

A.Computers don't have special requirements. There hasn't been any demand for cable in the building but we will entertain requests for that service.

C.Rogers won't put cable into an industrial building.

Q.Are you planning to install security at the front door?

A.No, we have no plans to install an intercom system.

Q.The preliminary report mentions your proposed garbage handling as a problem. What's being done to address this issue?

A. We're proposing an 8-9 foot high enclosure of sturdy construction around the garbage dumpster areas.

QWhen it's 95 degrees in the summer and the garbage is stinking wouldn't this affect the residents' enjoyment of the amenity space?

A.Our experience is not one of garbage odour but of garbage containment.

Q. Where will the garbage from Lisa's catering go?

A.In the bin at the north/east corner of the site.

Q.How often is garbage pickup?

A. Two to three times a week.

C.The garbage dumpster near the building is only for dry waste. Food garbage goes in the north/east corner of the site.

Q.You mean residents have to walk all the way out there to dispose of their garbage?

A.I have to walk my garbage to the rear of my yard.

C.Most of the tenants on Carlaw are artists and photographers. Space for woodworkers or a carpenter's shop are hard to find even though they are compatible with residential uses. I'm not talking about furniture refinishers or any noxious stuff. It would be a shame to see these industrial uses disappear.

C .(Councillor Pam McConnell) I'd like to summarize the issues raised at tonight's meeting which the community would like to have examined:

-safety and compatibility issues re mixing industrial and residential uses. These need to be resolved to everyone's satisfaction

-uses that are complementary to each other should be encouraged, i.e. the light industrial uses that are compatible with residential keeps a healthy community where people can both live and work

-bike-friendly lockups

-list of current uses to be provided so that community members will be able to look at it

Q.How will the Community Council deal with matters like this one?

A.(McConnell) There's a proposal to set up two sub-committees of the Community Council, one that deals with development matters and one that deals with social issues. If that happens, then the final report will be considered by the development sub-committee and you'll have an opportunity to speak to the issues. If not, you'll be able to address the Community Council directly. However, the actual by-laws will have to go to the larger Toronto Council for approval.

Q.Do you support this proposal or not?

A.(McConnell) My job is to come here and listen to what the community has to say. If the owners respond in a positive way to the issues raised here tonight, then I'd be prepared to support it.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 20, 1998) from the Boston Association of Residents for a Clear Quiet Street, and a copy thereof has been submitted to Council under separate cover.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 5

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 6

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 7

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 8

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 9

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 10

245 Carlaw Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 11

245 Carlaw Avenue

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (July 27, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council advises that the attached submission (July 20, 1998) from the Boston Association of Residents for a Clean Quiet Street (BARCQS), was received by the City Clerk with respect to the foregoing Clause.)

(A copy of the submission, referred to in the foregoing transmittal letter, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

200 and 220 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)subject to the execution of the necessary Agreement, the Draft By-laws attached to the report (July 8, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto;

(2)the reports (July 9, 1998) and (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted; and

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to conduct a comprehensive parking, vehicular and pedestrian traffic study on all land between Bathurst Street and Lower Jarvis Street, from Front Street to Queens Quay.

-Mr. Michael Lam, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Gil Nefsky, Toronto District School Board;

-Mr. Craig Hunter, IBI Group;

-Mr. Brian Dourley, Solicitor, Toronto Catholic District School Board;

-Mr. Henry Dwinnell, Brookfield LePage, Property Manager;

-Mr. Jim Gough, Marshall Macklin Monaghan, Project Manager; and

-Mr. David Smith, Solicitor, Fraser & Beatty.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit an additional permission for residential uses up to the existing 116000 square metres of commercial density allocated under the Harbourfront Zoning By-law to York Quay North (Parcel YQ-4) to residential density, subject to certain public benefits being secured.

Source of Funds, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act.

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend:

(2)Subject to the execution of the necessary Agreement, that the Draft By-laws attached to the Report (July8,1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto."

Background:

The Toronto Community Council will have before it the Report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (July9,1998) concerning the above-noted subject. This Report recommends the amendment of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto, together with an accompanying Zoning By-law Amendment which will permit the additional use of the site for residential purposes, subject to certain built form requirements and securing of public benefits. An agreement to secure such benefits as detailed in the Planning Report, is required prior to the introduction of the necessary bills in Council.

Comments:

This Report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Report.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone:(416) 392-7225

Fax:(416) 392-0024

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To adopt an amendment to Section 19.19 of the Official Plan for the

former City of Toronto respecting Parcel YQ-4.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.The text annexed hereto as Schedule"A" is hereby adopted as an amendment to Section19.19 of Official Plan for Harbourfront Part II.

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No. .

SCHEDULE "A"

1.Section19.19 of the Official Plan, being the Harbourfront PartII Plan, is amended by:

(a)deleting from Section5.3.2 the word "workplace" where it appears in the second line following the term "non-profit";

(b)adding to Section5 a new paragraph5.2.3 as follows:

"5.2.3It is the policy of Council that a financial contribution should be made by the owner of ParcelYQ-4 to the Toronto School Boards on a per unit basis in respect of the provision of public and separate schools in connection with any residential development on ParcelYQ-4.";

(c)deleting the first complete paragraph of Section8.1.2 and replacing it with the following:

"8.1.2With regard to ParcelYQ-4, Council may pass by-laws to permit buildings containing residential uses, offices, retail and service shops, institutional uses and the existing parking garage provided:

(i)the combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area including the floor area of any above grade parking structure does not exceed 116,000square metres;

(ii)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 111935 square metres;

(iii)any non-residential gross floor area used for the purpose of community services and facilities shall be exempt from the calculation of density;

(iv)the owner is required:

(a)to provide a daycare facility in accordance with Section5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

(b)to submit additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section8.1.2.1 of this Part II Plan;

(c)to adhere in any site plan application to Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council and the Concept Plan referred to in Section8.1.2.1;

(d)to undertake improvements to the existing parking garage in accordance with the aforesaid Concept Plan;

(e)to give consideration to any proposal made by the Toronto District Heating Corporation in respect of the development of the buildings;

and that the owner enter into one or more Agreements to secure the matters referred to in paragraphs(a) to (e) above inclusive, and the agreement is registered on title to ParcelYQ-4;

(v)the owner is additionally required in any by-law permitting buildings containing residential gross floor area:

(a)to contribute $403.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of community services and facilities;

(b)to contribute $277.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of a public library; and

(c)to submit for the approval of the City a noise impact statement and a material recovery and waste reduction plan and to design and operate the buildings in accordance therewith;

and the owner enters into one or more agreements pursuant to Section37 of the Planning Act to secure the facilities, services and matters required under subsection(v), and the agreement is registered on title to ParcelYQ-4; and

(vi)notwithstanding Sections7.7 and 7.10, Council may also pass by-laws to permit surface parking lots on a temporary basis pending the redevelopment of ParcelYQ-4.".

(d)adding a new Section 8.1.2.1 as follows:

"8.1.2.1 Development Concept Plan

Council recognizes that residential and non-residential uses are appropriate on YQ-4 and may be combined in a mixed-use development, and that the future urban design and built form of development on the site is an issue that should be addressed when actual development applications are made. Accordingly, and to ensure that Council's general objectives for Harbourfront and that site-specific built form policies for YQ-4 are appropriately addressed, it is a policy of Council that:

a.The owner submit to the satisfaction of the City a Development Concept Plan for the entire YQ-4 parcel as part of, or prior to, the first site plan application. The purpose of the Development Concept Plan shall be to:

i.Provide a context for coordinated, phased development of the uses and density permitted by this Part II Plan and in relation to adjacent site conditions;

ii.Demonstrate how the York Quay Parking Garage, if retained, is appropriately screened from public view and integrated into the objectives for development of this Site; and

iii.Assist Council in evaluating the conformity of the proposed development with the relevant provisions of this Part II Plan, including site plan applications submitted for review under Section41 of the Planning Act.

b.The Development Concept Plan submitted in accordance with Section8.1.2.1(a) above, shall illustrate and describe the following:

i.setback and/or build-to lines including minimum and maximum vertical dimensions for building walls which are sufficient to establish the continuity and scale of building frontages;

ii.built form envelopes, demonstrating how the development potential permitted on the block is to be generally distributed on the block sufficient to indicate how potential building massings achieve the objectives set out in detail in Section2.7 to 2.15, inclusive of this Part II Plan; including the feasibility of development on or over the York Quay Parking Garage;

iii.the location, dimension and character of interior and exterior publicly accessible private open spaces showing their continuity and complimentary relationship to adjacent public spaces and their pedestrian amenity including seating, lighting and weather protection;

iv.the location and dimension of any arcades, canopies and other weather-protected routes and their relationship to the public pedestrian system;

v.the general location of parking facilities and service access areas and their relationship with other access areas which are of sufficient detail to assess the overall impact of such areas on the public sidewalks; including the potential consolidation of access from Simcoe Street to one access point;

vi.the general locations of principal pedestrian entrances and their relationship to street frontages to ensure that such entrances reinforce the role of the street;

vii.the general location of public pedestrian routes including the primary system of public street and alternative secondary routes and their relationship;

viii.the location of public street-related uses; including the base of the York Quay Parking Garage along Simcoe Street and in the event the Gardiner Expressway is dismantled in this vicinity, along Harbour Street;

ix.the manner in which linkages to adjacent planning areas could be accomplished and treated; and

x.the general location of community services and facilities to ensure:

a)exterior play-space which is suitably weather protected and landscaped to facilitate year-round use and is located adjacent to the interior play space;

b)acceptable wind and sunlight conditions; and

c)acceptable noise and air quality levels."

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend the Harbourfront Zoning By-law No.289-93 with respect to Parcel YQ-4

known as 8 York Street and part of 200 Queens Quay West.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, the Council of the Municipality may, in a by-law passed under Section 34 of the Planning Act, authorize increases in the height or density of development beyond that otherwise permitted by the by-law that will be permitted in return for the provision of such facilities, services and matters as are set out in the by-law;

AND WHEREAS Subsection 37(3) of the Planning Act provides that, where an owner of land elects to provide facilities, services or matters in return for an increase in the height or density of development, the Municipality may require the owner to enter into one or more agreements with the Municipality dealing with the facilities, services and matters;

AND WHEREAS the owner of the lands hereinafter referred to has elected to provide the facilities, services and matters as are hereinafter set forth;

AND WHEREAS the increase in the density of development permitted hereunder, beyond that otherwise permitted on the lands by By-law No. 289-93, as amended, is to be permitted in return for the provision of the facilities, services and matters set out in this By-law and to be secured by one or more agreements between the owner of the lands and the City of Toronto (hereinafter referred to as the "City");

AND WHEREAS the City has required the owner of the lands to enter into one or more agreements dealing with certain facilities, services and matters in return for the increase in density in connection with the lands as permitted;

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.By-law No.289-93, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use, bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in the Harbourfront area", as amended, is amended by:

(1)adding to APPENDIX"D" opposite the parcel designationYQ-4 in the column headed "Location in By-law", the number "13(1)" before "13(2)(a)(b)(c)(d)"; and in the column headed "Permitted Uses", the words and comma "Residential Uses," before "Offices";

(2)adding to APPENDIX "E" opposite the parcel designationYQ-4 in the column headed "MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA", the number "111935"; and in the column headed "MAXIMUM COMBINED RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA AND NON-RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA", the number "116000";

(3)deleting Height Map50G-313 contained in Appendix"B" and replacing it by a new Height Map50G-313 and a new Alternate Height Map50G-313 in the form attached hereto as Maps"A" and "B", respectively;

(4)Section 20(1) is amended by inserting after the words "Appendix B attached hereto" the following:

"including, in the case of Parcel YQ-4, the Alternate Height Map, in the event the Parking Garage existing on June30,1998 is retained,";

(5)by adding to Section19 a new subsection(7) as follows:

"(7)None of the provisions of Sections19(1) and (2) shall apply in respect of any mixed-use building or non-residential building erected or used on ParcelYQ-4.";

(6)by deleting Section15(4) and substituting therefor a new subsection(4) as follows:

"4.Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, no person shall erect or use any building or structure on BlockA or BlockB of ParcelYQ-4

i)as shown on the Build To Line Maps contained in Appendix G in the event the Parking Garage existing on June20,1998 is retained; or

ii)as shown on the Alternate Build To Line Maps contained in Appendix G, in the event the aforesaid Parking Garage is not retained,

unless there is an area of the exterior face of such building or structure from grade to a minimum height of 20metres above grade built within 1.2metres of the heavy line identified as the Build To Line on the Alternate Build To Line Map or Build To Line Map as the case may be,measured to the interior of ParcelYQ-4, corresponding to the relevant Build To Line for either of BlockA or BlockB, which area is equal to at least 90percent of the area determined by the product of the length of such Build To Line and the height.";

For the purposes of this section 15(4), where the exterior face of the building or structure includes a colonnade or an unenclosed balcony, such exterior face shall be deemed to include:

(i)the open area between any columns, measured along the exterior face of such columns; and

(ii)openings for any unenclosed balcony, provided it is not greater than 5.0metres in depth."

(7)by deleting from Section18(iii) the phrase "of this By-law" and substituting therefor the following:

"provided that in the case of ParcelYQ-4 at least 70percent of the aggregate length of the portions of the exterior walls of the buildings fronting on Queens Quay West, York Street and Simcoe Street, abut non-residential gross floor area at grade containing those uses set out in Section 13(2)(b) of this By-law";

(8)by adding to Section21 a new subsection(6) as follows:

"(6)(a)Paragraph(5)(i) does not apply to the type of structure listed in the column entitled "STRUCTURE" in the following chart, provided the restrictions set out opposite the structure in the column entitled "MAXIMUM PERMITTED PROJECTION" are complied with.";

STRUCTURE	MAXIMUM PROJECTION	PERMITTED
A. eaves, cornices, light fixtures or ornaments	0.90 metres
B. fences and safety railings	no restriction provided the height thereof does not exceed 2.0 metres
C. canopy	2.5 metres
D. bay window	0.6 metres from the wall to which it is attached
E. balcony	0.6 metres from the wall to which it is attached
F. doors, including revolving doors	no restriction

(b)Notwithstanding paragraph(a), no structure with the exception of doors, including revolving doors, light fixtures, ornaments, fences and safety railings, may be located within the YQ-4 setback area from grade to a height of 4.0metres"; and

(9)by inserting, following the heading for Section23, the number"(1)" and

i)inserting in section 23(1)(i) following the date "June 1, 1991" the phrase "or any alterations thereto:" and

ii)inserting a new Section23(2) as follows:

"(2)None of the provisions of Section23(1) shall apply to prevent the erection and use of a parking garage above grade on ParcelYQ-4, provided:

(i)no part of any building or structure between grade and a height of 8 metres that is used for parking purposes, excluding stairways, driveways or ramps used for access, is erected closer than 10metres to a lot line that abuts a street;

(ii)the permitted uses listed in Appendix"D" in respect of ParcelYQ-4 are provided in a building or structure between any part of a building or structure containing parking spaces and a lot line that abuts a street; and

(iii)the floor area of any above grade parking structure is included in the calculation of residential gross floor area or non-residential gross floor area."

2.Despite Sections13 and 14 of By-law No.289-93, as amended, the density of residential uses set out in Section13(1) of By-law No.289-93 is permitted subject to compliance with all other requirements of By-law No.289-93 and in return for the provision by the owner of ParcelYQ-4 of the following facilities, services or matters to the City, namely:

(1)a contribution of $403.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of community services and facilities;

(2)a contribution of $277.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of a public library;

(3)the provision of a daycare facility in accordance with Section5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

(4)the submission of additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront PartII Plan;

(5)adherence in any site plan application to Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council and the Concept Plan referred to in Section8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront PartII Plan;

(6)the undertaking of improvements to the existing parking garage in accordance with the aforesaid Concept Plan;

(7)the submission for the approval of the City of a noise impact statement and a material recovery and waste reduction plan and to design and operate the buildings in accordance therewith; and

(8)the consideration of any proposal made by the Toronto District Heating Corporation in respect of the development of the buildings.

3.The owner of ParcelYQ-4 is required, pursuant to Section37(3) of the Planning Act, to enter into one or more agreements with the City to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in Section2 of this By-law and the agreement or agreements are to be registered on title.

4.For the purposes of this by-law each word or expression which is italicized in this by-law shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in By-law No. 289-93, as amended.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to recommend that City Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to add residential to the list of permitted uses on the lands at 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street. This would be subject to the submission of a further report on certain outstanding issues and the owner entering into an Agreement with the City to secure certain matters.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That, subject to the Further Report referred to in the Conclusions section of this report, the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to amend the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II generally in accordance with the draft Official Plan amendments contained in Appendix B of this report.

(2)That, subject to the Further Report referred to in the Conclusions section of this report, the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to amend the Harbourfront Zoning By-law (By-law No. 289-93, as amended) generally in accordance with the draft zoning amendments contained in Appendix C of this report.

(3) That prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, the owner be required to enter into an Agreement with the City, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to secure the matters summarized in Section 3(c) of this report.

(4)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioners of Corporate Services and Economic Development, Tourism and Culture, report on the timing of the payment of the parks contribution to the City in respect of Parcel YQ-4.

(5)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services invite the Harbourfront and Harbour Square community to a meeting during the Development Concept stage in order to receive their input on building concepts and details for 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street.

(6)That the owner shall submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site-specific exemption by-laws, if required, and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

(7)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 to the Medical Officer of Health, for review prior, to the issuance of a building permit.

(8)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 issuance of a building permit.

(9)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 to the Medical Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

(10)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.

(11)That the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Medical Officer of Health for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

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

Comments:

(1)Site and Surroundings

The site is located at the northwest corner of Queens Quay West and York Street, bounded on the west by Simcoe Street and on the north by Harbour Street, Lakeshore Boulevard and the Gardiner Expressway (refer to the location map attached to this report). The parcel, referred to as "YQ-4" in the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II and Harbourfront Zoning By-law, has an area of 15,731 m2 (169,327 ft²). Currently, it contains a surface parking lot on its southern frontage (Queens Quay West), and the seven storey York Quay Garage on its northern frontage.

(2)Proposal

The applicant, Queens Quay West Land Corporation (QQWLC), proposes to add residential uses to the list of non-residential uses already permitted on the site. At this time, no building design has been submitted, and site plan approvals have not been sought, because QQWLC intends to sell the site. What has been applied for is this one use change to the underlying planning controls.

Under the current Official Plan and Zoning By-law provisions for Harbourfront (Official Plan Section19.19 and By-law No. 289-93), the uses currently permitted on Parcel YQ-4 include offices, retail and service shops, institutional uses, community services and facilities and other specified non-residential uses. Currently, residential uses are not permitted. Therefore, adding the permission for residential use requires site-specific amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

(3)Planning Controls on YQ-4

(a) Background

YQ-4, along with the rest of Harbourfront, came into Federal ownership in 1972. Harbourfront did not have Official Plan and Zoning controls until 1980, as the culmination of an eight-year process of review by the City, the Province, and the Federal Government.

The original Part II Plan, approved by the OMB in 1980, was a loose set of controls that left most planning concerns to be dealt with on a site-specific basis. It envisioned YQ-4 as a site with a high intensity of development (i.e. high density), of a mixed commercial-residential nature, something that would be an extension of the Financial District in scale and character.

Zoning By-law No. 569-80, also approved by the OMB, permitted 184,361 m2 of total gross floor area on YQ-4, of which a maximum of 164,212 m2 could be non-residential and/or a maximum of 103, 715 m2 could be residential. No height limit appears to have been specified.

In January 1987, City Council began a formal review of Harbourfront and imposed a freeze on development. This led to several years of public review at the City, Provincial and Federal levels, including a Zoning Order imposed by the Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1989 to forestall new draft Official Plan and Zoning provisions that the City had intended to adopt.

In May of 1990, the Minister advised the City that a comprehensive development should be permitted on YQ-4, with a 18-storey tower at the north-east corner (no heights specified otherwise), and a density reduction to 104,500 m2.

In November of 1990, a Federal review endorsed the Provincial recommendations, but with increased density, height, and zoning "compatible with the commercial core extending south from Bay and King".

Subsequently, the City and Harbourfront worked out terms of settlement that were presented at and approved by the OMB (at the hearing resulting from Minister's zoning order). The Board order gave rise to By-laws No. 288-93 (the Part II Plan) and 289-93 (the area-wide Zoning By-law for Harbourfront), which are still in force and effect. The site is also subject to a Letter Agreement between Harbourfront and the City.

(b) Current Official Plan and Zoning Provisions

The new Part II Plan, approved by the OMB in 1993, continues to envision YQ-4 as a site with "a high intensity of development and activities reflecting the character of the Central Core...". The major change from the 1980 Plan was the elimination of residential uses from the site, and the reduction of permitted density from 184,361 m2 to 116,000 m2 of non-residential gross floor area. Residential uses were left off the list of permitted uses at the request of the property owner in response to the perceived market conditions at the time.

Zoning By-law No. 289-93 (the Harbourfront Zoning By-law):

-permits offices, retail and service shops, community services and facilities, and recreational parking. Residential uses are excluded (a change from 1980);

-permits a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 116,000 m2;

-requires a minimum of 531 m2 dedicated to a Community Services and Facilities use, and minimum of 297 m2 dedicated to an outdoor play space use;

-requires 2 distinct buildings at grade separated by a publicly accessible open space corridor at grade at the approximate mid-point of the lot; and

-imposes height limits of 102 metres, 66 m, 50 m and 22 m on the site.

Accompanying the 1993 Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments for Harbourfront is a Letter Agreement between the City and Harbourfront which stipulates:

-that, upon closing of the sale or long-term lease of YQ-4 by Harbourfront, Harbourfront will pay the City $10.5 million for parks design and construction purposes; and

-the obligation of the owner of YQ-4 to provide a Day Care Centre for 52 children, of at least 580 m2 indoor space and 350 m2 outdoor space, both for exclusive use by the Day Care.

This report proposes amendments to the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II, on a site-specific basis, to add residential to the list of permitted uses and to permit a surface parking lot on the site on a temporary basis. The following matters are to be secured in an Agreement with the City:

-establishment of the owner's obligation to produce a Development Concept Plan addressing issues of built form and urban design, such plan to be submitted prior to the first Site Plan application;

-establishment of the required contribution of monies for community services and facilities if residential units are built;

-provision of day care on the site;

-improvement of the facades of the existing parking garage if it is retained on the site;

-the procurement of provisions relating to the consideration of proposals from the Toronto District Heating Corporation; and

-a reiteration of the owner's existing obligations regarding parking on the site.

This report also proposes amendments to the Harbourfront Zoning By-law, on a site-specific basis, to:

-reflect the Official Plan Amendments noted above;

-reflect changes to the permitted envelopes on the site (a new building setback on Queens Quay West, a build-out of the York Street/Queens Quay West corner, and the potential retention of the parking garage);

-permit parking structures above grade as part of the overall permitted gross floor area, subject to certain design conditions;

-amend the calculation of residential recreation space (for consistency with the standard in the General Zoning By-law);

-establish " build-to" requirements for the lands; and

-secure grade-related retail requirements.

(4) Public Review Process

Urban Planning and Development Services held a public meeting to discuss Application No.197031 on April 28, 1998. Minutes are attached as Appendix D. Neighbours expressed concerns about the potential for traffic generated by development on the subject site, the nature and content of the traffic study that was being prepared by the applicant, and the potential scale of development. Some residents expressed the view that there had been a lack of public consultation on Harbourfront development matters prior to this meeting.

At the end of the Public Meeting, a Working Committee was formed to examine the issues that had been raised.

Prior to the first Working Committee meeting, a general information session on Harbourfront development was organized by the building manager for One York Quay and held on June3^rd. City staff spoke at this session, which was attended by approximately 120 residents.

The Working Committee was chaired by Councillor Chow's office and met three times (on June 9^th, 16^th and 23^rd) to discuss two main issues, built form and traffic, and the potential impact of residential use permissions on them.

The built form implications of the proposed Official Plan and zoning amendments are discussed in Section 5(b) of this report. The traffic impacts are discussed briefly in Section5(c) of this report. However, since the group did not conclude its traffic discussions on June 23^rd, two more meetings have been scheduled to continue the discussions (on July15^th and 20^th), and I will be reporting further on the outcome of these discussions, along with the comments of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

I have included the Terms of Reference in Appendix E. The final recommendations of the Working Committee, will be included in a further report on July 22^nd to Toronto Community Council.

(5)Planning Considerations

(a) The Desirability of Residential Uses

Adding residential to the list of permitted uses on this site is desirable in the context of the City's overall residential intensification and housing goals. Currently, the potential for new office construction in this location is not high. Given the mixed-use nature of Harbourfront, the increasing services for neighbourhood residents, and the adjacency of over 40 acres of parkland and open space, the potential for residential use is reasonable.

(b) Built Form Implications

(i) Organization of uses

The proposed Official Plan and zoning amendments would permit purely commercial or residential development, or any mix thereof, with a mandatory amount of street-related retail fronting onto York and Simcoe Streets and Queens Quay West. One possible scenario could involve the location of residential uses in the tower elements, with the base building used for retail and commercial purposes.

(ii) Height

The existing site-specific height limits for YQ-4 were set in 1993, and were coordinated with height limits in the Harbourfront area and adjacent Railway Lands. I am recommending that the existing height limits on YQ-4 be retained.

(iii) Massing

While the site is large and no building proposal for it has yet been tabled, the massing options for the full 116,000 m2 of density are quite predictable. Given that commercial and/or residential towers have certain requirements for floor-plate size, dimensions and placement, there are relatively few ways that the massing can be deployed on the site. The development options are limited even further if the existing above-grade parking garage is retained on the site.

City staff and the applicant undertook three-dimensional massing exercises to study the effects of adding residential use permissions on the overall building bulk. The studies indicated that:

-residential uses have lower floor-to-floor heights and demand more slender floor plates than office or other commercial uses; and

-adding residential to the use list and, as a consequence, building residential units on this site, would have the positive effect of shrinking the overall mass of the development.

Maps 2 through 6 highlight the comparison between a purely commercial development (which is permitted as-of-right) and the potential built form impact of a residential development with retail at grade.

(iv) Pedestrian amenity - setbacks at grade

Under the current by-law, there is no building setback required from the Queens Quay West property line (refer to Map 1). Under the proposed amendments, a setback of 2.0 metres would be established, creating a wider sidewalk on the north side of Queens Quay West when development occurs on the site.

The existing 10.0 metre building setback requirement on York Street would remain, but the setback notch at the corner of Queens Quay West and York Street would be squared off.

(v) Building stepbacks above grade

No changes are proposed relative to the current by-law. Current provisions, which were devised at the same time as provisions in the Railway Lands, are acceptable, i.e. a 22 metre base building, with towers set back 7.4 metres along Queens Quay West, 6.0 metres along York Street and 3.0 metres along Simcoe Street.

(vi) Street wall conditions

Currently, the Harbourfront By-law does not require development on this site to be built out to the street frontage, although the Harbourfront Design Guidelines (adopted in 1991) mandate that, on YQ-4, "at least 65 percent of the first five storeys of the building frontage should be built to the setback line on Queens Quay, and on York Street... [and that any] development on Parcel YQ-4 may build to the north lot line".

I am recommending the by-law be amended to require a "build-to" condition for 90% of the building frontage on this site (an increase from the number given in the Guidelines noted above).

The "street wall" to be secured by the by-law is a minimum of 20 metres and a maximum of 22 metres in height. This is similar in scale to the original warehouse portion of Queens Quay Terminal, directly across the street. The 20 metre street wall height is also respectful of the base building conditions of several other approved developments along the north side of Queens Quay West, and along York Street in the Railway Lands.

(vii) The existing above-grade parking garage

The applicant has proposed that the option be left in place to either retain the existing seven storey parking garage at the north end of the site, or replace it in a below-grade facility. Planning staff have reviewed the design implications of retaining the existing above-grade structure, and find that the proposal to retain the parking structure is generally acceptable, on condition that the portions of the structure within public view are refaced, and retail is added at grade along street frontages, when the lands are redeveloped. These matters would be secured in an Agreement with the City, and further elaborated on in the Development Concept Plan. Detailed requirements are being discussed with the applicant and will be considered by the Working Committee at its final two meetings.

I will report further to Toronto Community Council (for its meeting of July 22^nd) on the outcome of these discussions.

(viii) The Development Concept Plan

The site is large and will probably be developed in phases. The first phase of development will set the stage for the development of the rest of the block. Therefore, it is imperative that the owner commit to a sound urban design and built form concept for the entire block when the first development application is made. Accordingly, I have included policies in the Official Plan Amendment that would require the owner to submit, to the satisfaction of the City, a Development Concept Plan for the entire YQ-4 parcel as part of, or prior to, the first Site Plan Approval application.

The purpose of the Development Concept Plan will be to:

-provide a context for coordinated, phased development of the uses and density permitted by this Part II Plan and in relation to adjacent site conditions;

-demonstrate how the York Quay Parking Garage, if retained, is appropriately screened from the public realm and integrated into the objectives for development of this Site; and

-assist Council in evaluating the conformity of the proposed development with the relevant provisions of the Part II Plan, including site plan applications submitted for review under Section41 of the Planning Act.

The Development Concept Plan will illustrate and describe the following:

-setback and/or build-to lines including minimum and maximum vertical dimensions for building walls which are sufficient to establish the continuity and scale of building frontages;

-built form envelopes, demonstrating how the development potential permitted on the block is to be distributed, in sufficient detail to indicate how potential building massing achieves the objectives of the Official Plan Amendment, including the feasibility of development on or over the York Quay Parking Garage site;

-the location, dimension and character of interior and exterior publicly accessible private open spaces showing their continuity and complementary relationship to adjacent public spaces and their pedestrian amenity including seating, lighting and weather protection;

-the location and dimension of any arcades, canopies and other weather-protected routes and their relationship to the public pedestrian system;

-the general location of parking facilities and service access areas and their relationship with other access areas which are of sufficient detail to assess the overall impact of such areas on the public sidewalks; including the potential for consolidation of access from Simcoe Street to one access point;

-the general locations of principal pedestrian entrances and their relationship to street frontages to ensure that such entrances reinforce the role of the street;

-the general location of public pedestrian routes including the primary system of public street and alternative secondary routes and their relationship;

-the location of public street-related uses; including the base of the York Quay Parking Garage along Simcoe Street and, in the event that the F.G. Gardiner Expressway is dismantled in this vicinity, along Harbour Street;

-the manner in which linkages to adjacent planning areas could be accomplished and treated; and

-the general location of community services and facilities, such as a day care centre, to ensure:

(i)exterior play-space which is suitably weather protected and landscaped to facilitate year-round use and is located adjacent to the interior play space;

(ii)acceptable wind and sunlight conditions; and

(iii)acceptable noise and air quality levels.

Harbourfront residents are interested in the physical appearance of any development on this site. Given the Harbourfront community's interest in the detailed development of a building on the site, I am recommending that a meeting with the Harbourfront and Harbour Square community be held at the Development Concept stage.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has advised that the revised Traffic Impact Study and supplementary material received on June 30^th and July 6^th, 1998 are generally acceptable. As a result, he advises that the proposal to add residential uses on the site can be managed from a traffic operations point of view, subject to ensuring that certain principles are achieved in the design of the site related to access, vehicular circulation and servicing, and parking.

The traffic-related principles and objectives to be secured will be set out in a further report to the Toronto Community Council for its July 22^nd meeting.

In addition, the existing above-grade parking garage on the site carries a number of parking obligations (for recreational, visitor and miscellaneous needs) for other sites in Harbourfront. The Agreement required by Recommendation 3 of this report will ensure that the existing parking obligations continue to apply.

(d) Community Services and Facilities

The 1992 Harbourfront Agreement sets out Harbourfront's (and successive land owners') obligation to contribute funds for parks development and day care.

My preliminary report on this application identified the need for financial contributions toward Harbourfront community services, schools and parks. The community services for Harbourfront were planned by taking into account the existing residents and a projected number of future residents, based on the total number of residential units approved in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Residential permission on YQ-4 could add several hundred housing units, adding to the demand for community services beyond that originally contemplated. Therefore, if residential use permissions are added to YQ-4, the applicant should contribute funds toward the development of community infrastructure.

The applicant has agreed to contribute the following:

(i) $403.00 per unit toward community infrastructure such as the Harbourfront Community Centre; and

(ii)$277.00 per unit toward the provision of a future public library.

These would be secured through a Section 37 Agreement prior to Council's consideration of the by-laws. This approach and the dollar amounts to be secured are consistent with Council's treatment of Parcel YQ-8 (226-230 Queens Quay West) when it obtained an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning to add residential permissions to its use list last year.

The current obligation to provide a day care on the site, cited in the Letter Agreement between Harbourfront and the City, would remain, and would be enshrined in a new Agreement.

(e) Parks Payment

The Letter Agreement between the City and the Federal Government requires the payment of $10.5 million upon the closing of the sale or long-term lease of Parcel YQ-4. Representatives of Queens Quay West Land Corporation have raised the issue of delaying such payment, or phasing the payment over time, in order to provide for variously structured purchase transactions. This is a matter of some concern to the City, in view of the need to develop the parkland which has recently been conveyed to the City in an unimproved state.

I am recommending that I report further on this matter, in consultation with the appropriate Civic Officials, and that the resolution of this issue be secured to the satisfaction of City Council prior to the introduction of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

(f) School Board Comments

The application has been circulated to the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic School Board. Both School Boards have advised me that they require the payment of an Education Development Levy, calculated on a per residential unit basis, in respect of the proposed rezoning application for the provision of educational facilities or services.

The applicant has agreed to contribute funds on a per unit basis toward the provision of public and separate schools. The contribution will be secured by an educational development levy agreement between the applicant and the School Boards.

(6)Comments of Civic Officials

The Medical Officer of Health has requested that a number of studies and measures be undertaken on YQ-4 prior to the issuance of a building permit. These matters are described in Appendix E, and set out in the Recommendations section for Council's approval.

Conclusions:

I will be reporting further on the following matters directly to the Toronto Community Council meeting on July 22, 1998:

(a)the final recommendations and outcome of the Working Committee process; and

(b)a further discussion on traffic issues, including comments of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Working Committee, and recommended actions.

Based on the applicant entering into an agreement to secure the matters summarized in Section 3(c) of this report, and subject to the further report described above, I am recommending that Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment which would allow this site to be developed as mixed commercial-residential.

I believe that remaining concerns of residents can be addressed through the Development Concept Plan approval process. This report provides guidance as to what issues can be expected through that process and recommends that a public meeting be held when the Development Concept Plan is submitted.

Contact Name:

Anne Milchberg

Telephone: (416) 392-7216

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

________

Appendix A

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	N	Application Number:	197031
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	December 23, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	June 30, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:8 York Street and 200 Queens Quay West.

Nearest Intersection:	Northwest corner of Queens Quay West and York Street.

Project Description:	To add residential as a permitted use.

Applicant:

Queens Quay West Land

Corporation

200 King St. West

Suite 1500

Toronto, Ontario

M5H 3T4

Agent:

IBI Group

230 Richmond St. W. 5Fl.

596-1930

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	288-93	Site Specific Provision:	289-93
Zoning District:	CR	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	102.0; 66.0; 50; 22	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:

Frontage:

Metres:

up to 102 metres

Depth:

Indoor

Outdoor

Ground Floor:

Parking Spaces:

Residential GFA:

Loading Docks:

Non-Residential GFA:

(number, type)

Total GFA:

116,000 m²

Density
Residential Density:	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density:

Comments

No development plans were submitted with this application.

Status:

Final Report

Data valid:

July 8, 1998

Section:

CP Waterfront

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix B

Proposed Amendments to the Harbourfront Official Plan Part II

(1)PartII of the Official Plan for Harbourfront (contained in Section 19.19 of the Part I Official Plan) is amended by:

(a)deleting from Section5.3.2 the word "workplace" where it appears in the second line following the term "non-profit";

(b)adding to Section5 a new paragraph5.2.3 as follows:

(c)deleting the first complete paragraph of Section8.1.2 and replacing it with the following:

(i)the combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area, including the floor area of any above grade parking structures, does not exceed 116,000square metres;

(ii)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 111 935 square metres;

(iii)any non-residential gross floor area used for the purpose of community services and facilities shall be exempt from the calculation of density;

(iv)the owner is required:

(a)to provide a daycare facility in accordance with Section5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

(b)to submit additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section8.1.2.1 of this Part II Plan;

(c)to adhere in any site plan application to Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council and the Concept Plan referred to in Section8.1.2.1;

(d)to undertake improvements to the existing parking garage in accordance with the aforesaid Concept Plan;

(e)to give consideration to any proposal made by the Toronto District Heating Corporation in respect of the development of the buildings;

and that the owner enter into one or more Agreements to secure the matters referred to in paragraphs(a) to (e) above, and the agreement is registered on title to ParcelYQ-4;

(v)the owner is additionally required in any by-law permitting buildings containing residential gross floor area:

(a)to contribute $403.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of community services and facilities;

(b)to contribute $277.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of a public library; and

(c)to submit for the approval of the City a noise impact statement and a material recovery and waste reduction plan and to design and operate the buildings in accordance therewith;

and the owner enters into one or more Agreements to secure the facilities, services and matters required under subsection(v), and the agreement is registered on title to ParcelYQ-4; and

(vi)notwithstanding Sections7.7 and 7.10, Council may also pass by-laws to permit surface parking lots on a temporary basis pending the redevelopment of ParcelYQ-4.".

(d)adding a new Section 8.1.2.1 as follows:

"8.1.2.1Development Concept Plan

(a)The owner submit, to the satisfaction of the City, a Development Concept Plan for the entire YQ-4 parcel as part of, or prior to, the first site plan application. The purpose of the Development Concept Plan shall be to:

(i)Provide a context for coordinated, phased development of the uses and density permitted by this Part II Plan and in relation to adjacent site conditions;

(ii)Demonstrate how the York Quay Parking Garage, if retained, is appropriately screened from the public realm and integrated into the objectives for development of this Site; and

(iii)Assist Council in evaluating the conformity of the proposed development with the relevant provisions of this Part II Plan, including site plan applications submitted for review under Section41 of the Planning Act.

(b)The Development Concept Plan submitted in accordance with Section8.1.2.1(a) above, shall illustrate and describe the following:

(i)setback and/or build-to lines including minimum and maximum vertical dimensions for building walls which are sufficient to establish the continuity and scale of building frontages;

(ii)built form envelopes, demonstrating how the development potential permitted on the block is to be generally distributed on the block sufficient to indicate how potential building massings achieve the objectives set out in detail in Section2.7 to 2.15, inclusive of this Part II Plan; including the feasibility of development on or over the York Quay Parking Garage;

(iii)the location, dimension and character of interior and exterior publicly accessible private open spaces showing their continuity and complementary relationship to adjacent public spaces and their pedestrian amenity including seating, lighting and weather protection;

(iv)the location and dimension of any arcades, canopies and other weather-protected routes and their relationship to the public pedestrian system;

(v)the general location of parking facilities and service access areas and their relationship with other access areas which are of sufficient detail to assess the overall impact of such areas on the public sidewalks; including the potential consolidation of access from Simcoe Street to one access point;

(vi)the general locations of principal pedestrian entrances and their relationship to street frontages to ensure that such entrances reinforce the role of the street;

(vii)the general location of public pedestrian routes including the primary system of public street and alternative secondary routes and their relationship;

(viii)the location of public street-related uses; including the base of the York Quay Parking Garage along Simcoe Street and in the event the F. G. Gardiner Expressway is dismantled in this vicinity, along Harbour Street.

(ix)the manner in which linkages to adjacent planning areas could be accomplished and treated; and

(x)the general location of community services and facilities to ensure:

(a)exterior play-space which is suitably weather protected and landscaped to facilitate year-round use and is located adjacent to the interior play space;

(b)acceptable wind and sunlight conditions; and

(c)acceptable noise and air quality levels."

