Directions Report - 86 - 100 Bloor Street West

(University Theatre) - Further Official Plan

and Zoning By-law Amendments (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)if the applicant provides the required loading spaces at grade and thereby eliminates the need to provide loading spaces below grade, the applicant increase the previously agreed contribution pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act by $192,000, bringing the total contribution to $1,000,000;

(2)Section 1(11)(a) of By-law No. 133-1999 be further modified to require the relocation of the Pearcy House portal to another location in the site, rather than restricting it solely to Bellair Street;

(3) the report (July 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, as amended by Recommendation Nos. (1) and (2) be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested:

(1)representatives from Gentra Inc. to meet with representatives of 102 Bloor Street West, the Bloor Yorkville B.I.A., the Greater Yorkville Residents' Association and the ABC Residents Association prior to the O.M.B. Hearing to be held on August 9, 1999, in order to investigate the ability to provide underground access for trucks and garbage removal;

(2)the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to review the issue of the value of the Section 37 agreement, if there is agreement among the parties for the provision of loading and garbage removal in favour of 102 Bloor Street West, and if 102 Bloor Street West relinquishes its claim on access to Critchley Lane;

(3)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to consult the Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A. and the Greater Yorkville Residents' Association during the site plan review process.

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

Yeas:Councillors McConnell, Adams, Bossons, Chow, Fotinos, Layton, Pantalone, Rae and Walker - 9

Nays:Councillors Jakobek, Korwin-Kuczynski and Silva - 3

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (July 14, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend (i) conditional approval respecting further modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 136 and Zoning By-law No. 133-1999 and (ii) direction to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council agree to support modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 136 and site specific Zoning By-law No. 133-1999 for 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre), requested by the owner, but only subject to the owner satisfying the conditions set out in Sections 4 and 5 of this report.

(2)That the City Solicitor and appropriate civic staff be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in respect of City Council's conditional approval of these modifications.

Background:

At its meeting of October 1, 1998, City Council adopted my September 1, 1998 Final Report respecting Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments for a Mixed Retail, Cinema and Restaurant Development at 86, 96 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) and authorized the introduction of Bills in Council.

On March 4, 1999, City Council passed Official Plan Amendment No. 136 and Zoning By-law No. 133-1999 which were appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by a single appellant and which will be the subject of an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on August 9, 1999.

On July 8, 1999, the owner of the University Theatre site filed Application No. 197027 to effect modifications to the previously approved development.

The requested changes are required primarily to reflect the elimination of the approved nine screen theatre complex and to reduce the costs associated with the required below grade loading.

Specifically, the requested changes are as follows:

(i)the gross floor area previously intended for the cinema (7585 m2) is now proposed to be allocated to the residential component of the project;

(ii)the maximum number of dwelling units are proposed to increase from 160 to 214;

(iii)the off-site parking associated with the deleted theatre complex is proposed to be eliminated; and

(iv)the required loading spaces are proposed to be relocated from below grade to grade within the building.

The approved maximum total floor area and maximum building height will not be changed. There will be no change in the amount or type of public benefits to be provided by the developer and no change in the Heritage preservation plan for the facades of the former University Theatre and Pearcy House.

Comments:

1.0Applicant

The revised application was submitted by Kim Kovar, Aird and Berlis, Barristers and Solicitors, BCE Place, Suite 1800, Box 754, 181 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario M5J 2T9, on behalf of Gentra Inc. and Tridel Builders Inc., on July 8, 1999.

2.0Site

Nos. 86, 96, and 100 Bloor Street West are located on the north side of Bloor Street West, at Bellair Street. The combined site area is 3579.5 m2, with approximately 71 metres of frontage along Bloor Street West and Critchley Lane and approximately 50 metres of frontage along Bellair Street. (Key Map)

3.0Approved Development

The approved mixed-use project, with a total density of 9.4 times coverage, accommodates:

(i)6067m2 of non-residential gross floor area (or 1.7 times coverage) for retail uses;

(ii)7585m2 of non-residential gross floor area (2.1 times coverage) for nine movie theatres, containing a total of 2090 seats;

(iii)160 residential dwelling units (with a residential gross floor area of 20,015m2 or 5.6 times coverage); and

(iv)a four-level underground parking garage containing 395 parking spaces and three loading spaces, plus off-site parking for the theatre.

The height and massing of the approved building can be described in two parts. First, the non-residential component of the building, which contains the retail uses, nine cinemas and the main entrance to the residential tower, is 38 metres in height. The residential tower component, which is situated on the south-east end of the site, is 84.4 metres (or 25 storeys) tall at its main roof line. The upper floors of the tower have been stepped back to reduce the visual impact of the bulk of the building and to improve sunlight access to the north. At its most northerly point, the tower is set back 9.3 metres from the north property line. While the tower component of the building is relatively tall, it covers less than half of the site (Figures 1 and 2).

The density and height of the approved development generally reflect the surrounding context, and its massing addresses wind and sunlight access concerns.

4.0Proposed Amendments

The proposed amendments, as specified in the above section entitled "Background", are few in number, but their effect on the massing of the building and on the appearance of the building's north elevation, adjacent to the Village of Yorkville Park, would be profound. An analysis of each of the proposed changes is set out below.

4.1Land Use

The elimination of the nine screen theatre complex having a floor area of 7585 square metres and the addition of 54 dwelling units having the same floor area result in a significant reduction in the mass of the building because of the large volume of the deleted theatres. Specifically, the location, height and volume of the residential tower remain unchanged while the height of the commercial podium drops from 39 metres along Bloor Street and Critchley Lane to 21.5 and 12 metres respectively (Figures 3, 4 and 5).

