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 October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 12

1Criteria for Boulevard Cafe Decks(All Wards in the former City of Toronto

2Amendments to Parking Regulations on the North Side of Adelaide Street East, between George Street and Sherbourne Street (Downtown)

3Staggered Parking and Island Parking - Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue (Davenport)

4Installation of Speed Humps - Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road(North Toronto)

5Installation of Speed Bumps in Public Laneways(High Park, East Toronto)

6Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control - Bedford Road and Lowther Avenue (Midtown)

7Installation of "Stop" Sign - West Toronto Street and Ethel Avenue at their Intersection with Dods Avenue (Davenport)

8Installation of Eastbound "Stop" Sign - Intersection of Violet Avenue and Wineva Avenue (East Toronto)

9Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control - Intersection of Glenlake Avenue and Pine Crest Road (High Park)

10Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control - Intersection of Howard Park Avenue and Indian Grove(High Park)

11Identification of "School Bus Loading Zone" - Earl Haig Avenue (Fronting Earl Haig Public School)(East Toronto)

12Implementation of Fifteen Minute Maximum Parking Limit in Conjunction with the Existing "Day-Care Pick-Up andDrop-Off Area" College Street, South Side, Fronting No. 931 (Trinity-Niagara)

13Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces and Disabled Persons Loading Zones(Trinity-Niagara, Midtown, Davenport, Downtown and High Park)

14Adjustment of Parking Regulations - Rosemary Lane, North of Dewbourne Avenue (Midtown)

15Parking Prohibition - Helendale Avenue, North Side, West of Yonge Street (North Toronto)

16Adjustment to Parking Regulations - Davisville Avenue between Mount Pleasant Road and Belle Ayre Boulevard (North Toronto)

17Front Yard Parking(All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)

18Amendments to Parking Regulation Near368 Eglinton Avenue West (North Toronto)

19Closing of Lane - Rear of323 Richmond Street East(Don River)

20Installation of Speed Humps on George Street South and Pedestrian Crossover with Median Traffic Islands on Front Street East (Downtown)

21Prohibition of Standing - Lombard Street, Both Sides, from Victoria Street to Church Street (Downtown)

22Rescindment of Alternate Side Parking Regulations and Provision of Year Round Parking on the east side of Borden Street, between College and Harbord Streets (Downtown)

23Proposed Speed Humps - Sorauren Avenue, Westminster Avenue, Fermanagh Avenue, Wright Avenue (High Park)

24Designation of 363-365 Adelaide Street East (Don River)

25Designation of 226 King Street East (Don River)

26Designation of 93 Balsam Avenue (East Toronto)

27Designation of 4 and 8 South Kingsway (High Park)

28Draft Zoning By-law -1090 Shaw Street (Davenport)

29Index of Exceptions to Former City of Toronto Zoning By-law

30Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment -1117 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara

31Draft Zoning By-law -1 Silver Avenue (formerly - 3 Silver Avenue)(High Park

32Parkdale Planning Initiatives(High Park

33Tree Removal - 123 Eglinton Avenue East(North Toronto)

34Variance from Chapter 297, Signs of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -511 Danforth Avenue (Don River)

35Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -2629 Yonge Street (North Toronto)

36Tree Removal - 34 Rosedale Heights Drive (Midtown)

37Tree Removal -1106 Yonge Street (Midtown)

38Maintenance of Fence - Lascelles Boulevard Flankage of 70 Chaplin Crescent(North Toronto)

39Maintenance of Fence -19 Wolseley Street (Downtown

40Maintenance of Fence Fronting 63 Oak Park Avenue and on the Newmarket Avenue Flankage (East Toronto)

41Construction of Fence - 108 Harrison Street (Trinity-Niagara)

42Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit -Bay Street, West Side, 41 Metres North of Front Street West (Downtown)

43Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties - 2190 Gerrard Street East (East Toronto)

44Boulevard Cafe - Gloucester Street Flankage of601 Yonge Street (Downtown

45Boulevard Cafe - 139-141 Danforth Avenue (Don River)

46Continuation of Front Yard Parking -161 Mulock Avenue (Davenport

47Boulevard Cafe - Lava Restaurant and Club -Palmerston Avenue Flankage of 507 College Street(Trinity-Niagara)

48Site Plan Application and Amendment to Subdivision Agreement -15, 35 and 65 Shaftesbury Avenue (Midtown)

49Extension of Commercial Boulevard Parking -Claremont Street Flankage of 890 Dundas Street West(Trinity-Niagara)

50Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -(Davenport, Downtown, Midtown, North Toronto)

51King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan -Bathurst Street (Downtown

52Amendments to the Section 36/37 Agreement for Bay-Adelaide Project (Downtown

53Amendments to CN Tower Development Agreement -CN Tower Base Expansion - 301 Front Street (Downtown)

54Official Plan and Zoning By-law Application -9 Jackes Avenue (Midtown)

55Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -14 Boon Avenue (Davenport)

56Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing Locations -492 and 494 Dundas Street West and311 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

57Unauthorized Temporary Marketing Enclosure -St. Andrew Street Flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

58Tree Removal - High Park Forest Management Demonstration Areas (High Park)

59Tree Removal - 175 Hanson Street (East Toronto

60Tree Removal - 15 Sudbury Street (Trinity-Niagara

61Stop-Up and Closing of Public Lane O'Keefe Lane, ExtendingBetween Dundas Street East & Dundas Square -Yonge Dundas Redevelopment (Downtown)

62Closing of Portions of Gould Street and Victoria Street, and the Public Lane O'Keefe Lane -Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project (Downtown)

63Bay Adelaide Centre - Amended Percent for Public Art Plan - South Block (Downtown)

64The 519 Community Centre Mural Competition (Downtown)

65Interim Appointments -Board of Management of Ralph Thornton Centre

66Construction at 411 Duplex Avenue/33 Orchard Park Boulevard (North Toronto

67Request for Endorsement of Events for Liquor Licencing Purposes

68Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision and Site Plan Approval - 1107 Avenue Road (North Toronto)

69Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -15 Seneca Avenue (Downtown

70Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 12

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on October 14 and 15, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998

Criteria for Boulevard Cafe Decks

(All Wards in the former City of Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, amended this Clause by adding to the end of Recommendation No. (3) of the Toronto Community Council the words "with the exception of those boulevard cafe decks previously approved by the former City of Toronto Council", so that such recommendation now reads as follows:

"(3)all boulevard cafe owners be required to comply with the proposed criteria for boulevard cafe decks, with the exception of those boulevard cafe decks previously approved by the former City of Toronto Council;".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the following criteria for boulevard cafe decks:

(a)Boulevard cafe decks only be permitted on sidewalks or boulevards that exceed a slope of 5% and over;

(b)The deck should be no higher than what is required to accommodate a level area and the deck framing members (which should be the minimum depth required);

(c)Where the distance between grade and the top of the deck is greater than the total thickness of the deck and framing members, a skirt or screen should be provided;

(d)When wood is used for the decking, skirt, uprights or railing, it should be treated, painted or stained;

(e)When wood is used for uprights, post widths should not exceed 0.10 m x 0.10 m (4 x 4inches), top and bottom railings should not exceed 0.06 m x 0.09 m (2.5x3.5 inches), and pickets or balusters should not exceed 0.04 m x 0.04 m (1.5 x 1.5 inches); the spacing between the pickets or balusters should not exceed 0.10 m (4 inches);

(f)A minimum width of 1.03 m (3.3 ft.) break in the railing must be provided at the high side of the slope to provide wheelchair access;

(g)Boulevard cafe decks are not to be constructed over existing underground services (i.e. Hydro vaults, chambers, maintenance holes, etc.) unless written approval is given by the public utility;

(h)Should future installation of services within the boulevard area be required, the boulevard cafe owner, upon receipt of a 30 day notice, be required to remove the boulevard cafe deck;

(i)The boulevard cafe deck be removed at the end of the cafe season;

(j)The boulevard cafe owner be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

(2)Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate the criteria set out in Recommendation No.(1);

(3)All boulevard cafe owners be required to comply with the proposed criteria for boulevard cafe decks; and

(4)The appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the above, including the introduction of any bills in Council.

--------

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on permitting outdoor boulevard cafe decks in the former City of Toronto road allowances. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the proposed criteria for boulevard cafe decks as set out in the body of this report;

(2)Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended to incorporate the criteria set out in the body of this report;

(3)All boulevard cafe owners be required to comply with the proposed criteria for boulevard cafe decks, with the exception of the boulevard cafe decks previously approved by the former City Council; and

(4)The appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the above, including the introduction of any bills in Council.

Background:

Boulevard cafes provide a significant contribution to animating street activity. It is the policy of this Department to accept applications for construction of removable decks where there is a substantial slope in the sidewalk abutting the establishment, which could result in a potential safety hazard for patrons.

Given the proliferation of these requests and to ensure that the physical connection between the cafe and adjacent pedestrian activity is maintained, this report recommends amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to incorporate specific criteria in the Municipal Code for the construction of decks in the Toronto District, within the road allowance.

Comments:

Current Regulations/Policy

Boulevard Cafes are governed by the provisions set out in Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which, in part, stipulates as follows:

313-36E

"(1)The owner or occupant shall pave and maintain any portion of the boulevard to be used for the purpose of the boulevard cafe to the satisfaction of the Commissioner.

(2)Where the owner or occupant places outdoor carpeting, artificial turf or other similar surface material upon the paved surface of any portion of the boulevard:

(a)The surface material shall not be affixed in any way to the paved surface and shall be maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner.

(b)The surface material shall be designed and installed to prevent hazardous conditions at any entrance to a boulevard cafe area.

(c)The surface material shall be removed from within the street allowance when the boulevard cafe ceases to be in regular daily use."

As I indicated earlier, it is this Department's policy to accept applications for construction of removable decks where there is a substantial slope in the sidewalk abutting the establishment, which could result in a potential safety hazard for patrons. Applications of this nature are reviewed on their own merits and are reported to the Toronto Community Council for recommendation to City Council.

In the past couple of years, we have received a number of requests from cafe operators for permission for elevated cafe structures in the road allowance. The majority of these requests were not for operational reasons (i.e. substantial slope, etc.), but rather to increase visibility of the cafe.

However, notwithstanding this, some proceeded to construct removable decks without authorization. As these boulevard cafe decks are another physical obstruction to the street allowance and pose various problems with respect to access for wheelchairs and the disabled, a specific criteria on the construction of boulevard cafe decks must be established.

Proposed Physical Criteria for the Construction of Decks

In preparing the proposed criteria for the construction of boulevard cafe decks, we have consulted with representatives of major public utilities (i.e. Bell Canada, Consumers Gas and Toronto Hydro) and representatives of Urban Planning and Development Services and with representatives of the former City of Toronto Action Committee for People with Disabilities.

The following proposed criteria takes into consideration all comments submitted by these representatives:

1.Boulevard cafe decks only be permitted on sidewalks or boulevards that exceed a slope of5% and over;

2.The deck should be no higher than what is required to accommodate a level area and the deck framing members (which should be the minimum depth required);

3.Where the distance between grade and the top of the deck is greater than the total thickness of the deck and framing members, a skirt or screen should be provided;

4.When wood is used for the decking, skirt, uprights or railing, it should be treated, painted or stained;

5.When wood is used for uprights, post widths should not exceed 0.10 m x 0.10 m (4 x 4inches), top and bottom railings should not exceed 0.06 m x 0.09 m (2.5 x 3.5 inches), and pickets or balusters should not exceed 0.04 m x 0.04 m (1.5 x 1.5 inches); the spacing between the pickets or balusters should not exceed 0.10 m (4 inches);

6.A minimum width of 1.03 m (3.3 ft.) break in the railing must be provided at the high side of the slope to provide wheelchair access;

7.Boulevard cafe decks are not to be constructed over existing underground services (i.e. Hydro vaults, chambers, maintenance holes, etc.) unless written approval is given by the public utility;

8.Should future installation of services within the boulevard area be required, the boulevard cafe owner, upon receipt of a 30 day notice, be required to remove the boulevard cafe deck;

9.The boulevard cafe deck be removed at the end of the cafe season;

10.The boulevard cafe owner be required to enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Under the former City of Toronto's "Specifications for the Construction of Sidewalk Pavement and Curb" and the "Accessibility Design Guidelines", the recommended gradient for sidewalks is between 2-4% cross fall and 4% for ramp gradient at corners. Therefore, the recommended slope for boulevard cafe decks is 5% and over.

The proposed criteria also recognizes that unassisted entrance and egress for persons with disabilities must be provided.

These criteria should also be used in conjunction with the existing boulevard cafe Guidelines published in June 1989 (copy on file with the City Clerk).

For your Committee's information, Appendix 'A' attached to this report illustrates the proposed criteria for boulevard cafe decks.

All boulevard cafe licence holders have been notified by the City Clerk of the proposed criteria for boulevard cafe decks.

Conclusion:

Boulevard cafes provide an animating element and are a desirable addition to sidewalk environments. At the same time, it is important to maintain the physical connection between the cafe and adjacent pedestrian activity. The proposed criteria for boulevard cafe decks ensures that this connection is maintained as well as providing accessibility to both patrons of the cafe and its staff.

The recommendation to amend Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code clearly provides the guidelines as to how a location may qualify for the construction of boulevard cafe decks.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Boulevard Cafe

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 15, 1998) from Mr. David C. Poynton, Donahue and Partners, regarding a request for raised decked installations for boulevard cafes.)

Amendments to Parking Regulations on the North Side

of Adelaide Street East, between George Street and

Sherbourne Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October5, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To amend the parking regulations on the north side of Adelaide Street East, between George Street and Sherbourne Street, specifically in front of the entrance to George Brown College (No. 300 Adelaide Street East), to provide a passenger loading zone.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulations are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $1,200.00.

Recommendations:

1. That a "No Standing" at all times regulation be implemented on the north side of Adelaide Street East, from 61 metres east of George Street to 13 metres further east thereof; 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:

In response to an inquiry received from George Brown College, Transportation Services staff have reviewed the feasibility of installing a loading zone for persons with physical disabilities on the north side of Adelaide Street East, in the vicinity of George Brown College (No. 300 Adelaide Street East).

The entrance to George Brown College that is accessible for persons with physical disabilities is located on the north side of Adelaide Street East, between George Street and Sherbourne Street. On the above-noted section of Adelaide Street East, stopping is prohibited from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Thirteen parking meters operate for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturdays. At other times parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

To create a passenger loading zone, two parking meters must be removed and a "No Standing" zone be implemented. Under the "No Standing" regulation, motorists are permitted to stop their vehicles to allow passengers to board or disembark only.

From a traffic operations viewpoint this proposal should have no adverse impacts. It will, however, result in the loss of two on-street metered parking spaces. There is sufficient alternative on-street parking in this vicinity to accommodate the displaced spaces. Councillors Olivia Chow and Kyle Rae have been consulted and they support this proposal.

Contact Name:

Jacqueline White, Acting Manager

Central Traffic Region

(416) 397-5021

Staggered Parking and

Island Parking - Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street

to Ossington Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on Yarmouth Road from Shaw Street to Ossington Avenue by the introduction of staggered parking and island parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $3,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1) That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Yarmouth Road between Shaw Street and Ossington Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below:

"The narrowing of the pavement on the south side of Yarmouth Road from a point 80 m west of Shaw Street to a point 10 metres further west, from a width of 7.3metres to a width varying from 4.8 metres to 7.3 metres, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5254 dated September 1998";

(2) That coincident with the pavement narrowing identified in Recommendation 1 above, the amendments to the parking regulations identified in Appendix A of this report to introduce staggered and island parking be approved;

(3) That implementation of this proposal be subject to a favourable poll of residents (carried out under the provisions of the Speed Hump Policy as approved by the former City of Toronto Council) ; and

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

Comments

Councillor Betty Disero requested staff assistance in developing a staggered parking plan for Yarmouth Road between Shaw Street and Ossington Avenue in order to provide a measure of traffic calming and increase parking.

Existing Conditions

This section of Yarmouth Road has a pavement width of 7.3 metres, a maximum speed limit of 40km/h, and operates one-way westbound. The following regulations are in effect on this block:

North side

- Parking is prohibited at anytime from the 16^th day to the last day of each month from April1 to November 30, inclusive.

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

South side

-Parking is prohibited from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, April 1^st to November30^th, inclusive.

The permit parking system operates from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours. Under the current alternate side parking system there are 20 parking spaces on the north side of this block and 22 on the south side. As of September 15, 1998, 19 permits had been issued.

Staggered Parking Plan

The traffic calming concept proposed for Yarmouth Road, as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5254, dated September 1998 consists of a staggered parking configuration using one traffic calming island in front of Premises Nos. 197 and 199 in conjunction with "island parking" in the vicinity of Premises Nos. 185 to 189 and 206 to 208 Yarmouth Road. The traffic calming island will divert vehicles laterally across the street, providing an element of traffic calming year-round while providing protection for parked vehicles in the vicinity of Premises No. 199. The two parking islands would provide extra traffic calming during the non-winter months (April 2 to November 30) only, by narrowing the road. The proposal will result in a approximately 24 parking spaces year-round, and4additional parking spaces for the exclusive use of parking permit holders in the non-winter months (April 1 to November 30) only.

Whenever speed humps are being proposed, residents are polled under the provisions of the former City of Toronto speed hump policy. This leads to a general acceptance amongst residents of the outcome of the poll, and can prevent subsequent criticism of the public consultation process. While the installation of a traffic calming island as proposed on Yarmouth Road does not require a poll under existing policies, it would nevertheless seem prudent to poll residents. A City poll should be conducted of adult residents (18 years of age and older) of households directly abutting the affected street and 60% of those responding should support the plan in order to authorize the installation.

The island proposed on Yarmouth Road to frame the parking as set out above constitutes an alteration to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, 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. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Joe Gallippi, Transportation Technologist

392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix / Map

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix / Map

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix / Map

Installation of Speed Humps - Roehampton Avenue

from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road

(North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidence of speeding vehicles on Roehampton Avenue between Mount Pleasant Road and Cardiff Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $13,200.00, 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 Roehampton Avenue, from Mt.Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road 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 ROEHAMPTON AVENUE from Mt.Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5262, dated September 1998,"

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures.

(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 Councillor Michael Walker, on behalf of area residents, Works staff investigated concerns regarding excessive speeding and the feasibility of implementing speed humps on Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road.

Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Cardiff Road operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Northern Secondary School (a major generator of traffic) is located on the north side of Roehampton Avenue between Mt.Pleasant Road and Rawlinson Avenue.

Works staff recently conducted a twenty-four hour speed and volume survey over a period of five days on Roehampton Avenue. On average, Roehampton Avenue from Mt. Pleasant Road to Rawlinson Avenue carries 2,240 vehicles per day in both directions, of which 33% travelled at or below the 40 kilometres per hour speed limit, 33.5% travelled between 41 and 50 kilometres per hour and 33.5% travelled at an excessive rate of speed (over 51 kilometres per hour). This speed profile is of concern given the proximity of the aforementioned school.

The section of Roehampton Avenue from Rawlinson Avenue to Cardiff Road carries on average 2,129 vehicles per day in both directions of which 10% travelled at or below the 40 kilometres per hour speed limit, 23% travelled between 41 and 50 kilometres per hour and 67% travelled at an excessive rate of speed (over 51 kilometres per hour).

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5262 dated September 1998, consists of six speed humps with spacings between the speed humps of approximately 40 to 90 metres. A speed limit reduction to 30 kilometres per hour would also be appropriate. As 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 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 Roehampton Avenue, as described 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:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Roehampton Avenue

Installation of Speed Bumps in Public Laneways

(High Park, East Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on requests for the installation of speed bumps in various public laneways.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This work is an element of an ongoing annual programme and the cost is accommodated in the 1998 Capital Programme for Public Laneway improvements.

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation of speed bumps of the type and design noted herein and at locations shown 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:

Works and Emergency Services staff have received a number of requests regarding the feasibility of installing speed bumps in various public lanes. The attached Table "A" and associated drawings detail the public lane locations which meet the criteria for the installation of speed bumps.

The type and design of the speed bumps to be installed are shown on attached Drawing Nos. 421F-5235, 421F-5236, 421F-5237, 421F-5248 and 421F-5249.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878

________

TABLE "A"

Installation

WardLocation

19Lane first west of Roncesvalles Avenue between Geoffrey Street and Marmaduke Street (Ward 19), as shown on Drawing Nos. 421F-5235, 421F-5236 and 421F-5237.

26Lane system bounded by Queen Street East, Lee Avenue, Leuty Avenue and Violet Avenue (Ward 26), as shown on Drawing No. 421F-5248.

26Lane system bounded by Danforth Avenue, Woodycrest Avenue, Langford Avenue and Gertrude Place (Ward 26), as shown on Drawing No. 421F-5249.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Roncesvalles Avenue/Queen Street East/Woodycrest Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Roncesvalles Avenue/Queen Street East/Woodycrest Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Roncesvalles Avenue/Queen Street East/Woodycrest Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Roncesvalles Avenue/Queen Street East/Woodycrest Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Roncesvalles Avenue/Queen Street East/Woodycrest Avenue

Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control -

Bedford Road and Lowther Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To replace the existing pedestrian crossover with an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Bedford Road and Lowther Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing pedestrian crossover located on Bedford Road at the south side of its intersection with Lowther Avenue be removed;

(2)That "Stop" signs be installed for northbound and southbound traffic on Bedford Road at Lowther Avenue; 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:

In consultation with Midtown Councillors John Adams and Ila Bossons, an investigation was conducted to examine traffic operations at the intersection of Bedford Road and Lowther Avenue.

Lowther Avenue operates one-way westbound with a "Stop" sign posted for westbound traffic at Bedford Road. A pedestrian crossover is operating across Bedford Road at the south side of its intersection with Lowther Avenue. A northbound bicycle lane is in operation on the east side of Bedford Road in the vicinity of Lowther Avenue.

A review of the Toronto Police Service accident records for the intersection of Bedford Road and Lowther Avenue revealed that three collisions that may have been prevented by the presence of an all-way "Stop" sign control, were reported at this location from March 17, 1994 to March 17, 1997.

A site inspection has revealed that the existing roadway alignment within the intersection creates a minor visibility problem which reduces advanced sight lines for motorists.

Considering the foregoing and having evaluated the intersection of Bedford Road and Lowther Avenue against the technical criteria governing the installation of a "Stop" sign which encompass such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configurations, surrounding area traffic controls and safety experience, it has been concluded that this intersection satisfies the operational safety elements for the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control.

This implementation will necessitate the removal of the existing pedestrian crossover. Further, to enhance safety at this intersection and in keeping with a majority of the intersections in this area, it is recommended that either an overhead or pole-mounted flashing red beacons be installed. The estimated cost of this work is in the order of $3,000.00, funds for which are available in the 1998 Operating Budget.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Tom McCulloch,

Traffic Investigator, Midtown 392-7771

Installation of "Stop" Sign - West Toronto Street and

Ethel Avenue at their Intersection with Dods Avenue

(Davenport)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To install "Stop" signs for westbound traffic on West Toronto Street and eastbound traffic on Ethel Avenue at Dods Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That "Stop" signs be installed for westbound traffic on West Toronto Street and eastbound traffic on Ethel Avenue at their intersections with Dods Avenue; 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 Canadian Pacific Railway, Works staff have investigated installing a "Stop" sign for westbound traffic on West Toronto Street at its intersection with Dods Avenue and a "Stop" sign for eastbound traffic on Ethel Avenue at its intersection with Dods Avenue in order to establish right-of-way, especially for large trucks, which negotiate these streets.

West Toronto Street operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a speed limit of 50kilometres per hour. Ethel Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 9.75 metres and a speed limit of 50 kilometres per hour and Dods Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 6 metres. West Toronto Street and Ethel Avenue connect with Dods Avenue to form two "L" shaped intersections approximately 40 metres apart and are part of a connective link between Keele Street and Runnymede Road, south of St. Clair Avenue West. A private driveway to a Canadian Pacific Railway facility accesses the intersection of West Toronto Street and Dods Avenue from the south side.

A check of Toronto Police Service accident records from January 1, 1994 to March 31, 1997 (the most recent data available) revealed six reported collisions at the intersection of West Toronto Avenue and Dods Avenue and two collisions at the intersection of Ethel Avenue and Dods Avenue. Six of these collisions involved a single motor vehicle with the driver losing control of the vehicle at the turn at Dods Avenue.

Works staff have evaluated these intersections against the technical criteria governing the installation of "Stop" signs which encompass such factors as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and have concluded that the warrants for "Stop" signs for westbound traffic on West Toronto Street at Dods Avenue and eastbound traffic on Ethel Avenue at Dods Avenue are satisfied.

To establish right-of-way for motorists especially large trucks while negotiating the right-angled turns, "Stop" signs should be installed for westbound vehicles on West Toronto Street and eastbound vehicles on Ethel Avenue at Dods Avenue.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Brian Holditch, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Installation of Eastbound "Stop" Sign -

Intersection of Violet Avenue and Wineva Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that an all-way "Stop" sign be installed at the intersection of Violet Avenue and Wineva Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 28, 1998) from Director, Transportation Services District 1:

Purpose:

To establish clear right-of-way and improve the overall operating safety of this intersection.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for eastbound traffic on Violet Avenue at Wineva Avenue; 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 residents in the vicinity of the intersection of Violet Avenue and Wineva Avenue and in consultation with East Toronto Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, staff have investigated installing all-way "Stop" sign control at this intersection to improve operational safety.

Wineva Avenue and Violet Avenue form a T-type intersection with Wineva Avenue being the through road. Both streets operate with two-way traffic.

It has been determined that the intersection of Wineva Avenue and Violet Avenue does not satisfy the requirement for all-way "Stop" sign control.

Sight lines at the intersection are limited (because of a large tree) for eastbound motorists exiting Violet Avenue. Considering the foregoing, and that no "Stop" sign control is currently present at this intersection an eastbound "Stop" sign should be installed at the intersection of Wineva Avenue and Violet Avenue to clearly establish right-of-way.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control -

Intersection of Glenlake Avenue and Pine Crest Road (High Park)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 14, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To implement an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Glenlake Avenue and Pine Crest Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That a "Stop" sign be installed for southbound traffic on Pine Crest Road at its intersection with Glenlake Avenue;

(2)That "Stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Glenlake Avenue at its intersection with Pine Crest Road; 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 area residents, and in consultation with High Park Councillors Chris Korwin-Kuczynski and David Miller, Works staff have investigated the feasibility of installing an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Glenlake Avenue and Pine Crest Road.

Glenlake Avenue in the vicinity of Pine Crest Road operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Pine Crest Road in the vicinity of Glenlake Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Both streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection and there is currently no "Stop" sign control in any direction of travel at this intersection.

An examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection revealed that from January 1, 1995 to March 31, 1997, there was one reported collision which was not pedestrian-related (the collision involved a single motor vehicle operated by an impaired driver)

Works staff have evaluated this intersection against the criteria governing the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control which encompass factors such as right-of-way conflicts, vehicular and pedestrian usage of the intersection, physical and geometric configuration, surrounding area traffic control and safety experience, and have concluded that the warrants for an all-way "Stop" sign control have been satisfied.

Specifically, the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control at this intersection would be in keeping with the pattern already established in the area in that there is an all-way "Stop" sign control at every intersection on Glenlake Avenue from Evelyn Avenue to Mountview Avenue. Accordingly, it would be reasonable for a motorist to expect to stop at the subject intersection and would enhance safety for pedestrians.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator

392-7771

Installation of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control -

Intersection of Howard Park Avenue and Indian Grove

(High Park)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 24, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To implement an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Howard Park Avenue and Indian Grove.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That "Stop" signs be installed for eastbound and westbound traffic on Howard Park Avenue at its intersection with Indian Grove; 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:

Howard Park Avenue in the vicinity of Indian Grove operates two-way with a pavement width that varies between 11.2 and 12.2 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. A regularly scheduled Toronto Transit Commission streetcar route operates on this street. Indian Grove in the vicinity of Howard Park Avenue operates two-way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour. Right of way is controlled by a "Stop" sign for southbound traffic on Indian Grove. Both streets intersect to form a "T"-type intersection.

An examination of Toronto Police Service accident records for the subject intersection revealed that from January 1, 1995 to March 31, 1997, there were two reported collisions, none of which were pedestrian or cyclist related.

Specifically, the installation of an all-way "Stop" sign control at this intersection would be in keeping with the pattern already established in the area in that there is an all-way "Stop" sign control at the intersection of Howard Park Avenue and Indian Road and traffic control signals at the intersections of Howard Park Avenue with Parkside Drive and with Roncesvalles Avenue. Accordingly, it would be reasonable for a motorist to expect to stop at the subject intersection and would enhance safety for pedestrians.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Spiros Stamopoulos, Traffic Investigator

392-7771

Identification of "School Bus Loading Zone" -

Earl Haig Avenue (Fronting Earl Haig Public School)

(East Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To facilitate loading and unloading of the school buses and to improve traffic flow on the street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing 10 minute maximum parking and Student Pick-up/Drop-off area on the south side of Earl Haig Avenue from a point 75.0 metres east of Coxwell Avenue to a point 20.0 metres further east be rescinded;

(2)That a "School Bus Loading Zone" be delineated on the south side of Earl Haig Avenue from a point 75.0 metres east of Coxwell Avenue to a point 20.0 metres further east;

(3)That parking be prohibited on the south side of Earl Haig Avenue from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday; and

(4)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. Childs, Principal of Earl Haig Public School, and in consultation with East Toronto Councillors Sandra Bussin and Tom Jakobek, staff have investigated identifying portions of the south side of Earl Haig Avenue between Coxwell Avenue and Hillingdon Avenue as a "School Bus Loading Zone" to improve the vehicular operation of the street.

Earl Haig Avenue is a residential street operating two-way from Coxwell Avenue to Hillingdon Avenue on a pavement width of 8.5 metres. The following parking regulations are in effect on this street.

North Side

- Parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily;

- Parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday; and

- Parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours.

South Side

- Parking is prohibited from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily:

a) from Coxwell Avenue to a point 58.0 metres east;

b)from a point 135.0 metres east of Coxwell Avenue to Hillingdon Avenue;

- Parking is prohibited from 9:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday to Friday and from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday from a point 58.0 metres east of Coxwell Avenue to a point 77.0 metres further east;

- Parking is allowed for a maximum period of 10 minutes from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Friday from a point 58.0 metres east of Coxwell Avenue to a point 77.0 metres further east;

- Parking is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. daily; and

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

Discussions between staff and Mr. Childs concluded that a School Bus Loading Zone would be required between 8:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday and that the best location would be on the south side of the street from a point 75.0 metres east of Coxwell Avenue to a point 20.0 metres further east, close to the main doors of the school. This location is essentially in the middle of the existing Student Pick-up and Drop-off Area/10-minute Parking Area.

The installation of a School Bus Loading Zone would alleviate some of the traffic congestion that occurs on Earl Haig Avenue when a school bus arrives to load/unload children (sometimes from the centre of the road if curb space is not available) while activating flashing lights and effectively stopping all traffic movement on the street. However, this would reduce the number of parking spaces in the Student Pick-up and Drop-off Area/10-minute Parking Area from about 14 to 10.

Although there would be a reduction in the potential number of short-term parking spaces provided on the south side of Earl Haig Avenue during the operational period of the School Bus Loading Zone, based on current usage observations, this would not create a significant inconvenience for parents picking up or dropping off children.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Implementation of Fifteen Minute Maximum Parking Limit

in Conjunction with the Existing "Day-Care Pick-Up and

Drop-Off Area" College Street, South Side,

Fronting No. 931 (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October1,1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to provide short term parking for parents/guardians when picking-up or dropping-off children at the Westend YMCA child care centre (Premises No. 108 Harrison Street).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be prohibited from 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and at anytime, Saturday & Sunday, on the south side of College Street from a point 32.0 metres east of Dovercourt Road to a point 11.0 metres further east;

(2)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of fifteen minutes from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00p.m., Monday to Friday on the south side of College Street from a point 32.0 metres east of Dovercourt Road to a point 11.0 metres further east; and

(3)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:

At the request of Mr. Ted Kin, Facilities Director, Westend YMCA, 931 College Street, Transportation Services has investigated implementing a 15 minute maximum parking regulation from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday in the delineated Day-Care Pick-up and Drop-off Area in front of this premises to provide parents/guardians with 2 short term parking spaces which may be used when dropping off or picking up children at the child care facility and enhance equitable use of the pick-up/drop-off area.

Stopping is currently prohibited from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Monday to Friday and parking is prohibited at other times within the pick-up/drop-off area. Aside from the period when stopping is prohibited, motorists may legally stop momentarily in front of the child care facility to pick-up/drop-off a passenger. However, parents or guardians frequently must leave their vehicles unattended to accompany children into the building and they occasionally receive a parking tag while they are away from the vehicle.

In similar circumstances elsewhere in the City we have adjusted the parking regulations to allow short term parking which will provide sufficient time for parents or guardians to accompany their children into the child care facility. At this specific location, the parking prohibition in the Daycare Pick-up and Drop-off Area could be adjusted to allow parking for a maximum period of fifteen minutes from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. The parking prohibition would be retained at other times. Implementation of this proposal will assist parents in picking up or dropping off children, will have no impact on the operation of nearby metered parking spaces or adversely impact safe and efficient traffic operation on College Street.

Staff have been advised by Trinity-Niagara Councillors Joe Pantalone and Mario Silva that they support this proposal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Runnings, 392-7771

Installation/Removal of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking

Spaces and Disabled Persons Loading Zones

(Trinity-Niagara, Midtown, Davenport, Downtown and High Park)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the installation/removal of disabled on-street parking spaces and disabled on-street loading zones 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:

Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated the feasibility of installing/removing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces and disabled on-street loading zones 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 and disabled on-street

loading zones 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

21Dovercourt Road, east side, between a point 179 metres south of Davenport Road and a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Ms.G. Hughes a resident of Premises No. 1175 Dovercourt Road).

23Scollard Street, south side, between a point 64.5 metres west of Bay Street and a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. Birshtein, a resident of Premises No. 87 Scollard Street).

24Granby Street, south side, between a point 130 metres west of Church Street and a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Mr. R. V.Naik, a resident of Premises No. 47 Granby Street).

Removal of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation

20Mackenzie Crescent, south side, between a point 78 metres west of Dovercourt Road and a point 5.5 metres further west.

(Source: Councillor Mario Silva's office has informed Works staff that this space is no longer required).

20St. Clarens Avenue, east side, between a point 474 metres south of Bloor Street West and a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: the original applicant of Premises No. 331 St. Clarens Avenue has moved).

Establishment of disabled on-street loading zone

WardLocation

19Coe Hill Drive, west side, between a point 117 metres south of Windermere Avenue and a point 11 metres further south.

(Source: Ms. M. Philips, Chair, Board of Directors for Grenadier Villas)

Adjustment of Parking Regulations -

Rosemary Lane, North of Dewbourne Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To adjust the existing on-street parking regulations on Rosemary Lane, north of Dewbourne Avenue to provide additional parking.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the existing "No Parking from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" regulation on the east side of Rosemary Lane from Dewbourne Avenue to a point 153.7 metres north be adjusted to apply from a point 60 metres north of Dewbourne Avenue to a point 153.7metres north of Dewbourne Avenue; 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 by Works staff to determine the feasibility of adjusting the existing daytime parking prohibition on the east side of Rosemary Lane, from Dewbourne Avenue to a point 60 metres north.

Rosemary Lane from Dewbourne Avenue to Bathurst Street is a two-way winding street with a pavement width of 7.4 metres and a forty kilometres per hour speed limit. Parking on the south and west sides is prohibited at anytime. Parking on the north and east sides is prohibited at anytime from a point 153.7 metres north of Dewbourne Avenue to Bathurst Street. The section of Rosemary Lane from Dewbourne Avenue to a point 153.7 metres further north has parking prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.. Monday to Friday and parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours. The permit parking system is not authorized on this street.

The existing parking prohibition could be adjusted on the east side of Rosemary Lane, as contained in Recommendation No. 1 above, in favour of a statutory three hour daily parking limit without compromising the safety of traffic operations on this street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Thomas L. McCulloch, Traffic Investigator

Parking Prohibition - Helendale Avenue, North Side,

West of Yonge Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidence of vehicles blocking access to driveways servicing Premises Nos. 30 to 38Helendale Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Helendale Avenue from a point 69 metres west of Yonge Street to a point 30 metres further west; and

(2)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 an area resident Works staff investigated the feasibility of introducing a parking prohibited at anytime area in front of Premises Nos. 30 to 38 Helendale Avenue. The owner of one of the properties advised that access to the driveways servicing Premises Nos. 30 to 38 Helendale Avenue is constantly blocked due to the limited curb space in between in each driveway.

A site inspection recently conducted by Works staff revealed that Premises Nos. 30 to 38 Helendale Avenue are townhouses serviced by driveways providing access to ground level garages. The maximum available curbside space in front of these premises is approximately one metre (as a general rule, the minimum linear requirement for an on-street parking space is 5.5 metres). Further, there is a fire hydrant in front of Premises No. 36 Helendale Avenue. Under the provisions of Chapter 400 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, no vehicles may be parked within 0.6 metres of a driveway or so as to block access, nor may any vehicle park within 3 metres of a fire hydrant (signage is not required to give effect to these regulations).

Parking is prohibited at anytime on the south side of Helendale Avenue from Yonge Street to Duplex Avenue. Parking is permitted by permit only on the north side from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and is allowed for maximum period of one hour from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily. Parking is otherwise permitted for a maximum period of three hours.

Accordingly, in order to address the issue of cars blocking access to the driveways servicing Premises Nos. 30 - 38 Helendale Avenue parking signage should be posted to prohibit parking as described in Recommendation No. 1, above. The introduction of this prohibition would not result in the loss of any on-street parking spaces.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Teresa Carmichael, Traffic Investigator, 392-7771

Adjustment to Parking Regulations - Davisville Avenue

between Mount Pleasant Road and Belle Ayre Boulevard

(North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To make the necessary by-law amendments to remove the student drop-off and pick-up area on Davisville Avenue in front of Hodgson Senior Public School as a result of the elimination of traffic islands and other recent regulation changes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

1. That the amendment to the parking regulation on Davisville Avenue, in front of Hodgson Senior Public School specified in Appendix A of this report be approved in order to remove a student drop-off and pick-up zone; and

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

Comments:

Recently, a number of amendments to parking regulations were enacted in conjunction with the removal of traffic islands in the South Eglinton area. The plan involved the use of traffic islands on the north side of Davisville Avenue at Hodgson Senior Public School. The islands created a chicane to control vehicle speeds, and had the added benefit of providing a protected parking area for about six vehicles outside the school. This area was authorized for 10 minute parking for pick-up and drop-off activities during key times for the school.

With the restoration of parking to the south side, there is not enough space to safely maintain this drop-off/pick-up area. Since this facility did not exist prior to the islands, and there are other opportunities to accommodate the activity in the vicinity of the school, the appropriate housekeeping amendments as set out in the attached Appendix A should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

A. G. Macbeth, Manager, Transportation Management

Tel. No. 392-1799

________

Appendix A

Delete the following:

400-78-Schedule XXV - Time Limited Parking

Highway	Side	Between	Times of Days	Maximum Period Permitted
Davisville Avenue	North	A point 160 metres east of Mount Pleasant Road and a point 30 metres east	8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., and 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., Mon. to Fri.	10 mins.

Front Yard Parking

(All Wards in the Former City of Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)striking out and referring that portion of the foregoing Clause pertaining to the Midtown Ward back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration and the hearing of deputations; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to use the Midtown Ward as a model to develop front yard parking policies and fees that are standard throughout the City and report thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, be amended to permit front yard parking:

(a)on the side of the street where permit parking is not authorized; and

(b)where on-site, off-street parking is neither available nor feasible, as the Code presently states; and

(c)subject to the applicant submitting, with the application, a landscape plan satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, such plan to include a permeable surface pad; and

(d)subject to the applicant making every reasonable effort to plant a tree on the City boulevard or on private property, in the front yard, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Tourism and Culture, and if that is not feasible, then the applicant fund the planting of a tree on City property in the general area, preferably on the same street;

(2)former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 90 be amended by deleting the requirement that a poll be conducted for each front yard parking application, and inserting the requirement that when a poll has been conducted for the block, the results be used in connection with each subsequent application for front yard parking on that block for a period of 2 years from the date of the poll;

(3)a one-time only application fee of $255.04 be instituted;

(4)a special exemption from the prohibition against front yard parking be provided for citizens who face unusual circumstances caused by the City, such as mid-block installation of traffic signals or speed humps;

(5)front yard parking not be permitted in the Don River Ward, and residents of that Ward be excluded from the appeal process;

(6)(a)an appeal process for front yard parking requests be established as outlined below:

(i)The applicant submit in writing to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a request for special exemption to the by-law, detailing the reasons for the appeal;

(ii)Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services conduct a poll in a polling area consisting of residential properties located on both sides of the street within 100 metres of the subject property, or to the nearest intersection, whichever is the shorter distance;

(iii)Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prepare a report on the appeal and results of the poll for consideration by the Toronto Community Council and for the hearing of deputations, and the Ward Councillors' position(s) on the request;

(iv)Residents within the polling area be notified of the hearing date;

(v)Introduce a non-refundable appeal fee of $200.00;

(vi)Residents from the Downtown Ward be excluded from the appeal process; and

(b)if the owner of a property wishes to relinquish the front yard parking licence, the City would agree, at its own expense to:

(i)plant a City tree in the boulevard in front of the house;

(ii)re-sod the area;

(iii)remove the curb cut;

(iv)provide free downspout disconnection service;

(v)offer a free water conservation audit to the property owner; and

(vi)provide one year's free permit parking, for one vehicle in the household;

(c)if the City has removed the front yard parking and restored the City boulevard at its expense, the owner and subsequent owners may not apply to reinstall front yard parking for 5 years;

(7)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report on the results of the amendments set out in Recommendation Nos. (1) to (6) in the fall of 2001;

(8)(a)the restoration of paved areas to green areas be introduced for those applicants who have previously been refused a parking pad, as a pilot project for the year 1999;

(b)applicants that were identified as being refused for a parking pad be notified of the proposed pilot project and advised that the restoration of the paved areas to green areas would only be on a voluntary and first come first served basis;

(c)no more than five (5) locations be restored to green areas in 1999;

(d)funding in the amount of $15,000.00 be reserved for this purpose in the year 1999 from the Permit Parking Account Code # 4023-30155-76000-5002;

(9)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be required to report to the first Toronto Community Council meeting in the year 2000 on:

(i)the results of the pilot project set out in Recommendation No. 7;

(ii)the number of requests from residents to restore the paved areas to green areas; and

(iii)the number of unauthorized paved parking pads in the former City of Toronto; and

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having taken the following action:

(1)deferred Recommendation No. (3) of the report (September 8, 19980 from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the implications of permitting front yard parking where there are more permit parking spaces available than permits issued, on the side of the street where permit parking is authorized; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Corporate Services to report to the Corporate Services Committee on a program of public lane acquisition.