--------

Appendix C

Proposed Zoning By-law Amendments

(1)The Harbourfront Zoning By-law, i.e, By-law No.289-93, is amended by:

(1)adding to APPENDIX"D" opposite the parcel designationYQ-4 in the column headed "Location in By-law", the number "13(1)" before "13(2)(a), (b), (c) and (d)"; and in the column headed "Permitted Uses", the words and comma "Residential Uses," before "Offices";

(2)adding to APPENDIX "E" opposite the parcel designationYQ-4 in the column headed "MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA", the number "111,935"; and in the column headed "MAXIMUM COMBINED RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA AND NON-RESIDENTIAL GROSS FLOOR AREA", the number "116,000";

(3)deleting Height Map50G-313 contained in Appendix"B" and replacing it by a new Height Map50G-313 and a new Alternate Height Map50G-313 in the form attached hereto as Maps"A" and "B", respectively;

(4)Section 20(1) is amended by inserting after the words "Appendix B attached hereto" the following:

"including, in the case of Parcel YQ-4, the Alternate Height Map, in the event the Parking Garage existing on June 30, 1998 is retained."

(5)by adding to Section19 a new subsection(7) as follows:

"(7)None of the provisions of Sections19(1) and (2) shall apply in respect of any mixed-use or non-residential building erected or used on ParcelYQ-4.";

(6)by deleting Section15(4) and substituting therefor a new subsection(4) as follows:

"4.Notwithstanding any other provisions of this By-law, no person shall erect or use any building or structure on BlockA or BlockB of ParcelYQ-4

(i)as shown on the Build To Line Maps contained in Appendix A in the event the Parking Garage existing on June 20, 1998 is retained; or

(ii)as shown on the Alternate Build To Line Maps contained in Appendix A, in the event the aforesaid Parking Garage is not retained, unless there is an area of the exterior face of such building or structure from grade to a minimum height of 20metres above grade built within 1.2metres of the heavy line identified as the Build To Line on the Alternate Build To Line Map or Build To Line Map as the case may be,measured to the interior of ParcelYQ-4, corresponding to the relevant Build To Line for either of BlockA or BlockB, which area is equal to at least 90percent of the area determined by the product of the length of such Build To Line and the height.";

For the purposes of this section, where the exterior face of the building or structure includes a colonnade or an unenclosed balcony, such exterior face shall be deemed to include:

(i)the open area between any columns, measured along the exterior face of such columns; and

(ii)openings for any unenclosed balcony, provided it is not greater than 5.0metres in depth.

(7)by adding to Section18(iii) the following:

"provided that in the case of ParcelYQ-4 at least 70% percent of the aggregate length of the portions of the exterior walls of the buildings fronting on Queens Quay West, York Street and Simcoe Street, abut non-residential gross floor area at grade containing those uses set out in Section 13(2)(b) of this By-law.

(8)by adding to Section21 a new subsection(6) as follows:

"(6)(a)Paragraph(5)(I) does not apply to the type of structure listed in the column entitled "STRUCTURE" in the following chart, provided the restrictions set out opposite the structure in the column entitled "MAXIMUM PERMITTED PROJECTION" are complied with.";

Structure	Maximum Permitted Projection
A. eaves, cornices, light fixtures or ornaments	0.90 metres
B. fences and safety railings	no restriction provided the height thereof does not exceed 2.0 metres
C. canopy	2.5 metres
D. bay window	0.6 metres from the wall to which it is attached
E. balcony	0.6 metres from the wall to which it is attached
F. doors, including revolving doors	no restriction

(9)by inserting, following the heading "Section23", the number"(1)" and

(i)inserting in section 23(1)(I) following the date "June 1, 1991" the phrase "or any alterations thereto:" and

(ii)inserting a new Section23(2) as follows:

"23(2)None of the provisions of Section23(1) shall apply to prevent the erection and use of a parking garage above grade on ParcelYQ-4, provided:

(iii)the floor area of any above-grade parking structure is included in the calculation of gross floor area.

(2)Despite Sections13 and 14 of By-law No.289-93, as amended, the density of residential uses set out in Section13(1) of By-law No.289-93 is permitted subject to compliance with all other requirements of By-law No.289-93 and in return for the provision by the owner of ParcelYQ-4 of the following facilities, services or matters to the City, namely:

(a)a contribution of $403.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of community services and facilities;

(b)a contribution of $277.00 per dwelling unit to the City in respect of the provision of a public library;

(c)the provision of a daycare facility in accordance with Section5.3.2 of this Plan and the existing Harbourfront Implementation Agreement;

(d)the submission of additional plans and information addressing matters contained in and in accordance with Section8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront PartII Plan;

(e)adherence in any site plan application to Design Guidelines as adopted by City Council and the Concept Plan referred to in Section8.1.2.1 of the Harbourfront PartII Plan;

(f)the undertaking of improvements to the existing parking garage;

(g)the submission for the approval of the City of a noise impact statement and a material recovery and waste reduction plan and to design and operate the buildings in accordance therewith;

(h)the consideration of any proposal made by the Toronto District Heating Corporation in respect of the development of the buildings; and

(3)The owner of ParcelYQ-4 is required, pursuant to Section37(3) of the Planning Act, to enter into one or more agreements with the City to secure the facilities, services and matters referred to in Section2 of this By-law and the agreement or agreements are to be registered on title.

(4)For the purposes of this by-law each word or expression which is italicized in this by-law shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in By-law No. 289-93, as amended.

________

Appendix D

Minutes of the Public Meeting

Regarding: OPA and Rezoning Application No. 197031 for 200 Queens Quay West

and 8 York Street

Held by:Urban Planning and Development Services

Date:Tuesday, April 28th, 1995 at 7:00 p.m.

Location: Harbourfront Community Centre

In Attendance:

Anne Milchberg - City of Toronto

Leo deSorcy - City of Toronto

Bruce Scott - Councillor Chow's office

Deborah Cowen - Councillor Chow's office

David Smith - Fraser and Beatty

Craig Hunter - IBI

Scott Pottruff - IBI

Sandy Acchione - Queens Quay West Land Corporation

and approximately 26 members of the public.

Introduction - Planner's presentation

Anne Milchberg described the physical attributes of site, its location and context. She described current Official Plan and Zoning provisions for the property. She explained the purpose and intent of the OPA and rezoning application: to add residential to the list of approved uses. 116,000 m2 overall GFA would be retained, as well as the current height restrictions that break the development up into two blocks.

She reiterated the planning and urban design issues set out on page 3 of the Preliminary Report, copies of which were supplied to the meeting attendees.

Applicants' presentation

Craig Hunter (of IBI) introduced Sandy Acchione of Queens Quay West Land Corporation, his client. He stated that his client's intent in making the OPA and rezoning application was to add flexibility of uses to the site. He explained that this request for a wider range of use was consistent with the mixed commercial zoning ("CR" designation) in the rest of the City. He described the as-of-right zoning envelopes, and explained that no precise development was being proposed now - that a specific design would be forthcoming at the Site Plan Review stage.

C. Hunter stressed that applicant would accept the obligation to provide financial contributions for community service and facilities, schools, and a day care centre, and that any prior obligations regarding the day care centre would be preserved and honoured.

C. Hunter stated that the traffic study was nearly complete, finding that residential uses generate only half the traffic of commercial uses. He suggested that in Harbourfront, vehicular access should occur from streets other than Queens Quay West wherever and whenever possible, especially on weekends.

C. Hunter suggested that residential buildings have a smaller appearance than commercial buildings with the same area, because residential floor plates are smaller (commercial floor plates are typically 2,000 m2).

General Discussion - questions and comments from the public

A member of the public asked if the proposed change (the addition of residential uses) was due to the fact that the current market for commercial development was poor.

Craig Hunter of IBI confirmed that this was his client's view.

A member of the public asked " If the she site's zoning was approved in 1980 and re-approved in 1993, can it be "disapproved" now?

A. Milchberg responded that downzoning is not likely unless there is a compelling planning reason to do so.

A number of residents expressed the view that recreational amenity would be destroyed with "so many development sites... a wall along the waterfront".

A. Milchberg explained that development has been pulled away from the south side of Queens Quay West, and, on the north side of the street, the height limits drop substantially, moving west from this site.

Diana Birchall, the former planner for Harbourfront, was also in attendance at the meeting. Referring to a map, she indicated the locations of approved parks and open spaces all along Queens Quay West, and explained how they had been created by the shift of density to the north side of the street.

One resident expressed the view that planners must recognize that you can't put all kinds of people on top of each other, traffic is bad, and emergency vehicles can't get through. She also expressed concern respecting narrow streets, and windy conditions.

A number of residents asked who would be conducting the traffic study.

A. Milchberg responded that IBI would be doing this work.

Several residents expressed dissatisfaction with the notion that the developer's consultant

would be doing the study, and asked what recourse they would have if they did not agree with the study submitted to the City.

A. Milchberg responded that the study would be undertaken by a Professional Engineer, and would be subject to the scrutiny and rigorous review of the City's own Professional Engineers who specialize in traffic. If residents did not agree with the outcome of the study or with City Council's actions based on the study, they could appeal to the OMB.

One resident expressed the view that the traffic should have been reviewed 10 years ago, that she couldn't drive uptown now due to traffic conditions, and that, if the Gardiner were to be dismantled, the waterfront would become a wall of concrete. She asked if the traffic study would examine extreme conditions, such as after a fireworks display or baseball game.

A Milchberg stated that the traffic study would consider the "peaks" and "valleys" of the traffic conditions.

A resident stated that he would not be consoled by the traffic studies, and that he does not welcome developers or new development to Harbourfront. He asked if the outcome of this application was a "fait accompli".

A. Milchberg explained that residential development is not yet approved on this site, but that the property owner had a legal right to build a commercial development of 116,000 m2 within a defined envelope.

D. Birchall gave a brief history of public process 1990-1993 leading up to the 1993 zoning provisions for Harbourfront, which set out the use and density permissions for this site. She explained that in examining the suitability of residential use on this site, one would look at the impacts on (a) building bulk; (b) community services and facilities; (c) traffic; and (d) parks and open space. She stated that this area could not possibly or credibly be viewed as park-deficient.

Several residents asked about the steps involved in processing this application.

A. Milchberg outlined the steps involved in review, by-law preparation, reporting, further public meetings, and the roles of Community Council and City Council.

One resident then stated that there should be no more development in Harbourfront and this site should be turned into a park.

One resident from Harbour Square stated that she and her husband chose to live here because of the water and recreation, but that it took her husband 1/2 hour to drive from home to his job at Sick Kids Hospital.

Another resident expressed his opinion that "the optics of this look so bad. You [the planners] have come to the meeting with the developers. I came here with no preconceptions. I am open to your comments, but the optics look very bad."

Bruce Scott, Councillor Olivia Chow's assistant, replied that no improprieties exist between City planning staff and the developers, and that planning staff were present at the meeting along with the developers because they were instructed by Council to hold a public meeting to hear public concerns.

One resident asked Mr. Scott if he has ever tried to drive and park in Harbourfront in the summer.

B. Scott replied that he doesn't have a car, and that he uses a bicycle, or the TTC, or travels on foot.

The resident then rephrased her question: "Have you observed other people having trouble driving and parking in Harbourfront?"

B. Scott replied that he had observed this in many downtown communities.

A resident suggested that all development should be stopped until there is a good traffic study for all of Queens Quay.

A resident from Harbour Square presented a petition signed by numerous residents there who opposed development of the subject site, citing concerns such as parking, noise, impaired view from Harbour Square, and anticipated lower property values for their units.

A building manager on Queens Quay stated his concern that, during major events such as the Benson & Hedges Symphony of Fire, fire and emergency vehicles won't be able to move along Queens Quay, and that the traffic study should address this point.

Another resident noted that traffic accidents sometimes occur on the ramps connecting York Street to and from the Gardiner Expressway, and that this had the potential for further aggravating traffic conditions in the vicinity.

A resident expressed his concern that, once Air Canada Centre is built, the traffic conditions would get even worse.

A resident suggested that the LRT line on Queens Quay West should be put completely underground, since it further aggravated traffic conditions.

A resident stated that a cumulative traffic study was needed, one that included all of the approved development in the vicinity.

Another resident noted that it is difficult to look at this application without looking at the whole of Harbourfront and its problems. He suggested that each new development compounded the existing problems. He asked if an information meeting could be set up, one in which Planning staff could talk about other development activity in Harbourfront.

A. Milchberg offered to set up a separate information meeting dealing with Harbourfront as a whole.

A resident from Harbour Square then suggested that a working group with all of the stakeholders be formed to examine this application, and also area-wide problems in Harbourfront.

B. Scott agreed to set up a working group regarding 200 Queens Quay West, but only on condition that its participants accept, from the outset, that there are development rights on the site, and that the property can't simply be turned into a park.

A resident asked B. Scott what Councillor Olivia Chow's opinion of this proposal is, and what her vision of Harbourfront is.

B. Scott replied that Harbourfront is a downtown neighbourhood, and people want to live downtown. It is dynamic, and full of people. What is true for all downtown neighbourhoods that there is tension between density and livability. It's a constant balancing act.

Marilyn Roy, introduced herself as a Bathurst Quay resident and community activist. She noted that Harbourfront residents have never formed an area-wide residents' association, adding that it is not enough to complain and tell planners that they are not trustworthy. She offered to work with the residents at this meeting to help them understand the planning and political processes that can help them. She assured them that they have the power to make things better, but that they need to commit it is hard work and a lot of time to understand the process.

A resident asked about emergency measures for tall buildings (she lives on the 34th floor)

C. Hunter and A. Milchberg explained that, under the Building Code, all buildings have to meet life safety concerns.

A resident asked if a building permit has been issued for 200 Queens Quay West.

A. Milchberg replied that none has been issued - that there were currently no building plans.

A resident wanted to know when buildings would be built on the site.

C. Hunter replied that the applicant has nothing in mind now, and that the site would be sold off to a developer who would make those kinds of decisions.

M. Roy stated that she was on the Railway Lands Task Force, and that the time frame for building much of the approved development there was estimated at 10-15 years. Therefore, she thought that this site could be a long way off from construction.

A resident suggested that, if the 2008 Olympics is awarded to Toronto, development in this area could happen faster. Other residents agreed with the observation.

Bruce Scott asked for a show of hands and then a sign-up for those individuals who wanted to be part of a Working Group.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:30 p.m.

________

Appendix E

Comments from Civic Official - Toronto Public Health - July 8, 1998

Further to my letter of June 16, 1998, the applicant has requested that the recommendations be amended so that the reports are not required prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council. Our requirements can be captured during the Site Plan Approval Process, therefore, I am providing the following revisions.

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 to the Medical Officer of Health, for review prior, to the issuance of a building permit.

(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 issuance of a building permit.

(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 to the Medical Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit.

(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 to the Medical Officer of Health for approval, 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.

Please inform the applicant in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of this letter. If you have any questions contact me at 392-7685.

--------

Insert Table/Map No. 1

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This follow-up to my report dated July 9, 1998 includes:

(1)the detailed comments and recommendations of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on traffic impact and management;

(2)an update on the Working Committee process; and

(3)an additional recommendation to secure the Educational Development Levy requested by the school boards.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That Council endorse the traffic management and urban design recommendations of the Working Committee as set out in Appendices C and D of this report.

(2)That, prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, the owner be required to enter into an Agreement with the City, in a form satisfactory with the City Solicitor, to secure the traffic, access, parking and servicing objectives for Parcel YQ-4 set out in Section 1 and modified by Appendix C of this report.

(3)That, prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, the owner be required to enter into an agreement with the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board to secure financial contributions of $2,494.00 per residential unit for the provision of public and separate schools in connection with residential development on Parcel YQ-4.

Comments:

(1)Traffic Impact

When my Final Report was being prepared, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services had not yet finalized his review of the applicant's Traffic Impact Study (prepared by the IBI Group) and the supplementary material received from the applicant on June 30th and July 6th. His detailed review was submitted to me on July 15th and is included in Appendix A of this report.

As stated in my Final Report, it is the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the traffic impact of adding residential uses to the use list for YQ-4 can be managed from a traffic operations perspective, subject to ensuring that certain principles are achieved in the design of the site related to access, vehicular circulation and servicing, and parking. The Commissioner's comments set out his analysis, conclusions, and the conditions that should be secured in conjunction with this application.

The applicant's traffic analysis involved the review of two potential development scenarios to determine what traffic impact would result from residential uses on the site. In one scenario, the site was built out as a fully-commercial development (offices with retail at grade). The other scenario was a fully-residential development with retail at grade. In both cases, it was assumed that the existing parking garage would be retained.

A comparison was made of the weekday and Saturday peak hour trip generation under these two scenarios. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services observed that:

-the magnitude of weekday traffic generated by full build-out of the site with residential use is approximately one-half that of commercial uses;

-the fully commercial scenario has a greater impact on intersection operations during the weekday peak hours;

-potential residential development will create more traffic during off-peak hours (weekends) as compared to office uses, but potential residential traffic on weekends is not expected to cause significant additional traffic congestion;

-the incremental impact of either scenario, when compared to the existing condition, is within acceptable transportation engineering limits; and

-traffic issues associated with new development of the site can be managed through access, parking, and servicing strategies.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has recommended that the owner be required to enter into an Agreement with the City to secure the following traffic, access, parking and servicing objectives:

(a)That the existing driveway connection to Queens Quay West be made available only for new site drop-off/pick-up activity (in addition to the existing parking garage traffic), and direct access to new parking facilities from Queens Quay West not be permitted;

(b)that the primary access and egress for new development be Simcoe Street, and such access be consolidated with the existing garage access/egress to Simcoe, subject to further detailed design;

(c)that the existing parking attendant kiosk areas on the Queens Quay West driveway be relocated further north into the site in conjunction with re-development;

(d)that the City undertake, at the time of Site Plan review, a curbside management review on streets fronting this site to ensure appropriate regulations and by-laws are in place to control and manage traffic flow in the most efficient manner to minimize further traffic congestion;

(e)that the current obligations to provide and maintain a minimum of 853 parking spaces on the site be maintained;

(f)that the parking supply required to satisfy demand from any new residential development occurring on this site be independent of the existing parking garage supply;

(g)that new parking facilities relate directly to the building(s) on the site, with specific points of access and/or internal circulation driveways to distribute site traffic to the road network; and

(h)that new loading facilities be designed to a high standard and be internalized, with all vehicle manoeuvring occurring on-site to allow trucks to enter and exit in a forward motion.

(2)Outcome of the Working Committee Process

Residents representing several condominium corporations in Harbourfront actively participated in the Working Committee process. Buildings represented were: 33 Harbour Square, 55/65 Harbour Square, 77/99 Harbour Square and 401 Queens Quay West. Residents from 250/260/270 Queens Quay West were also active participants.

At the end of Working Committee process, the Board of Directors of the Harbour Square buildings stated their disagreement with my recommendation that residential use be approved for Parcel YQ-4. Their position is that "[a] commercial building will produce less traffic on weekday evenings and weekends. In addition, the commercial building will provide badly needed public parking on weekday evenings and weekends when the office tower is not in use."

The representative for 401 Queens Quay West advised during the Working Committee process that she believes that her condominium corporation will support the proposed Official Plan and zoning amendments for residential use.

Notwithstanding the opposition of some of the condominium corporations to residential use, the entire Working Committee adopted a series of traffic management and urban design recommendations and is requesting that Council endorse them in the event that it approves the requested OPA and zoning amendments. These are described in Sections (3) and (4) below.

Please note that the Terms of Reference for the Working Committee were inadvertently omitted from my July 9th report. They are now attached to this report as Appendix B.

(3)Peer Review of the Traffic Study - Related Working Committee Recommendations.

Residents of 77-99 Harbour Square hired Marshall, Macklin, Monaghan (MMM) to review IBI's finalized traffic study. MMM met with City staff, the applicant, IBI, and the Working Committee on July 20, 1998 to discuss its findings.

At that meeting, the Working Committee adopted the traffic consultant's recommendations in combination with those put forward by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, and requested that Council endorse them in the event that it approves residential use on YQ-4. These traffic recommendations are set out in Appendix C. Staff of Works and Emergency Services, the residents, the applicant and all consultants present have indicated that the recommendations are generally acceptable in principle.

(4)Urban Design - Working Committee Recommendations

The Working Committee adopted the Urban Design recommendations set out in Appendix D, and requested that Council endorse them in the event that it approves residential use on YQ-4. Planning staff, the applicant and all consultants present at the Working Committee meeting supported these recommendations.

(5) School Boards

Legal counsel for the Toronto District School Board have requested that the owner be required to enter into an Education Development Levy agreement prior to the introduction of Bills in Council. The agreement, between the applicant, the Toronto District School Board and the Toronto Catholic District School Board, would secure financial contributions of $2,494.00 per residential unit for the provision of public and separate schools in connection with residential development on Parcel YQ-4.

This request is reflected in Recommendation No. 3 of this report.

(6)Comments of Civic Officials

The comments of the Buildings Division, Urban Planning and Development Services, are to be found in Appendix A of this report, alongside the comments of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

Based on the applicant entering into an agreement to secure the matters referred to in this report and my July 9, 1998 Final Report, I am recommending that Council approve the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, which would allow this site to be developed as mixed commercial-residential.

Contact Name:

Anne Milchberg; Telephone (416) 392-7216; Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

_______

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

(1)Buildings Division, May 6, 1998

Subject:8 York Street and part of 200 Queens Quay West - Rezoning Application 197031

Circulation Notice dated May 1, 1998.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:	Request to allow residential use at this YQ-4 site
Zoning Designation:	CR	Map:	50G-313
Applicable By-law(s):	289-93, as amended
Plans prepared by:	Rabideau & Czerwinski Surveyors Ltd.	Plans dated:	Feb. 19, 1998.
Residential GFA:	Not provided

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 proposed Residential uses are not permitted in this YQ-4 site. (Section 13-Appendix D of By-law 283-93 as amended)

2.The proposed total Residential gross Floor Area has not been provided. (Section 14(1)- Appendix E of By-law 283-93 as amended)

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 proposal DOES NOT require 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.

(2)Works and Emergency Services, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, July15,1998.

Subject:Review of Traffic, Parking and Access Assessment for Premises Nos. 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street (Parcel YQ-4, Harbourfront).

Reference is made to a Traffic and Parking Study dated June, 1998, submitted by IBI Group for the above-noted site, and a revised report and additional supplementary material received under dates of June, 1998, July 6 and 14, 1998 respectively, incorporating further information requested following a review of the original document by staff and discussions with the Working Committee established to consider an application to rezone this site to allow residential use in addition to those uses already permitted.

Existing Conditions

As you are aware, the site is currently used for paid public parking, with approximately 1400 spaces contained in an above ground parking structure, and 300 spaces provided in surface lots surrounding the structure. The traffic study indicates the applicant "does not contemplate the removal of the parking garage and there are various legal and other operating obligations to provide recreational parking for Harbourfront on this site". According to information provided, the applicant is obligated to provide and maintain approximately 850 spaces within the public parking garage.

The site is bounded by:

-Harbour Street on the north, a three-lane one-way eastbound arterial facility (serving as the eastbound lanes of Lake Shore Boulevard West) situated underneath the elevated F. G. Gardiner Expressway;

-York Street on the east, a three-lane arterial within a 20 metre right-of-way which also incorporates a two-lane eastbound-to-northbound expressway exit ramp;

-Simcoe Street on the west, a four-lane two-way arterial within a 20 metre right-of-way, which provides connections to Harbourfront, the Railway Lands and the Lake Shore/Gardiner traffic corridor, and;

-Queens Quay West on the south, a combination four-lane arterial and two-lane LRT transit facility within a 24 metre right-of-way, which provides access to and within the Harbourfront area.

The main access to the existing parking structure is situated on Queens Quay West. Other points of access are Simcoe Street (entry/exit) and York Street (currently entry only).

The consultant's assessment of traffic conditions focuses on the weekday morning and evening peak periods for the comparative analysis of Aas-of-right@ commercial development and the proposed residential use. The Saturday peak hour was also reviewed for the site driveways and adjacent intersections on Queens Quay West given that a residential development on this site would generate activity on the weekend when Harbourfront and the surrounding area are busy with recreational, residential and other special events activities. It is noted that weekday evenings can generate considerable special event traffic as well, however, residential activity generally is not as significant at this time compared to the weekend (i.e. Saturday) period which was assessed.

According to information submitted, the site presently generates between 185 and 216 total two way trips in the weekday morning and evening peak hours respectively, and 461 total two-way trips during the Saturday peak hour.

The consultant has reviewed existing traffic conditions on the street system using standard capacity analysis software. The following summarizes the findings of the consultant's analysis:

IntersectionTime PeriodVolume-to-Capacity Ratio

York/Queens Quay Westa.m. peak hour0.21

p.m. peak hour0.34

Sat. peak hour0.51

Simcoe/Queens Quay West a.m. peak hour0.21

p.m. peak hour0.23

Sat. peak hour0.26

Simcoe/Lake Shore Boulevarda.m. peak hour0.41

p.m. peak hour0.30

York/Harbour a.m. peak hour0.75

p.m. peak hour0.54

Note:A volume-to-capacity ratio of 1.0 represents at-capacity conditions, characterized by stop-and-go conditions, substantial queuing and delay.

The analysis indicates existing conditions are busy but generally operating within capacity. The technical analysis does not, however, specifically account for curbside activity including stopping, mid-block pedestrian traffic etc. which in this case would tend to further impact on the conditions reported.

In addition to the consultant's review of existing conditions, staff undertook supplementary weekend traffic data collection on Queens Quay West between Simcoe Street and York Street. The following volume and travel speed characteristics were determined for this section of Queens Quay West:

Survey Date Range of volume*Avg Speed85th Percentile Speed

Westbound:

Sat. June 20425-560 vph34 kph48 kph

Sun. June 21425-550 vph35 kph48 kph

Sat. June 27385-510 vph36 kph52 kph

Sun. June 28345-520 vph36 kph48 kph

Eastbound:

Sat. June 20385-510 vph35 kph52 kph

Sun. Jun. 21390-510 vph36 kph52 kph

Sat. June 27215-425 vph40 kph50 kph

Sun. June 28230-390 vph38 kph52 kph

*- based on the busiest 12 hours of the day

As can be seen from the data provided above, the range of traffic volume measured during the busiest hourly periods of these weekend days varies from 345 to 560 vehicles in the westbound direction, and 215 to 510 vehicles in the eastbound direction. A detailed review of the pattern of traffic volume and travel speed data confirms general observations that pedestrian and other street-related activity tend to exacerbate traffic delays during busy periods in the Harbourfront area. Nevertheless, the data do not suggest a capacity Athreshold@ is reached during busy periods (i.e. gridlock) but rather that as delay and congestion increase, traffic moves slowly but is still able to travel through the area at these times.

Traffic Assessment - Proposed Residential Use

The consultant's analysis reviewed traffic conditions for two future potential development scenarios in order to assess the relative difference in traffic impact associated with full development of the site with permitted office use versus full development with the proposed residential use. The residential scenario also considered some grade-related ancillary commercial use. In both cases, it was assumed the existing parking garage would be retained.

In terms of weekend conditions, the consultant notes that some traffic would be generated by an office development scenario, however, for the purposes of this review, weekend commercial trips are assumed to be negligible. The consultant's report has established Saturday residential trip generation on the basis of empirical data, augmented with information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, which is acc

-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Colenutt;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Brian M. Dourley, Miller Thomson;

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Christine M. Silversides;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Henry Dwinnell; and

-(July 22, 1998) from Mr. David P. Smith, Fraser & Beatty.

A comparison of the weekday and Saturday peak hour trip generation under these two scenarios, applying appropriate criteria for this area of the City, is presented below:

ScenarioTotal New Peak Hour Trips (Vehicles)**

Morning Peak HourAfternoon Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour

Office488462Negligible

Residential215245217

**- The provision of a daycare facility on-site could generate some additional weekday trip making, possibly in the range of 20-30 additional trips depending on the size of the centre and number of attendees driven to the site.

As noted in the table, the magnitude of weekday traffic generated by full build-out of the site with residential use is approximately one-half that of commercial uses.

The report documents the traffic assignments applied for the purposes of evaluating forecast conditions. A summary of the capacity analysis for future weekday and weekend conditions, for each of the residential and office development scenarios, is presented below (existing conditions have been re-iterated for comparative purposes).

IntersectionTime PeriodVolume/Capacity Ratio

Existing w/Officew/Residential

York/Queens Quay Westa.m. peak hr 0.210.38 0.24

p.m. peak hr 0.340.360.40

Sat. peak hr 0.510.550.60

Simcoe/Queens Quay West a.m. peak hr 0.210.220.21

p.m. peak hr 0.230.260.24

Sat. peak hr 0.260.260.27

Simcoe/Lake Shore Boulevarda.m. peak hr 0.410.510.48

p.m. peak hr 0.300.49 0.35

York/Harbour a.m. peak hr 0.750.77 0.76

p.m. peak hr0.540.59 0.55

A review of the detailed capacity analysis for the weekday peak hours indicates the office scenario has a greater impact on intersection operations as a result of the incremental additional traffic generated compared to the residential scenario. Nevertheless, the incremental impact of either scenario when compared to the existing condition is within acceptable transportation engineering limits, and is estimated to be so even with consideration for other activity not explicitly accounted for in the technical analysis.

In addition to a review of intersection operations, trip routing to and from the site and trip frequency were evaluated, in particular during the Saturday period when residential uses would generate a greater relative impact on the road network compared to office use. In terms of inbound traffic to the site, the consultant estimates nearly 70 additional vehicles would enter the site from westbound Queens Quay West, and 50 vehicles would enter from southbound Simcoe Street. However, residents who would be travelling to the site from the east would also have the option to access Simcoe Street directly from the soon-to-be-completed Lake Shore Boulevard West/Bremner Boulevard connection which is being constructed as part of the Air Canada Centre development. As a result, site traffic on Queens Quay West could be less than reported by the consultant. Traffic travelling to the site from the north would of course, also have the opportunity to access the site from either Simcoe Street or York Street without having to use Queens Quay West. For site exiting, nearly 70 vehicles are expected to leave the site by northbound Simcoe Street and nearly 30 vehicles to westbound Queens Quay West.

Notwithstanding, the options available to access the site from streets other than Queens Quay West, the information submitted indicates the frequency of new site traffic arrivals via York Street and/or Queens Quay West during the Saturday peak hour would be just over one vehicle every minute in the peak hour. This compares to a range of existing on-street traffic volume, varying from 345 to 560 vehicles in the westbound direction, and 215 to 515 vehicles in the eastbound direction.

Preferred Site Access Arrangements

The traffic analysis and observation of traffic patterns in the area suggest the primary access for any new development on the site should be from Simcoe Street, to permit convenient access to Lake Shore Boulevard West and the City street system and to minimize traffic impact in the Harbourfront area. Site access to Simcoe Street should be consolidated with the existing garage access/egress, subject to further detailed review.

Also, the existing driveway connection to Queens Quay West should be made available only for new drop-off/pick-up activity (in addition to the existing parking garage traffic) to further reduce the potential impact of new site traffic on this street. In conjunction with this, and recognizing that the existing public parking garage has an important role in serving parking needs of the area, it is further recommended that the existing parking attendant kiosk areas situated on the Queens Quay West driveway be relocated further north into the site in conjunction with redevelopment, in order to provide additional on-site queuing space thereby minimizing impacts to on-street traffic flow.

Direct access to new parking facilities should not be permitted from Queens Quay West. An inbound driveway from York Street is also acceptable from a traffic operations point of view.

The consultant has also suggested access to Harbour Street (eastbound Lake Shore Boulevard West) may be possible, however, this option is not recommended at this time, and would need to undergo further rigorous analysis by the applicant prior to any further consideration.

Ensuring overall site accessibility for trucks, servicing and emergency vehicles would of course, form part of the site access review.

Parking

As noted previously, the site currently provides 1,700 public parking in a combination of above-grade and surface parking spaces of which a total of approximately 850 spaces must be maintained on the site in accordance with the applicable agreements and By-laws. Given that the existing garage continues to be well used by visitors to Harbourfront and the surrounding area, it would be advantageous to maintain the current parking garage, and further secure the current obligations related to the 850 spaces.

Parking for residential uses must be provided in compliance with requirements set out in Harbourfront Zoning By-law 289-93 (as amended). According to the traffic study, and assuming a typical unit mix and application of the By-law, full build-out of a residential scenario could result in the need to provide approximately 467 tenant and 49 visitor spaces for a total of 516 spaces plus any ancillary commercial requirements. Given the nature of residential parking and the need to ensure spaces are available for residents at all times, it is recommended that all residential development occurring on this site supply its own parking independent of the parking supply contained in the existing garage.

Access to new on-site parking should be taken from Simcoe Street (primary driveway) and York Street. As well, parking should relate directly to the building(s) on the site. Individual buildings should have separate parking facilities with specific points of access and/or internal circulation driveways to evenly distribute site traffic to the road network.

Servicing

The design and provision of loading areas should be in accordance with Departmental standards and comply with the requirements of the Harbourfront Zoning By-law. Furthermore, garbage and loading facilities should be internalized, with all vehicle manoeuvring occurring on the site to allow trucks to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. Truck servicing areas should be designed to a high standard to ensure vehicles do not load/unload at curbside. Truck access, service areas, and circulation may be consolidated to achieve an efficient design and operation.

Area-wide Conditions

It is recognized that streets in this area of Harbourfront are sometimes subjected to congestion on weekends and evenings, and at times of special events. The congestion is a result of a number of factors including pedestrian activity, visual distractions, pick-up/drop-off activity, illegal on-street parking, sidewalk vending, etc. These conditions are experienced to some extent in several other areas of the City as well (e.g. Beaches, Yorkville, Bloor West Village, Theatre District, etc.) although each area exhibits somewhat different characteristics. As a result, there are no standard measures available to deal with the congestion occurring in these vibrant and unique areas of the City.

Notwithstanding this, certain traffic operations elements can be reviewed during the site planning stage to ensure traffic and pedestrian flow is managed to the extent possible with redevelopment of this site. Potentially one of the most effective ways of addressing impacts to traffic flow as a result of redevelopment is to undertake a curbside management review on streets fronting this property at the time of site plan review. This would ensure appropriate regulations and by-laws are in place to control and manage traffic flow in the most efficient manner to minimize further traffic congestion.

Other area-related traffic concerns are being dealt with on a City-wide or area basis. In this regard, City Council has recently adopted a strategy to manage tour bus activity. As part of this initiative, and in an effort to address illegal bus parking in various areas of the City including Harbourfront, tour bus operators will be encouraged to use specially designated metered bus parking spaces which will be created in areas of the City within proximity of tour bus destinations. Ultimately, provision of an off-street facility to park tour buses is part of the strategy being developed by the City.

Conclusions:

In summary, it is recommended that the Section 37 Agreement for this site secure the following traffic, access, parking and servicing objectives:

(a)The existing driveway connection to Queens Quay West be made available only for new site drop-off/pick-up activity (in addition to the existing parking garage traffic), and direct access to new parking facilities from Queens Quay West not be permitted;

(b)The primary access and egress for new development be Simcoe Street, and such access be consolidated with the existing garage access/egress to Simcoe, subject to further detailed design;

(c)The existing parking attendant kiosks areas on the Queens Quay West driveway be relocated further north into the site in conjunction with re-development;

(d)The City undertake, at the time of Site Plan review, a curbside management review on streets fronting this site to ensure appropriate regulations and by-laws are in place to control and manage traffic flow in the most efficient manner to minimize further traffic congestion;

(e)The current obligations to provide and maintain a minimum of 853 spaces in the existing parking garage be maintained;

(f)The parking supply required to satisfy demand from any new residential development occurring on this site be independent of the existing parking garage supply;

(g)New parking facilities relate directly to the building(s) on the site, with specific points of access and/or internal circulation driveways to distribute site traffic to the road network, and;

(h)New loading facilities be designed to a high standard and such facilities be internalized, with all vehicle manoeuvring occurring on-site to allow trucks to enter and exit in a forward motion.

Should you have any questions regarding this review, please contact Mr. T. Laspa at 392-7711.

________

Appendix B

Terms of Reference

Working Committee for 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street (YQ-4)

Objectives:

To provide a forum for community input into the review of the Official Plan and Rezoning application for 200 Queens Quay West and 8 York Street, in considering whether to permit residential uses on the site in addition to the range of non-residential uses already permitted on the site.

Participants:

-Bruce Scott and Deborah Cowen from Councillor Olivia Chow's office (chairing the meetings)

-City Staff from Urban Planning and Development Services and City Works Services as required

-Queens Quay West Land Corporation (the owner) and the IBI Group (the owner's representative)

-individuals who signed up for this Working Committee at the April 28, 1998 Public Meeting.

Schedule and Tasks:

It is proposed that the Working Committee meet four times, as follows:

Meeting 1

Wednesday, June 3 - General Information

The Working Committee will attend the general information session on future Queens Quay West development being organized by the Management Office of Harbour Square.

Meeting 2

Tuesday, June 9 - YQ-4 Background; Urban Design Issues

City staff will define the scope of work of the Working Committee, provide background information on the site, its context, and the history of its planning controls, and describe the expected outcome of the process.

City staff will review in detail the existing Official Plan, zoning and urban design provisions for the site, and their physical implications in terms of building siting and organization, massing, and pedestrian amenity.

As a group, we will examine what effects the proposed addition of residential use would have on the built form and physical character of development on the site. Particular attention will be paid to:

-creating adequate sidewalks and setbacks on Queens Quay West for streetscapes and pedestrian use;

-determining the appropriate size and location of towers in relation to base buildings;

-determining the appropriate location and form of servicing and car access to the site, to minimize the impact of traffic on the pedestrian sidewalks and neighbouring buildings; and

-evaluating the implications of maintaining the existing above-grade parking garage on the site in the course of redevelopment.

Meeting 3

Tuesday, June 16 - Urban design feedback, actions and recommendations; traffic issues

Approximately half of this session will be a follow-up and wrap-up to the Urban Design discussions of June 9th. The balance of this session will include the examination of vehicular access opportunities and constraints, a comparison of the traffic generated by the proposed vs. permitted uses, and the assessment of summer weekend as well as typical weekday conditions.

Meeting 4

Tuesday, June 23 - Feedback on traffic issues; actions and recommendations; wrap-up.

Approximately half of this session will be a follow-up and wrap-up to the Traffic discussions of June16th. In the balance of this session, there will be an overall summary, and wrap-up, and the Working Committee will formulate and finalize its recommendations for inclusion in the Final Planning Report.

After Tuesday, June 23

Draft by-laws and a Final Report will be prepared for the site, to be considered by the Toronto Community Council at its meeting of July 22, 1998. This will constitute the statutory public meeting for the by-laws. Prior notice for the by-laws will be given in accordance with the Planning Act (i.e., a minimum of 20 days prior to the meeting).

________

Appendix C

Traffic Management Recommendations of the Working Committee

The Working Committee adopted the following series of traffic management recommendations in the event City Council approves residential uses on the site. These recommendations are a combination of the those put forward by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services in his memorandum of July 15, 1998 on the matter, and some from the traffic review undertaken by the traffic consultant on behalf of Metropolitan Toronto Condominium Corporation No. 949 (Premises Nos. 77 and 99 Harbour Square):

(1)The existing driveway connection to Queens Quay West should be made available only for new site drop-off/pick-up activity (in addition to the existing parking garage traffic), and direct access to new parking facilities from Queens Quay West should not be permitted. In conjunction with this, the existing parking attendant kiosk areas on the Queens Quay West driveway should be relocated further north into the site in conjunction with redevelopment.

(2)The primary access and egress for new development should be Simcoe Street, and subject to feasibility, this access should be consolidated with the existing garage access/egress to Simcoe Street. Given the potential for vehicular conflicts on Simcoe Street during peak event times, the developer should review projected traffic operations on Simcoe Street between Harbour Street and Queens Quay West, with the proposed development in place, and taking into account the impact of the Riviera development, and the projected loss in parking in the area, as part of the Development Concept Plan.

(3)No development or vehicular access should be provided from York Street between Harbour Street and Queens Quay West, due to the importance of this link in the road network.

(4)It is desirable to maintain the existing driveway onto Harbour Street for outbound right-turn traffic from the site, subject to further review of safety issues.

(5)New parking facilities should relate directly to the building(s) on the site, with specific points of access and/or internal circulation driveways to distribute site traffic to the road network.

(6)The parking supply required to satisfy demand from any new residential development occurring on this site should be independent of the existing parking garage supply. Furthermore, the site should provide and maintain at least the minimum visitor parking required by the by-law within the building complex, and not rely on the existing garage or other facilities to meet this demand. New parking must be secured to the extent possible through appropriate agreements with the City.

(7)The City should undertake, at the time of Site Plan Review, a curbside management review on streets fronting this site to ensure that appropriate regulations and by-laws are in place to control and manage traffic flow in the most efficient manner to minimize further traffic congestion.

(8)The current obligations to provide and maintain a minimum of 853 spaces in the existing parking garage should be maintained.

(9)New loading facilities should be designed to a high standard, and these facilities should be internalized, with all vehicle manoeuvring occurring on-site to allow trucks to enter and exit in a forward motion.

(10)Alternative arrangements should be made for the accommodation of buses which currently park on Queens Quay West eastbound from Simcoe Street to York Street. The City shall provide a status report to members of the working Committee in September or October on bus accommodation.

Staff of Works and Emergency Services, residents, the applicant and all consultants at the final meeting indicated that the aforementioned conditions are generally acceptable in principle.

________

Appendix D

Urban Design Recommendations of the Working Committee

The Working Committee adopted the following series of urban design recommendations in the event City Council approves residential uses on the site:

(1)The owner shall be required to submit, to the satisfaction of the City, a Development Concept Plan for the entire YQ-4 parcel as part of, or prior to, the first Site Plan Approval application.

(2)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services shall invite the Harbourfront and Harbour Square community to a meeting during the Development Concept planning stage in order to receive their input on site planning and building concepts and details for YQ-4.

(3)The Development Concept Plan shall illustrate and describe the following:

(a)setback and/or build-to lines including minimum and maximum vertical dimensions for building walls which are sufficient to establish the continuity and scale of building frontages;

(b)built form envelopes, demonstrating how the development potential permitted on the block is to be distributed, in sufficient detail to indicate how potential building massing achieves the objectives of the Official Plan Amendment, including the feasibility of development on or over the York Quay Parking Garage site;

(c)the location, dimension and character of interior and exterior publicly accessible private open spaces showing their continuity and complementary relationship to adjacent public spaces and their pedestrian amenity including seating, lighting and weather protection;

(d)the location and dimension of any arcades, canopies and other weather-protected routes and their relationship to the public pedestrian system;

(e)the general location of parking facilities and service access areas and their relationship to the objectives contained in the transportation recommendations set out in AppendixC of this report;

(f)the general locations of principal pedestrian entrances and their relationship to street frontages to ensure that such entrances reinforce the role of the street;

(g)the general location of public pedestrian routes including the primary system of public street and alternative secondary routes and their relationship;

(h)the location of public street-related uses; including the base of the York Quay Parking Garage along Simcoe Street and, in the event that the F.G. Gardiner Expressway is dismantled in this vicinity, along Harbour Street;

(i)the manner in which linkages to adjacent planning areas could be accomplished and treated; and

(j)the general location of community services and facilities, such as a day care centre, to ensure:

(1)exterior play-space which is suitably weather protected and landscaped to facilitate year-round use and is located adjacent to the interior play space;

(2)acceptable wind and sunlight conditions; and

(3)acceptable noise and air quality levels.

________

-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Colenutt;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Brian M. Dourley, Miller Thomson;

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Christine M. Silversides;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Henry Dwinnell; and

-(July 22, 1998) from Mr. David P. Smith, Fraser & Beatty.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report follows up on the recommendation in my July 9, 1998 Final Report that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioners of Corporate Services and Economic Development, Tourism and Culture, report on the timing of the payment of the parks contributions to the City in respect of Parcel YQ-4.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

The Harbourfront Implementation Agreement entered into between the City and the Federal Government on October 6, 1992 provides for the payment of $10.5 million to the City for "parks design and construction" upon the closing of the sale or long-term lease of Parcel YQ-4.

Queens Quay West Land Corporation (QQWLC), the entity responsible for disposing of this Federally-owned site, has advised that in selling Parcel YQ-4, they may require the flexibility to structure a transaction to delay or spread out over time the full purchase price. Therefore, the City's receipt of the full $10.5 million payment could possibly be delayed in a similar manner.

The Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture has a strategic schedule for improving the larger parkland acquisitions in Maple Leaf Quay that would require the availability of the $10.5 million in the years 2000 and 2001. Nevertheless, the solicitors for QQWLC have indicated that it is not possible, from a Federal perspective, to commit to the payment of such funds in accordance with the City's intended scheduling, and that payments to the City would have to follow the form of transaction ultimately arrived at with the successful purchaser/lessee of ParcelYQ-4. It does not appear to be possible at this time to further refine the commitment for the parks improvement payment schedule as it currently exists in the Implementation Agreement.

This report has been prepared in consultation with the City Solicitor and the Commissioners of Corporate Services and Economic Development, Tourism and Culture.

Conclusion:

The discussions with QQWLC have been useful, in that QQWLC has been made aware of the City's desire to achieve the parks funding contribution as soon as possible in order to complete the improvement of conveyed parkland in Harbourfront. QQWLC is aware of the need to structure the purchase transaction so that the bulk of the funds are received as soon as possible.

Contact Name:

Anne Milchberg

Telephone: (416) 392-7216

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-mail: amilchbe@city.toronto.on.ca)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (July 27, 1998) from the City Clerk:

The Toronto Community Council advises that the attached submissions were received by the City Clerk with respect to the foregoing Clause:

-(July 17, 1998) from Ms. Patricia Colenutt;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Brian M. Dourley, Miller Thomson;

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Christine M. Silversides;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Henry Dwinnell on behalf of the residents of Harbour Square; and

-(July 22, 1998) from Mr. David P. Smith, Fraser & Beatty.)

(A copy of each of the submissions, referred to in the foregoing transmittal letter, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Heritage Easement Agreement - Nos. 363-373 Adelaide Street East,

55-59 Sherbourne Street, and 226-230 King Street East

(Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To permit a building height increase in exchange for preservation of the Bishop's Houses and portions of Imperial Bank Building at 363-373 Adelaide Street East, 55-59 Sherbourne Street, and 226-230 King Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No funds are required as a result of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The Draft By-law authorizing the entering into of a heritage easement agreement respecting the Bishop's Houses (363-365 Adelaide Street East) and the Imperial Bank Building (226 King Street East) and attached to the report (July8,1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)Authority be granted for the appropriate officials to execute on behalf of the City the following agreements satisfactory to the City Solicitor:

(a)a heritage easement agreement under Section 37 of the Heritage Act in respect of the property known as the Bishop's Houses (363-365 Adelaide Street East);

(b)a heritage easement agreement under Section 37 of the Heritage Act in respect of the property known as the Imperial Bank Building (226 King Street East);

(c)an agreement under Section37 of the Planning Act for the conservation, maintenance and restoration of the buildings described in the heritage easement agreements referenced in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development who has provided the background and discussion portions of this report is currently finalizing a site plan approval for a major development on the site which consists of 800 square metres of ground floor retail space and 196 residential units. The 13 storey project includes the retention and restoration (circa 1885) of historic rowhouses located along the Adelaide Street East frontage of the property. The rowhouses, known as the Bishop's Houses, are among the oldest remaining houses in the entire City of Toronto. An historic bank building which is part of the project, is located on the northeast corner of King Street East and Sherbourne Street. This historic building is partially retained and incorporated in the development.

Sections 4.1. and 4.2 of the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan (Section 19.5 of the Part I Official Plan) for the former City of Toronto authorizes the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act to grant increases in building height and floor area in exchange for the conservation and maintenance of heritage buildings. Section 7(3) of the former City of Toronto General Zoning By-law implements an as-of-right building height and floor area bonus in exchange for the conservation and maintenance of one or more heritage buildings retained on a lot in a Reinvestment Area Zoning district. Provided the owner of the land executes the Section 37 Agreement, the bonus can be granted as-of-right without requiring a rezoning approval. The provisions facilitate the timely redevelopment of land while achieving meaningful heritage conservation.

The project incorporates the conservation, maintenance and restoration of two heritage buildings located on the site, and makes use of the planning provisions described above. As a result, the site plan approval for the project includes execution by the owner of a Section 37 Agreement and two Heritage Easement Agreements.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

On June16,1998 the Board of Heritage Toronto approved the development proposal in respect to its heritage aspects. The site plan approval and the finalization of the legal agreements can now be completed. This report includes a recommendation authorizing execution of a Section 37 Agreement (Planning Act) for the development. The key elements of this agreement are described below.

The owner has agreed to complete the restoration of the heritage buildings on the site in accordance with an approved Restoration Strategy for each building. Heritage Toronto staff have reviewed the reports and are satisfied with them. Prior to the submission of a building permit application for the development, the owner has also agreed to prepare an additional restoration plan for each of the heritage buildings retained which will provide detailed technical specifications for the restoration of each heritage building.

Under the terms of the agreement the restoration of the heritage buildings is to commence prior to any occupation of the development. The restoration work is to be completed within 9 months of first occupancy.

The owner is required to post Letters of Credit to ensure that the restoration work is completed in a manner contemplated by the Section 37 Agreement. Additional funds are being included in the Letter of Credit to secure the short maintenance requirement, such as patching the roof of the Bishop's Houses as it is imperative this work occur soon. The developer is required by this Agreement to complete the short term maintenance within 3 months of execution of this Agreement. The Letter of Credit may be reduced by the City as the restoration work is completed by the developer.

The Agreement also requires the owner to enter into Heritage Easement Agreements for the conservation and maintenance of the buildings at the same time the Section 37 Agreement is executed.

Finally, the Section 37 Agreement contains provisions for collateral matters secured as part of the site plan approval process, including streetscape improvements and soil and groundwater remediation requirements.

Conclusions:

Because the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the former City of Toronto permit through the use of a Section 37 Agreement (Planning Act) increases in building height in exchange for the preservation of heritage buildings, and because there is planning and heritage board support for the project, it is appropriate to authorize and execute the Heritage Easement Agreements and the Section37 Agreement in respect of the proposed redevelopment.

Contact Name:

Stephen Bradley, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7790

Fax: (416) 392-0024

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

________

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Intended for first presentation to Council:

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1998

To provide for the entering into of an easement for the conservation of buildings on lands

known as Nos. 363 and 365 Adelaide Street East and 226 King Street East.

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.The entering into of an easement with the owner or owners of lands known as Nos.363 and 365 Adelaide Street East and 226 King Street East, being of architectural value or interest, is hereby authorized.

2.All documents required to be signed on behalf of the City in respect to the easement hereby authorized shall be signed by the City Clerk and the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, who are hereby authorized and directed to affix the seal of the City to all such documents.

Extension of Existing Part Lot Control Exemption By-law, -

Eaton Centre, 1 Dundas St. W. and 20 Salvation Square

(Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To initiate the forwarding of a draft by-law by the City Solicitor, pertaining to 1 Dundas St. W. and 20 Salvation Square, to implement the extension of the existing Eaton Centre Part Lot Control Exemption By-law to lands for which the Eaton Centre has received Site Plan Approvals to expand in the former Yonge Street and Salvation Square road allowances and on 20 Salvation Square, upon application by Goodman, Philips and Vineberg, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd.

Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to authorize an exemption from part lot control pursuant to Section 50(5) of the Planning Act, of lands recently added to the Eaton Centre and formerly part of the Yonge Street and Salvation Square road allowances and the former Salvation Army property at 20 Salvation Square, which were the subject of Site Plan Approvals under Application Nos. 397066 and 397149.

(2)That the introduction of a Bill in Council to implement Recommendation No. 1, above, be subject to the completion of the conveyance from the City of Toronto to the owners of the Eaton Centre of the relevant portions of the former Yonge Street road allowance, and to the execution and registration on title of all Development and Collateral Agreements required under Site Plan Approval Application Nos. 397066 and 397149.

Background:

Cadillac Fairview Corporation Ltd. has recently acquired from the City of Toronto certain lands in the former Yonge Street and the former Salvation Square road allowances. They have also recently acquired the former Salvation Army site at 20 Salvation Square (see attached map). Expansion of the Eaton Centre onto these lands has been recently approved through Site Plan Approval Application Nos. 397066 and 397149. The solicitor for the Eaton Centre has requested that Part Lot Control Exemption By-law No. 151-80 applying to the existing Eaton Centre be extended to these additional lands.

Discussion:

The subject lands form part of the two Site Plan Approval Applications mentioned above which have been approved. The approvals provide for the renovation of the Yonge Street frontage of the southern portion of the Eaton Centre including storefronts with doors onto Yonge Street, and the expansion of retail uses onto the former Salvation Army site together with the renovation of the Salvation Square (Albert Street) entrance to the Eaton Centre. As part of these Site Plan Approvals, the owner was required to enter into Development and Collateral Agreements to be registered on title. At the time of the preparation of this report, the agreements related to the Salvation Square expansion had been registered on title, but the agreements related to the Yonge Street expansion and renovation had not.

City Council has previously approved the conveyance of the relevant portions of the former Yonge Street and Salvation Square road allowances to the owners of the Eaton Centre. The City Solicitor has advised that the conveyancing of a portion of the Yonge Street lands has not yet been completed, but is expected to be completed very soon. As a result of this situation, the registration of the Development and Collateral Agreements on the Yonge Street lands has not yet occurred.

The City Surveyor has confirmed that these lands are within plans of subdivision as defined by the Planning Act, as is required in order to permit an exemption from part lot control under Section50(5). The existing Eaton Centre is already the subject of a Part Lot Control Exemption by-law, By-law 151-80, which has no limitations, conditions or expiry date.

Conclusions:

Given that the existing Eaton Centre has been exempted from part lot control since 1980 with no adverse implications, that the additional lands are being integrated into the existing Eaton Centre, and that they are the subject of Development and Collateral Agreements securing the proposed development, I am satisfied that an extension of the part lot control exemption to such lands is appropriate. To help ensure that the lands are integrated with the Eaton Centre, it would be appropriate that a part lot control exemption by-law not be adopted by Council until the conveyance of relevant City-owned lands to the owners of the Eaton Centre has been completed and the Agreements mentioned above have been executed and registered on title.

Contact Name:

Peter Langdon

City Planning Division, East Section

Tel: 416-392-7617

Fax: 416-392-1330

Email: plangdon@city.toronto.on.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

20 Salvation Square

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Downtown, Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following reports from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

(July 9, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit signage at 244 Victoria Street (263 Yonge Street).

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998045 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit signage on condition that:

(i)respecting sign type "A", only the logo and letters be internally illuminated and that only the perimeter of the frames be illuminated with static incandescent light bulbs;

(ii)respecting sign type "B", the sign be front-lit, and that only the perimeter of the frame be illuminated with static incandescent light bulbs;

(iii)respecting sign type "C", the signs be backlit and that only the perimeter of the frames be illuminated with static incandescent light bulbs;

(iv)respecting sign type "D", only the logo and individual letters be internally illuminated; and

(v)respecting sign type "E", only the perimeter of the frame be illuminated with static incandescent light bulbs.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998045, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Yonge Street, having frontage on both Yonge and Victoria Streets, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property is known as the Pantages Theatre. The building is designated historical under the Ontario Heritage Act.

The applicant is requesting permission to install new signage on the east and west elevations of the building (see Figures 1 & 2). The new signage will serve to identify the Pantages Theatre as one component of the larger AT&T Centre, which will include an additional theatre, a hotel, retail and residential uses that were approved by the former City of Toronto Council on May 12, 1997. The dimensions of each sign type are shown on attached Figures 3-7. In addition to the 9 signs that are part of this application, 2 additional signs, which are permitted under the Municipal Code, will be installed on the building. The remaining 10 signs, which are currently existing on the building will be upgraded or remain unchanged.

The areas of non-compliance with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code by sign type are as follows:

Sign type "A", illuminated roof sign, of which there are 2 proposed, do not comply in that roof signs are not permitted in CR districts;

Sign type "B", illuminated fascia sign, of which there is 1 proposed, does not comply in that the sign will be erected above the 2^nd storey of the building;

Sign type "C", illuminated fascia sign, of which there are 4 proposed, do not comply in that they will exceed the maximum permitted sign area of 15% of the building face of the second storey and they will be erected above the second storey and more than 10 metres above grade;

Sign type "D", illuminated fascia sign, of which there is 1 proposed, does not comply in that it will be erected above the second storey and more than 10 metres above grade; and

Sign type "E", illuminated fascia sign, of which there is 1 proposed, does not comply in that it will be erected above the second storey of the building and more than 10 metres above grade, and the area of the sign (54.71 m�) will exceed the maximum permitted sign area of 25 m� by 29.71 m�.

To summarize, the variances being requested have to do with roof signs not being permitted in a CR district and the size and location of the proposed fascia signs.

The proposed roof signs, sign type "A", will be installed in the same location as the existing "Phantom Masks" which will be relocated. The new signs will consist of arch-shaped aluminum panels with static incandescent light bulbs around the perimeter. The panels have been designed to echo the arches found on the east facade of the building. The signs will be used to identify the new corporate sponsor, AT&T, and only the name and logo will be internally illuminated (see Figure 3). At its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council adopted By-law 1996-0168 which amended the sign regulations of Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code by deleting the as-of-right replacement provisions for legal non-conforming signs. City Council adopted this recommendation because it was felt that the continued replacement of non-conforming signs would serve to prolong the lifespan of signs in areas where Council had decided that they are no longer desired. By permitting the erection of new non-conforming signs, the goal of attrition would take much longer to achieve. While the signs' faces and attributes can be changed, no changes are permitted to the sign structure, location or height of legal non-conforming signs. In this instance, however, the classification of "roof sign" is arguably a technical matter in that the existing "Phantom Masks" are icons attached to an existing vertical structure which supports the permitted "Pantages" sign which is proposed to be maintained. The proposed signs are similar in size to the existing "Phantom Masks" and will be set back from the building face and positioned in the same location to screen the existing support structure. For this reason, I consider the variance to be acceptable in this circumstance.

The second type of sign, fascia sign "B", consists of an ornamental aluminum frame with static incandescent light bulbs around the perimeter of the frame. The sign will be front-lit with decorative spot lights located on the canopy below. The sign will be used to advertise the current production in the theatre and will be installed on the Yonge Street elevation of the building, above the main entrance and approximately 9 metres above grade, which I consider acceptable.

The third type of sign, fascia signs "C", will be located on the Victoria Street elevation of the building. These arch-shaped signs will be internally illuminated and will have static incandescent light bulbs around the perimeter of the frame. The new signs will replace illuminated signs currently in this location and will be used to promote theatre-related events. The signs have been designed to be integrated within the existing arches on the upper level of the facade. In my opinion, the proposed signs emphasize this unique architectural feature and their size and location will not negatively impact the building.

The fourth type of sign, fascia sign "D", will be located on the Victoria Street elevation of the building. The sign identifying "AT&T Centre" consists of internally illuminated brass channel letters mounted horizontally across the building face. The sign, although slightly higher than permitted, has been positioned in between the arches to line up with the cornerstone details on either side, which I consider appropriate in this instance.

The fifth type of sign, fascia sign "E", will be located towards the south end of the building on the Victoria Street elevation. The sign consists of a "skeletal grid" frame edged with static incandescent light bulbs on which visual icons will be displayed related to the current production. The applicant proposes to display one of the "Phantom Masks" relocated from Yonge Street. However, this sign will be changed intermittently to reflect the current production. While the frame is larger and higher than permitted, the "skeletal grid" frame has been appropriately sized and positioned on this blank section of wall to display the visual icons which will be temporary in nature directly related to the play being performed. On this basis, I consider the variance to be acceptable.

I have reviewed this application with Heritage Toronto staff. After numerous revisions, the applicant has adequately addressed Heritage Toronto's concerns.

I am, therefore, recommending that this application be approved with the conditions noted above. The applicant concurs with these recommendations.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421; Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

244 Victoria Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

244 Victoria Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

244 Victoria Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

244 Victoria Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

244 Victoria Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

244 Victoria Street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

244 Victoria Street

Insert Table/Map No. 8

244 Victoria Street

(July 8, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated fascia sign at 2 King Street West.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998040 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998040, 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-west corner of King Street West and Yonge Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 20 storey commercial building.

The building is listed under the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign on the east elevation of the building which identifies the ground floor tenant (see Figures 1 and 2). The sign has a length of 5.8 metres and a height of 0.6 metres, with an area of 3.5 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it is not entirely located within the tenant's commercial unit frontage. The Municipal Code requires that signs 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, signs on the ground floor level have been designed to fit in between the building columns and the sign has not precluded the provision of appropriate signage for the adjacent tenant.

Heritage Toronto staff have advised that they have no objection to this application.

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

2 King Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2 King Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2 King Street West

(June 18, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign at 711 Yonge Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998036 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998036, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the east side of Yonge Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a 2.5 storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to install one non-illuminated fascia sign on the north elevation of the building (see Figure1). The sign has a length of 3.7 metres and a height of 3.0 metres, with an area of 11.1 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it will be erected within 0.6 metres of a public roadway.

The sign would face onto Roy's Square, a public laneway. The 0.3 cm thick sign would be located 2.9 metres above grade and it would not interfere with pedestrians or vehicles entering the laneway.

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

711 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

711 Yonge Street

(July 6, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit one illuminated fascia sign at 1615 Dufferin Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998038 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one fascia sign on condition that the sign be non-illuminated.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998038, 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 Dufferin Street and Rosemount Avenue, in a residential (R2) district. The property accommodates a two storey medical building. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated fascia sign on the second floor level of the building facing Dufferin Street (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 4.9 metres and a height of 0.8 metres, with an area of 3.9 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it is not permitted in this residential district.

The Municipal Code permits illuminated signs in residential districts in conjunction with uses that are normally permitted in such districts. Professional office uses are not permitted in this residential district, hence the variance. The applicant has advised me that a medical use has existed in this location for approximately 20 years and therefore the use is legal non-conforming. The new sign would be used to identify additional services (ie. chiropractic and physiotherapy) that would be provided in the building in conjunction with the existing medical uses. However, I am concerned about the potential negative impact the illuminated sign might have on the existing residential uses across Dufferin Street.

Consequently, I am recommending approval of this application, on condition that the sign be non-illuminated. I have consulted with the applicant and he concurs with this recommendation.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca - Telephone: (416) 392-0421; Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1615 Dufferin Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1615 Dufferin Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1615 Dufferin Street

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

631-651 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998042-Option A set out in the report (June25,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit illuminated signage on condition that the owner enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the City of Toronto with respect to the glazed cornice;

(2)the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998042, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(3)the report (July 9, 1998) from Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit illuminated signage at 631-651 Spadina Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998042-Option A respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit illuminated signage on condition that the owner enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the City of Toronto with respect to the glazed cornice.

(2)City Council approve Application No. 998042-Option B respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit illuminated signage.

(3)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998042, 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 Glen Morris Street, Spadina Avenue and Harbord Street, in an institutional (Q) district. Construction has recently commenced on a ten storey, 436 room University residence, with retail uses at grade.

The applicant is requesting permission to install patterned glass signage on the glazed cornice of the building facing Spadina Avenue. The sign has a length of 46 metres and a height of 4 metres, with an area of 184 m�. Two options are proposed: Option "A" where the cornice "extends" beyond the southern edge of the building to the midpoint of Harbord Street and Option "B" where the cornice ends at the southern edge of the building (see Figures 1-4). The applicant is requesting approval of Option "A" which is conditional upon City Council's approval of an encroachment agreement. If City Council does not approve Option "A", then Option "B" is recommended.

The sign illustrated in Option "A" and Option"B"does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it is not a defined sign type under Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code and is therefore not permitted.

The site is situated on the western edge of the University of Toronto campus at the intersection of Spadina Avenue and Harbord Street which is one of the six primary entrances to the campus. The sign would be patterned onto the glass wall of the extended interior corridor at the 6th and Th floor levels. The extended corridor would be cantilevered over Harbord Street thereby forming a decorative cornice. Access to the cantilevered portion of the corridor would be restricted to maintenance staff only.

The projecting cornice on which the sign is proposed to be located serves as a " gateway" to the University, consistent with the policies identified in the University of Toronto Area Part II Plan which was enacted by the former City of Toronto Council on June 3, 1997. In my opinion, the sign appropriately identifies this major entry point.

I am recommending that City Council approve Option "A" and adopt Recommendations No. 1 and3 of this report. However, should City Council wish to approve Option "B" instead because it supports the sign but not the encroachment, it should adopt Recommendations Nos. 2 and 3 of my report.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca,

Telephone: (416) 392-0421, Fax: (416) 392-7536;

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

631-651 Spadina

Insert Table/Map No. 2

631-651 Spadina

Insert Table/Map No. 3

631-651 Spadina

Insert Table/Map No. 4

631-651 Spadina

Insert Table/Map No. 5

631-651 Spadina

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of an overhead service corridor on the Harbord Street flankage of 631 Spadina Avenue. The service corridor will be used to facilitate maintenance of signage that will be affixed to the exterior of the service corridor. As this type of structure does not fall within the standard provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, I am required to report to your Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of an overhead service corridor over the City street allowance on the Harbord Street flankage of 631 Spadina Avenue, subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and agreeing to:

(a)indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b)maintain the service corridor in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of City Works Services;

(c)accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the Corporation;

(d)remove the overhead service corridor upon receiving notice so to do with the understanding that the City shall not give such notice in the first 75 years following completion of the proposed work or the life of the building, whichever period is less; and

(e)pay an annual rental fee, as determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services.

Comments:

Mr. Chris Radigan of Stephen Teeple Architect Inc., 511 King Street west, Toronto, Ontario M5V1K4, submitted an application on April 27, 1998, on behalf of the owner, University of Toronto, requesting permission to construct an overhead service corridor over the City street allowance on the Harbord Street flankage of 631 Spadina Avenue. The proposed corridor will be located 14.5 m above grade and extend 12.2 m over the City street allowance. It will be used to facilitate maintenance of signage that will be affixed to the exterior of the corridors.

For your Committee's information, the former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of May 28 and29, 1990, adopted a general policy prohibiting the construction of overhead structures and pedestrian bridges over public rights-of-way, except for site specific locations where Council may approve such structures on the recommendations of the Commissioners of City Works Services and Urban Development Services providing appropriate justification and subject to the structure being accessible to people with disabilities.

In this instance, discussions have been on-going with members of Urban Development Services, Development Approval Division, who in turn have submitted, for your consideration at this meeting, a separate report dealing with the signage at this location.

With respect to the requirement of accessibility for people with disabilities, this would not be a concern at this location, as the service corridor would be restricted to maintenance personnel only.

Details of the overhead service corridor are shown on the attached sketches (Appendices 'A' and'B').

Conclusions:

As this overhead service corridor will not impact negatively on the area, it should be permitted, subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Harbord Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Harbord Street

Site Plan Approval -

365 Dundas Street East (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of the site plan application, subject to certain conditions of approval.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely drawings A1, A3, A6 and A7 date stamped as received April 28, 1998, and drawings A4 and A5 date stamped as received April 28, 1998 as redlined on June 3, 1998, all as prepared by Oleson Worland Architects, as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(2)That as a condition of approval, the owner be required to enter into a Development Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 41 of the Planning Act, requiring that the owner:

(a)undertake and maintain the development, including the landscaping, substantially, in accordance with the drawings referred to above;

(b)provide and maintain a garbage and recyclables materials storage room, with a minimum size of 10m�, which is accessible to all occupants of the building;

(c)provide and maintain a concrete base pad on the site, with a slope not exceeding 2% and level with the pavement of the abutting public lane, for the storage of at least 2 container bins on collection day;

(d)agree to pay for the cost of repairing any damage to the public lane that may be caused through the regular use of the area by the refuse collection activity, and that the owner be advised that any repairs must be completed prior to the continuation of City refuse collection services;

(e)convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 1.52m wide strip of land to the full extent of the north limit of the east-west public lane, save and except for the portion of these lands to be encumbered by the existing building to be retained, 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 the said lands are laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

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

(g)provide and maintain an access control gate to serve the surface parking area for the development; and

(h) light the surface parking area to ensure its safety and security.

(3)That, the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare a Collateral Agreement between the City and the owner and that as a condition of approval, the owner be required to enter into the Collateral Agreement requiring that the owner:

(a)submit an application for improvements to the public sidewalk, generally as shown on drawing L-2 date stamped as received April 28, 1998, as prepared by Oleson Worland Architects, as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planing and Development Services, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and carry out the improvements within a reasonable period of time, or at the request of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, make a cash contribution to the City equal to the value of the improvements for the Commissioner to undertake the improvements as part of a comprehensive program;

(b)agree to demolish the overhead walkway joining 365 Dundas Street East to 270 Ontario Street as part of the project; and

(c)agree the parking spaces provided on the site will be used solely by occupants of the project and visitors to it.

(4)That the lands conveyed to the City under recommendation 2 f) above, be laid out, and thereafter dedicated by the City, for public highway purposes.

(5)That the owner be advised that:

(a)issuance of a building permit for the proposal is contingent upon its full compliance with all the relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code;

(b)the proposal requires the conveyance of lands for parks purposes, or payment thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act; and

(c)the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is required for any work to be carried out within the street allowance.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The site is located on the south side of Dundas Street East between Ontario Street and Seaton Street.

A vacant two-storey industrial building occupies the property. The proposal is to convert the 4,330 m� building to 39 live/work units. The existing building will be partially demolished to accommodate a surface parking area for the building. As a result, the floor area of the building is reduced to 3,500m�. Twenty-two parking spaces and a Type B loading space will be provided to serve the development. Loading for City garbage removal will occur from the public lane at the south limit of the site.

There has been some controversy in the neighbourhood regarding this application as area residents were concerned that the existing building would be converted to a rooming house. Their worries arose when a small two-storey annex adjacent to this site was illegally converted to a rooming house by the owner. At least two meetings were held with area residents to discuss the application. In the past, anti-poverty activists have argued that the building should be used as a large rooming house.

Comments:

a)Parking and Loading

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services estimates the parking demand for the development at 17 parking spaces, while 22 are provided. As a result of discussions between the owner and the community, the owner has agreed not to lease the balance of the parking spaces to off-site users. This commitment is a condition of approval.

The City will provide containerized garbage collection from the public lane. Requirements are being imposed to ensure that the garbage containers are stored in a garbage room prior to collection day.

b)Compliance with the Zoning By-law

The Chief Building Official reviewed the proposal and noted two variances from the Zoning By-law. On June 3, 1998 the project architect revised the plans to be rid of the variances. Building's staff have advised me that the changes are acceptable.

The proposal was granted minor variances to the loading requirements for the project and the floor area limit used for live/work purposes. The Committee imposed a condition of approval requiring that the residential gross floor area be used as dwelling units.

The City's General Zoning By-law limits the use of rooming houses in MCR zoning districts to 25 dwelling rooms. A legal conversion of the entire building to rooming house usage would be difficult to achieve.

Conclusions:

Conversion of the building to 39 live/work units is feasible from a planning perspective. I am recommending site plan approval of this project.

Contact Name:

Lance Alexander

City Planning Division, East Section

Telephone: 416-392-7573

Fax: 416-392-1330

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

________

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	397125
Rezoning:	N	Application Date:	September 30, 1997
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:	April 28, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:365 Dundas Street East.

Nearest Intersection:	South side of Dundas Street East; east of Seaton Street.

Project Description:	Alteration and conversion of existing manufacturing building to live-work use.

Applicant:

Oleson Worland Arch.

819 Yonge St. #300

929-9696

Agent:

Oleson Worland Arch.

819 Yonge St. #300

929-9696

Architect:

Oleson Worland Arch.

819 Yonge St. #300

929-9696

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:		Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	MCR T1.5 C1.0 R1.0	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	12.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	2524.0 m²	Height:	Storeys:		2
Frontage:			Metres:		9.50
Depth:
			Indoor		Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	22
Residential GFA:	3505.0 m²	Loading Docks:	1	B
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	3505.0 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Live-work	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Bachelors:	39	Residential	3505.0 m²
Total Units:	39

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 1.39	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 1.39

Comments

Status:

Application revised.

Data valid:

April 28, 1998

Section:

CP East

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Urban Planning and Development Services, Buildings and Inspections, May 29, 1998

"Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Conversion of light manufacturing building to a building containing 39 live/work units

Zoning Designation:MCR T1..5 C1.0 R1.0Map:51H-312

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

Plans prepared by:Oleson Worland ArchitectsPlans dated: September 29, 1997

Zoning Review

A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal will comply with the City's zoning by-laws, as varied by the Committee of Adjustment, if the plans are revised as follows:

1.The length of the six parking spaces directly accessible from the lane are increased from 5.8 metres to 5.9 metres. The layout of the dwelling units appear to be one-bedroom units and all 22 parking spaces are required to have the minimum dimensions of 2.6 metres by 5.9 metres.

2.The layout of the indoor residential amenity space should be changed to remove what appears to be a proposed bedroom area.

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

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

2.The proposal DOES NOT require City Council's approval pursuant to the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1989.

3.The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

4.The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.

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

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

2.Works and Emergency Services, June 15, 1998

"Comments:

The proposal for the above-noted site, located on the south side of Dundas Street East, between Seaton Street and Ontario Street, was dealt with in a Departmental consolidated report dated February 19, 1998.

The project has now been revised to:

-eliminate the retail component;

-increase the number of residential units from 28 to 39;

-increase the parking supply from 20 spaces to 22 spaces, including 6 substandard spaces with a length of 5.8 m;

-eliminate the on-site Type B loading space and designate a Type G loading space within the public lane abutting the south limit of the site; and

-relocate the garbage and recycling storage room into the southwest corner of the building.

Parking

The proposed provision of 22 parking spaces satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 17 spaces, including 15 spaces for the residents and 2 spaces for residential visitors and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for 22 spaces. The proposed parking supply is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with the bulk lift method of refuse collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste). This will require the provision of a Type G loading space, a garbage/recyclable materials storage room at least 10 m� in size and a concrete pad for the storage of container bins on collection day. Recognizing the constraints imposed by the retention of the existing building, it would be acceptable for the loading activity to take place within the public lane abutting the rear property line, provided that the required concrete storage pad is located entirely on private property, adjacent to the front of the loading space and level with the existing lane pavement. The refuse and recyclable materials collection facilities shown on the plans are acceptable, however, the owner will be responsible for repairs to any damage within the public lane that may be caused by the loading activity. These repairs must be completed in order for City collection to continue.

As a result of the foregoing, Recommendation Nos. 1(a) and 1© contained in the February 19, 1998 Departmental consolidated report are no longer applicable and Recommendation No. 1(f) and 1(g) should be added as follows:

1(f)Provide and maintain a concrete base pad on site, with a slope not exceeding 2% and level with the pavement of the abutting public lane, for the storage of at least 2 container bins on collection day; and

1(g)Agree to pay for the cost of repairing any damage to the public lane that may be caused through the regular use of that area by the refuse collection activity, and that the owner be advised that any repairs must be completed prior to the continuation of City refuse collection services."

3.Works and Emergency Services, February 19, 1998

"Recommendations:

1.That the owner be required, as a condition of approval of the plans and drawings for the project, to:

(a)Designate the substandard parking space for use by small cars only with visible signage;

(b)Provide and maintain a garbage and recyclable materials storage room, with a minimum size of 10 m², which is accessible to all occupants of the building;

(c)Provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6 m and 13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading space;

(d)Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 1.52 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the east-west public lane, save and except for the portion of these lands encumbered by the existing building to be retained, 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;

(e)Submit to the Commissioner of City Works Services, a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands to be conveyed to the City and the remainder of the site;

2.That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance; and

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

Comments:

Location

South side of Dundas Street East, between Seaton Street and Ontario Street.

Proposal

Conversion of the existing building which is used for light manufacturing to a mixed-use building comprising 728 m² of retail space and 28 residential condominium units.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated December 11, 1997. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans, which has been satisfied.

Parking and Access

The proposed provision of 20 parking spaces located at grade within the south-west portion of the building satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 16 parking spaces, including 14 spaces for the residents and 2 spaces for residential visitors and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like amount. The parking supply includes one substandard parking space measuring 2.6 m x 5.23 m, which is acceptable provide that it is signed for use by small cars only.

Access to the parking spaces is proposed from the east-west public lane abutting the south property boundary, which is acceptable.

The plans show the provision of one Type B loading space at the rear of the site, within the south-west corner of the building. This satisfies the estimated loading demand generated by this project for1 Type B loading space and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like amount. The configuration of the loading space is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide the residential and retail components of this project with curb side refuse and recyclable materials collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste). This will require the provision of a garbage and recycling storage room, with a minimum size of10m², which is accessible to all residents and occupants of the building. The storage room shown on the plans is acceptable.

Lane Widening

The site abuts a substandard east-west public lane which has a width of 3.96 m and, in accordance with City policy for lanes serving residential/commercial properties, should ultimately be widened to 6.0 m. In this regard, a 1.52 m wide strip of land along the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the public lane must be conveyed to the City. However, the conveyance should exclude the portion of the lands encumbered by the existing building to be retained which is set back between 0.92 m and 0.95 m from the existing lane limit."

4.Works and Emergency Services, December 11, 1997

"Recommendations:

1.That the owner be required, as a condition of approval of the plans and drawings for the project, to:

(a)Provide and maintain a garbage and recyclable materials storage room, with a minimum size of 10m�, which is accessible to all occupants of the building;

(b)Provide and maintain minimum inside and outside turning radii of 8.6 m and 13.4 m at all turns to be negotiated by trucks using the Type B loading space;

(c)Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 1.52 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the east-west public lane, save and except for the portion of these lands encumbered by the existing building to be retained, 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;

(d)Submit to the Commissioner of City Works Services, a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands to be conveyed to the City and the remainder of the site;

(e)Submit revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos.1(a) and 1(b) above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services;

2.That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of City Works Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance; and

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

Comments:

Location

South side of Dundas Street East, between Seaton Street and Ontario Street.

Proposal

Conversion of the existing building which is used for light manufacturing to a mixed-use building comprising 728m� of retail space and 28 residential condominium units.

Parking and Access

The proposed provision of 24 parking spaces located at grade within the southwest portion of the building satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 16 parking spaces, including 14 spaces for the residents and 2 spaces for residential visitors and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like amount.

Access to the parking spaces is proposed from the east-west public lane abutting the south property boundary, which is acceptable.

The plans show the provision of one Type B loading space at the rear of the site, approximately mid-way between Ontario Street and Seaton Street, with access directly from the abutting public lane. This satisfies the estimated loading demand generated by this project for 1 Type B loading space and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like amount. However, in order to provide sufficient room for trucks to manoeuvre into and out of the loading space, the abutting bicycle parking and the vehicular parking space adjacent to the south half of the bicycle parking should be eliminated/relocated.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide the residential and retail components of this project with curb side refuse and recyclable materials collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309 (Solid Waste). This will require the provision of a garbage and recycling storage room, with a minimum size of 10m�, which is accessible to all residents and occupants of the building. The storage room must be shown on the plans.

Lane Widening

Insert Table/Map No. 1

365 Dundas

Insert Table/Map No. 2

365 Dundas

Insert Table/Map No. 3

365 Dundas

Insert Table/Map No. 4

365 Dundas

Insert Table/Map No. 5

365 Dundas

Insert Table/Map No. 6

365 Dundas

Insert Table/Map No. 7

365 Dundas

Revised Settlement - King Spadina Part II Plan -

250 Wellington Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July7,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report outlines the basis for a revised settlement of the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by the owners of 250 Wellington Street West to the King Spadina Part II Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment were made necessary by project changes proposed by the owners.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, City Solicitor and other appropriate officials, be authorized to settle the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board in accordance with the revised building height envelope set out on Map 1 (attached) and the zoning variances outlined by the Chief Building Official.

(2)That the City Solicitor be instructed to seek approval of the Ontario Municipal Board of the revised settlement, if necessary, independent of the other appeals still outstanding to the King-Spadina Part II Plan and implementing Zoning By-law.

(3)That City Council amend the authority of the former Council for the City of Toronto re: Clause 12 of Report No. 16 of the Land Use Committee as it applies to the terms of settlement for 250 Wellington Street West, so that the building envelope to be secured is that referred to in recommendation 1.

Council Reference/Background:

The King-Spadina Part II Plan and implementing Zoning By-law, were passed in 1996. There are four outstanding appeals that have still not been resolved:

304 Front Street West and 50 John Street

340 Front Street West

400 Front Street West

354 Wellington Street West and 36 Blue Jays Way

In October 1997, the former City of Toronto reached a settlement with the owners of 250 Wellington Street West (Clause 12 of report 16 of the Land Use Committee). Since that time the owners have revised the design of the project to respond to market conditions and are now actively marketing the site.