Recommendation No. 3 was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Chow, Layton, McConnell and Pantalone - 7

Nays: Councillors Bussin, Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek, Silva and Walker - 6

Recommendation No. 5 was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Layton, McConnell and Pantalone - 8

Nays: Councillors Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek and Walker - 5

Recommendation No. 6(a)(v) was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Layton, McConnell and Pantalone - 8

Nays: Councillors Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek, Silva and Walker - 5

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

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Fotinos, Jakobek, Pantalone, Silva and Walker -9

Nays: Councillors Chow, Disero, McConnell and Layton - 4

A motion, by Councillor Chow, that a one-time only application fee of $300.00 be instituted, was lost on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Chow and Layton - 3

Nays: Adams, Bossons, Bussin, Disero, Fotinos, Jakobek, McConnel, Pantalone, Silva and Walker-10

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 6, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-Law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the number of paved areas that could be restored to green areas in a year and the budget which would cover the cost of the removal of a parking pad to applicants who have previously been refused.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funding in the amount of $15,000.00 has been reserved for the year 1999 from the Permit Parking Account Code # 4023-30155-76000-5002 for the restoration of maximum five (5) paved pads. Given that we are unable to determine the number of paved areas and the number of requests from residents to restore the green areas, we cannot comment at this time on the long term financial implications and impact statement.

Recommendations:

That, should the Toronto Community Council wish to pursue the restoration of paved areas to green areas for those applicants who have previously been refused a parking pad, it is recommended that:

1.(a)the restoration of paved areas to green areas be introduced as a pilot project for the year 1999;

(c)no more than five (5) locations be restored to green areas in 1999;

(d)funding in the amount of $15,000.00 be reserved in the year 1999 from the Permit Parking Account Code # 4023-30155-76000-5002; and

2.The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be required to report to the first Toronto Community Council meeting in the year 2000 on:

(i)the results of the pilot project;

(ii)the number of requests from residents to restore the paved areas to green areas; and

(iii)the number of unauthorized paved parking pads in the former City of Toronto.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, deferred consideration of a report (September 8, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services until its meeting of October 14, 1998, for deputations, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the number of paved areas that could be restored to green area in a year and the budget which would cover the physical costs of the removal of a parking pad to applicants who have previously been refused.

Comments:

To date, 1108 locations have been identified as locations which have applied for front yard parking and have been refused. However, since there are no computer records identifying the paved parking pads, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the number of locations where the front yard parking has been paved, without a site inspection.

The September 8, 1998 report indicated that the cost for the City to restore paved boulevards could range from $1,500 to $2,600 for each location. These costs entail:

- the removal of paving of 2.6 m x 6.0 m of concrete/asphalt/interlocking pavers;

-the placing of top soil;

-the re-sodding of the area.

These costs, however, did not include any other expenses associated with the removal of these parking pads which could include, but not be limited to, damages to the landscape area within the City boulevard and on private property during the removal of the parking pad, or excess concrete/asphalt/interlocking pavers, required removal etc.

However, should your Committee wish to pursue the request to restore paved areas to green areas, it is recommended that:

(a)this be introduced as a pilot project for the year 1999;

(b)applicants that were identified as being refused for a parking pad be notified of the proposed pilot project and advised that the restoration of the paved areas would only be on a voluntary and first come first served basis;

(c)no more than five (5) locations be restored to green areas in 1999; and

(d)that the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be required to report to the first Toronto Community Council meeting in the year 2000 on:

(i)the results of the pilot project;

(ii)the number of requests from residents to restore the paved area to green areas; and

(iii)the number of unauthorized paved parking pads in the former City of Toronto.

Conclusion:

As indicated earlier, it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the number of locations where the front yard has been paved, without the benefit of a site inspection. The cost for the removal of a parking pad measuring 2.6 m x 6.0 m is in the range of $1,500 to $2,600 which could escalate depending on the site conditions.

Should your Committee wish to pursue the request to restore the paved areas to green areas, the program should be introduced as a pilot project with a specific number of locations to be restored. The process outlined in this report will provide a basis for establishing the number of locations that would qualify, public interest in the program, as well as costs involved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 8, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-Law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To provide the members of the Toronto Community Council with a synopsis of their views on possible changes to the front yard parking system and a process for dealing with requests for site specific exemptions to the by-law; and to address other related requests made by Councillors at the April 1, 1998 meeting of the Toronto Community Council and a further communication dated August17, 1998 from Councillor Tom Jakobek.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The cost to the City for each request to remove the front yard parking pad and re-sod the front yard could vary from $1,500 to $2,600 based on a 2.6 m x 5.9 m parking pad. Given that we are unable to determine the number of request from residents, we are unable to determine the financial impact on recommendation (2) of this report, at this time. Currently there are 3,104 front yard parking licences issued to residents of the former City of Toronto.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)An appeal process for front yard parking requests be established as outlined below:

(a)The applicant submit in writing to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a request for special exemption to the by-law, detailing the reasons of the appeal;

(b)Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services conduct a poll and the polling area to consist of residential properties located on both sides of the street within 100 metres of the subject property, or to the nearest intersection, whichever is the shorter distance;

(c)Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prepare a report on the appeal and results of the poll for consideration by the Toronto Community Council and for the hearing of deputations, and the Ward Councillors' position(s) on the request;

(d)Residents within the polling area be notified of the hearing date;

(e)Introduce a non-refundable appeal fee of $400.00; and

(f)Ward 24 residents be excluded from the appeal process;

(2)(a)If the owner of a property wishes to relinquish the front yard parking licence, the City would agree, at its own expense to:

1.plant a City tree in the boulevard in front of the house;

2.re-sod the area;

3.remove the curb cut;

4.provide free downspout disconnection service;

5.offer a free water conservation audit to the property owner; and

6.provide one year's free permit parking, for one vehicle in the household;

(b)If the City has removed the front yard parking and restored the City boulevard at its expense, the owner and subsequent owners may not apply to reinstall front yard parking for 5 years;

(3) Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code be amended by deleting Section 400-9D(1.1)(b); and

(4)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:

At its meeting of April 1, 1998, the Toronto Community Council considered my report on Regulations Governing Front Yard Parking (All Wards in the former City of Toronto), and other background material and communications on the topic. The Toronto Community Council asked the Commissioner to report on ward-by-ward local options for front yard parking, as a general principle, and to consult with all the local councillors on how such principles "can best be addressed in their own wards".

The Community Council also asked for advice on ways and means to "assist and encourage owners to landscape their properties where front yard parking has been eliminated".

Councillor Tom Jakobek, in his communication of August 17, 1998, also requested that I report on removing the waiting list condition for shared ramps.

Comments:

Current Criteria for Front Yard Parking

Front yard parking is regulated under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. These provisions require that:

(a)the property is not within a permit parking area or on a street where permit parking is permitted, or within Ward 24 (former Wards 5 and 6);

(b)there is no access to the rear of the property by a laneway, driveway or on a corner property;

(c)a parking space can not be constructed on the property behind the main front wall of the building;

(d)the property is not within an area that was previously polled or posted where the result was negative;

(e)applications can not be submitted for 2 years from the last day of any appeals;

(f)polling is to be done for each application;

(g)joint applications can be submitted where a waiting list has continuously existed for more than 6 months; and

(h)not more than one licence be issued to the property.

Meeting with Toronto Community Council Councillors

Last May, staff from Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development met with all the Ward Councillors of the Toronto Community Council. At these meetings Councillors were briefed on the principles behind the current by-law, and the relationship between the zoning by-law and changes to the front yard parking by-law which were adopted by the former Toronto City Council in July 1996, to preserve neighbourhood streetscape.

When presented with material on the front yard parking regime, there was almost unanimous agreement among the 16 members of the Toronto Community Council that it is worth preserving the existing streetscape throughout the City.

This report summarizes what we heard from the Ward Councillors at these meetings, and addresses the issues of local options to implement front yard parking as well as incentives to remove front yard parking.

The following are some of the comments made:

*preserving neighbourhood streetscape is a sound and fundamental principle which should not be lost in pursuit of a more liberal front yard parking by-law;

*front yard parking should not be permitted if there is existing on-site parking such as a garage, or laneway access to parking at the rear of the property;

*having different rules on how or when front yard parking is permitted from ward to ward creates inequities between residents in different wards which is hard to justify, and extremely difficult to administer fairly;

*the current regulations for front yard parking could be even stronger (more stringent);

*front yard parking requests should be subject to a poll of neighbourhood residents and only be allowed if a majority of those polled are in favour. This is the current requirement on streets without permit parking, where front yard parking applications may be considered under the current by-law;

*do not compromise green space for front yard parking;

*trees should not be removed or damaged to facilitate front yard parking;

*although the current system of refusing an application for front yard parking is clear and equitable across the City, it does not provide an appeal mechanism for anomalous situations;

*there appears to be no way to deal with requests for front yard parking which do not meet the by-law requirements, but which may have merit because of their unique or unusual circumstances;

*the Councillors need a fair 'relief valve' to deal with anomalous situations in their wards presented by individual constituents;

*there should be a uniform appeal mechanism which would be clearly understood and followed so that the merits of such cases could be discussed in a public format;

*remove the 6 months waiting list provision for shared ramps.

To address the Ward Councillors' comments, the following criteria is recommended to provide a fair and equitable way of dealing with applications for front yard parking.

Standardized appeal process to allow the Community Council to consider site specific requests for exemptions from the by-law

As indicated earlier, one thing that was consistently heard from the Councillors was a need for a fair 'relief valve' to deal with anomalous situations in their wards as a result of specific needs by individual constituents.

An example was the case where an entire street had been granted permission for front yard parking before the passage of amendments to the Front Yard Parking By-law in 1996. Unfortunately one property owner missed the deadline for making an application and could not get a licence under the new rules. Since the streetscape had already been altered irretrievably, there was no real environmental advantage in insisting that the last property owner be denied the same privilege. This situation is well-suited to an appeal for a site specific exemption.

There is a general right of appeal for all applicants whose request is denied by staff based on current criteria, except for those residents of Ward 24, Downtown (former Wards 5 and 6). The current appeal mechanism available to an applicant is based on a subjective opinion that the applicant in his/her mind meets the criteria as opposed to the department's opinion that the applicant does not meet the criteria. This appeal mechanism simply states that "Where the Commissioner refuses to approve the issuance of a licence (for front yard parking) an applicant may appeal to the Committee in writing setting out the reasons why the applicant believes the applicant complies with the provision of this section and request to be heard by the Committee." The costs for such an appeal are borne by the City.

The current fee for a front yard parking application is $55.04. As a result, owners who are not eligible for front yard parking under the by-law, routinely make front yard parking applications as a means to forward their request for appeal, as there is no financial disincentive to using the application process in this matter. It costs Works and Emergency Services $400.000 on average, to conduct a poll. While substantially higher than the current application fee, "an appeal fee" of $400.00 is proposed. However, this does not cover the costs of a site visit, preparation of a sketch and the necessary report to the Community Council.

Based on the discussions with Councillors and to establish a consistent and equitable public consideration of each request for an exemption based on its own merits, the following appeal process is recommended :

(a)a special request from the applicant for exemption to the by-law be submitted in writing to the Department;

(b)the Department conduct a poll and the poll shall include the residential properties located on both sides of the street within 100 metres of the subject property, or the nearest intersection, whichever is the shorter distance;

(c)the Department report on the validity of the request and the results of the poll for consideration by the Toronto Community Council and the hearing of deputations;

(d)neighbourhood residents within the polling area be notified in writing of the hearing; and

(e)to discourage frivolous appeals, a fee be established in the amount of $400.00 to cover the cost of the poll.

Councillors Kyle Rae and Olivia Chow have indicated that they do not want the by-law amended in their Wards, to permit appeals for front yard parking.

Incentives for restoration of front yard parking pads

Councillors with congested parking problems in their Wards still did not want to compromise green space for front yard parking.

Councillor Pantalone suggested that the current requirements for front yard parking as outlined earlier could be made even stronger by including a requirement that a tree be planted as a condition of approval for a front yard parking pad. Councillors Olivia Chow and Jack Layton suggested a more comprehensive package of incentives which, if actively promoted, might better encourage owners to relinquish front yard parking licences.

To encourage homeowners to relinquish their front yard parking licences, the following proposal is being recommended:

The City at its own expense:

(a)Plant a tree in the boulevard in front of the house;

(b)Re-sod the area;

(c)Remove the curb cut;

(d)Provide free downspout disconnection service;

(e)Offer a free water conservation audit to the property owner;

(f)Provide one year's free permit parking, for one vehicle in the household; and

If the City has removed the front yard parking and restored the City boulevard at its expense, the owner and subsequent owners may not apply to reinstall front yard parking for 5 years.

The cost to the City for each request could range from $1,500 to $2,600 for each location. This recommendation would have a financial impact on the City, however, at this time we are unable to determine the financial impact, since we have no way of knowing the number of requests from residents. Currently there are 3,104 front yard parking licences issued to residents of the former City of Toronto.

Conclusion:

Councillors are generally satisfied with the current Front Yard Parking By-law and support its policy intent, which is to preserve neighbourhood streetscape and rely on the existing supply of on-street parking as the preferred option for residential parking. However, some fair, consistent means of dealing with unusual situations would be helpful. Based on discussions with Councillors, staff are recommending that a new, clearly defined appeal process for site specific exemptions be incorporated in Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, as outlined in this report.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, the following, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

-Clause 1, contained in Report No. 8 of the former City of Toronto City Services Committee, titled "Solutions for Front Yard Parking and Boulevard Parking to Preserve Neighbourhood Streetscapes (All Wards)" which was amended and adopted by City Council at its Regular Meeting on July 2 and 5, 1996;

-Clause 20, contained in Report No. 10 of the former City of Toronto Land Use Committee, titled "Draft Zoning By-law - Regulation of Below Grade and at Grade Integral Garages and Front Yard Landscaping in Residential Districts" which was amended and adopted by City Council at its Regular Meeting on July 2, 1996; and

-Clause 26, contained in Report No. 16 of the former City of Toronto City Services Committee titled "Review of Front Yard and Boulevard Parking Regulations to Reinforce Neighbourhood Streetscapes", which was amended and adopted by City Council at its Regular Meeting on December 18 and 19, 1995.

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:

-(September 14, 1998) from the President, Greater Toronto Home Builders Association;

-(September 16, 1998) from Ms. Lisa Ben;

-(September 15, 1998) from Mr. Paul Strain;

-(September 15, 1998) from Ms. N. Jane Pepino, Aird & Berlis;

-(undated) from Ms. Toba Bryant and Mr. Dennis Raphael;

-(October 5, 1998) from G. Pigdon;

-(October 8, 1998) from Mr. David Vallance;

-(October 6, 1998) from Mr. Luis and Ms. Elizabeth Candido forwarding Petition with 39 Signatures in Favour of Front Yard Parking at 305 Westmoreland Avenue;

-(October 13, 1998) from Ms. Margaret Blair, on behalf of Lakeside Area Neighbourhoods Association;

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Ted Ross;

-(October 6, 1998) from Mr. Vince Abate;

-(undated) from Mr. Pete Lawson;

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Alison Bidwell; and

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Joan Doiron.

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

-Ms. Alison Bidwell, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Jane Pepino, Greater Toronto Home Builders Association;

-Mr. Peter Lawson, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Maria Lopes, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Carol Jamieson, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Shazack Ali, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Joan Doiron, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Manoj Ravindran, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Peter Smith, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Lisa Gelb, CHC Analyst;

-Mr. Tiwana S. Singh, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Lawrence Kerry, Toronto, Ontario.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(a)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Rashmi M. Nathwani, Namara Associates Limited, in support of a request by the Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association to establish a Reference Group or Task Force to develop guidelines on "New Urbanism" which include encouraging porches and other urban design features;

(b)(October 14 1998) from Ms. Judy Brase and Mr. Ernest Giambrone expressing their support for re-opening the debate on front yard parking;

(c)(October 27, 1998) from representatives of the Toronto Environmental Alliance, outlining their concerns with respect to the proposal to permit front yard parking;requesting that the report be referred back to the Community Council so that residents of the City have an opportunity to examine the environmental and community streetscape implications of these significant changes; and attaching a copy of Mr. William E. Brown's submission to the Committee of the Whole at its budget debate on April 14, 1998; and

(d)(October 27, 1998) from Ms. Mary Lawson, President, Greater Toronto Home Builders' Association, suggesting, for reasons outlined in the communication, that Toronto City Council not approve the Recommendations of the Toronto Community Council.)

Amendments to Parking Regulation Near

368 Eglinton Avenue West (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October5,1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To amend the parking regulations in the vicinity of No. 368 Eglinton Avenue West by converting the use of a two-space taxicab stand to metered parking spaces.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The funds associated with the implementation of the proposed parking regulation amendments are contained in the Transportation Services Division's 1998 Current Budget. The estimated cost of installing appropriate signs is $600.00.

Recommendations:

1. That the two-space taxicab stand designation, on the north side of Eglinton Avenue West, west of Avenue Road, be rescinded; 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:

At the request of Ms. Lois Greenspoon, of The Eglinton Way BIA and Councillor Anne Johnston, Transportation Services staff investigated the feasibility of providing additional on-street metered parking spaces by converting the existing two-space taxicab stand on the north side of Eglinton Avenue West, between Castle Knock Road and Avenue Road, in the vicinity of No. 368 Eglinton Avenue West.

A two-space taxicab stand has been in place on the north side of Eglinton Avenue West, west of Avenue Road, at least since 1985 and perhaps longer. This taxicab stand operates at all times except during the morning and afternoon peak periods on weekdays.

In December 1997, Toronto Hydro replaced a pole, on which the original taxicab stand signs were mounted, necessitating the replacement of the taxicab stand signs. There was a short period of time between the removal of the pole and the replacement of the taxicab stand signs. During this time, motorists utilized this space to park. As a result, the Eglinton Way BIA made their request for the conversion.

Our observations indicate that this taxicab stand is rarely used. Often, private vehicles park illegally in these spaces on a short-term basis. The Taxi Advisory Committee does not have a concern with the proposed conversion of the existing two-space taxicab stand to metered parking spaces in the vicinity of No. 368 Eglinton Avenue West. Councillors Michael Walker and Anne Johnston support this proposal.

Contact Name:

Jacqueline White, Acting Manager, Central Traffic Region

Tel. No. 416-397-5021

Closing of Lane - Rear of

323 Richmond Street East

(Don River)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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.

Authority: Toronto Community Council

Report No.

Intended for first presentation to Council: October 28, 1998.

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To stop up and close part of the public lane abutting premises 323 Richmond Street East

WHEREAS by Clause of Toronto Community Council Report No. , adopted by Council at its meeting held on October 28, 1998, it is recommended that part of the public lane abutting premises 323 Richmond Street East be stopped up and closed as a public lane;

AND WHEREAS notice of Council's intention to stop up and close part of the said public lane was advertised in a daily newspaper on .

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

1.Part of the public lane abutting premises 323 Richmond Street East, described by W. Kowalenko, Esq., O.L.S., City Surveyor, as follows:

In the City of Toronto and Province of Ontario, being composed of part of the Public Lane on Plan D-39 designated as Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5 on Plan 64R-15823 both said Plans being in the Land Registry Office for the Metropolitan Toronto Registry Division (No. 64)

is hereby stopped up and closed as a public lane.

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

MEL LASTMAN, NOVINA WONG,

Mayor City Clerk

(Corporate Seal)

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that pursuant to Clause No.40, contained in Report No. 5 of The Toronto Community Council headed "Closing of Lane Containing Encroaching Below Grade Levels of Garage - Rear Of 323 Richmond Street East (Don River)", which was adopted without amendment by City Council at its Regular Meeting held on May13 and14, 1998, notice of its hearing on October 14, 1998 with respect to the proposed enactment of the draft by-law was advertised in a daily newspaper on September 22, September 29, October 6 and October 13, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

________

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause No. 40, contained in Report No. 5 of The Toronto Community Council, titled "Closing of Lane Containing Encroaching Below Grade Levels of Garage - Rear of 323 Richmond Street East (Don River)":

________

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

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (April15,1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation Division, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To obtain City Council authority to close the portion of the public lane containing the encroaching first and second below grade levels of the Parking Authority of Toronto parking garage at the rear of Premises No. 323 Richmond Street East, in order to provide necessary easements to the purchaser of the third and fourth below grade levels of the parking garage.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in connection with the subject closing can be provided from Parking Authority of Toronto Account No. 216-014.

Recommendations:

1. That the portions of the public lane containing the encroaching first and second below grade levels of the Parking Authority of Toronto parking garage at the rear of Premises No. 323 Richmond Street East, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2850-1, be stopped-up and closed; and

2. That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect to the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required, including the necessary Bill to amend Schedule "A" of By-law No. 1995-0194, and provide notice to the public.

Background:

The former Toronto City Council, at its meeting of August 21, 1997, adopted Clause 33 in Executive Committee Report No. 19, and authorized the closing and conveyancing of the portion of the public lane containing the encroaching third and fourth below grade levels of the parking garage at the rear of Premises No. 323 Richmond Street East. The closing including the air rights, was required by the Parking Authority of Toronto to finalize a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Lorenzetti Development Corporation for the construction of a residential condominium. In this connection, the former Council passed By-law No. 1997-0552. I note that the first and second below grade levels of the garage were retained by the Parking Authority for use as public parking and were accommodated within the lane lands through an encroachment agreement.

Comments:

The President of the Parking Authority of Toronto has now advised that the lane containing the Parking Authority portion of the garage, namely the first and second below grade levels at the above noted location must also be closed so that easements may be granted to all condominium owners for access and maintenance purposes. I note that easements cannot be granted on public highway lands. I have assessed the proposal and consider it feasible.

The portions of the lane to be closed, shown hatched on Plan SYE2850-1, will be administered by the Parking Authority. The surface lands will remain open as a public lane and under the jurisdiction of Works and Emergency Services. The terms and conditions related to support of the lane, access through the garage for maintenance purposes, etc., as contained in the encroachment agreement would remain in effect with respect to the surface lane which will remain open.

This undertaking is exempt from Environmental Assessment in accordance with 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

Richmond/Sherbourne/Ontario

Installation of Speed Humps on George Street South and

Pedestrian Crossover with Median Traffic Islands on

Front Street East (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the operating speed of traffic on George Street South between Front Street East and The Esplanade and enhance safety for pedestrians crossing Front Street East at George Street South.

Funding Sources:

Funds to cover the cost of installing the speed humps on George Street south, and the median islands on Front Street East, in the amounts of about $4,000 and $5,000, respectively, are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702 and funds to cover the cost of installing the Pedestrian Crossover, estimated at about $15,000.00, are available in the Department's 1998 Operating Budget.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on George Street South between Front Street East and The Esplanade 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 George Street South between Front Street East and The Esplanade, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No.421F-5255, dated September 1998";

(2) That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on George Street South between Front Street East and The Esplanade, coincident with the implementation of speed humps;

(3)That a pedestrian crossover be installed on Front Street East at the east side of George Street South;

(4) That approval be given to narrow and alter specified sections of the pavement on Front Street East from Jarvis Street to George Street South and from George Street South to Frederick Street, through the placement of centre median traffic islands, as described in the body of this report and generally as shown on Drawing No. 421F-5268, and as follows:

"(a) The narrowing of the pavement on Front Street East from approximately 6.5metres west of George Street South to a point 6 metres further west, from a current width varying from 17.1 to 21.0 metres to a width varying from 15.1 to 21.0 metres;

(b) The narrowing of the pavement on Front Street East from approximately 15metres east of George Street South to a point 6 metres further east, from a current width of 15.26 metres to a width varying from 13.26 to 15.26metres";

(5) That parking be prohibited at anytime on:

(a)the north side of Front Street East from a point 25.8 metres east of George Street South to a point 30.3 metres west of George Street South;

(b) the south side of Front Street East from a point 28.0 metres west of George Street South to a point 25.6 metres east of George Street South; and

(6) 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 to give effect thereto.

Comments:

At the request of and in consultation with Councillor Kyle Rae, staff of Works and Emergency Services have investigated various measures to reduce the operating speeds of traffic on George Street South, between Front Street East and The Esplanade, and to assist pedestrians crossing Front Street East at the intersection of Front Street East at George Street South.

Staff have completed their review of these matters, and with respect to each, I note as follows.

1.George Street South - Installation of speed humps

George Street South is a local/residential street operating two way from Front Street East to The Esplanade on a pavement width of 8.42 metres with a down grade of about 2.5% from north to south. The maximum speed limit is 40 kilometres per hour. Parking is prohibited at anytime on the east side of the street and is permitted, with certain temporal restrictions, on the west side.

A recent 24-hour speed/volume survey conducted on George Street South between Front Street East and Jenoves Place recorded about 2,500 vehicles of which about 50% traveled in excess of the speed limit, including about 25% which traveled at an excessive rate of speed (11 km/h or more over the speed limit). The 85^th percentile speed on this street was about 52 km/h.

The former City of Toronto Council, at its meeting on August 21, 1997 adopted, as amended Clause 28 in City Services Committee Report No. 10 entitled, Installation of Speed Humps on City Streets, which sets out 5 primary installation criteria related to the speed limit, roadway dimensions, public transit operations, traffic volume and road grade which must be satisfied when evaluating requests for speed humps. Based on our assessment, this section of George Street South satisfies these primary installation criteria for speed humps.

Staff have prepared a speed hump plan for George Street South between Front Street East and The Esplanade (shown on Drawing No. 421F-5255, attached). We suggest that two speed humps be installed to reduce the incidence of speeding. The speed humps would be located about 47 metres apart, at a point 47 metres north of The Esplanade (immediately north of Jenoves Place) and approximately 42.0 metres south of Front Street East. In combination with the installation of speed humps, we suggest that the speed limit be reduced from 40 km/h to 30 km/h. Implementation of this plan would have no impact on the existing parking regulations on this street.

As stipulated in the above-noted Clause, once it has been determined that the speed hump installation is technically warranted, a City poll should be conducted of adult residents of households directly abutting the affected street. Given the relatively profound impact that such an initiative may have on a street, it is recommended that a moderately high level of acceptance, namely 60% of those persons responding, be achieved in order to authorize the installation.

The changes proposed to George Street South, as set out above, constitute alterations to a public highway pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act. Accordingly, 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. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

2. Intersection of Front Street East/George Street South - Installation of a Pedestrian Crossover

Front Street East and George Street South form a slightly skewed 4-way intersection with Front Street East being the through street. Front Street East is a 4-lane arterial road operating two-way on a pavement width ranging from 15.1 metres to 21.0 metres with a 50km/h per hour maximum speed limit. As noted in Item 1 above, George Street South is a local/residential street operating two-way on a pavement width of 8.42 metres with a 40 km/h maximum speed limit.

A review of the Toronto Police Service's collision data records for the 3 year period from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997 has revealed that 5 collisions were reported at this intersection, none of which involved either pedestrians or cyclists. Notwithstanding, I am sure that the members of the Toronto Community Council are aware of the recent incident that occurred at this intersection which tragically claimed the life of a 5 year-old pedestrian.

Although statistically, the Front Street East/George Street South intersection has generally been operating safely for many years and a signalized crossing of Front Street East is provided about 100 metres west at Jarvis Street, the volume of pedestrians crossing Front Street East in the vicinity of George Street South is increasing. Much of the increase in pedestrian crossings of Front Street East can be attributed to the construction of new residential developments (which are still on-going in the area) and the opening of commercial/retail businesses in the area which serve the residential community.

With this in mind, staff looked at options which might enhance crossing safety, specifically, installing median islands on Front Street East immediately east and west of George Street South to provide a pedestrian refuge area, installing a pedestrian crossover (PXO) at the intersection and the combined implementation of both measures.

The median islands by themselves would provide a measure of safety which might increase the number of pedestrians crossing at this location. However, aside from the general provision that motorists yield to pedestrians in the roadway, there would be no legal requirement for motorists to stop. Pedestrians would still have to wait for a gap in on-coming traffic and cross at their discretion to get from the curb to the island and then from the island to the opposite curb.

Alternatively we reviewed this intersection against the installation warrants for a PXO. Based on the current volume of traffic travelling on Front Street East, a minimum of 225 pedestrians would be required of which 115 pedestrians experience delays at the curb in excess of 10seconds, to satisfy the numerical warrants for the installation of a PXO. A pedestrian delay/difficulty survey was conducted at the Front Street East/George Street South intersection on September 22, 1998. A total of 481 pedestrians were recorded crossing the street, of which 160 pedestrians experienced delays at the curb in excess of 10 seconds.

Although the spacing to the adjacent signalized intersection is very close and a PXO would not normally be recommended in an instance like this, based on the environmental considerations, particularly the vehicular traffic volume, the number of recorded crossings at George Street South and the number of pedestrian delays recorded, the installation of a pedestrian crossover is justified at the east side of the intersection, where the majority of pedestrians currently cross and where advance sight lines between motorists and pedestrians are best. This would provide a controlled crossing area at which motorists would be required to stop for pedestrians and would enhance operational safety for all road users, particularly if the pedestrian early warning system (overhead flashing amber beacons) is activated by the person wishing to cross.

Combining the installation of median islands and the pedestrian crossover, (as shown on Drawing No. 421F-5268, attached) would provide a controlled crossing area with the added benefit of a pedestrian refuge area at the mid-point of the roadway. As Front Street East has a relatively wide four lane cross-section varying between 15.1 metres to the east and 21.0 metres to the west of George Street South, and a moderately high traffic volume in the order of 20,000 vehicles daily, these combined measures would enhance pedestrian safety and add a measure of traffic calming on the eastbound and westbound approaches to George Street South by slightly reducing the widths of the traffic lanes.

I note, however, that 8 parking meter spaces would have to be removed (2 each on the north and south sides of the street, both east and west of George Street South) to allow for the realignment of the traffic lanes on the approaches to the intersection and to ensure that satisfactory advance sight lines between motorists and pedestrians are provided in the vicinity of the pedestrian crossover.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Dave Dignard/Curt Russell,

Tel. No. 392-7771

Insert Table/Map No. 1

George Street/Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

George Street/Front Street

Prohibition of Standing - Lombard Street, Both Sides,

from Victoria Street to Church Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October5,1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to discourage motorists from parking over top of maintenance hole covers where access is required by Works staff to effect emergency repairs.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on the south side of Lombard Street, from Victoria Street to a point 20.0 metres east, be rescinded;

(2)That standing be prohibited at anytime on the south side of Lombard Street, from Victoria Street to a point 20.0 metres east;

(3)That standing be prohibited at anytime on the north side of Lombard Street, from a point 24.1 metres east of Victoria Street to a point 6.0 metres further east; and

(4)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 staff Works and Emergency Services - Water and Wastewater Services, staff of Transportation Services have investigated implementing parking regulations on the south side of Lombard Street at a point 13.0 metres east of Victoria Street (where parking is currently prohibited) and on the north side of Lombard Street at a point 24.1 metres east of Victoria Street (where metered parking space No. #12066 currently exists), which might discourage motorists from parking over road level maintenance holes and allow access at all times to underground vaults at these locations.

Site inspections have revealed that delivery vehicles and vehicles displaying valid disabled persons parking permits (which exempt the vehicle from the parking prohibition), frequently park for extended periods of time on the south side of Lombard Street, from Victoria Street to a point 20.0 metres east, obstructing access by Works staff to the underground vault/sewer at this location and preventing staff from making emergency repairs or providing scheduled maintenance.

Similar problems occur on the north side of Lombard Street (in the third parking meter stall east of Victoria Street) where vehicles may legally park from a point 24.1 metres east of Victoria Street to a point 6.0 metres further east.

In order to ensure that access to these maintenance holes is available at all times, standing should be prohibited at anytime:

-on the south side of Lombard Street, from Victoria Street to a point 20.0 metres east; and

-on the north side of Lombard Street, from a point 24.1 metres east of Victoria Street to a point 6.0 metres further east.

Implementation of this regulation on the north side of Lombard Street will result in the loss of one parking space in an area where there is a high demand for parking throughout the day. Nevertheless, the need for unobstructed assess to this maintenance hole by Works staff is of significant importance and outweighs the inconvenience that the loss of this parking space might cause.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771,

Rescindment of Alternate Side Parking Regulations and

Provision of Year Round Parking on the east side of

Borden Street, between College and Harbord Streets (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October6,1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

This proposal is intended to maximize the number of potential parking spaces on Borden Street.

Funding Sources:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the alternate side parking regulations on Borden Street, between College Street and Harbord Street, be rescinded;

(2) That the one hour maximum parking regulation on Borden Street, between College Street and Harbord Street, be rescinded;

(3)That parking be prohibited at anytime on the west side of Borden Street, between College Street and Harbord Street; and

(4) 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 Olivia Chow on behalf of residents of Borden Street between College Street and Harbord Street staff have investigated rescinding the alternate side parking system on this street and allowing parking only on the east side year round to maximize parking potential on this section of Borden Street.

Borden Street, between College Street and Harbord Street has a pavement width of 7.3 metres and operates two-way from College Street to the public lane first north, one-way northbound from that point to Ulster Street and one-way southbound from Ulster Street to Harbord Street. The following parking regulations are in effect from College Street to Harbord Street:

East side

- Parking is prohibited at anytime from December 1 of one year to March 31 of the next year;

- Parking is prohibited at anytime from the 16^th day to the last day of each month, April 1 to November 30; and

- Parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, April 1 to November 30.

West side

- Parking is prohibited at anytime from the 1^st day to the 15^th day of each month, April1 to November 30.

- Parking is allowed for a maximum period of one hour from:

a) the 16^th day to the last day of each month, April 1 to November 30; and

b) December 1 of one year to March 31 of the next year.

Permit parking regulations apply overnight in conjunction with the alternate side parking provisions on Borden Street. Borden Street is in Permit Parking Area 6B where all of the 645 parking permits authorized for this area have been issued and a wait list has been established. Specifically on Borden Street from College Street to Harbord Street, 57 permits have been issued to residents against 78 parking spaces available under the provisions of the alternate side parking system.

Over 250 residential streets throughout the Toronto Community Council Area have alternate side parking to facilitate mechanical street sweeping along both sides of the street on a weekly basis. On streets where parking is continuous on one side, the unparked side may be swept mechanically. Although some mechanical sweeping might be feasible provided gaps of sufficient length are present between parked cars, the parked side of the street generally requires manual cleaning every three to four weeks around parked vehicles to maintain a suitable level of cleanliness.

There are 78 parking spaces on the west side and 86 parking spaces on the east side of Borden Street under the alternate side parking provisions. Having consideration for the residents' request and the on-street parking requirements of residents in permit parking Area 6B in general, the alternate side parking regulations on Borden Street between College Street and Harbord Street, should be rescinded and parking should be allowed year round on the east side of the street. This would maximize parking potential on Borden Street between College Street and Harbord Street by providing 8 more parking spaces on the street and in permit parking Area 6B.

Coupled with the request to rescind alternate side parking, residents also would like parking allowed for a longer duration to benefit their visitors and guests. In this regard, the one hour parking restriction can be rescinded and parking can be allowed for the statutory maximum period of three hours on the east side of Borden Street from College Street to Harbord Street. I note however that, given the proximity of Borden Street to public transit service and nearby retail services on College Street, there is a possibility that a long term non-resident parking problem might arise which would deprive residents and their guests of parking spaces on Borden Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Curt Russell, 392-7771

Proposed Speed Humps - Sorauren Avenue, Westminster Avenue,

Fermanagh Avenue, Wright Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October13,1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To reduce the speed of traffic on the subject streets by the introduction of speed humps.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to cover the cost of this work in the estimated amount of $30,000 are available under Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

1. That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Sorauren Avenue, from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues, from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue, and on Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue for traffic calming purposes as described below, with implementation subject to favourable results of the polling of 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 Sorauren Avenue, from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues, from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue and on Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue, generally as shown on the attached prints of Drawing No.421F-5243 dated August 1998, Drawing No. 421F-5261 dated September 1998 and Drawing No. 421F-5267 dated October 1998, respectively";

2.That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Sorauren Avenue from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue and Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue coincident with the implementation of speed humps; and

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

Comment:

At the request of Councillor Korwin-Kuczynski and area residents, a staff investigation was conducted to determine the feasibility of installing speed humps on Sorauren Avenue from Grenadier Road to Wabash Avenue, on Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues from Roncesvalles Avenue to Sorauren Avenue and on Wright Avenue from Roncesvalles Avenue to Macdonell Avenue to reduce the speed of motor vehicles on these streets. A plan was forwarded to the area Councillors and the traffic committee of the Roncesvalles Macdonell Residents' Association and is shown on the attached prints of Drawing No. 421F-5243 dated August 1998, Drawing No. 421F-5261 dated September 1998 and Drawing No. 421F-5267 dated October 1998.

Westminster, Fermanagh and Wright Avenues have the highest traffic volumes of any of the local east-west residential streets in the Roncesvalles-Macdonell area. As well, area schools abut these streets, and thus, they are the focus for the current proposal to install speed humps. The proposal related to Sorauren Avenue includes the section fronting the large park, north of Wabash Avenue where Sorauren Avenue traffic is not controlled by "Stop" signs and exhibits relatively higher traffic speeds. The proposal includes 3 speed humps on Sorauren Avenue, 4 on each of Westminster and Fermanagh Avenues and 7 on Wright Avenue.

Sorauren Avenue between Grenadier Road and Wabash Avenue is a two-way collector street having a pavement width of 7.3 metres and a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit. Parking is permitted on the west side and the permit parking system is in effect from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. This portion of Sorauren Avenue carries in excess of 6,000 vehicles daily of which 43% travel in excess of the 40 kilometres per hour speed limit and 10% travel at more than 10 kilometres per hour over the limit.

The intersection of Wabash Avenue and Sorauren Avenue at the south-west corner of the park was made an all-way stop in March of 1997. However, as is often the case when the amount of traffic on one street is high and the other relatively low (Wabash Avenue carries about 1,100 vehicles per day) there are concerns that non-compliance with the "Stop" sign may become an issue and pedestrians may be lulled into a false sense of security.

Westminster, Fermanagh and Wright Avenues are one-way local residential streets having pavement widths of 6.5 m, 7.3 m and 7.3 m, respectively, and 40 kilometre per hour speed limits. Of major concern to the local traffic committee is the safety of pedestrians, particularly children using the park and around the area schools (Fern Avenue Public School and St. Vincent De Paul Catholic School). These three streets have daily traffic volumes between 1,150 and 1,300 vehicles with between 22% and 36% travelling in excess of the posted speed limit of 40 km/h. and between 2% and 8% travelling at more than 10 km/h.

As stipulated in the policy, once it has been determined that the primary criteria for speed humps have been satisfied, a City poll should be conducted of adults (18 years and older) of households directly abutting the affected street. The policy notes that 60% of valid responses to the poll should support the plan in order to authorize the installation.

The changes proposed to Sorauren, Westminster, Fermanagh and Wright Avenues as set out above constitute alterations to public highways pursuant to provisions of the Municipal Act.

Accordingly, 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. It is noted that emergency services will be advised of the proposal to ensure that the detailed design does not unduly hamper their operations.

This project is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule A of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Roads Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number

Mike Harris, Transportation Planner, 392-7711

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Sorauren Avenue, Roncesvales, MacDonell, Wright

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Sorauren Avenue, Roncesvales, MacDonell, Wright

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Sorauren Avenue, Roncesvales, MacDonell, Wright

Designation of 363-365 Adelaide Street East (Don River)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 363-365 Adelaide Street East for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the said Act in respect to such designation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Recommendation:

That authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 363-365 Adelaide Street East for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the said Act in respect to such designation.

Comments:

Pursuant to the action of City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 (Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, Clause 67), Notice of Intention to Designate 363-365 Adelaide Street East as a property of architectural and historical value or interest was sent to the owner and the Ontario Heritage Foundation and, also in accordance with Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Notice of such intention was published in a newspaper on August 26, 1998.

Both the Notice of Intention and the newspaper insertion stated that any objection be served on the City Clerk, c/o Frances Pritchard, Interim Contact, Toronto Community Council within thirty days, expiring on September 25, 1998. No objections have been received.

Contact Name:

Lori Brown

Telephone:(416) 392-0476

Facsimile: (416) 392-1558

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

Designation of 226 King Street East (Don River)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 226 King Street East for architectural and historical interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provision of the said Act in respect to such designation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Recommendation:

That authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 226 King Street East for architectural and historical interest under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the said Act in respect to such designation.

Comments:

Pursuant to the action of City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 (Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, Clause 66), Notice of Intention to Designate 226 King Street East as a property of architectural and historical value or interest was sent to the owner and the Ontario Heritage Foundation and, also in accordance with Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Notice of such intention was published in a newspaper on August 26, 1998.

Contact Name:

Lori Brown

Telephone:(416) 392-0476

Facsimile: (416) 392-1558

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

Designation of 93 Balsam Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 93 Balsam Avenue for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the said Act in respect to such designation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Recommendation:

That authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 93 Balsam Avenue for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the said Act in respect to such designation.

Comments:

Pursuant to the action of City Council at its meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998 (Toronto Community Council Report No. 10, Clause 68), Notice of Intention to Designate 93 Balsam Avenue as a property of architectural and historical value or interest was sent to the owner and the Ontario Heritage Foundation and, also in accordance with Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Notice of such intention was published in a newspaper on August 26, 1998.

Contact Name:

Lori Brown

Telephone:(416) 392-0476

Facsimile: (416) 392-1558

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

Designation of 4 and 8 South Kingsway (High Park)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 4 and 8 South Kingsway for historic reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the said Act in respect to such designation.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:

Recommendation:

That authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 4 and 8 South Kingsway for historic reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and that the appropriate City Officials be directed to take whatever action may be necessary to comply with the provisions of the said Act in respect to such designation.

Comments:

Pursuant to the action of City Council at its meeting held on April 16, 1998 (Toronto Community Council Report No. 3, Clause 73), Notice of Intention to Designate 4 and 8 South Kingsway as a property of historic value or interest was sent to the owner and the Ontario Heritage Foundation and, also in accordance with Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. Notice of such intention was published in a newspaper on July 30, 1998.

Both the Notice of Intention and the newspaper insertion stated that any objection be served on the City Clerk, c/o Frances Pritchard, Interim Contact, Toronto Community Council within thirty days, expiring on August 29, 1998. One objection was received. In accordance with Section 29(15) of the Ontario Heritage Act, the objection was later withdrawn.

Contact Name:

Lori Brown

Telephone:(416) 392-0476

Facsimile: (416) 392-1558

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

Draft Zoning By-law -

1090 Shaw Street (Davenport)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report September 18, 1998 of the Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the report (September 14, 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 October14, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 18, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments to permit private garages on certain lots in this Council-approved development to be closer to residential buildings on abutting lots than otherwise required by the by-law.