Representation has already occurred before the Ontario Municipal Board resulting in approval of the implementing By-laws for all of the King-Spadina area excluding the lands under appeal. While the Ontario Municipal Board expressed a desire for any settlement of the appeals to be brought before them as a package, the status of the proposed development at 250 Wellington Street West is much further advanced than any of the other sites. Accordingly, I am recommending that approval of the Ontario Municipal Board be sought on the basis of the settlement outlined in this report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The 250 Wellington Street West site is proposed to be divided into three parcels. The largest segment is for a residential condominium fronting on Wellington St. West from Blue Jays Way to a point 131 m to the west. The remainder of the Wellington Street frontage and a portion of the John Street frontage is now proposed for an office building. The remaining frontage on John Street is slated for a hotel development that is not far advanced.

A site plan review application is being processed for the residential component and the undertaking is being prepared. The proposed design for the office component has also been reviewed by planning staff. No application for site plan review has yet been submitted for that part of the development.

The changes from the October settlement are as follows:

-the footprint for the residential building has been reduced, while that for the proposed office building has been increased

-the permitted height for the main portion of the residential building has increased from 31.9 m to 33.4 m

-the development no longer is proposed to extend under the public lane.

The other zoning variances referred to in the Appendix are either minor in nature or will be resolved once the new zoning for the site is approved.

Conclusions:

The revisions proposed for the development at 250 Wellington Street West are necessary to improve project marketability and have resulted in an improved design over the previous proposal. The revised building envelope maintains the principles set out in the King-Spadina Part II Plan.

Contact Name:

Rollin Stanley, Telephone: (416)392-0424, Fax: (416) 392-1330,

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

________

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	396056
Rezoning:	N	Application Date:	June 26, 1996
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:	May 8, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:250 Wellington St. West.

Nearest Intersection:	North side of Wellington Street W, west of John Street.

Project Description:	To construct a mixed commercial residential development (Block B).

Applicant:

Page & Steele Architects

110 Eglinton Ave. E.

485-9666

Agent:

Page & Steele Architects

110 Eglinton Ave. E.

485-9666

Architect:

Page & Steele Architects

110 Eglinton Ave. E.

485-9666

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	King-Spadina Reinvestment Area.	Site Specific Provision:	110-90; 81-91
Zoning District:	RA I2 D7	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	61.0; 30.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	4424.2 m²	Height:	Storeys:		10 + Mech. Penthouse
Frontage:			Metres:		33.40
Depth:
			Indoor		Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	286
Residential GFA:	28000.0 m²	Loading Docks:	1	B
Non-Residential GFA:	2000.0 m²	(number, type)	1	G
Total GFA:	30000.0 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Condo	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Bachelors:	118	Residential	28000.0 m²
1 Bedroom:	196	Commercial	2000.0 m²
2 Bedroom:	64
Total Units:	378

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 6.33	Non-Residential Density: 0.45	Total Density: 6.78

Comments

Status:

Application revised.

Data valid:

May 08, 1998

Section:

CP West

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix 1

Zoning variances required as identified by the Chief Building Official - Proposed residential building located at 250 Wellington Street West:

1.Permitted height of 30 m is exceeded by 5 m for the main portion of the building and by 9.5 m to the top of the residential amenity space.

2.Residential amenity space is located in two rooms rather than the required one room.

3.206 bicycle parking spaces are required while 200 are being provided.

4.41 visitor bicycle parking spaces are required to be shown and they are not designated on the drawings.

5.The 3m setback and 7.5m setbacks required for different portions of the building, from the centre line of the lane are not provided.

6.The exterior facing walls of the building are not 11 m apart.

7.The proposed uses are not permitted in an I2 district (the zoning prior to the King-Spadina Part II Plan is not yet in force due to the appeal).

8.Not all of the building facade above a height of 20 m is setback 3m.

9.The non-residential gross floor area for retail and office uses exceeds the permitted amount by 200 square metres and alternatively, the amount of frontage of the building used for street related retail and service uses is 84 percent while 90 percent is required.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the communication from Mr. Donald G. Rodbard, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

250 Wellington Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

250 Wellington Street West

Fine Tuning of the Planning Regulations for the

King-Parliament and King-Spadina Reinvestment Areas

(Downtown, Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June9,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To introduce amendments to the planning regulations for the King-Parliament and King-Spadina Reinvestment Areas based on experience working with these planning regulations since their implementation in April 1996.

Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That By-law 1996-0236, being the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan, be amended substantially as set out in Appendix A of this report.

(2)That By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended substantially as set out in Appendix B of this report.

(3)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report back regarding the feasibility of seeking an amendment to the Ontario Building Code to permit employees who do not live in a live/work unit to work in such premises.

Background

In April 1996, the former Toronto City Council adopted new planning regulations for the King-Parliament and King-Spadina shoulder areas of the downtown (see Map 1). The planning regulations replaced traditional planning controls by deregulating land use, density, mixing, and parking controls. The new system of controls is focussed on the re-use of existing buildings and the development of new buildings within a built-form-oriented Zoning By-law system. The new regulations have helped spur substantial new development activity in both areas, but during the review of developments in both areas, certain technical problems with the new Reinvestment Area (RA) Zoning By-law provisions have arisen. Recent work experience has shown that some policies need clarification and some minor technical errors need to be eliminated in order to fully implement the intent of the Reinvestment Area policies.

Comments:

1.Retail Policies

The former City of Toronto's planning regulations restrict retail stores and entertainment uses to 1,800 square metres in some districts, and in other districts allow up to 8,000 square metres, through rezoning approval.

The Official Plan for King-Spadina contains retail policies in Section 8 whose intent is to exempt retail and entertainment uses from these size limits for conversions. For additions and new buildings, development is exempted from the size limits provided certain siting requirements are met. However, corresponding retail policies in the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan were omitted. This report simply recommends, as a technical matter, that these retail policies be incorporated into the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan.

2.Depth Restrictions on a Lot

The Zoning By-law regulations for RA districts limit the total depth of new buildings, or additions to existing buildings, to 50 metres. The policy was designed to control building depths on large deep lots, most typically found in King-Spadina. In such situations the depth control encouraged multiple street related buildings to be developed on the lot in conjunction with common open space, public lane or mid block pedestrian connections in the mid lot area.

Recent experience has shown that some new buildings cannot conform to these traditional rules regarding floor plate size and building depth. This is particularly true of "urban entertainment complexes " such as the Festival Hall and narrow, deep lots which are developed individually.

In order to more easily accommodate nontraditional building types in RA districts, I am recommending that the 50 metre building depth restriction be eliminated.

3.Basement and Integral Garages

The former City of Toronto regulated basement and integral garages in residential buildings. Basement garages which gain access by a reverse grade driveway are now prohibited. Integral garages with at grade access from the front of the house where the garage is part of the dwelling are not permitted in most circumstances. The new regulations require parking to be taken at grade from the side or the rear of the house, except where the lot is wider than 7.6 metres. These policies are intended to ensure a high level of residential amenity within neighbourhoods.

The integral garage policies were never extended to RA districts because it was not anticipated that low density residential housing would be economically feasible. However, recent experience has shown that interest exists in constructing low density residential development in RA districts especially in King-Parliament. I am therefore recommending that the zoning provisions regulating integral and basement garages be incorporated into the RA Zoning By-law provisions.

4.Permissions for Apartment Buildings

The City's Zoning By-law defines an apartment building as a building originally constructed to contain at least three dwelling units and no other principal use. Therefore, the conversion of a building within an RA District to an apartment building is not permitted as-of-right. In order to permit the conversion of buildings in RA Districts to residential uses, the definition of apartment building should be amended to delete the requirement that the building be originally constructed for such purposes, for RA Districts only .

5.Leasing of off- site Accessory Parking for Residential Uses

RA zoning permits accessory parking for residential development to be provided on the lot or within 300 metres of the lot. A zoning problem arises when a land owner attempts to lease off-site parking in an RA district. The site from which the parking is leased is then considered as a commercial parking lot, which is not a permitted use in an RA zone. I am recommending that the planning regulations be amended to permit existing commercial parking lots to be used to provide off-site accessory parking to a residential development within 300 metres.

6.Setback Requirements on Shallow Lots

The current RA zoning regulations require a 7.5 metre setback along the rear lot line of a development lot, to ensure adequate light, view and privacy conditions in the centre of blocks. A 7.5 metre setback is also required along the side lot line, except for that portion of the lot within 25 metres of the street line, where no side yard setback is required. The side yard setback is deleted near the street to encourage a continuous "street wall" effect. However, because of the way the setback provisions of the by-law were drafted, there is some confusion how this by-law should be interpreted for situations where the entire lot is within 25 metres of a street. It is possible to read the by-law in such a way as to have no setback requirement along the rear lot line, as well as the side lot line in this case.

Since this was not the intention of the built form controls, this report recommends clarification so that a rear setback is required no matter how deep the lot is. For most lots in both revitalization areas, it is possible to create substantial development even with a 7.5 metre rear setback.

7.Projections Permitted into Setback areas

In RA districts, a 3.0 metre setback is required at a height of 20.0 metres above street level, 16.0 metres on King Street, in order to create a street wall that is similar in height to existing buildings. The current Zoning By-law provisions do not permit any encroachments into the setback, and as a result the roof space created at the setback area is unusable. I am recommending that hand railings or fences be permitted in this area so that the setback area can be used as a private roof space or outdoor amenity space.

8.Exclusion of Accessory Parking from Parking Calculations

The parking regulations for RA districts are drafted in a way that includes in the calculation of parking requirements the gross floor area used for parking. Since parking itself does not generate a demand for additional parking, there is no planning rationale for this unintentional requirement. I am recommending new wording in the Zoning By-law to eliminate this anomaly.

9.Facing Distance for End Walls of Balconies

Many residential conversions have difficulty meeting the light, view and privacy requirements on side lot lines. The RA Zoning By-law provisions require that, after a depth of 25 metres, a side yard setback of 7.5 metres be achieved. Some conversions attempt to meet the intent of this provision by insetting private outdoor balconies into the building face along the side lot line with facing windows at each end of the balcony. In this manner the indoor habitable space of the dwelling unit is pulled away from the side property line. However, this solution creates another variance to the Zoning By-law. The facing interior walls of the balcony are currently required to be 11 metres apart in order to protect privacy. In almost all circumstances the end walls belong to the same dwelling unit and therefore such a regulation is unnecessary. I am recommending that, when the end walls of the interior balcony belong to the same unit, the facing distance requirement be deleted.

10.Definition of Live/work Unit

In 1996 the Ontario Building Code was amended and a definition of live-work unit was introduced. This definition prohibits the occupancy of the live/work unit by outside employees in order to meet certain fire safety requirements. However, the Zoning By-law definition for live/work units in RA districts permits their use by outside employees of the business. Therefore, the Zoning By-law and the Ontario Building Code definitions are contradictory. I am recommending that the Zoning By-law definition be amended.

However, since it is still desirable to allow some outside employees to work within a live/work unit, I am also recommending that my staff investigate and report back on the feasibility of seeking an amendment to the Ontario Building Code to permit a limited number of outside employees to work in live/work units located within RA districts.

Conclusion:

This report contains a number of changes to the Official Plan or Zoning By-law provisions affecting Reinvestment Areas that were either overlooked or are desirable due to the recent land development experiences in both King-Spadina and King-Parliament.

Contact Names:

King-Parliament

Lance Alexander, Planner; East Section, City Planning

Phone: (416) 392-7573; Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

King-Spadina

Rollin Stanley, Planner, West Section, City Planning

Phone: (416) 392-0424; Fax:(416) 392-1330

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

________

Appendix A

Recommended Part II Official Plan Amendments

1.That a new Section be added to the King-Parliament Part II the Official Plan substantially as follows:

"8. Retail Policies

8.1Notwithstanding Section 9.15 of the Part I Official Plan, Council may pass By-laws to permit the use of more than 8,000 square metres of non-residential gross floor area for retail and service commercial uses provided the development is compatible with the surrounding area within King-Parliament with respect to built form, parking and elements of neighbourhood structure and character, and is consistent with all other policies of this Plan."

2That all Sections of the King-Parliament Part II Official Plan after the new Section 8 be renumbered accordingly.

________

Appendix B

Recommended Zoning By-law Amendments

The Council of the City of Toronto HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1.Section 2(1) of By-law 438-86 is amended by:

(a)amending the definition of "apartment building" by inserting the following phrase at the end of the definition:

", except in the case of a building in an RA district where such building does not have to be originally constructed so as to provide therein three or more dwelling units";

(b)amending the definition of "live-work unit" by deleting the phrase ", except in an RA district where the dwelling unit may also be used for work purposes by any number of persons"; and

(c)amending the definition of "parking garage" by:

(i) inserting a colon and a new paragraph reference "(i)" after the word "where"; and

(ii)inserting a colon and a new paragraph "(ii)" as follows, after the phrase "non-residential use":

"(ii)a parking garage or a portion thereof is accessory to a residential use in an RA district;".

2.Section 7(2)6 is amended by deleting subparagraph (ii) and replacing it with the following:

"(ii)in an (h) district, only those uses permitted in an IC district are permitted; and".

3.Section 7(3) PART II 1 is amended by:

(i)amending paragraph (i) by:

A.deleting the words "or a rear lot line"; and

B.deleting the word "and";

(ii)adding a new paragraph "(ii)" as follows:

"(ii)7.5 metres to a rear lot line; and"; and

(iii)amending the existing paragraph (ii) by:

A.redesignating the paragraph as paragraph "(iii)";

B.inserting a colon and a new subparagraph reference "A." after the word "excluding";

C.replacing the period at the end of the section with a semi-colon followed by the word "and"; and

D.inserting a new subparagraph "B." after subparagraph A, as follows:

"B.exterior walls which form the boundary of a balcony, provided:

(i)the balcony projects less than 1.5 metres from the wall adjacent to the longest portion of the balcony where it is attached; and"

(ii)the exterior walls are attached to the balcony.".

4.Section 7(3) PART IV is amended by adding a new regulation "8", as follows:

"8.Restriction on front wall below grade and at grade integral garages

The provisions of section 6(3) PART IV shall apply to RA districts.".

5.Section 12(2)204 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c), as follows:

"(c)Notwithstanding paragraph (a), any commercial parking lot existing on (insert date of passing), may be used for parking spaces required by this By-law, as an accessory use to a residential building located on a lot within 300 metres of such commercial parking lot.".

6.Section 12(2)246 is amended by:

(a)adding to paragraph (a), the following phrase after the words "public lane":

"and no portion of the building or structure shall project into this setback except for a fence or safety railing not exceeding 2.0 metres in height";

(b)deleting paragraph (c) and redesignating paragraphs (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c) and (d) respectively;

(c)adding a new paragraph (e) as follows:

"(f)Nothing in this exception is to be interpreted to mean that the floor area provided for motor vehicle parking may be used to determine the required number of parking spaces."

________

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communication from Mr. Donald G. Rodbard, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

King-Parliament & King-Spadina

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that a member of his family controls an interest in property located in the area affected by the proposed planning regulations.)

Status Report - Revised Plans -

Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning -

2230, 2324 and 2336 Gerrard Street East

(East Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council confirm its support for development approvals of 2230, 2324 and 2336 Gerrard Street East based on the final planning report adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of October 21, 1997 and refuse the revised applications submitted in April 1998; and

(2)the City Solicitor be instructed to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the position as finally adopted by Council.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on the retention of an outside planning consultant for the Ontario Municipal Board prehearing conference scheduled for August 17, 1998 and the subsequent full hearing.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 21, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To advise Council of the current status of the applications for Official Plan and zoning amendments and approval of a plan of subdivision for the former East of Main rail yard and to request authorization for an outside planning consultant to assist in the up-coming Municipal Board Hearing on this matter.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A recommended source of funds for retention of an outside planning consultant will be addressed in a further report direct to Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Toronto Community Council recommend to Council either its confirmation of support for development approvals of 2230, 2324 and 2336 Gerrard Street East based on the final planning report adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of October 21, 1997 and refuse the revised applications submitted in April 1998 or support the revised applications;

(2)if it recommends refusal of the revised applications, the Toronto Community Council request the City Solicitor to report directly to Council on the retention of an outside planning consultant for the Ontario Municipal Board prehearing conference scheduled for August 17, 1998 and the subsequent full hearing; and

(3)the City Solicitor be instructed to attend before the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the position as finally adopted by Council.

Comments:

On October 21, 1997, the former City Council adopted a Final Planning Report recommending approval of a plan for the site. That plan showed a total of 290 residential units and 3.45 hectares (8.52 acres) of park. The applicant submitted an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board shortly thereafter.

In April 1998 the applicant submitted a revised plan that nearly doubled the number of units to 480 houses and reduced the amount of parkland by approximately half to 1.97 hectares (4.87) acres. One hundred eighty two of the additional units in the revised plan are proposed for an area of the site which was formerly part of a 2.62 hectare (6.47 acre) park.

A public meeting was held in the neighbourhood to present this revised plan. Approximately 300 persons attended and were unanimously opposed to the revised plan and favoured instead the plan adopted by Council in October of 1997 (290 units and 3.45 hectares of parkland).

The Ontario Municipal Board has issued a Notice of Prehearing Conference for August 17, 1998. Council should take a position on the application and, if that position is to support the October 1997 proposal and reject the revised application, authorize retention of an outside planning consultant.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7225

Fax:392-0024

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Comments:

A final Planning report recommending that the by-laws and agreements be drafted by the City Solicitor for the East of Main Subdivision application, was before the former City of Toronto Council on October 21, 1997. Council adopted that report but the application was subsequently referred to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant on the grounds that the City had failed to hold the statutory public meeting on the matter. A pre-hearing date has been set by the Municipal Board for August 17, 1998.

In April of 1998, the applicant revised his plan to, among other things, increase the number of residential units and reduce the amount of parkland. On April 27, 1998 a public meeting was held in the neighbourhood to present the revised plans to the local residents. The residents (approximately 300 persons in attendance) were unanimously opposed to the increase in density and parkland reduction. A recommendation was made by the local Member of Parliament for negotiations to occur between the owner and the former owner, Canada Lands Company, for additional parkland to be provided. At the time of this writing negotiations are on-going.

In order for Planning staff and the City Solicitor to have a position for the pre-hearing, Community Council will have to consider this matter. I will therefore submit a full status report directly to Community Council on any decisions that have to be made as a result of the above discussions and negotiations.

Contact Name:

Tim Burkholder, City Planning Division, East Section

Tele: 392-0411

Fax: 392-1330

Email:tburholder@.city.toronto.on.ca

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Wayne Clutterbuck; and

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms. Lisa Cestnik.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the forgoing Clause, the following report (July 28, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To advise Council on the retention of an outside planning consultant for the Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing conference scheduled for August 17, 1998 and the subsequent full hearing.

Source of Funds:

Legal Services Operational Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Comments:

At its meeting held on July 23, 1998, the Toronto Community Council had before it the report of the City Solicitor (July 21, 1998) referring to an upcoming Ontario Municipal Board hearing regarding a proposed residential subdivision in the area east of main.

I am currently in the process of attempting to retain expert planning assistance in advance of the pre-hearing conference scheduled for August 17, 1998. The necessary funds to deal with initial preparation and attendance at such pre-hearing are available in the Legal Services Division Operational Budget. In the event the matter proceeds to a full hearing and further funds are needed, I will report further based on the submission of a workplan and budget.

Contact Name:

Rob Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7225

Fax:392-004

e-mail:rbalfour@city.toronto.on.ca.)

Removal of City-Owned Trees -

1 Shaftesbury Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the Director of Development & Support - Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. John Quinn, Ferris & Quinn Associates, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, 11 Church Street, Suite 302, Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1W1 , for City Council to consider removal of twenty-nine City owned trees.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be approved on the condition that:

(1)the applicant pay for the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement costs still to be determined; and

(2)the applicant plant fifteen new trees in turf on Shaftesbury Avenue and plant three trees in sidewalk tree pits on the Shaftesbury Avenue City Street allowances upon completion of the project in accordance with Planting Plan L2 prepared by Ferris & Quinn Associates Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, date stamped July 3 , 1998 by Urban Development Services.

Background:

This request for tree removal forms part of a Site Plan Approval application filed with Urban Development Services for the purpose of facilitating construction of a new residential housing development.

Comments:

Thirty-seven trees along Shaftesbury Avenue form a row of seven Poplar, nineteen Manitoba maples and eleven Norway maples which have diameters ranging from 8 to 28 centimetres. These trees essentially form a hedge row and have likely grown from seeds as they do not form a typical street tree planting. The condition of these trees are: one tree is dead; seven trees are in poor condition; twenty-one trees are in fair condition; and eight trees are in good condition. The twenty-nine trees in fair and good condition are the subject of this removal request.

Mr. Quinn reports that the 37 City owned trees are in direct conflict with the proposed housing excavation and the trees cannot be protected during the construction of the new residential housing.

The applicant proposes to plant fifteen new red oak trees in turf and plant three new red oak trees in sidewalk tree pits along Shaftesbury Avenue as part of the landscape improvements associated with this project. The planting of these new trees will enhance the streetscape in this area and be a significant improvement over the existing conditions. I therefore recommend approval for removal of these trees 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

Removal of City-Owned Trees -

650 Queens Quay West (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the Director of Development & Support - Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Bruce Corban, Corban and Goode Landscape Architecture and Urbanism, 132 Berkeley Street, 'The Loft', Toronto, Ontario, M5A 2W9, for City Council to consider removal of three City owned trees.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be approved on the condition that:

(1)Parks and Recreation use the previously submitted funds of $2,541.09 to plant street trees in another area; and

(2)the applicant plant five new trees in turf on Bathurst Street and replace one tree on the Bishop Tutu Boulevard City Street allowances upon completion of the project in accordance with Landscape Site Plan L1 prepared by Corban and Goode Landscape Architecture and Urbanism, date stamped June 1, 1998 by Urban Development Services.

Background:

This request for tree removal forms part of a Site Plan Approval application filed with Urban Development Services for the purpose of facilitating construction of a new residential condominium.

On July 2, 1998, Mr. Ralph Bergman, Wallman Clewes Bergman Architects Limited, 55 Booth Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4M 2M3 submitted a certified cheque to cover the value of the trees, the removal costs and replacement costs for three trees in turf in the amount of $2,541.09. This money was to guarantee protection of three City owned trees during construction work at 650 Queens Quay West. The applicant has now obtained a building permit from the Buildings Department.

Comments:

Along Bishop Tutu Boulevard are three ash trees with diameters of 13, 15, and 19 cm, respectively. The trees are in good condition and valued at $771.07. The costs to remove the trees are $344.99. The costs to plant three new trees in turf are $1,425.03, for a total of $2,541.09.

Mr. Corban reports that two existing trees are in direct conflict with the proposed building excavation and the third tree is in direct conflict with a proposed vehicular entrance into an underground garage.

The applicant proposes to plant five new green ash trees in turf on Bathurst Street and replace one new Shubert Chokecherry tree in turf on Bishop Tutu Boulevard as part of the landscape improvements associated with this project. The planting of these new trees and replacement trees will enhance the streetscape in this area and be a significant improvement over the existing conditions. I therefore recommend approval for removal of these trees 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

Removal of City-Owned Trees -

800 King Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the Director of Development & Support - Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Wayne L. Barwise, Triloft Developments Limited, 555 Richmond Street West, Suite 602, P.O. Box 211, Toronto, Ontario, M5V 3B1, for City Council to consider removal of six City owned trees.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be approved on the condition that:

(1)The applicant submit a certified cheque in the amount of $4,580.47 to cover the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement costs of six City owned trees; and

(2)the applicant plant nineteen new trees in turf and two new trees in sidewalk tree pits on Niagara Street, Adelaide Street West and King Street West City street allowances upon completion of the project in accordance with Landscape Site Plan L3 prepared by G. O'Connor Consultants Inc., date stamped May 19, 1998 by Urban Development Services.

Background:

This request for tree removal forms part of a Site Plan Approval application filed with Urban Development Services for the purpose of facilitating construction of a new residential condominium.

Comments:

Along Niagara Street are six honeylocust trees with diameters of 8 to 19 cm. The trees are in fair condition and valued at $1,349.68. The costs to remove the trees are $380.73. The costs to plant six new trees in turf are $2,850.06, for a total of $4,580.47.

The applicant reports that Urban Development Services has requested that the boulevard along Niagara Street be reconstructed to conform with the City standards for sidewalk boulevard design and this requires removal of six City owned trees.

The applicant proposes to plant nineteen new trees in turf and two new sidewalk tree pits on Niagara Street, Adelaide Street West and King Street West as part of the landscape improvements associated with this project. The planting of these new trees will enhance the streetscape in this area and be a significant improvement over the existing conditions. I therefore recommend approval for removal of these trees 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

Proposed Closing of the Portion of Eastern Avenue

Linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/

Kingston Road Extension and Public Lane

- 1641 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July8,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To obtain authority for the stopping-up and closing of the portion of Eastern Avenue linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension, and the public lane at the rear of Premises No. 1641 Queen Street East, as public highway, in conjunction with the opening of the new portion of Eastern Avenue which will connect directly to Kingston Road at Queen Street East.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in connection with the statutory processing of the proposal are accommodated in Capital Fund Account No. 296802.

Recommendations:

(1)That the portion of Eastern Avenue and the public lane shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2891, be stopped-up and closed as public highway and placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(2)That easements be reserved as necessary for the Utility Companies, over the entire portion of Eastern Avenue and the public lane to be closed, for access, operation, use, inspection, repair, maintenance, reconstruction or alteration of the existing utilities and for the construction of additional or new services;

(3)That the City-owned strip of land, shown cross-hatched on the attached Plan SYE2891, be laid out, dedicated and declared to form part of Eastern Avenue; and

(4)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Background:

As part of the development of the Woodbine Park subdivision (former Greenwood Racetrack site), a key transportation component was the acquisition by the City of the necessary lands to extend Eastern Avenue from its present terminus at Queen Street East in order to eliminate the current jog configuration and form a normalized intersection with Kingston Road. The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, authorized the construction of the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension and the necessary alterations to Kingston Road and Queen Street East to accommodate the new intersection (Clause 17 in City Services Committee Report No. 11).

The extension of Eastern Avenue to the Queen Street East/Kingston Road intersection is under construction with completion scheduled for the late summer/early fall of this year. At the time the new route is opened, the existing link to Queen Street East as shown schematically on the attached Plan SYE2891, will become largely redundant and can be closed to eliminate the jog condition. A dead-end lane midway between Queen Street East and Eastern Avenue with access only to this section of Eastern Avenue should also be closed.

Comments:

Works staff have received a request from Councillor Tom Jakobek to initiate the formal process to stop-up and close the portion of Eastern Avenue linking Queen Street East and the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension, and conclude that the proposal is feasible. This existing portion of Eastern Avenue and the public lane, shown on the attached Plan SYE2891, although closed as public highway, should remain under City ownership at this time.

The entire portion of Eastern Avenue and the public lane to be closed, will be subject to easements in favour of various Utility companies. Due to time constraints associated with meeting the deadline for the City Council meeting of July 29, 1998, it has not been possible to establish specific utility requirements, however, the usual Departmental circulation will be carried out and the necessary information obtained over the next few weeks.

I note that two properties take access from this portion of Eastern Avenue and more particularly, the public lane also proposed to be closed, which on the ground is not well defined and appears to be a portion of the paved parking area. The owners/operators of the properties, which comprise a Harvey's Restaurant and a City Community and Neighbourhood Services Department site will be advised. Although both properties currently have alternate access, these discussions may identify other access adjustments or requirements that can be reported if necessary to the meeting of Toronto Community Council when deputations are heard.

Notice of the proposed street closing will be given pursuant to the screening process set out in Schedule "B" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects under the Environmental Assessment Act.

On a related matter, the new Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road extension was laid out and dedicated by Registered Plan 66M-2311. However, a City-owned strip of land, shown cross-hatched on the attached Plan SYE2891, must also be laid out and dedicated to form part of the Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road alignment.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Laurie Robertson,

Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings

Tel. No. 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Eastern Avenue/Kingston Road

Construction of Hydro Transformer Vault

178-192 Redpath Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July14,1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-Law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of a hydro transformer vault at 178 -192 Redpath Avenue. The hydro transformer vault will service the proposed eight storey residential building to be constructed on this site. As this type of structure does not fall within the standard provisions of Municipal Code Chapter313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, I am required to report to your Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of a hydro transformer vault within the City street allowance at 178 - 192 Redpath Avenue, subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and agreeing to:

(a)indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b)maintain the hydro transformer vault in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c)accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the City;

(d)pay an annual rental fee as specified in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Street and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(e)remove the hydro transformer vault upon receiving notice so to do with the understanding that the City shall not give such notice in the first 75 years or for the life of the building at 178 - 192 Redpath Avenue, whichever period is less;

Comments:

Mr. Jeff King, acting on behalf of the owner, Plazacorp Properties Limited, 3845 Bathurst Street, Suite 202, Downsview, Ontario M3H 2N2, submitted an application on June 22, 1998, requesting permission to construct a hydro transformer vault within the City street allowance at 178-192Redpath Avenue. The proposed hydro transformer vault will encroach 1.5 m within the City street allowance.

Details of this application are shown on the attached drawing (Appendix 'A').

Conclusion:

As this hydro transformer vault will not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, it should be permitted, subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Insert Table/Map No. 1

178-192 Redpath

Proposed Closing to Vehicular Traffic

of the Public Lane Extending Southerly

from Queen Street West

(Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July3,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure and Transportation, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To obtain City Council authority to process the closing of the public lane situated between Premises Nos. 567 and 571 Queen Street West to vehicular traffic, in order to establish a pedestrian link to the Alex Wilson Community Garden Project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in connection with the statutory processing of the proposal are accommodated in Parks Account No. 216-409.

Recommendations:

(1)That the public lane situated between Premises Nos. 567 and 571 Queen Street West, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2880, be stopped-up and closed to vehicular traffic and bollards be erected to enforce the due observance thereof;

(2)That the lands shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2880 be designated as a pedestrian walkway; and

(3)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required.

Background:

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of October 6 and 7, 1997, adopted, as amended, Clause 99 in Executive Committee Report No. 23, regarding the Alex Wilson Community Garden Project, and directed, among other things, that the unnamed north/south lane between 567 and 571 Queen Street West be closed to vehicular traffic in order to provide for a pedestrian connection, with landscape improvements, between Queen Street West and Richmond Street West, such improvements to connect with the pathway constructed in the new Alex Wilson Community Garden.

Comments:

The subject lane is shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2880. In order to close this lane to vehicular traffic, it will be necessary to install bollards at both ends of the lane and carry out adjustments to the sidewalk and curb on Queen Street West. The bollards will prevent the through passage of vehicles but still allow pedestrian traffic. It is also necessary to designate the lands as a pedestrian walkway under by-law.

The cost to cover physical adjustments and statutory processing is estimated at $5,000.00. I have been advised by City Parks officials that funds to cover the cost of out-of-pocket expenses and other administration fees associated with the closing, are available in Account No. 216-409. The physical adjustments are minor in nature and can be carried out in connection with planned Works maintenance work in the area.

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)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

567- 571 Queen Street West

Application for a Temporary Street Closure -

Logan Avenue

Taste of the Danforth (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To seek City Council's approval for the planned 4 day closure of Gough Avenue, from August 7-10, 1998, and for the planned 5 day closure of Logan Avenue from August 6-10, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the following streets be closed to all vehicular traffic, for the Taste of the Danforth event:

(a)Gough Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to the first public lane north of Danforth Avenue, be closed to all vehicular traffic from 9:00 a.m. Friday, August 7, 1998, up to and including 9:00 a.m. Monday, August 10, 1998, for the Taste of the Danforth event;

(b) Gough Avenue, south of Danforth Avenue to the rear of the property at 583 Danforth Avenue, be closed to all vehicular traffic from 9:00 a.m. Friday, August 7, 1998, up to and including 9:00 a.m. Monday, August 10, 1998; and

(c)Logan Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to the first public lane north of Danforth Avenue, be closed to all vehicular traffic from 4:00 p.m. Thursday, August 6, 1998, up to and including 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 10, 1998; and

(2)That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto.

Background:

Under Section 19 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the Commissioner may issue a permit for a street closure for "social, recreational, community and athletic purpose or a combination of these purposes" for less than 24 hours, if local access for residents and emergency vehicles is maintained. A permit for the same purpose may only be issued with Council's approval if the closure is to be greater than 24 hours with respect to a particular application. The Taste of the Danforth closures will extend over 4 days.

Comments:

Ms. Sue Graham-Nutter, Co-ordinator for the Greektown on the Danforth and Danforth By The Valley Business Improvement Areas, applied for a temporary street closure permit for various streets for their annual "Taste of the Danforth" event from August 7-10, 1998. This application requests permission to close the following streets to vehicular traffic to facilitate the installation of tents on Gough Avenue and a stage on Logan Avenue and to provide adequate street cleaning after the event:

(a)Gough Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to the first public lane north of Danforth Avenue (Friday, August 7, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. to Monday, August 10, 1998 at 9:00 a.m.);

(b)Gough Avenue, south of Danforth Avenue to the rear of the property at 583 Danforth Avenue (Friday, August 7, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. to Monday, August 10, 1998 at 9:00 a.m.); and

(c)Logan Avenue, from Danforth Avenue to the first public lane north of Danforth Avenue (Thursday, August 6, 1998 at 4:00 p.m. to Monday, August 10, 1998 at 9:00 a.m.).

The applicant has notified residents and businesses directly affected by the proposed closures. In addition, I have consulted with the Ward Councillors, Fire Department, Ambulance Services, Toronto Transit Commission and the Toronto Police Service who have no objections to the above-noted closures.

Conclusions:

In consideration that all of the requirements for a temporary street closure have been met by the applicant, I recommend that permission be granted for the closure of the streets and times previously indicated, and that the appropriate amendment be made to Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to allow me to issue a permit, assuming Council has approved the closures.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

Special Street Name Sign -

Phantom Boulevard (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July15,1998) from the Director, Operations and Sanitation, Toronto Community Council Area:

Purpose:

To report on a request from Mr. Grant Ramsay, Director of Publicity, Livent Inc., to fabricate and install four temporary Phantom Boulevard street name signs (from September 14, 1998 to December31, 1998) on the west side of Victoria Street between Dundas Square and Shuter Street to celebrate the Phantom of the Opera's 9^th Anniversary at the Pantages Theatre at Toronto's AT&T Centre for the Performing Arts.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The fabrication, installation and removal of the signs will be funded by the proponents. No special maintenance required.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council provide direction to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the installation of four temporary "Phantom Boulevard" street name signs (from September 14, 1998 to December 31, 1998) on the west side of Victoria Street between Dundas Square and Shuter Street.

(2)That, if "Phantom Boulevard" street name signs are to be installed, the fabrication, installation and removal of the signs follow receipt by the City of funds in the amount of $1,000.00 to be provided by Mr. Grant Ramsay of Livent Inc.

(3)That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing.

Background:

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of September 7, 1989 (Clause No. 19 of the City of Toronto Executive Committee Report No. 30), directed that special street name signs fall under one of the following categories:

(i)Business Improvement Area Signs

(ii)Historic Area Signs

(iii)Bilingual Signs

The proposed "Phantom Boulevard" street sign does not appear to fit into any of the above categories.

Nevertheless, sign requests have been approved in the past to designate a unique area or person such as Mirvish Walkway, Hacksel Place and Johnny Lombardi Way.

Similarly, in 1995 the former North York City Council approved the temporary and ceremonial renaming of "North York Boulevard" to "Sunset Boulevard".

Comments:

The proposed sign is a single blade mounted over the sidewalk on four existing utility poles on the west side of Victoria Street between Dundas Square and Shuter Street. The colours and letter styles will be determined in discussions with Livent Inc.

The subject "Phantom Boulevard" signs will not replace the official existing street name signs.

The total estimated cost to fabricate, post and remove four signs is $1,000.00. Mr. Grant Ramsay of Livent Inc. has agreed to reimburse the City this amount. The signs would be provided to the proponent upon removal.

The Ward Councillors have been informed of this request from Livent Inc. and they are in agreement with the proposal.

Conclusions:

The proposal is a temporary celebration of the 9^th Anniversary of the Phantom of the Opera. Implementation of the proposal will create no cost to the City.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Jerry Artymyshyn

Traffic Assistant of Operations Section

Toronto Community Council Area

Phone (416) 392-7645

Fax (416) 392-0396

E-Mail "jartymys@city.toronto.on.ca"

Special Street Name Signs -

Port Area (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July16,1998) from the Director, Operations and Sanitation, Toronto Community Council Area:

Purpose:

To report on a request from the City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO) to post special Port Area street name signs in the area bounded by Lake Shore Boulevard East, Leslie Street, Unwin Avenue and Cherry Street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The manufacture and installation of the special street name signs will be funded by TEDCO. The City will maintain the signs under the normal maintenance schedule. Spare replacement signs will also be paid for by TEDCO.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council provide direction to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services on the installation of special Port Area street name signs in the area bounded by Lake Shore Boulevard East, Leslie Street, Unwin Avenue and Cherry Street.

(2)That, if "PORT AREA" special street name signs are to be installed, the fabrication and installation of the signs follow receipt by the City of funds in the amount of $9,600.00 to be provided by TEDCO.

(3)That the appropriate City officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing.

Background:

(i)Business Improvement Area Signs

(ii)Historic Area Signs

(iii)Bilingual Signs

The subject request was reviewed under the above criteria by Heritage Toronto (the new Toronto Historical Board). Mr. Richard L. Stromberg, Manager, Historical Preservation, has indicated that the locations and use of "Port Area" signs are acceptable to Heritage Toronto.

The Ward Councillors have been informed of this request by TEDCO and they are in agreement with the proposal.

Comments:

A total of 32 signs will be placed at various intersections in the area bounded by Lake Shore Boulevard East, Leslie Street, Unwin Avenue and Cherry Street. These will be the standard "special street name" sign design with the street name in black letters on a white background on the lower portion of the sign and an identification of the Port Area on the top of the sign.

The total estimated cost to fabricate and post the signs, including spare signs for future replacement, is $9,600.00. The Board of the City of Toronto Economic Development Corporation, at its meeting of July 7, 1998, approved funds in the amount of $9,600.00 for the manufacture and installation of these signs.

Conclusions:

This request is similar in nature to the identification of special areas such as the "Fashion District" and "Harbourfront" within the former City of Toronto.

The area to be posted, actual sign locations and design have been agreed upon between TEDCO and representatives of the Works and Emergency Services Department.

All funding will be provided by TEDCO including spare signs to reduce future maintenance costs.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Jerry Artymyshyn

Traffic Assistant of Operations Section

Toronto Community Council Area

Tel. No.: (416) 392-7645

Fax No.:(416) 392-0396

E-Mail:"jartymys@city.toronto.on.ca"

43 Turner Road - Committee of Adjustment

(Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the City Solicitor be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on August 24, 1998 in support of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment respecting 43 Turner Road; and

(2)subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds which will be the subject of a further report to Council, the City Solicitor be authorized to retain an outside planner.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise on a Committee of Adjustment refusal of minor variances for 43 Turner Road and the possibility of providing planning evidence before an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on August 24, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Should Council decide to authorize the City Solicitor to appear at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on August 24, 1998, in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision, funds would be required for an outside consulting planner.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

Councillor Disero has forwarded a motion to the Toronto Community Council recommending that the City Solicitor attend an Ontario Municipal hearing in support of a Committee of Adjustment refusal regarding an application for 43 Turner Road and that an outside planning consultant be retained.

In its decision dated May 6, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment refused an application for minor variances to permit the conversion of the attic space of a detached house at 43 Turner Road into habitable space and to construct three dormer additions. A minor variance application was required as the gross floor area of the dwelling, after conversion of the attic and dormer additions, exceeded the permitted gross floor area by 92.25 square metres. The attic conversion and dormers contain a combined gross floor area of 53.97 square metres. The owner has appealed the Committee of Adjustment decision to the Ontario Municipal Board. The hearing is scheduled for August 24, 1998.

City Planning staff reviewed this application when it was before the Committee of Adjustment and did not object to the variance. City Planning staff would have difficulty providing planning evidence in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision.