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 September 18, 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 site-specific Zoning By-law 1997-0229 to permit certain private garages to be closer to residential buildings on abutting lots than the 4.5 metres otherwise required by the by-law.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law, 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

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause

as adopted by Council

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend By-law No.1997-0229, being A BY-LAW

To amend General Zoning By-law 458-86

with respect to lands known as 1090 Shaw Street.

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

1.Section 4 of By-law No. 1997-0229 is amended as follows:

(1)by inserting "6(3) Part II 7(ii)A as it pertains to Blocks "A", "B", "C", "G" and "H"," after "6(3) part II 2, 3, 4 and 5,";

(2)by amending the provisions respecting Block "A" by:

(i)deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (8);

(ii)deleting the period in paragraph (9) and inserting therefore ";and"; and

(iii)inserting "no accessory building or structure is closer to a residential building than 3.1 metres." as paragraph (10);

(3)by amending the provisions respecting Block "B" by:

(i)deleting word "and" at the end of paragraph (9);

(ii)deleting the period in paragraph (10) and inserting therefore ";and"; and

(iii)inserting "no accessory building or structure is closer to a residential building than 3.1 metres." as paragraph (11);

(4)by amending the provisions respecting Block "C" by:

(i)deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (8);

(ii)deleting the period in paragraph (9) and inserting therefore ";and"; and

(iii)inserting "no accessory building or structure is closer to a residential building than 3.1 metres." as paragraph (10);

(5)by amending the provisions respecting Block "G" by:

(i)deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (8);

(ii)deleting the period in paragraph (9) and inserting therefore ";and"; and

(iii)inserting "no accessory building or structure is closer to a residential building than 3.1 metres." as paragraph (10); and

(6)by amending the provisions respecting Block "H" by:

(i)deleting the word "and" at the end of paragraph (7);

(ii)deleting the period in paragraph (8) and inserting therefore ";and"; and

(iii)inserting "no accessory building or structure is closer to a residential building than 2.1 metres." as paragraph (9).

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

MayorCity Clerk

________

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 14, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend a technical amendment to reduce the required setback between some of the private garages and residential buildings on abutting lots for a project which has already been approved and is now ready for construction.

Source of Funds:

N/A

Recommendations:

1.That Zoning By-law 1997-0229 be amended so as to:

(a)amend Section 4 to exempt Blocks A, B, C, G and H from Section 6(3) PART II (7)(ii)(A) of Zoning By-law 438-86 in addition to those exemptions set out herein; and

(b)include within the zoning provisions for Blocks A, B, C, and G the following requirement:

no accessory building or structure is closer to a residential building than 3.1 metres;

(c)include within the zoning provisions for Block H the following requirement:

no accessory building or structure is closer to a residential building than 2.1 metres;

Comments:

On May 12, 1997 the Council of the former City of Toronto approved By-law 1997-0229 to permit up to 100 semi-detached dwellings at 1090 Shaw Street. This by-law was not appealed and the project is ready for construction. Several houses have already been pre-sold.

The applicant is seeking an amendment to the site-specific zoning which requires the development to comply with the general zoning requirement that private garages be set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from residential dwellings on adjacent lots. An exemption from this general zoning by-law requirement would have been included in the site-specific by-law had the applicant believed he could not meet this requirement. It was only following completion of more detailed design drawings that the applicant realized that an exemption to this requirement was needed for a small percentage (26%) of the units. Twenty units will have a setback of between 3.1 to 4.5 metres and 6 units will have a setback of between 2.1 to 3.6 metres. A typical lot and building plan is shown on Plan 1 attached.

I am satisfied that the setbacks that are proposed are in keeping with the planning and design principles envisioned for this infill development and will result in small, yet amenable, rear yard conditions for a small percentage of the dwellings.

Given the technical nature of this amendment, the support expressed by local residents for this project and so as to not cause undue hardship on people who have already purchased homes by delaying construction, I have proceeded directly to a Final Report on this application.

Contact Name:

Michael Major

Telephone: (416) 392-0760

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

________

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	198014
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	July 14, 1998
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:1090 Shaw Street.

Nearest Intersection:	West side of Shaw Street; south of Marchmount Road.

Project Description:	To construct 100 semi-detached houses.

Applicant:

Peter Campbell

36 Yorkmills Rd. #500

250-5400

Agent:

Shaw St. Village Inc.

36 Yorkmills Rd. #500

250-5400

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:		Site Specific Provision:	1997-0229
Zoning District:	R2 Z1.0	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	10.5	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	23106.6 m²	Height:	Storeys:	2 & 3
Frontage:			Metres:
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:		100
Residential GFA:		Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:

Dwelling Units
Tenure:	Private
Total Units:	100

Density
Residential Density:	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density:

Comments

Application to reduce setback between private garages and residential buildings on adjacent lots.

Status:

Application received.

Data valid:

July 14, 1998

Section:

CP West

Phone:

392-7333

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (October 13, 1998) from Arcangelo Mele, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1090 Shaw

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1090 Shaw

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a transmittal letter (October 21, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding a submission dated October 13, 1998 from Mr. Arcangelo Miele regarding the draft zoning by-law with respect to 1090Shaw Street (Davenport), a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Index of Exceptions to Former City of Toronto

Zoning By-law

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the draft by-law attached to the report (September 18, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in council to give effect thereto; and

(2)Council give authority to the City Solicitor to place future draft by-laws re-enacting the Index of Exceptions of the Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto, being By-law No. 438-86, directly onto the list of Bills for consideration of Council, without the necessity of an accompanying report, upon the instructions of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services (the City Surveyor).

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 18, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendment to replace the Index of Exceptions contained in the Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto, being By-law No. 438-86, with a new updated Index. As well, this report amends the explanatory notes of the Index of Exception to assist the reader in understanding the new by-law numbering conventions.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1)That the draft by-law attached to the report (September 18, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in council to give effect thereto.

(2)That Council give authority to the City Solicitor to place future draft by-laws re-enacting the Index of Exceptions of the Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto, being By-law No.438-86, directly onto the list of Bills for consideration of Council, without the necessity of an accompanying report, upon the instructions of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services (the City Surveyor).

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto, being By-law No. 438-86, contains a section of permissive exceptions (Section 12(1)) and restrictive exceptions (Section 12(2)) pertaining to specific sites.

The By-law also contains, in Section 13, a list of by-laws that prevail over the provisions of the Zoning By-law by virtue of having been passed previously and listed as an existing by-law intended to prevail.

In order to record such exceptions and prevailing by-laws (the "Exceptions"), a section (Section 15) was included in the Zoning By-law which indexes the Exceptions by municipal address for ease of reference (the "Index of Exceptions").

In 1988, direction was given by the Council of the former City of Toronto for the Index of Exceptions to be re-enacted by a by-law on a semi-annual basis or, when circumstances warrant, at such time deemed appropriate by the then Commissioner of Public Works and the Environment and the City Solicitor.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Index of Exceptions is a useful reference tool to determine the exceptions and prevailing by-laws pertaining to specific properties by municipal address. It is recommended that the practice of semi-annual updating be continued by way of the streamlined process of introduction of Bills directly onto the list of Bills to be considered by Council without the necessity of an accompanying report, upon the instructions of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services (the City Surveyor). It would therefore be appropriate to authorize the City Solicitor to do so.

The City Surveyor has, by memorandum dated September 17, 1998, requested that the necessary steps be taken to replace the Index of Exceptions with an new Index which will be updated to September 10, 1998. It is his intention to have the updated Index available for enactment by Council at its meeting of October 28, 1998.

Accordingly, the attached draft by-law provides for the replacement of the Index. A copy of the Index of Exceptions, updated to September 10, 1998, will be on file with the City Clerk prior to passage of the by-law.

As well, a technical amendment is necessary to the explanatory notes of the Index of Exceptions to explain changes to the by-law numbering convention. For the years 1994-1997 inclusive, the year of the by-law was placed first (i.e. 1994-####), whereas beginning in 1998, the by-law number has been placed first (i.e. ####-1998).

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

Authority:Toronto Community Council, Report No. , Clause

as adopted by Council

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No.

To amend Section 15 of By-law No. 438-86 respecting the Index of Exceptions.

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

1.Section 15(1)(b) 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 inserting new sub-paragraphs 15(1)(b)(iv) and 15(1)(b)(v) as follows:

"15(1)(b)(iv)Whenever the numbers and hyphen "94-", "95-", "96-" and "97-" followed by a four digit number appear under the column headed "Exceptions", it means a By-law enacted on or after December 13, 1993, in the new By-law numbering convention of "1994-", "1995-", "1996-" and "1997-".

15(1)(b)(v)Whenever the hyphen and numbers "-98" and "-99", preceded by a number appear under the column headed "Exceptions", it means a By-law enacted on or after January 1, 1998, in the new By-law numbering convention of "-1998" and "-1999"."

2.The Index of Exceptions set forth in subsection (3) of Section 15 of the aforesaid By-law No. 438-86, is hereby deleted and the Index of Exceptions set forth in Schedule 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law is substituted therefor.

(Schedule 1 containing new Index of Exceptions updated to September 10, 1998 to be inserted.)

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

Mayor City Clerk

Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment -

1117 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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, that the Draft By-laws attached to the report (September 15, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto; and

(2)the report (September 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be amended by deleting the words "prior to introduction of a Bill in Council" and replacing them with the words, "prior to the issuance of a building permit" in Recommendation No. 5; and

(3) that the report (September 15, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development, as amended by Recommendation No. (2) and by the supplementary report (October 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, be adopted.

-Mr. Harry Kondratas, representing owner of 1113 Dundas Street West;

-Mr. Armindo C. Silva, Dundas and Ossington Merchants Association; and

-Mr. Pedro Pimentel, Pedro Pimentel Architect.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that it has requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to comment directly to Council on the issues raised in the communication (October 13, 1998) from Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels, Brock and Blackwell, Solicitor for the owner of 1113 Dundas Street West.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 15, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit the mixed-use project proposed for 1117 Dundas Street West. The project contains a total of 36dwelling units in a four storey building with ground floor retail.

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 (September 15, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council will have before it the final report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (September28,1998) at its meeting to be held on October14and15,1998 concerning the above noted subject. This report recommends, inter alia, that Draft By-laws be prepared by the City Solicitor to authorize the proposed mixed-use project at 1117 Dundas Street West. 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.

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.

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. ( )

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 No. 1117 Dundas Street West.

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. 129.

________

SCHEDULE "A"

1.Section 18 of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto is amended by adding a new Section 18.479 as follows:

"18.479Lands known as No. 1117 Dundas Street West

Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass By-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map18.479 to permit the erection and use of a mixed-use building containing not more than 36dwelling units having a maximum residential gross floor area of 2966square metres, a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 673 square metres and a maximum total gross floor area of 3639square metres.

For the purposes of this amendment, 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."

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

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 No. 1117 Dundas Street West.

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

1.None of the provisions of Sections4(2)(a), 4(5)(i)(ii), 4(6)(b), 6(1)(a), 6(3)PARTI1, 6(3)PARTII 2(ii),6(3) PART II 3G., 6(3)PARTII4, 6(3)PARTII5, 6(3)PARTIII1(b) 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, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the lot of a mixed-use building containing not more than 36dwelling units, 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 2966square metres;

(3)the non-residential gross floor area of the mixed-use building does not exceed 673square metres;

(4)the combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the mixed-use building does not exceed 3639square 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 13.0metres;

(7)not less than 19 dwelling units having two or more bedrooms are provided within the mixed-use building;

(8)not less than 49 parking spaces are provided and maintained by the owner on the lot of which not less than 29 parking spaces are reserved for the exclusive use of residents of the lot and of which not less than 10 parking spaces are reserved for visitors to all uses on the lot; and

(9)ingress and egress to and from the required parking facilities shall be provided by an unobstructed driveway having a minimum width of 4.0 metres for two-way operation.

2.For the purposes of this By-law, each word or expression which is italicized herein shall have the same meaning as such word or expression as defined in the aforesaid By-law No.438-86.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of a revised application to construct a four-storey, mixed-use building at 1117 Dundas Street West near Ossington Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.The Zoning By-law 438-86 be amended pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act, so as to:

(a)exempt the site from sections 4(2) height, 4(5)(i)(ii) driveway width, 4(6)(b) loading spaces, 6(1)(a) use, 6(3) PART I 1 gross floor area, 6(3) PART II 2(ii) front lot line, 6(3) PART II 3 G side lot line, 6(3) PART II 4 rear yard setback, 6(3) PART II 5(i) depth and 6(3) PART III 1(b) landscaped open space of By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

(b)permit the construction of a mixed-use building, provided that:

(i)the residential gross floor area does not exceed 2966 square metres;

(ii)a minimum of 19 two or three bedroom units are included in the building;

(iii)the non-residential gross floor area does not exceed 673 square metres;

(iv)the combined residential and non-residential gross floor area for the site does not exceed 3639 square metres;

(v)the building height does not exceed 13.0 metres;

(vi)a driveway width of minimum 4.0 metres is provided to serve the site;

(vii)not less than 49 parking spaces are provided, including at least 29 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and at least 10 spaces for the shared use of the residential visitors and the non-residential component of the site;

(viii)one Type G loading space is provided on the site;

(ix)no portion of the mixed-use building above grade is located outside of the area delineated by heavy lines as shown on the map attached to the By-law.

2.The owner submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements.

3.The owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(a)A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands required for the widening of the lanes and the remainder of the site;

(b)Final approval drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed building to enable preparation of the building envelope plans;

and such plans should be submitted at least 3 week prior to the introduction of Bills in Council.

4.The owner convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit:

(i)a 0.98 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the east limit of the north-south lane;

(ii)a 0.22 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the east-west lane; and

(iii)a 1.5 m by 1.5 m triangular splay at the north-east corner of the intersection of the north-south and east-west public lanes, measured in accordance with the limits of the public lanes as widened;

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 purpose;

5.The owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council.

6.The owner be advised of the requirement to:

(a)comply with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code prior to issuance of the building permit;

(b)obtain building location and streetscape permits from City Works and Emergency Services prior to the construction of the project;

(c)convey land for parks purposes, or payments in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.

1.Site:

The 1494.3 sq.m. site is located on the south side of Dundas Street West just east of Ossington Avenue. Formerly a retail store, it is now used as a parking lot. Public lanes abut the west and south sides of the site.

Commercial uses exist west and north of this site along Dundas. There is a mixture of residential and commercial uses east of the site, on the south side of Dundas. South of the site, across the lane, are residential properties.

2.Current Planning Controls:

While the Dundas/Ossington intersection is recognized as a mixed commercial/residential "Main Streets" area in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, these designations do not extend to the application site, which is zoned R4 Z1.0 and designated Low Density Residence Area in the Official Plan. Notwithstanding the presence of a retail store at the time, the latest City-wide planning review left the residential zoning so that redevelopment would be subject to public review, especially for its impact on nearby residential areas.

3.Project Revisions:

The January, 1998 Preliminary Report on this application listed a number of specific issues that needed to be resolved in the processing of the application. The report discusses these issues, plus others raised at public meetings held on April 22, 1998 and July 29, 1998. The minutes of these meetings are attached as Appendix B and C to this report. The revised proposal submitted in July of this year still consists of a four-storey mixed-use building with underground and surface parking at the rear of the site, but it has been revised as described below.

-The number of units has been reduced from 40 to 36, including 19 two-bedroom units suitable for families, 53 percent of the total.

-The retail component has been reduced from 1045 sq. m. to 672 sq. m.

-The garbage area has been redesigned to improve truck access around the corner of the lanes.

-The surface parking has been internalized.

-The larger family units are located on the lower residential floors, oriented around a central courtyard, and an indoor amenity area has been added.

-The density and height of the revised project are 2.43 times the area of the site and 13 m, respectively.

4.Planning Issues:

4.1Height and Built Form

The site is a logical extension of the "Main Streets" mixed use zoning that exists to the west. Main Streets zoning encourages mid-rise buildings with apartments above stores on the City's main arterial roads and transit routes, like Dundas Street West. The four storey height of the proposal, with its grade related retail use and 3 storeys of apartments above, meets the objectives for this kind of development. An increase in permitted height from 10 m to 13 m can be justified for these reasons. The four storey building has been built to incorporate the fourth storey into the roof and is compatible with building heights in the area.

4.2Density

While the 2.43 times density proposal exceeds the current limits in the Zoning By-law and Official Plan of 1.0 times, it falls within the maximum permitted in the "Main Streets" district to the west of 2.5 times. The 1.98 times density of this residential component also falls under the 2.0 times permitted for residential uses in the adjacent "Main Streets" district. The density is appropriate for a Main Street like Dundas Street West.

4.3Housing

The project provides an appropriate location for housing on Dundas where shopping, community facilities and transportation are all in good supply. The mix of family and smaller units will offer a variety of housing, and the increase in the proportion of large, family units in the revised proposal addresses concerns expressed at the public meeting.

4.4Parking, Traffic and Vehicular Access

The project provides sufficient parking to serve the needs of the retail and residential uses. The servicing arrangements for garbage pick-up and loading have been revised to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services. Parking areas which were seen to be safety problems in the first scheme have been revised. Bicycle parking will be provided in accordance with existing by-law requirements.

4.5Existing Parking

The parking currently on the site was established on a temporary basis pending approval of the redevelopment. The increased levels of noise and other problems the residents to the south have experienced from the parking operations will be eliminated when the building is constructed.

4.6Setbacks

The proposed setbacks for this project are consistent with and appropriate for a mixed use, Main Street building.

5.Other Issues:

Other matters raised in the Preliminary Report such as landscaping, streetscape and design have been resolved and will be secured in the Statement of Approval for this application.

Contact Name:

Susanne Pringle

Telephone: 416-392-0413

Fax: 416-392-1330

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

________

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	197018
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	June 27, 1997
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	July 13, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:1117 Dundas Street West

Nearest Intersection:	South side of Dundas Street West; east of Ossington Avenue.

Project Description:	To construct a 4 storey mixed use building.

Applicant:

Pedro Pimentel

1116 Dundas St. W. #200

533-6075

Agent:

Pedro Pimentel

1116 Dundas St. W. #200

533-6075

Architect:

Pedro Pimentel

1116 Dundas St. W. #200

533-6075

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:		Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	R4 Z1.0	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	10.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	1494.3 m²	Height:	Storeys:	4
Frontage:			Metres:	13.00
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:	822.6 m²	Parking Spaces:	41	8
Residential GFA:	2965.3 m²	Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:	672.1 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:	3637.4 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Private	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Bachelors:	5	Residential	2965.3 m²
1 Bedroom:	12	Commercial	672.1 m²
2 Bedroom:	19
Total Units:	36

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 1.98	Non-Residential Density: 0.45	Total Density: 2.43

Comments

Status:

Preliminary report dated January 7, 1998 adopted by TCC on January 21, 1998. Application revised July 13, 1998.

Data valid:

July 13, 1998

Section:

CP West

Phone:

392-7333

Appendix A - Comments of Civic Officials

1.Medical Officer of Health (February 6, 1998)

Further to my request of September 8, 1997, the applicant has provided a report titled "Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment and Preliminary Subsurface Sampling 1121 Dundas Street West Toronto Ontario", (June 20, 1996). Environmental Health Staff have previously reviewed this document for demolition permit application No.406513. I am enclosing a copy of our comments for your information.

I would note that the consultant's Phase 1 report identifies potential areas of concern for impacted soils that may be present on site.

(September 8, 1997)

Thank you for your request of July 15, 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 demolish an existing building and demolish an existing building and develop a four storey mixed use building with parking for 51 vehicles. A review of the files available to us indicates that we have no information on this property.

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 programme 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 a 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 392-7685.

2.Metro Planning (December 18, 1997)

We have reviewed the above revised application for a mixed use development consisting of 1,045 m2 ground floor retail with 40 residential units according to Metropolitan planning policies and the provision of Metropolitan services and advise that our previous comments of November 3, 1997 regarding the possible encroachment have been appropriately addressed by recessing the doorways.

The applicant is required to obtain building location and streetscape permits from the Metro Transportation Department prior to the construction of this project. Other permits associated with the 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/license requirements.

3.Toronto Catholic School Board (April 24, 1998)

Further to your request for comments, please be advised that students emanating from the above-noted proposed development could be accommodated in permanent facilities at St. Veronica Catholic School (JK-8) and Bishop Marrocco Catholic Secondary School.

Should you require additional information regarding this matter, please contact Joe Ruscitti at222-8282, extension 2281.

4.Urban Planning and Development Services (August 24, 1998)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Build 4 Storey Mixed-use Building containing Retail Store and 36 Dwelling Units with underground parking

Zoning Designation:R4 Z1.0Map:49H - 312

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

Plans prepared by:PEDRO PIMENTEL ARCHITECT Plans dated: June 16, 1998

Residential GFA:2965.30 m²

Non-Residential GFA:672.1 m²

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced:

1.The by-law requires a parking facility to be accessible by a driveway having a minimum width of 5.5 metres, where of two-way operation. The width of the proposed driveway is 4.0metres. (Section 4(5)(i)(ii))

2.The by-law requires one loading space - type B (3.5 metres by 11 metres with a vertical clearance of at least 4 metres). no loading space - type B is proposed. (Section 4(6)(b))

3.The by-law requires at least 22 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 5 bicycle parking spaces for the visitors of the building. No bicycle parking spaces are proposed. (Section 4(13)(a) and (c))

4.The proposed Mixed-use Building is not permitted in a district zoned R4Z1.0. (Section6(1)(a))

5.The by-law limits the residential gross floor area in an area zoned R4Z1.0 to 1.0 times the area of the lot: 1494.30 square metres. The proposed total residential and non- residential gross floor area of the building is 2.43 times the area of the lot: 3637.40 square metres. (Section 6(3) PART I 1)

6.The by-law requires that a building on an inside lot have a minimum front lot line set back equal to the average of the shortest distances by which the front walls of the adjacent buildings are set back from their front lot lines: 2.5 metres. The proposed front lot line set back is 0.15 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 2(ii))

7.The by-law requires the building to have a minimum side lot line set back of 7.5 metres. The proposed east and west side lot line set back is 0.10 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II G)

8.The by-law requires a building or structure to have a minimum rear yard set back of 7.5metres. The proposed rear yard set back is 0.37 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 4)

9.The by-law limits a building in a 1.0 zone to a maximum depth of 14.0 metres. The proposed depth is 43.31 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 5(i))

10.The by-law requires an apartment building to provide a minimum landscaped open space of 50% of the area of the lot: 747.25 square metres. The proposed landscaped open space is 0.0%: 0.0 square metres. (Section 6(3) PART III 1(b))

11.The by-law requires the building to have a height above grade of 10.0 metres. The proposed building has a height of 12.70 metres. (Section 4 (2))

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.

6.Works and Emergency Services (August 28, 1998).

Recommendations:

1.That the owner be required to:

(a)Provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b)Provide and maintain a minimum of 49 parking spaces on the site to serve the project, including at least 29 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and at least 10 parking spaces for the shared use of the residential visitors and non-residential component of the project;

(c)Provide and maintain a physical separation between the residents' and the residential visitors/commercial portions of the parking area to secure the availability of the residents' parking;

(d)Construct the access to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5% within 6 m of the public lane, as widened, and not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;

(e)Provide and maintain a driveway width of 4.0 m to serve the 4 parking spaces at the south-west corner of the underground parking garage;

(f)Provide and maintain convex mirrors at the top of the access ramp and the driveway leading to the surface parking spaces at both ends in order to improve visibility for drivers;

(g)Provide and maintain minimum setbacks of 2 m in the building walls adjacent to the access ramp and the driveway leading to the surface parking beginning at the lane limit, as widened, with a vertical clearance of 3 m measured from grade level;

(h)Provide and maintain a garbage room at least 25 square metres in size to serve the project and install and maintain a stationary compactor unit in the garbage room;

(i)Provide and maintain a 10 m² recycling room accessible to all residents of the project as well as to the retail component of the project;

(j)Provide and maintain access to the residential garbage and recycling rooms for the non-residential component of the project;

(k)Install and maintain double or overhead doors of sufficient size to accommodate the transport of container bins between each garbage and recyclable storage room and the Type G loading space;

(l)Provide and maintain 1 Type G loading space on the site, with a generally level surface;

(m) 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 2 bulk-lift containers on collection day;

(n)Provide and maintain a level service connection between the garbage room and recycling room and the Type G loading space for the transporting of container bins;

(o)Construct all driveways and passageways providing access to the loading space with a minimum width of 3.5 m (4 m where enclosed) a minimum vertical clearance of 4.3m and minimum inside and outside turning radii of 9 m and 16 m;

(p)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;

(q)Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit:

(i)a 0.98 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the east limit of the north-south lane;

(ii)a 0.22 m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the east-west lane; and

(r)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i)A Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands required for the widening of the lanes and the remainder of the site;

(ii)Final approval 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;

(s)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;

(t) Have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that the development has been deigned and constructed in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

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

(v) Submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a grading and drainage plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2.That the owner be advised:

(a)That the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted 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;

(b)Of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the street allowance;

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

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

3.That the lands conveyed to the City under Recommendation No. 1(q) above, be laid out and thereafter dedicated by the City, for public highway purposes.

Comments:

Location

South side of Dundas Street West, east of Ossington Avenue.

Proposal

Construction of a 4-storey mixed-use building containing 672 square metres of retail space and 36 condominium dwelling units.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated September 24, 1997. The above consolidated recommendations supersede the recommendations contained in the previous report, including the recommendation requiring the submission of revised plans.

Parking and Access

The provision of 49 parking spaces, consisting of 41 spaces within a one-level underground garage and 8 surface spaces, satisfies, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirements for 25 spaces, based on the parcel of land being rezoned to MCR, including 23 spaces for residents and 2 spaces for the residential visitors and the estimated demand for 39 spaces consisting of 29 residential spaces and 10 spaces for the shared-use of the residential visitors and the non-residential component of the project. The proposed parking supply, general layout and dimensions of the parking spaces are acceptable. It is noted that parking spaces numbered 38 to 41 are served by a 4.0 m wide driveway, which will require vehicles to back-up a short distance in order to turn around and exit the underground garage in a forward motion. Given the small number of vehicles required to make this manoeuvre, the fact that the distance is fairly short and that there is ample room to turn around within the underground parking garage adjacent to parking spaces numbered 35, 36 and 37, this configuration is acceptable. A physical separation between the residential parking spaces and the spaces for the shared use of the residential visitors/retail component has been provided which will ensure the residents' spaces are available for their use at all times, and is satisfactory.

Access to the underground garage is proposed via a ramp from the north-south public lane. The slope of the ramp, which does not exceed 5% within 6 m of its intersection with the public lane, as widened, and 15% along the remaining portions, is acceptable. With respect to vehicles exiting the site from the parking garage and the surface parking area, the provision of setbacks at both sides of the proposed access ramp and surface driveway, as well as, convex mirrors have been proposed to improve the visibility for drivers at the top of the ramp and surfaced driveway at its intersection with the public lane, as widened.

The provision of 1 Type G loading space satisfies the estimated loading demand generated by this project for 1 Type G loading space whereas, as far as can be ascertained, it is less than the Zoning By-law requirement for 1 Type G and 1 Type B loading spaces. The provision of a Type G loading space for the shared use of the residential and retail components is satisfactory.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide the residential and retail component of this project with the bulk lift method of garbage collection in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste, provided that all recyclable materials generated by this project are set out for collection on the days and the times scheduled by the City for collection of recyclables. This will require the provision of the storage and handling facilities identified in Recommendation Nos. 1(h) to 1(p), above. The plans indicate the sizes of the garbage and recycling rooms, which are acceptable.

The Type G loading space and storage pad are located at the south-west corner of the site adjacent to the public lanes. The loading space is designed such that garbage trucks would access the loading space by driving south on the north-south public lane then turn onto the east-west public lane at the rear of the site and then manoeuvre onto the proposed Type G loading space. Although this is not ideal given the fact that the garbage truck will be required to make several manoeuvres, the Type G loading space configuration is acceptable.

It is the policy of City Council to levy a service charge on all new developments, payment of which is a condition for receiving City containerized garbage and recycling collection. The levy is currently $34.50 per month, including taxes, multiplied by the number of garbage containers on site. The levy includes the provision and maintenance of City garbage and recycling containers. Should the owner choose to provide private garbage containers, the levy will still be charged and the containers must meeting City specifications and be maintained privately at the expense of the building owner. Further information regarding the above can be obtained by contacting the Operation and Sanitation Division at 392-1517.

Lane Widening

The west limit of the site abuts a substandard lane of varying width and the south limit of the site abuts a 4.57 m wide lane, which in accordance with City Council standards, should be widened ultimately to a minimum of 6 m. In order to provide for the widenings, lands should be conveyed to the City in accordance with Recommendation No. 1(q), above. The proposed lane widenings shown on the plans are acceptable, including, the triangular splay at the intersection of the two public lanes, as widened.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management

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

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water runoff into the ground for all new buildings, 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 Section (telephone no. 392-6787).

The applicant should submit a plan showing proposed grades and details of the proposed drainage facilities for review and approval.

Permits

The applicant is required to obtain building location and streetscape permits from this Department prior to construction of this project. Other permits associated with construction activities (such as hoarding, piling/shoring, etc.) may also be required. The applicant is responsible for obtaining the applicable permits and should be revised to contact the Road Allowance Control Section (RACS) at 392-2984 regarding the site-specific permit/licence requirements.

________

Appendix B

Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law

For 1117 Dundas Street West

Minutes of meeting

April 22, 1998

7:00 P.M.

St. Christopher House Community Hall

248 Ossington Avenue

Attendance:

30 area residents

Councillor Mario Silva

Councillor Joe Pantalone

Susanne Pringle, City of Toronto, Area Planner

Denise Gendron, City of Toronto, Urban Designer

Opening Comments:

Susanne Pringle made the opening comments, and explained the purpose of the public meeting.

She also explained the process that the application was going through and further opportunities for public comments on the project.

The architect for the project proceeded to describe the proposal in detail, with questions and comments following the presentation.

Comment:

General concern that the public meeting notice was not received by all the community.

Answer:

There were 4,000 notices sent out to notify tenants and owners within 300 metres of the site and to the Ward Councillors.

Comment:

Request of the architect to present a streetscape picture of that portion of Dundas Street West, to show how the proposed building fits in and demonstrate the real impact on the street.

Comment:

Concern about the impact of a 4-storey building when a 2-storey building presently exists next door to the proposal.

Comment:

As a resident of the area, would like to see a "Main Street" building on this portion of Dundas Street West.

Comment:

A resident to the south of the project is concerned about the impact of this building on his property on Halton Street, in terms of traffic, usage of lanes etc.

Comment:

Are the lanes going to be widened?

Answer:

The lanes will be widened to City standards which is 6 metres wide.

Comment:

How is the access to the building being dealt with?

Answer:

The building design allows for loading and truck access off the lane and access to the parking garage is also off the lane.

Comment:

This type of building is not appropriate for this area. The intersection at Ossington Avenue and Dundas Street West is already too busy and chaotic to be able to handle another building with 40 residential units. The type of building, mixed commercial- residential, is also not appropriate for this area.

Comment:

The area has problems with regard to parking, the nature of some uses on Ossington Avenue (the Portuguese smoke house), traffic congestion etc. The parking lot as a temporary measure is a good idea, however the community does not want the site to remain a parking facility forever. What would be more appropriate would be a smaller project, with less units, which in turn would be a better fit into the existing neighbourhood.

Comment:

Creating a housing project on the site is a good idea, but it has to be quality housing, housing that will provide people with homes for a longer period than a few months. Would like to see more family-type units in the project facing into the proposed courtyard.

Comment:

Density and height is also a problem. Would like the project reduced in height and density and in the number of units. Concern with the project as it is.

Comment:

What would the community like to see on the site? The general feeling of the group was that they would like to see a housing project on the site with reduced commercial units at grade and all parking enclosed in the building. They would also like the density reduced and the mix of units changed to provide for more family-type units.

Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

________

Appendix C

Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law

For 1117 Dundas Street West

Minutes of meeting

June 29, 1998

7:00 P.M.

St. Christopher House Community Hall

248 Ossington Avenue

Attendance:

25 area residents

Councillor Mario Silva

Councillor Joe Pantalone

Susanne Pringle, City of Toronto, Area Planner

Opening Comments:

Susanne Pringle made the opening comments and explained the purpose of the public meeting. She explained that a public meeting had been held on April 22, 1998 and this was the second public meeting on a revised project. She explained the process that the application was going through and further opportunities for public comments on the project.

Comment:

Councillor Joe Pantalone explained that the purpose of the second meeting was to present a revised residential project with changes to the size of the commercial space, changes to the unit mix by providing more family type units, and changes to location of the above grade parking. He also stated that this project would provide rental units for the neighbourhood.

Comment:

Concern that the revised proposal is still the same as the one presented at the last meeting. The size of the project, the number of units and the 4 storey height is still a concern. It is designed cheaply, has no elevator is not going to create good quality space and quality housing for the neighbourhood.

Answer:

The architect for the project stated that the owners have tried to reduce and change the proposal to fit with buildings on Dundas Street West, changed the unit size, reduced the commercial space, moved the family oriented units to the second floor, and internalized all the parking inside the building to address safety concerns of the neighbourhood. An elevator is not required for a four storey building. The density of the project has also been reduced from 2.7 to 2.4 times the lot area.

Comment:

Where and how will the loading space operate?

Answer:

All loading will be off the lane and Works and Emergency Services does not have concerns with the loading area. The design of the loading facilities is satisfactory to Works and Emergency Services.

Comment:

Minutes of the last meeting did not reflect the feelings of the people who attended. The revised building is still too big, density is too high, and it will have great impacts on traffic congestion on Dundas Street West and Ossington Avenue.

Question:

What is the present zoning, official plan designation and height limit?

Answer:

The present zoning for the site is R4Z1, the Official Plan designation is Low Density Residence Area and the height limit is 10 metres.

Comment:

A 3 storey building would be acceptable on this site. A 4 storey building it too much for the area. We have to ask everyone if they want this type of building, with this density. The design, the change of location of the family units and the idea of the courtyard are acceptable and an improvement from the last proposal to the neighbourhood.

Comment:

The old building acted as a buffer from the noise of Dundas Street West. Presently a temporary parking lot exists on the site. The residential area to the south, as a result of a parking lot, is experiencing more noise, rowdiness, and it opens up the backyards for vandalism etc. The revised project has met most to the issues that were raised at the last meeting and therefore there is support for the project.

Comment:

The new building will add value to the City, Dundas Street West is an important street, and more investment on this portion of Dundas Street will benefit the existing businesses and the local community. New investment will attract other investors, it will attract people, businesses and tourists. It is about time someone took the initiative to improve this portion of the City.

Comment:

The building next door will inherit a big wall on the east side of the new building. Concerned about losing the enjoyment of the backyard and challenges during the construction period.

Comment:

Concern raised regarding the traffic impacts of the project on the laneway system in the area and at the intersection of Dundas Street West and Ossington Avenue. Parking is already a serious problem in the area. Also questions if indeed this project is going to be good quality housing. Why is the owner not willing to put in an elevator. The proposed courtyard is not wide enough to provide quality open space for those units. Therefore, feels that the project does not achieve quality housing, and once this happens property values go down and building continues to deteriorate.

Answer:

Councillor Silva stated that the revised project is a good housing project, and that he is satisfied that the concerns have been addressed. The Councillors and staff have worked hard to negotiate with the owners and have come up with a reasonable building, which will provide much needed rental, family housing in the City of Toronto.

Comment:

At the back of the previous building there were problems with illegal activities such as prostitution, drugs and a general hang-out for people. How are the owners going to stop this from occurring once the building is built?

Answer:

All the parking is now enclosed, which will limit any "hang-out" space and there will be low level lighting attached to the building.

Comment:

The building as proposed will be appropriate to the area.

Meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1117 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1117 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1117 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1117 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 5

1117 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 6

1117 Dundas Street West

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (October 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Subject: Supplementary Report to Final Report on Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 197018 to permit a four-storey mixed-use building containing ground floor retail space and 36 residential units at 1117 Dundas Street West (Ward 20 - Trinity - Niagara)

Purpose:

This report recommends that Recommendation No. 1 of the report dated September 28, 1998 be amended by adding the following and the numbering in the report be changed accordingly:

1.Section 18 of the Official Plan for the City of Toronto is amended by adding a new Section 18.479 as follows:

"18.479Lands known as No. 1117 Dundas Street West

Despite any of the provisions of this Plan, Council may pass By-laws applicable to the lands shown on Map 18.479 to permit the erection and use of a mixed-use building containing not more than 36 dwelling units having a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 2966 square metres, a maximum non-residential gross floor area of 673 square metres and a maximum total gross floor area of 3639 square metres."

Contact Name:

Susanne Pringle

Telephone: (416) 392-0413

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: springle@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, the following communications, and a copy thereof has been submitted to Council under separate cover:

-(October 7, 1998) from Edward and Erika Kondratas;

-Forwarding Petition with 41 signatures in Opposition (October 12, 1998) from Mr. Ted Pejlak; and

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock and Blackwell.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 22, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report is in response to Toronto Community Council's request that I comment directly to Council on the issues raised in the communication (October 13, 1998) from Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels, Brock and Blackwell, Solicitor for the owner of 1113 Dundas Street West.

Comments:

The main concerns stated in the above-noted communication refer to the change in land use, the impacts of the proposal on adjacent properties and the perceived over development of the site.

In terms of land use, the proposed mixed-use project fits in the developing pattern of land uses in the area. This property was formerly a retail store and is now used as a parking lot. Commercial and residential uses exist west and north of the site along Dundas Street West. There is a mixture of residential and commercial uses east of the site, on the south side of Dundas Street West. The proposal is a logical extension of the mixed use zoning that exists to the west and the north. The Dundas/Ossington intersection is recognized as a mixed commercial/residential area in the Official Plan and Zoning By-law.

The proposal seeks to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to allow for a site-specific four storey mixed-use building on the site. The "Main Streets" policies were used as a guide to assess the possible impact on nearby residential areas. The proposal achieves a high quality urban environment with regard to height, bulk, and built form and it achieves a quality residential environment for residents of "Main Streets". The proposal is in keeping with the built form and residential amenity of adjacent residential neighbourhoods and provides infill development with an appropriate mix of residential and street retail uses. The previous commercial building on the site occupied the entire site with an overall height of approximately 10.7 metres. The present proposal has an overall height of 13 metres, therefore there will be an increase in the amount of shadow on the property to the east at 1113 Dundas Street West during the late afternoon. The impact is nevertheless acceptable given the urban setting of the site.

In the processing of this application there was extensive review of the impacts of the proposal in the area by City staff, the applicant and extensive community consultation. The proposal also has the benefit of an interior courtyard to serve the residential units, plus it has the benefit of being located one block from Trinity Bellwoods Park, a major neighbourhood park which will meet the needs of the new residents. The project provides an appropriate location for housing on Dundas Street West where shopping, community facilities, schools and transportation are all in good supply.

Contact Name:

Susanne Pringle

Telephone: (416) 392-0413; Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: springle@city.toronto.on.ca)

(City Council, also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a transmittal letter (October 21, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding the following submissions regarding the draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments respecting 1117 Dundas Street West (Trinity-Niagara), and a copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

(a)(October 7, 1998) from Edward and Erika Kondratas;

(b)(October 12, 1998) from Mr. Ted Pejlak forwarding a petition with 41 signatures in opposition; and

(c)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Stanley M. Makuch, Cassels Brock and Blackwell.)

(City Council, also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 27, 1998) from Cassels Brock & Blackwell, Barristers & Solicitors.)

Draft Zoning By-law -

1 Silver Avenue (formerly - 3 Silver Avenue)

(High Park)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report (September 28, 1998) of the City Solicitor be amended to show the building height limits set out in the Final Report (August 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and that the Draft By-law, as so amended, be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto;

(2)there be no further notice of public meeting; and

(3)the report (August26,1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 28, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Draft By-law to implement a Zoning By-law amendment to permit the erection of a detached house within an industrially zoned district.

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 (September 28, 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 recommendations of the report (August26,1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council will have before it the final report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (August26,1998) at its meeting to be held on October14and15,1998 concerning the above noted subject. This report recommends, inter alia, that a Draft By-law be prepared by the City Solicitor to amend the General Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto to permit the erection of a detached house within an industrially zoned district.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law, which, if enacted, will give effect to the planning report.

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7237

Fax:392-0024

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

________

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto

respecting lands known as No. 1 Silver Avenue.

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

1.None of the provisions of Section 9(1)(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, shall apply to prevent the erection and use of a detached house on the lot provided:

(1)the lot consists of at least the lands shown within the heavy lines on Plan1 attached;

(2)the detached house, above grade, is located within the heavy lines shown on Plan2 attached;

(3)the residential gross floor area of the detached house does not exceed 297 square metres;

(4)vehicular parking is provided and maintained in a basement garage within the building and consists of not less than 1 and not more than 5 parking spaces; and

(5)the slope of the vehicular ramp does not exceed 7.5 percent within 6.0 metres of the public lane, as widened, and 15 percent along the remaining portions.

2.For the purpose of this By-law, each word or expression which is italicized herein shall have the same meaning as such word or expression as defined in the aforesaid By-law No.438-86, as amended.

________

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (August 26, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends approval of a large, two-storey house at 1 Silver Avenue, subject to conditions to ensure that the built form is compatible with the rest of this residential street near Dundas and Bloor Streets. It addresses issues raised in my Preliminary Report, including the height and siting of the project and the maintenance of existing trees.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That the Zoning By-law, By-law No. 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a)exempt the site from Section 9(1)(a)(permitted use);

(b)permit the erection and use of a building containing not more than one dwelling unit, with a maximum of 297 square metres of residential gross floor area, provided that:

(i)no part of the building above grade extends beyond a building envelope generally as shown on the maps attached to this report;

(ii)a minimum of one parking space and a maximum of five parking spaces are provided and maintained on the site in a basement level garage;

(iii)the slope of the ramp does not exceed 7.5 percent within 6m of the public lane, as widened, and 15 percent along the remaining portions.

2.That, prior to the introduction of Bills in Council, the owner be required to:

(a)submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(b)convey to the City, at nominal cost, a 1.5m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the public lane, 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 have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

(c)submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(i)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, the remainder of the site and appurtenant rights-of-way;

(ii)final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed house to enable the preparation of building envelope plans;

and such drawings should be submitted at least three weeks prior to the introduction of Bills in Council;

(d)submit an application for improvements to the public sidewalk/boulevard generally as shown on Plan No. L1 date stamped as received July 30, 1998, on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning 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 work as part of a comprehensive program.

3.That, prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project, the owner be requested to submit a grading and drainage plan, for the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

4.That the owner be advised:

(a)That the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that the 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; and

(b)of the need to protect the two City-owned trees which are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site 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.

Background:

1.Site and Surrounding Area

1 Silver Avenue (formerly referred to as 3 Silver Avenue) is located on the west side of Silver Avenue between Golden and Morrow Avenues. It is a vacant site with access to parking from a rear lane. This report recommends that the lane be widened to meet City standards.

The site is on the northern edge of a small industrial area, bounded by Morrow Avenue, Dundas Street West and the rail corridor. 10 Morrow Avenue, a two storey industrial building immediately adjacent to the south side of the site of the house proposed, is also owned by the applicant. He advises that 10 Morrow Avenue is currently used for 'artists and photographers' studios. To the north is a traditional residential street of two to two and a half storey detached and semi-detached houses.

2.Proposal

The applicant proposes to develop the site with a large, detached, two-storey house fronting on Silver Avenue, with a large basement garage accessed from the rear lane running between Morrow and Golden Avenues. The applicant is to occupy the house and use the garage for his automobile collection.

3.Official Plan and Zoning Designations

The site is designated in the Official Plan as a Mixed Industrial/Residential Area, which allows residential uses through the rezoning process up to a maximum of two times the area of the lot. Section 9.41 of the Plan sets out the policy for use changes and it requires, among other things, that regard should be had for the retention of industrial jobs and neighbourhood compatibility.

The current I2 D2 zoning permits industrial, but not residential uses. There is a 14 m height limit.

Comments:

1.Planning Considerations

The following matters were considered in the processing of this application:

1.1Protection of Jobs

In this case, because the site is vacant, no jobs are in jeopardy.

1.2Environmental Remediation

The Medical Officer of Health has indicated that no environmental remediation is required. The Medical Officer of Health has approved the dust control measures proposed by the applicant.

1.3Design Matters

The design review of this proposal focused on its role as a transitional site between larger scale industrial development to the east and smaller houses on the rest of Silver Avenue. Although the density of this building is only 0.68 times lot area, it appears to be much larger because of high ceilings, the need for the main floor to be elevated 1 m above grade to allow for the proposed ramps into the garage, roof top and second floor decks and the 10.4 m overall width of the building.

During the course of discussions with the applicant, the following modifications were made to the design of the building in order to reduce its impact on the adjacent property:

(a)Height

The Zoning By-law permits buildings up to 14 m in height, reflecting the industrial uses permitted on this site. However the development of the site for residential purposes presents the opportunity to provide a transition between higher buildings in the industrial area and the 7.5 m height of existing residential development west of the site. To achieve this objective, the overall height has been reduced by 0.3 metres from the original proposal and the building is stepped to include a lower (8.35 m) portion adjacent to the 7.5 m house immediately to the west.

(b)Depth

The depth of the original design, including the enclosed ramp to the garage, would have created shadows and privacy effects on the property adjacent to the house to the west. Consequently, the length of the enclosed portion of the ramp was reduced by 2.6m to lessen its impact on the backyard of the adjacent house. As well, the rear deck was cut back to reduce the potential for overlook on the adjacent backyard.

(c)Construction Materials

The bulk of the building will be mitigated by the deck railing that provides the necessary safety but is visually open from the street.

(d)Skylight

Design features of the house include a skylight on the front exterior to provide light into the garage below. In the original design, the skylight was approximately 1.5m in height, extending out from the front of the house. At that height, the skylight was out of scale with the porch next door at 5 Silver Avenue. During discussions with the applicant, the height of the skylight was reduced to 0.9 m and substantial landscaping is now proposed to minimize this impact.

1.4Protection of Trees

There are two City owned trees which are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to this site. These trees should be protected in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual. This report advises the applicant of this requirement.

In addition, the applicant requested that the City consider the removal of two other trees on the site. As required under Section 331-13.B. of Municipal Code Chapter331, Trees, Article III, a 'Notice' of application sign was posted on the property for the minimum fourteen day posting period. No letters were received in response to the notice of application to remove the two trees. The Commissioner of Community Services has indicated that a permit for the removal of these trees will be issued as soon as the amending Zoning By-law has been passed.

2.Implementation

The City's Site Plan Control by-law exempts single family houses from development review, and it is therefore not possible to secure design improvements worked out with the applicant by referring to drawings included in a Statement of Approval or to secure the lane widening or submission of plans and studies and all the requirements called for by civic officials. Therefore, this report recommends that a more detailed than normal building envelope be included in the by-law to secure the important height and built form improvements described above. The applicant is advised of certain other requirements of the civic officials. As well, the introduction of bills should not occur until conditions like the lane widening, normally contained in a Statement of Approval have been fulfilled.

Contact Name:

Helen Coombs

Telephone: 392-7613, Fax: 392-1330

E-Mail Address: coombs@city.toronto.on.ca

________

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	N	Application Number:	196028
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	January 3, 1997
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:	April 7, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:1 Silver Ave.

Nearest Intersection:	Dundas St. W. and Morrow Ave.

Project Description:	Build a 2 storey detached house.

Applicant:

Myron Boyko

48 Laurel Ave., Etobicoke

234-5404

Agent:

Myron Boyko

48 Laurel Ave., Etobicoke

234-5404

Architect:

The Design Concern, Architects

48 Laurel Ave., Etobicoke

234-5404

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	Mixed Industrial Residential Area	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	I2 D2	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	14.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	434.2 m²	Height:	Storeys:	2 + basement
Frontage:	13.0 m		Metres:	8.35, 10.60
Depth:	33.5 m
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:	152.7 m²	Parking Spaces:	3
Residential GFA:	296.1 m²	Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	296.1 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Private	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
4 Bedroom:	1	Residential	296.1 m²
Total Units:	1

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 0.68	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 0.68

Comments

Status:

Preliminary report dated January 22, 1997 adopted by LUC on February 6, 1997. Application revised April 07, 1998

Data valid:

April 07, 1998

Section:

CP West

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix A - Comments of Civic Officials

1.City Works and Emergency Services (April 27, 1998)

Recommendations:

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 1 parking space on the site;

(c)Construct the ramp slope to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 7.5% within 6 m of the public lane, as widened, and not exceeding 15% along the remaining portions;

(d)Provide and maintain garbage storage facilities of sufficient size on site, to accommodate the amount of separated recyclable and non-recyclable material generated between collections;

(e)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;

(f)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;

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

(h)Convey to the City, at nominal cost, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a 1.5m wide strip of land to the full extent of the site abutting the north limit of the public lane, 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 have been laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes;

(i)Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

(i)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, the remainder of the site and any appurtenant rights-of-way;

(ii)Final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the proposed house to enable the preparation of building envelope plans and such drawings should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council;

(iii)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;

(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; and

3.That the lands conveyed to the City under Recommendation No. 1(h) above, be laid out and thereafter dedicated for public highway purposes.

Comments:

Location

South side of Silver Avenue, west of Morrow Avenue.

Proposal

Construction of a two-storey residential single family building. Premises Nos. 6 and 10 Morrow Avenue do not form part of this application.

The proposal was dealt with in a Departmental report dated February 27, 1997. The above 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 applicant proposes to provide parking for 2 cars within a below-grade parking garage, which satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this project for 1 parking space and the Zoning By-law requirement for a like number.

Access to the parking spaces is provided via a 3.96 m wide ramp directly off of the public lane at the rear of the site. The access location is acceptable. However, the slope of the ramp is shown as being 7.5 % within the first 6 metres of the lane as widened, which exceeds the Zoning By-law maximum of 5%. The remaining portions of the ramp are shown as being 8.3% and 4.5 % over the next 6.7metres and 4.5 metres, respectively, which is less than the Zoning By-law maximum of 15%. Given the site constraints, the reduction in the number of parking spaces to two spaces and that vehicles could enter and exit the site in a forward motion, the ramp slopes are acceptable.

Lane Widening

The site abuts a substandard commercial/residential-industrial lane, which in accordance with City Council's standards should be widened ultimately to a minimum of 6 m. In order to provide for the widening, land should be conveyed to the City in accordance with Recommendation 1(h), above.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with regular curbside refuse collection in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a rodent proof storage area on private property to separately store garbage and recyclable materials generated between collections.

Storm Water Management

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer system 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 Section (telephone no. 392-6787) of this Department.

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 from this Department. Accordingly, it will be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department in respect of the proposed landscaping and paving to be installed within the Silver Avenue road allowance.

2.(December 12, 1997)

I have reviewed the Noise Impact Statement dated December 8, 1997 prepared for the above location and find it satisfactory.

As you are aware, the Noise Impact Statement is one of a number of reports required to process your application. At the time of preparation, final construction designs may not be completed. Therefore, on approval of the zoning change and when construction plans are finalized, I require a letter from you which certifies that the building plans accompanying your building permit application are in conformity with the Noise Impact Statement, with particular reference to the impact of any H.V.A.C. equipment on neighbouring properties.

Please direct any inquiries to Mr. J. Prashad of the Noise Section.

3.Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (August 11, 1998)

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on July 31, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

-There are two (2) City owned trees involved with this project which are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These trees 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.

-I received a request from Mr. Myron Boyko of The Design Concern Architect, on behalf of the property owner of the above noted development site, that the City consider the removal of two trees situated on private property.

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. No letters were received in response to the notice of application to remove the trees in question.

-Under the provisions of Section 331-14.A.(3), the Commissioner of Community Services is authorized to issue a permit for the removal of the subject trees situated on private property once Site Plan Approval (Development Approval) has been obtained. Please advise Mr. Gary Le Blanc of my staff at 392-0494 once Site Plan Approval (Development Approval) has been issued.

-I advise that the Landscape Plan prepared by The Design Concern Architect, date stamped as received by Urban Planning & Development Services on July 30, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services is acceptable provided that the conditions noted above are fulfilled.

4.Medical Officer of Health (May 8, 1998)

Thank you for your request of April 8, 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 Division's letter dated, April 29, 1997, 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.(October 24, 1997)

The architect for the proponent submitted a letter, dated October 24, 1997, containing dust control measures to be implemented during excavation. In addition, Environmental Health Services (EHS) had earlier received the report, Environmental Assessment, 3 Silver Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Number 11BH96-01 prepared by M. Nasiruddin & Associates Ltd. dated January 23, 1996 for the above referenced site. Staff at EHS have reviewed the above and offer the following comments.

Comments:

Historical Review

The land was originally used for residential purposes until it was zoned industrial in 1949. After this, it remained vacant. Records do not reveal any development of the land since 1950. However there were indications this land might have been used as a loading area by the adjoining industrial unit to the east.

Adjacent property to the west has been residential since the early 1900's. Adjacent property to the east was used for industrial and commercial purposes.

Site Audit

The subject property is presently vacant. Assorted miscellaneous construction and residential debris were strewn about the property from dumping. No sign of any damaged vegetation, stained soil or oily sheen on snow melt water was noted. Their was no evidence of underground storage tanks or any evidence of previous industrial activities on site. No hazardous waste was noted on the property.

Soil and Groundwater Management Plan

A Phase II Environmental Investigation was conducted at the site. Three boreholes were advanced into the site to a depth of 20 feet. Soil samples for each borehole were taken every two and a half feet and combined into composite samples. The results of laboratory analysis of the composite soil samples were compared to the current MOEE Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. None of the levels detected exceeded the Table B criteria for residential/parkland land use. In addition, test results for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) revealed no trace of hydrocarbons.

Groundwater was detected at a depth of around 12 feet.

Excavation Dust Control Plan

The dust control measures to be implemented outlined in the letter dated October 24, 1997 are approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

Based on the available information on hand and the dust control measures submitted today, the proponent has provided the additional information requested in the April 29, 1997 letter to you. In reviewing this information, EHS staff are of the opinion that the site does not appear to be contaminated and dust control plan proposed is satisfactory. Therefore, EHS staff have no objection to the approval for Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning for this site. In addition, EHS staff have no objection to the issuance of a building permit regarding this construction proposal provided that the owner implements the measures contained in the Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

By copy of this letter, I will inform the owner and applicant with respect to this matter.

Should there be any questions, please contact me at 392-7685.

6.(February 7, 1996)

Thank you for your recent request to review and comment on the report, Environmental Assessment, 3 Silver Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Number 11BH96-01 prepared by M. Nasiruddin & Associates Ltd. dated January 23, 1996 for the above referenced site. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed this document and offer the following comments.

Comments:

Historical Review

Adjacent property to the west has been residential since the early 1900s. Adjacent property to the east was used for industrial and commercial purposes.

Site Audit

The subject property is presently vacant. Assorted miscellaneous construction and residential debris was strewn about the property from dumping. No sign of any damaged vegetation, stained soil or oily sheen on snow melt water was noted. There was no evidence of underground storage tanks or any evidence of previous industrial activities on site. No hazardous waste was noted on the property.

Phase II Study

The results of soil samples from three boreholes at the site were compared to the 1989 MOEE Guidelines for the Decommissioning and Cleanup of Sites in Ontario. None of the levels detected exceeded the criteria for agriculture/residential/parkland use. In addition, test results for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) revealed no trace of hydrocarbons.

Based on the available information on hand, EHS staff are therefore of the opinion that the site does not appear to be contaminated and would have no objection to the approval for Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning for this site, should the owner decide to apply for same. However, EHS staff recommend that should the owner decide to apply, he should be required to prepare an Excavation Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Commissioner of Planning and Development, for approval by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any building permit; and that the owner implement the measures in the Excavation Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

A copy of the recommended elements for dust control is attached for your information.

Please inform the owner or his agent in respect to this matter and provide them with a copy of my comments and the recommended dust control measures.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 392-7685.

7.Urban Planning and Development Services (May 7, 1998)

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:	Detached house with home/work office
Zoning Designation:	I2 D2	Map:	48H-322
Applicable By-law(s):	438-86, as amended, as amended
Plans prepared by:	The Design Concern Architect, and received by Urban Planning and Development Services on April 7, 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 proposed use as a detached house with home/work office is not permitted (Section9(1)).

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals:

1.The proposal DOES NOT require 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.All work proposed within the road allowance will require a separate application to be made to City Works Services (call 392-7877).

6.The proposal may require the approval of the Medical Officer of Health. Call the Environmental Protection Office at 392-6678.

7.The proposal may require the approval of City Works Services (re: ramp approval, curb cuts, survey, municipal numbering, etc.). Call 392-7708.

8.Contact the Urban Forestry Division (Community Services), 5th Floor, East Tower, City Hall, concerning work and/or excavation close to trees.

________

Appendix B

Minutes

3 Silver Avenue Public Meeting

March 18, 1997

In Attendance

Myron Boyko, architect

Bill and Erin Halkiw, owners

Helen Coombs, Area Planner and four residents.

Helen Coombs introduced the project and Myron Boyko described it using a model. There were no concerns raised by the residents.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1 Silver Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1 Silver Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 3

1 Silver Avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 4

1 Silver Avenue

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

(High Park)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, amended this Clause by adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that the report dated October 19, 1998, from the City Solicitor, embodying the following recommendation, be adopted:

'It is recommended that the City Solicitor contact the Ontario Municipal Board and request that the outstanding Committee of Adjustment appeals relating to residential intensification in the Parkdale area remain held in abeyance until such time as the City-sponsored conflict resolution process is completed.' ")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council endorse in principle the physical improvements recommended for Parkdale in the report (September 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, and that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be requested to co-ordinate the implementation of these improvements, reporting further as necessary.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, that it has requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to report directly to Council on the pending Ontario Municipal Board appeals in respect of exemptions being sought from the South Parkdale Zoning By-law, so as to obtain the instruction of Council as to the position to be taken by the City Solicitor before the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that it has taken the following action:

(1)endorsed the creation of a conflict resolution process to achieve a consensus on the appropriate approach the City should take to the existing bachelorettes and illegal rooming houses in Parkdale, such process to include the appointment of a facilitator who is acceptable to all groups;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, at its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998, on the conflict resolution process including the name of the proposed facilitator and any emerging resource needs, if necessary;

(3)referred the draft zoning by-law, attached to the report (September 16, 1998) of the City Solicitor, to be considered as part of the conflict resolution process, and that further amendments to the by-law be brought forward as a result of the conflict resolution process, and requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the final results of the conflict resolution process;

(4)requested the Toronto Transit Commission, in consultation with appropriate City officials, to report to the Toronto Community Council on the improvement of public transportation west of Bathurst Street, south of Queen Street West;

(5)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to submit a progress report on the ongoing negotiations between the High Park Ward stakeholder groups and the facilitator to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting to be held on November12, 1998;

(6)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner of Community and Neighbourhood Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on how the City of Toronto could encourage more affordable housing from existing housing stock in High Park Ward, and in the rest of the City of Toronto;

(7)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on measures that can be taken to strictly enforce the present building regulations, and further, to report on the need to improve building standards in the City of Toronto, including recommendations respecting the Rooming House Commission;

(8)requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to attempt to obtain agreement from property owners not to proceed to the Committee of Adjustment and/or the Ontario Municipal Board for exemption from the existing zoning by-law in South Parkdale, pending a conclusion to the conflict resolution process;

(9)directed that the conflict resolution process accept the following terms and conditions:

(a)Parkdale is a complex vibrant community that has many community groups and agencies that have worked constructively to deal with community issues;

(b)Solutions to complex community problems are best worked out collaboratively with community associations, agencies and city departments;

(c)A formal conflict resolution process can build the consensus needed to move to action;

(d)The Councillors' role is to

(i)initiate the process;

(ii)give the conflict resolution group the authority to make recommendations;

(iii)secure the resources the conflict resolution group needs to do its work;

(iv)act on any consensus that emerges;

(e)To secure the Councillors' support the conflict resolution process must have legitimacy. To have legitimacy, the process must have:

(i)a clear focus;

(ii)agreed deadlines;

(iii)a clear process;

(iv)a facilitator/mediator who is agreed to by the participants and must be respected by City departments and community groups;

(v)ground rules which are clear and enforced;

(vi)representation by City departments that have the resources and mandate to act on decisions;

(f)The participants in the process should:

(i)have the authority to act on behalf of the group or association and be accountable to that group or organization; and

(ii)respect the legitimacy of other stakeholders;

(10)directed that the facilitator of the conflict resolution process be acceptable to the two Ward Councillors;

(11)requested the Medical Officer of Health to report to the Toronto Community Council on the effectiveness of the Personal Care By-law;

(12)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to examine options and propose strategies which would permit a broad range of housing and tenure options throughout the entire City in the Official Plan and Zoning Reviews currently underway, and to provide a progress report to the Community Councils and the Urban Environment and Development Committee;

(13)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to provide maps to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and thereon to Council, showing those areas where rooming houses are permitted; and

(14)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with appropriate officials, to provide to the Urban Environment and Development Committee, and thereon to Council, data for the past 10-15 years on the availability of single low income accommodation, such as rooms and other forms of single/low income housing.

The Toronto Community Council further 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 October 14, 1998, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Mr. Oudit Raghubir, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Robert B. Levitt, obo Parkdale Tenants' Association;

-Mr. Walter Jarsky, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Ray Van Evenooghe, Bachelorettes Owners Association;

-Ms. Loreta Zubas, Resident's Association/Redwood Shelter;

-Mr. Bart Poesiat, Parkdale Community Legal Services;

-Mr. Mike Coward, Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP);

-Mr. Randy Costello, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Paul Rodgers, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Cheryl White, Common Front for Low Income Housing;

-Mr. Murray Lowe, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Bonnie Briggs, OCAP;

-Mr. John Stewart, Common Front for Low Income Housing;

-Mr. James Loney, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. William Payne, Member - Toronto Catholic Worker Community;

-Ms. Margaret Moores, Habitat Services;

-Ms. Josephine Stomp; Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Greg Daly, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. John Colautti, Parkdale Village Residents' Association;

-Ms. Sue Collis, OCAP and Common Front for Low Income Housing;

-Mr. John Clarke, OCAP;

-Mr. Gaeton Heroux, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Sarah Vance, Member - Campaign to Defend Immigrants and Refugees;

-Mr. Lenox Keith, Arrow - Public Relations;

-Ms. Angela Hanson, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Barb Millar, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Nora McCabe, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. John A. Davies, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Annie Walsh, Queen Street Mental Health Centre Joint Neighbourhood Committee and Houselink Community Homes;

-Mr. Charles Taylor, Charles Taylor Associates;

-Mr. Mark Crowe, Parkdale Village B.I.A.;

-Ms. Amanda Jeans, President, Parkdale Village Residents' Association;

-Mr. Scott Bartle, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Elinor Mahoney, Parkdale Community Legal Services;

-Mr. James Doyle, Toronto, Ontario;

-Ms. Rhoda Landis, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Chico LaFranz, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Ramraj Ramchaitar, Parkdale Breakfast Club.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 16, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary Draft By-law to implement a Zoning By-law amendment to limit the number of dwelling units which may be converted in residential buildings in low and medium density areas in Parkdale.

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 (September 16, 1998) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Toronto Community Council will have before it the final report of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services (September,1998) at its meeting to be held on October14and15,1998 concerning the above noted subject. This report recommends, inter alia, that a Draft By-law be prepared by the City Solicitor to amend the General Zoning By-law of the former City of Toronto to implement certain zoning restrictions in portions of Parkdale with low and medium density residential designations. This by-law will restrict the creation of new dwelling units or dwelling rooms to three per existing lot, as well as restrict the list of permitted uses.

Upon further consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, it is suggested that a technical amendment be incorporated into the Draft By-law which would ensure that in the case of a "converted house", the current standard requiring that such a building be at least 5 years old, be maintained. This will ensure a clearer distinction between conversion permissions and new multiple unit houseform buildings.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-law, which, if enacted, will give effect to the planning report, with the above-noted technical amendment.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Telephone: 392-7225, Fax: 392-0024, E-mail: rbalfour@city.toronto.on.ca

________

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto

with respect to certain lands within residential districts in the Parkdale Area.

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

1.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:

(a)inserting into section 2(1) before the definition of "parking area", the following:

"Parkdale Special Residential Area" means that part of the City of Toronto delineated by heavy lines and shown on the following maps;".

(insert maps)

(b)by deleting Exception 70 contained in section 12(2) and inserting a new Exception 70 as follows:

"70.(a)No person shall within the Parkdale Special Residential Area:

(i)erect or use a building or structure for any of the uses permitted under section 6(1)(f)(a)(i) and (ii), except for a detached house, converted house, duplex, monastery, nunnery or religious retreat, row house, semi-detached duplex, semi-detached house, semi-detached triplex, triplex;

(ii)erect, alter or convert a building to provide therein more than three dwelling units or three dwelling rooms or any combination thereof to a maximum of three on any lot of record; and

(b)where a building in the Parkdale Special Residential Area is permitted by this exception to be a converted house, the provisions set out in section 6(2)1, with the exception of sections 6(2)1(ii) and 6(2)1(v), shall not apply.

For the purpose of this exception, the expression "lot of record" means a lot according to a registered plan of subdivision, or a parcel of land existing at (the date of passage of this by-law) the conveyance of a portion of which would require a consent under Section 49 of the Planning Act, as amended."

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The attached report recommends a three-faceted planning approach for the Parkdale neighbourhood: a community conflict resolution process to agree on an approach for dealing with the existing bachelorettes and other special units; physical and traffic improvements; and a completely new zoning provision, designed to balance neighbourhood needs, that would establish a maximum of three units per building lot for the low density residential areas south of Marion Street.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council endorse the creation of a conflict resolution process to achieve a consensus on the appropriate approach the City should take to the existing bachelorettes and illegal rooming houses in Parkdale, such process to include the appointment of a facilitator who is acceptable to all groups.

(2)That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the November, 1998 Toronto Community Council on the conflict resolution process including the name of the proposed facilitator and any emerging resource needs, if necessary.

(3)That City Council endorse in principle the physical improvements recommended for Parkdale in this report and request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to co-ordinate the implementation of these improvements, reporting further as necessary.

(4)That the Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86, as amended, be further amended so as to limit, in the area shown on Figure 3 in the attached report, the creation of units or rooms, through conversion or new construction, to three per lot, generally as set out in the draft by-law contained in the Appendix of this report.

Contact Name:

Helen Coombs

Telephone: (416) 392-7613

Fax:(416) 392-1330

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

________

Appendix

Draft Zoning By-law

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. ( )

Adopted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto

with respect to certain lands within residential districts in the Parkdale Area.

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

1.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 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:

(a)inserting after the definition of "paper products factory", the following:

"Parkdale Special Residential Area" means that part of the City of Toronto delineated by heavy lines and shown on the following map".

(insert map)

(b)by deleting Exception 70 contained in Section 12(2) and inserting a new Exception70 as follows:

"70.No person shall within the Parkdale Special Residential Area:

(i)erect or use a building or structure for any of the uses permitted under Section 6(1)(f)(a)(i) and (ii), except for a detached house, converted house, duplex, monastery, nunnery or religious retreat, row house, semi-detached duplex, semi-detached house, semi-detached triplex, triplex;

(ii)erect, alter or convert a building to provide therein more than three dwelling units or three dwelling rooms or any combination thereof to a maximum of three on any lot of record; and

(iii)where a building permitted by this exception is altered to become a converted house, the provisions set out in Section 6(2)1, with the exception of 6(2)1(v), shall not apply."

For the purposes of this exception, the expression "lot of record" means a lot according to a registered plan of subdivision, or a parcel of land existing at (the date of passage of this by-law) the conveyance of a portion of which would require a consent under Section 49 of the Planning Act, as amended.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 8

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 9

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 10

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 11

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 12

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 13

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 14

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 15

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 16

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 17

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

Insert Table/Map No. 18

Parkdale Planning Initiatives

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

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Gregory J. Daly, Gregory J. Daly and David J. Barrington;

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Michael B. Vaughan, Q.C., on behalf of the Bachelorette Owners Association;

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Walter Jarsky;

-(October 14, 1998) from Mr. John Colautti, Former President of Parkdale Village Residents' Association;

-(October 13, 1998) from Ms. Susan Pigott, Executive Director, St. Christopher House; and

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. David W. Oleson.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 19, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To report directly to City Council as requested on pending Ontario Municipal Board appeals in respect of variances to the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law (various locations in South Parkdale).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That the City Solicitor contact the Ontario Municipal Board and request that the outstanding Committee of Adjustment appeals relating to residential intensification in the Parkdale area remain held in abeyance until such time as the City-sponsored conflict resolution process is completed.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

At its meeting held on October 14 and 15, 1998, the Toronto Community Council, in considering the Parkdale matters before it, requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to report directly to Council on the pending Ontario Municipal Board appeals in respect of exemptions being sought from the general Zoning By-law, so as to obtain the instruction of Council as to the position to be taken by the City Solicitor before the Ontario Municipal Board.

At present, a total of nine Committee of Adjustment appeals which involve the introduction or approval of existing dwelling units in respect of various properties in South Parkdale remain held in abeyance by the Ontario Municipal Board. This has been done on the basis that hearing dates would not be assigned until such time as these outstanding appeals could be consolidated with those appeals that might arise out of the anticipated zoning by-law amendment for Parkdale following the Interim Control Study. It would now appear that the passage of any zoning by-law will be delayed pending the completion of the City-sponsored conflict resolution process.

As a result of further consultation with Ward Councillors Korwin-Kuczynski and Miller, it is suggested that it would be appropriate, in light of the ongoing conflict resolution process which necessarily deals with a number of the issues common to the OMB appeals, to simply request the Board to not schedule any of these matters for hearing pending the completion of that process.

I note that the Toronto Community Council has requested the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to attempt to obtain agreement from property owners not to proceed with the pending Ontario Municipal Board appeals to permit the conflict resolution process to proceed and come to conclusions. The agreement of such owners will be a critical factor in obtaining the continued deferral of the Board appeals.

In the event that Board process on any or all of these matters nevertheless commences, I will report to City Council to either seek or confirm instructions with respect to the nine appeals referred to above.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services concurs with this report.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour

Telephone: (416) 392-7225

Fax: (416) 392-0024

E-mail: rbalfour@city.toronto.on.ca.)

(City Council also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following transmittal letter (October 21, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Attached are submissions received by the City Clerk respecting the foregoing matter:

(a)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. David W. Oleson;

(b)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Gregory J. Daly and Mr. David J. Barrington;

(c)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Michael B. Vaughan, Q.C., on behalf of the Bachelorette Owners Association;

(d)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Walter Jarsky;

(e)(October 14, 1998) from Mr. John Colautti, Former President of Parkdale Village Residents' Association; and

(f)(October 13, 1998) from Ms Susan Pigott, Executive Director, St. Christopher House.)

(A copy of each of the submissions, referred to in the foregoing transmittal letter, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Tree Removal - 123 Eglinton Avenue East

(North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. David McWhirter, MBTW, 240 Duncan Mill Road, Suite500, Toronto, Ontario, M3B 1Z4, for City Council to consider removal of seven City ownedtrees.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be approved on the condition that:

1.the applicant submit a certified cheque in the amount of $11,983.17 to cover the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement costs of seven City owned trees;

2.the applicant plant four trees, two in turf and two in tree pits on Lillian Street and plant two trees in turf on Redpath Avenue City street allowances upon completion of the project; and

3.the Landscape Plan L-1A, prepared by MBTW be revised to be in accordance with the City of Toronto Standard Tree Pit Planting Detail No's 103, 103-1, 103-2 & 103-3.

Background:

This request for tree removal forms part of an Official Plan Amendment and/or Re-zoning application filed with Urban Planning & Development Services for the purpose of facilitating construction of a new residential condominium. I understand that the Director, Community Planning, South District is recommending the proposed development be approved.

Comments:

The landscape plan indicates there are nine City owned trees involved with this project. Two linden trees will be protected and preserved during the construction work. The remaining seven trees do not qualify for removal and are the subject of this application for removal. The trees in question are one honey locust tree, one Norway maple and five linden trees which have diameters ranging from 8 to 62 centimetres. All the trees are in excellent condition except for the Norway maple. The Norway maple is in a declining state but fair condition. An underground garage and rear laneway are proposed to be constructed in close proximity to these trees so their preservation on site cannot be guaranteed.

These trees are valued at $7,667.49. The costs to remove these trees is $990.61 and the costs to replace seven City owned trees in turf are $3,325.07, for a total of $11,983.17.

The applicant proposes to plant four trees in turf and two in sidewalk tree pits along Lillian Street and Redpath Avenue. In addition there will be twenty-two new tree plantings on private property as part of the landscape improvements associated with this project.

Since the proposed project cannot be accomplished without removing the trees, and the tree plantings on City and private property will be a substantial improvement over 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

Variance from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

511 Danforth Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Application No. 998033 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated roof sign at 511 Danforth Avenue be refused.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated roof sign at 511 Danforth Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council refuse Application No. 998033 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated roof sign.

Comments:

The property is located on the south side of Danforth Avenue, between Fenwick Avenue and Logan Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a one storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated roof sign (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 1.2 metres and a height of 2.4 metres, with an area of 2.9 m�. An additional 5 signs, which are permitted under the Municipal Code, have been installed on the building as illustrated on the attached Figure 2.

The roof sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it is not permitted in this district. City Council adopted this prohibition based on a study of roof signs along main streets in CR and MCR districts. Roof signs, because of their unsightly support structures, detract from the streetscape and negatively impact the skyline views along our commercial streets and from adjacent residential districts.

Although the sign has no exposed support structures of the type normally associated with roof signs, the sign unnecessarily protrudes 2.4 metres above the building's roof line. In my opinion, the approval of a roof sign in this location would undermine the integrity of the Sign By-law and would set an unfortunate precedent for other properties in this area and in other mixed-use (commercial/residential) districts throughout the City.

Given the prohibition of roof signs in this district, I consider the requested variance to be significant and not within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code. 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

511 Danforth

Insert Table/Map No. 2

511 Danforth

Insert Table/Map No. 3

511 Danforth

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

2629 Yonge Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Application No. 998067 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one encroaching illuminated fascia sign at 2629 Yonge Street be refused.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one encroaching illuminated fascia sign for identification purposes at 2629 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendation:

That City Council refuse Application No. 998067 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one encroaching illuminated fascia sign at 2629 Yonge Street.

Comments:

The property is located on the northeast corner of Yonge Street and Sheldrake Boulevard, in a mixed use (Commercial-Residential) district. The property accommodates a three-storey mixed-use building with retail stores on the first floor. The applicant is requesting permission to erect one encroaching illuminated fascia sign on the southwest corner of the building, at the second-floor level for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 6.9 metres and a height of 0.8 metre, with an area of 5.5 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

1.The proposed fascia sign for identification will not be located on a wall that is part of the commercial unit being advertised.

The variance occurs because the Municipal Code allows signs to be erected only on the portion of the wall belonging to a particular commercial unit, so that each commercial store is allowed to be identified. The intent of this provision is to prevent over signage and limit the possible negative impact of signage on the appearance of buildings by permitting signs where they have traditionally been displayed. In this instance, the "Running Room" sign would be located on the second-storey level at the southwest corner of the building, directly above the "Sanna" couture design shop. Signage already exists to identify the Running Room's Yonge Street frontage. Further, the proposed sign on the flanking street conflicts with signage for the ground-floor tenant. I feel the additional signage would be excessive and would set an undesirable precedent for other corner properties.

I am, therefore, recommending refusal for this application.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2629 Yonge

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2629 Yonge

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2629 Yonge

Insert Table/Map No. 4

2629 Yonge

Tree Removal -

34 Rosedale Heights Drive (Midtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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 City Council refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree at 34 Rosedale Heights Drive.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 21, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that is growing too close to a garage has been filed by Mr. Stephen Harris, 34 Rosedale Heights Drive, Toronto, Ontario, M4T1C3, owner of 34 Rosedale Heights Drive.

Recommendations:

Either 1 or 2 below.

1)Refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree.

2)Issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a forty centimetre diameter Norway spruce in fair condition and located at the southwest corner of a garage. The arborist report prepared by Ontario Tree Experts, that accompanies this application, states that the spruce tree is in good condition but poorly located and that it's growth is beginning to cause damage to the foundation and wall of the garage. The property is well treed with mature native species and if approval is granted for the removal of the spruce there is sufficient space on the property to plant a replacement tree. The spruce tree is healthy and if it remains it will live for several more decades. If the tree is not removed there is the potential as it becomes larger that it will damage the garage.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens

Telephone: (416) 392-1894; Facsimile: (416) 392-6657

e-mail:rubbens@city.toronto.on.ca

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (October 27, 1998) addressed to Councillor John Adams, Midtown, from Mr. Stephen Harris and Ms. Leslie Buskard, advising that they did not receive notice of the meeting of the Toronto Community Council at which their application for the removal of a tree in their backyard at 34 Rosedale Heights Drive was considered; and requesting that City Council refer this matter back to the Community Council for further consideration.)

Tree Removal -

1106 Yonge Street (Midtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for the removal of both trees at 1106 Yonge Street.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 14, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove two trees on private property to allow for the extension of a parking area has been filed by Ms. Neda Rahimi, 392 St. George Street, Suite 4, Toronto, Ontario, M5R 2R2, agent for the owner of 1106 Yonge Street.

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below.

1) Refuse to issue a permit for the removal of both trees.

2) Issue a permit for the removal of both trees.

Comments:

The trees in question are a forty-six centimetre diameter Ailanthus altissima and a sixty centimetre diameter silver maple, both in fair condition. The trees are located at the rear of the property in an area primarily used for vehicular parking. Although the trees are located in a harsh growing environment surrounded by asphalt, they are healthy and provide an aesthetic and environmental benefit to the community. The removal of one or both trees will not increase the amount of space available for parking in the opinion of Urban Forestry staff and to lose two healthy specimens over the issue of parking would be unfortunate.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. One written objection and one objection in the form of a petition with thirty-eight signatures were received in response to the application to remove the tree's in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Richard Ubbens, Telephone:(416) 392-1894,

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

-(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Charles and Ms. Pleasance Crawford;

-(October 8, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Morriss;

-(October 13, 1998) from Kersti B. Preger;

-(October 12, 1998) from Mr. Pierre Préfontaine;

-(undated) from Ms. Susan Martin and Mr. Alan Dudeck; and

-(October 13, 1998) from Ms. Diane Froggatt, ABC Residents' Association.

Maintenance of Fence - Lascelles Boulevard

Flankage of 70 Chaplin Crescent

(North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that this matter be received.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 30, 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 fence within the City street allowance which does not provide vision splays adjacent to two existing driveways and exceeds the maximum height permitted under 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 maintenance of a wooden closed board fence within the City street allowance on the Lascelles Boulevard flankage of 70 Chaplin Crescent, subject to the fence being modified to provide a 1.8 m vision splay adjacent to the existing driveway servicing the property to the north and the driveway which services this property and 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:

Ms. Clare Cowan, owner of 70 Chaplin Crescent, Toronto, Ontario M5P 1A3, has requested permission to maintain a wooden closed board fence within the City street allowance on the Lascelles Boulevard flankage of 70 Chaplin Crescent.

The fence has been constructed to a height of 1.9 m and has a wooden arch extension over the gate area, for a total height of 2.6 m rather than the maximum height of 1.9 m allowed in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. In addition, the fence is set back only 0.2 m from the sidewalk rather than 0.46 m as required. The fence is situated immediately adjacent to an existing driveway servicing the property to the north as well as the existing driveway which services this property. To provide visibility of approaching pedestrian traffic, the fence should be modified to provide a 1.8 m vision splay adjacent to each driveway.

In a letter dated August 12, 1998 addressed to Councillor Michael Walker, the property owner has requested an exemption to this by-law, noting that the newly constructed fence was constructed in the exact location of the previous fence and that there have been no occurrences with regard to the fence creating a vision hazard over the past 10 years.

We have also received a letter dated August 26, 1998 from an area resident who objects to the fence because it does not provide the required setback from the sidewalk and it creates a blind spot for the adjacent driveway. The area resident is requesting the fence be modified so as to comply with the by-law requirements.

With respect to the setback, as the fence is existing and does not negatively affect the public right-of-way, I have no objection to the reduced setback. However, with regard to the vision splays, as noted above, without the provision of splays, vehicles using the driveways abutting the fence do not have adequate visibility of oncoming pedestrian traffic which creates a potential hazard for the public. In view of this, the fence should be modified to provide the required vision splays.

I note that staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that this fence is similar to other fences in the area.

Details of this fence and the letters from the owner and area resident are on file with this department.

Conclusions:

The construction of the fence is similar to other fences in the area. If the property owner modifies the fence to provide a 1.8 m vision splay adjacent to the driveway servicing the property to the north and the driveway which services this property, it would not impact negatively on the public right-of-way and can be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani 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 (October 9, 1998) from Mr. D. Cross, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Maintenance of Fence -

19 Wolseley Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement:

Purpose:

To report on the maintenance of a chain link fence within the City street allowance which exceeds the maximum height permitted under the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks. 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 a chain link fence 1.90 m in height, within the City street allowance fronting 19 Wolseley Street.

Comments:

Mr. Brevitt Buckman of the City Property Division, City of Toronto, submitted an application on September 1, 1998 to maintain a chain link fence fronting City Property land at 19 Wolseley Street. The property is a vacant 3.05 m wide narrow strip of land which is situated between an existing church and a residential home. The fence that has been erected is 1.90 m in height rather than the maximum height of 1.0 m allowed in Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The fence was installed at the request of the immediate neighbours to prevent illegal dumping of garbage materials and illicit drug use which was occurring frequently on this property.

Staff have also inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that this fence does not impact negatively on the general streetscape.

Details of this fence are shown on the attached drawing (Appendix 'A').

Conclusions:

As this fence does not impact negatively on the streetscape in the area, it should be permitted to be maintained.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Insert Table/Map No. 1

19 Wolseley Street

Maintenance of Fence Fronting 63 Oak Park Avenue and

on the Newmarket Avenue Flankage (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, struck out and referred this Clause to the East York Community Council for further consideration, with a request that area residents in the former Borough of East York be so notified.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request to maintain a 1.3 m high chain link fence within the City street allowance which exceeds the maximum height permitted under Municipal Code Chapter 313, Street 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 1.3 m high chain link fence within the City street allowance, fronting 63 Oak Park Avenue and on the Newmarket Avenue flankage, subject to the owner entering into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Comments:

Ms. Vincenza Gilberto, owner of 63 Oak Park Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4C 4M2, submitted an application requesting permission to maintain a 1.3 m high chain link fence within the City street allowance, fronting 63 Oak Park Avenue and on the Newmarket Avenue flankage.

Site inspection has confirmed that there are other similar fence structures in the immediate vicinity and that this fence would be consistent with the streetscape.

Details of this fence are retained on file with this department.

Conclusions:

As the fence does not impact negatively on the public right-of-way and is consistent with the general streetscape, it should be permitted to remain.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Construction of Fence -

108 Harrison Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement:

Purpose:

To report on the property owner's request to construct a 2.0 m high chain-link fence which exceeds the maximum height permitted under 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 a 2.0 m high chain-link fence within the City street allowance fronting 108 Harrison Street, 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:

Sister Mary Agnes Roger, on behalf of The Carmelite Sisters of Canada, owner of 108 Harrison Street, Toronto, Ontario M6J 2A2, submitted an application requesting permission to construct a 2.0m high chain-link fence within the City street allowance fronting 108 Harrison Street.

Sister Mary Agnes Rogers operates The Carmelite Day Nursery at this location which is currently undergoing renovations within private property to comply with safety regulation requirements from Metro Children's Services. As part of these renovations and to provide more playground space for the children, she would like to relocate the existing 2.0 m high fence that is presently within private property onto the City street allowance.

Staff have inspected the area in the immediate vicinity of this property and have determined that this fence would be consistent with the general streetscape.

Since there was no opposition to the installation of the fence and in order to restore the play area as quickly as possible so that the children could use the playground, we issued a permit to proceed with the construction of the fence.

Details of the fence are shown on the attached drawing (Appendix 'A').

Conclusion:

As this fence is consistent with other installations in the vicinity, it should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

________

Councillor Pantalone declared his interest in the foregoing matter insofar as that his child attends the day care centre at the subject site.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

appendix a

(Councillor Pantalone, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause in that one of his children is registered in the day care centre at the subject site.)

Sidewalk/Boulevard Vending Permit -

Bay Street, West Side, 41 Metres North of

Front Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement:

Purpose:

To report on an appeal of staff's refusal of a sidewalk/boulevard vending application, which was denied because a written objection was received. As this is an appeal, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that a permit be issued to Mr. Stylianos Papadeles for sidewalk/boulevard vending on Bay Street, west side, 41 metres north of Front Street West, notwithstanding the objection received by the adjoining property owner.

Background:

Mr. Stylianos Papadeles has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Bay Street, west side, 41 metres north of Front Street West.

Comments:

Mr. Stylianos Papadeles, 585A Jones Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 3H4, applied on June 3, 1998 for a sidewalk/boulevard vending permit on Bay Street, west side, 41 metres north of Front Street West, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). Mr. Papadeles proposes to vend souvenirs, sun glasses, toys and t-shirts.