In the event that Council does not support the motion to retain an outside planning witness, City Planning staff would be able to meet with objecting residents to discuss their concerns and advise them of the Ontario Municipal Board process and what matters may be considered most relevant to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Contact Name:

Michael Major

City Planning Division, West Section

Telephone: (416) 392-0760

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the communication (July 17, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment on April 28, 1998 held a public hearing for 43 Turner Road.

WHEREAS local residents appeared in opposition to the requested variance contending that the proposed density and dormers would not be in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood.

WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment on May 6, 1998, refused a minor variance for 43 Turner Road on the grounds that the density excess being requested would result in an overdevelopment of the property and, therefore, cannot be considered desirable, appropriate or within the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-Law.

WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board appointed Monday, the 24th day of August, 1998, at the hour of 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon, for the commencement of the hearing of this appeal.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Solicitor be authorized to attend the scheduled Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision for 43 Turner Road and be further authorized to hire an outside planner.

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 30, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report on a source of funds for the retention of an outside planning consultant in relation to the above-noted appeal.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

As reported in the June 30, 1998 variance report, the Legal Division is struggling with budget pressures. While the former City of Toronto allocated funds for experts and outside counsel, the amalgamated Legal Division's budget does not have sufficient funds to cover these expenses and at the same time achieve the Council mandated budget targets. Should Council recommend the retention of an outside planner for this OMB matter, funding would have to be provided by the Corporate Contingency Account.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Toronto Community Council recommends, in Clause No. 49 of its Report No. 10, that:

(1)the City Solicitor be instructed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing on August24, 1998 in support of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment respecting 43 Turner Road; and

(2)subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds which will be the subject of a further report to Council, the City Solicitor be authorized to retain an outside planner.

The Committee of Adjustment had refused an application to permit an attic conversion and three dormer additions containing a combined gross floor area of 53.97 square metres at 43 Turner Road. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has, in her report dated July 22, 1998, advised that City Planning staff would have difficulty providing planning evidence in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision.

Conclusions:

Should Council adopt the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council which refers to the retention of an outside planner, and in light of the budgetary pressures facing the Legal Division, funds will have to be sought from the Corporate Contingency Account.

Contact Name:

Stephen Bradley, 392-7790.)

Hillcrest Village Business Improvement Area (BIA)

- 1998 Operating Budget

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July13,1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

Approval of Business Improvement Area (BIA) annual budgets is required by Council as per Section220 of the Municipal Act, as amended.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

No City funding is required since Business Improvement Area operating budgets are raised by a special levy on members.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the Economic Development Committee certify to City Council the expenditure estimates of the Hillcrest Village Business Improvement Area for the year 1998 in the amount of $7,000, and be advised that no levy is required,

(2)the expenditure estimates of the above Business Improvement Area be adopted; and

(3)A copy of this report be forwarded to the Budget Committee for its information.

Comments:

The Hillcrest Village Business Improvement Area held their Annual General Meeting on May 4, 1998, where they approved a budget in the amount of $7,000 for the expenditure of beautification items.

The budget is made up of funds held previously by the Business Improvement Area and surplus held by the City. There is no levy required for the Hillcrest Village BIA.

The following table adjusts the gross budgets to arrive at net budgets for special levying purposes for the Business Improvement Area:

1997 1998 Budget

Budget Request

HILLCREST VILLAGE

Expenditure Estimates0 7,000

Miscellaneous Revenue0 0

BIA's Prior Years

(Surplus) / Deficit 0 (7,000)

Net Expenditure Budget0 0

Contact Name:

Ingrid Girdauskas

(tel.) 392-1134; (fax) 392-0675

(e-mail) igirdaus@city.toronto.on.ca

________

Appendix A

Operating Budget of the Hillcrest Village BIA

For the year 1998

Budget Summary 1997

1997 Council 1998

Projected ApprovedBudget

Actual RequestRequest

$$ $

Revenue and Surplus0 0 7,000

Expenditures:

Administration0 0 320

Capital0 0 6,680

Maintenance0 0 0

Promotion and Advertising0 0 0

Contingency 0 0 0

Total Expenditures0 0 7,000

(GST Included)

(Surplus/Deficit)0 0 0

Appointments to Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre

Committee of Management

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Sing Chow, Allen Fleming, Keith Leonard, Eric Mézin, Verity Crewe-Nelson, Michèle Sanborn and Milley Thompson be re-appointed to the Committee of Management of the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 20, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

That Sing Chow, Allen Flaming, Keith Leonard, Eric Mézin, Verity Crewe-Nelson, Michèle Sanborn and Milley Thompson be re-appointed to the Committee of Management of the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed;

Attached is a communication (June 17, 1998) from Susan Neal, Executive Director, Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre, advising of the list of nominees appointed to serve on the Committee of Management of the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre which was adopted at their meeting of February 26, 1998.

For your information, Council appointed Councillors Layton and McConnell as its representatives on the Eastview Neighbourhood Community Centre Committee of Management when it adopted Clause No. (1) of the Striking Committee Report No. 1; Andrea Addario as a community representative when it adopted Clause No. (2) of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 1; and Michelle Smith, Angela Stevens and Soo Wong when it adopted Clause No. (37) of the Toronto Community Council Report No. 6.

In order for the Community Centre to operate effectively, the appointments recommended above should be made on an interim basis only until such time as a new policy for appointments has been established and the review of the Agencies, Boards and Commissions has been completed.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (March 16, 1998) from Ms. Susan Neal, Executive Director, Eastview Neighbourhood Community, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Appointments to the Scadding Court Community Centre

Board of Management

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)Judith Brady, Chris Bolton, Alexandra Krivicich, Neil Powers, Lee Zaslofsky and Gloria Zhang be re-appointed to the Scadding Court Community Centre's Board of Management on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed;

(2)Michelle Fudge, Lisa Johnston and Alcia Aberdeen be appointed to the Scadding Court Community Centre's Board of Management on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace Robert Ellis, Jim Newton and Rachel Rapaport;

(3)Christine Ferreira be appointed to replace Tam Goosen as the Toronto District School Board's representative; and

(4)Jim Montgomery be appointed to replace Dorothea Heras as the Toronto Public Library Board's representative.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (June 17, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

(1)That Judith Brady, Chris Bolton, Alexandra Krivicich, Neil Powers, Lee Zaslofsky and Gloria Zhang be re-appointed to the Scadding Court Community Centre's Board of Management on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed;

(2)That Michelle Fudge, Lisa Johnston and Alcia Aberdeen be appointed to the Scadding Court Community Centre's Board of Management on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace Robert Ellis, Jim Newton and Rachel Rapaport;

(3)That Christine Ferreira be appointed to replace Tam Goosen as the Toronto District School Board's representative; and

(4)That Jim Montgomery be appointed to replace Dorothea Heras as the Toronto Public Library Board's representative.

Comments:

Attached is a communication (May 18, 1998) from Kevin Lee, Executive Director of the Scadding Court Community Centre advising of the election of community members to serve on the Board of Management of Scadding Court Community Centre which took place at their meeting on May 14, 1998.

In addition to those listed, the following are serving the second year of two-year terms and pursuant to Bill 148 will remain in place until Council appoints new members:

Stephen Foote, Andrew Lee and Caroline Wuschke.

For your information, Council appointed Councillor Chow as its representative on the Scadding Court Community Centre when it adopted Clause No. (1) of Striking Committee Report No. 1. This then accounts for the complete membership of the Community Centre as of this date.

Appointments to Swansea Town Hall - Board of Management

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)Sally Dillon, Paul Schmidt and Norm McLeod be appointed to the Board of Management of the Swansea Town Hall on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace Gene Chepswick, Martha McGloin and Ed Gaigalas who have resigned;

(2)Council amend the legislative provisions governing the Board's composition to include "the member or members of Council for the Ward in which the Swansea Town Hall in situated" in order to include both City Councillors for Ward 19 as members of the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (July 20, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

(1)That Sally Dillon, Paul Schmidt and Norm McLeod be appointed to the Board of Management of the Swansea Town Hall on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed, to replace Gene Chepswick, Martha McGloin and Ed Gaigalas who have resigned;

(2)That Council amend the legislative provisions governing the Board's composition to include "the member or members of Council for the Ward in which the Swansea Town Hall is situated" in order to include both City Councillors for Ward 19 as members of the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management.

Attached is a communication (June 29, 1998) from Jack Slaughter, Chair, Swansea Town Hall Board of Management, advising of the election of community members to serve on the Board of Management of Swansea Town Hall which took place at their meeting of June 22, 1998, and requesting that Council amend the legislative provisions governing the Board's composition to include the two Councillors for Ward 19.

For your information, Council appointed Councillor Miller as its representative on the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management when it adopted Clause No. (1) of the Striking Committee Report No. 1.

St. Lawrence Co-operative Housing Corporation Condominium

- Request for Release of a Portion of the lands from a

Heritage Easement Agreement for Rack House "H"

of the Gooderham and Worts Distillery Site (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July21,1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To address a request from St. Lawrence Co-operative Housing Corporation for the release of certain lands, being Parts 7 and 8 on Plan 66R-17839 from the Heritage Easement Agreement entered into with the former City of Toronto (Instrument No. CA 397779) applicable to Rack House "H" of the Gooderham and Worts Distillery Site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the City consent to an Application to Amend the Register to Release the lands comprising Parts7 and 8 on Reference Plan 66R-17839 from the Heritage Easement Agreement entered into with the former City of Toronto respecting Rack House "H" on the Gooderham and Worts Distillery Site, being Instrument No. CA 397779, and that appropriate City officials be authorized to execute such documents as are required to effect such release provided they are in a form and with content satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Council Reference/Background/History:

In 1994 the former City of Toronto Council enacted Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit the redevelopment of the Gooderham and Worts Distillery Site (the "Site") located at Parliament and Cherry Streets, for mixed use purposes. One of the City's requirements for enacting the amendments was that the owner enter into a number of heritage easement agreements ("HEAs") with the City due to the Site's heritage significance.

Rack House "H", one of the historic buildings located on the north side of Mill Street beside Rack House "I", was the subject of one such HEA, being Instrument No. CA397779, registered on April3, 1996. Rack House "I" is the subject of another HEA.

On the north side of Mill Street the Amending By-laws allowed for two buildings to be erected, one incorporating Rack House "H" and the other incorporating Rack House "I". In the HEA for Rack House "H", Schedule E sets forth the framework for adaptive re-use of the building and includes the following statement:

"This building, to be incorporated into a proposed apartment tower, offers interesting opportunities to form a base to a composite new/old built form....A parking structure could be built within the retained walls and linked to the adjoining Rack House "I"."

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The St. Lawrence Co-operative Housing Corporation (the "Co-op") is now developing the condominium incorporating Rack House "I". As there has been no severance of the Rack House lands to-date, the Co-op also owns the lands and buildings subject to the Rack House "H" HEA. I am advised by the Co-op's solicitor that the Co-op will reconvey the Rack House "H" lands to Wyndham Court Canada Inc. (the owner of the majority of the Site) once the condominium for Rack House "I" is registered, thereby effecting a severance of the Rack House "H" lands from the Rack House "I" lands.

It is expected that Mill Street Co-operative Housing Corporation will purchase the Rack House "H" lands some time in the future in order to develop another condominium.

A difficulty has arisen for the Co-op in that Parts 7 and 8 on Reference Plan 66R-17839, which form part of the lands against which the Rack House "H" HEA is registered, are needed for the condominium registration for the Co-op building currently being developed which incorporates Rack House "I".

Parts 7 and 8 are located below ground, approximately 7 to 8 metres from Rack House "H" and appear to comprise part of the below ground parking structure for the new building incorporating Rack House "I". No part of Rack House "H" is located on Parts 7 or 8.

If Parts 7 and 8 become part of the condominium registration, the future Rack House "I" condominium owners will be responsible to meet the obligations of the Rack House "H" HEA (as well as for the Rack House "I" HEA), although no part of Rack House "H" is located on the lands of the condominium and despite there being other owners responsible to meet the obligations of the Rack House "H" HEA. This appears to be onerous and unnecessary.

I have consulted with the City Surveyor's office, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development and staff of Heritage Toronto and we all agree that Parts 7 and 8 may be released from the Rack House "H" HEA without in any way jeopardizing the intent behind the HEA.

In addition, as Wyndham Court Canada Inc. intends to repurchase Rack House "H" and was the original signatory to the Rack House "H" HEA, I have confirmed with its solicitor that it has no concerns with such a release, should Council agree to same.

Conclusions:

I am recommending that Parts 7 and 8 on Reference Plan 66R-17839 be released from the Rack House "H" HEA as requested by the Co-op.

Contact Name:

Sharon Haniford, Solicitor

Telephone:(416) 392-6975

Fax:(416) 392-0024

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

Committee of Adjustment - 30 Hayden Street

(Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion by Councillor Rae:

"WHEREAS an application for 30 Hayden Street was before the Committee of Adjustment on May 12, 1998, and was subsequently refused with the issuance of the decision on May 20, 1998;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council instruct the City Solicitor to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing scheduled on August 18, 1998, in opposition to the Committee of Adjustment decision of May 12, 1998, and that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to attend."

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a Notice of Decision - Committee of Adjustment (May 20, 1998), and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Appointments to Board of Management -

Balmy Beach Park

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July21,1998) from Mayor Lastman:

Upon the request of the Board of Management of the Balmy Beach Park, and in accordance with past practices and pursuant to Section 5 of an Act respecting the Town of East Toronto and Balmy Beach Park, 3 Edward VII, Chapter 50 assented to in 1903, I am making the following recommendations:

(1)That the following persons be appointed to the Board until June 30, 1999, or until their successors are appointed:

Bruce Cavanagh, Chris Commins, Bob Fullerton

(2)That the following persons be appointed to the Board until June 30, 2000, or until their successors are appointed:

Jack Baird, Dorothy DeClute, Ziba Reiner

On this basis, the Board would be comprised on the following members:

Member Since

Chris Commins (Chair)June 30, 1990

Jack BairdJune 30, 1994

Bruce CavanaghJune 30, 1992

Dorothy DeCluteJune 30, 1991

Robert FullertonJune 30, 1990

Ziba ReinerSept. 25, 1995

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

731 Yonge Street (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion by Councillor Rae:

"WHEREAS the applicant proposes to alter a legal non-conforming roof sign by adding a colour LED Display unit with electronic message display and animated copy features; and

WHEREAS the proposed alteration does not comply with Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and is the subject of a minor variance application; and

WHEREAS the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in her report dated July 21, 1998 has recommended that the application be refused;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council approve the application to permit the alteration of a legal non-conforming roof sign to accommodate an LED Display unit with electronic message display and animated copy features as illustrated on Figure 2 of the report (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, provided that the owner of 731 Yonge Street does not erect any additional signage structure anywhere along the top of the building, above the second floor windows.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit the alteration of a legal non-conforming roof sign.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

City Council refuse Application No. 998053 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit the alteration of a legal non-conforming roof sign.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-east corner of Bloor Street East and Yonge Street, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district within the Bloor Yorkville Business Improvement Area. This intersection is identified as a prominent area in the former City of Toronto's Official Plan. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building The applicant is requesting permission to alter a legal non-conforming roof sign by adding a colour LED Display unit with electronic message display and animated copy features (see Figure 2).

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.the extension and alteration of a legal non-conforming roof sign is not permitted;

2.the height of sign will increase from 19.1 metres to 20.3 metres;

3.the Municipal Code prohibits signs which contain animated or changeable copy unless specifically permitted by the Code. Electronic message display and animated copy are not permitted in this district;

4. the sign is located within 60 metres of other 3^rd party signs;

5.the sign faces both Yonge and Bloor Streets; and

6.more than 1 roof sign is located at 731 Yonge Street.

The first and second variances occur because the existing sign would be altered to accommodate an LED Display unit which would project 0.6 metres above the height of the existing sign. Roof signs are currently prohibited in all CR and MCR districts. The former City of Toronto Council adopted this prohibition because their unsightly support structures detract from the streetscape and negatively impact the skyline views along our commercial streets and from adjacent residential uses. Signs which were legally erected prior to the passing of the by-law and which do not conform to the current sign provisions of the Municipal Code are permitted to remain with a legal non-conforming status.

At its meeting of April 1 and 2, 1996, the former City of Toronto Council adopted By-law 1996-0168 to further amend the sign regulations of Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code by deleting the as-of-right replacement provisions for legal non-conforming signs city-wide. City Council adopted this recommendation because it was felt that the continued replacement of non-conforming signs would serve to prolong the lifespan of signs in areas where Council had decided that they are no longer desired. By permitting the erection of new non-conforming signs, the goal of attrition would take much longer to achieve. While the signs' faces and attributes can be changed, no changes are permitted to the sign structure, location or height of legal non-conforming signs.

In this instance, while no change is proposed to the location of the sign or its support elements, the sign structure will be substantially altered and its height will be increased which, in my opinion, contradicts the intent of these provisions.

The third variance occurs because the sign will contain a colour LED Display unit with electronic message display and animated copy features that are not permitted in a CR district. In the past, I have only recommended approval of electronic message display signs in a few, very specific circumstances. They have been recommended for public theatres, stadiums and places of amusement, as well as in the Financial District and the specialty retail area at the intersection of Yonge and Dundas Streets. In these instances, the scale of the buildings and/or intensity and nature of the commercial activity made such signs acceptable. Further, in all cases the recommended signage was for exclusively or primarily first party advertising.

Care has been taken with electronic message display signs in recognition of their dynamic character which heightens their visibility and their potentially negative impact on the streetscape. In most cases the electronic message display component has been modest in size and has been designed as an integral part of the building not adversely detracting from or otherwise affecting the adjacent uses. Other applications for electronic message display signs have been recommended for refusal or the applicant has been persuaded not to apply or to select an alternative sign type.

In this instance, the existing sign is a traditional roof sign in that it is located 10.6 metres above the roof of the building, exceeding the heights of buildings in the immediate area. The sign consists of an illuminated sign panel oriented north-west which is supported by 6 metal posts anchored to the roof. The proposed LED Display unit would be anchored to the existing sign panel and would be centrally located on the existing sign. The precedent of approving electronic message display and animated copy features on a sign type that is no longer permitted in this district and in an area where they are no longer desirable is of great concern and, in my opinion, would result in a negative impact with city-wide implications.

The last three variances respecting the sign's proximity to other 3^rd party signs, its orientation towards Bloor and Yonge Street and more than one roof sign on the building reflect the existing situation.

Given the prohibition of roof signs in this district and the deletion of the replacement provisions for legal non-conforming signs, I consider the requested variances to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code. If approved the sign will, in my opinion, set a negative precedent with city-wide implications. I am, therefore, recommending that this application be refused.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

731 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

731 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

731 Yonge Street

Status Report on the Ontario Municipal Board -

1947-97 Bloor Street West (High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that, in accordance with Council's amendment to Clause No. 5 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 8, for the purpose of enabling a source of funds for outside planning advice to be identified,

(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to request a review of the Ontario Municipal Board's decision, issued on July 2, 1998, to grant an extension for an exemption for 1947 and 1997 Bloor Street West from the provisions of Zoning By-laws 798-87 and 801-97 beyond April 17, 1998;

(2)subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds which will be the subject of a further report to Council, the City Solicitor be instructed to retain an outside planner for the Board Hearing, set for August 12, 1998, in relation to the minor variances requested for the site.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having received the following status reports for information:

(i)(July 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services; and

(ii)(July 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 21, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To request authorization for the City Solicitor to request that the Ontario Municipal Board (the Board) review the Board's decision to grant an extension of an exemption from the provisions of Zoning By-laws 798-87 and 801-87 for the above-noted properties and to request that authority be granted for the retention of an outside planner in relation to the Board hearing into the owner's current site proposal.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

A recommended source of funds for retention of an outside planning consultant will be addressed in a further report direct to Council.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor be authorized to request a review of the Board's decision, issued on July 2, 1998, to grant an extension for an exemption for 1947 and 1997 Bloor Street West from the provisions of Zoning By-laws 798-87 and 801-87 beyond April 17, 1998.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 25, 1998, Toronto Community Council adopted a Motion regarding the above-noted properties and submitted same to Toronto City Council for consideration and approval at its meeting of July 8, 1998. That Motion, in part, instructed the City Solicitor to attend the Board hearing in support of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment to deny variances requested by the owner and, if necessary, to retain outside planning advice. The Motion further requested that the City Solicitor apply for a Board hearing date in September or October.

Toronto City Council adopted the motion as amended and in so doing authorized that the City Solicitor attend the Board hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment and requested that the City Solicitor apply to the Board for a hearing date in September or October. Council also deleted the recommendation that the City Solicitor be authorized to retain outside planning advice if necessary.

As an ancillary matter, the Board, in a decision issued on July 2, 1998, approved a request by the applicant to extend an exemption for the subject lands from the provisions of Zoning By-laws 798-87 and 801-87 beyond April 17, 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

As I noted in my status report dated July 8, 1998 on this matter, the subject location has been a source of longstanding public and City concern and there have been a number of proceedings before the Board over development proposals for the site. In 1989 the then owner of the site, along with owners of certain other sites potentially affected by By-laws 798-87 and 801-87, requested that the Board exempt the proposed development from the provisions of the by-laws, which amended the definition of gross floor area to include below grade space, on the basis that the project was "in the pipe" at the time of the by-law's passage. The proposed development was for below grade commercial space with parking located above grade, on top of the building. After holding a public hearing into the request, the Board, in a decision dated September 20, 1989, approved a 4 year exemption from the by-law.

At the end of the exemption period, the mortgagee, having taken possession of the property, requested a further extension of the exemption due to serious financial problems brought on in great part by the recession. The Board held another public hearing into the request and in a decision dated May 12, 1994, approved a further four year extension, to expire on April 17, 1998. In that decision the Board ordered, "there will be no further extensions past the...April 17, 1998 dates".

Subsequent to those hearings, the latest proposal before the Board, set out in my July 8 report, is for a residential condominium development, with (primarily) below grade parking. Nonetheless on April6, 1998 the site's current owners, by way of a letter to the Board, requested that a further extension be granted until the current appeal before the Board, pertaining to minor variances in relation to the residential development has been heard. The argument used to justify the request was that the project has been in the pipe since August of 1997. I understand that the City and area residents who have had standing in the previous hearings referred to above, did not receive any notice that the Board was formally considering the request.

The Board, without benefit of a hearing into the request, approved the request in a decision issued on July 2, 1998. In light of the changed nature of the proposal for the site, the sensitive nature of this matter, the Board's established practice of holding hearings into requests for an exemption, and the Board's previous decision of May 1994 that no further exemption shall issue, I am of the opinion that the latest approval of an extension represents a failure of natural justice.

Section 43 of the Ontario Municipal Board Act provides that "The Board may rehear any application before deciding it or may review, rescind, change, alter or vary any decision, approval or order made by it". The Board's Practice Direction 12, "Review of a Board Decision", states that "A party may request a review based on a failure of natural justice (such as no notice of a hearing, etc)...". Given the above I would recommend that I be granted authority to request that the Board review its decision.

Concerning the hearing set for August 12, 1998 pertaining to the minor variances requested by the present owner, I would also recommend that I be granted authority to retain an outside planner for the hearing. As I noted in my July 8 report, the City's Planning Division is not opposed to the current proposal, subject to the imposition of certain conditions. Accordingly, if I am to follow Council's direction that I attend at the hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment's decision to refuse the variances, I will require outside assistance. In making this recommendation, I note that it was the practice of the former City of Toronto to retain outside consultants to support the position of City Council on planning matters.

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer

Legal Department

392-1228

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide the Toronto Community Council with the update they requested on the Ontario Municipal Board appeal for the residential project on this site, and the latest community meeting, held on July6,1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference:

At its meeting of June 25, 1998, Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor to report to its meeting on July 22, 1998, on the "progress of the Ontario Municipal Board hearing". The Toronto Community Council also requested the City Solicitor to attend the Board hearing, with an outside planning consultant, if necessary, in support of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment refusing variances for the project.

Background:

The 1947-97 Bloor Street site is a sensitive, steeply sloping site on the south side of Bloor Street West, at the corner of High Park. The Official Plan permits a project with a maximum density of 3 times the lot area.

On March 10, 1998 the Committee of Adjustment considered variances to permit a six-storey residential condominium on the site, after three community meetings held prior to the Committee of Adjustment hearing. The project had been scaled down from the original seven storey proposal, reducing the density from 3.98x to 3.64x the lot area. The Committee refused the variances and on March 25, 1998, the refusal was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the proponent.

Current Status:

The Ontario Municipal Board has set a date of August 12, 1998 to begin a three-day hearing to consider planning evidence regarding this proposal. The planning staff letter on the variance application recommended conditions the Committee of Adjustment should impose, if it chose to approve the downsized project. For this reason, the City Solicitor will be required to retain an outside planning consultant for the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Public Meeting:

On Monday, July 6, 1998 a community meeting was held to discuss the latest changes to the project which has now been further reduced to a density of 3.33x, but is still 18.9 m high rather than the 14 m permitted by the Zoning By-law. It also encroaches somewhat into required angular planes. Thirteen members of the public attended the meeting. Most of these people preferred a lower building, within the Official Plan density limit and the height and angular plane provisions of the Zoning By-law.

Contact Name:

Barry Brooks

Telephone: (416) 392-0758

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To provide the Toronto Community Council with the update it requested on the Ontario Municipal Board appeal for a residential project on this site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 25, 1998, Toronto Community Council adopted a Motion regarding the above-noted properties and submitted same to Toronto City Council for consideration and approval at its meeting of July 8, 1998. That Motion instructed the City Solicitor to attend the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing in support of a decision of the Committee of Adjustment to deny variances requested by the owner and, if necessary, to retain outside planning advice. The Motion further requested that the City Solicitor apply for an OMB hearing date in September or October. Finally, the Motion requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor report to the July 22, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council on the progress of the OMB hearing.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The subject location has been a source of longstanding public and City concern and there have been a number of proceedings before the OMB over development proposals for the site. Most recently, the (latest) owner submitted an application to the Committee of Adjustment for a number of variances, including gross floor area, penetration of the angular plane, and height, to construct a six storey apartment building containing 59 dwelling units, a mechanical penthouse level and four below-grade levels containing residential and parking uses. At the Committee hearing held on March 10, 1998, area residents raised a number of concerns about the proposal, particularly with respect to the size and height of the proposed building.

The Committee refused the application on the basis that the proposal as presented would create a detrimental impact upon the surrounding area. The owner has appealed this decision to the OMB.

I understand that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services is not opposed to the project, subject to the Development Review application now before the City being approved. For this reason, and in accordance with Council's direction, an outside planning consultant will be retained to present evidence at the hearing in support of Council's position. I have written to the OMB to alert the Board that the City will be seeking a rescheduling of the hearing to September or October. Once the Motion is approved by Council I will immediately advise the OMB so that it can consider the City's request.

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer

Legal Department 392-1228

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (July 28, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report on a source of funds for the retention of an outside planning consultant in relation to the above-noted appeal.

Source of Funds/Financial Implications:

Legal Services Operational Budget.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that this report be received for information.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting held on July 22, 1998, Toronto Community Council adopted my July 21, 1998 report on the above-noted matter for consideration by Toronto City Council at its meeting of July 29, 1998. In that report I recommended, in part, that, subject to the identification of an appropriate source of funds - to be the subject of a further report to Council - I be instructed to retain an outside planner for the Board Hearing, set for August 12, 1998, in relation to the minor variances requested for the site.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

I can now advise City Council that sufficient funds for the retention of an outside planner exist in the Legal Services Division's Operational Budget.

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer

Legal Department 392-1228.)

Impact of Big Box Retail Development on the

Toronto Community's Retail Strips

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Recommendation of the Budget Committee and the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, embodied in the communication (July 29, 1998) from the City Clerk, containing the following Recommendation, be adopted:

'That funding in the amount of $35,000.00 from the Contingency Account be allocated to the Operating Budget of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Research Study, conditional upon the said $35,000.00 being replenished by the Toronto Economic Development Corporation for repayment of same.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council authorize the Commissioners of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and Urban Planning and Development, in consultation with TABIA, to conduct a research study of the cumulative impact of big box retail stores on the former City of Toronto retail strips;

(2)additional funding in an amount up to $35,000 be allocated to the operating budget of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for the research study;

(3)the research report and recommendations be submitted to the Toronto Community Council for discussion and review; and

(4)the City Solicitor be instructed to advise the Ontario Municipal Board that a full hearing on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 197019 (Home Depot) and Official Plan Amendment No. 87 and Zoning By-law No. 1997-0184 (East Bayfront) should not take place until the research report has been completed and evaluated in the context of the Home Depot application and in the context of the City's land use policies for the East Bayfront and retail activity in general.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having referred Recommendation No. (2) to the Budget Committee for identification of source of funds, and report thereon directly to Council.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that it has requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to address the issues raised in the communication (July 8, 1998) from Joanna Kidd and Leslie Woo, Toronto Bay Initiative, in her final report on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 197019 (Home Depot).

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 21, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report has four purposes. The first is to respond to a communication from Nicholas T. Macos dated June 23, 1998. The second is to respond to requests made by Toronto Community Council at its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998 regarding the impact of big box retail stores on the former City of Toronto's retail strips. The third is to update City Council on the East Bayfront Ontario Municipal Board hearing. The fourth is to update City Council on the status of Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. 197019 for a 9,940 square metre big box retail store at 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street (Home Depot).

The report was prepared in consultation with staff from Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and TABIA.

Financial Implications:

In response to Toronto Community Council's request from its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, funding in an amount up to $35,000 should be allocated to the operating budget of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, if City Council wishes to proceed with a research study of the cumulative impact of big box retail stores on the former City of Toronto's retail strips. The scope of this study is described in the body of this report.

Recommendation:

That additional funding in an amount up to $35,000 be allocated to the operating budget of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism for a research study of the cumulative impact of big box retail stores on the former City of Toronto's retail strips.

Background:

At its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, Toronto Community Council had before it a report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services entitled "Settlement of Certain Issues, By-law No. 1997-0183 (Official Plan Amendment No. 87) and Zoning By-law No. 1997-0184 - East Bayfront (Downtown and Don River)". In addition to adopting the recommendations in that report, Toronto Community Council requested:

"(1)the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with TABIA, to report on the cumulative impact of big box retail development on the Toronto Community's retail strips; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on July 22, 1998 on the communication (June 23, 1998) from Nicholas T. Macos."

In 1997 the former City of Toronto passed Official Plan and Zoning amendments for the East Bayfront to permit a wider range of uses. Notices of appeal to By-law No. 1997-0183 (Official Plan Amendment No. 87) and Zoning By-law No.1997-0184 were received from 1227803 Ontario Limited and 1147390 Ontario Limited in May, 1997. A prehearing conference on the appeals is scheduled to begin on August 4, 1998 and if necessary continue on August 5.

In June 1997, The Home Depot Canada submitted an application (No. 197019) to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the properties at 324 Cherry Street and 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East for a 9,940 square metre big box retail store. The site is shown on Map 1 attached.

At its meeting on July 17, 1997, the Land Use Committee of the former City of Toronto adopted, among others, the following recommendations from a preliminary report on the application:

"(1)That the Planning Advisory Committee be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify tenants and owners within 120 metres of the site and local resident and business associations of the meeting.

(2)That the applicant submit to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services the following additional information:

(a)a study that analyses the impact of such use on the economic viability and planned function of shopping districts in the area, including retail strips, and concludes that the development will not have a negative impact;

(b)a study that analyses the capacity of the existing road and transportation systems and concludes that the system is adequate;

(c)a study that analyses the impact of such uses on adjacent uses; and

(d)a study that identifies how the development will conform with City Council's Design Guidelines for Big Box Retail and how the owner will ensure public access to the water's edge."

On January 22, 1998, The Home Depot Canada appealed its applications to the Ontario Municipal Board for failure of the City to enact an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment.

At the August 4 and 5, 1998, OMB prehearing conference on the East Bayfront, the Ontario Municipal Board will consider a request to combine the appeal filed by the Home Depot with the East Bayfront appeals. If successful, the request will mean that there will be one hearing dealing with East Bayfront matters, rather than two.

Comments:

(1)Response to letter (June 23, 1998) from Nicholas T. Macos

Mr. Macos is legal counsel for one of the appellants to the East Bayfront Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments. In his letter to Toronto Community Council dated June 23, 1998, he requests that City Council direct the City Solicitor to seek an adjournment of the prehearing conference scheduled for August 4 and 5, 1998. I have compressed Mr. Macos' arguments in favour of a deferral into three categories.

(a)Land use planning policies for the East Bayfront need to be revisited in the context of current development initiatives, such as the 2008 Olympic Bid

The East Bayfront Working Committee held nine meetings between October 1995 and May 1996. The recommendations contained in the Committee's report were reached through consensus and balanced the interests of those who wanted the area to become a mixed commercial-residential area and those who did not. However more importantly, the recommendations reflected the former City of Toronto's desire to improve business opportunities in the East Bayfront. The adoption of Zoning By-law 1997-0184 was a major component of the East Bayfront initiative. With respect to the Olympic bid, City staff have had preliminary discussions with the Olympic bid team (TO-bid) and will be meeting to discuss this matter further.

(b)A big box retail store is not an appropriate use for the properties at 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street

East Bayfront Zoning By-law 1997-0184 does not allow retail stores in excess of 4,500 square metres. Big box retail stores would only be permitted if City Council were to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. Section 4 of this report outlines the land use policy and site planning issues related to the Home Depot's Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a big box retail store at 324 Cherry Street and 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East.

(c)The City should encourage the Home Depot to consider a site near Lower Don Roadway and Commissioners Street

In December 1995, TEDCO submitted an application to the former City of Toronto to amend the Official Plan to allow, amongst other uses, two big box retail stores on the west side of Lower Don Roadway and Commissioners Street. The two big box retail stores proposed were Price/Costco and Knob Hill Farms.

At that time, TEDCO considered that such a development would be the catalyst needed to encourage new investment throughout the entire Port Industrial District. While never officially withdrawn, that application became inactive in April 1997, when the TEDCO Board of Directors asked its staff to reconsider whether such a development was the right land use to encourage new investment. The Official Plan Amendment application has not been reactivated.

(2)Background and Planning Issues Related to the Home Depot's Application

(a)Background

The Home Depot Canada is seeking an amendment to the City of Toronto Part I Official Plan and Zoning By-law for a big box retail store totalling 9,940 square metres (107,000 square feet). Site Plan approval is also requested. The store will be located on 5.5 hectares (13.6 acres) of land in the East Bayfront. The existing I2 D3 zoning does not allow any retail store. Zoning By-law 1997-0184 (the East Bayfront Amendment) would permit one retail store to a maximum size of 4,500 square metres (48,400 square feet), per property.

The Home Depot Canada is the registered owner of the .4 ha (1 acre) property at 429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and has an option to purchase the property at 324 Cherry Street, which is the balance of the 5.5 ha (13.6 acre) site. (see Map 1)

As part of the Toronto waterfront, the site, and its surroundings, are one of the chief amenities of the City and region. The importance of the site is further magnified given its water's edge location. In February 1998, the general area surrounding the site was identified by the group advancing Toronto's 2008 Olympic bid as being a gateway location for infrastructure and environmental improvements associated with the Olympic initiative.

(b)Official Plan Policies for Big Box Retail Stores

Section 9.9 of the Part I Official Plan of the former City of Toronto identifies the importance of retail activity in the city and describes how this activity should be strengthened. In order to support this section of the Plan, there is a restriction on the amount of new retail floor space that may be constructed in most areas of the former City (Section 9.15). Official Plan Amendment No. 643, passed on August 29, 1994 establishes specific policies in the Part I Official Plan to prohibit big box retail stores.

Despite OPA No. 643, big box retail stores have been permitted in the Old Stockyards District (OPA 63, passed on July 5, 1996). In order for a big box retail store to be permitted in the Stockyards District, the owner was required to apply for a rezoning, and in so doing, demonstrate that:

(i)the impact of those uses on the economic viability and planned function of shopping districts, including retail strips, was assessed and is found not to have a negative impact;

(ii)the capacity of the existing road and transportation systems was assessed and was found to be adequate;

(iii)the impact of such uses on adjacent residential and industrial uses was assessed and was found not to have a negative impact; and

(iv)the established site plan and design guidelines for the respective areas and Council's general design guidelines for warehouse format stores were taken into consideration.

(c)Comments from the Community

A public meeting was held in the community on May 26, 1998 at the Enoch Turner School House. Approximately 45 people were in attendance. The opinions from that meeting can be characterized as those who:

(i)don't like big box retail stores from a city building perspective, that is, it is a suburban phenomenon and should not be allowed in or near the downtown;

(ii)don't like big box retail stores because they feel it will lead to urban blight;

(iii)like big box retail stores, but not at this location because it is an important waterfront site;

(iv)don't think the site plan goes far enough to address environmental objectives for such an important waterfront site; and

(iv)like big box retail stores and want to see the development proceed because it will create jobs in the community.

Since the meeting, four letters from the public have been received, as well as one from the Toronto Bay Initiative and one from the Task Force to Bring Back the Don. City staff have also attended a meeting of the Old Cabbagetown BIA and another with hardware merchants. The opinions heard at those meetings were similar to those cited above.

(d)Impact on the Economic Viability of Existing Shopping Districts and Retail Strips

At its meeting on June 24 and 25, 1998, Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with TABIA, to report on the cumulative impact of big box retail development on the former City of Toronto's retail strips. This section of the report addresses Toronto Community Council's request and City staff's response to the market impact study submitted by the Home Depot's consultant.

As requested in the Preliminary Report, the applicant has submitted studies related to market impact. The market impact consultant for the applicant (John Winter and Associates Limited) concludes that:

(i)in the area bounded by Bathurst Street, Lawrence Avenue, the Don Valley Parkway and the Toronto waterfront, including the area south of Gerrard Street to Lee Avenue there is a market for a 9,750 square metre retail store that sells home improvement type merchandise (HITM);

(ii)the greatest trade diversion of such a retail store, that is its competition, would be other Home Depots in the area;

(iii)other merchants in the immediate area of the proposed Home Depot who sell HITM should not be dramatically affected because their stores serve a distinct "convenience" function;

(iv)there are a total of 63 such stores in the entire trade area;

(v)the retail strips on which these stores are located also serve a distinct function and should not become blighted because of the proposed Home Depot;

(vi)the Home Depot in the Stockyards opened in May, 1995 and all stores in the immediate area that were selling HITM then are still operating today; and

(vii)not only is there no apparent change in hardware store retailing near the Stockyards Home Depot, there is no discernable change in the mix of stores and services in its general vicinity in the BIA's of Corso Italia, St. Clair Gardens and Junction Gardens.

Upon review of these findings, City staff from Urban Planning and Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, have concluded there are two unresolved market impact issues.

First, the analysis completed by John Winter does not sufficiently detail or demonstrate the impact the proposal is likely to have on the area's retail strips or the downtown. John Winter based his analysis largely on the Retail Analysis & Impact Study commissioned by TEDCO for its Official Plan Amendment application at Lower Don Roadway and Commissioners Street. The analysis (completed by Coopers and Lybrand in November 1996) states that:

"It should be noted that this study is not intended to represent a detailed impact study, but rather a general analysis of the impact of the Port Centre concept for Official Plan purposes. Based on the planning analysis work undertaken with Hemson Consulting Ltd. and discussions with City Planning Staff, we would recommend that a detailed market impact analysis be required for specific retailers over 8,000 square metres, as part of their rezoning application".

Coopers & Lybrand surveyed 400 households within an approximate ten kilometre radius of the site, and concluded that there was a sufficient market to support a certain amount of "Big Box" retail development in the Port Industrial District without detracting from the planned commercial structure. While a ten kilometre radius is a reasonable trade area boundary for this type of store, evidence from other locations suggests that the greatest density of sales will come from the surrounding neighbourhood. Hence, the competing stores and shopping districts closest to the site usually are the ones most likely to be affected.

It is staff's opinion that Coopers & Lybrand did not survey enough households within a 5 kilometre radius of the site to permit conclusions to be drawn with a reasonable level of confidence about the shift in shopping behaviour likely to occur within the trade area if a Home Depot were developed at Lakeshore and Cherry Street. In addition, staff cannot determine how much of the HITM market would be available for existing stores and shopping districts.