As the application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, we notified the adjacent property owner for their comments, if any. Mr P. Jan Krog, Real Estate Operations, National Manager, Building Operations and Management, Royal Bank, P.O. Box 196, #128 Upper Concourse Level, Toronto, Ontario M5J2J4, has submitted a letter of objection dated July 17, 1998 (Appendix 'B') regarding this location.

Under the procedural rules of the Municipal Code, where a written objection to the issuance of a vending permit has been received in my office, I am required to refuse the application. The applicant then has 30 days from receipt of our notice to request an appeal to the Toronto Community Council.

Staff have met with Mr. Stylianos Papadeles and confirm that we cannot issue a vending permit under Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, because we have received a letter of objection.

In order to assist your Committee with the evaluation of Mr P. Jan Krog's concerns, they are summarized below along with the staff's response.

Concern #1:The proposed vending location is just a few metres south of an existing hot dog vendor at Wellington Street West

Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a 25 metres minimum separation from other vendors.

The proposed vending location is 84 metres south from the licensed vendor at the corner of Bay Street and Wellington Street West.

Concern #2:The proposed vending location would be partially on private land owned by Royal Bank Plaza Holdings Ltd.

Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires 3.66 metres of paved passable space to be maintained for pedestrian movement and that the vendor be situated on the public road allowance.

The proposed vending location is situated on the public road allowance, at the property line and maintains 2.3 metres from the curb and an additional 4.3 metres from the building wall, creating a total of 6.6 metres of paved passable space.

Concern #3:The proposed vending location would make the area unsafe during building maintenance, window washing and create a liability in respect to claims

Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires the vendor to provide a certificate of comprehensive general liability insurance, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 prior to a permit being issued.

Concern #4:The proposed vending location would create a liability in respect to close proximity to fire exits and pedestrian access to the mall

Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires that the proposed vending location not be situated in front of any entrance or exit.

The proposed location is 9 metres from the exit/entrance to the building.

Concern #5:The proposed vending location would create further congestion if utility companies park their vehicles on the sidewalk when servicing underground utilities

Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires construction and maintenance companies to first obtain a permit before using the public road allowance. It further stipulates that any person authorized by a public utility may enter the vending area at any time without compensation to the permit holder, for the purpose of maintenance or repair.

Concern #6:The proposed vending location would create a garbage problem on private property

Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires a trash receptacle be provided only for food vending permits.

The vendor proposes to vend souvenirs, sun glasses, toys and t-shirts.

Concern #7:The proposed vending location would create an eyesore

Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires the vendor to maintain the area and adjacent pavement, sidewalk and boulevard in a clean and sanitary condition.

By-law enforcement officers routinely monitor all licensed vending locations.

Concern #8:The proposed vending location would detract from the tidy appearance of their street frontages

Municipal Code Chapter 315, Street Vending, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, requires the proposed locations not to be in front of a name, municipal number, or display window.

The proposed location meets these requirements.

Conclusions:

As this application complies with the physical and administrative requirements of the Municipal Code, the application should be approved.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Lisa Forte, 392-1801

Mr. S. Papadeles, Toronto, Ontario appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(A copy of the following communication (July 17, 1998) from P.Jan Krog, Building Operations and Management, Royal Bank, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council, with the agenda for its meeting of October 14, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Street Vending - Front Street West

Inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage

Properties - 2190 Gerrard Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (August27, 1998) from the Managing Director, Toronto Historical Board:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the property at 2190 Gerrard Street East 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 2190 Gerrard Street East 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 thereto.

Background:

In May, 1998, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 2190 Gerrard Street East for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. In letters dated August 6 and 10, 1998, the property owners were advised of the request; no response has been received.

As outlined in the attached report to the Board of Heritage Toronto (August 10, 1998), Heritage Toronto staff researched and evaluated the property according to the Board's criteria; it is worthy of inclusion on the Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property (CategoryC).

Comments:

At its meeting of August 26, 1998, the Board recommended that the property be added to the Inventory of Heritage Properties. The property at 2190 Gerrard Street East (Donald Stephenson House) is identified for architectural and historical reasons as the residence of the first Reeve of the Village of East Toronto, a well-designed example of the Queen Anne style, and a prominent feature in the East Toronto neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

Heritage Toronto recommends that City Council include the property at 2190 Gerrard Street East (Donald Stephenson House) on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties as a Neighbourhood Heritage Property.

Contact Name:

Ms. Kathryn Anderson

Preservation Officer, Historical Preservation Division, Toronto Historical Board

Tel: 392-6827, ext. 239

Fax: 392-6834

________

(Communication (August 10, 1998) from Managing Director, Heritage Toronto)

Inventory of Heritage Properties

Recommendation:

That the property at 2190 Gerrard Street East (Donald Stephenson House) be recommended for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.

Comments

Background:

In a letter dated April 16, 1998, Heritage Toronto was requested to consider the property at 2190Gerrard Street East for inclusion on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties. The owner was advised of the request in a letter dated August 6, 1998.

Discussion:

The request arose from a concern that this property might be threatened by the Norwood Terrace development to the north. Staff consulted the City's Planning Department who are unaware of any plans impacting this site.

The property at 2190 Gerrard Street East was evaluated according to the Board's criteria which indicates that it is a Neighbourhood Heritage Property and merits inclusion.

A Property Research Summary is attached.

________

Property Research Summary

Basic Building Data:

Address:2190 Gerrard Street East (northwest corner of Gerrard

Street East and Enderby Road)

Ward:26 (East Toronto)

Current Name: not applicable

Historical Name: Donald Stephenson House

Construction Date:1894

Architect: none found

Contractor/Builder: none found

Additions/Alterations: date unknown: window opening converted to door opening on east wall; two-storey sunporch added to east wall; portion of upper storey of east wall enclosed as sunporch;

window opening converted to door opening on west wall;

two-storey wing added to rear (north) wall

Original Owner: Donald G. Stephenson

Original Use: Residential (Single)

Current Use*:Residential (Apartment House)

Heritage Category: Neighbourhood Heritage Property (Category C)

Recording Date: August 1998

Recorder: HPD:KA

* this does not refer to permitted use(s) as defined in the Zoning By-law

Description:

The property at 2190 Gerrard Street East is identified for architectural and historical reasons. The house was constructed in 1894 for Donald G. Stephenson, a lumber merchant, realtor and loans officer who served as the first Reeve of the Village of East Toronto. The house is located one block west of the intersection of Gerrard and Main Streets, the centre of the East Toronto community. Stephenson's widow, Lucy, occupied the property until 1906 when William H. Clay acquired it. The Clerk and Treasurer for East Toronto during its transition from Village to Town to annexation by the City of Toronto in 1908, Clay also served as a school board representative and magistrate. He resided on-site until 1924.

The Donald Stephenson House displays the asymmetrical composition, mixture of materials, and variety of forms associated with Queen Anne styling. Constructed of red brick on a rough sandstone base, the building is trimmed with sandstone mouldings, string courses, window sills and labels, brick voussoirs, and wood window surrounds. Rising 2� stories, the irregularly shaped plan is covered by steeply pitched hip roofs with a gabled dormer on the rear (north slope). Tall brick chimneys with multiple pots are located on the east, north and west slopes.

On the principal (south) façade on Gerrard Street East, a turret dominates the southeast corner of the second storey. The turret has a moulded base, shingle cladding and a conical roof. It displays segmental-headed window openings with multi-paned sash windows. A round-arched entrance porch is located in the right bay beneath the turret. Inside the porch, an oval window opening highlighted by brick keystones flanks a single leaf door with a round-arched transom. In the left bay, a frontispiece rises 2� stories beneath a pedimented gable with shingles and a double window opening. Beneath the gable, a flat-headed window opening in the second storey surmounts a large round-arched window opening containing three sash windows.

The east wall facing Enderby Road has a projecting frontispiece covered by a pedimented gable with shingle cladding, a bracketed cornice, and a two-part window opening. Below, the wall contains asymmetrically placed round-arched and flat-headed window openings (one has been converted to an entrance). The two-storey enclosed sunporch to the left of the frontispiece and the single enclosed sunporch at the north end of the wall are not included as important heritage elements. On the west wall, a pedimented gable tops a two-storey bay window. Left of the bay window, the wall contains individual and paired flat-headed window openings. The rear (north) wall is covered by a two-storey flat-roofed addition which is not identified as an important heritage element.

Located on the northwest corner of Gerrard Street East and Enderby Road, the property at 2190Gerrard Street East is associated with the early development of the East Toronto community. The Donald Stephenson House is a well-designed example of the Queen Anne style and a prominent feature in the East Toronto neighbourhood.

Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only.

The documents 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. Phone 392-8016 or e-mail clerk@city.toronto.on.ca.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

2190 Gerrard Street East

Boulevard Cafe - Gloucester Street Flankage of

601 Yonge Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council allow the licensed boulevard cafe to continue on the Gloucester Street flankage of 601 Yonge Street, notwithstanding the negative response to 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, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the licensed boulevard cafe on the Gloucester Street flankage of 601 Yonge Street which was issued inadvertently. 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 rescind the licensed boulevard cafe on the Gloucester Street flankage of 601 Yonge Street, subject to:

(a)the licence holder being notified and given the opportunity to be heard by the Toronto Community Council;

(b)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holder; and

(c)the licence holder be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard cafe rental fee.

(2)City Council allow the licensed boulevard cafe to continue on the Gloucester Street flankage of 601 Yonge Street, notwithstanding the negative response to 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, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

A boulevard cafe licence was issued on June 25, 1998 prior to the completion date of the poll which was July 3, 1998, due to an administrative error. The response to the poll was negative and therefore the licence should not have been issued.

Comments:

Mr. Mohammed Tourougou, o/a Kilo Cafe, 601 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M4Y 1Z5, submitted an application on March 19, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe on the Gloucester Street flankage of 601 Yonge Street.

The proposed cafe area is approximately 26.36 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix'A'). It can accommodate 6 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 24 people.

This application 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.

As the proposed cafe flanks a residential zone, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 120 metres from the proposed cafe. If the majority of the ballots cast are in favour of the application, the application is approved. If the majority is opposed, the Commissioner must deny the application. If there is a negative response, re-polling for the same purpose may not take place until 2 years have passed from the closing date of the previous poll.

A poll dated June 3, 1998 to July 3, 1998 was conducted on the north side of Gloucester Street between Nos. 2 to 30, including 601 Yonge Street, and on the south side of Gloucester Street between Nos. 1 to 37, including 599 Yonge Street, to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English and French. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed8 in favour5	13
No response	298
Returned by post office	50
Total ballots issued	361

Regrettably, a boulevard cafe licence was issued to the cafe operator on June 25, 1998, prior to the completion of the poll, due to an administrative error. The Municipal Code requires that if the majority of the ballots cast are opposed to the licensing of the cafe, the Commissioner must deny the application.

Given that the response to the poll was low in comparison to the total ballots issued and upon discussing the matter with Councillor Kyle Rae's office, it was agreed to allow the cafe to operate until the end of the 1998 cafe season and report back to the Toronto Community Council on the operation of the cafe.

During the 1998 cafe season, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically. Inspections confirmed that the proprietor complied with the requirements of � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, including the closing time restriction of 11:00 p.m. However, on September 12, 1998, staff observed that patrons were still seated within the cafe area at approximately 11:10 p.m., although no table service was being provided by the restaurant. An Advice Notice was issued to the proprietor advising of his responsibility in ensuring that the cafe be closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m. The cafe patrons were requested to leave in the presence of the inspector.

In addition, we did not receive any complaints from members of the public or Toronto Police Service pertaining to noise or other disturbances at the subject location.

Conclusions:

The application did not meet the criteria of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code as the poll was not in favour. The response to the poll however, was low in comparison to the total ballots issued. To date, no complaints have been received with respect to the operation of this boulevard cafe.

On hearing the deputations, Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to continue or deny the boulevard cafe licence.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

Mr. Mohamed Tourougou, the applicant, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

601 Yonge Street

Boulevard Cafe - 139-141 Danforth Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 139-141 Danforth Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report directly to Council on the situation with respect to the backyard patio at this location.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 3, 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 at 139-141 Danforth Avenue, because written objections were received in response to the public notification. As applicants must be given the opportunity to be heard before Toronto Community Council, this matter is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe at 139-141 Danforth Avenue, as illustrated in Appendix 'A', notwithstanding the negative response to the public notice, and that such approval be subject to the applicant complying with the criteria set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(2)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 139-141 Danforth Avenue.

Background:

Mr. John Worthen Maxwell, The Irish Pub Group Inc., 141 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 1N2, in his letter of July 30, 1998 (Appendix 'B'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a boulevard cafe at 139-141 Danforth Avenue.

Comments:

Ms. Dora Keogh, The Irish Pub Group Inc., 141 Danforth Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4K 1N2, submitted an application on May 11, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 139-141Danforth Avenue for an area of approximately 5.78 square metres of sidewalk, as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 1 table, with a potential seating capacity of 5 people.

Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code requires that where the cafe proposal is not within 25 metres of a residential district, a notice must be posted on the property for not less than 14 days to determine neighbourhood support. If a written objection is received, the application must be refused by staff, but such refusal is subject to an appeal by the applicant.

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 June 16, 1998 for 14 days to determine neighbourhood support. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, we received 4 letters of objection (Appendices 'C' to 'F').

Ms. Keogh was advised in writing that because of this negative response, we could not issue a licence.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue a boulevard cafe licence at 139-141 Danforth Avenue 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

________

A copy of Appendices A - F referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with agenda for its meeting on October 14, 1998 and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication (September 13, 1998) from Ms. Jane Robinson, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

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

-Mr. John Maxwell, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Ms. Maria Gatzios, Toronto, Ontario.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

139-141 Danforth

Continuation of Front Yard Parking -

161 Mulock Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council permit the continuation of front yard parking at 161 Mulock Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit front yard parking. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it should be scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

1.City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 161 Mulock Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

2.Should the Toronto Community Council consider this proposal, this report be deferred to the January 1999 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, at which time I will report on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, had before it a communication (August 11, 1998) from Councillor Disero, respecting a Request for Reinstatement of Front Yard Parking Privileges Fronting 161 Mulock Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on October 14, 1998, and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report at that time.

Comments:

The previous owners of 161 Mulock Avenue were approved for front yard parking in April 1993 under the former Front Yard Parking By-law No. 65-81. However, since they did not obtain the required permit or pay for the ramp installation, the file was closed.

Subsequent to the approval of front yard parking at 161 Mulock Avenue, the Front Yard Parking By-law was amended in July 1996.

On July 5, 1996, Chapter 400 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current front yard parking criteria of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400:

(a)prohibits front yard parking where permit parking is authorized on the street, or the property is situated within an area authorized for permit parking;

(b)requires that the parking area be paved using semi-permeable paving materials; and

(c)requires that the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 331, Trees, are complied with.

The subject property does not comply with the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 400 for front yard parking for the following reasons:

(a)Permit parking is authorized on this portion of Mulock Avenue on an alternate side basis, within permit parking area 1C.

(b)There is a large 72 cm diameter City-owned tree fronting this property. The specifications for trees over 50 cm in diameter require that no paving be installed within 2.4 metres from the base of the tree. When taking this criteria into consideration, there is insufficient space from the tree to the property line on the south side. The area for the parking would only be 1.3metres in width.

(c)At present, the area to the south of the tree is paved in flagstone, up to a point of 87 cm from the base of the tree. In its present condition, this parking area does not meet the current specifications of the Code, since the area is not paved in semi-permeable paving materials, and the clearances around the tree are not met.

In areas of the City without permit parking, the Commissioner may issue a licence for front yard parking subject to certain physical criteria being met, as long as a public poll has been conducted on the street, and the majority of ballots cast are in favour of the request.

I note that no public poll has been conducted for this location, as no application has been submitted by the current owners.

Conclusions:

This property was initially approved for front yard parking in April 1993, under the previous more permissive by-law. The changes in the by-law in 1996 permitted the grandfathering of existing licensed locations but did not grandfather the approved locations. As the property is situated on a street authorized for permit parking, this location is not eligible for front yard parking. Under the circumstances, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (August 11, 1998) from Councillor Disero:

I am writing on behalf of Mr. Alvaro DeOliveira who purchased and moved into the above-noted property the last week of July, 1998.

It is my understanding that the previous property owner had a licensed front yard parking area in front of the home, however, it was rescinded, due to the fact that he failed to pay the yearly fee and the renewal fee. When Mr. DeOliveira purchased the property, he presumed that the existing front yard parking pad was licensed.

As the new property, Mr. DeOliveira feels he should not be penalized for the actions of the previous owner. In view of this, I would appreciate if you could consider reinstating the previous front yard parking permit for the property.

Thank you for your consideration.

Boulevard Cafe - Lava Restaurant and Club -

Palmerston Avenue Flankage of 507 College Street

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve the continuation of the existing boulevard cafe licence on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street, to operate at the same total cafe area as present ;

(2)the hours of operation of the boulevard cafe be extended as follows:

(a)Sunday to Thursday to 12 midnight;

(b)Friday and Saturday to 1:00 a.m.; and

(3)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report on the results to the Toronto Community Council in October, 1999.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 8, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on: (a) the operation of the boulevard cafe during the 1998 cafe season; (b) staff's refusal of an application for an extension of boulevard cafe privileges; and (c) the extension of the hours of operation of the boulevard cafe from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week. 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:

That the Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)(a)City Council deny the extension of hours of operation for the existing boulevard cafe licence on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week, as requested by the applicant;

(b)City Council approve the continuation of the existing boulevard cafe licence on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street, with the same conditions and approval as previously granted, i.e. 11:00 p.m. closing time, 7 days a week, since there were no complaints received from the neighbourhood;

(2)(a)City Council deny the application for an extension of the boulevard cafe on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street, because of a negative poll;

(b) City Council approve the application for an extension to the boulevard cafe for a total cafe area of 89.9 sq. m. on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College 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, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code;

(3)(a)City Council deny the request for an extension of hours of operation for the proposed boulevard cafe extension on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street to 2:00a.m+., 7 days a week;

(b)City Council approve the extension of hours of operation for the proposed extension to the boulevard cafe on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street to 2:00a.m., 7 days a week;

(4)Should City Council approve an extension of the hours, and/or extension of the cafe area, I be requested to report back after the end of the 1999 cafe season on the operation of the cafe.

Background:

Councillor Joe Pantalone has requested that we report on the boulevard cafe licence on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street.

Comments:

Mr. David Stearn, Lava Ltd., o/a Lava Restaurant and Club, 507 College Street, Toronto, Ontario M6G 1A8, submitted an application on August 14, 1997, requesting a transfer of the licence for a boulevard cafe on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street.

Applications to transfer existing licensed boulevard cafe privileges are forwarded to the appropriate Ward Councillor for comments and do not require public posting/polling of the neighbourhood. A transfer application means that the previously licensed boulevard cafe is not altered in any way, physically or operationally. Although the former Councillor Martin Silva had no objections to the transfer of the cafe privileges, he requested us to report to the former City Services Committee on the operation of the cafe after one year's time (Appendix 'A').

A boulevard cafe licence was issued to Mr. Stearn on November 27, 1997.

The licensed area is approximately 33.7 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B, Area1). It can accommodate 8 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 30 people.

Subsequently, a further application was submitted by Mr. Stearn in February 1998, to extend his boulevard cafe area (Area 2 on Appendix 'B') for a total cafe area of 89.9 sq. m., and to extend the operating hours of his boulevard cafe from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00a.m., 7 days a week.

As the proposed cafe extension flanks 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 March 31 to April 30, 1998 was conducted on the west side of Palmerston Avenue from 264 to 290, including 507 College Street and on the east side of Palmerston Avenue from 255 to 289, including 505 College Street to determine neighbourhood support. The poll was conducted in English, French, Portuguese, Italian and Chinese as requested by the former Councillor (i.e. every person polled received the ballot in 5 languages). The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed13 in favour5	18
No response	129
Returned by post office	26
Total ballots issued	173

Mr. Stearn was advised in writing on June 4, 1998 that given the negative poll, a licence could not be granted for the extension of his cafe as requested. Furthermore, Mr. Stearn was advised that a further application for a boulevard cafe extension on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street could not be considered for 2 years from the closing date of the public poll which was April30, 1998.

In response to former Councillor Silva's request for a report on the operation of the cafe after one year's time, the operation of the boulevard cafe was monitored periodically during the 1998 cafe season. Inspections confirmed that the proprietor complied with the requirements of � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, including the closing time restriction of 11:00 p.m., except on two occasions (June 26, 1998 and September 6, 1998).

On June 26, 1998, staff observed that the cafe was operating at approximately 11:30 p.m. Again, on September 6, 1998, inspection determined that the cafe was being operated beyond the 11:00 p.m. closing time restriction at approximately 12:23 a.m. An Advice Notice was issued to the proprietor of Lava Restaurant and Club advising to cease operating and adhere to the conditions of their boulevard licence to ensure that the boulevard cafe is closed and cleared by 11:00 p.m.

Our records show that we received two complaints from area residents on Palmerston Avenue pertaining to loud noise emanating from the interior of the restaurant on October 1, 1997 and July21,1998.

In addition, we have consulted with a representative of Toronto Police Service, Division No. 14, who advised that no complaints pertaining to the business operation are on file.

The City Clerk's office has notified the owners and occupants within 120 metres along both sides of Palmerston Avenue from the cafe area, advising of Mr. Stearn's request.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Stearn a licence for an extension to the boulevard cafe on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street because the poll was negative.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal for the boulevard cafe extension and grant an extension of the boulevard cafe hours for the boulevard cafe on the Palmerston Avenue flankage of 507 College Street.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

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:

- Appendix A (September 22, 1997) from Councillor Martin Silva;

-(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Alison Mackay; and

-(October 12, 1998) Petition with 28 signatures in opposition.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Palmerston Avenue

Site Plan Application and Amendment to Subdivision Agreement -

15, 35 and 65 Shaftesbury Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October1,1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Purpose

To provide recommendations respecting an application for Site Plan Approval for a new 59 unit apartment building and amendments to the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

1.That City Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend Section 12 of the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement to permit the use of a portion of the green space within Block 75, for the temporary placement of refuse bins for pickup, for the provision of a loading area and for a service vehicular access route which is compatible with the landscaped space.

2.That City Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement so as to ensure that the easement over the laneway located within Blocks 10 and 11 on Plan 66M-2315 has been secured to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

3.That, subject to the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement being amended and approval of the zoning variances, City Council approve the plans and drawings submitted with this application, namely Plans:

A-100Site Plan + Roof Plan(redlined September 9, 1998)

A-104Gallery Floor (West & Central Portion) (redlined September 9, 1998)

A-105Atrium + Gallery Floor (Central Portion)

A-106Gallery Floor (Central Portion)

A-108Ground Floor (West Portion

A-109Second Floor Plan (West Portion)

A-110Third Floor (West Portion)

A-111Fourth Floor (West Portion)

A-112Fifth Floor (West Portion)

A-114Ground Floor (Central Portion)

A-115Second Floor (Central Portion)

A-116Third Floor (Central Portion)

A-118Basement Floor (East Portion)

A-201Elevations

A-202Elevations

date stamped as received on September 2, 1998, prepared by Victor J. Heinrichs Architect; and

L-1Hard Landscape and Grading Plan (redlined September 9, 1998)

L-2Planting Plan

L-3Landscape Details

date stamped as received on September 2, 1998, prepared by John Quinn, Ferris + Quinn Associates Inc., all as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and as a condition of City Council approval, the owner enter into an Undertaking under Section 41 of the Planning Act requiring that:

A. Develop and Maintain Substantially in Accordance with Plans

(1)the proposed development, including all landscaping related thereto, shall be undertaken and maintained substantially in accordance with the drawings referred to above;

B. Garbage

(2) the owner shall provide and maintain a garbage room to serve the apartment building substantially in accordance with the Gallery Floor Drawing (A-104) stamped September 2, 1998 and redlined September 9, 1998 and install and maintain a bag compactor unit in the garbage room;

(3)the owner shall provide and maintain a garbage/recyclable room beneath the townhouse units including a chute access system to access the storage bins for the recyclable and non-recyclable waste generated by the entire project and equip this room with a total of 5 bulk lift bins for both refuse and recyclable materials;

(4)the owner shall install and maintain overhead doors for the garbage room located beneath the townhouse units on the Gallery Floor level in a manner that maintains a minimum clear depth of a least 2.5 m and designed to permit garbage bins to be rolled directly into and out of the garbage bin bays;

(5)the owner shall install and maintain the chutes above the garbage/recycle bins in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

C. Loading

(6)the owner shall 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;

(7)the owner shall 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 and manoeuvring of at least 5 compactor containers on collection day, such base pad to include the area labelled as "pavers" on the north side of the concrete base pad as illustrated on Plan L-1, Hard Landscape and Grading Plan, stamped September 2, 1998 and redlined September 9, 1998;

(8)the owner shall pave the route between the garbage bin loading bays and the concrete pad adjacent to the Type G loading space in concrete, or other similar hard surface;

(9)the owner shall 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;

(10)the owner shall construct any decorative unit paver surface (including turfstone, if applicable) to be used within any portion of the Type G loading space or area used to access the loading space, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and indemnify the City against any damage that may be caused to the decorative unit pavers through the regular use of the area by City garbage trucks and bins;

(11)the owner shall agree to keep the Type G loading space and manoeuvring area free and clear of parked cars, snow and ice on collection day;

(12)the owner agrees to leave the gate across the mouth of the access to the refuse/recyclable collection facilities open on collection day;

D.Parking

(13)the owner shall provide and maintain a minimum of 74 parking spaces on the site to serve the project, including a minimum of 51 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project, and a minimum of 15 parking spaces for visitors;

(14)the owner shall designate the visitor parking spaces by means of clearly visible signs;

(15)the owner shall provide and maintain the proposed vehicle access system for visitors with intercom systems at the access gates and remote control devices, as more particularly set out in the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services report dated September 3, 1998;

(16)at least one space of those required to be provided by the Zoning By-law shall be designated for the exclusive use by people with disabilities, by means of the International Symbol of Accessibility for the Handicapped;

E. Access

(17)the owner shall provide and maintain a physically separated pedestrian facility for access to the townhouse units;

(18)the owner shall provide and maintain a physical separation between the service driveway and the driveway provided to access the parking spaces;

(19)the owner agrees, that at such time as access to the property to the south of the site is required via the right-of-way designated as BLOCK 11 on Plan 66M-2315, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services or the party with a right to use the right-of-way pursuant to the existing easement agreement, to relocate the future westerly access gate to the east-west segment of the access driveway at least 6m east of the driveway located on BLOCK 11, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

F.Lane

(20)the owner shall construct the laneway, designated as BLOCK 11 on Plan 66M-2315, with slopes not exceeding 6% and a finished elevation not exceeding 124.48 at its south end;

(21)the owner shall submit suggestions for a suitable name for the proposed L-shaped laneway at the east end of the site in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause4 in Executive Committee Report No.22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting on July 11, 1988;

G.Studies required by Civic Officials

(22)the owner agrees that, prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, a Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan will be prepared and submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services for approval by the Medical Officer of Health;

(23)the owner agrees that the Demolition and Excavation Dust Control Plan, as approved by the Medical Officer of Health shall be implemented during excavation and construction activities for the project;

(24)the owner shall submit, prior to the substantial completion of the building, to the Medical Officer of Health a final verification report from the on site environmental consultant certifying that the remediation has been completed and soil remaining on the site meets the MOEE Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites (revised February 1997) for residential/parkland land use.

(25)the owner agrees to 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 and Railway Vibration Analysis approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(26)the owner agrees to submit an Air Quality Assessment report, prepared by a qualified consulting engineer/specialist, evaluating the ambient air quality and identifying corrective measures, if any, which may be required to permit construction on the site;

(27)the owner agrees to provide, maintain and operate the noise impact and vibration mitigation measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Noise Impact Statement and Railway Vibration Analysis approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(28)the owner agrees that, prior to substantial completion of the building, a qualified consulting engineer/specialist certify in writing to the Medical Officer of Health that the recommendations, if any, in the Air Quality Assessment have been incorporated in the design of said building and that the building has been constructed in accordance with these requirements; and

H.Rail Safety

(29)the owner agrees to, prior to the issuance of a building permit, have a qualified engineer certify, in writing, to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services that the development has been designed in accordance with the requirements of Canadian Pacific Railway;

4.That the owner be advised:

(1)of the comments of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting the Ontario Building Code;

(2)of the comments of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism respecting City owned trees;

(3)of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection;

(4)of the need to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

(5)of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances;

(6)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 the site soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff;

(7)of the need to comply with the requirements of the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement; and

(8)of the need to provide and maintain a minimum of 15 Affordable Housing Units on the site in accordance with the Approved Affordable Housing Plan on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

1.Applicant

The application was submitted by Vincent A. Siu, V.A. Siu Design Consultants Architecture Associates, 596 Queen Street West, Suite 300, Toronto, Ontario, M6J 1E3 on behalf of One Shaftesbury c/o Victor J. Heinrichs, Victor J. Heinrichs Architect, 156 Front St. W., 6^th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2L6.

2.Location

The site is located on the south side of Shaftesbury Avenue, east of Yonge Street and north of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor.

To the west of the site at the south-east corner of Yonge Street and Shaftesbury Avenue is a 6.5 storey commercial building that was erected in 1985. To the north of the site, is the Summerhill subway station and landscaped area for the mixed commercial residential development know as the "Ports". Also to the north is the Summerhill residential community, which consists of predominantly low rise residential house form buildings.

To the south of the rail tracks are the lands known as the Station District within the Yonge Summerhill planning area. These lands are currently vacant, but zoning approvals allow for four mixed use buildings, ranging in height from approximately 24 metres to 28 metres. To the south east is the South Rosedale Subdivision that will accommodate 47 semi and detached houses.

The subway runs under the western portion of the site in a north-south direction.

3.Site

The site is triangular in shape, with an area of approximately 7399 square metres.

4.Proposal

The proposal is to construct a residential complex consisting of a 5 storey building, containing 25 units, at the western end of the site and two rows of 3 storey townhouse units, containing 34 units, at the eastern end of the site. The project would contain a total of 59 units and have a gross floor area of approximately 9123 square metres. All three buildings would be connected by a two storey atrium, which would contain the common indoor amenity space for the development.

The proposed development would provide a total of 74 parking spaces (plus 3 tandem spaces) consisting of 59 spaces for residential plus 15 spaces for visitors. It is proposed that 2 spaces be provided outdoors, 15 spaces be provided in the garages adjacent to the rail corridor and 57 spaces be provided in the underground garage. Access to the parking areas would be via a private lane between the proposed apartment and 1133 Yonge Street.

5.Public Review

At its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997, City Council required all Site Plan Applications within the Yonge Summerhill Area Part II Official Plan be approved by City Council and not be delegated to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services. Council also directed that an advisory committee made up of representatives of local residents associations be established to advise and assist the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services on Site Plan Applications within the Yonge - Summerhill area.

In response to Council's request a number of meetings were held with the Summerhill Residents Association to discuss the Site Plan Application. Parking was the only concern raised by the residents association. (Appendix B)

6.Requirements of Civic Officials (Appendix A):

(a)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has identified various requirements in respect to the provision of access, parking, loading and garbage handling facilities.

(b)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that landscape plans submitted with this application are acceptable.

(c)The Medical Officer of Health has identified the requirement for a dust control plan and the need for a report certifying that the site remediation has been completed.

7.Committee of Adjustment

The proposed development does not comply with the current zoning provisions for the site and requires a number of variances. An application was made to the Committee of Adjustment for the required variances. The variances relate to the definition of apartment, parking, bicycle parking, driveway width, building setbacks, landscaped open space, gross floor area and use. A list of the specific variances are contained in the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services' Zoning Notice dated August 20, 1998, included in Appendix A.

At its meeting of September 9, 1998 the Committee of Adjustment granted the application. The Committee did not rule on the variance relating to bicycle parking, as this portion of the request was withdrawn by the applicant. The last day for appeal of this decision is October 6, 1998.

8.Planning Context

The Yonge Summerhill area was subject to a lengthy planning study resulting in a new Part II Official Plan and Zoning By-law for the area. The Part II Official Plan and Zoning By-law were approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 1995.

The western portion of the site, where the five storey apartment is proposed, is designated by the Part II Plan as "Summerhill Station Mixed Commercial Residential Area" and is zoned CR, with a height limit of 16 metres. The eastern portion of the site, where the townhouses are proposed, is designated Low Density Residence Area and is zoned R2 with a height limit of 11 metres.

The Part II Plan required that a Master Plan for the Yonge- Summerhill Area be developed in order to co-ordinate the implementation of the Official Plan policies and Urban Design Guidelines incrementally as development proceeds in the Station and Shaftesbury district. The Master Plan for the Yonge- Summerhill area was approved by City Council in 1997.

For the Shaftesbury District, the Master Plan describes a concept consisting of a residential mix of apartments and townhouses, as shown on Map 6. The apartment building would be five storeys and would be located substantially over the subway tunnel with an atrium to the east. Three storey townhouses would be located to the east of the apartment and would have frontage on Shaftesbury Avenue and on the east-west private lane. Between the two rows of townhouses would be a landscaped courtyard with the atrium to the west and an open space to the east. Vehicular service and visitor parking would be provided by a private lane located to the west between the apartment building and 1133 Yonge Street. Detached garages for the townhouses are to be located along the south property line and would act as safety and acoustical barrier.

The form and massing of the proposed development is consistent with the Official Plan policies, zoning provisions and Master Plan for the Yonge Summerhill Area.

9.Parking

The main concern raised by the residents was the number of parking spaces proposed for the project. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has reviewed the proposed parking for the development and advises that the estimated demand for the proposed project is 66 parking spaces, although the Zoning By-law requires 104 parking spaces (including 15 visitor spaces). The Committee of Adjustment at its September 9, 1998 meeting granted the owner's application to reduce the number of parking spaces to 74 spaces. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services had no objection to the variances to reduce the parking supply to 74 spaces provided that 15 of these spaces are designated for the use by residential visitors. I am recommending that the applicant provide 74 parking spaces to serve the project, including 51 spaces for the residents and 15 spaces for visitors.

10.Amendment to Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement

An application was submitted to the City on August 10, 1998 to amend Section 12 of the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement.

Section 12 of the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement limits the type of development on the eastern portion of the site (Block 75). The area of the site east of Tacoma Avenue was defined as an area that would not be obscured from view of pedestrians on Shaftesbury Avenue. The subdivision agreement states that this area should be landscaped as green space. The applicant proposes to use a portion of this green space for loading, the temporary storage of garbage bins on collection day and for a service driveway. The subdivision agreement would have to be amended to permit these uses east of Tacoma Avenue.

The intent of the plan of subdivision was to maintain this area as an open space, clear of structures. The proposed loading and garbage storage areas will only be used for short periods of time. The applicant proposed to use turf stone for the service driveway to maintain the appearance of a green, landscaped space. The applicant also proposed to landscape the area adjacent to Shaftesbury Avenue so as to screen the proposed uses. The service driveway will only be used for service vehicles and no passenger vehicles would be permitted access to this portion of the site.

At the meeting held with the Summerhill Residents Association this proposed amendment to the subdivision agreement was discussed. In addition to this meeting the applicant submitted a full set of plans to the residents association for their review and comments. The president of the Summerhill Residents Association verbally indicated that the proposed amendment to the subdivision agreement is acceptable.

Given that the proposed amendment to the subdivision agreement, which would permit a loading area, temporary storage of garbage bins on collection day and a service driveway is in keeping with the original intend of the subdivision agreement and is acceptable to the residents most affected by the proposed change, I am recommending that City Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend the Station Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement.

In addition to the above amendment the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has also requested an amendment to the subdivision agreement as a condition of approval of the proposed development.

In the Master Plan access to the parking and service areas for Block D ( the property fronting on Yonge Street, north of the rail corridor) was provided via the private lane on the site. To ensure that future access over this private lane is protected for a development on Block D, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has required, that the subdivision agreement be amended. Specifically, the Commissioner is recommending that the subdivision agreement be amended to ensure that the easement over the laneway located within Blocks 10 and 11 on Plan 66M-2315 is secured to the Commissioner's satisfaction. The owner is in agreement with this requirement.

Conclusion:

The application meets the requirements of the Official Plan, adheres to the principles set out in the Master Plan and, with the approval of minor variances by the Committee of Adjustment, conforms to the Zoning By-law. It is recommended that this application be approved subject to Council's approval of the amendments to the Station and Shaftesbury Subdivision Agreement.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-0881, Fax: 392-1330

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

________

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	398042
Rezoning:	N	Application Date:	April 27, 1998
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:	September 2, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:15, 35 and 65 Shaftesbury Ave.

Nearest Intersection:	South side of Shaftesbury Ave., east of Yonge St.

Project Description:	Build an apartment building (59 units) (One Shaftesbury).

Applicant:

Vicent A. Siu

596 Queen St. W., Suite 300

504-7501

Agent:

Vicent A. Siu

596 Queen St. W., Suite 300

504-7501

Architect:

Victor J. Heinrichs

156 Front St. W., 6/F

586-0895

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	Summerhill Station Mixed Commercial-Residential Area; Low Density Residence Area	Site Specific Provision:	96-0334
Zoning District:	CR ; R2	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	16.0; 11.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	7399.0 m²	Height:	Storeys:	5 + basement
Frontage:	245.6 m		Metres:	16.00
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	72	2
Residential GFA:	9123.0 m²	Loading Docks:		1	G
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	9123.0 m²

DWELLING UNITS		FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN
Tenure:	Condo	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Total Units:	59	Residential	9123.0 m²
		Indoor Amenity Space	100.0 m²	643.0 m²

PROPOSED DENSITY
Residential Density: 1.23	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 1.23

COMMENTS

Status:

Site Plan Approval.

Data valid:

September 2, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix A

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Works and Emergency Services, dated September 3, 1998.

Comments:

Location

The project, located on the south side of Shaftesbury Avenue, east of Yonge Street, north of the Canadian Pacific Railway Corridor was the subject of the Departmental report to you of August 5, 1998.

Proposal

The project has now been revised to, among other things:

(a)Increase the number of dwelling units proposed from 57 to 59 by the inclusion of 15 affordable units within the project;

(b)Increase the number of parking spaces proposed from 69 to 74;

(c)Designate 14 parking spaces for use by visitors, including 2 surface spaces and 12 spaces in the underground garage;

(d)Provide for a physically separate pedestrian facility (1m wide sidewalk) for access to the townhouse units;

(e)Show the installation of 2 bollards at the easterly terminus of the east-west driveway;

(f)Provide bicycle parking in the residual spaces in the parking garage;

(g)Redesign the easterly garbage/recyclable bin storage room with 2.5m clearance between the front wall and the overhead door, as required;

(h)Provide a "bulky item" refuse storage area immediately to the east of the easterly garbage/recyclable bin storage area;

(i)Extend the concrete pavement for the bin storage platform;

(j)Indicate certain pavement treatments including asphalt/concrete pavers for the driveway at the rear of the site and turfstone for the garbage truck turnaround;

(k)Improve access to the Type G loading space by extending the turnaround area easterly;

(l)In conjunction with the easterly extension of the turnaround, extend the noise barrier wall easterly;

(m)Eliminate the encroachment of the gates, located at the east end of the site, over theShaftesbury Avenue road allowance, when opened;

Departmental comments on the revisions are set out below:

Parking

Given the increase in number of dwelling units, and revisions to unit mix, the revised estimated parking demand is for 66 parking spaces consisting of 51 spaces for residents plus 15 spaces for visitors. The revised plans provide for a total of 74 spaces (plus 3 tandem spaces) consisting of 60 spaces for residents plus 14 spaces for visitors.

The owner has submitted an application to be considered by the Committee of Adjustment at its meeting of September 9, 1998 for variances to, among other things, reduce the parking supply for the project from the 104 parking spaces required by the Zoning By-law (including 15 visitor spaces) to 74 spaces (including 14 visitor spaces). There is no Departmental objection to variance to reduce the parking supply to 74 spaces provided that 15 of these spaces are designated for use by residential visitors. In this regard, Space No. 46 on Plan No A-104 should be designated as a visitor parking space.

Visitor Parking Access Plan

The owner has advised that access to the visitor parking spaces will be controlled by a communications system located at the entry gate to the access lane at Shaftesbury Avenue. The gate is to be opened by remote control by the person contacted. There will also be control mechanism embedded in the floor of the ramp leading to the door of the parking garage which will lift the garage door automatically to admit the car which has passed through the entry gate at Shaftesbury Avenue. In the event that access is denied, the car would have to back out onto Shaftesbury Avenue. At such time as the gate is relocated to the east-west portion of the access driveway in accordance with the comments and recommendations below, visitors denied access could back out using the north-south portion of the right-of-way, then exit to Shaftesbury Avenue in a forward motion. The proposed visitor parking access is workable. Recommendation 1(o) below secures the provision and maintenance of the visitor access system.

Revised Driveway

The revised 5 m wide driveway with 1 m wide driveway is acceptable, subject to the owner obtaining the necessary variance from the Committee of Adjustment.

Installation of Bollards at East End of Driveway

The proposed placement of the bollards is in accordance with Recommendation No. 1(q) of the August 5, 1998 Departmental report and is acceptable.

Revised Bin Storage Room

The reconfigured bin storage room and bulky item storage is acceptable.

Revised Bin Storage Platform

The revised bin storage platform as shown on the Site Plan (Drawing No. A-100) is acceptable subject the area labelled "pavers" between the turfstone-paved area and the bollards being paved with concrete pavers and this area being maintained by the owner as a "level concrete surface". Of course, the City will not be liable for any damage caused to the pavers by City garbage bins.

The Landscape Drawing No. L-1 should be updated to show the enlarged concrete pad consistent with the Site Plan.

In addition, given that garbage/recycle bin wheels may become embedded in asphalt on hot days, it would be prudent for the owner to pave the driveway with concrete and not "asphalt/concrete" pavers as indicated on the plans.

Revised Garbage Truck Turnaround

The revised turnaround area for garbage trucks is acceptable. As indicated by Recommendation No.1(i) of the August 5, 1998 Departmental report, the pavers must be designed to withstand truck traffic, and the owner must agree to indemnify the City from any damage to the turfstone which may be caused by the regular use of City-contracted garbage trucks.

Noise Wall

The owner has submitted an addendum to the Approved Noise Impact Statement for the project to reflect the easterly extension of the wall around the revised truck turnaround. The revisions to the Noise Impact Statement are currently under review. Comments on the revisions will be provided under separate cover.

Elimination of Encroachment of Gates

The easterly gates no longer encroach over Shaftesbury Avenue when opened, and are acceptable.

The August 5, 1998 Departmental report required that the westerly gates be relocated to the east-west leg of the driveway. This is to allow access via the right-of-way to the property to the south. Given that it is unlikely that access over this right-of-way to the property to the south will be required until the property to the south is redeveloped, the owner proposes to install a gate on the north-south leg of the access lane, and relocate the gate to the east-west leg at such time as the property to the south requires access over the lane.

In this regard, the owner has submitted a letter dated August 19, 1998 from Woodcliffe Corporation (owner of abutting properties), indicating its consent to the installation of the access gate across the right-of-way on the condition that the owner of the One Shaftesbury project agree to remove the access gate at its expense, upon request of the abutting owner(s) (Woodcliffe Corporation). Woodcliffe Corporation also required that a notice be registered on title to give affect to this condition.

This is acceptable provided that the right-of-way to the property to the south is also adequately secured in the revised Subdivision Agreement, as contemplated by Recommendation No. 6 of the August 5, 1998 report, and that the relocated gates on the east-west leg of the driveway be set back at least 6m (1 car-length) from the eastern limit of the north-south driveway. In this regard, the relocated gate illustrated on Site Plan A100, date stamped September 2, 1998 is generally acceptable, subject to the gate being shifted at least 6m east of the north-south driveway.

Consolidated Recommendations

Having regard for the revisions and the comments above, Recommendation Nos. 1(a), 1(f), 1(i), 1(m), 1(o), 1(r) 1(w) and 6 of the August 5, 1998 report should be amended, Recommendation No.1(l) and 1(w) replaced and new Recommendation No. 1(x) added. For the sake of clarity, the consolidated recommendations below replace the Recommendations contained in the August 5, 1998 report.

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 room to serve the apartment building substantially in accordance with the Gallery Floor Drawing (A-104) stamped September 2, 1998 and install and maintain a bag compactor unit in the garbage room;

(b) Provide and maintain a garbage/recyclable storage room beneath the townhouse units including a chute access system to access the storage bins for the recyclable and non-recyclable waste generated by the entire project and equip this room with a total of 5 bulk lift bins for both refuse and recyclable materials;

(c) Install and maintain overhead doors for the garbage room located beneath the townhouse units on the Gallery Floor level in a manner that maintains a minimum clear depth of at least 2.5 m and designed to permit garage bins to be rolled directly into and out of the garbage bin bays;

(d) Install and maintain the chutes above the garbage/recycle bins in accordance with the requirements of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(e) 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;

(f) Provide and maintain a concrete base pad with a slope not exceeding 2% adjacent to the front of the Type G loading space for the storage and manoeuvring of at least5 compactor containers on collection day such base pad to include the area labelled as "pavers" on the north side of the concrete base pad;

(g) Pave the route between the garbage bin loading bays and the concrete pad adjacent to the Type G loading space in concrete, or other similar hard surface;

(h) 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;

(i) Construct any decorative unit paver surface (including turfstone, if applicable) to be used within any portion of the Type G loading space or area used to access the loading space, to applicable City standards to withstand truck traffic and indemnify the City against any damages that may be caused to the decorative unit pavers through the regular use of the area by City garbage trucks and bins;

(j) Agree to keep the Type G loading space and manoeuvring area free and clear of parked cars, snow and ice on collection day;

(k) Agree to leave the gate across the mouth of the access to the refuse/recyclable collection facilities open on collection day;

(l) Locate the proposed future access gate on the east-west segment of the access driveway at least 6m east of the driveway located on BLOCK 11, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(m) Provide and maintain a minimum of 74 parking spaces on the site to serve the project, including a minimum of 51 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents of the project, and a minimum of 15 parking spaces for visitors;

(n) Designate the visitor parking spaces by means of clearly visible signs;

(o) Provide and maintain the proposed vehicular access system for visitors with intercoms systems at the access gates and remote control devices, as more particularly set out in the body of this report;

(p) Provide and maintain a physically separate pedestrian facility for access to the townhouse units;

(q) Provide and maintain a physical separation between the service driveway and the driveway provided to access the parking spaces;

(r) At such time as access to the property to the south of the site is required via the right-of-way designated as BLOCK 11 on Plan 66M-2315, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services or party with a right to use the right-of-way pursuant to the existing easement agreement, agree to relocate the westerly access gate to the east-west portion of the private laneway in accordance with Recommendation No. 1(l) above;

(s) Construct the laneway, designated as BLOCK 11 on Plan 66M-2315, with slopes not exceeding 6% and a finished elevation not exceeding 124.48 at its south end;

(t) Submit suggestions for a suitable name for the proposed L-shaped laneway at the east end of the site in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No. 22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting on July 11, 1988;

(u) 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 and Railway Vibration Analysis approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(v) Provide, maintain and operate the noise impact and vibration mitigation measures, facilities and strategies stipulated in the Noise Impact Statement and Railway Vibration Analysis approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(w) Designate Parking Space No. 46 on Plan No. A-104 as a visitor parking space;

(x)Submit, prior to the issuance of a building permit a grading and drainage plan and revised drawings/additional information with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(f), 1(l) and 1(w), above, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

2. That the owner be advised of the City's requirement for payment of a service charge associated with the provision of City containerized garbage collection;

3. That the owner be requested to apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to filing a formal application for a building permit;

4. That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting road allowances;

5. That the owner be advised 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; and

6. That the owner be required to provide evidence to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor that the easement over the laneway located within BLOCKS 10 and 11 on Plan 66M-2315 have been adequately secured (e.g. cannot be released without the consent of the City), and that the use of such easement be secured in the revised Subdivision Agreement.

2.Parks, dated September 23, 1998

This will acknowledge your Site Plan Approval Circulation Form which was circulated on May 20, 1998 and contained new plans for the above noted development. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

- There is/are numerous City owned tree(s) involved with this project which is/are situated on the City road allowance adjacent to the development site. The plans filed appear to indicate that the applicant intends on removing City owned tree(s). A written request to remove the tree(s) in question must be filed by the applicant which outlines the reasons why they intend to undertake the removal. A written request for tree removal should not be filed until the Site Plan for the subject development is finalized with the developer. If City Council approves the request to remove the tree(s) in question, the applicant will be responsible for covering the monetary value of the tree(s), removal costs and replacement costs. If an adequate number of replacement trees are proposed for planting within the City road allowance as part of the development, funds to cover replacement costs do not have to be provided to the City. The remaining tree(s) must be protected at all times in accordance with the Specifications for Construction Near Trees contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

- Trees indicated for planting on the City street allowance must be planted in accordance with the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as per the details noted below. Please note that the applicant must conduct an investigation of underground utilities prior to proposing tree planting within the City road allowance. If planting is not possible due to a utility conflict, a utility locate information sheet from the respective utility company should be provided to the City.

Street Trees in Turf:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 101 for Balled and Burlapped Trees in Turf Areas.

Street Trees in Raised Planters:In accordance with Planting Detail No. 102 for Raised Tree Planter - Concept.

Street Trees in Tree Pits:In accordance with Planting Detail No.'s 103, 103-1, 103-2, & 103-3 for 1.2 m x 2.4 m Tree Pit. Tree pits must be constructed in accordance with the Continuous Tree Pit details outlined in the Construction Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual as Drawing No.'s RE-1833M-1, -2, -3, -4, -5, and -6, 1 of 2 & 2 of 2.

- The tree(s) on private property which were indicated on the Arborist Report form filed with this development application are exempt from protection under Municipal Code Chapter331, Trees, Article III.

- I advise that plans prepared by Ferris + Quinn Associates Inc. and the plans prepared by Victor J. Heinrichs, all plans date stamped as received on April 27, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services are not acceptable at this time due to the reason(s) indicated above.

Dated September 23, 1998

This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on August 13, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

- I received a request from Mr. John Quinn of Ferris + Quinn Associates Inc., that the City consider the removal of twenty-nine (29) City owned trees situated on the Shaftesbury Avenue City road allowance adjacent to the above noted development site.

- The trees in question are too large to successfully relocate and as such, the applicant must provide payment to the City in the amount of $21,079.44 to cover the monetary value of the trees in question, the associated removal and replacement costs. Forestry Services will schedule the removal of the trees in question once payment has been received and once permitted demolition and construction related activities in connection with the development as approved warrant the removal of the trees.

- There are twenty-five (25) City owned trees involved with this project which are situated to the east of the trees noted above, also on the Shaftesbury Avenue City road allowance adjacent to the development site. These trees 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.

- I advise that Landscape Plans L-1, L-2 and L-3 prepared by Ferris + Quinn Associates Inc., date stamped as received on August 10, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services are acceptable provided that the conditions noted above are fulfilled.

3.Public Health, dated June 30, 1998.

Thank you for your request of May 20, 1998 to review and comment on the above referenced sites. Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) are in receipt of an Environmental Investigation (December 1997) prepared by McClymont & Rak Engineers Inc. and offer the following comments.

Comments:

McClymont & Rak (MCR) were retained by the applicant to further examine the suspected source, level and extent of the contamination identified in areas of the site that were previously investigated by Trow Consulting Engineers Ltd and Conestoga Rovers & Associates. A total of 11 boreholes (BH1-BH11) were advanced onto the site ranging in depth from 1.2m-15.7m below grade. Boreholes 1-5 were placed along the southern boundary where no previous investigation had occurred, to investigate potential contamination from previous site uses. Boreholes 6-8 were placed in the parking lot area where significant contamination had been identified, and to further delineate its extent. Boreholes 9-11 were placed in the vicinity of the TTC subway line where no previous investigation was conducted.

A composite sample of the surficial fill material on top of the subway line was obtained for analysis of the general inorganic parameters; three samples of the fill material along the southern boundary of the site were submitted for metals, PAHs and TPH analysis; two samples which exhibited olfactory evidence of petroleum contamination were submitted for BTEX/TPH analysis; and two additional samples for TPH only. Groundwater samples from boreholes 1 and 4 were also submitted for compliance, as well as analysis for VOCs, PAHs and TPH. Results have indicated the following exceedances of the residential/parkland non-potable criteria:

the surficial fill material sample from borehole 6 exceeded the criteria for several PAHs;
the sample from borehole 8 exceeded the criteria for TPH;
samples from boreholes 6, 7 and 8 exceeded the criteria for TPH.

The consultant states that there were no other exceedances for the residential/parkland non-potable criteria.

The current investigation identified the presence of up to a 3.5m layer of heterogeneous fill material covering the site. It is odorous and contains significant amounts of debris, including glass, cinders, ash, coal, brick and asphalt which exceed the residential/parkland criteria for metals, TPH and PAHs. Remediation of the fill layer will therefore be required and it is estimated that 96% of the surficial fill layer (top 1m) covering the site will require excavation in order to meet the residential/parkland criteria. In addition, 46% of the fill material below 1m will also require remediation. The total estimated volume is 6200 cubic metres of surficial fill material and 2100 cubic metres of fill material below 1m. Although the remaining fill material on site may satisfy the guideline, it is aesthetically impaired and an additional allowance of 2700 cubic metres should be provided for.

Based on the results of the petroleum analysis, 25% of the contaminated soil will require remediation. Approximately 750 cubic metres will require excavation and removal off site. In addition, a disposal allowance of 2250 cubic metres should be provided. The consultant states that the area of petroleum contamination may extend off site to the north and south, although no free phase petroleum product was encountered on top of the groundwater table, there is potential for free phase product in the area of petroleum contamination given the levels of TPH observed in the groundwater. The consultant provides a series of conclusions based on all environmental investigations to date which are as follows:

a historical review indicated commercial/industrial use on the site from the late 1800's to the 1970's;
no evidence identified to suggest the presence of asbestos, PCBs or other hazardous materials on the site;
the previous Conestoga Rovers & Associates report identified the presence of an abandoned 5000 gallon UST in the south western corner of the site, and if present mus be removed along with any contaminated soil in accordance with the policies/procedures outlined in the Gasoline Handling Act/Fuel Oil Code;
the current investigation identified the presence of a fill layer to a depth of 3.5 which contains odorous debris which exceeds the residential/parkland criteria for metals, TPH and PAHs in numerous locations;
elevated levels of TPH (gasoline/diesel) in the fill and native soils in the central portion of the existing parking lot;
approximately 9100 cubic metres of soil will require remediation with Ontario Regulation 347 results indicating that the soil would be classified as non-registerable non-hazardous;
an allowance of 5000 cubic metres should also be provided for the remaining fill and native soil in the area of the petroleum contamination;
the results of the groundwater analysis indicated no exceedances for the non-potable criteria.

Dust Control Plan:

The report did not provide details on measures that would be implemented during site activities to control the generation of dust. This Department will require strict adherence to the following measures that will also be incorporated as a condition of permit issuance:

the daily, or more frequently if required wetting of all soft and hard surfaces and any excavation face on the site with the addition of calcium chloride or other recognized dust suppressant;
the daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25m from the property line;
the designation of truck loading points to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimize the tracking of soil onto the sidewalk and street. If the loading point becomes contaminated, it should be cleaned or replaced;

all trucks and vans leaving the site should be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors and tailgates by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the applicant (developer) noting when each truck was washed and by whom;
tarping all trucks leaving the site which may have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris;
an air monitoring program, if necessary as determined through consultation with Environmental Health Services;
supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified Environmental Consultant.

Conclusion:

Based on the information submitted I would indicate to you that the report has been found to be satisfactory in terms of its scope and findings and the conclusions reached by the consultant. Therefore I have no objection to the issuance of a below grade permit in order to carry out the necessary remediation work. However, an above grade construction permit will only be granted upon the Medical Officer of Health receiving an final verification report from the on site environmental consultant certifying that the remediation has been completed and soil remaining on the site meets the MOEE Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites (revised February 1997) for residential/parkland land use.

4.Buildings, dated September 28, 1998

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Construct a 59 unit apartment building with 74 below-grade parking spaces

Zoning Designation:CR/R2Map:51J 321

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

Plans prepared by:Victor J. Heinrichs, ArchitectsPlans dated: September 2, 1998

Residential GFA:9123 m²

Zoning Review

A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal complies with the City's zoning by-laws, as varied by the Committee of Adjustment. The Committee of Adjustment decision is not final and binding at this time.

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. (This requirement is waived when the conditions of the Subdivision Agreement are met.)

2.The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

3.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.

Additional Comments

All pre-conditions to the issuance of any permit must be shown to be complied with at the time of permit application.

Dated, August 20, 1998

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Construct 59 unit apartment building with below grade parking

Zoning Designation: CR/R2Map:51J 321

Applicable By-law(s):The amendments to 438-86 contained in the subdivision agreement as amended by the Ontario Municipal Board and 438-86, as amended.

Plans prepared by:Victor J. Heinrichs ArchitectPlans dated: Aug 10, 17 & 19, 1998

Residential GFA:8815 m²

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, followed by a list indicating where the proposal does not comply with the Subdivision Agreement, registered as CA411545 and subsequently amended by the Ontario Municipal Board.

1.The proposed complex does not meet the Zoning Bylaw definition of "apartment building ", as one building, in that it does not have a common basement. (Section 2, definition of "apartment building".)

2.The by-law requires a minimum of 104 parking spaces (including 15 visitor parking spaces) to be provided. The number of proposed parking spaces is 74 (including 14 visitor parking spaces). (Section 4(4)(b))

3.The by-law requires a parking facility to be accessible by a driveway having a minimum width of 5.5 metres, for two-way operation. The width of the proposed driveway that serves the parking spaces along the south lot line is approximately 5.0 metres. (Section 4(4)(c))

4.The by-law requires at least 35 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 9 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. The proposed building will contain 49 bicycle parking spaces for the occupants of the building and 0 bicycle parking spaces for visitors. (Section4(13)(a) and (c))

5.The by-law requires a building to have a minimum rear yard setback of 7.5 metres. The proposed rear yard setback is 0 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 4)

6.The by-law limits a building in a (0.35, 0.6, 1.0, 2.0) zone to a maximum depth of 14.0metres. The proposed depth is exceeds 14 metres. (Section 6(3) PART II 5(i))

7.The external walls of the proposed building are less than 11.0 metres apart, 10.0 metres separation is proposed. (Section 6(3)PART II 6)

8.The by-law requires an apartment building to provide a minimum landscaped open space of 50% of the area of the lot: 3034 square metres. The proposed landscaped open space 2510square metres (or 33.9%) . (Section 6(3) PART III 1(b))

9.The proposed residential gross floor area (5323 square metres) on the portion of the lot identified as Block F in the plan of subdivision exceeds the maximum permitted 4,680 square metres by 643 square metres.

10.The proposal contemplates the use of buildings for purposes other than detached houses, semi-detached houses, row houses and uses accessory thereto.(Section 15 of the amendments to Bylaw 438-86 contained in the Subdivision Agreement)

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. (This requirement is waived when conditions of the Subdivision Agreement are met.)

2.The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.

3.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.

Additional Comments

1.All proposed parking spaces must be at least 2.6m wide by 5.9m long.

2.The height of the proposed mechanical penthouse must be limited to 5.0 metres to be excluded from the calculation of height for the proposed building.

3.Proposed bicycle parking for visitors are not permitted in a room that may be locked.

4.The calculation of residential gross floor area must include the parking structures at grade and located along the south lot line.

5.Pursuant to s27 of the Subdivision Agreement, it must be indicated if there are any "affordable units" being proposed.

7.All pre-conditions to the issuance of any permit must be shown to be complied with at the time of permit application.

Appendix B

Comments from the Residents' Association

Summerhill Residents' Association, dated July 13, 1998.

Janice Merson (co-president)

Further to our meeting last week I'm writing to let you know the concerns of area residents regarding the 1 Shaftesbury development. Following our open house to look at the plans as expected, the only issue raised was parking.

Since this development will mean the loss of one of the very few parking lots in the area and that this neighbourhood already has a problem with parking, we would like to ask the following:

1)that no resident in the new development be eligible for a street parking permit

2)that parking metres be installed on the Summerhill Avenue bridge over the subway cut on both sides of the street

3)that the idea of converting the green space to the east of the Orion condominium to an attractively paved and landscaped parking lot with its entrance on Summerhill Avenue and exit on Woodlawn (to access the light) be considered

4)that the number of actual designated visitor parking spots be verified and that the number complies with all regulations.

Thank you for you consideration of our concerns. We welcome this development and look forward to its residents becoming a part of our community.

Extension of Commercial Boulevard Parking -

Claremont Street Flankage of 890 Dundas Street West

(Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for an extension of commercial boulevard parking on the Claremont Street flankage of 890 Dundas Street West.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following 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 an extension of commercial boulevard parking on the Claremont Street flankage of 890 Dundas Street West, because of a negative public poll. 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 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;

(2)City Council deny the application for an extension of commercial boulevard parking on the Claremont Street flankage of 890 Dundas Street West.

Background:

Mr. Vinko Pehar, in his letter of March 16, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse his application for an extension of commercial boulevard parking on the Claremount Street flankage of 890 Dundas Street West.

Comments:

A licence for commercial boulevard parking on the Claremont Street flankage of 890 Dundas Street West was issued to Mr. Vinko Pehar, owner of Vinko Motors Limited, on November 11, 1992, for the parking of (4) four vehicles right angled to the roadway. Subsequently, on September 29, 1997, Mr. Pehar submitted a further application for (1) one additional vehicle, parallel to the roadway as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'B').

This application meets the physical criteria for commercial boulevard parking as set out in �313-39 of Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

As the proposed parking flanks a residential district, the Municipal Code requires a public poll of owners and tenants within 100 m from the proposed parking. 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 December 12, 1997 was conducted on the west side from 190 to 204 Claremont Street and on the east side from 193 to 195 Claremont Street to determine neighbourhood support. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed in favour	15 15 0
No response	23
Returned by post office	9
Total ballots issued	47

Mr. Pehar was advised in writing that given the negative poll in 1997 and that the two years have not yet lapsed, a licence could not be issued.

Conclusions:

Staff cannot issue Mr. Pehar a licence for an additional commercial boulevard parking space on the Claremont Street flankage because of a negative poll in 1997.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend to City Council to grant the requested boulevard parking.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7564

________

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:

-Appendix A referred to in the foregoing report;

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Stefanina Migliore;

-(July 16, 1998) from Mr. Nick Migliore;

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Antonietta Schettino;

-(July 16, 1998) from Mr. Pietro Migliore;

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Antonette Migliore;

-(July 17, 1998) from Mr. Giovanni Landolfi; and

-(July 16, 1998) from Ms. Francesco Ginocchi, Ms. Antonietta Ginocchi, Ms. Maria Ginocchi and Ms. Rosa Ginocchi.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Boulevard Parking - Dundas/Claremont

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Davenport, Downtown, Midtown, North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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:

(September 24, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain four illuminated ground signs on the Blue Jays Way frontage for identification purposes at 56 Blue Jays Way.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998061 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain four illuminated ground signs on the Blue Jays Ways frontage at 56 Blue Jays Way on the condition that:

*all existing A-frame signs on the public sidewalk in front of the building must be removed prior to issuance of the necessary permits.

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998061, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the west side of Blue Jays Way, south of King Street West, in the King-Spadina Reinvestment Area. The property accommodates a historically designated theatre building and a three storey restaurant. There are two existing approved ground signs on the property and now the applicant is requesting permission to maintain four additional illuminated ground signs for identification purposes (see Figure 1). Signs A and B, each have a length of 1.5metres and a height of 2.5 metres, with an area of 2.6 m�. Signs C and D each have a length of 1.3 metres and a height of 2.5 metres, with an area of 2.4 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.only one ground sign for the purpose of identification is permitted within any frontage of a property; and

2.2 of the 4 signs (Signs A and B) are not set back 2.0 metres from the street line, as required.

The first variance occurs because only one ground sign is permitted within any frontage of the property. The number of signs permitted within a single frontage is regulated so as to prevent sign clutter. In this instance, given, that the lot frontage is over 40 metres long and the signs are low and small, they do not negatively impact the streetscape.

The second variance relates to the setback requirement for ground signs which is aimed at ensuring that, where possible, commercial streetscapes and view corridors are preserved and enhanced and sight lines for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are improved. In this instance, 2 of the 4 signs (Signs A and B) have a setback of only 1.4 metres. However, they do not block sight lines or otherwise endanger or inconvenience pedestrians. Further, the owner has agreed that as a condition of approval he will remove all existing A-Frame signs from the public sidewalk.

Staff of the Toronto Historical Board have reviewed the plans and have advised that they are acceptable.

I am recommending approval of this application with conditions respecting the removal of certain existing A-frame signs, as I consider the requested variances to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 2

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 3

56 Blue Jays Way

Insert Table/Map No. 4

56 Blue Jays Way

(October 1, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit two non-illuminated fascia signs and one illuminated fascia sign at 1 Dundas Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No.998077 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two non-illuminated fascia signs and one illuminated fascia sign.

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998077, 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 Dundas Street West, Yonge Street, Bay Street and Queen Street West, in a mixed-use (commercial residential) district. The property is known as the Toronto Eaton Centre.

The applicant is requesting permission to install signage on the east elevation of the building in conjunction with the renovation of the Toronto Eaton Centre's Yonge Street facade (see Figure 1). The facade renovation includes the addition of new storefronts, mirroring the pattern of typical storefronts found on the east side of Yonge Street. The renovation also includes new signage opportunities, consistent with the Downtown Yonge Street Regeneration Program initiative, the aim of which is to revitalize Yonge Street as Toronto's main shopping and entertainment street. The proposed signs have dimensions as follows:

1.non-illuminated fascia sign "A", has a length of 2.7 metres and a height of 0.8 metres, with an area of 2.2 m�;

2.illuminated fascia sign "B", has a length of 3.6 metres and a height of 4.2 metres, with an area of 15.6 m�; and

3.non-illuminated fascia sign "C", has a length of 4.7 metres and a height of 1.8 metres, with an area of 8.5 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

1.fascia sign "A" will obstruct and interfere with windows of the building;

2.the area of sign of fascia sign "B" will exceed 15% of the building face of the second storey commercial unit; and

3.fascia sign "C" will not be mounted wholly against the wall of the building and will be erected above the second storey level and more than 10 metres above grade.

The first variance occurs because the entire building is glazed making it impossible to display signs without partially obstructing windows. In this instance, however, the sign ( sign "A" ) is used to identify the municipal address of the property and would be mounted on top of the proposed entrance canopy approximately 2.0 metres from the building face and would not negatively affect views or light transmission.

The second variance occurs because fascia sign "B" would be larger than permitted on the second floor. The Municipal Code allows fascia signs on the second floor provided the area of the signs does not exceed 15 percent of the building face of that storey. This application is the first phase of new signage to be affixed to the new Eaton Centre facade which will add interest and excitement along this section of Yonge Street, consistent with the revitalization policies for this area. Further, the larger than permitted area of sign is acceptable given the building's long facade and large mass. The third variance occurs because fascia sign "C" would be attached to the curved parapet instead of the wall of the building at a height of 10.2 metres above grade. The sign consists of 1.8 metre high individual letters that would run horizontally across a newly constructed parapet. While the sign would be located above the 2^nd storey level, a substantial portion of the sign would be located below 10 metres and has been designed to complement the facade which is currently being renovated.

Given these reasons, I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

1 Dundas Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

1 Dundas Street West

(October 1, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit one encroaching illuminated fascia sign facing a street for third party advertising at 327 Lonsdale Road.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

That City Council approve Application No. 998069 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one encroaching illuminated fascia sign for third party advertising at 327 Lonsdale Road.

Comments:

The property is located on the south-east corner of Spadina Road and Lonsdale Road, in a mixed use (Commercial-Residential) district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building with a bakery on the first floor and a travel agency and a beauty salon on the second floor.

The applicant is requesting permission to install an encroaching illuminated fascia sign on the north elevation of the building for the purpose of third party advertising (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 3.66 metres and a height of 2.44 metres, with an area of 8.93 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

(1)The sign will not identify a business within the building.

The variance occurs because the sign would be used for the purpose of third party advertising. The Municipal Code only permits first party advertising signs to face onto a public street.

The applicant currently has permission (permit # 402583- issued on October 7, 1997) to place a 13.4m� illuminated mural sign for the purpose of third party advertising. The applicant wishes instead to install a 8.93 m� illuminated fascia sign for the purpose of third party advertising. The proposed illuminated fascia sign will replace the existing 12.0 m� illuminated fascia sign which advertises various suppliers of the Holidays Unlimited travel agency and it looks like a patch work of various smaller signs. It is my opinion that the proposed sign will enhance and not negatively impact the streetscape and surrounding uses.

I am recommending approval of this application, in this instance, as I find the variance requested to be acceptable.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209; Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

327 Lonsdale Road

Insert Table/Map No. 2

327 Lonsdale Road

Insert Table/Map No. 3

327 Lonsdale Road

Insert Table/Map No. 4

327 Lonsdale Road

Insert Table/Map No. 5

327 Lonsdale Road

(September 14, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to maintain one illuminated fascia sign at 2295 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998064 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. 998064, 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, between Eglinton Avenue and Roehampton Avenue, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a two storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated fascia sign on the second storey level of the building (see Figure 2). The sign has a length of 6.0 metres and a height of 3.2 metres, with an area of 19.2 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that it exceeds the maximum permitted area of 15% of the 2^nd floor unit frontage. This regulation is aimed at reducing the potential negative impact of signage on the building, on the streetscape and on upper floor residential units in the immediate vicinity. In this instance, the new sign has been installed in the same location as the previously existing sign of the same size. The new sign consists of stretched vinyl in an aluminum frame. The material is durable to withstand the elements and the framing adequately screens the support and mechanical elements. The property is situated mid-block along a section of Yonge Street which is characterized by a variety of sign types. The area is commercial in nature and there are no residential uses in the immediate vicinity from which the sign is visible.

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

2295 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

2295 Yonge Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

2295 Yonge Street

(September 30, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit a second illuminated logo sign on the west elevation for identification purposes at 655 Bay Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That City Council approve Application No. 998065 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit a second illuminated logo sign on the west elevation of the building at 655 Bay Street.

Comments:

The property is located on the northeast corner of Bay and Elm Streets, in a mixed-use (commercial/residential) district. The property accommodates a seventeen-storey office building with retail uses at grade.

The applicant is requesting permission to install a second illuminated logo sign with a length of 7.5metres and a height of 1.2 metres, with an area of 9.0 m�, on the west elevation, at the fifteenth-storey level for identification purposes (see Figure 1).

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1)only one logo sign for the purpose of identification is permitted on a building face;

(2)the logo sign will not be located within the uppermost storey of the building; and

(3)the proposed sign will obstruct a window.

The first variance occurs because only one corporate logo sign is permitted on a building face. The proposed sign would be the second sign on the west elevation of the building. This variance is technical in nature because the north and south ends of the west elevation are each set at an angle of approximately 45 degrees in relation to the Bay Street property line and face northwest and southwest respectively. Only one sign would be visible to the pedestrians and motorists travelling along Bay Street.

The second variance occurs because the Municipal Code requires illuminated logo signs to be located within the uppermost storey of buildings and higher than 34 metres above grade in order to reduce their visual impact on the streetscape, on the buildings to which they are attached and on adjacent uses. In this instance the proposed sign will be erected on the fifteenth-storey (two-storeys below the uppermost storey). The two uppermost storeys are significantly recessed and a sign at this elevation may not be appropriately visible. Therefore, the proposed location two floors below the top of the building is, in my opinion, appropriate.

Respecting the third variance, the Municipal Code prohibits signs that obstruct or otherwise interfere with a window. In this case the proposed sign covers only the upper portion of the floor to ceiling windows and would not adversely affect views or light transmission.

I am recommending approval of this application, as I find the variances requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-7536

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

655 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

655 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

655 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

655 Bay Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

655 Bay Street

King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan -

Bathurst Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 24, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To report on the feasibility of including the west side of Bathurst Street, south of Queen Street West, within the boundaries of the King-Spadina Community Improvement District.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council not make any changes to the boundaries of the Community Improvement Plan.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Community Improvement Plan for King-Spadina was approved by Toronto Community Council July 22nd, 1998. It is generally intended to improve public amenities/infrastructure in the area, and includes streetscape improvements for several streets. Provincial legislation also gives special powers to the City in Community Improvement Plan areas to make grants, etc.

The boundary of the Community Improvement Plan is Queen Street West, Bathurst Street, Front Street West to John Street, to King Street West, easterly to Simcoe Street. At the July Toronto Community Council meeting, I was requested to report on "including the west side of Bathurst Street within the King-Spadina Community Improvement Plan area".

It is usually not appropriate to undertake streetscape improvements on just one side of a street, and, in fact, the Community Improvement Plan shows improvements to both sides of Bathurst Street, despite the fact the west side is not actually in the Plan area.

No special authority is required to carry out the street improvements to the west side of Bathurst Street. These would be done under normal City budgeting.

For these reasons it is not necessary to change the boundaries. Expanding the boundaries would require the following measures to be undertaken:

-proceeding with another round of public consultation to inform property owners on the west side of Bathurst Street

-requesting Council authority to redefine the boundaries of the Plan

This process would delay the implementation process.

Contact Name:

Rollin Stanley

Telephone: (416) 392-0424

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

(Councillor Shiner, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause in that his family owns a property on King Street West.)

Amendments to the Section 36/37 Agreement for

Bay-Adelaide Project (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 29, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report seeks authority to amend the Section 36/37 Agreement respecting the Bay-Adelaide Project to facilitate recent amendments submitted by the owners.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications for the City.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that authority be given to conclude and execute any necessary amendments to the Section 36/37 Agreement and collateral documentation respecting the Bay-Adelaide Project , as determined by the City Solicitor, to facilitate development of the project as recently amended and described in the report September 29, 1998 of the City Solicitor.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The former City Council enacted Official Plan Amendment No. 483 and Zoning By-law No. 998-88 on October 22, 1988 to permit the development of the majority of the lands bounded by Yonge Street, Queen Street West, Bay Street and Adelaide Street West (the "Bay-Adelaide Project"). The Bay-Adelaide Project was authorized pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act (formerly Section36) which permitted increases in height and density in return for certain public benefits. The project consisted of the following major elements:

-construction of a 57-storey office tower on the block between Temperance Street and Adelaide Street West ("South Block");

-preservation and relocation of the facade of the historic Aikenhead's building (17Temperance Street) as part of a new office building (9 Temperance Street);

-preservation of the facade of the building at 45 Richmond Street West;

-creation of a public park and the construction of a 12-storey office building on the middle block between Richmond Street West and Temperance Street (the "North Block"); and

-retention and restoration of the historic Simpsons store on the block between Queen Street West and Richmond Street West.

Following approval of Official Plan Amendment No. 483 and Zoning By-law 998-88, an agreement between the City and the owners was executed and registered on title (the "Section 36/37 Agreement"). The project was commenced, the historic Simpsons building retained and restored, the public park designed and built on the North Block and the facade of the historic Aikenhead's building was incorporated into the new office building at 9 Temperance Street (now owned and occupied by the Hong Kong Trade Development Council).

Construction of the 57-storey office tower on the South Block was commenced, but completion was delayed due to the downturn in the office market.

Recently, Canapen (Bay-Adelaide) Limited purchased a 50% interest in Bay-Adelaide, the other 50% co-tenancy being owned by Trizec Hahn Corporation.

It is the intention of the current owners to complete construction of the office tower on the South Block and plans have been submitted which represent a slight modification to the original plans. An application for site plan approval was submitted to the City on August 6, 1998 and is being circulated. Site plan approval is anticipated in the near future.

The project had been before the former City Council on two previous occasions for which authority was given to amend the by-laws and the Section 36 Agreement. In 1992 authorization was given to extend the time necessary to complete restoration of the heritage building at 45 Richmond Street. As well, the boundaries of the park were slightly amended. This resulted in the first amendment to the Section 36/37 Agreement which has been executed but not registered due to a title issue which must be dealt with, as it has also delayed the conveyance of the park to the City pending its resolution: Part of the park lands are encumbered by an easement permitting crane overswings from an abutting property owned by the estate of a Mr. Greisman. This encumbrance was not on title at the time the original transaction was entered into in 1988. Realignment of the park lands in 1992 included new lands which became subject to the "Greisman Easement". Bay-Adelaide has indicated that it would be difficult or financially unfeasible to obtain a release of the Greisman Easement.

In 1994, authorization was given to further amend the Section 36/37 Agreement and planning instruments to delete the requirement to restore and maintain 45 Richmond Street West and reduce the project's non-residential gross floor area. This amendment is outstanding as it is dependant on completion of the first Section 36/37 Amendment.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Revised Plans and Minor Variance Respecting Common Outdoor Space

The current plans provide for a reduced height and density of development. The office tower on the South Block has been reduced from 57-storeys to 50-storeys, and the non-residential gross floor area has been reduced from 156,614 square metres to 126,953 square metres. The owner has received a Committee of Adjustment variance to reduce the aggregate requirement for common outdoor space and public park from 4,756.5 square metres to 4,200 square metres. The requirement for a 2,183 square metre public park has been met insofar as the park has been built, but the park must still be conveyed to the City.

The balance of the common outdoor space requirement was previously met by the provision of common outdoor space on the South Block and the North Block. Common outdoor space on the South Block included a ground floor arcade that ran through the 57-storey office tower and provided a mid-block connection between Temperance Street and Adelaide Street West. The mid-block arcade was enclosed on both sides and covered above by the office tower; however, because it was open to the street at both ends it qualified as "common outdoor space". The revised design replaces the ground floor arcade with openings at both ends with a mid-block connection enclosed with doors at both ends. Technically, therefore, the space does not qualify as common outdoor space.

The Committee of Adjustment granted the required minor variance which is now in force. Amendments are therefore needed to the Section 36/37 Agreement to reflect the Committee of Adjustment decision and reduction in common outdoor space.

Underground Pedestrian Tunnel

An important element of the Bay-Adelaide Project is the construction of an underground pedestrian tunnel connecting the Bay-Adelaide Project under Adelaide Street to Scotia Plaza (the "Adelaide Street Tunnel"). The Adelaide Street Tunnel is the last link in the City's eastern extension of the PATH system. Completion of the tunnel would allow unimpeded pedestrian access wholly on the east side of Bay Street from Union Station to the Atrium-on-Bay at Dundas Street. The owners of the Bay-Adelaide lands have acknowledged their obligation to build the Adelaide Street Tunnel in accordance with the terms of the Section 36/37 Agreement which provides for construction of the tunnel upon agreement being reached with the owners of Scotia Plaza regarding connection, construction and maintenance of the tunnel.

Amended Design and Phasing

It should be noted that in order to facilitate the revised plans, certain other technical amendments are needed to the Section 36/37 Agreement and collateral documentation as the agreement reflects the original design. As well, the original development proposed that the North and South Blocks be constructed concurrently. The owners wish to proceed with the South Block at this time and the North Block at a future date. It would be appropriate to authorize changes to the agreement to reflect the amended design and to allow for the phasing of construction of the development.

Other Issues

There are other issues associated with the development of the Bay-Adelaide Project that need to be resolved. These issues include: execution and registration of an Assumption Agreement and Heritage Easement Agreement respecting 9 Temperance Street, conveyance of the park to the City, and the owner's application for part-lot control exemption respecting the Bay-Adelaide lands.

Conclusions:

If Council wishes for the Bay-Adelaide project to proceed, it would be appropriate to provide authority to amend the agreements.

The issues referred to above are to be dealt with in the implementation of the current development proposal including the Greisman Easement title issue, the execution and registration of the Assumption Agreement and Heritage Easement Agreement for 9 Temperance Street, articulation of the owner's obligations respecting the Adelaide Street Tunnel , timing of the conveyance of the park to the City, and a response to the owner's application for part-lot control exemption. It is anticipated that the issues will be resolved and terms incorporated in the current amendments; however, if it is necessary to seek further instructions a report will be provided as required.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services advises it would be favourable to proceed with this authorization report at this time to allow the project to proceed.

Contact Name:

Raymond M. Feig

Telephone:(416) 392-7224

Fax:(416) 392-0024

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

Amendments to CN Tower Development Agreement -

CN Tower Base Expansion - 301 Front Street (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to request Council approval to amend the CN Tower Development Agreement. The Agreement must be amended to implement changes to the approved Site Plan for the CN Tower in response to a new Site Plan Approval application.

Source of Funds:

There are no funding requirements arising from the recommendations of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)The CN Tower Development Agreement registered July 14, 1997 as instrument numberE09750 be amended as follows:

(a)That the list of approved plans and drawings contained in Clause 1. be replaced with the following:

"Drawing Name Date Stamped

S1Site Plan July 16, 1998

SCN1CN Tower Subject Lands July 16, 1998

A1Level 81 Plan July 16, 1998

A2Level 86 Plan July 16, 1998

A3Level 90 Plan July 16, 1998

A4Level 73 Plan July 16, 1998

A5Level 76 Plan July 16, 1998

A6South Elevation July 16, 1998

A7SectionsJuly 16, 1998

PA-1Level 81 - Publicly July 16, 1998

Accessible Open Space

PA- 3Level 86 & 90 - Publicly July 16, 1998

Accessible Open Space

B Building Envelope Lines July 16, 1998

Up To Elevation 90M"

(b)That Clause 3 (e) be replaced with the following:

"(e)a revised landscape plan, including changes to accommodate the proposed connection to SkyDome and details of any proposed mechanical vents in the publically accessible open spaces;"

(c)That Clause 3 (h) be replaced with the following:

"(h)details of the northwest corner of the Site including details of grade changes, plans at each level and weather protection;"

(d)That the drawing references in the first paragraph of Clause 16. be replaced with the following:

"Plans No. PA-1 Level 81 Publically Accessible Open Space date stamped as received July 16, 1998 and No. PA-3 Level 90 Publically Accessible Open Space date stamped as received July 16, 1998 prepared by Bregman and Hamman Architects and Ehrenkrantz and Eckstut Architects"

(e)that an additional term be incorporated into the Agreement whereby the owners agree not to commence construction until such time as the conditions set out in Sections 2 and 3 of the revised Development Agreement are fulfilled and any necessary amendments to agreements affecting the SkyDome lands are finalized.

(2)The City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary amendments to the Development Agreement to implement the site plan revisions described in this report including any other amendments deemed necessary to give effect thereto.

(3)Recommendations 1 and 2 be subject to receipt by the City of written confirmation from SkyDome Corporation that it agrees with the principle of connecting the CN Tower Base Expansion to SkyDome and in particular the plans referred to in recommendation 1.

Comments:

Background

On June 30, 1995, CN Tower Ltd. submitted an application for rezoning and site plan approval to construct a base building at the foot of the CN Tower. A revised rezoning and site plan application by TrizecHahn, the new lessee of CN Tower, was approved by City Council in 1997. In 1998 Phase One of the CN Tower Base Expansion was opened.

The original rezoning and site plan application by CN Tower Ltd. showed the proposed base building abutting SkyDome creating strong physical linkages and continuous grade related connections at the John Street Corridor level. City staff were supportive of these connections. CN Tower Ltd. was not able to reach an agreement with SkyDome at the time about building on SkyDome lands. The application was therefore revised to pull the building away from SkyDome.

Current Proposal

Representatives of CN Tower have indicated to City staff that SkyDome now agrees with the proposal to link the base building to SkyDome. As a result of SkyDome's support, CN Tower submitted Committee of Adjustment and Site Plan Approval applications on July 15, 1998 to reinstate the link to SkyDome. The proposed building link to SkyDome is shown on the attached drawings provided by the applicant.

The Committee of Adjustment application requested variances to the Zoning By-law to permit changes to the building envelope and location of street related retail space. The variances were approved by the Committee on September 15, 1998.

Site Plan Approval and Development Agreement

City staff have completed their review of the site plan application and will, subject to Council's approval of changes to the Development Agreement, be approving the site plan. It is important to note that at the time of Council's site plan approval in 1997 some site plan details were not illustrated in the applicant's drawings. This was because there were a number of details which need to be resolved as construction drawings are prepared. These outstanding details still remain unresolved. The Development Agreement therefore sets out conditions which must be met prior to the issuance of a building permit to allow City staff to review and approve these more detailed drawings. The conditions already included in the agreement address matters such as accessibility, finalizing of the landscape plan and details for service and loading.

SkyDome

The revised site plan by CN Tower anticipates construction of a portion of the building on lands owned by SkyDome. As mentioned above City staff understand that SkyDome supports this approach. It will be necessary at the time of construction for SkyDome to enter into agreements with the City to permit this portion of the building to be built.

Conclusion

The revisions being requested by CN Tower Ltd. and TrizecHahn result in a plan which addresses planning objectives of creating better connections between CN Tower, SkyDome and Front Street and reflects the applicant's original proposal for this site.

Contact Name:

Lynda Macdonald

Telephone: (416) 392-7618

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

301 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

301 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

301 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

301 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

301 Front Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

301 Front Street

-(October 9, 1998) from Miss Jane Beecroft, Chair, CHP Heritage Centre, The Society of Heritage Associates; and

-(October 10, 1998) from Mr. Jack Bell, President Toronto and York Division, Canadian Railroad Historical Association.