The second unresolved market issue concerns the impact of the proposed development on the future development of the surrounding area, and the cumulative impact that such future development could have on the former City of Toronto's retail strips and the downtown. Current planning policies for the East Bayfront encourage mixed industrial and commercial development to serve the city. Zoning By-law 1997-0184 implements this policy objective by broadening the development options available in the East Bayfront, but does not permit the development of a major retail anchor with a region-wide draw such as a Home Depot.

Trends observed in other cities suggest that big box retail stores stimulate increased interest in developing retail uses on other sites in the immediate area, potentially leading to the unintended evolution of a major shopping destination which can, in turn, detract from the retail vibrancy of a downtown core, shopping centres or retail strips. Because it is not current planning policy to encourage the East Bayfront to become a major shopping destination, the implications of such a trend on the City's retail policies need to be assessed before City Council can consider an approval of this application.

Therefore with respect to Toronto Community Council's request, the completion of a cumulative impact analysis would permit the City to assess the impact of big box retail stores on the former City of Toronto's commercial structure, and provide a better base of information on which to evaluate the extent to which additional big box retail store development can be permitted without risk to the vitality of the downtown and area retail strips.

A full study to assess the impact on downtown and local area retail strips would include a large-scale survey of households within Toronto to determine the extent to which people are shopping in big box retail stores versus the downtown, shopping centres and retail strips, and the potential for the market to accommodate increased big box retail store development. Such a survey would cost a minimum of $100,000.

In the short term, it is therefore being recommended that a more limited study be undertaken using a data base on store locations that has been developed by the Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity. The analysis would track changes in store locations and vacancies since 1993, but would not identify reduced sales levels or profit margins. It might also prove feasible to combine this data with other information to estimate the approximate share of the market currently being captured by big box retail stores, and get a sense of the degree of vulnerability of other elements of the commercial structure to further sales transfers.

TABIA have been consulted and are in agreement with the study approach being recommended. If approved, further discussions on terms of reference for the study will take place with TABIA.

A maximum of $35,000 would be required to complete this more limited study. Funds are not available in the Operating Budgets of either the Urban Planning and Development Services or the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Departments.

City staff will be advising the OMB on August 4 and 5, 1998, that a full hearing of the Board should not take place until this research has been completed and evaluated in the context of this application and in the context of the City's land use policies for the East Bayfront and retail activity in general.

(e)Impact on the Existing Road and Transportation Systems

In the Preliminary Report on the application, two transportation related issues were identified: how access to the site from the existing signalized intersections would be accommodated; and the need to consider protecting a right-of-way across the properties for the potential future extension of Queen's Quay East to Cherry Street. City staff have also asked the applicant to ensure that the design of any improvements would make the streets safe for pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.

The applicant's transportation consultant (BA Group) has presented several options to change the geometry and operations of the two signalized intersections abutting the site. The most recent intersection geometry and signal operations are generally acceptable to City staff. City staff and the applicant will enter more detailed discussions in order to ensure that the streets are designed in such a way as to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists. The applicant will be required to pay the full cost of all transportation related improvements.

Between 1989 and 1992, staff from the former City of Toronto undertook a number of studies that looked at alternative street alignments for Queens Quay East through the East Bayfront. Several of the alignments would have extended east across the Parliament Street Slip and through the site. This proposed extension of Queen's Quay East has not been pursued. The applicant's current site plan proposes this area as a 38 metre wide water's edge promenade, including an extension of the Martin Goodman Trail. Such a use advances several Official Plan objectives related to the waterfront and public access to the water's edge.

(f)Impact on Adjacent Industrial and Commercial Uses

The introduction of a big box retail store into the East Bayfront will impact on adjacent land uses. As noted in subsection 2(d) of this report, trends observed in other cities suggest that big box retail stores stimulate increased interest in developing retail uses on other sites in the immediate area, potentially leading to the unintended evolution of a major shopping destination. The applicant's land use planning consultant (Dillon Consulting) supports that observation in its conclusions below:

(i)the development potential of the subject properties for most land uses is constrained because of excessive noise from the Gardiner Expressway and the rail sorting yards, soil contamination and to a lesser degree active industrial uses in East Bayfront and the Port Industrial District;

(ii) a large retail store could overcome these constraints;

(iii)adjacent properties will largely benefit from the improvements;

(iv)the use is compatible with surrounding uses; and

(v)the use could trigger a market response to the adjacent properties to the west at 333 and 351 Lake Shore Boulevard East.

Based on the results of the economic impact study recommended in this report, City staff will have to determine what measures should be taken to either accommodate requests for similar applications on abutting lands, or conversely, develop policies prohibiting any further big box retail development.

(g)Site Planning and Urban Design

The applicant's urban design consultant (Sterling Finlayson Architects) undertook a study to determine how the development would conform with the former Toronto City Council's Design Guidelines for Big Box Retailing and an identification of how the development would meet City Council's objectives regarding water's edge access. The six major sections of the site plan and urban design study were:

(i)designation of a principal street frontage for the development;

(ii)location of the majority of parking spaces on the site;

(iii)location of loading spaces on the site;

(iv)screening of parking and loading facilities from adjacent public spaces;

(v)methods of public access to the inner harbour; and

(vi)water's edge landscaping proposals.

In addition to being analysed in the context of the City's guidelines for big box retail stores, this development is also being analysed in the context of its prominent water's edge location. As such, the applicant has been asked to address such issues as the long view of the development from the Inner Harbour, the relationship between the building and the water's edge promenade, building elevations and landscape details. These matters are still being discussed with the applicant.

(h)Impact on the Environment

The nine principles for regenerating the waterfront as outlined by the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront are clean, green, connected, open, accessible, useable, diverse, affordable and attractive. These principles, while not specifically identified in the Official Plan, are captured by policies for the Environment (Section 2) and the Waterfront (Section 14). City staff have asked the applicant to meet these principles by suggesting the following site improvements.

(i)Storm Water Management

Conventional storm water management practices in the city are designed to deal more with the quality, rather than the quantity, of stormwater discharged into the sewer system.

This development, located on the waterfront at the mouth of the Don River and the Martin Goodman Trail/Waterfront Trail, presents a very good opportunity to implement best practices for stormwater management in an urban setting. The degraded water quality of the Don River is largely due to the effects of stormwater runoff. The fundamental principle that the applicant should apply to this site is to manage rainwater as a resource rather than a waste. In so doing, the applicant should examine: how the roof can be used to significantly reduce the quantity of roof runoff, including the creation of a "living roof" as discussed below; through the Site Specific Risk Assessment (SSRA) process for dealing with contaminated soils, take into account the flow of groundwater and local infiltrated rainwater through the soils; consider on-site treatment of all stormwater through natural processes; propose a means of removing oil and grit from parking lot runoff; consider porous alternatives to traditional asphalt paving which are environmentally and aesthetically more appropriate; propose ways of storing site runoff on site for later use as irrigation water on site and in so doing, provide an opportunity to demonstrate stormwater gardens, and in partnership with the City, a residential/commercial landscaping alternative. These stormwater management practices are under discussion with the applicant

(ii)Living Roof Demonstration

A living roof is made up of selected, hardy plants which are planted in about 150mm (6 inches) of soil on a building roof. These plants replace a traditional tar roof treatment with plants which produce oxygen and are much cooler than a traditional roof. In addition, the living roof absorbs water and the water not used by the plants is released much more slowly into the storm water system. The roof also acts as an insulating layer to the building and helps absorb noise. A living roof has recently been installed over the roof of the new Mountain Equipment.

Co-op store on King Street West.

The Home Depot is being asked to install a living roof over the roof of its store. The details of this request are being discussed with the applicant.

(iii)Tree Canopy Throughout the Entire Site

City Parks staff, in a draft report to the Declaration on the Environment Implementation Task Force in 1993, identified that the former City of Toronto's waterfront lands averaged only 3% tree canopy cover compared with an average 20-25% for the City overall. The environmental impacts of insufficient tree canopy cover are felt in many ways, but are most notable in air quality and global warming.

The applicant can significantly increase the amount of tree canopy on the site if trees are planted in the parking lot. City staff are not concerned if parking spaces are lost because parking supply on big box retail sites often exceeds actual demand. The details of the landscaping of the site, including increasing the tree canopy, are being discussed with the applicant.

(iv)Water's Edge Promenade

The proposed water's edge promenade will be able to accommodate a number of open space, habitat and recreational functions. Discussions are underway with Parks Planning staff from Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to consider the dedication of approximately 30 metres of the promenade to the City. The Task Force to Bring Back the Don has recently requested a wider water's edge corridor (minimum 50m) with an ecologically appropriate landscape treatment.

No matter who retains ownership of the water's edge promenade, the applicant will be required to contribute money towards improvements to the satisfaction of City Council. Details of the width, design and implementation of the water's edge promenade are being discussed with the applicant.

Conclusions:

This report responds to the letter from Nicholas T. Macos, responds to Toronto Community Council's request regarding the economic impact of big box retail development, and updates City Council on the status and issues regarding the Home Depot Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications. The report recommends that funding in an amount up to $35,000 be allocated to the operating budget of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, if Council wishes to proceed with a research study of the cumulative impact of big box retail on the Toronto Community's retail strips.

Contact Name:

Blair Martin

Telephone 416 392-1317

Fax 416 392-1330

e-mail: bmartin@city.toronto.on.ca

________

-(July 6, 1998) from the City Clerk;

-(June 23, 1998) from Nicholas T. Macos;

-(July 8, 1998) from Ms. Joanna Kidd and Ms. Leslie Woo, Toronto Bay Initiative;

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Christopher J. Williams, Aird & Berlis; and

-(July 15, 1998) from Ms. Joice Guspie, Old Cabbagetown BIA.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Paul Dineen, Chair, Old Cabbagetown Business Improvement Area;

-Mr. Dalton C. Shipway, Chair, Watershed's United;

-Ms. Marilyn Roy, Toronto Bay Initiative;

-Mr. Christopher J. Williams, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors;

-Mr. Nicholas T. Macos, Morrison, Brown, Sosnovitch, Barristers and Solicitors;

-Mr. Tim Bermingham, Blake, Cassels, Barristers and Solicitors;

-Mr. Neil Robinson, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Steven Longo, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

429 Lake Shore Boulevard East and 324 Cherry Street

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (July 29, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

The Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee recommends to Council the adoption of the recommendation contained in the transmittal letter (July 29, 1998) from the City Clerk.

Background:

At its meeting on July 29, 1998, the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee had before it the attached transmittal letter (July 29, 1998) from the Budget Committee recommending that funding in the amount of $35,000.00 from the Contingency Account be allocated to the Operating Budget of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Research Study, conditional upon the said $35,000.00 being replenished by the Toronto Economic Development Corporation for repayment of same.

This recommendation should be considered with Clause No. 59 of Report No. 10 of the Toronto Community Council.

(Transmittal letter dated July 29, 1998, addressed to

the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee from the City Clerk)

Recommendation:

The Budget Committee on July 28, 1998, recommended to the Strategic policies and Priorities Committee and Council, that funding in the amount of $35,000.00 from the Contingency Account be allocated to the Operating Budget of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Research Study, conditional upon the said $35,000.00 being replenished by the Toronto Economic Development Corporation for repayment of same.

Background

The Budget Committee had before it a transmittal letter (July 24, 1998) from the City Clerk regarding the Impact of Big Box Retail Development on the Toronto Community's Retail Strips.

(A copy of the report dated July 24, 1998, from the City Clerk, referred to in the foregoing transmittal letter, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July21, 1998) from Mr. Nicholas T. Macos, Morrison Brown Sosnovitch, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of 1227803 Ontario Limited which has submitted appeals of Official Plan Amendment No.87 and By-law No. 1997-0184; and submitting a recommendation in regard thereto.)

Various Uses of the City Street Allowance -

1930, 1975, 1982, 2024, 2026 and 2028 Queen Street East

(East Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that City Council:

(1)authorize the City Solicitor to oppose the application by the owner of 1982 Queen Street East, at the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario; and

(2)advise the Commission that it opposes the application due to the zoning and noise by-law convictions, as well as the unruly behaviour of the patrons.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe at 2028 Queen Street East, notwithstanding the objections received in 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, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 1982 Queen Street East;

(3)the licensed uses of the street allowance abutting 1930 and 2024 Queen Street East continue subject to;

(a)with respect to 1930 Queen Street East, the lines being repainted, if necessary, and the owner being advised that further infractions will result in the revocation of the permit;

(b)with respect to 2024 Queen Street East,

(i)the lines being repainted, if necessary,

(ii)the owner being required to pull the fence back to the line;

(iii)the owner being required to alter the flowerpots so they do not hang over the fence line;

(iv)the owner being advised that he must not put in an "A Frame"sign, or any other sign beyond the fence;

(v)the owner being advised that any infractions will result in the revocation of the permit;

(4)the licensed uses of the street allowance abutting 2026 Queen Street East continue; and

(5)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to report to the Toronto Community Council on the use of the second floor of 1982 Queen Street East for license purposes, and whether or not it complies with the Zoning By-law.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on:

(1)the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe at 2028Queen Street East, "Honey Bee Chinese Food Restaurant";

(2)the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe on the Waverley Road flankage of 1975 Queen Street East, "Mr. Submarine Limited";

(3)the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe fronting 1982 Queen Street East, "^Th Wave Bistro", and the fence application; and

(4)the review of the licenced uses of the City street allowance adjacent to:

(a)1930 Queen Street East, "Ends"

(b)2024 Queen Street East, "Karas Restaurant"

Items (1) and (3) are of public interest and are scheduled as deputation items.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)(a)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe at 2028 Queen Street East, notwithstanding the objections received in 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, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(b)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 2028 Queen Street East.

(2)The current business operator at 1975 Queen Street East be required to submit a boulevard cafe application and such application be processed in accordance with � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(3)(a)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe at 1982 Queen Street East, notwithstanding the objections received in 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, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(b)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 1982 Queen Street East;

(4)That the licensed uses of the street allowance abutting 1930, 2024 and 2026 Queen Street East continue.

Background:

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, in considering Clause 87 of Report No. 11 of the former City of Toronto City Services Committee, adopted the Committee's recommendations and in so doing:

(1)denied the appeal for a boulevard cafe at 2028 Queen Street East, at the time.

(2)denied the appeal for a boulevard cafe on the Waverley Road flankage of 1975 Queen Street East, at the time.

(3)denied to maintain a 1.0 m high fence within the City boulevard fronting 1982 Queen Street East at the time but permitted the planters to remain and required the property owner to remove or relocate the fence from the City street allowance onto private property.

(4)requested the Commissioner of City Works Services to review the operation of the patios/boulevards at 1930, 2024 and 2026 Queen Street East and to report on the operation of these locations to the Toronto Community Council.

In addition, the former City of Toronto Council directed that the applications of the foregoing establishments identified in Recommendations 1, 2 and 3, be reconsidered by the Toronto Community Council.

Comments:

I will address each of the locations individually.

Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 2028 Queen Street East

Ms. Dora Kam Ta Wong submitted an application on April 30, 1997 requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 2028 Queen Street East.

As the proposed cafe was not within 25 metres of a residential zone, the former City of Toronto Municipal Code required that a public notice be posted at the location for a period of not less than 14 days in order to determine neighbourhood support for the proposal. If a written objection is received, the Commissioner must refuse the application.

A 14 day public notice was posted on May 29, 1997 with an expiry date of June 12, 1997. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, the Department received 2 letters of objection in opposition to the cafe proposal and a petition containing 14 signatures of residents in the area objecting to the proposed cafe.

Ms. Wong was advised in writing because of the negative response we could not issue a licence.

Subsequently, the former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, denied the application at that time.

For your Committee's information, the application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes contained in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council approve the boulevard cafe fronting 2028 Queen Street East.

Boulevard Cafe Appeal - 1975 Queen Street East

Mr. Stephen Levinson, solicitor for Mr. Stamatios Kalathenos, owner of Mr. Submarine Limited, 1975 Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario M4L 1J1, submitted an application on April 3, 1997 requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Waverley Road flankage.

Given that the location was not within 25 metres of a residential property, a public notice was posted at the property on May 6, 1997 with an expiry date of May 19, 1997. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, the Department received 3 letters of objections in opposition to the cafe proposal. The Department also received 2 letters of objection, one of which contained a petition of 14 signatures objecting to the proposed cafe, after the expiry date of the notice.

Mr. Levinson was advised in writing that given the lack of neighbourhood support, a licence could not be issued to his client, Mr. Kalathenos.

Subsequently, Mr. Levinson appealed staff's decision to refuse his client's application for a boulevard cafe licence, and the former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, denied the application at that time.

The business at 1975 Queen Street East has changed ownership and the new owner, as of May 1, 1998, is Mr. Mohammad Bidhendi, who is also interested in obtaining a boulevard cafe licence. On June 24, 1998, inspection found that Mr.Bidhendi had placed tables and chairs within the City boulevard on the Waverley Road flankage of 1975 Queen Street East, without the authority to do so and accordingly, Mr. Bidhendi was requested to remove the cafe furnishings. The tables and chairs were removed in the presence of the inspector.

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of October 6, 1997, approved an amendment to Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, pertaining to the polling regulations (By-law 1997-0633). The current regulations require that a poll be conducted if the proposed boulevard cafe is to be located on a residential flankage.

Since the original applicant sold the business, the initial appeal from the previous owner is null and void. Therefore, the current business operator of 1975 Queen Street East must submit a boulevard cafe application. Such application will be processed in accordance to Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Fence and Boulevard Cafe Application - 1982 Queen Street East

Mr. Gallos operates a restaurant, Th Wave Bistro, at 1982 Queen Street East, and an outdoor front yard patio on private property between the building wall and the front lot line. The operation of this patio is permitted under the Zoning By-law and is therefore, not licenced by the Department as a boulevard cafe.

An application was submitted on March 16, 1998, requesting a licence for boulevard cafe fronting 1982 Queen Street East.

The application met the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and a notice was posted on March 25, 1998 for 14 days, to determine neighbourhood support. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, the Department received 4 letters of objection.

Mr. Gallos was notified in writing on May 4, 1998 that we could not issue a licence because of the negative response to the public posting.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to approve the boulevard cafe at 1982 Queen Street East.

I advise that Mr. Gallos submitted an application in 1995 for the installation of planters fronting 1982Queen Street East. A permit for the construction of the planters was issued on March 14, 1995 and an encroachment agreement was executed on October 30, 1996.

However, a fence was constructed instead of the planters. An application to maintain the fence was made on April 11, 1997 and was the subject of our report of July 9, 1997 to the former City Services Committee. At its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council refused this application and required the property owner to remove or relocate the fence from the City street allowance onto private property.

Mr. Gallos complied with Council's request and the fence is now located totally on private property.

For your Committee's information, should City Council approve the boulevard cafe at this location, a fence must be erected around the perimeters of the cafe area.

Operation of Licenced Commercial Boulevard Parking and Marketing - 1930 Queen Street East

A licence for boulevard marketing fronting 1930 Queen Street East and on the Elmer Avenue flankage and a licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Elmer Avenue flankage of the location were issued to Mr. Harold Weisfeld, o/a Ends, on May 18, 1994 and December 10, 1996, respectively.

The licence for commercial parking allows for the parking of a motor vehicle to be parked parallel to the roadway. The licence for boulevard marketing provides permission to occupy 80.08 sq. m. of City boulevard for the purpose of displaying merchandise. On Appendix 'A', we denoted the licensed areas.

Because of complaints about excessive marketing, staff have had to inspect 1930 Queen Street East at various times since the boulevard marketing licence was issued. Our records show that charges have been laid in the past and most recently on June 7, 1998.

In discussion with Mr. Weisfeld, we were assured that the marketing will be confined within the limits of the approved marketing area.

With respect to the parking, inspections show that parking was occurring in conformity to the boulevard parking licence.

Operation of Licenced Boulevard Cafe - 2024 Queen Street East

A licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 2022-2024 Queen Street East was issued to Mr.SteveVardouniotis, o/a Karas Restaurant, on July 12, 1993. Mr. Vardouniotis submitted an application in December 1995 to extend his cafe and subsequently, on March 1, 1996, he received permission to occupy 13 sq. m. of City street allowance, capable of accommodating 3 tables with a potential seating capacity of 11 people as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

The cafe has operated without incident.

Operation of Licenced Boulevard Marketing - 2026 Queen Street East

A licence for boulevard marketing, fronting 2026 Queen Street East, was issued to Mr.MichaelChang, o/a Ice Cream Cafe, on March 29, 1996.

The licence is for permission to occupy 4.67 sq. m. of City street allowance, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'C').

Our records show that no complaints have been received pertaining to the merchandise display area.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue the business owners of 2028, 1975, and 1982 Queen Street East licences for boulevard cafes because of the negative response to the public notice posting.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the applicant's appeal for the boulevard cafe at 2028 and 1982 Queen Street East. In addition, the business owner of 1975 Queen Street East should submit an application and the application be processed in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Having regard that the licensed patios/boulevards at 1930, 2024 and 2026 Queen Street East operated with little or no incidents since the licences were issued, the licences for these location should be allowed to continue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Peter French and Ms. Lesley Grant;

-(July 20, 1998) from Mr. Frank Loritz;

-(Undated) from Rebecca Cheung and other area residents; and

-(July 21, 1998) from L. Kotzer.

Mr. Frank Loritz, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Queen Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Queen Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Queen Street East

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (July 29, 1998) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto and Councillor Tom Jakobek, East Toronto:

It has come to our attention that the owner of 1982 Queen Street East has applied again to increase his capacity with the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

The owner was in Court this week concerning zoning violations and was found guilty. He has also been charged and convicted of noise violations and has had problems with unruly patrons who spill onto the street. The second floor patio is also being used contrary to the Zoning By-law. Our legal Department also informed us that the owner is carrying on activities in contravention to the Liquor Licence Act Regulations.

Therefore we are requesting that City Council direct the City Solicitor and/or his representative oppose this application and represent the interest of the community at the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a Notice of Appeal (July23, 1998), from Mr. Giuseppe Di Marco, Agent, TriArch Group Inc., on behalf of the owners of 1982 Queen Street East, outlining the reasons for the appeal of the decision of the Toronto Community Council on July 22, 1998.)

Vehicular Access Ramp - 214 Westminster Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request for a 5.5 m ramp extension to facilitate access to two parking spaces on private property. This request is in compliance with the by-law, however, as the Ward Councillor has requested me to report on this matter, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of a driveway and the extension of a vehicular access ramp to provide access to two parking spaces on private property at 214 Westminster Avenue.

Background:

In a letter dated June 10, 1998, Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski requested me to report on the application for the extension of the existing curb cut to provide access to two proposed parking spaces on private property at 214 Westminster Avenue.

Comments:

Mr. Giuseppe Di Marco, acting on behalf of the owner, Mr. Vito Morriello of 214 Westminster Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6R 1P1, submitted an application on January 7, 1998, requesting permission to construct a driveway within the City boulevard to provide access to two parking spaces on private property at 214 Westminster Avenue.

The property is currently accessed by a 2.6 m wide curb cut which leads to an existing single car garage. The extension of this ramp to provide access to the two additional parking spaces will result in the loss of one on-street permit parking space. For your Committee's information, this property is located within Permit Parking Area 2, bounded by Bloor Street West (on the north), Dufferin Street (on the east), Lake Front (on the south), and Parkside Drive (on the west).

Currently, there are 5,843 legal on-street permit parking spaces, which as of July 8, 1998, 4,902 parking permits have been issued.

Conclusions:

Given that there are 937 on-street parking spaces still available within Area 2, the request for a 5.5m ramp extension at 214 Westminster Avenue will have no impact on the overall Permit Parking Area2, therefore, this application should be approved.

Details of this application are shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fain Lauzon, 392-7894

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (July 20, 1998) from Mr. Peter and Ms. Frances Chiddy, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Mr. Henri Moura, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Westminster Avenue

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 21, 1998) from Peter and Annie Dell, submitting comments in opposition to the proposal to appropriate additional curb space for the exclusive use of 214Westminster Avenue.)

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 on including the west side of Bathurst Street as part of the King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report is accompanied by the proposed Community Improvement Plan for the King-Spadina area. The plan is intended to assist the revitalization of King-Spadina in tandem with the recent changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The plan outlines proposed changes to the infrastructure in the area including streets, parks and sidewalks, and addresses other matters such as implementation of public art objectives.

Source of Funds:

The proposed improvements will be funded from various sources. Street improvements are described in the City's yearly capital budget. Boulevard improvements will be achieved through the site plan approval process as development occurs. Facade restoration grants are provided through existing programs such as the General Facade Improvement Program.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.City Council adopt the Community Improvement Plan for the King-Spadina Area, attached to this report.

2.The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services commence implementation of the Community Improvement Plan, including any necessary capital budgeting requests for individual Community Improvement Projects, once the Plan is approved by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

3.The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services consult with the relevant stakeholders regarding the implementation of the individual Community Improvement Projects.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The City Council of the former City of Toronto, at their meeting held on October 6 and 7, 1997, approved the undertaking of a Community Improvement Plan for the King-Spadina Area. Accordingly, staff undertook a public process, including several public meetings, in preparing the attached report.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Community Improvement Plans have been implemented in several areas of the City. These plans set out a strategy for upgrading the public areas either through public initiatives or through redevelopment of private property. Combined, these projects will enhance community safety and improve pedestrian amenities which will blend well with the increasing residential and retail activity moving into the King-Spadina area. The attached plan describes the objectives of the Plan and the various actions being recommended.

Should City Council approve this plan, it will then be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for approval. Full implementation will take several years as funding becomes available through public and private sources.

The local community will be consulted regarding the implementation of individual projects.

The recommendations have been prepared in consultation with staff of Heritage Toronto and City Works Services.

Conclusions:

The improvements proposed in the plan will assist in the transformation of the King-Spadina Area into one of the most active neighbourhoods in the City.

Contact Name:

Rollin Stanley

Telephone: 416-392-0424; Fax: 416-392-1330

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 2

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 3

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 4

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 5

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 6

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 7

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 8

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 9

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 10

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 11

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 12

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 13

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 14

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 15

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 16

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 17

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 18

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 19

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 20

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 21

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 22

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 23

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 24

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 25

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Insert Table/Map No. 26

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan

Residential Demolition Application -

500 Manning Avenue (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June20,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Architect and Builder for 500 Manning Avenue to submit to Council, prior to its meeting to be held on July 29, 1998, proof of insurance for the project.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (June 30, 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 500 Manning Avenue to you to recommend to City Council whether to grant or refuse the application, including conditions, if any, to be attached to the permit.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council authorize me to issue a demolition permit subject to:

1.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.

2.That the remaining party-wall at 498 Manning Avenue be restored in accordance with the Ontario Building Code.

Comments:

On April 27, 1998 Sam Tom, Architect, applied for a permit on behalf of the owner, Yan Wayne Rong Yao, to demolish the residential building at 500 Manning Avenue. The existing vacant residential building is a semi-detached house containing one dwelling unit.

Sam Tom, Architect, 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 has confirmed its conformity with the Building Code Act, the Zoning By-law and applicable law, and the permit has been issued.

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 an objection to the application from the neighbours at 498 Manning Avenue. The objection refers to their concern that the building demolition will cause structural and cosmetic damage to the exterior facade and interior of their home. They also raise concerns about the effect on the foundation, walls, roof and gardens that may arise from the work.

City Staff have met with both parties, their architects, and the contractor, on several occasions including two with Councillor Pantalone on May 8 and 15^th, 1998 to resolve these issues. Unfortunately, their differences remain irreconcilable.

The applicant's architect has submitted a detailed restoration plan for the party-wall, and I have confirmed that this plan, if carried out, will satisfy the requirements of the Ontario Building Code.

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. As such, I 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 and the additional condition that the restoration take place in accordance with the approved plans and the Ontario Building Code.

Contact Name:

David Brezer, P. Eng, Telephone: (416) 392-0097, Fax: (416) 392-0721

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

________

-(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Reid Lester;

-(July 21, 998) from Ms. Agnes Aru; and

-Photograph and communications filed by Ms. Agnes Aru.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Agnes Aru; and

-Mr. Sam Tom, Architect.

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of

Heritage Properties - Lake Shore Boulevard West Bailey Bridge

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1998) from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the Lake Shore Boulevard West Bailey Bridge 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 Lake Shore Boulevard West Bailey Bridge 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:

At its meeting of June 17, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto adopted the attached report recommending that the Lake Shore Boulevard Bailey Bridge, crossing Lake Shore Boulevard east of Dufferin Street, be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. 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 Notable Heritage Property (Category B).

Comments:

Representatives of Exhibition Place appeared at the meeting but did not make a formal deputation. No objection has been received for the proposed listing.

The Lake Shore Boulevard Bailey Bridge, dating to World War II, was installed as a pedestrian bridge connecting Exhibition Place with the waterfront in 1952. Purported to be the only remaining Bailey Bridge in the former City of Toronto, it is an important surviving example of an innovative engineering type.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the Lake Shore Boulevard West Bailey Bridge on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Notable Heritage Property (Category B).

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

_______

(Report dated June 9, 1998, from the Acting Managing Director, Heritage Toronto,

addressed to the Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board

Recommendation

That the property identified as the Bailey Bridge on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Exhibition Place be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments

1.Background:

In a letter dated June 27, 1996, the Toronto Historical Board was requested to assist in the preservation of the Bailey Bridge located on Lake Shore Boulevard West, linking Exhibition Place with the waterfront adjacent to Ontario Place. It is purported to be the last remaining Bailey Bridge in the former City of Toronto.

2.Discussion:

The Bailey Bridge has been evaluated according to Heritage Toronto's criteria as a Notable Heritage Property (Category B). A Property Research Summary with visuals is attached.

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

PROPERTY RESEARCH SUMMARY

Basic Building Data:

Address:Lake Shore Boulevard West (between Exhibition Place and Ontario Place, east of Dufferin Street)

Ward:20

Current Name:Bailey Bridge

Historical Name:Bailey Bridge

Construction Date:1952 (installation at Exhibition Place)

Architect:not applicable

Contractor/Builder:Dominion Bridge Company and Hydro-Electric Power Commission

of Ontario (installation at Exhibition Place)

Additions/

Alterations:1998, some side supports replaced, wood steps replaced by steel,

wood deck replaced

Original Owner:British Army

Original Use:bridge (military)

Current Use*:bridge (pedestrian)

Heritage Category:Notable Heritage Property (Category B)

Recording Date:June 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

*this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

________

Property Research Summary

Description:

The Bailey Bridge on Lake Shore Boulevard West at Exhibition Place is identified for architectural and historical reasons. The Bailey Bridge was among the components acquired after World War II from the British Army by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission to use as bridges and to assist in the construction of hydraulic power stations in Northern Ontario and on the Ottawa and Niagara Rivers. In 1952, this was the first of two 90-foot Bailey Bridges that Ontario Hydro loaned to and erected at Exhibition Place (the second was removed during the construction of Ontario Place). The Bailey Bridge was placed across Lake Shore Boulevard, east of Dufferin Street, as a pedestrian bridge connecting the exhibition grounds and the waterfront.

Invented by English engineer Sir Donald C. Bailey, the Bailey Bridge was used during World WarII as a temporary, portable structure to facilitate the transfer of military personnel and equipment across rivers where traditional bridges had been destroyed. . The sections of the bridge were small enough to be transported in trucks and assembled by a few men using hand tools. Made from prefabricated steel sections in a lattice design, the Bailey Bridge has two vertical piers and a low horizontal crosspiece held together by large movable pins.

The Bailey Bridge extends across Lake Shore Boulevard West near the west end of Exhibition Place. It is located near Scadding Cabin, the Bandshell, and the Shrine Peace Memorial, which are included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The Bailey Bridge on Lake Shore Boulevard West has been a visible feature on Toronto's waterfront for nearly half a century. Purported to be the only remaining Bailey Bridge in the former City of Toronto, the Bailey Bridge on Lake Shore Boulevard West is an important surviving example of an innovative engineering structure.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Bailey Bridge

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Bailey Bridge

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of

Heritage Properties - 2549 Dundas Street West

(John Shelley Turner House) (Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council not include the property at 2549 Dundas Street West (John Shelley Turner House) on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties; and

(2)the developer be requested to:

(a)prepare a photographic record of the site for Heritage Toronto, should Heritage Toronto so wish;

(b)preserve the decorative terra cotta to the greatest degree possible; and

(c)erect a plaque and name the mews after J.S. Turner.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 29, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 2549 Dundas Street West (John Shelley Turner House) 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 2549 Dundas Street West (John Shelley Turner House) 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 March, 1998, the West Toronto Junction Historical Society requested Heritage Toronto to consider the property at 2549 Dundas Street West (John Shelley Turner House) as a candidate for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The request followed a public meeting at which the proposed redevelopment of the property was discussed. The Toronto Region Architectural Conservancy and the Bloor-Junction Neighbourhood Coalition wrote letters supporting the request.

At its meeting of June 17, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it a staff report recommending against listing. However, after hearing deputations and reviewing submitted materials, the Board of Heritage Toronto decided to recommend that the property be included on the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The owner, who was notified about the request in a letter dated May 29, 1998, has not objected to the proposed inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Plans for the redevelopment of the property have been submitted that would demolish the house. The application to sever the site was turned down at the Committee of Adjustment and is being appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. A hearing has been scheduled for August 18, 1998.

The property at 2549 Dundas Street West is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage

Properties.

Comments:

The property at 2549 Dundas Street West contains a house built in 1901 by John Shelley Turner, a local contractor who resided on-site until 1909. The house is noted for its elaborate terra cotta detailing. It is a unique feature on Dundas Street West, north of Bloor Street, in the West Toronto Junction neighbourhood.

A Property Research Summary prepared by Heritage Toronto staff is attached. Also, information provided to Heritage Toronto by the West Toronto Junction Historical Society is submitted for the Community Council's consideration.

As requested by the Board of Heritage Toronto, a draft copy of this report was provided to the West Toronto Junction Historical Society for review and comment. Heritage Toronto staff acknowledge their helpful comments.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 2549 Dundas Street West on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Streetscape Property (Category D).

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239; Fax: 392-6834

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

PROPERTY RESEARCH SUMMARY

Basic Building Data:

Address:2549 Dundas Street West (west side of Dundas Street West between Jerome Street and Kenneth Avenue)

Ward:21

Current Name:not applicable

Historical Name:John Shelley Turner House

Construction Date:1901

Architect:none found

Contractor/Builder:John Shelley Turner, contractor

Additions/

Alterations:dates unknown, single-storey shed-roof verandah (now enclosed) added on south wall; entrance converted to window opening on north wall; shed-roof dormer added to south slope of roof; window sash replaced

Original Owner:John Shelley Turner, contractor

Original Use:Residential (single detached house)

Current Use*:Residential (single detached house)

Heritage Category:Streetscape Property (Category D)

Recording Date:June 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 2549 Dundas Street West is identified for architectural reasons. The house was constructed in 1901 by John Shelley Turner, a contractor who was responsible for many buildings in the West Toronto Junction neighbourhood, including the Annette Street Baptist Church at 200 Annette Street. Turner resided at 2549 Dundas Street West until 1909.

The John Shelley Turner House is highlighted with terra cotta trim. The 2�-storey wood frame house has brick cladding on the principal (east) facade and north and west (rear) walls. Its rectangular plan is covered by a gable roof with pedimented gables on the east and south faces. The gable ends are clad with shingles and each contains a single window opening. On the principal (east) façade, decorative terra cotta detailing is applied in elaborate floral panels and a series of string courses in geometrical, floral and basketweave patterns. The main entrance is positioned in the lower storey and decorated with brick voussoirs, label stops and a keystone. On either side of the entry, two flat-headed window openings of different sizes are trimmed with brick sills and terra cotta label stops with floral and animal motifs. The smaller of the two openings has an elaborate terra cotta panel above. The second storey contains a pair of flat-headed window openings. The terra cotta detailing wraps around the side walls (north and south) where the pattern of flat-headed window openings with brick and terra cotta trim continues. The rear (west) wall has a round-arched window opening.

The property at 2549 Dundas Street West is located on the west side of Dundas Street, north of Bloor Street West and between Jerome Street and Kenneth Avenue. A neighbouring house at 20 Jerome Street, also constructed by Turner and clad with decorated terra cotta panels, is included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. With its elaborate terra cotta detailing, the John Shelley Turner House is a unique element on Dundas Street in the West Toronto Junction neighbourhood.

________

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 copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(July 15, 1998) from Mr. Adam J. Brown, Brown Dryer Karol;

-(July 21, 1998) from Ms Hilary J. Bell; and

-(July 22, 1998) from Carole and Clarence Vaiters.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Ms. Hilary J. Bell;

-Mr. Adam Brown, Solicitor, Brown, Dryer, Karol, obo applicant; and

-Ms. Diana Fancher, West Toronto Junction Historical Society.

-Ms. Edna Hudson, Toronto Region Architectural Conservancy

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2549 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2549 Dundas Street West

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 28, 1998) from Ms. Diana Fancher, President, West Toronto Junction Historical Society, requesting City Council to refer this item back to the Toronto Community Council for further discussion and possible resolution.)

Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -

226 King Street East (Imperial Bank) (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June 29, 1998) from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 226 King Street East (Imperial Bank) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That Council state its intention to designate the property at 226 King Street East (Imperial Bank) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

At its meeting of June 17, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the property at 226 King Street East (Imperial Bank) under PartIV of the Ontario Heritage Act. As conditions of the King-Sherbourne development project, the applicant has agreed to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement and the property's designation.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Imperial Bank

226 King Street East

The property at 226 King Street East is identified for architectural reasons. The King and Sherbourne branch of the Imperial Bank of Canada was constructed in the fall of 1907 according to the designs of the Toronto architectural firm of Darling and Pearson. In 1961, the Imperial Bank amalgamated with the Canadian Bank of Commerce to form the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC).

The Imperial Bank displays features associated with Edwardian Classicism. The two-storey rectangular plan has a rounded southwest corner with an entrance and extended window openings. Above a stone base, the building is clad with buff brick. On the south and west facades, brick detailing is applied for bands, pilasters and parapets, while stone is used for quoins, cornices, and door and window surrounds. The latter walls display segmental-headed window openings. The east and rear (north) walls are not included in the Reasons for Designation. Important interior features are the entrance rotunda and, in the first-floor banking hall, the entrance door with its moulded wood doorcase.

The property at 226 King Street is located on the northeast corner of King Street East and Sherbourne Street. The building was designed by one of the leading Toronto architectural firms of the period, noted for its bank buildings. With its location at an important intersection, rounded corner entrance and decorative detailing, the Imperial Bank is a significant feature in the King-Parliament neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 226 King Street East under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239; Fax: 392-6834

________

(Report dated June 10, 1998, from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board,

addressed to the Chair and Members, Toronto Historical Board

Recommendation

1.That City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 226 King Street East (Imperial Bank) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical interest.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Comments

1.Background:

The property at 226 King Street East was included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties on November 21 and 23, 1973. The impetus to designate at this time stems from the King-Sherbourne Development, also on this agenda.

A Short Statement of Reasons for Designation, intended for publication, follows. A Heritage Property Report (Long Statement of Reasons for Designation), including visuals, is attached. Both documents constitute the Reasons for Designation.

2.Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

The property at 226 King Street is located on the northeast corner of King Street East and Sherbourne Street. The building was designed by one of the leading Toronto architectural firms of the period. With its location at an important intersection, rounded corner entrance and decorative detailing, the Imperial Bank is a significant feature in the King-Parliament neighbourhood.

________

Heritage Property Report

Imperial Bank

226 King Street East

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Basic Building Data

Historical Background

Architectural Description

Context

Summary

Sources Consulted

Attachments:

IShort Statement of Reasons for Designation

IILocation Map

IIIPhotographs

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address:226 King Street East (northeast corner of King Street East and Sherbourne Street)

Ward:25

Current Name: Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce

Historical Name: Imperial Bank of Canada

Construction Date:1907

Architect: Darling and Pearson

Contractor/Builder: Dancy Brothers

Additions/Alterations: openings altered in corner entrance; parapet on south wall altered; interior alterations; one-storey rear (north) addition

Original Owner: Imperial Bank of Canada

Original Use: commercial (bank)

Current Use*:commercial (bank)

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: June 1998

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

________

Historical Background:

The Imperial Bank of Canada was incorporated in 1873 and began operations following the financial depression of 1875. With Henry Stark Howland, future Mayor of Toronto, as its first president, the bank established its head office on Wellington Street East. Prior to 1961 when the Imperial Bank amalgamated with the Canadian Bank of Commerce (forming the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, or CIBC), it opened branches throughout the City of Toronto and beyond. The King and Sherbourne branch was constructed in the fall of 1907.

The King and Sherbourne branch of the Imperial Bank was located within the original boundaries of the Old Town of York, a ten-block area laid out after 1793 as the business and residential core of the community with King Street as the principal corridor. After the City of Toronto was incorporated in 1834, Old Town remained the commercial nucleus of the community. Properties at major intersections were coveted by businesses. By the mid-1800s, the northeast corner of King and Caroline (now Sherbourne) Streets was the location of Cawthra's Apothecary Store, operated by one of the community's leading families and first "millionaires". With the evolution of the area and the replacement of the building stock, this site stood vacant after 1900.

The Imperial Bank engaged one of the leading Toronto architectural firms of the early 20^th century to design its King and Sherbourne branch. Formed in 1893, Darling and Pearson executed numerous commissions of note around the city, including the George Gooderham House (now the York Club), the College Street Wing and Private Patients' Pavilion at the Toronto Hospital, the Royal Ontario Museum, the CPR North Toronto Station, and the Art Museum of Toronto (now the Art Gallery of Ontario). Over a twenty-year period, Darling and Pearson designed buildings for the University of Toronto, including Convocation Hall, Simcoe Hall, Trinity College, the original University of Toronto Library, and facilities for the departments of engineering, anatomy, and forestry. While the firm provided designs for many banks, their work for the Canadian Bank of Commerce prior to its merger with the Imperial Bank included the Canadian Bank of Commerce Building at 25 King Street West. All of the projects listed above are included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Architectural Description:

The Imperial Bank displays features associated with Edwardian Classicism, the style favoured for commercial buildings after the turn of the 20^th century. With a two-storey rectangular plan, the building is clad with buff brick and decorated with brick and stone. The southwest corner is rounded, with floor to ceiling openings in the first storey, three segmental-headed window openings in the second storey, and extended stone cornices above the first and second floors. The south façade on King Street is organized into three bays. Above a stone base, the wall has brick banding and stone quoins. In the ground floor, a single window opening is set in a stone surround with a curved pediment. To the right (east), an entrance has a stone doorcase with a bracketed entablature and a name band marked "Chambers". A moulded stone cornice separates the first and second stories. The second floor displays three segmental-headed window openings separated by brick pilasters. Above, a moulded stone cornice is topped with a brick parapet. The west wall extends four bays along Sherbourne Street. The decorative detailing and pattern of window openings are continued from the south façade. The east and rear (north) walls are not included in the Reasons for Designation. Important interior features are the entrance rotunda and, in the first-floor banking hall, the entrance door with its moulded wood doorcase.

Context:

The property at 226 King Street East is located on the northeast corner of King Street East and Sherbourne Street. Around this intersection, the warehouse at 214 King Street East, Carolyn Smith Building at #236, shops at #241-243, William Copeland Building at #245-247, and Grand Central Hotel at #251 are also included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. To the north, Paul Bishop's Buildings at 363-365 Adelaide Street East (at Sherbourne) are properties of historical importance.

Summary:

The property at 226 King Street East is identified for its architectural significance. The King and Sherbourne branch of the Imperial Bank, dating to 1907, was designed by one of the leading Toronto architectural firms of the period, noted for its bank buildings and its commissions on the University of Toronto campus. The Classical design is highlighted with a rounded corner entrance and decorative detailing in brick and stone. With its location at an important intersection, the Imperial Bank is a significant feature in the King-Parliament neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Assessment Rolls, City of Toronto, 1900 ff.

Building Permit #9340, 15 October 1907.

City of Toronto Directories, 1900 ff.

"Notice to Contractors: 226-228 King Street East". Contract Record (11 September 1908).

Scadding, Henry. Toronto of Old. Reprint (1873). Oxford University, 1966.

________

APPENDIX I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Imperial Bank

226 King Street East

The Imperial Bank displays features associated with Edwardian Classicism. The two-storey rectangular plan has a rounded southwest corner with an entrance and extended window openings.. Above a stone base, the building is clad with buff brick. On the south and west facades, brick detailing is applied for bands, pilasters and parapets, while stone is used for quoins, cornices, and door and window surrounds. The latter walls display segmental-headed window openings. The east and rear (north) walls are not included in the Reasons for Designation. Important interior features are the entrance rotunda and, in the first-floor banking hall, the entrance door with its moulded wood doorcase.

The property at 226 King Street is located on the northeast corner of King Street East and Sherbourne Street. The building was designed by one of the leading Toronto architectural firms of the period. With its location at an important intersection, rounded corner entrance and decorative detailing, the Imperial Bank is a significant feature in the King-Parliament neighbourhood.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

226 King Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

226 King Street East

Designation Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -

363-365 Adelaide Street East (Paul Bishop's Houses)

(Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June29,1998) from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East (Paul Bishop's Houses) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That Council state its intention to designate the properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East (Paul Bishop's Houses) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

At its meeting of June 17, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto had before it the attached report recommending the designation of the properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East (Paul Bishop's Houses) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. As conditions of the King-Sherbourne development project, the applicant has agreed to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement and the designation of the properties.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Paul Bishop's Houses

363-365 Adelaide Street East

The properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East were built for blacksmith Paul Bishop as early as 1842. The houses were located within the original Town of York, the ten-block area defined by present-day Front, George, Adelaide and Berkeley Streets. They are among the few buildings and perhaps the only residential structures from Old Town that survived the Great Fire of 1849.

The pair of townhouses display the brick surfaces, stone bases and detailing, and regular organization of openings characterized by the Georgian style of the early 19^th century. Extending two stories above raised basements, the buildings are covered by gable roofs with firebreak walls and end chimneys. As originally designed, each house had a symmetrical three-bay north facade with an entrance on the left (on #365, the entrance is relocated to the right) The houses have flat-headed window openings with stone lintels and sills. The rear (south) additions are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

The properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East are located on the southeast corner of Adelaide and Sherbourne Streets. Paul Bishop's Buildings are important reminders of early Toronto and the historical evolution of the King-Parliament neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East (Paul Bishop's Houses) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer,

Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834 ________

Report dated June 10, 1998) from the Acting Managing Director,

Toronto Historical Board, addressed to the Chair and Members,

Toronto Historical Board

Recommendations:

1. That City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East (Paul Bishop's Houses) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical interest.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Comments

1.Background:

The properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street were included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties on April 21, 1989. The impetus to designate at this time stems from the King-Sherbourne Development, also on this agenda.

2.Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

The properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East are recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The townhouses were built for blacksmith Paul Bishop as early as 1842. The houses were located within the original Town of York, the ten-block area defined by present-day Front, George, Adelaide and Berkeley Streets. They are among the few buildings and perhaps the only residential structures from Old Town that survived the Great Fire of 1849.

________

Heritage Property Report

Paul Bishop's Houses

363-365 Adelaide Street East

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Basic Building Data

Historical Background

Architectural Description

Context

Summary

Sources Consulted

Attachments:

IShort Statement of Reasons for Designation

IILocation Map

IIIPhotographs

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address:363-365 Adelaide Street East (southeast corner of Adelaide and Sherbourne Streets)

Ward:25

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: Paul Bishop's Houses

Construction Date:1842

Architect: none found

Contractor/Builder: none found

Additions/Alterations: window opening altered on west wall of #363; entrance relocated on north facade of #365; firebreak end walls altered on #363 and #365; additions attached to rear (south) walls of #363 and #365

Original Owner: Paul Bishop, blacksmith

Original Use: residential

Current Use*:vacant

Heritage Category:Notable Heritage Property (Category B)

Recording Date:June 1998

Recorder:HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

_______

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

After the founding of the Town of York in 1793, military officer Alexander Aitken prepared a Plan for York Harbour, which laid out a townsite for the provincial capital. The business and residential core of the community was established in a ten-block district bounded by present-day Front, George, Adelaide and Berkeley Streets. The area remained the centre of the expanded City of Toronto, incorporated in 1834. After the devastation of the Great Fire of 1849 and the replacement of buildings over time, little evidence remains of the original Town of York. Surviving properties that pre-date the Great Fire include the Bank of Upper Canada and Fourth Post Office at 252 Adelaide Street East, Toronto's Second City Hall at 91 Front Street East, the City Buildings at 107 through 147 King Street East, Daniel Brooke Building at 150-154 King Street East, and commercial buildings at 100 Front Street East, 33 Jarvis Street, and 171-179 King Street East. All of these properties are identified on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties, and many are designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. The only known residential buildings from the period are Paul Bishop's Houses at 363-365 Adelaide Street East.

According to John Ross Robertson's Landmarks of Toronto (Volume I, 130-132), blacksmith Paul Bishop acquired the property on the corner of Duke (Adelaide) and Caroline (Sherbourne) Streets formerly belonging to Sheriff Jarvis where he erected the subject buildings in 1848. However, historical records indicate that Bishop actually acquired the subject property in 1841, with the house form buildings in place the following year. An 1842 Map of Toronto, which shows the site as developed, also supports this date. Robertson describes Bishop as a French Canadian blacksmith and wheelwright who "was the principal workman in his trade in the town, but eventually he failed in business and left Toronto". Initially renting the property, Bishop resided on-site in 1843. The next year, he sold the property to Malachy O'Donohue, a local landowner. O'Donohue retained the site until 1846.

ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:

The pair of townhouses display the brick surfaces, stone detailing and regular organization of openings characterized by the Georgian style of the early 19^th century. Constructed of brick on stone bases, the buildings extend two stories above raised basements. Each house is covered by a gable roof with firebreak walls and end chimneys. The principal (north) facades are organized symmetrically in three bays. As originally designed, the first storey contained an entrance in the left (east) bay beside two flat-headed window openings. The façade of #365 is altered, with the relocation of the entrance to the right bay and the replacement of the original entrance with a window opening. Each house has three flat-headed window openings in the second storey. The window openings have stone lintels and sills. The gabled dormer window in the attic level of #363 is a later addition. On #363, the west wall along Sherbourne Street has three flat-headed window openings in each of the first two stories, with a single opening in the attic level. The opening in the right (south) bay of the first floor has been filled in. The rear (south) additions are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

CONTEXT:

The properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East are located at the southeast corner of Sherbourne Street. To the west, the complex of buildings located at Adelaide and George Streets and containing the Bank of Upper Canada Building, De La Salle Institute, and the Fourth Post Office is included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties and designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. South of Paul Bishop's Houses, the King and Sherbourne branch of the Imperial Bank of Canada at 226 King Street East is another important heritage property.

SUMMARY:

The properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East are identified for architectural and historical reasons. Dating as early as 1842, Paul Bishop's Houses are among the few buildings and perhaps the only residential structures from Old Town that survived the Great Fire of 1849. Paul Bishop's Houses are important reminders of early Toronto and the historical evolution of the King-Parliament neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Arthur, Eric. Toronto. No Mean City. 3^rd ed. Revised by Stephen A. Otto. University of Toronto, 1986.

Assessment Rolls, City of Toronto, 1834 ff.

City of Toronto Directories, 1834 ff.

Dendy, William. Lost Toronto. 2^nd ed. Oxford University, 1993.

McHugh, Patricia. Toronto Architecture. A City Guide. 2^nd ed. McClelland and Stewart, 1989.

Scadding, Henry. Toronto of Old. Reprint (1873). Oxford University, 1966.

Robertson, John Ross. Landmarks of Toronto. Vol. 1. 1897.

________

APPENDIX I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

Paul Bishop's Houses

363-365 Adelaide Street East

The properties at 363-365 Adelaide Street East are located on the southeast corner of Adelaide and Sherbourne Streets. Paul Bishop's Houses are important reminders of early Toronto and the historical evolution of the King-Parliament neighbourhood. The pair of townhouses display the brick surfaces, stone bases and detailing, and regular organization of openings characterized by the Georgian style of the early 19^th century. Extending two stories above raised basements, the buildings are covered by gable roofs with firebreak walls and end chimneys. As originally designed, each house had a symmetrical three-bay north facade with an entrance on the left (on #365, the entrance is relocated to the right) The houses have flat-headed window openings with stone lintels and sills. The rear (south) additions are not included in the Reasons for Designation.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

363-365 Adelaide Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

363-365 Adelaide Street East

Designation Under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act -

93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June29,1998) from the Managing Director, Heritage Toronto:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That Council state its intention to designate the property at 93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Background:

At its meeting of March 4, 1998, the Toronto Community Council adopted a report from the Board of Heritage Toronto recommending that the property at 93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) be included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The Toronto Community Council requested Heritage Toronto to examine the possibility of designating the property under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

At its meeting of June 17, 1998, the Board of Heritage Toronto adopted the attached report recommending the designation of the property at 93 Balsam Avenue. The new owner of the property supports the designation.

Comments:

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

William J. Gardiner House

93 Balsam Avenue, Toronto

The property at 93 Balsam Avenue is recommended for designation for architectural and historical reasons. The house at 93 Balsam Avenue was completed in 1899 for Toronto jeweller William J. Gardiner. It was the residence of Toronto artist Nancy Caudie Wright from 1940 until her death in 1997.

The William J. Gardiner House is a single-storey bungalow constructed of wood frame and clad in shiplap siding. The rectangular plan is covered by a hip roof with a brick chimney. The roof extends over an open raised wraparound verandah with wood detailing. On the symmetrically organized principal (west) facade, the central entrance has a panelled wood door. The principal (west) facade and side walls display extended flat-headed window openings with multi-paned windows and shutters. There are small rectangular windows on the north wall and a single bay window on the south wall. The interiors and three rear (east) additions to the original house are not included as significant elements in the Reasons for Designation.

The William J. Gardiner House is located on the east side of Balsam Avenue north of Queen Street East. It is indicative of the modest wood frame houses constructed when East Toronto developed as a seasonal community east of Toronto and an important surviving example of the early growth of the Balmy Beach neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council designate the property at 93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

_______

Report dated June 8, 1998, from the Acting Managing Director,

Toronto Historical Board, addressed to the Chair and Members,

Toronto Historical Board

Recommendation

1.That City Council state its intention to designate the property at 93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) pursuant to Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act to be of architectural and historical interest.

2.That the appropriate officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect hereto.

Comments

1.Background:

The property at 93 Balsam Avenue (William J. Gardiner House) was included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties by Toronto Council on March 4, 1998. In its report to City Council, Toronto Community Council "requested Heritage Toronto to examine the possibility of designating the property at 93 Balsam Avenue under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act."

The property at 93 Balsam is changing ownership at the end of June, 1998. The new owner supports the designation.

2.Short Statement of Reasons for Designation:

________

Heritage Property Report

William J. Gardiner House

93 Balsam Avenue

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Basic Building Data

Historical Background

Architectural Description

Context

Summary

Sources Consulted

Attachments:

I Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

II Location Map

III Photographs

________

HERITAGE TORONTO

Heritage Property Report

Basic Building Data:

Address:93 Balsam Avenue (east side of Balsam Avenue, north of Queen Street East)

Ward:26

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: William J. Gardiner House

Construction Date:1899

Architect: none found

Contractor/Builder: none found

Additions/Alterations: dates unknown: three rear (east) additions

Original Owner: William J. Gardiner

Original Use: Residential

Current Use*:Residential

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: June 1998

Recorder: HPD:KA

*this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

________

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

1.The Beach:

Development of the East Toronto neighbourhood known as the Beach began in 1853. The area remained the setting of country estates until the final quarter of the 19^th century.

With the extension of street car and steamer service from the City of Toronto in the 1870s, the eastern beaches attracted both occasional visitors to amusement parks and other recreational pursuits, and seasonal residents who occupied tents and cottages along the lakeshore. Balmy Beach Park was established in 1876. The Kew Farm, located east of Woodbine Avenue, was renamed Kew Gardens in 1878 when it was converted to a "picnic park" with campsites and cabins. During the 1890s, new parks joined the existing ones near Woodbine, Kew and Balmy Beaches. This development was accompanied by a move to year-round occupancy and improved roads and transit.

Queen Street East was extended east from Woodbine Avenue in 1887. The following year, the extension of the street east from Woodbine to Lee Avenue coincided with the incorporation of the Village of East Toronto (the community achieved town status in 1903 prior to being annexed by the City of Toronto in 1908). By 1896, the streetcar line reached Balsam Avenue.

2.93 Balsam Avenue:

Following the extension of the streetcar line to Balsam Avenue, part of the latter street was registered in a plan of subdivision in 1895. The property at 93 Balsam Avenue remained undeveloped when it was transferred from Robert Beaty, a King Street East banker, to A. J. R. Snow, a barrister on Sherbourne Street. The house at 93 Balsam Avenue was completed in 1899 when William J. Gardiner, a jeweller, purchased the property. Gardiner resided on-site with his wife and five children and acquired three adjoining vacant lots. In 1906, Gardiner sold the property at 93 Balsam. The house remained vacant until 1910, when William Pepper began a 30-year tenancy.

In 1940, Edward M. Caudie, a toolmaker, bought the property. Caudie's daughter, Nancy, retained the property until her death in 1997. Nancy Caudie Wright's artistic career began at age 16 when she apprenticed as a commercial artist with the Harry Lane Studio, a Toronto advertising firm. She did advertising layouts and illustrations for the Timothy Eaton Company for eight years before joining Bomark Engravings as an illustrator. Nancy Caudie Wright worked briefly as a freelance artist before forming a studio with artists Bill Winter and Jack Bush. During this period, she specialized in book covers and editorial illustrations for major publications. From 1948 to 1953, Nancy Caudie Wright served as art director of the Canadian Home Journal. As a designer at the firm of Samson, Mathews in the 1950s, one of her colleagues was Group of Seven artist A. J. Casson.

In 1940, Nancy Caudie Wright became the first female member of the Art Directors Club of Toronto. With the support of A. J. Casson, member of the Board of the Ontario College of Art, she began a 10-year career as a teacher at that institution in 1958. While teaching and working as a commercial artist, Nancy Caudie Wright pursued her interest in watercolour painting. She exhibited with the Ontario Society of Artists and the Watercolour Society of Canada before holding a one-woman show at Toronto's Upstairs Gallery in 1958. Following her retirement in 1969, Nancy Caudie Wright concentrated on painting trips with fellow artist Doris McCarthy, a former resident of Balsam Avenue. According to artist Allan O'Marra, "Wright's watercolours�show an unerring sense of design, masterful draftsmanship, flawless colour harmonies, and a craftsman's understanding of the medium. But most of all, they show her empathy for the Canadian landscape and her ability to respond directly and spontaneously to it."

ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION:

The William J. Gardiner House is a modest single-storey bungalow typical of the first generation of houses constructed in the East Toronto neighbourhood during its transition from a seasonal to a permanent community. Constructed of wood frame, the cottage is clap with shiplap siding. Its rectangular plan is covered by a hip roof with a brick chimney on the north slope. The roof extends over an open, raised verandah that wraps around the front (west) and side (north and south) walls. The verandah has a moulded wood base and wood columns and railings. The principal (west) façade is symmetrically organized into three bays. The entrance with a panelled wood door is centered between two extended window openings with shutters. The openings, which contain multi-paned diamond-patterned windows, are repeated on the sidewalls. The south façade has a projecting bay window, while the north wall displays diminutive rectangular window openings. The interiors and the three rear (east) additions are not included as significant elements in the Reasons for Designation.

CONTEXT:

The William J. Gardiner House is located on the east side of Balsam Avenue in the first block north of Queen Street East. The house is set back from the street on an elevated lot. It is set apart by its modest form and wood cladding in a street with larger houses with brick or mixed cladding. At 132 Balsam Avenue, to the north, "Pinecrest" (1904) is a residential building included on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

SUMMARY:

The property at 93 Balsam Avenue is identified for architectural and historical reasons. Built for William J. Gardiner, the house was associated for the past half-century as the childhood home and long-term residence of Nancy Caudie Wright, a noted Toronto artist. The house, with its diminutive form, wood cladding, and modest detailing is indicative of the cottages constructed in the area when East Toronto developed as a summer resort community outside the City of Toronto. Predating the annexation of the area by the City of Toronto in 1908, the William J. Gardiner House is an important surviving example of the early development of the Balmy Beach neighbourhood.

Sources Consulted:

Abstract Index of Deeds, Plan 1183, Lot 21.

Assessment Rolls, 1896 ff.

Campbell, Mary, and Barbara Myrvold. The Beach in Pictures 1793-1932. Toronto Public Library, 1988.

------------------------------------------------. Historical Walking Tour of Kew Beach. Toronto Public Library Board, 1995.

City of Toronto Directories.

Morrison, Barry. "The Joy of painting as intense for well-known artist Doris McCarthy". Article in Local History Files, Beaches Library.

O'Marra, Allan. "A Remarkable artist" (Nancy Wright). Article in Local History Files, Beaches Library.

________

ATTACHMENT I

Short Statement of Reasons for Designation

William J. Gardiner House

93 Balsam Avenue

The William J. Gardiner House is a single-storey bungalow constructed of wood frame and clad in shiplap siding. The rectangular plan is covered by a hip roof with a brick chimney. The roof extends over an open raised wraparound verandah with wood detailing. On the symmetrically organized principal (west) facade, a central entrance has a panelled wood door. The west facade and sidewalls (north and south) display extended flat-headed window openings with multi-paned windows and shutters. There are rectangular windows on the north wall and a single bay window on the south wall. The interiors and three rear (east) additions to the original house are not included as significant elements in the Reasons for Designation.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

93 Balsam Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

93 Balsam Avenue

Construction of Trellis and Gate -

405 Carlton Street (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June26,1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowners' request to construct a trellis and gate which will exceed the maximum height permitted under Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, 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 construction of the trellis and gate within the City boulevard fronting 405 Carlton Street, subject to the gate swinging inward towards private property and the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

A permit has been issued for the installation of a 1.0 m high wrought iron fence at 405 Carlton Street and the proposed trellis and gate are intended to complement the design of this fence.

Comments:

Ms. Angela Bailey, acting on behalf of the property owners, Ms. Fiona Authors and Mr. Jeffrey Authors, 405 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2M3, submitted an application on May 28, 1998, requesting permission to construct a 2.3 m high trellis and gate within the City boulevard fronting 405 Carlton Street.

The trellis and gate would be 2.3 m high rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed for in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. In a letter dated May 28, 1998, the applicant has asked for an exemption to this by-law so that the height and design of the trellis and gate are complementary to the architecture and scale of the existing homes in the area.

Staff inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property. While there were no other similar trellises/arbours in the area, it was determined that the trellis and gate would not negatively impact the City boulevard, provided the gate swings inward towards private property.

Details of the trellis and gate are shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').

Conclusions:

As the trellis and gate will not negatively impact the City boulevard, these installations should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Insert Table/Map No. 1

405 Carlton

Construction of a Trellis and Gate -

403 Carlton Street (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (June26,1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request to construct a trellis and gate which will exceed the maximum height permitted under Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, 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 construction of the trellis and gate within the City boulevard fronting 403 Carlton Street, subject to the gate swinging inward towards private property and the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

A permit has been issued for the installation of a 1.0 m high wrought iron fence at 403 Carlton Street and the proposed trellis and gate are intended to complement the design of this fence.

Comments:

Ms. Angela Bailey, owner of 403 Carlton Street, Toronto, Ontario M5A 2M3, submitted an application on May 28, 1998, requesting permission to construct a 2.3 m high trellis and gate within the City boulevard fronting 403 Carlton Street.

Details of the trellis and gate are shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').

Conclusions:

As the trellis and gate will not negatively impact the City boulevard, these installations should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Insert Table/Map No. 1

403 Carlton Street

Appeal of Denial of Commercial Boulevard Parking -

142 Westmount Avenue

(Convenience Address for 1151 St. Clair Avenue West)

(Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 142Westmount Avenue, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 142 Westmount Avenue, because of a negative public poll. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 142Westmount Avenue, notwithstanding the negative result of the public poll, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(2)City Council deny the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 142Westmount Avenue (convenience address for 1151 St. Clair Avenue West).

Background:

Messrs. Frank Macri and Anthony Quadrini, in their letter of May 22, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), have requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse the application for commercial boulevard parking fronting 142 Westmount Avenue (convenience address for 1151 St. Clair Avenue West).

Comments:

Mr. Frank Macri, on behalf of Mr. Anthony Quadrini, owner of Tony's Barber Shop, 142 Westmount Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6H 3K4, submitted an application on January 30, 1998, requesting a licence for commercial boulevard parking fronting 142 Westmount Avenue, for the parking of 2 vehicles positioned parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B'). For the purpose of this report, 142 Westmount Avenue is the convenience address for 1151 St. Clair Avenue West.

This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in � 313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

As the proposed parking is located on a residential flankage, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 100 m of the subject property to determine their support of the proposal. 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 from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll, dated March 31, 1998, was conducted on the west side of Westmount Avenue from Nos. 114 to 136 and on the east side of Westmount Avenue from Nos. 103 to 131. The poll was conducted in English, French, Italian and Portuguese as requested by the Ward Councillor (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 4 languages). The results of the poll are as follows.

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed3 in favour1	4
No response	67
Returned by post office	7
Total ballots issued	78

Mr. Quadrini was advised in writing that given the negative result of the poll, a licence could not be issued.

In their letter, Messrs. Quadrini and Macri suggest that due to the lack of interest by the residents, that they be granted their appeal for commercial boulevard parking (i.e. only 4 of 78 ballots were cast).

The City Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 100 m along both sides of Westmount Avenue from the proposed parking location, advising of Messrs. Quadrini and Macri's appeal.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Quadrini a licence for commercial boulevard parking fronting 142Westmount Avenue because the poll result was negative. I am satisfied that 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

________

Mr. Romeo Macri, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

142 Westmount Avenue

Construction of a Stone Wall, Gates and Screens -

110 Charles Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July13,1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the property owner's request to construct a 2.2 m and 1.6 m high stone wall with 2.2m and 1.6 m high gates and screens which will exceed the maximum height allowed of 1.0 m and will be set back 0.05 m instead of 0.46 m from the rear edge of the City sidewalk as requested in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the construction of the stone walls and gates within the City boulevard fronting 110 Charles Street West subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

Ms. Sara Tetlow of Taylor Hariri Pontarini Architects submitted an application on April 8, 1998 on behalf of the owner of 110 Charles Street West, Victoria University, 73 Queens Park Crescent West, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1K7, requesting permission to construct a 2.2 m and 1.6 m high stone wall with 2.2 m and 1.6 m high gates and screens within the City boulevard fronting 110 Charles Street.

The stone wall, gates and screens would be a maximum 2.2 m height rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed for in Chapter 313 and a portion of the wall would be set back 0.05 m rather than 0.46 m as required in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. In transmittals dated June 9 and 17, 1998, the applicant has asked for an exemption to this by-law as the height and design of the wall, gates and screens are complementary to the existing streetscape. In addition, this proposed construction is supported by Urban Design and Architecture.

Staff have also inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property. While there were no other similar walls, gates and screens in the area, it was determined that they would not negatively impact the City boulevard.

Details of the wall, gates and screens are shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A').

Conclusions:

As the stone wall, gates and screens will not negatively impact the City boulevard, these installations should be permitted.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Charles Street West

Maintenance of Fence - 833 Carlaw Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (July6,1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request to maintain a lattice wood fence ranging in height from 1.04m to 1.27 m which exceeds the maximum height permitted under Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for a variance from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council approve the maintenance of the lattice wood fence ranging in height from 1.04 m to 1.27 m within the City street allowance fronting 833 Carlaw Avenue, subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

Mr. John J. Bucknam, owner of 833 Carlaw Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 3L2, submitted an application requesting permission to maintain a lattice wood fence ranging in height from 1.04 m to 1.27 m within the City street allowance fronting 833 Carlaw Avenue.

Inspection has confirmed that there are other similar fences in the immediate vicinity and that this fence would be consistent with the streetscape.

Conclusions:

As this fence is consistent with other installations in the area, the fence should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Modifications of Fence - Palmerston Avenue Flank of

1 Palmerston Gardens (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is recommended that Recommendation No. (2) embodied in the report (July 8, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Services, be adopted, viz:

'(2)that the property owners of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens be required to modify the fence so that it does not exceed 1.0 m in height.' ")

The Toronto Community Council submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the owners of 1 Palmerston Gardens to submit a communication to Council stating that they are willing to engage in a conflict resolution mediation process.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 8, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a fence which was approved and constructed in compliance with � 313-33 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and subsequently objected to by four of the six homeowners located within the same block as the fence. As these residents are requesting that the fence be modified, this matter is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Should removal or modification of the fence be required, the fence owner may make a claim against the City for the cost of the fence and its removal or its modification. Costs of such claim are unknown at this time.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that:

(1)the 1.8 m high fence on the Palmerston Avenue flank of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens be permitted to remain;

(2)that the property owners of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens be required to modify the fence so that it does not exceed 1.0 m in height;

(3)that the property owners of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens be required to remove the fence from the City boulevard.

Background:

The City Services Committee of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of October 9, 1996, received my report dated September 3, 1996 and requested the deputants to convene a meeting between themselves to try and resolve a dispute over a fence on the City street allowance. The fence was constructed with the City's permission according to the by-law. The parties have been unable to come to any resolution and so I am reporting again.

Comments:

Mr. David Pratt and Mrs. Natasha Pratt, owners of No. 1 Palmerston Gardens, Toronto, Ontario M6G1V8, submitted an application on June 27, 1994, requesting permission to construct a 1.8 m high wooden fence on the Palmerston Avenue flank. The application met the criteria set out in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and was approved on April 13, 1995. The fence was constructed in accordance with the by-law and the required fence agreement has been executed. Subsequently, four of the six property owners, located on the same block as the fence, objected to the fence.

Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code regulates the construction and maintenance of fences within street allowances. Section 313-33 permits a fence up to 1.9 m in height beyond the front wall of the building. The fence must comply with various criteria in the Code, and must be circulated to the Ward Councillor (there is no separate circulation to area residents). Where no objections are received, the application is approved and the owner is required to obtain a permit and enter into a fence agreement.

The four property owners object to the fence, as built, because it:

(a)obstructs the view of the street and park across the street;

(b)limits their view of their children beyond the limit of the fence;

(c)creates a safety hazard for pedestrians by obscuring the view of people on bikes or roller blades;

(d)provides an enclosure for people who may be loitering in the area; and

(e)is not consistent with the front yards of the houses on Palmerston Avenue.

In a letter dated May 6, 1997, one of the adjacent property owners advised that there had been no further progress on this matter since the former City Services Committee's request and asked that the City take further action to address their opposition to the fence. In response, City staff tried to coordinate a meeting with two of the property owners, the applicant and a conflict resolution mediator from the St. Stephen's Community House. The fence owner, however, declined participation.

Two additional letters dated May 22, 1998 and June 4, 1998, have been received from one of the abutting property owners noting that No. 1 Palmerston Gardens is now occupied by tenants using the area enclosed by the fence for storage and again requesting that the City take further action to address their opposition to the fence. In response, this report is being submitted for your Committee's consideration.

Conclusions:

As attempts to have the four concerned property owners and the fence owners work out a resolution to this problem have been unsuccessful, it would be helpful for Council to reaffirm the original approval of the fence and permit it to remain as constructed or, in consideration of the residents concerns, require the fence owner to modify or remove the fence.

If Council decides to reopen this matter and decides to require the fence to be removed or modified, there is a concern that a precedent would be set as we deal with approximately 110 fence applications annually and currently have over 1200 agreements for fences on file.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

________

-(July 18, 1998) from Mr. Gary Lichtblau, Chair and Mr. Graham Sanders, Secretary

-(June 4, 1998) from Mr. Michael Donnelly

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Michael Donnelly, Toronto, Ontario

-Ms. Natasha Pratt, Toronto, Ontario

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (July 27, 1998) from David and Natasha Pratt, responding to a request from the Toronto Community Council for information on their position pertaining to the maintenance of the fence at 1 Palmerston Gardens.)

City-Owned Tree Relocation/Removal -

30 Ossington Street (Trinity-Niagara)

City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for tree removal at 30 Ossington Street be denied.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 30, 1998) from the Director of Development & Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. and Mrs. Macedo, 2 Kimber Crescent, Toronto, Ontario, L4L 9A7, for City Council to consider relocation or removal of a City owned honey locust tree located at the above noted address. Mr. and Mrs. Macedo reports that the tree is in direct conflict with a proposed new driveway entrance.

Recommendation:.

That this request for tree removal be denied.

Comments:

The tree in question is a 13 cm diameter honey locust which is in fair condition and is valued at $121.79. Due to the size and condition of this tree, it cannot be successfully relocated to another location. This tree does not qualify for removal at this time.

The costs to remove the tree are $186.20 and the costs to plant a replacement tree in a sidewalk tree pit at another location are $1,222.87, for a total of $1,530.86. However, there are also additional costs of approximately $250.00 for City Works Services to permanently cap the existing pit and approximately $200.00 to break open a new tree pit for a new tree to be planted at another location in the City. These costs can vary, depending on the type of pavement involved.

Since it would be necessary to permanently eliminate the planting site in order to avoid any conflict with the proposed driveway entrance, and such a tree removal would set an undesirable precedent for tree removals in Toronto, Forestry is opposed to removal of this tree.

Tree Removal - 300 Gainsborough Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 300 Gainsborough Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property growing very close to a neighbouring garage and impeding the growth of all other vegetation in the yard has been filed by Mr. Peter Bradley, owner of 300 Gainsborough Road, Toronto, Ontario, M4L 3C6. This is the second application Mr. Bradley has filed with respect to this tree. Toronto City Council, at its meeting held on September 22 and 23, 1997, refused to issue a permit for the removal of the tree in question.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

1) Issue a permit for tree removal.

2) Refuse to issue a permit for tree removal.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-five centimetre diameter Norway maple in fair condition. The main stem of the tree is abutting a garage located on a neighbouring property and as the tree matures it has the potential to cause damage to this structure. The Norway maple species is quite common in the City and this particular tree is in close proximity to the designated Williamson Park Ravine. This species is non-native and produces an abundant seed source that is invasive and detrimental to a natural ravine setting. The tree in question appears to have grown from seed due to its location on the 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

________

Mr. Peter Bradley, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Tree Removal - 53 Hillholm Road (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 53 Hillholm Road, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree on the property to the satisfaction of the Director of Development and Support, such replacement tree to be a native species.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for the construction of a rear addition to the existing house has been filed by Brown, Dryer, Karol, Barristers & Solicitors, 5075 Yonge Street, Suite 900, North York, Ontario, M2N 6C6, agent for the owner of 53 Hillholm Road.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

(1)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.

(2)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree requiring the applicant to redesign the proposed new addition.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-three centimetre diameter linden in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Al Miley & Associates that accompanies this application states that the linden tree is in fair condition with no obvious structural or biological problems. The report states that the proximity of the tree to the existing structure has necessitated the removal of branches on the house side to above the roof line, but that further pruning is still required to provide clearance from the roof of the house. The base of the tree is located 1.75 metres from the rear of the southeast corner of the house. The tree is close enough to the existing house that any addition constructed at the southeast rear portion will require the removal of the tree.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

________

Mr. Adam Brown, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Tree Removal - 88 Lonsdale Road (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 88 Lonsdale Road, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant, at his expense, two red oaks replacement trees on the private property or the municipal property fronting 88 Lonsdale Road.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for the construction of a new house has been filed by Mr. Davide Carnevale, The Tree Specialists Inc., 1081 Manchester Crescent, Oakville, Ontario, L6M 1G2, agent for the owner of 88 Lonsdale Road.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

1)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a red oak replacement tree on the property.

2)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign the plans for the proposed new house.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty-eight centimetre diameter linden in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by The Tree Specialists Inc., that accompanies this application states that the linden tree is growing within the building envelope for the proposed new house and therefore not possible to preserve during construction. The applicant has indicated that he would be willing to plant two honey locust trees as replacement if approval is granted for the removal of the linden tree. In recent years this neighbourhood has seen the removal of several mature trees as a result of old age and the competition from development. It would be beneficial to the neighbourhood if a large growing shade tree such as a red oak were planted, instead of a honey locust, as a replacement if a permit is issued for the removal of the linden.

A notice of application sign has been 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. The last day to receive written objections will be July 14, 1998, and if any written objections are received they will be forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review at their July 22, 1998, meeting.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone:(416) 392-1894

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

________

-Four letters of objection addressed to the Parks and Recreation Department

-(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Marlene Miller

Mr. Dwight Chizen, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Request to Remove One Tree and Injure Two Trees -

2543, 2545, 2549 Dundas Street West and

22R Jerome Street (Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for the removal of one tree and the injury of two trees located at 2543, 2545, 2549 Dundas Street West and 22R Jerome Street, on condition that:

(1)the trees in question not be removed or injured until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 198009 commence which warrant the injury or destruction of the trees;

(2)the trees to be retained be protected in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan prepared by W.R. Holman, date stamped as received on June 16, 1998 by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism and the Arborist Report prepared by Al Miley, Certified Arborist date stamped as received on June 16, 1998 by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism; and

(3)the applicant plant a minimum of eight (8) large growing shade trees, in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by W.R. Holman, date stamped as received on June16, 1998 by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 7, 1998) from the Director of Development and Support, Toronto Parks and Recreation, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been filed under the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, for a permit to remove one tree and injure two other trees situated on the above noted private properties in order to facilitate the construction of twelve (12) residential townhouse units on the properties.

Recommendations:

That if Toronto Community Council approves the request for the removal of one tree and the injury of two trees indicated in this report, that such approval be conditional on:

1.the trees in question not being removed or injured until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 198009 commence which warrant the injury or destruction of the trees;

2.the trees to be retained being protected in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan prepared by W.R. Holman, date stamped as received on June 16, 1998 by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism and the Arborist Report prepared by Al Miley, Certified Arborist date stamped as received on June 16, 1998 by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism;

3.the applicant planting a minimum of eight (8) large growing shade trees, in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by W.R. Holman, date stamped as received on June 16, 1998 by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Comments:

I have received a request from Mr. Howard Waxberg of Waddington Development Corporation, 41 Hillhurst Boulevard, Toronto, Ontario, M5N 1N5, the owner of the subject development property, that the City consider the removal of one tree and the injury of two other trees situated on the above noted private properties. The request forms part of Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 198009 for the purpose of facilitating the construction of twelve (12) residential townhouse units on the above noted properties.

As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was posted on the property for the minimum 14 day posting period. At the time of writing this report, five (5) letters were received in response to the notice of application to remove and injure the trees in question.

The three trees in question are as follows:

1.120 cm diameter Weeping Willow in fair condition: Request to Remove

This tree is very large and over-mature given the species. This tree has not been maintained in many years and recently had a large limb break off the main stem. This tree requires maintenance by a professional tree care company in order to ensure that it is safe. Retaining this tree in close proximity to residential buildings and properties will require that the tree be significantly pollarded and repeatedly pruned.

2.61 cm diameter American Elm in fair condition: Request to Injure

3.52 cm diameter Siberian Elm in fair condition: Request to Injure

Both of these trees are proposed to be injured given that the root systems of the trees will be impacted by construction related activities. The impact on the health of each tree can be minimized provided that the trees are protected in accordance with the Tree Protection Plan prepared by W.R. Holman, date stamped as received on June 16, 1998 by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism and the Arborist Report prepared by Al Miley, Certified Arborist date stamped as received on June 16, 1998 by Economic Development, Culture & Tourism, Forestry Services and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

All three trees require a permit and the consent of City Council to remove or injure.

The proposed development in its present form precludes the retention of the one tree proposed for removal and the protection of the two trees proposed to be injured in accordance with City of Toronto Forestry Services Specifications for Construction Near Trees, due to the size and scale of the development.

The landscape plan which was filed with the permit application to injure and destroy the trees on private property indicates the planting of eight (8) large growing shade trees throughout the development site.

Should the Community Council recommend that the request to remove the trees in question be approved, such approval should meet the conditions outlined above in my recommendation.

Contact Name:

Gary R. Le Blanc

Telephone:(416) 392-0494

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

________

-(July 16, 1998) from Renee Moreau Burns

-(July 16, 1998) from Mr. Adam J. Brown

(A copy of the letters of objection, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Boulevard Marketing - 405 Bloor Street East -

StreetSmarts (Downtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for boulevard marketing privileges fronting 405 Bloor Street East.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (July 6, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's application for boulevard marketing fronting 405 Bloor Street East. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for boulevard marketing privileges fronting 405 Bloor Street East and such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-47 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(2)City Council deny the application for boulevard marketing privileges fronting 405 Bloor Street East.