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Application -

9 Jackes Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted the following recommendation:

"It is recommended that the report dated October 26, 1998, from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, embodying the following recommendations, be adopted:

'It is recommended that:

(1)City Council refuse Application No. 198003 in its current form;

(2)City Council request the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant, for the reasons outlined in this report;

(3)City Council request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal; and

(4)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to report to the Toronto Community Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives, including possible terms of a settlement, if any.' ")

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

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, to report directly to Council on the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for 9 Jackes Avenue.

________

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 29, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise City Council on the status of the Official Plan amendment, rezoning application and Ontario Municipal Board appeals for 9 Jackes Avenue and to seek authority to report directly to City Council on this application, if timing requires.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

That the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report directly to City Council, if required, on the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning application for 9 Jackes Avenue.

Background:

Shane Baghai Construction Contracting Inc., 1131A Leslie Street, Suite 220, Toronto, Ontario M3C2K6 on behalf of Empire Jackes Properties Inc., 9104 Yonge Street, Richmond Hill, Ontario, L4C 6Z9 made an application to the City of Toronto for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for 9 Jackes Avenue. The application, for the construction of a new 10 storey residential building containing 19 units was submitted February 25, 1998.

A preliminary planning report, dated March 18, 1998 was submitted to Toronto Community Council at its meeting of April 1, 1998. Toronto Community adopted the recommendations contained in the preliminary report and requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to investigate the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act to secure appropriate community benefits related to this development.

A public meeting was held on June 9, 1998 in the community to discuss the application. Approximately 80 people attended the meeting. The major issues raised at the meeting were the size of the proposed development and the potential impact on adjacent properties.

A notice of appeal was received by the City Clerk on July 14, 1998, from Murray H. Chusid, Solicitor for Shane Baghai Construction Contracting Inc. The applicant has appealed both the Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning applications to the Ontario Municipal Board. The appeals were made on the basis that the City had not made a decision within the statutory 90 days period set out in the Planning Act.

Comments:

The applicant has expressed a willingness to continue to work with the City on resolving the planning issues raised by both this Department and the local neighbours. Staff have recently met with the applicant's planner and architect to discuss the concerns with the current application. In the meeting the applicant proposed some revised concepts for discussion. These revised concepts are still preliminary and lack details required to undertake a proper analysis.

Staff will continue to work with the applicant and the local community to try and develop a project that is supportable.

Currently no date has been set by the Ontario Municipal Board. However according to discussions with OMB staff a pre-hearing could be scheduled for November or December of this year. To ensure that the City's interests are protected, I am recommending that, if required, I report directly to City Council on the original application or on any revised application that may be submitted. Otherwise, I will be reporting further on this application to the Toronto Community Council.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone:392-0881

Fax:392-1330

E-mailgbyrne@city.toronto.on.ca

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 26, 1998) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend refusal of the application for Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval for 9 Jackes Avenue, in its current form and to authorize City staff to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)refuse Application No. 198003 in its current form;

(2)request the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant, for the reasons outlined in this report;

(3)request the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to continue discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal; and

(4)direct the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report to Toronto Community Council on the outcome of discussions with the applicant and neighbourhood representatives and including possible and terms of a settlement, if any.

Comments:

(1)Site

The site is located on the south side of Jackes Avenue, just east of Yonge Street. The site has an area of approximately 1,272 square metres. The recently demolished three storey building that was located on the site was used as the offices of Boy Scouts Canada. (See Key Map)

The site is located two blocks north of the Summerhill subway station and three blocks south of the St. Clair subway station.

(2)Area

The property is located on the top of the east-west escarpment which marks the ancient shoreline of Lake Iroquois. The site is relatively flat, however, immediately to the south the lands slope down approximately 9 to 13 metres to Woodland Avenue East. (see Map 2)

Jackes Avenue is the boundary line between the High Density Residence Area to the north and the Low Density Residence Area to the south. Immediately to the north of the site are two apartment buildings at 44 Jackes Avenue (23 storeys) and 33 Rosehill Avenue (28storeys). Abutting the site to the east is 33 Jackes Avenue, a 10 storey residential building and a 3 storey, historic building used as the offices for Frontier College, and to the west is 7 Jackes Avenue, a 28 storey residential building. To the south and on the bottom of the escarpment is a five storey residential building at 22Woodlawn Avenue East. Other uses fronting onto the north side of Woodlawn Avenue East include the undeveloped rear yards of the apartments at 7 and 33 Jackes Avenue, a 4 storey residential building and 3 house-form buildings (immediately adjacent to David A Balfour Park). Properties on the south side of Woodlawn Avenue East primarily accommodate detached houses.

(3)Proposal

This application is for the construction of a 10 storey residential building containing 19 units. The proposed gross floor area for the building would be 5,162 square metres which represents a density 4.06 times the area of the lot. Parking for 50 cars (48 resident and 2 visitor spaces) would be provided in two levels of underground parking. Vehicle access would be via a driveway from Jackes Avenue. It is proposed that 8 bicycles parking spaces would be provided in the below grade lockers.

(4)Applicable Planning Controls

Under the Yonge-St.Clair Part II Official Plan the property is designated as a Low Density Residence Area. This designation permits residential uses at a maximum density of 1.0 times the area of the lot.

The north side of Jackes Avenue is the boundary line between the High Density Residence Area to the north and the Low Density Residence Area to the south. (See Map 1) The High Density Residence Area permits uses at a maximum density of 2.0 times the area of the lot.

Under the Zoning By-law the site is zoned R2 Z1.0. This zoning permits a full range of residential uses, including an apartment building, up to a maximum density of one times the area of the lot. The maximum height permitted on the site is 11.0 metres. (See Key Map)

The north side of Jackes is zoned R2 Z2.0 and has a height limit of 16.0 metres. This zoning would permit residential buildings with a maximum density of two times the area of the lot. The area to the south of the property and south of the Lake Iroquois shoreline is zoned R2 Z0.6 with a height limit of 11.0 metres. This zoning would permit residential uses up to a density of 0.6 times the area of the lot.

(5)OMB Appeal/Referral

The City was recently notified that the OMB has set aside November 25, 1998 for a Prehearing Conference respecting this application. Among other matters, the Prehearing Conference will deal with the identification of participants and issues and the starting date for a hearing.

(6)Public Meeting

On June 9, 1998, a public meeting was held in the community to discuss the application. Approximately 80 people attended the meeting. The majority of those in attendance were opposed to the development in its present form. The primary concerns were the proposal's height and density; loss of views; shadowing impacts; possible traffic impacts; and the location and amount of visitor parking.

(7)Civic Comments (Appendix A)

The application was circulated to the various Civic Service Areas for comments.

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises that the 50 parking spaces proposed will meet the estimated parking demand generated by this building (21 spaces, including 19 for residents and 2 for visitors). However, a physical separation is required between the residents' and the residential visitor component of the parking garage in order to ensure the residents' spaces are available at all times. The Commissioner also advises that a garbage room/recycling room with a minimum size of 15 square metres and the installation of a carousel bagger in the garbage room will be required.

The Commission of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism has advised that the landscape plan submitted with the application is not acceptable and has requested that the applicant submit a detailed landscape plan for review and approval. The Commissioner has recommended that the applicant be advised of their comments respecting City owned trees and of Chapter 331 of the Municipal Code regarding the preservation of significant trees on private property.

The Zoning Review, dated February 28, 1998, indicated that additional information was required in order to provide a detailed review. The additional information requested from the applicant has yet to be submitted.

(8)Planning Comments

As discussed in the Preliminary Report, the proposed density and height (4.2 times coverage and 32 metres respectively) significantly exceed the maximums permitted by current planning controls and must be assessed in the existing physical context and in terms of the City's planning and built form objectives.

(a)Siting and Landscaping

The building is set back 11.6 metres from the streetline which is consistent with the setback of the historic building to the east. However, the building covers virtually the full width of the lot and would not permit appropriate landscaping/screening. I would also note that the applicant has yet to provide detailed landscape/planting plans.

(b)Height and Density

The gross floor area of the proposed apartment building is 5,162 square metres or 4.06 times the area of the lot which exceeds the maximum permitted density of 1.0times by 3.06 times the area of the lot. The height of the proposed building is 32 metres which exceeds the permitted height of 11 metres by 21 metres.

Adjacent buildings fronting onto Jackes Avenue range in height and density between 2.5 and 28 storeys and 1.31 and 3.65 times coverage (See Table 1). However, these developments are generally characterized by much larger lots and generous setbacks which help mitigate their potential negative impacts. The proposed development would occupy a comparatively small lot and the proposed density of 4.06 times the lot area would exceed the density of all other buildings in the immediate vicinity. As a result of its density, height and massing, the proposed building would cast undesirable shadows, block primary views and set an undesirable precedent, as discussed below.

Further, because the front wall of the proposed 10 storey building does not step back at any point along its front elevation, it is incompatible with the 3 storey designated historic building to the east.

(c)Sun/ Shade

The proposed massing and height of the building will have a negative impact on the public realm and on the adjacent property at 33 Jackes Avenue. Sunlight testing of the proposal, shows a significant shadow would be cast across the sidewalk on the north side of Jackes Avenue on the equinox (September 21 and March 21) during the midday. The building should be designed so that it would be under a 44 degree angular plane from the north curb of Jackes Avenue as this would ensure a 3 hour sunlight window on the north sidewalk on the equinox.

At the neighbourhood meeting the residents of 33 Jackes Avenue expressed concern that the building will cast a shadow on their building in the late afternoon. The north-west face of the building at 33 Jackes Avenue currently only receives direct sunlight in the late afternoon because of the north-west orientation of the windows and rooms and the shadow cast by the 22 storey building at 7 Jackes Avenue. Sunlight testing of the proposed development shows that the proposed building would cast further shadow on 33 Jackes Avenue in the late afternoon.

(d)Views

A major concern raised by the adjacent residents was loss of views due to the proposed 10 storey building. The building at 33 Jackes Avenue has a unique design in so far as the principal rooms and views are oriented at 45 degrees to the street and property line. Each floor has 4 apartments and one-quarter of the apartments have their primary window views to the north-west, over the subject site. The residents have argued that if the building was built within or in closer conformity to the current height restrictions existing views would not be as negatively impacted.

A computer model has been generated to help in the review of the proposed development. Specifically, the model helps analyse the impact of the proposed building on views from 33 Jackes Avenue. The model examines what a person would see if they were standing in the living room (approximately 1 metre from the window at a 45 degree angle) looking out at the 9 metre ( 3^rd floor) and 21 metre (9^th floor) levels. The results show that the proposed building has a negative relationship to the north-west facing units in 33 Jackes Avenue. Specifically, the analysis demonstrates that a large percentage of the sky views were blocked in each case.

The massing of the proposed building should be redesigned so as to minimize these negative impacts.

(e)Overlook

The proposed building would include balconies on both the east and west sides of the building. These balconies would be located in the middle of the building and project to the side lot lines. The location of these balconies would have a negative impact on the residential amenity of the adjacent properties.

(9)Development Guidelines

Although properties on the south side of Jackes Avenue are designated as Low Density Residence Area and zoned R2 Z1.0, existing developments do not, for the most part, reflect those designations. For example, 7 and 33 Jackes Avenue significantly exceed the permitted height and density limits (See Table 1). In terms of the physical characteristics of the properties and the buildings which they accommodate, properties on the south side of Jackes Avenue are generally comparable to those on the north side of the street, in the High Density Residence Area.

There is a significant downward slope, of between 9 and 13 metres, between Jackes Avenue and Woodlawn Avenue East. In terms of topography and to a lesser extent built form, the Low Density Residence Area properties on the north side of Woodlawn Avenue are arguably more closely related to the single family area to the south than to the apartments on top of the escarpment, on the south side of Jackes Avenue.

In light of the existing pattern of development and topography, I would be prepared to consider additional height and density on this site provided planning and built form issues discussed above are addressed. Generally stated, a building with a height and density above current permissions should have regard for the existing built form context, views from existing buildings, shadow impacts on the public sidewalk and on adjacent properties, privacy and potential influence on future development/redevelopment in the immediate vicinity.

Staff, in consultation with the applicant's representatives, have developed detailed guidelines for a potential tower development on the site which require some further testing. Staff have also begun work on guidelines to test the potential for a townhouse form of development. Staff are proposing to continue discussions with the applicant and area representatives to explore appropriate alternative development concepts.

(10)Possible Use of a Section 37 Agreement

At its meeting of April 1, 1998, the Toronto Community Council requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to investigate securing appropriate community benefits related to this development through sction 37 of the Planning Act and to ensure that such agreement provides that benefits serve those in the neighbourhood in which the application is located. I will investigate the use of a sction 37 Agreement for this application and report on this matter prior to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing.

Conclusion:

The application in its current form is not acceptable and should be refused. However, I would be prepared to consider a revised application with a density more typical of a development in a High Density Residence Area, provided certain planning and built form objectives are met. I am recommending that City Council refuse the application in its current form and instructed staff to oppose the Ontario Municipal Board appeal and referral made by the applicant.

I am also recommending that staff continue discussions with the applicant and area representatives with the view to arriving at an appropriate development proposal for the site. I will report back to Council on the outcome of these discussions prior to the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on the original application.

Contact Name:

Gregory Byrne

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone: 392-0881

Fax: 392-1330

E-mail: gbyrne@city.toronto.on.ca)

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	*198003*
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	February 25, 1998
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:9 Jackes Avenue.

Nearest Intersection:	South side of Jackes Avenue; east of Yonge Street.

Project Description:	To construct a residential condominium containing 19 units.

Applicant:

Shane Baghai Const. Inc.

1131A Leslie St. Unit #220

449-5994

Agent:

Shane Baghai Const. Inc.

1131A Leslie St. Unit #220

449-5994

Architect:

PLANNING CONTROLS (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	LDRA	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	R2 Z1.0	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	11.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

PROJECT INFORMATION

Site Area:	1272.8 m²	Height:	Storeys:	10
Frontage:	22.5 m		Metres:	32.28
Depth:	56.3 m
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:	50
Residential GFA:	5162.0 m²	Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:	5162.0 m²	(number, type)
Total GFA:

*DWELLING UNITS*		*FLOOR AREA BREAKDOWN*
*Tenure:*	Condo	*Land Use*	*Above Grade*	*Below Grade*
2 Bedroom:	19	Residential	5162.0 m²
Total Units:	19

*PROPOSED DENSITY*
Residential Density: 4.06	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 4.06

COMMENTS

Status:

Final Report.

Data valid:

October 16, 1998

Section:

CP North

Phone:

392-7333

(Appendix A)

Comments from Civic Officials

1.Parks, dated May 20, 1998.

This will acknowledge your Official Plan Amendment and/or Rezoning Circulation Form which was circulated on March 6, 1998 and contained new plans for the above noted application. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

(i)There is/are one 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.

(ii)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.

(iii)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.

(iv)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.

(v)I advise that the plans prepared by Rafael + Bigauskas Architects, date stamped as received on February 25, 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.

2.Buildings, dated July 7, 1998.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Construct 11 storey apartment building comprising 19 dwelling units and two levels of below grade parking.

Zoning Designation:R2 Z1.0Map:51J 321

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

Plans prepared by: Rafael + Bigauskas Plans dated: February 28, 1998

Residential GFA:5162 m²

Zoning Review

The proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, however, additional information is required to provide a detailed review.

(1)Provide a fully dimensioned site plan that shows:

(a)the location of the proposed building in relation to the lot lines; and

(b)the proposed length and width of the subject building

(2)Provide a plan of survey that shows the distance the adjacent buildings are set back from their respective lot lines.

(3)Provide a plan of survey that shows "spot elevations" along the side lot lines.

(4)Indicate the amount of residential amenity space that is provided indoors and outdoors.

(5)Indicate if the proposed bicycle parking spaces are provided for both occupants and visitors.

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 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.

3.Works and Emergence Services, dated October 6, 1998.

Recommendations:

(1)That the owner be required to:

(a)provide space within the development for the construction of any transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

(b)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 24 parking spaces to serve the residential component of the project, including at least 19 parking spaces for the exclusive use of the residents and at least 5 parking spaces for visitors;

(f )provide and maintain a physical separation between the residents' and the residential visitor portions of the underground parking garage to secure the availability of the residents' parking;

(g)construct the access ramp to the underground garage with a slope not exceeding 5percent within 6 m of the property line and not exceeding 15 percent along the remaining portions;

(h)provide and maintain a garbage/recycling room at least 15 square metres in size and install and maintain a carousel bagger in the garbage room;

(i)provide and maintain access to the garbage/recycling room to all residents in the building;

(j)designate a common garbage pick-up area adjacent to the sidewalk, within the Jackes Avenue road allowance;

(k)submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(i)a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and referenced to the Ontario Co-ordinate System;

(ii)final approved drawings of the development with sufficient horizontal and vertical dimensions of the exterior walls of the building envelope plans and such plans should be submitted at least three weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council; and

(iii)a site servicing plan for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(l)submit and revised drawings with respect to Recommendation Nos. 1(e), 1(f), 1(h) and 1(j) above, for the review and approval 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 run-off originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of 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 run-off.

Comments:

Location

South side of Jackes Avenue, east of Yonge Street.

Proposal

Construction of a residential building containing 19 residential condominium units.

Parking and Access

A two-level underground parking garage containing 50 parking spaces is proposed to serve this project, which satisfies the estimated parking demand generated by this building for 21 spaces, including 19 spaces for the exclusive use of the residents, based in part on the surveyed parking demand of residential condominium units, and 2 spaces for the residential visitors. As far as can be ascertained the Zoning By-law requirement is for 24 spaces, including 19 spaces for the residents and 5 for residential visitors.

The proposed parking supply and general layout and dimensions of the parking spaces are acceptable. However, a physical separation is required between the residents' (19 spaces) and the residential visitor component (5 spaces) of the parking garage in order to ensure the residents' spaces are available for their use at all times. The physical separation must be shown on the plans.

Access to the underground garage is proposed via a ramp from Jackes Avenue located at the east end of the site. The entrance to the underground garage is indicated on the plans as being level within the first 11.6 m of the streetline, increasing to a ramp slope of 15 percent thereafter. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide this project with regular twice a week curbside refuse collection service on Jackes Avenue in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste. This will require the provision of a garbage/recycling room with a minimum size of 15 m� for the storage of garbage and recyclable materials generated by the residents between collections and the installation and maintenance of a carousel bagger in the garbage room below the garbage chute. In addition, the plans should indicate a designated set out point within the Jackes Avenue road allowance, adjacent to the curb, where garbage bags and recyclable material can be placed on collection days.

Municipal Services and Storm Water Management:

The existing water distribution and sanitary sewer systems are adequate to serve this development, however, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a site servicing plan to this Department for review and approval.

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).

Work Within the Road Allowance:

Approval for any work to be carried out within the street allowance must be received by this Department.

Appendix B

Table 1

Heights and Densities for Properties Fronting on Jackes Avenue

Address	Use	Height	Density
7 Jackes Avenue	residential	28.0 storeys	3.01
33 Jackes Avenue	residential	10.0 storeys	2.51
35 Jackes Avenue	non-residential	2.5 storeys	1.31
49 Jackes Avenue	non-residential	3.5 storeys	1.54
44 Jackes Avenue	residential	28.0 storeys	3.65*

Notes:*Density information for 44 Jackes Avenue was taken from a Preliminary Zoning Review notice dated February13, 1998. All other use, height and density information was taken from the City's Central Property Register - Current Land Use File.)

(A copy of each of the drawings, referred to in the foregoing report, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -

14 Boon Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion by Councillor Fotinos:

"WHEREAS the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, in a report dated October 13, 1998, has advised that City planning staff can provide planning evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board in support of a Committee of Adjustment decision dated June 30, 1998, refusing minor variances for 14 Boon Avenue; and

WHEREAS an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing date has been scheduled for November 12, 1998;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT City Council direct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision respecting 14 Boon Avenue."

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 13, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To advise that City planning staff would be able to provide evidence in support of the Committee of Adjustment's refusal of minor variances for 14 Boon Avenue, should City Council direct the City Solicitor to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Source of Funds:

Not Applicable

Recommendation:

That this report be received for information.

Comments:

Councillor Fotinos is forwarding a motion to the Toronto Community Council requesting legal and planning assistance to uphold a Committee of Adjustment decision to refuse a minor variance application for 14 Boon Avenue. An Ontario Municipal Board hearing is scheduled for November12, 1998.

In its decision dated June 30, 1998, the Committee of Adjustment refused variances with respect to gross floor area, front and side yard setbacks and building depth which, if allowed, would permit the applicant to maintain a one-storey addition at the front of a converted house. The subject site is located in a Low Density Residence Area and is zoned R2 Z0.6.

Planning staff have reviewed the application and conducted a site visit subsequent to the Committee of Adjustment hearing and concur with their decision to refuse the application as the proposal is not in keeping with the general intent and purpose of the setback provisions of the Zoning By-law and would result in an undesirable development in terms of adverse impacts on streetscape and abutting property owners. Therefore, planning staff would be able to provide evidence in support of the Committee's decision should Council direct the City Solicitor to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Contact Name:

Michael Major

Telephone: (416) 392-0760

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

The Toronto Community Council also submits the communication (October 1, 1998) from Councillor Fotinos:

I am writing to request permission from Council to obtain planning and legal assistance to uphold the decision of the Committee of Adjustment on June 30, 1998.

The structure erected in front of this home is uncharacteristic of the neighborhood.

The surrounding residents are quite upset and paid to have legal representation at the Committee of Adjustment. They would like some assistance for the OMB hearing.

Thank you.

Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing Locations -

492 and 494 Dundas Street West and

311 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, amended this Clause by:

(1)deleting from the recommendation of the Toronto Community Council the words and numbers "492 and 494 Dundas Street West, 265 and", so that such recommendation shall now read as follows:

"The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 311 Spadina Avenue and that:

(1)(a)a 30-day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holders; and

(b)the licence holders be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee; and

(2)Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto be amended substantially in the form attached as Appendix 'A' to the report (October 5, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement."; and

(2)adding thereto the following:

"It is further recommended that:

(a)the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be authorized to cancel the licences of 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 265 Spadina Avenue, if these businesses revert to selling fruits and vegetables on their boulevard marketing locations; and

(b)the Medical Officer of Health be requested to re-examine the possibility of selling enclosed barbequed food on the boulevard.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 492 and 494 Dundas Street West, 265 and 311 Spadina Avenue and that:

(1)(a)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holders; and

(b)the licence holders be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee; and

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, to report directly to Council on what goods would be permitted to be sold at the boulevard locations fronting 492 Dundas Street West and 265 Spadina Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 5, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report further on the cancellation of boulevard marketing locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 254 and 311 Spadina Avenue; and 265 Spadina Avenue recently identified by staff as selling merchandise unrelated to the main business.

As licensed 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.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That, after the hearing of deputations, should the Toronto Community Council decide to proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 492 and 494 Dundas Street West, 265 and 311 Spadina Avenue:

1.(a)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holders; and

(b)the licence holders be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee; and

2.Municipal Code Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto be amended substantially in the form attached as Appendix 'A' to this report.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of September 16, 1998, had before it my report (September 3, 1998) respecting Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street - Follow Up Report, recommended adoption of the report and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, among other things:

(1)to report further to the Toronto Community Council at its meeting held on October 14, 1998, on the possible cancellation of boulevard marketing locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 254 and 311 Spadina Avenue; and

(2)to report to the Toronto Community Council on amending Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code so that boulevard marketing fronting the premises is permitted only for goods for which the store has primary use.

Comments:

In our report of September 3, 1998, we identified a number of licensed boulevard marketing locations which were selling merchandise unrelated to the use of the main business and recommended the cancellation of these licences. There were also a number of licensed boulevard marketing locations which had somewhat modified their business practices to comply with the Municipal Code, however, the primary use of the business is not what is being sold within the boulevard marketing.

Locations recommended for cancellation:

The business owner of 492 Dundas Street West operates a Bakery/Restaurant. Within his Bakery/Restaurant he provided a shelving unit displaying a number of boxes with fruits and vegetables.

The business owner of 494 Dundas Street West operates a Book Store. He modified his operation by providing a display unit displaying some fruits and vegetables.

The business owner of 311 Spadina Avenue operates an Electric Store. Within his electric store he displayed two small boxes of fruits.

Given that the primary business carried on within the abutting premises is not selling same or similar products, it is recommended that these locations be cancelled.

In addition, during routine inspection, Ms. Jing Kun He, owner of Dia Hing BBQ House Ltd., 265Spadina Avenue, also displayed vegetables on the boulevard. Given that the primary business is a restaurant, it is also recommended that this location be cancelled.

With respect to 254 Spadina Avenue, the operator ceased selling fruits and vegetables on the boulevard. The premises is currently under renovations for a clothing and video store. The proprietor is proposing to sell clothes and videos from within the boulevard, therefore it is not recommended for cancellation.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (September 3, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of the survey conducted on August 27, 1998 of the 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) that were identified in the July 9, 1998 report.

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:

That, after the hearing of deputations, should the Toronto Community Council decide to proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing fronting 433, 443, 444 and 459 Dundas Street West and 254 Spadina Avenue:

1.(a)a 30 day written notice of cancellation be provided to the licence holders; and

(b)the licence holders be refunded the unexpired portion of the annual boulevard marketing fee; and

2.I report further to your Committee at its meeting of October 14, 1998 on the possible cancellation of boulevard marketing locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 311Spadina Avenue.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 29, 30 and 31, 1998, in considering Clause No. 10 of Report No.10 of the Toronto Community Council, entitled "Chinatown - Licensed Marketing Displays - Spadina Avenue Between Queen Street West and Baldwin Street and Dundas Street West, Between Spadina Avenue and Beverley Street" adopted the report, as 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'.

Comments:

In our report of July 9, 1998, we identified a number of licensed boulevard marketing locations which were selling merchandise unrelated to the use of the main business (i.e. hardware store selling fruits and vegetables on the sidewalk).

These licence holders were given 30 days from July 22, 1998 to modify their business practices so that merchandise being sold within the licensed marketing area are the same or similar to the merchandise being sold from within the premises.

The following are the conclusions of the survey conducted by staff on August 27, 1998 and the recommended action to be taken by your Committee.

Locations recommended for cancellation:

The business owner of 433 Dundas Street West (bakery) has indicated that he was leasing the boulevard marketing to a vendor. He is no longer leasing the boulevard, therefore the boulevard marketing licence can be cancelled.

The business owner of 443 Dundas Street West has indicated that he can confine his operations totally on private property, therefore no marketing licence is required.

Mr. A. Wong of 444 Dundas Street West operates a travel agency on the second floor and is registered on our files as the licence holder of the boulevard marketing. We have been unable to identify the ownership of the boulevard marketing area fronting this location as Mr. Wong, his staff and staff of the main floor business (meat store) claim no ownership of it. Under the circumstances, the boulevard marketing licence registered at this location should be cancelled.

The business operator at 459 Dundas Street West, Ms. Sandy Lo, Nung Fown Restaurant, has a vendor operating the marketing area selling T-shirts and jewellery. Given that the property is being used as a restaurant, it is recommended that the licence be cancelled.

The licence holder of 254 Spadina Avenue is operating his business from the foyer of the main entrance of the property. Under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, the owner in possession or the occupant of the ground floor of the property which may be lawfully used for industrial or commercial purposes and which abuts on a boulevard is eligible for boulevard marketing. The main floor at the subject property is used as a restaurant. Given the above, it is recommended that this licence be cancelled.

Locations that complied with criteria of Municipal Code:

The business operators of 449 Dundas Street West, 273, 280, 300B, 305, 322, 340 and 346 Spadina Avenue have modified their business practices and now comply with the regulations of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.

Ms. Le Lynh of 318 Spadina Avenue has indicated that the business will be undergoing major renovation in the immediate future and that she will ensure that the boulevard marketing comply with the regulations of the Municipal Code. Currently, the marketing area is not in use.

The business operators of 492 and 494 Dundas Street West, and 311 Spadina Avenue have somewhat modified their business practices to comply with the Municipal Code, however, the primary use of the business is not what is being sold within the boulevard marketing. These locations are currently being further reviewed and a report will be submitted to the next Toronto Community Council for its meeting of October 14, 1998.

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. Richard Chow, Manager, All Friends Bakery; and

-Mr. Edward Lee, Dia Hing B.B.Q. Food and Vegetable Restaurant.

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it the following communications (September 22, 1998) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (October 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on what goods would be permitted to be sold at the boulevard locations fronting 492Dundas Street West and 265 Spadina Avenue.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the boulevard marketing licence be continued for 492 Dundas Street West, subject to the business owner displaying merchandise specified by the Medical Officer of Health and outlined in this report; and

(2)City Council proceed with the cancellation of the boulevard marketing licence fronting 265Spadina Avenue.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14, 1998, had before it a report entitled "Cancellation of Boulevard Marketing locations at 492 and 494 Dundas Street West and 265and 311 Spadina Avenue," and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Medical Officer of Health, to report directly to Council on what goods would be permitted to be sold at the boulevard locations fronting 492 Dundas Street West and 265Spadina Avenue.

Comments:

Staff of this Department and from the office of the Medical Officer of Health attended 492 Dundas Street West and 265 Spadina Avenue on October 23, 1998 to inspect the premises and confirm what goods would be permitted to be sold on the boulevard from these businesses.

The business owner of 492 Dundas Street West currently operates a bakery/restaurant and proposes to sell cookies in boxes, seasonal cakes for different festivals, drinks and fruit juice, buns and breads. Staff from the office of the Medical Officer of Health have confirmed that a bakery could sell some limited products outside without enclosed cabinets or refrigeration. These products would be limited to crusty breads or buns without fillings, cookies etc., provided that these products were individually wrapped or sold in closed boxes.

The business owner of 265 Spadina Avenue currently operates a restaurant (take-out service). Staff from the office of the Medical Officer of Health have confirmed that none of the food prepared within the restaurant can be displayed on the boulevard.

Conclusions:

The business owner of 492 Dundas Street West may display limited baked products such as crusty breads, buns, cookies, etc., on the boulevard fronting his business. Should the business owner agree to these product being displayed, I have no objection to the continuance of his licence. With Respect to the business owner of 265 Spadina Avenue, as this is a take-out restaurant, none of the food prepared within the restaurant can be displayed on the boulevard, therefore his boulevard marketing licence should be cancelled.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou

Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement

Toronto Community Council Area

Transportation Services

Works and Emergency Services

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, a communication (October 26, 1998) from Mr. Edward Lee, General Manager, Dia Hing B.B.Q. House Ltd., requesting that consideration of the proposed cancellation of his Boulevard Marketing Licence be deferred until such time as a fair and equitable investigation can be completed.)

Unauthorized Temporary Marketing Enclosure -

St. Andrew Street Flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council deny the request from Mr. Nguyen, owner of Phuc Loi Company Ltd., o/a Pho Hung Restaurant & Market, to maintain the canopy as constructed on the St.Andrew Street flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue;

(2)a 60 day written notice be provided to the licence holder to modify the temporary marketing enclosure by:

(i)allowing the roof and steel supports to remain with the condition that the glazed and wooden side panels enclosing the cafe area be removed;

(ii)the portion of the canopy constructed occupying the 2 refrigeration units be removed from within the right-of-way;

(iii)any other modifications as may be deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services as the modifications of the canopy are under way; and

(iv)Mr. Nguyen enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto, in the form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (October 5, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on the applicant's deviation from City Council's approval and on the deficiencies of the structure now in existence on the St. Andrew Street flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue. As this is a matter of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(2)That after the hearing of deputations:

(a)a 60 day written notice of cancellation of the temporary marketing enclosure be provided to the licence holder and the licence holder be required to restore the City's right-of-way on the St. Andrew Street flankage to its original condition;

(b)a 60 day written notice be provided to the licence holder to modify the temporary marketing enclosure by:

(i)allowing the roof and steel supports to remain with the condition that the glazed and wooden side panels enclosing the cafe area be removed;

(ii)the portion of the canopy constructed occupying the 2 refrigeration units be removed from within the right-of-way;

(iii)any other modifications as may be deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services as the modifications of the canopy are under way; and

(iv)Mr. Nguyen enter into an agreement with the City of Toronto, in the form satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of April 16, 1998, approved the construction of a temporary marketing enclosure (canopy) on the St. Andrews Street flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue, and an area adjacent to the canopy to be used for boulevard cafe purposes.

Mr. Thoi Nguyen, owner of Phuc Loi Company Ltd., o/a Pho Hung Restaurant & Market, constructed the temporary marketing enclosure contrary to the approval given by City Council and is now requesting approval for this structure to remain within the City boulevard.

Comments:

The original approval consisted of permitting a boulevard cafe area and the construction of a temporary marketing enclosure (canopy) to allow for the sale of foodstuff and other merchandise, such as dry and cut flowers and souvenirs.

The temporary marketing enclosure (canopy) was to be constructed of steel framework covered by removable prefabricated panels of a synthetic material and glazed windows and rigid insulation. This structure was to be constructed under the authority of a permit as the repaving of the boulevard. Furthermore, the canopy was not to go past the residential entrance on the St. Andrew Street flankage.

Staff on routine inspection on May 20, 1998 noticed that the construction of a canopy was completed without the benefit of a permit and the newly constructed canopy did not meet the requirements of Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code and as approved by City Council in the following areas:

*the temporary marketing enclosure was constructed permanently over the right-of-way;

*wire mesh was installed within the boulevard and raised by approximately 76 mm above the sidewalk grade, thereby creating a potential trip hazard;

*2 large refrigeration units had been installed within the marketing enclosure;

*the entrance to the second and third storey residential units had been enclosed within the canopy, thereby creating a fire hazard.

Mr. Nguyen was requested to stop operating the canopy enclosure and was given 30 days to bring the canopy into conformity with Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

At the request of Mr. Tony Ruprecht, M.P.P. Parkdale, staff met with Mr. Chee, Mr. Trac Bang Do and Mr. Nguyen on July 3, 1998 to discuss the issues and took a look at possible alternatives which would allow Mr. Nguyen to modify the existing structure.

At the meeting, Mr. Nguyen had indicated that he no longer wished to use the canopy for the display of merchandise but rather as an extension of his restaurant. Mr. Nguyen argued that the canopy would enhance the comfort of his cafe patrons and would allow him to better secure the boulevard cafe when it is not in use to prevent theft of the cafe furnishings.

Mr. Nguyen further indicated that he is concerned that he had incurred a considerable expense in constructing the canopy and that he will suffer additional financial hardship if he is requested to remove the structure and construct something that would comply with City Council's original approval.

The existing marketing enclosure is not acceptable as enclosures permitted for marketing and cafes are considerably different. The table below illustrates the important differences between marketing enclosures and cafe enclosures.

Component Permitted or Required in Code	Temporary Marketing Enclosure (Canopy)	Temporary Full Enclosure (Cafes)
Construction Details	Current - as of March 27, 1995 substantially more construction allowed. Panels may remain year round.	Retractable or removable canvas-type awning.
Period of Operation	All year	Enclosure only permitted during shoulder periods April 1 to May 30, and September 15 to November 1
Heating	Allowed	Not allowed
Fees	Range from $16.57 - $33.10 per square metre per year, depending on area of City.	Base rates range from $12.18 - $24.34 per square metre per year, depending on area of City. Plus: Market value rent applied for use of enclosure during the shoulder period.
Smoking	Permitted	Not allowed

Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code permits temporary partial enclosures for boulevard cafe areas. Temporary partial enclosure is defined as a structure erected on a licensed boulevard cafe area which consists of a retractable or removable canvas-type awning made with a light metal or reasonably equivalent frame affixed to the adjacent building. It may have canvas or similar sail goods material from the roof awning to the fence on the two sides of the structure extending from the building and has canvas or similar sail goods material screens between the top and bottom rails of the fence; and has open entrances/exits which shall remain free and unobstructed.

A temporary full enclosure on a licensed boulevard cafe area is similar in appearance to the temporary partial enclosure, but with the important distinction that panels are permitted on the front facing the street from April 1 to March 30 and September 15 to November 1. For the balance of the cafe season, the cafe must remain open to the street.

In order to assist the applicant, the possibility of closing and leasing the affected portion of the St.Andrew Street right-of-way was investigated. St. Andrew Street has a right-of-way width of 20m. This is typically the minimum width required to accommodate existing and future municipal services and utilities within the public right-of-way, as well as providing space for poles and signs, storage of snow clearing operations, etc. A Toronto Hydro conduit is located within the canopy area. Given the existing utility located on these lands, this area of the road allowance cannot be considered surplus to the City's requirements and therefore, it is not feasible from a technical perspective to close these lands.

In response to Mr. Nguyen's concern of the considerable expense to modify the canopy structure, we would have no objections to allowing the roof and steel supports to remain with the condition that the glazed and wooden side panels enclosing the cafe be removed so that the cafe is open to the street from June 1 to September 14. The applicant should then be required to enter into the applicable agreement for the continued maintenance of the roof with supports or any other additional requirements deemed necessary by the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Conclusion:

The existing permanent enclosure for the boulevard cafe on the St. Andrew Street flankage of 350Spadina Avenue does not meet the provisions of Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. Mr. Nguyen built a canopy contrary to the approvals given by City Council and without the benefit of a permit.

However, given his concern on the financial burden he would incur, I have no objections to allowing the roof and steel supports to remain with the condition that the glazed and wooden side panels enclosing the cafe be removed so that the cafe is open to the street (including other modifications necessary during the removal of this canopy).

With respect to the part of the canopy that houses the two refrigeration units located on the St.Andrew Street flankage (Area 2 on Appendix 'A'), there are no provisions within the Municipal Code to allow the use of the City's right-of-way for this purposes. Therefore, it should be removed and the applicant be given 60 days to remove such structure.

Boulevard cafes provide a significant contribution to the vitality of streets and sidewalks. Inasmuch as I can sympathize with Mr. Nguyen on the considerable expenses he has incurred and will incur to modify the canopy, his request to maintain the existing canopy could set a dangerous precedent and I cannot recommend approval.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Angie Antoniou, 392-1525

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during the consideration of the foregoing matter, Clause 55, contained in Report No. 3 of the Toronto Community Council, titled,"Applications for a Boulevard Cafe and to Construct and Maintain a Temporary Marketing Enclosure (Canopy) - St. Andrew Street Flankage of 350 Spadina Avenue (Downtown)" which was adopted, without amendment, by City Council at its meeting held on April 26, 1998.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

350 Spadina Avenue

Tree Removal - High Park Forest

Management Demonstration Areas (High Park)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 21, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

To seek approval to demonstrate site specific forest management strategies in 3 areas (3.75 ha) of High Park that could be applied in the long term and on a larger scale as necessary to improve the quality and preserve the integrity of the regionally rare oak forest and bottom land forests which characterize the park.

Source of Funds:

Funds have been secured through the 1998 capital budget for High Park improvements.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council consent to the selective removal of vegetation from demonstration area B as documented in this report, specifically 12 non-native trees that are not within 3 metres of the dripline of a healthy native tree, 81 non-native and invasive trees and 580 shrubs.

(2)That City Council consent to Parks and Recreation proceeding with the vegetation management activities in demonstration area A and C as documented in this report, in consultation with the High Park Citizens' Advisory Committee, the High Park Technical Resource Group and the City Councillors for Ward 19.

Comments:

In February 1993, City Council recognized that High Park contains some of the most significant natural areas in the regions of York and Metropolitan Toronto in terms of its vegetation communities and its rare flora and approved in principle an approach to management of High Park's natural environment aimed at restoring and enhancing the significant oak woodlands and bottom land forests. City Council also requested that detailed plans and/or guidelines be prepared to implement a restoration and management program for among other things, the rare black oak savannah and red oak forests, and bottom land forests.

In May 1996, City Council authorized Parks and Recreation to proceed with the oak savannah research test plot program and undertake initial testing of potential strategies for restoration and management of the oak savannah which are ongoing and include such accomplishments as the recent prescribed burns and selective removal of non-native and invasive trees, shrubs and ground covers. The objective for each test plot varies from the evaluation of fire management as a method of stimulating regeneration of oaks and other savannah vegetation to the select removal of non-native and invasive vegetation, and the reduction of soil and seed bank losses caused by sheet erosion and lack of ground cover vegetation.

Consistent with the 1993 direction of City Council regarding the restoration and management of the park's natural areas and in keeping with activities currently underway to restore and enhance the park's wetland and stream habitats and the remnant oak savannah, Parks and Recreation proposes to implement forest management demonstration activities in three degraded forest areas of High Park as a means of restoring a healthy forest structure and habitat and improving the long term viability and ecological functions of these areas. The implementation of forest management activities together with proposed trail management will not only begin the restoration process, but will demonstrate how other degraded areas of the park may be treated. During the fall and winter months of 1998, 93 trees and 580 shrubs which are non-native and invasive will be cut and removed from demonstration area B which is located at the south end of the park between Colborne Lodge Drive and Grenadier Pond. Select trees will be cut and their trunks left standing to provide habitat for birds and other wildlife. Most of the cut wood and debris will be removed from the site. Some logs and branches will be left to decay naturally on site at strategic locations. The area will be planted with appropriate trees, shrubs and ground cover species in spring of 1999 as part of this project. It is proposed that similar activities be completed in demonstration areas A and C in 1999. Implementation of these activities will continue to place the City of Toronto at the forefront in urban forest management to encourage the ecological sustainability of valuable natural heritage sites.

A more detailed description of the forest management demonstration program is appended to this report.

The forest management demonstration project is complementary to the other initiatives which are currently ongoing such as the oak savannah test plot program, Grenadier Pond and Spring Creek improvement projects, and woodland trail improvement activities. All of these projects serve to demonstrate the City's ongoing commitment to sustainable management of the natural environment of High Park. Observations and results obtained through the forest management demonstration exercise will complement the oak savannah research test plot program and be used to inform development of detailed plans for long term restoration and management of the oak forests and mixed bottom land forests as components of the oak woodland system.

This report has been prepared in consultation with Urban Planning and Development Services. The management strategy for the three forest management demonstration areas as presented above have been endorsed by the Ward Councillors, the High Park Technical Resource Group (includes such agencies as Toronto Region Conservation Authority, Federation of Ontario Naturalists and Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources) and the High Park Citizens' Advisory Committee. As with other projects in High Park, community volunteer participation will continue to be encouraged in all aspects of the implementation of this project. The continued assistance of volunteers with the removal of vegetation, planting, monitoring and other maintenance tasks as well as activities such as facilitation of public education and awareness will contribute to the success of this project. I am recommending that Parks and Recreation proceed with the vegetation management activities in demonstration area A and C as documented in this report, in consultation with the High Park Citizens' Advisory Committee, the High Park Technical Resource Group and the City Councillors for Ward 19.

Contact Name:

Carol Walker Gayle, Urban Forestry Planner

5^th Floor East Tower, City Hall

Telephone:416 392-1888

Facsimile:416 392-6657

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

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Appendix

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Appendix

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Appendix

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Appendix

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Appendix

Tree Removal - 175 Hanson Street (East Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to write to the developer, expressing the Community Council's concern with respect to damage done to the trees as a result of development activities, prior to the developer gaining approval for the tree removal.

Purpose:

A written request has been filed under the provisions of City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter331, Trees, Article I, for permission to remove three City owned trees situated on the Hanson Street road allowance adjacent to the above noted property.

Recommendations:

That Toronto Community Council approve the request for the removal of the three City owned trees indicated in this report and that such approval be conditional on:

(1)the applicant paying the monetary value of the trees in question, associated removal costs and the cost for Forestry Services to plant three 80 mm caliper replacement trees on City owned land at another location, a total of $5261.26;

(2)the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Rezoning Application No. 196017 commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(3)the applicant planting twelve (12) 70 to 80 mm caliper replacement trees in accordance with the plan prepared by Don Naylor + Associates, received with a covering letter dated June23, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Background:

This request for tree removal has been received in connection with Rezoning Application No.196017 for the purpose of facilitating the construction of 24 residential townhouse units and 16 condominium units on the above noted site. Site Plan Approval for this development was issued on March 11, 1997.

A recent review of the landscape plan approved under the Rezoning Application was undertaken by the applicant. The review concluded that the streetscape along the Hanson Street frontage of the subject development site would be significantly improved by planting a new tree in each of the front yards of the eleven new townhouses which will front Hanson Street.

Comments:

I have received a request from Mr. Don Naylor of Don Naylor + Associates, 245 Main Street North, Brampton, Ontario, L6X 1N3, acting on behalf of the owner of 175 Hanson Street, that the City consider the removal of three City owned trees situated on the Hanson Street road allowance adjacent to the above noted property.

The three trees in question are as follows:

1.30 cm diameter Scots Pine in fair condition;

2.18 cm diameter Japanese Flowering Cherry in fair condition; and

3.56 cm diameter Manitoba Maple in fair condition.

All three trees require City Council approval to permit their removal. The trees in question are of a size which does not permit their relocation.

The total appraised value of the three trees in question is $3353.56. The total cost for Forestry Services to remove all three trees is $482.67. The cost for Forestry Services to plant three 80 mm caliper replacement trees on City owned land at another location is $1425.03. One condition of approval to permit the removal of the trees in question is that the applicant submit payment to Forestry Services in the total amount of $5261.26 to cover the amounts outlined above.

The landscape plan which was filed with the request for tree removal indicates the planting of twelve(12) new trees along the City road allowances adjacent to the subject development site. The trees indicated for planting are eleven Shubert Choke Cherry trees on the Hanson Street road allowance and one Littleleaf Linden on the Bastedo Avenue road allowance. The planting of these new trees will enhance the streetscape in this neighbourhood and be a significant improvement relative to the existing conditions.

I therefore recommend that the request to remove the trees in question be approved and that such approval meet the conditions outlined in the recommendations above.

Contact Name:

Gary R. Le Blanc

Telephone:(416) 392-0494

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

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

Tree Removal - 15 Sudbury Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director of Development & Support - Toronto Parks and Recreation, City Hall Office:

Purpose:

An application has been received from Mr. Paul Ferris, Ferris & Quinn Associates, 11 Church Street, Suite 302, Toronto, Ontario, M5E 1W1, for City Council to consider removal of four City owned trees.

Recommendation:

That tree removal be approved on the condition that:

(1)the applicant submit a certified cheque in the amount of $6,327.43 to cover the value of the trees, removal costs and replacement costs of four City owned trees; and

(2)the applicant plant sixteen new trees in turf on Sudbury Street City street allowance upon completion of the project in accordance with Landscape Site Plan LP-S-1 & LP-S-2 prepared by Ferris & Quinn Associates Inc.

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 multiple residential townhouses.

Comments:

The landscape plan indicates there are fourteen City owned trees involved with this project. Ten Norway maples will be protected and preserved during the construction work. The remaining four trees do not qualify for removal and are the subject of this application for removal. The trees in question are four Norway maples which have diameters ranging from 30 to 35 centimetres. The roadway improvements and new City sidewalk are proposed to be constructed in close proximity to these trees so their preservation on site cannot be guaranteed.

These trees are in good condition and valued at $3,890.24. The costs to remove these trees is $537.15 and the costs to replace four City owned trees in turf are $1,900.04, for a total of $6,327.43.

The applicant proposes to plant sixteen new trees in turf on Sudbury Street 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

Stop-Up and Closing of Public Lane O'Keefe Lane, Extending

Between Dundas Street East & Dundas Square -

Yonge Dundas Redevelopment (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To authorize the stopping-up and closing of the public lane O'Keefe Lane, east of Yonge Street extending between Dundas Street East and Dundas Square, to accommodate the construction of a City owned public square and underground parking structure on Parcel D of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds in connection with the statutory processing of the proposal are accommodated in Yonge Dundas Capital Fund Account No. 216692.

Recommendations:

(1)That the public lane O'Keefe Lane, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2854, be stopped-up and closed as public lane, and placed under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(2)That an easement be reserved for Toronto Hydro, over a portion of O'Keefe Lane, for access, operation, use, inspection, repair, maintenance, reconstruction or alteration of the existing underground conduit and for the construction of additional or new services, with the exact location to be determined after construction, by survey;

(3)That the public hearing required to be held pursuant to the terms of the Municipal Act be held by the Toronto Community Council; and

(4)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing recommendations, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required and provide notice to the public.

Background:

City Council, at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 adopted, as amended, Clause 26 in Report No.10 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and in doing so authorized the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project to proceed.

Comments:

The development of Parcel D of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project, being the block bounded by Yonge Street, Dundas Street East, Victoria Street and Dundas Square, involves the acquisition by the City of Premises Nos. 285 to 301 (inclusive) Yonge Street, the surface parking lot at Premises No. 25 Dundas Street East (operated by the Toronto Parking Authority) and the public lane O'Keefe Lane, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2854. Parcel D is to be developed as a public square and a 250 space underground parking garage, which will be constructed and operated by the Toronto Parking Authority (TPA).

The cost to cover the at-grade physical adjustments, and the statutory processing, is estimated to be $14,209.00, and consists of:

(a)Removing and abandoning Bell Canada cable, estimated to be $2,709.00;

(b)Removing and abandoning Rogers cable, estimated to be $2,000.00;

(c)Reconstructing the standard curbs and sidewalks at both ends of O'Keefe Lane, estimated to be $6,000.00; and

(d)Paying the out-of-pocket expenses and other administration fees associated with the lane closing, estimated to be $3,500.00.

I have been advised by Urban Planning and Development Services officials that funds to cover these adjustments will be absorbed in the public square development budget.

In addition, I have been advised by officials from the Parking Authority that discussions are ongoing with respect to the below grade adjustments, consisting of abandoning the sewer and the possible relocation of Toronto Hydro's conduit at the north end of O'Keefe Lane, which will be carried out in conjunction with the construction of the parking garage. The issues, including the cost responsibilities, will be resolved prior to the introduction of the Bills in Council for the closing of the subject portion of O'Keefe Lane. The City will provide Hydro with an easement for the conduit once the new location has been determined and verified by survey.

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)

The Toronto Community Council reports for the information of Council, also having had before it a communication, (October 14, 1998) from B.S. Onyschuk, Smith Lyons, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Marvin Hertzman Holdings Inc., and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

O'Keefe Lane

Closing of Portions of Gould Street and

Victoria Street, and the Public Lane O'Keefe Lane -

Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 30, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To authorize the stopping-up and closing of portions of Gould Street and Victoria Street, and the public lane O'Keefe Lane, east of Yonge Street extending between Gould Street and Dundas Street East, to accommodate the construction of the building on Parcel A of the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications with respect to the stopping-up and closing of the subject portions of Gould Street and Victoria Street or the public lane. However, the City will realize revenues from the sale of the south portion of O'Keefe Lane and the fees for the granting of encroachment agreements over the north portion of O'Keefe Lane and the subject portions of Victoria and Gould Streets, pursuant to the financial terms established by Council's previous approval, at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, of Clause 26 in Report No. 10 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee.

Recommendations:

Subject to the conditions set out in Clause 26, as amended, in Report No. 10 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee approved by City Council at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998 and the acquisition by the City of Premises Nos. 311 to 327 (inclusive) Yonge Street:

(1) That the portions of Gould and Victoria Streets, shown in heavy outline on the attached PlanSYE2892, and O'Keefe Lane, shown as PARTS 1, 2 and 3 on the attached PlanSYE2852-1, be stopped-up and closed;

(2)That access be retained by the City over O'Keefe Lane, for the operation, use, inspection, repair, maintenance, reconstruction or alteration of the City's underground facilities;

(3) That the public hearing required to be held pursuant to the terms of the Municipal Act be held by the Corporate Services Committee; and

(4) That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing recommendations, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that might be required, and provide notice to the public.

Background:

The former Toronto City Council, at its special meeting of May 6, 1997, in considering MinuteS16.2, directed, among other things, the Commissioner of City Works Services to initiate the street and lane closing process as may be required to undertake the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project. The closing of portions of Gould Street and Victoria Street, shown in heavy outline on the attached Plan SYE2892, and the closing of O'Keefe Lane, shown as PARTS1, 2 and 3 on the attached Plan SYE2852-1, are necessary to accommodate the new structure as well as the building support columns which are required immediately adjacent to the existing Ryerson parking garage to support the proposed cinema complex.

City Council, at its meeting of July 8, 9 and 10, 1998, adopted, as amended, Clause 26 in Report No.10 of the Strategic Policies and Priorities Committee, and in doing so authorized the Yonge Dundas Redevelopment Project to proceed.

A separate report has been submitted to the Corporate Services Committee by the Commissioner of Corporate Services to authorize the sale of the south portion of O'Keefe Lane and the granting of encroachments over the north portion of O'Keefe Lane and the subject portions of Gould Street and Victoria Street to PenEquity Management Corporation.

Comments:

The City of Toronto has entered into an agreement with PenEquity Management Corporation to develop a portion of the block bounded by Yonge Street, Gould Street, Victoria Street and Dundas Street East, known as Parcel "A". This block also includes the portions of Gould Street and Victoria Street to be closed, as shown in heavy outline on the attached Plan SYE2892, and the portion of O'Keefe Lane to be closed, as shown as PARTS 1, 2 and 3 on the attached Plan SYE2852-1.

The development of Parcel "A" involves the acquisition by the City of Premises Nos. 311 to 327 Yonge Street, and the air rights over the Ryerson parking garage which is situated to the east of O'Keefe Lane. The Yonge Street properties, together with the air rights over the Ryerson parking garage, will be developed as an urban entertainment centre containing retail, restaurant and entertainment uses including a cinema "megaplex" with up to 30 screens.

Works and Emergency Services staff have assessed the proposal to close the subject portions of Gould Street, Victoria Street and O'Keefe Lane and consider the closings technically feasible. Of course, the closing is contingent upon the City obtaining free and clear title to the abutting lands, identified as Premises Nos. 311 to 327 Yonge Street.

The City of Toronto currently maintains the following municipal services within the portion of O'Keefe Lane to be closed:

- 425 mm storm sewer

- 5 catch basins

- 2 sewer maintenance structures

The storm sewer must be maintained to serve the properties north of the proposed development, although staff are currently assessing the feasibility of reconstructing the northern portion of the sewer, thereby allowing the southern section of the sewer within the proposed building complex to be abandoned. With respect to Gould and Victoria Streets, easements must be granted to Bell Canada, Toronto Hydro and Rogers Cable to maintain their respective utilities within these lands.

The City Solicitor advises that a new procedure to deal with the closing and sale of public highway lands is being developed. As the new procedure, including a formal delegation by Council to one of the Standing Committees to hold the requisite public hearing, has not yet been established, it is recommended that the Corporate Services Committee hold the public meeting in this matter.

Notice of the proposed closing of Gould Street and Victoria Street has been given pursuant to the screening process set out in Schedule 'B' of the Class Environment Assessment for Municipal Road Projects under the Environmental Assessment Act. The proposed closing of O'Keefe Lane is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

John Mende, Manager

Development and Transportation

392-7713

________

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Proposed Closings

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Proposed Closings

Bay Adelaide Centre - Amended Percent for

Public Art Plan - South Block (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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 submit a report to the Urban Environment and Development Committee on the possible extension of the Public Art Policy to all parts of the City of Toronto.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Director, Urban Design, City Planning:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the Bay Adelaide Centre - Amended Percent for Public Art Plan and to seek approval of the recommendations from the Public Art Commission.

Source of Funds:

All costs associated with the Bay Adelaide Amended Percent for Public Art Plan are the responsibility of the TrizecHahn Office Properties.

Recommendations:

That Council approve the following recommendations from the Public Art Commission:

1.That the Bay Adelaide Centre Amended Percent for Public Art Plan - South Block (PhaseI) - as presented to the Public Art Commission on September 3, 1998, be approved, subject to the following conditions:

a)That in its analysis of the submitted proposals by the artists, that the art selection jury allow for some flexibility within the budget and site proposals, but with an emphasis on the most publicly accessible areas of the development; and,

b)That the proposed list of potential art selection jury members is acceptable subject to a minimum of one artist being included on the jury.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The original Bay Adelaide Public Art Plan was approved in 1988 by the former Toronto City Council (October 21, 1988, Report 23, Clause No.1) but the development went on hold in the early 1990's. Subsequently, the design of the building has been changed significantly, and the developer is submitting this amended plan to enable the public art to capitalize on the opportunities presented within the new scheme.

The following is a summary of the Amended Public Art Plan, as presented by Karen Mills, public art consultant, and John Roce, Project Director, Bay Adelaide Centre. The full plan is on file with Urban Design, in City Planning.

The Bay Adelaide Project development is located in the northeast core of the financial district and is bounded by Yonge, Bay, Queen Street West and Adelaide Street. The development of the south block of the project will consist of one 50 storey Class "A" office tower comprised of 1.3 million square feet of rentable office space, and 55,000 square feet of concourse ground and second level retail space. The development manager is TrizecHahn Office Properties Inc. and the architects are Webb Zerafa Menkes Housden Partnership.

There are two phases to this development, the north and south blocks, and this proposed public art plan addresses the South Block (Phase I). Under the terms of the existing Section 37 Agreement (previously Section 36 Agreement), the developer will commission public art to the value of approximately $2.0 million for the South Block. A public art plan is also required for the North Phase, upon development of that phase.

In keeping with the City Planning Percent for Public Art Program, the developer has elected to pursue Option 2 to comply with the percent for public art plan as outlined in the Development Approval Manual. This option entitles the developer to commission art works and collaborative art works as part of the building exterior and publicly accessible areas throughout the site.

Estimated Budget:

The Estimated Budget is $2,000,000, which is based on anticipated one percent of the gross construction costs for the South Block (Phase I). The actual budget will be determined upon application for a building permit application.

Estimated budget: $2,000,000

Administration fees: 200,000

Construction contingency: 200,000

Art allocation: 1,600,000

Governing principles for the public art plan:

-Provide public art that will create a unique identity for the Bay Adelaide Centre and enhance the project through the development of art in the most public locations. The public art should be so powerful that people will visit the site in order to see it.

-Limit the number of public art locations in order to ensure that the budget for each element to have an impact.

-Integrate the art with architecture wherever possible.

-Recognize and respect the requirements of future development possibilities.

-Commission public art of international calibre.

Proposed Art Locations and approximate budget allocations:

Location 1Temperance Street extending into Yonge Street Courtyard

up to $400,000

Location 2Lower Building Frontage on Adelaide and Temperance Streets

up to $550,000

Location 3Mid-Block Connection

up to $400,000

Location 4Building Top

up to $250,000

Art/Artist Selection Method:

An invitational 2 stage competition will be conducted. The Jury will review the written first stage submissions and recommend a second stage short-list.

Jury Composition:

There will be 5 members on the jury composition, consisting of 2 developer representatives, and 3 art experts, independent of the developer.

Developer representatives: Trizec Hahn Representative (to be determined by developer) and

Carl Blanchaer, Project Architect

Outside representatives: Three will be selected, subject to availability:

Garth Norbraten, architect, local area representative

Matthew Teitlebaum, Director, Art Gallery of Ontario

Robin Thomson Anthony, Art Consultant

William Boyle, Director, Harbourfront

Barbara Astman, visual artist

Colette Whiten, visual artist

First stage invited artists:

Locations 1,2,3

Alice Aycock; Ibos-Vitart; Matt Mullican; Mary Miss; Jackie Ferrara; R.M. Fischer; Sol Lewitt; Antony Gormley; Arlene Stamp; Francois Dallegret; Barbara Steinman; Dale Chilhuly; Tony Cragg; Warren Carther.

Location 4

Joan Frick; Doreen Balabanoff; Howard Ungerleider; Michael Hayden

Proposed schedule:

Building bid packages will be issued in October 1998. In order to ensure that provisions are made to accommodate the public art, the artists must be working with the design team by November 1998. The competitions will be held in late October 1998.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Bay Adelaide Project Amended Public Art Plan, as submitted by TrizecHahn Office Properties, is in accordance with the developer precinct agreements and City Planning's criteria, as published in the Developer Approval Manual. This proposed public art plan is an ambitious one and is being submitted to Council for approval in a timely manner as to ensure that the public art components will be integrated into the overall design scheme. Subject to the recommended conditions as referred to earlier in this report, this plan was fully supported by the Public Art Commission. It should be noted that this plan will be of no cost to the City and all of the expenditures will be the responsibility of TrizecHahn Office Properties.

Conclusion:

I am in full support of this Amended Public Art Plan and look forward to the final outcome of the public art in the Bay Adelaide Project.

I will be reporting back to Council in the future on the Public Art Plan for the North Block (PhaseII).

Contact Name:

Jane Perdue, Public Art Coordinator, Urban Design

Telephone: (416) 392-1304

Fax: (416) 392-1330

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

The 519 Community Centre Mural Competition (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (September 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of a new initiative by the 519 Community Centre to run a competition for a new mural on the south exterior wall and to seek the required approval from Council to implement this project on a city-owned building.

Source of Funds:

The funds for the $20,000 budget will be raised by the 519 Community Centre.

Recommendations:

1.That Council approve the recommendations of the Public Art Commission which are as follows:

a)That the 519 Community Centre be supported to run a mural competition; and,

b)That Ken Hayes, as a member of the Public Art Commission, assist the 519 Community Centre and be on the art selection jury.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On September 3, 1998, Helen Rykens of the 519 Community Centre made a presentation to the Public Art Commission. The 519 Community Centre is sponsoring a one-stage, open competition to place a new mural on the south face of the building. The intent of this competition is to invite artists to submit proposals that will reflect the diversity of the 519 Community Centre, which serves the downtown area bordered by Gerrard, Parliament, Bloor and Bay Streets. Currently, the 519 Community Centre is in the process of raising the funds for the $20,000 for the mural competition. My understanding is that approximately 50% of the funds have been raised to date, and the Centre is confident that they will raise the remaining funds. It is anticipated that the competition will be run during the winter, concluded in February 1999, with a new mural in place by May 1999.

A draft of the competition brief was submitted to the City for feedback and endorsement. The 519 Community Centre also requested that a member of the Public Art Commission be appointed to be on the jury for this competition. The draft competition brief is on file with Urban Design of City Planning.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The intent of this mural competition is in accordance with the City Planning's public art process. The competition is an open call to artists, the art selection jury has a majority of art experts, in addition to strong representation from the local community. There will be sufficient resources in place to support this initiative, and the 519 Community Centre will ensure that 10% of the overall budget will be raised to address long term maintenance concerns.

Conclusion:

I am in support of this local initiative to sponsor a mural competition at the 519 Community Centre. This centre has a high profile in the community and has been successful in many ventures including the implementation of the AIDS Memorial in Cawthra Park. Over the years, the 519 Community Centre has maintained this memorial which continues to be one to the most important memorials in the downtown core.

Contact Name:

Jane Perdue, Public Art Coordinator, Urban Design

Telephone: (416) 392-1304

Fax: (416) 392-1304

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

Interim Appointments -

Board of Management of Ralph Thornton Centre

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Mr. Lewis Pearsal and Mr. Alan Reeve be appointed to the Board of Management of the Ralph Thornton Centre to replace Ms.BethLong and Ms. Gina Ocaranza, on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until their successors are appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the communication (September 25, 1998) from the Executive Director, Ralph Thornton Centre:

At its meeting of September 17, 1998, the Board of Management approved the following names for submission to Council for appointment to the Board of Management to complete the terms of two members who have resigned:

Lewis Pearsal (replacing Beth Long)

Alan Reeve (replacing Gina Ocaranza).

Construction at 411 Duplex Avenue/

33 Orchard Park Boulevard (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, deferred consideration of this Clause to the next regular meeting of City Council to be held on November 25, 1998.. [Please note that Notice of Motion J(13) to re-open consideration of the policy pertaining to Council office budgets, in order to give consideration to Recommendations Nos. (1) and (2) embodied in the foregoing Clause, was not adopted by Council.])

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council establish that the expenditure of the Councillor's Communications Budget is entirely within the discretion of the Councillor, and that public scrutiny ensures the necessary accountability, and that no approval of the request by Councillor Walker is required;

(2)in the event that Recommendation No. (1) fails,

(a)a grant in the amount of $5,000 be give to the 33 Orchard View Boulevard and 411 Duplex Avenue Tenant Association, for the purpose of engaging legal and consulting assistance in the tenant appeal to the Ontario Housing Tribunal for a rent abatement;

(b)the grant be deemed to be in the interest of the municipality; and

(c)the funds be provided from Councillor Walker's Communication Budget; and

(3)officials from the City Works and Emergency Services, Noise Section, Urban Planning and Development Services, Inspections Division and Public Health be instructed to give the issues raised by the tenants at the public meeting held on October 6, 1998, the highest priority by dedicating staff to bringing the intolerable situation to an end.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (October 7, 1998) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

1.That the Toronto Community Council recommend that the City of Toronto instruct the City Solicitor, the Director of Policy and Programs, Shelter, Housing and Support Division and other appropriate City staff to assist tenants at the above premises in their appeal to the Ontario Housing Tribunal for a rent abatement; and

2.That Toronto Community Council recommend that the City of Toronto instruct staff from City Works and Emergency Services, Noise section, Urban Planning and Development Services, Inspections Division and Public Health to give this issue the highest priority by dedicating staff to bringing this intolerable situation to an end.

Background:

On October 6, 1998 I held one of the largest public meetings on tenant issues that I have seen in the last three years. Over 250 tenants from 411 Duplex Avenue and 33 Orchard View Boulevard packed the gymnasium at St. Monica's School, with some having to stand in the hallway due to the shortage of seating. The tenants raised several concerns with regards to the living conditions in these buildings. City Staff from Inspections, Noise Division, Planning and Housing were on hand to answer questions directed to them.

The problems discussed stem from three main factors:

i.Construction of a multiplex cinema at the Yonge-Eglinton Centre is taking place outside the hours permitted by the City of Toronto noise By-laws. Delivery trucks arrive as early as 4:30 a.m., unloading materials in the narrow lane-way that runs between the two buildings. Jack hammering and other construction noise can be heard prior to 7:00 a.m. with the elevated noise levels often continuing as late as 2 o'clock in the morning. Balcony reconstruction is taking place at both buildings and tenants have not been permitted to use them for the last several months. Furthermore, the increased noise and dust levels created by the construction do in my opinion, pose a serious health hazard to tenants in these buildings. One gentleman at the meeting demonstrated this by displaying a filter from his air conditioning unit. It had been installed only 6 weeks before and now was completely covered in black dust. He explained to the crowd that he has had to purchase and change the filters once a month because the property manager would not do it.

ii.General problems including broken elevators, mice infestation, the landlord refusing to deal with disruptive tenants, disconnection of cable television, front doors to apartments not fire-rated and repairs not being completed in apartments are apparent.

iii.Misuse of new powers given to the landlord under the Tenant Protection Act include: eviction notices being sent to certain tenants improperly or without cause, the landlord attempting to force tenants to sign agreements waiving their right to appeal for a rent reduction, and the landlord on numerous occasions has illegally entered tenants' apartments without giving any prior notice.

I therefore ask the Toronto Community Council to adopt the above recommendations and help the tenants of 411 Duplex Avenue and 33 Orchard View Boulevard return to living in the peaceful and tranquil environment to which they have a right.

________

Councillor Johnston declared her interest in the foregoing matter insofar as that she is a tenant at a property owned by the landlord of the subject properties.

Request for Endorsement of Events

for Liquor Licencing Purposes

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing purposes, advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it is aware of the Argos Pre-Game Party to be held on November 8 and 15, 1998 outside of Roundhouse Park outside of Gate 5 of Skydome and has no objection to its taking place.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (October 8, 1998) from Mr. Dave Rogers, Operations Manager, McDonald's at the SkyDome, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decision and

Site Plan Approval - 1107 Avenue Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council instruct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision dated September 9, 1998 on minor variances and a consent by Ferracorp 2000 Inc respecting 1107Avenue Road.

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

Purpose:

To advise Council of the appeal and seek Council direction on staff attending the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on this appeal.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That, should City Council wish to support the Committee of Adjustment decision regarding 1107Avenue Road, it could instruct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision dated September 9, 1998 on minor variances and a consent by Ferracorp2000 Inc.

Background:

(1)Minor Variances and Consent

The applicant applied to the Committee of Adjustment to permit minor variances to the height and depth limits of the Zoning By-law for both the addition to the school building and the residential structure. The existing and proposed height and depth limits in the Zoning By-law, which are in metres, are shown in the table below:

HeightDepth

Existing Proposed Existing Proposed

School 9 9.6 14 83.8

Residence 910.5 - 12.75 14 73

The applicant also applied for a minor variance to the Zoning By-law to permit the use of the Hunt Club for apartment uses, as it was not originally constructed for this use. The applicant applied for a consent to sever the residential portion of the site so that the school and residential buildings will each have their own site.

(2)Committee of Adjustment Decision

The Committee of Adjustment in a decision dated September 9, 1998 granted the variances, conditional upon the applicant entering into a heritage easement agreement, and the consent, conditional upon a registered Reference Plan of Survey and satisfactory municipal numbering. The Committee, in granting the variances, considered them "as being reasonable, minor, within the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law and the Official Plan, desirable for the appropriate development or use of the property and within the jurisdiction of the Committee to allow".

(3)The Appeal

The Avenue Road Eglinton Community Association, through their solicitors, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, has appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board. A date for the Board hearing has not been established. Various reasons for the appeal are cited in their solicitor's letter dated September 28, 1998. These include and are summarized as: prematurity pending site plan approval and the owner entering into a site plan agreement; prematurity pending completion of a Transportation Demand Management Plan; adverse traffic impacts; lack of conformity with the Zoning By-law and Official Plan; inappropriate shape of the residential building lot; variances are not minor; overview and shadow impacts; and prematurity pending a traffic and parking study for the area.

(4)Site Plan

On October 1, 1998, City Council approved the Site Plan for 1107 Avenue Road which permits the construction of an addition to the existing school structure for Marshall McLuhan Secondary School of the Toronto Catholic District School Board and a forty-four unit, 3-4 storey residence on the north-west corner of the site. Parking would be provided on-site, 75 spaces for the school in a surface parking lot and 44 for the residence in an underground parking lot. The Site Plan is dependent on the approval of the variances to the Zoning By-law.

In approving the Site Plan, Council required an Undertaking to which the owner has agreed. This Undertaking requires retention of the Hunt Club building which Heritage Toronto has requested. The Undertaking obliges the owner to provide, in addition to the standard requirements, extensive landscaping, a transportation demand management plan, on-site and adjacent transportation improvements, a $75,000 contribution to transportation improvements in the neighbourhood and a construction management plan and to enter into a heritage easement agreement.

Discussion

The need for this school has been determined by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB). As indicated in the report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to the Toronto Urban Environment and Development Committee on school facility reviews, dated September 28, 1998, "the provincial funding formula allows for additional secondary school space within the TCDSB, which the Board will be seeking in order to redress this shortage".

The proposed development conforms to the Official Plan. The proposed density and the use of the site for a school and a multi-unit residential building conforms to the Zoning By-law. Both the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law contemplate school uses and a variety of residential forms within residential designations and zones. With the exception of the previously noted minor variances, the development conforms to the Zoning By-law. Approval of the height variance would permit buildings which will be similar in height to existing buildings on the site.

Council has approved a Site Plan for the development which is dependent upon the approval of the minor variances to the Zoning By-law. During the site plan approval process, City staff reviewed a traffic impact study and additional traffic data which demonstrated that the proposed access arrangements are acceptable and, with minor alterations which will be paid for by the owner, within the capacity of the existing road network. City staff are working with residents of the area to assess the impact of alternative access arrangements and, if the neighbourhood agrees, the applicant will accept those alternative arrangements. Development cannot reasonably be prohibited while alternative access arrangements, which may or may not be acceptable to residents of the area, are considered. As a condition of Site Plan Approval, an Undertaking has been required by City Council and agreed to by the applicant which would secure various aspects of the site plan, including a $75,000 contribution to neighbourhood traffic improvements and significant public benefits including conservation of a heritage building, widening of the Avenue Road sidewalk and open space facilities which will be available to the neighbourhood after school hours.

Conclusions

The decision of the Committee of Adjustment with respect to these variances and consent supports Council's position on the Site Plan for this development. If Council supports the decision of the Committee of Adjustment, it may wish to direct the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in support of the Committee's decision.

Contact Name:

Wayne Morgan

City Planning Division, North Section

Telephone 392-1316

Fax 392-1330

E-mail wmorgan@city.toronto.on.ca

________

(A copy of the following was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on October 14, 1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk:

-Committee of Adjustment Decision dated September 9, 1998 regarding 1107 Avenue Road; and

-Communication (September 28, 1998) from Mr. David Tang, Gowling, Strathy & Henderson, addressed to the Deputy Secretary/Treasurer, South District, City of Toronto and the Ontario Municipal Board Secretary).

Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -

15 Seneca Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion by Councillor Chow:

"WHEREAS the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services in a letter to the Committee of Adjustment dated August 7, 1998, has advised that staff did not support the minor variance requested by the owner of 15Seneca Avenue, to maintain a rear accessory structure for habitation purposes; and

WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment refused the application in a decision dated August 19, 1998; and

WHEREAS the owner has appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment and an Ontario Municipal Board hearing has been scheduled for November 10, 1998;

-(August 7, 1998) from the Acting Director, City Planning, Toronto Community, addressed to the Administrator, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment;

-Committee of Adjustment Decision dated August 19, 1998; and

-Communication (August 31, 1998) from Mr. John C.T. Inglis, McCarthy Tetrault, addressed to the Administrator & Secretary Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment).

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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 November 12, 1998; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to expedite the previously requested reports on this matter.

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 October 14, 1998, and no one addressed the Toronto Community Council on October 14, 1998.

(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;

(iv)(July 20, 1998) from Ms. Victoria A. Masnyk, Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd.

(v)(July 27, 1998) from City Clerk, Toronto Community Council, forwarding the Community Council's action of July 22, 1998

(vi)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. William H. Roberts, Barrister and Solicitor, on behalf of the Swansea Area Ratepayers Association; and

(vii)(October 13, 1998) from Ms. Victoria A. Masnyk, Ripley Area Residents Group Ltd.

(b)Final Report - Application 197021 - Site Specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit the Existing Union Carbide Building to be Replaced with an 18-storey Residential Condominium Apartment Building at 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)amended the following final report by deleting Recommendation 2(vii), and adopted the report, as amended;

(2)requested that the City take whatever action is necessary to permit a layby access to the site from Eglinton Avenue, including the amendment of site plan drawings which will form part of the Statement of Approval/Undertaking to include a layby access from Eglinton Avenue and the issuance of the necessary permits; and

(3)requested the City Solicitor to submit the draft by-law to the meeting of the Toronto Community Council to be held on November 12, 1998, with the appropriate statutory notice:

(i)(October 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Application 197021 for Site Specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments and Site Plan Approval to Permit the Existing Union Carbide Building to be Replaced with an 18-storey Residential Condominium Apartment Building at 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue (North Toronto), and recommending:

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

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

"Lands known as 123 Eglinton Avenue East and 108 Redpath Avenue

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

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

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

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

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

(iii)the building is contained within the building envelope shown on Map1;

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ii)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Michael Freel, Chairman, Building and Development Committee, South Eglinton Ratepayers and Residents Association;

(iii)(October 8, 1998) from Ms. Shirley Morriss;

(iv)(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Marion Joppe, Chair, Heritage Toronto; and

(v)Landscape Concept Plan from Ms. Mary Bull, McCarthy Tétrault, on behalf of the Applicant.

Ms. Mary Bull, McCarthy Tétrault, on behalf of the applicant, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(c)Request for Speed Bumps - Area Bounded by Davenport Road, Dupont Street (Railway Tracks), Christie Street and Ossington Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998, as a non-deputation item:

(September 1, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting Request for Speed Bumps - Area Bounded by Davenport Road, Dupont Street (Railway Tracks), Christie Street and Ossington Avenue (Davenport).

(d)Preliminary Report on Rezoning Application No. 298004 for a Performing Arts Theatre/Lecture Hall, Victoria University, Part of 73 Queen's Park Crescent (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(September 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application No. 298004 for a Performing Arts Theatre/lecture Hall, Victoria University, part of 73 Queen's Park Crescent (Downtown), and recommending that I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application and to notify owners and residents within 120 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors.

(e)Preliminary Report on Rezoning Application No. 198016 for the Conversion of the Second to Fifth Floor of a Portion of 75 McCaul Street from Office Use to a Commercial School (Downtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(September 28, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application No. 198016 for the Conversion of the Second to Fifth Floor of a Portion of 75 McCaul Street from Office Use to a Commercial School (Downtown), 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 120 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors; and

(2)The owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval of this project, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of City Works and Emergency Services.

(f)Policy Directions: Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation.

The Toronto Community Council reports having recommended to the Board of Health that:

(1)the draft by-law attached to the joint report (August 26, 1998) from the Medical Officer of Health and the City Solicitor be adopted subject to the following amendments:

(a)deleting Sections 19 and 20;

(b)adding the Toronto Wildlife Centre to the list of facilities exempt from the prohibition in Section 3;

(c)amending Section 5 to read: "Every person who keeps an animal within the City's boundaries shall provide the animal or cause the animal to be provided with adequate and appropriate living conditions including care, food, water, shelter, exercise, attention and veterinary care as may be required to meet the species-specific needs of the animal and to keep the animal in good health.";

(d)amending Section 13(1) by adding the words, "euthanized for humane reasons";

(e)adding a new Section 24 to read:

"24.A special fund be set up by the City from the cat registration revenues to assist the elderly and poor with the cost of pet sterilization."

and renumbering the remaining Sections accordingly;

(f)adding a new Section to read:

"No one shall be permitted to set a snare, leghold, body-gripping or similar trap in the City of Toronto."

(2)the City adopt a policy whereby all animals that are adopted from municipal pounds are micro-chipped;

(3)the City adopt a policy whereby guard dogs and personal assistance dogs are micro-chipped;

(4)the City consult with a microchip company on the means to administer Recommendation Nos. (2) and (3);

(5)the Toronto Humane Society be requested to ensure that, as a matter of policy, all impounded animals are scanned for a microchip on their arrival at the shelter, so that the owner can be quickly identified;

(6)the following off leash hours be instituted in Jean Sibelius Park for a period of six months:

Weekdays : 7:00 a.m - 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

Weekends:8:30 a.m. - 10:30 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. - 10:30 p.m.

(7)the Park Users' Committee of the Annex Residents' Association be recognized as the "dog watch community group" for the Jean Sibelius Park, as requested by City policy on leash-free areas in City parks.

The Toronto Community Council also requested the Board of Health to submit the Board's recommendations on the issues of fines and enforcement to Council for its consideration, at the same time as the Board submits the draft by- law.

(i)(September 16, 1998) from the Interim Contact, Board of Health, forwarding the actions of the Board of Health of September 15, 1998 and requesting the Community Councils to hear deputations on draft animal care and control legislation and report back to the Board of Health with its recommendations;

(ii)(August 28, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 7 of the Community and Neighbourhoods Services Committee, titled "Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks", which was adopted, as amended, by The Council of the City of Toronto at its Meeting held on July 29, 30 and 31, 1998;

(iii)(October 8, 1998) from John Kerr, Annex Residents' Association, addressed to Councillor Adams;

(iv)(undated) from the Toronto Humane Society;

(v)(October 11, 1998) from Mr. Joseph Frankovic and Ms. Janet Lawrence;

(vi)(October 12, 1998) from Ms. Rhea Plosker and Mr. Michael Carter;

(vii)(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Ruth Mandel;

(viii)(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Liz White, Animal Alliance of Canada;

(ix)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Ian Clifford;

(x)(October 14, 1998) from Ms. Donna C. Perry;

(xi)(October 14, 1998) from Miss Heather Speakman;

(xii)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Eric Pressman, Leader of the Pack, Dog Walking Service;

(xiii)(October 15, 1998) from Ms. Dianne Eibner, Professional Dogwalkers Association; and

(xiv)(undated) from Ms. Daniela Quaglia, Toronto Humane Society

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

-Ms. Diane Eibner, Professional Dog Walkers Association;

-Mr. Eric Pressman, Leader of the Pack - Owner/Operator;

-Ms. Daniela Quaglia, Toronto Humane Society;

-Ms. Liz White, Director, Animal Alliance of Canada; and

-Mr. Paul Brown, Petnet.

Councillor Miller declared his interest in the foregoing matter insofar as that he has shares in a company which supplies goods to the Toronto Humane Society.

(g)Review of Impacts Related to Proposed Closings of Portions of Douro Street and Canniff Street - Massey-Ferguson Lands (Trinity-Niagara).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of this matter until its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998:

(i)(September 2, 1998) from the Director, Infrastructure Planning and Transportation, City Works Services Review of Impacts Related to Proposed Closings of Portions of Douro Street and Canniff Street - Massey-Ferguson Lands (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending:

(1) That in order to address potential traffic operations problems at the intersection of King Street West/Douro Street in the vicinity of Sudbury Street while maintaining access, and in a less costly manner than a full street closure, the following be adopted:

(a)The intersection of Douro Street and King Street West be restricted to right turns in and right turns out only in conjunction with the installation of the traffic signals at the Sudbury Street/King Street West intersection;

(b)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services monitor the operation of this intersection after the implementation of the right-in/right-out restriction and, if appropriate, designate the section of Douro Street, south of King Street West, for one-way southbound operations to address any operational problems at this intersection;OR

(2) That in the event Council decides a street closure of Douro Street, south of King Street West is appropriate, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services be requested to initiate the formal closing process and report back to the Toronto Community Council, with such report to address design details, property implications and costs related to the proposal;

(3) That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, report further on the feasibility and implications of the proposed closing of Canniff Street, east of Crawford Street; and

(4)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.

(ii)(October 8, 1998) from Mr. Patrick J. Devine, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Urbancorp;

(iii)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Ben Smith-Lea, President, Niagara Residents Association; and

(iv)(October 13, 1998) from Mr. Robert A. Howald, Executive Vice President, Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO);

(h)Intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue - Impact of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control on Traffic Operation (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998:

(September 28, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting the Intersection of Dorothy Street and Hiltz Avenue - Impact of All-Way "Stop" Sign Control on Traffic Operation (East Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)Introduction of Permit Parking on Davenport Road, between Bathurst Street and Christie Street (Midtown).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998;

(2)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report further on how to alleviate the existing traffic problems in the Bathurst-Ossington-Davenport area;

(3)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on "no parking from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m." on the south side of Christie Street; and

(4)requested the Ward Councillors from Midtown and Davenport to meet with staff to attempt to resolve the traffic problems in the area:

(October 1, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1 respecting Introduction of Permit Parking on Davenport Road, between Bathurst Street and Christie Street (Midtown), and recommending that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on Davenport Road, between Bathurst Street and Christie Street, within permit parking area 5C, to operate during the hours of 12:01a.m. and 10:00a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule P of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate Davenport Road, between Bathurst Street and Christie 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.

(j) Drain Claim - 156 Felstead Avenue (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following communication until its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998:

(September 18, 1998) from Councillor Bussin Respecting Drain Claim - 156 Felstead Avenue (East Toronto).

(k) Request for Parks Levy - 1510 to 1538 Dupont Street (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report on this matter at its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998:

(September 28, 1998) from Councillor Disero and Councillor Fotinos respecting Request for Parks Levy - 1510 to 1538 Dupont Street (Davenport)

(l)Disabled Front Yard Parking - 26 Ascot Avenue (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report on this matter at its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998:

(September 24, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting Disabled Front Yard Parking - 26Ascot Avenue (Davenport).

(m)Commercial Boulevard Parking at 232 Christie Street (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council on the request for commercial boulevard parking at 232 Christie Street:

(October 2, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting Commercial Boulevard Parking at 232Christie Street (Davenport).

(n)Casa do Alentejo, 1130 Dupont Street (Davenport).

The Toronto Community Council report having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the following matter at its meeting to be held on November 12, 1998:

(October 13, 1998) from Councillor Disero respecting Casa do Alentejo, 1130 Dupont Street.

(o)Change in Parking Regulations on Rosewell Avenue from Lawrence Avenue West to Cheritan Avenue (North Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report on the change in the parking regulations on Rosewell Avenue from Lawrence Avenue West to Cheritan Avenue; and

(2)requested that, in the meantime, the parking signs formerly in place on Rosewell Avenue, from Lawrence Avenue West to Cheritan Avenue, be replaced immediately, as requested by residents:

(October 14, 1998) from Councillor Johnston respecting Change in Parking Regulations on Rosewell Avenue from Lawrence Avenue West to Cheritan Avenue.

(p) Front Yard Parking at 586 Victoria Park Avenue (East Toronto).

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report, for deputations, until its meeting to be held in January, 1999, at which time the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services will report to the Community Council on the results of a poll:

(October 1, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services respecting Request for an Exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, to Permit Front Yard Parking at 586 Victoria Park Avenue (East Toronto), and recommending that:

(1)City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 586 Victoria Park Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Municipal Code Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code; and

(2)Should the Toronto Community Council consider this proposal, this report be deferred to the January 1999 meeting of the Toronto Community Council, at which time I will report on the results of a poll for the hearing of deputations.

(Councillor Miller, at the meeting of City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, declared his interest in Item (f), headed "Policy Directions: Harmonizing Animal Care and Control Legislation," embodied in the foregoing Clause, in that he has a financial interest in a company that does business with the Toronto Humane Society.)

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, October 14 and 15, 1998

(Report No. 12 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 28, 29 and 30, 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