Background:

Councillor Kyle Rae, in his communication dated June 24, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested a report on the application for boulevard marketing fronting 405 Bloor Street East, because of constituency concerns.

Comments:

Mr. Snehal Patel, StreetSmarts Toronto Inc., 405 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario M4W 1N7, submitted an application on May 7, 1998, requesting a licence for boulevard marketing fronting 405 Bloor Street East.

I have reviewed this application and I have determined that the application meets the physical criteria set out in � 313-47 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. Accordingly, we can issue a boulevard marketing licence to Mr. Patel.

The proposed marketing area is to occupy approximately 4.3 sq. m. of City sidewalk fronting 405Bloor Street East, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

While processing the application, we received two letters of objection dated May 11 and May 21, 1998 from Mr. David Sleeth and Mrs. Faye Sleeth, respectively (Appendices 'C' and 'D'), on behalf of the owners and Board of Directors of MTCC 1021, 409 Bloor Street East, a residential condominium complex which comprises 405 Bloor Street East in opposition to the issuance of a marketing licence at 405 Bloor Street East. The letter dated May 21, 1998 from Mrs. Sleeth also included a petition containing 12 signatures of residents of MTCC 1021 objecting to the granting of a boulevard marketing licence. I attach a sample of the petition received (Appendix 'E').

Because of constituency concerns, Councillor Kyle Rae has requested a report on the application for boulevard marketing at 405 Bloor Street East.

To assist the Committee with the evaluation of the concerns raised by the condominium residents, they are summarized below along with the staff response.

Concern #1The proposed marketing area would interfere with the flow of foot traffic going in and out of the building at 409 Bloor Street West

Staff Response:Section 313-37 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code requires 2 metres of passable space to be maintained, or as may be determined by the Commissioner. The proposed marketing area has 3.66 metres of passable space.

Concern # 2Repeatedly display merchandise on the sidewalk in cardboard boxes illegally

Staff Response:Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code requires that marketing displays be constructed of wood with epoxy resin paint, stainless steel, galvanized metal, plastic, fibreglass, aluminum or steel with baked enamel finish and designed to maintain the merchandise a minimum of 0.61 m above grade, and to ensure that the area under the merchandise is left clear.

Should permission be granted for marketing at this location, the applicant would be required to display the merchandise in proper display stands.

Concern # 3They have never been issued a licence yet they have broken the law

Staff Response:Periodic inspections and more recently on June 18, June 20, and the evening of June 23 and 25, 1998, have shown the sidewalk to be free and clear of any merchandise or debris.

Concern #4To improve the appearance of our street

Staff Response:No comments.

Concern #5To maintain and protect the value of our residential units

Staff Response:No comments.

Conclusions:

The application meets the physical requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council approve the boulevard marketing at 405 Bloor Street East.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Ken Page, Solicitor on behalf of the applicant

-Mr. David Sleeth, Treasurer, MTCC1021

-Ms. Maria Metherell, Secretary, MTCC1021

(A copy of Appendices A, C, D and E, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

405 Streetsmarts

Appeal of Denial of Boulevard Cafe Application -

581-583 Markham Street and Lennox Street flankage

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street, extending on the southerly/east-west property line only, notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, and that such approval be for the 1998 cafe season and subject to:

(a)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(b)the patio being closed at 10:00 p.m;

(2)City Council defer consideration of the application with respect to the Lennox Street flankage until February, 1999; and

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report to the Toronto Community Council, in February 1999, on any problems which might arise with the respect to the boulevard cafe on the Markham Street flankage.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (July 6, 1998) from the Acting Assistant 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 581-583 Markham Street and on the Lennox Street flankage, because written objections were received in response to the public notification. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

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 581-583 Markham Street and on the Lennox Street flankage, 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, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street and on the Lennox Street flankage.

Background:

Mr. John Weingust, solicitor for Mr. Paul Kellogg, in his letter of June 5, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his client's application for a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street and on the Lennox Street flankage.

Comments:

Mr. Joe Soloman, on behalf Mr. Paul Kellogg, President of 1276904 Ontario Ltd. o/a The Victory Cafe, 581-583 Markham Street, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1K3, submitted an application on February16, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street and on the Lennox Street flankage.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 127.5 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix'B'). It can accommodate 29 tables with a potential seating capacity of 116 people.

This application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes as set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

In addition to the physical criteria, applications for boulevard cafes also require public input to determine neighbourhood support for the proposal. Details of the notification for public input are listed below:

Fronting 581-583 Markham Street

Where a proposed boulevard cafe is on a commercial frontage (i.e. not on a residential flankage), the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto requires that a public 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 the portion of the cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street is on a commercial frontage, a 14 day notice was posted on May 8, 1998, with an expiry date of May 21, 1998. Prior to the expiry date, we received 2 letters of objection to the cafe proposal (Appendices 'C' &' D').

Lennox Street flankage of 581-583 Markham Street

In cases where a proposed boulevard cafe flanks a residential district, the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m 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.

For the Committee's information, the properties on the north side of Lennox Street between Markham Street and Bathurst Street are commercially zoned, with a public parking lot immediately to the east of 581-583 Markham Street (34 Lennox Street). The south side of Lennox Street is residentially zoned and within 120 m of the proposed cafe is 567 Markham Street. On Appendix 'E', I have indicated the residential property in relation to the proposed cafe.

There is only one property that is affected, namely 567 Markham Street. Given that there is only one person on the assessment roll, the ballot, regardless of whether it was cast or not, would have resulted in a null poll. Under the circumstances, I have requested the City Clerk to notify the owner of 567 Markham Street including the objectors, advising them of Mr. Kellogg's proposal.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Kellogg a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 581-583 Markham Street 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.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

-(July 21, 1998) from William Bostjancic;

-(July 20, 1998) from Ian D. Scott;

-(July 20, 1998) from M. Yam;

-(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Mary Seto; and

-(July 21, 1998) from D'Arcy Robert, Palmerston Area Residents' Association.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Joseph Solomon, on behalf of the Applicant;

-Mr. Moe Yam, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Paul Kellogg, Toronto, Ontario.

(A copy of Appendices A, C and D, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on July 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendices B and E - Markham Street/Lennox street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendices B and E - Markham Street/Lennox street

Whitlock's Restaurant - "Extension of Hours of Operations" -

Boulevard Cafe on the Kenilworth flankage of

1961 Queen Street East (Toronto East)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the extended 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, to continue until the end of the 1998 cafe season;

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to report back after the end of the cafe season on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours; and

(3)a general 11:00 p.m. patio closure and clearance policy be applied to those cafes with no time restrictions, on Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue, except on special event days.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the extension of operating hours for the boulevard cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage of 1961 Queen Street East as requested by City Council at its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)(a)City Council approve the extended 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, to continue until the end of the 1998 cafe season; and

(b)Should City Council approve the extended hours to continue until the end of the 1998 cafe season, I be requested to report back after the end of the cafe season on the operation of the cafe under the extended hours;

(2)City Council deny the request for an extension of the boulevard cafe hours on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage of 1961 Queen Street East.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting on May 13 and 14, 1998, granted an 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, subject to the following terms and conditions:

(1)(a)the patio not open until 11:00 a.m.;

(b)the dumping of bottles in outdoor containers after 10:00 p.m. be prohibited;

(c)the patio be closed at 11:00 p.m. on all festival days;

(d)any two violations will result in the revocation of the patio license;

(e)if the ownership changes, no transfer of the licence will occur without a full hearing on a new application; and

(f)an agreement incorporating these conditions be signed by the applicant before the extension is granted.

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be instructed to ensure that the conditions outlined in Recommendation No. (1) are being met; and

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to review the extension and report to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting to be held on July 22, 1998.

In addition, the Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on:

(1)policies and by-laws necessary to implement a general 11:00 p.m. patio closure and clearance policy on Queen Street East from Coxwell Avenue to Victoria Park Avenue;

(2)methods of pick-up of bottles and garbage, and possible solutions to the noise problems.

Comments:

A temporary cafe licence to extend the hours of operation to 11:00 p.m 7 days a week on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage of 1961 Queen Street East was issued to Mr. Dimitri Panayiotou on May 28, 1998. In addition, an agreement incorporating the conditions set out by City Council at its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998 was executed on May 28, 1998.

Since May 28, 1998, three complaints have been received from area residents pertaining to the cafe and business operation. Details of the complaints are listed below.

Complaint # 1Received on May 28, 1998 from an area resident indicated that the number of people sitting in the cafe area exceeded the allowable number and there was excessive noise emanating from within the main establishment.

Mr. Panayiotou's outdoor patio licence from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission permits him to serve alcohol to a maximum of 35 people. Since the matter of exceeding the allowable number of people within the cafe area falls under the jurisdiction of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission, the complainant was referred to the Commission to file the complaint.

For the purpose of this report, we contacted the Alcohol and Gaming Commission and it was confirmed that there are no active files for this location.

With respect to the noise, Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires the owner or occupant of cafes, situated on residential flankages, to ensure that there is no outdoor music or amplified sound on the cafe. In addition, the cafe operator is to ensure doors and windows of the establishment not be left open or propped open while there is music or amplified sound in the interior. According to the complainant, the cafe operator was in the practice of leaving the service door open which allowed music from the interior to emanate onto the street. In this regard, staff discussed the problem with a representative of Whitlock's Restaurant and the problem has been resolved.

Complaint # 2Received on May 29, 1998, regarding the dumping of paint into the street.

Inspections by staff on June 1, 1998 failed to find deposits of paint on either the frontage or flankage abutting the location.

Complaint # 3Received on June 23, 1998, in connection with the hosing down of waste from the rear of the restaurant in the early hours of the morning around 8:00a.m., which is being allowed to escape into the sewer system. In addition, vehicles are not parked according to the licence and overhang the sidewalk.

Inspections by staff on June 26, 1998 found the City street allowance in the vicinity of Whitlock's Restaurant to be clean and clear. According to staff of Whitlock's Restaurant, they wash down the cafe area and the City sidewalk with water on a regular basis. Under the provisions of the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto, the owner or occupant of a boulevard cafe is responsible to maintain the area used for cafe purposes in a clean and tidy condition.

A commercial boulevard parking licence has been issued to the owner for the parking of 2 motor vehicles to be parked parallel to the roadway, south of the existing cafe. The licence was issued in October 1995. Inspections showed that parking was occurring in conformity with the boulevard parking licence.

The operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Inspections confirmed that the proprietor complied with the restrictions and the criteria set out in Section 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

History of Closing Time Restrictions for Boulevard Cafes on Residential Flankages

City Council of the former City of Toronto, at its meeting of September 16, 1996, amended Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to allow cafes located on residential flankages to stay open beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction if so authorized by City Council. Previous to this, cafes on residential flankages were required to be closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. This requirement was adopted by City Council of the former City of Toronto on December 14, 1987. Prior to this, there was no standard boulevard cafe closing time established.

With respect to cafes situated on commercial frontages, there is no closing time restriction.

On Appendix 'A', I have listed all boulevard cafes presently licensed or pending approval on Queen Street East, between Coxwell Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue, setting out the closing times.

Four locations, namely; 2022, 2120, 2160 and 2318 Queen Street East, all with cafes fronting the subject properties, have no closing time restriction and the remaining locations flanking residential streets have a closing time restriction of 11:00 p.m. or earlier.

Garbage and Recyclable Collection on Queen Street East

Garbage generated from the various restaurants along Queen Street East, between Coxwell Avenue and Neville Park Boulevard, is collected 5 or 6 nights a week, and recyclable materials are collected Monday and Thursday nights. Garbage and recyclable materials should be placed out on the sidewalk fronting the restaurant establishment between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. The collection of recyclable materials normally commences at 11:30 p.m. and is completed by 12:30 a.m. I estimate that there are approximately 84 restaurants where garbage collection service is provided within this portion of Queen Street East.

In order to minimize the impact on traffic along major thoroughfares such as Queen Street East, the late evening/early morning collection service is more desirable. The late evening/early morning collection of garbage and recyclable material is also consistent with the closing down of the restaurant operations.

While I can appreciate that noise is undesirable, it is sometimes unavoidable. As your Committee can appreciate, there is need to maintain the appearance of the street and maintain traffic movement. Given the large volumes of garbage generated by the commercial establishments, it would not be practical to have day time garbage or recyclable collection.

Conclusions:

Given the nature of the resident's complaints and that for the most part, inspection has not been able to determine any infractions, it may be appropriate to allow the extended hours of operation for the boulevard cafe on the Kenilworth Avenue flankage of 1961 Queen Street East to continue to the end of the 1998 cafe season under the present terms and conditions and that I be requested to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the extended hours.

As indicated, boulevard cafes on residential flankages are required to be closed and cleared by 11:00p.m., or, where Council has authorized extended hours of operation, the closing time as authorized by Council.

In my opinion, Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, includes acceptable guidelines for the operation of boulevard cafes in order to minimize potential impact on neighbouring residential properties and has provisions in all cases for the Toronto Community Council and/or City Council to adjust and/or expand the requirements pertaining to cafe operations, where in the view of the Toronto Community Council and/or City Council, the standard requirements in the Municipal Code do not address the specific needs or concerns of the neighbourhood.

Should the Toronto Community Council wish to proceed to implement a general 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction for all cafes on Queen Street East, between Coxwell Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue, where licensed boulevard cafe locations will be affected, the licence holders will be required to be notified of the proposed change in their operating hours and be given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix A - Boulevard Cafe - Queen Street East

Application for Boulevard Cafe - Nairn Avenue flankage of

1340 St. Clair Avenue West - Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc. (Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that this matter be deferred to its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 and that the temporary permit for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West be extended to September 16, 1998 under the same terms and conditions approved by City Council at its meeting held on May13 and 14, 1998 (ie. the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., Sunday to Thursday, and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, on any complaints respecting this boulevard cafe.

The Toronto Community Council submits the report (July 9, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's request to reinstate the boulevard cafe licence on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

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 Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West, notwithstanding the former City of Toronto Council's decision to cancel the business owner's licence to operate a boulevard cafe, and that such approval be subject to:

(a)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(b)the applicant ensuring that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 12:00 midnight, 7 days a week;

(c)the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(d)the applicant ensuring that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., 7days a week;

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, in considering a communication (February 24, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to conduct a poll with respect to an application for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West (as shown on Appendix 'A') and to report back on the results of the poll to its meeting of June 24, 1998.

City Council, at its meeting of May 13 and 14, 1998, in considering a communication (May 7, 1998) from Councillor Disero, approved the issuance of a temporary permit for the cafe until such time as the poll results can be considered in July by City Council, subject to the patio being closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m., Sunday to Thursday, and 12:00 midnight, Friday and Saturday.

Comments:

As directed by the Toronto Community Council, a poll was conducted, dated June 5, 1998 to July6, 1998, on Nairn Avenue, between house Nos. 6 to 50 and 7 to 51, including 1340 and 1312 St. Clair Avenue West to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English, French, Portuguese and Italian. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed18 in favour 8	26
No response	113
Returned by post office	25
Total ballots issued	164

A copy of the ballot sent to the owners and residents of Nairn Avenue within 120 m of the proposed cafe is attached in Appendix 'B' of this report.

In addition, as directed by City Council, a temporary cafe licence (expiry date July 31, 1998) for the cafe on Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West was issued to Mr. Pastore, Boyz & Galz Cafe Inc., on May 27, 1998. The cafe has operated since May 27, 1998 and we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or the Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

In addition, site inspections have confirmed that the operator complied with the closing hours.

The location meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Conclusions:

A licence for a boulevard cafe was originally issued to Mr. Pastore on July 15, 1994, with the closing hours of 11:00 p.m. Because of a history of complaints associated with the business operation during the 1994, 1995 and 1996 cafe seasons pertaining to:

(a)the cafe operating beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction;

(b)noise emanating from the cafe area;

(c)alcohol-related problems, i.e. "rowdiness" of cafe patrons;

(d) garbage and fowling; and

(e)vehicles obstructing the sidewalk on the Nairn Avenue flankage;

the former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting of July 14, 1997, approved the cancellation of the boulevard cafe licence, effective September 10, 1997.

A poll conducted in May of 1997 and the most recent poll, June 1998, indicate that the neighbourhood is strongly opposed to the boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Although the proposed cafe meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (i.e. setbacks, physical design, location), this criteria alone cannot address all public concerns which relate to noise, garbage, pedestrian and car traffic.

On hearing the matter, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant permission for a boulevard cafe on the Nairn Avenue flankage of 1340 St. Clair Avenue West.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

(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 July 22, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1340 St. Clair Avenue West

Shoxs Billiard Lounge - Operation of Boulevard Cafe at

2827 Dundas Street West (Davenport)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the temporary licence for the boulevard cafe fronting 2827 Dundas Street West be revoked.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (June 10, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the operation of the boulevard cafe at 2827 Dundas Street West as requested by City Council at its meeting of April 16, 1998.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the temporary licence for the boulevard cafe fronting 2827 Dundas Street West be extended to the end of the 1998 cafe season under the present terms and conditions and I be requested to report back after the end of the 1998 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

City Council, at it's meeting of April 16, 1998, granted permission for the applicant 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.

Comments:

A temporary cafe licence (expiry date June 31, 1998) for the cafe at 2827 Dundas Street West was issued to Mr. Konstantinos (Gus) Koutoumanos on May 25, 1998. Although Mr. Koutoumanos has erected his cafe fence, he has not operated the cafe due to cool weather conditions.

Conclusions:

Given that the cafe has not operated to-date and the temporary licence will expire on June 30, 1998, it may be appropriate to issue a temporary cafe licence until the end of the 1998 cafe season and I be requested to monitor the cafe operation during the 1998 cafe season and report back to the Toronto Community Council at the end of the 1998 summer cafe season on the operation of the cafe for consideration as a deputation item. All conditions of previous approval will continue to be applied.

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 (July 20, 1998) from Ms. Joan Miles and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Mr. Gus Koutoumanos, Shox Billiard Lounge, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Appeal of Denial of Boulevard Cafe Application -

De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street on a temporary basis for the 1998 cafe season, notwithstanding the negative result of the public polls, 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 and the patio being closed at 10:00 p.m.; and

(2)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services review this matter at the end of the 1998 cafe season.

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 business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street 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 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;

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of January 21, 1998, in considering a communication (December 19, 1997) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, acting on behalf of Mr. Craig Findlay, CEO, Koo Koo Roo Canada Partners Ltd., asked me to report on his appeal, as a deputation item.

Comments:

Mr. Paul Sipos, 120 Adelaide Street West, Unit # 2150, on behalf of 1170060 Ontario Ltd/Koo Koo Roo Canada Partners Ltd., o/a Koo Koo Roo California Kitchen, submitted an application on June17, 1997 requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 54.7 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix'A'). It can accommodate 12 tables with a potential seating capacity of 49 people.

The application met 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 m of a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 m 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 July 25 to August 25, 1997 was conducted on De Lisle Avenue between Nos. 10 and 40 to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French as requested by the former Councillor (i.e. every person polled received the ballot form in 2 languages). The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed15 in favour12	27
No response	60
Returned by post office	31
Total ballots issued	118

Mr. Findlay was advised in writing that given the negative poll, a licence could not be issued.

In his letter, Mr. O'Donohue suggests that the neighbours may be more receptive to an outdoor cafe, following the 6 months operational experience of Koo Koo Roo at this location.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Findlay a licence for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street because the poll result was negative.

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 also submits the following report (July 17, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of the public poll conducted in connection with the business operator's request for a cafe licence on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street. The poll was requested by Toronto Community Council.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of May 6, 1998, in considering a report (March10, 1998) from the former Director of By-law Administration and Enforcement entitled "Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - De Lisle Avenue Flankage of 1510 Yonge Street", deferred consideration of the matter and directed the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, notwithstanding the By-law of the former City of Toronto, to conduct a further poll on this application, subject to the owner paying the costs incurred in conducting the poll.

Comments:

A poll dated June 5, 1998 to July 6, 1998 was conducted on De Lisle Avenue, between Nos. 10 and40, including 1510 and 1560 Yonge Street, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed17 in favour15	32
No response	103
Returned by post office	25
Total ballots issued	160

Conclusions:

Both the previous poll, conducted on July 25, 1997, and the most recent poll, indicate that the neighbourhood is opposed to the boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street.

Given the results of both polls, I am recommending that the application for a boulevard cafe on the De Lisle Avenue flankage of 1510 Yonge Street be denied.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 27, 1998) from the Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To provide staff's recommendation on conducting a second poll at this location within the two year period during which re-polling for the same purpose is not permitted under Municipal Code Chapter90.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost to conduct a poll at this location is approximately $300, including printing, mailing and staff time.

Recommendation:

That no further poll be conducted for this cafe application until two years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll, as required under Municipal Code Chapter 90.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of April 1, 1998, in considering my report (March10, 1998) entitled "Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - De Lisle Avenue Flankage of 1510 Yonge Street", requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to submit recommendations on conducting a further poll for this location at its meeting of May 6 and7, 1998.

Comments:

I have reviewed the details of the poll at this location. I have also compared the participation in the poll for 1510 Yonge Street with the average participation rate for all boulevard cafe polls which have been conducted since my Division assumed responsibility for polling for cafes in October 1996.

The poll results, as summarized in my March 10, 1998 report to the Toronto Community Council are:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed15 in favour12	27
No response	60
Returned by post office	31
Total ballots issued	118

The poll results for the 1510 Yonge Street poll, in comparison with all other boulevard cafe polls which have been completed since October 1, 1996 are shown below:

PERCENTAGE OF:	1510 YONGE POLL (1 poll/118 ballots issued)	ALL CAFE POLLS (61 polls/11,324 ballots issued)
Eligible voters who cast a ballot	22%	11%
Voters who did not respond	50%	62%
Ballots returned by post office	26%	26%
TOTAL:	98%	99%

Note: totals do not add to 100% due to rounding

The data show that the response rate for the 1510 Yonge poll was twice as high as the average response rate for all cafe polls. The number of ballots returned by the post office as undeliverable mail was the same as the average for all polls.

The poll was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 90 in both official languages. There were no unusual circumstances, complaints from eligible voters, or inquiries which might indicate any problems with the polling process.

Conclusions:

The poll at 1510 Yonge Street had a higher than average response rate, when compared with other cafe polls. There were no unusual circumstances surrounding the poll. This being the case, there is nothing to indicate that a second poll is required to correct any problems with the initial poll.

Therefore I am recommending that a second poll not be conducted until the statutory 2-year time limit on re-polling has passed, which is August 26, 1999.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lesley Watson, 392-1525

________

-(July 9, 1998) from Mr. Tony O'Donohue, Environmental Probe Ltd.;

-(May 13, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, forwarding the Community Council's action of May 6, 1998;

-(March 27, 1998) from Miss Rosemary Dymond;

-(April 27, 1998) from Mr. Brian J. Kearney, Chairperson, The Deer Park Cresc./Delisle Ave. Residents' Traffic Group;

-(July 14, 1998) seven identical signed letters in support; and

-(Undated) petition signed by 400 residents of the Yonge and Delisle area in support.

The following persons appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter:

-Mr. Steven Meeker, Operator, Koo Koo Roo Cafe;

-Mr. Neville Kirshmann, Chairman, Koo Koo Roo Cafe; and

-Mr. Craig Findlay, President, Koo Koo Roo Cafe.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1510 Yonge Street

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

1 Balmoral Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998052 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit up to 29 illuminated awning signs on condition that:

(i)the signs consist only of individual letters and logo; and

(ii)the height of the copy (letters) not exceed 0.6 metres; and

(iii)the awning and signage are situated on Yonge Street and the immediate corners at Farnham Avenue and Balmoral Avenue; and

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998052, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that it has deferred recommending approval for the signage along the balance of Farnham Avenue and Balmoral Avenue to permit further consultation with the Ward Councillors and the community

(July 9, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit up to 29 illuminated awning signs at 1 Balmoral Avenue.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(i)the signs consist only of individual letters and logo; and

(ii)the height of the copy (letters) not exceed 0.6 metres.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998052, 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 Balmoral Avenue, Yonge Street and Farnham Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a nine storey mixed-use building with residential uses on the upper storeys and commercial uses at grade. The applicant is requesting permission to install 22 illuminated awning signs on the Yonge Street elevation, 5 illuminated awning signs on the Balmoral Avenue elevation and 2 illuminated awning signs on the Farnham Avenue elevation of the building. (see Figures 1-3). Two of the proposed signs each have a length of 6.5 metres and a height of 1.0 metre, with an area 6.7 m�, and the remaining 27 signs each have a length of 2.7 metres and a height of 1.0 metre, with an area of 2.7 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1)awning signs are not permitted in the Yonge/St. Clair district;

(2)(the awning signs will have a minimum vertical clearance of 2.4 metres instead of 2.5 metres;

(3)two of the proposed awning signs will be located within 20 metres from a lot in a residential district; and

(4)the awning signs will not be located on a wall that is part of the commercial unit.

The building is located in the Yonge-St. Clair area for which there are specific sign regulations. Only fascia signs consisting of individual letters not exceeding a vertical dimension of 0.5 metres are permitted. The purpose of this regulation is to produce signage which, in terms of its size and design, is appropriate for this secondary commercial node. The awning signs would be used as the primary identification of the retail uses. If the awnings did not contain signage, they would be permitted and would not be subject to the provisions of Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code. The awning signs are, in my opinion, in keeping with the character of the building and I therefore consider the variance to be acceptable in this instance.

The second variance relates to the height of the signs above grade. The height of signs above grade is regulated in order to ensure that pedestrian safety is maintained. In this instance, while the signs do not meet the minimum required 2.5 metre standard under the Municipal Code, they do meet the minimum required standards under the Ontario Building Code and their reduced clearance will not endanger or inconvenience pedestrians.

The third variance occurs because the Municipal Code requires signs to be set back at least 20 metres from a residentially zoned lot in order to reduce the impact of illumination on abutting residential properties. In this instance, however, the residentially zoned uses are located west of the site and the closest residential use from which the signs would be visible would be approximately 60 metres to the west on Farnham Avenue.

The fourth variance results from the location of the awning signs. The signs will be attached to the front wall of the building instead of on the wall of the commercial units. In this instance, the commercial units are recessed 0.8 metres from the main front wall of the building, and the placement of the signs on the front of the building will improve the visibility of the retail uses, which I consider acceptable.

I am recommending approval of this application with the conditions noted above. The applicant concurs with my recommendations.

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, also having had before it a communication from Ms. Vivienne Skoberne per Ms. Julia Di Lorenza, Diamante development Corporation, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1 Balmoral Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1 Balmoral Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1 Balmoral Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1 Balmoral Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 5

1 Balmoral Avenue

Dufferin Jog Elimination

- Planning and Setback Issues

(High Park)

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council receive the confidential report (July 2, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Dufferin Jog Elimination - Planning and Setback Issues (High Park), which was forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, on the property requirements and how they have been affected by the fact that some of the rail tracks across this corridor have been abandoned, and the grade required is diminished.

Requests for Endorsement of Events for

Liquor Licensing Purposes

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes:

(1)declare the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking place:

(a)Beaches 5th Annual Blues Fest '98, Ashbridges Bay Park, August 1 and 2, 1998, from 11:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m.;

(b)Second Annual Bloor West Village Ukrainian Community Festival, August 22, 1998;

(c)Feast of Our Lady of the Angels, Osler Playground, August 15 and 16, 1998;

(2)advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the following events and has no objection to their taking place:

(a)Pronto Foods Champions Restaurant, Grandstand, North Side, and patio area, from August 21 to September 7, 1998 at 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.;

(b)GlycoDesign Inc., Company Picnic at Hanlan's Point on Toronto Island, August6, 1998, from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.;

(c)Hard Rock Cafe Extension of Liquor Licence for Beer Garden on Dundas Square - September 6, 1998;

(d)Wedding Reception at Fort York, August 15, 1998;

(e)Wedding and Reception at Heritage Toronto's Spadina Museum, August 8, 1998;

(f)Law Foundation of Ontario Reception at Sir William Campbell House, July 31, 1998, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.;

(g)Art Gallery of Ontario Annual Staff Picnic, August 10, 1998, Olympic Island;

(h)Mariposa Cruise Line Picnic at Hanlan's Point, August 10, 1998;

(i)Fundraising Event at 512-514 Church Street, August 2, 1998;

(j)Argos Pre-Game Party, in front of gates 8 & 9 of the Skydome, September 12, September 19, October 3 and October 17, 1998; and

(k)Holy Name Church Sales Event, 71 Gough Avenue, August 7, 8 and 9, 1998 from 11:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m.;

(3)since the following events take place prior to the meeting of Council, endorse the actions of the Toronto Community Council in having advised the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it was aware of the following events and had no objection to their taking place:

(a)NDP Island Picnic, Ward Island's Club House, Sunday, July 26, 1998; and

(b)Save our Station Campaign Fundraising event in Kew Beach Park, July 25 and26, 1998;

(4)(a)declare the Toronto International Film Festival taking place from September 10 to 19, 1998, to be an event of municipal and international significance, and indicate that it supports an extension of serving hours to 4:00 a.m. for the Rosewater Supper Club, 19 Toronto Street, Bistro 990, 990 Bay Street and Grand Bay Roof Lounge, 4 Avenue Road for the duration of this event;

(b)approve the installation of a large tent on Metro Square in order to host the Toronto International Film Festival Closing Night Gala Party taking place on September 19, 1998, requiring the installation of the tent on Friday, September18, 1998.

________

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, having had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-(Undated) from Mr. Leroy St. Germaine;

-(July 2, 1998) from Mr. Julian Carver, GlycoDesign Inc.;

-(June 24, 1998) from Mr. Tim Eddis, Hard Rock Cafe, respecting Extension of Liquor License;

-(June 5, 1998) from Ms. Jill Caskey;

-(May 28, 1998) from Mr. Ian Goldby and Ms. Margaret Lynch;

-(June 23, 1998) from Mr. Fred Gloger;

-(June 24, 1998) from Ms. Mary Brown, Law Foundation of Ontario;

-(June 8, 1998) from Ms. Luisa Abhaypal, Art Gallery of Ontario;

-(July 3, 1998) from Ms. Virginia Ludy, Canadian National Exhibition,

-(July 9, 1998) from Ms. Mary Szkambara and Mr. Jurij Klufas, Bloor West Village Ukrainian Festival;

-(July 13, 1998) from Frank Dybczak, Mariposa Cruise Line;

-(July 7, 1998) from Diane Bosworth, Diamond Productions;

-(July 7, 1998) from Mike McCarthy, McDonald's at the Skydome;

-(July 14, 1998) from Councillors Pantalone and Silva;

-July 10, 1998) from Chris Layton, Save our Station Campaign;

-(July 13, 1998) from Ms. Barbara Hershenhorn, Toronto International Film Festival Group;

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Barbara Hershenhorn, Toronto International Film Festival Group; and

-(July 6, 1998) from Mr. Oliver McEnroe.

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)Proposed Zoning By-law - Automobile Service Station - Gas Bar (All Wards in the former City of Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)adjourned the Public Meeting held pursuant to Sections 34(12) and 34(15) of the Planning Act, to be reconvened on October 14, 1998;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit the previously requested report on design guidelines for gas bars at that time; and

(3)requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998, on ways of limiting retail use on gas station sites.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on July 22, 1998, and Ms. Victoria Masnyk addressed the Toronto Community Council.

(i)(July 14, 1998) from the City Solicitor submitting Proposed Zoning By-law - Automobile Service Station - Gas Bar (All Wards in the former City of Toronto);

(ii)(July 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services- Gas Bars and Automobile Service Stations - Proposed Amendments to the Zoning By-law and the Municipal Code of the former City of Toronto;

(iii)(July 20, 1998) from William H. Roberts; and

(iv)(July 20, 1998) from Ripley Area Residents.

(b)Appeal of Denial of Application of Extension of Commercial Boulevard Parking - Claremont Street Flankage of 890 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following, until its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998, in order to permit the Ward Councillors to convene a meeting in the neighbourhood to resolve this matter.

(i)(July 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Appeal of Denial of Application for an Extension of Commercial Boulevard Parking - Claremont Street Flankage of 890 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that:

(1)City Council approve the application for an extension of commercial boulevard parking on the Claremont Street flankage of 890 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 �313-42 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; OR

(2)City Council deny the application for an extension of commercial boulevard parking on the Claremont Street flankage of 890 Dundas Street West.

(ii)(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Stefanina Migliore;

(iii)(July 16, 1998) from Mr. Nick Migliore;

(iv)(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Antonietta Schettino;

(v)(July 16, 1998) from Mr. Pietro Migliore; and

(vi)(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Antonette Migliore

Mr. Vinko Pehar, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(c)Tree Removal - 2022 Davenport Road (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(June 15, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting Request for Tree Removal at 2022 Davenport Road (Davenport), and recommending that the City undertake to remove the tree, with minimal or no charge to her constituent.

(d)Front Yard Parking Appeal - 315 Forman Avenue (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998;

(2)requested the applicant to submit landscaping plans to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to the meeting of September 16, 1998;

(3)requested the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to comment on the applicant's landscaping plans at the meeting of September 16, 1998;

(4)requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, in consultation with the applicant, to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998:

(a)on the possibility of tree planting on the front yard at 315 Forman Avenue, while respecting the applicant's request for two parking spaces; and

(b)on landscaping which will keep any tree that is planted on the property from being injured by the parked cars.

(i)(July 9, 1998) from Councillor Johnston respecting Front Yard Parking Appeal - 315 Forman Avenue (North Toronto) and recommending that the request for two (2) front yard parking spaces at 315 Forman Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying the fees prescribed by the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

(ii)(July 17, 1998) from Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services;

(iii)(July 20, 1998) from Gerald Farrelly;

(iv)(July 21, 19980 from Ms. Judy and Mr. Allan Fleisher; and

(v)(July 21, 1998) from Mr. Ron Baker

(e)Preliminary Report - Official Plan and Rezoning Application No. 198012, 1115 and 1121 Bay Street, to Permit a 22-Storey Mixed Use Building (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Official Plan and Rezoning Application No. 198012, 1115 And 1121 Bay Street, to Permit a 22-storey Mixed Use Building (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; and

(2)That the applicant be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the applicant 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 applicant will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(f)Preliminary Report - Rezoning Application No. 198010 for the Conversion of a Light Industrial Building to 71 Live/Work Units at 52 St. Lawrence Street (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(June 10, 1998) from Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application No. 198010 for the Conversion of a Light Industrial Building to 71 Live/work Units at 52 St. Lawrence Street (Don River), and recommending that:

(1)I be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify tenants and owners within 120 metres of the site and local business and residents associations of the meeting;

(2)the owner be advised that prior to City 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 by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services.

(g)Revised Preliminary Report - 1560 Yonge Street, 10 Delisle Avenue and 22 Delisle Avenue - Application No. 197004 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit a Residential Complex Containing 274 Units and a Commercial Parking Garage (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having amended the following revised preliminary report by:

(1)adding the words "in September" after the words "in the community" in Recommendation 1; and

(2)adding a new Recommendation No. (3) to read:

"(3).The owner be advised to submit a traffic impact study to the City before the public meeting and after input from the Deer Park Ratepayers Association Inc."

and adopted the report, as amended:

(July 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services respecting 1560 Yonge Street, 10 Delisle Avenue and 22 Delisle Avenue - Application No. 197004 for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit a Residential Complex Containing 274 Units and a Commercial Parking Garage (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 Works & Emergency Services.

(h)Preliminary Report - Rezoning Application No. 198011, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, to Permit a 4-Phased Expansion of the Existing Hospital (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following revised preliminary report:

(July 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application No. 198011, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, To Permit A 4-phased Expansion Of The Existing Hospital (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, the Toronto East Downtown Residents Association, and the Ward Councillors.

(2)That the owner submit to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services the following additional information and plans:

(a)Revised plans for the desired Site Plan Approvals for the Queen Street renovations and the 5-storey addition to Wing C on Victoria Street, containing floor plans and more detailed elevations; and

(b)As required by the Official Plan, a statement from the agency primarily responsible for approving the construction of the expansion, indicating the need for, and authorizing the planning or construction of, the expansion.

(3)That the applicant be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the applicant may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement and a Material Recovery and Waste Reduction Plan, and if necessary for the development, a Transportation Demand Management Plan, in accordance with City Council's requirements. The applicant will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(i)Site Plan Approval Application No. 397137 - 64 Parliament Street - Construction of a Volvo Service Repair Shop - Class "A" (Don River).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998:

(June 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 64 Parliament Street - Site Plan Approval Application No. 397137 respecting Construction of a Volvo Service Repair Shop - Class "A" (Don River), and setting out the conditions for approval for construction of a one-storey Volvo Service and Repair Shop, Class "A", with 22 parking spaces at the north-west corner of Front and Parliament Streets.

(j)Section 37 of the Planning Act.

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Section 37 of the Planning Act, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(k)Development Approvals for Cemeteries (All Wards in the former City of Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following report:

(July 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Development Approvals for Cemeteries (All Wards from the Former City of Toronto), and recommending:

(1)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services hold a public meeting to discuss the proposals contained in this report.

(2)That copies of this report be forwarded for comment to all cemetery operators within Wards 19 to 26 inclusive and the Residents' Associations adjacent to the cemeteries listed in Appendix A of this report and to advise them of the date of the public meeting.

(3)That I be requested to report back to Toronto Community Council on the outcome of the meeting and forward to Council a by-law setting out the recommended standards for cemetery sites in the former City of Toronto.

(4)That urban design guidelines for cemetery sites be developed to assist in the review of future site plan applications and be brought forward to Toronto Community Council for adoption.

(l)Implementation of Alternate Side Parking - Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, for deputations:

(June 24, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services respecting Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue - Implementation of Alternate Side Parking (Davenport), and recommending:

(1) That in order to implement alternate side parking on Prescott Avenue, from St. Clair Avenue West to Rockwell Avenue, the recommendations noted in Appendix "A", attached, should be approved; and

(2) 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.

(m)The 2008 Toronto Olympic Bid - Public Consultation.

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(July 7, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting The 2008 Toronto Olympic Bid - Public Consultation, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n)86 Caledonia Road (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on September16, 1998, for deputations; and

(2)requested that the curb stones be removed immediately:

(i)(July 2, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting Commercial Boulevard Parking at 86 Caledonia Road (Davenport); and

(ii)(July 20, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services.

(o)Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests in Planning Matters.

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following communication:

(July 14, 1998) from the City Clerk respecting Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests in Planning Matters, forwarding the actions of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and requesting that the Toronto Community Council's comments be forwarded directly to Council on July 29, 1998.

(p)Angled Driveway Widening - 228 Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998 on angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue.

(July 16, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue.

(q)Appeal - Front Yard Parking - 38 Spruce Hill Road (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following until its meeting to be held on September 16, 1998, for deputations:

(i)(July 20, 1998) from Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services; and recommending that this report be deferred to the September 16, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, for the hearing of deputations; and

(ii)(July 9, 1998) from Ms. Helen Beauchamp.

(r)Proposed Closings of Portion of Duoro Street and Canniff Street (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on September 16, 1998, on the proposed closing of Duoro Street and King Street West, and the closing of Canniff Street south of the proposed park:

(July 20, 1998) from Councillor Pantalone respecting Proposed Closings of a Portion of Duoro Street at King Street West and a portion of Canniff Street south of Massey-Harris Park, in the Massey-Ferguson Lands.

(s)Permit Parking on Hillsdale Avenue West (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council report having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the implementation of permit parking on Hillsdale Avenue West between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard and to conduct a formal poll as soon as possible of residents on that block concerning the establishment of permit parking.

(2)directed that two options be given as to the hours permit parking will be in effect:

Standard restrictions (12:01 a.m. - 10:00 a.m.), and;

Alternate restrictions (12:01 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. on weekdays and 12:01 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. on weekends) as requested by several residents.

(3)acknowledged that it would abide by the results of the public poll and assuming a positive poll result, recommend the establishment of permit parking on Hillsdale Avenue West between Colin Avenue and Lascelles Boulevard:

(July 13, 1998) from Councillor Walker.

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, July 22, 1998

(Report No. 10 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998.)

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links

� City of Toronto 1998-2001