This change in building mass would have the advantage of improving sunlight access onto the park and preserving views from the residential building to the west (102 Bloor Street West). However, the retail podium along Bloor Street is at its minimum acceptable height required to appropriately frame the street and aesthetically support the historic University Theatre facade. Unfortunately, the previously approved building envelope which forms part of By-law No. 133-1999 limits the maximum building mass and does not specify a minimum building mass or "build to line". Therefore, I recommend that the requested change in land use be approved on condition that a minimum "build to line" is included in the by-law. The applicant has no objection to this requirement.

Famous Players have written to express concern that, in their opinion, they were forced out of the proposed project (Appendix A). My only comment on this point would be to clarify that the previous approval did not require the inclusion of theatre uses and that the owners will continue to be required to preserve the historic University Theatre facade.

4.2Elimination of Off-Site Parking

With the elimination of the cinemas, the requirement for off-site leased parking spaces is eliminated. I have no objection to this proposed modification.

4.3Location of Loading Spaces

The approved loading spaces were required by by-law to be located in the underground garage. The garage was designed to be accessed directly from Bellair Street. The applicant now, in order to improve the economics of the project, proposes to locate 2 Type B and 1 Type G loading spaces at grade, inside the building. Access to the loading spaces and underground garage would be off of Critchley Lane (Figure 6).

The applicant has tried to reduce the potential negative impact of the loading facility on the adjacent Village of Yorkville Park by:

(i)separating the loading and vehicular accesses so as to reduce the size of the opening in the building's rear elevation;

(ii)limiting the height and width of the loading access to a single truck width ( 7m wide by 4m high). The interior of the loading area widens sufficiently to accommodate the three required loading spaces;

(iii)aligning the loading access with a stand of birch trees in the adjacent Village of Yorkville Park, thereby partially screening the access from view from Cumberland Street.

Notwithstanding these precautions, staff were not convinced that the negative impacts of the loading facility could be mitigated. Therefore, staff engaged the applicant in the exploration of further options and agreed to support two access options, subject to the following conditions:

(i)that vehicular access, loading and any layby from Critchley Lane occur within 30 metres of the eastern property line at Bellair Street;

(ii)that access off Bellair Street would only be permitted if, as in the approved development, parking and loading were accommodated below grade. The access would be required to be located within 22 metres of the northern property line at Critchley Lane through an opening no greater than 10 metres in width;

(iii)that, if loading is provided at grade, the owner agree to provide knock-out panels at the P1 parking level for a potential connection to 102 Bloor Street West; and

(iv)that, if loading is provided at grade, the owner agree to provide easements through the P1 parking level in favour of the residents of 102 Bloor Street West.

These conditions would permit:

(i)a continuous retail frontage along Bellair Street;

(ii)a continuous retail frontage along approximately two thirds of Critchley Lane;

(iii)the potential to close two thirds of the length of Critchley Lane adjacent to this property should alternative access for 102 Bloor Street West be secured as discussed above or otherwise; and

(iv)the construction of the residential lobby at the corner of Critchley Lane and Bellair Street.

The design of the vehicular access and loading facility will be worked out in the context of the site plan approval process. It is hoped that the loading facilities will be accommodated deep in the interior of the building and not be visible from the Lane. This would be made possible through the use of truck turn table(s). The applicant has agreed to such measures in order to eliminate the cost of providing below grade loading.

In consultation with staff of Works and Emergency Services, and with the agreement of the applicant, the wording of the site specific by-law loading clause will be amended to require the loading spaces "with generally level surfaces and access designed so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion".

4.4Proposed Layby

When Toronto Community Council considered my Final Report, it heard from representatives of the local business community as well as area residents requesting that the project be altered to accommodate a vehicular layby for residents. The applicant and my staff considered this request but could not comply because of the physical constraints imposed by the theatres. With the theatres removed, the applicant has proposed a combined layby and vehicular access off of Critchley Lane adjacent to the reconfigured residential lobby (Figure 6). The inclusion of the layby is acceptable to me. However, the design of the combined access and layby will change somewhat as a result of my requirement to locate all vehicular and loading access within 30 metres of the Bellair property line.

5.0Other Matters

5.1Closing the west portion of Critchley Lane

Vehicular and loading access to 102 Bloor Street West is currently from Bellair Street via Critchley Lane, while access to 110 Bloor Street West is via a private driveway to Cumberland Street on land leased from the City of Toronto. Subject to the agreement of the owners of 110 Bloor Street West and the upgrading of the private driveway, it is possible to reorient vehicular access for 102 Bloor Street thereby permitting the closure of a substantial portion of Critchley Lane. Likewise, if all vehicular access for 102 Bloor Street West can be provided by 86 to 100 Bloor Street West, then a significant portion of the Lane can be closed. The applicant does not object to the closure of the Lane adjacent to their property, west of their vehicular access.

I recommend that the applicant's commitment to this closure be secured as a condition of approval.

Conclusions:

The applicant is seeking further modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 136 and Zoning By-law No. 133-1999 to be considered by the Ontario Municipal Board on August 9, 1999. While the proposed changes are few in number, their effect on the massing and servicing of the building is significant. Therefore, I recommend that the proposed modifications to Application No. 197027 be supported, subject to the owner satisfying the conditions set out in Sections 4 and 5 of this report, and that the City Solicitor and appropriate civic staff be directed to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in support of City Council's conditional approval.

Staff Contact:

Raymond David

Manager, North Section

Phone: 416-392-7188

Fax: 416-392-1330

E-mail: rdavid@toronto.ca

--------

Appendix A

Comments

1.Famous Players, dated June 24, 1999.

I am writing to you on a matter of some urgency and to solicit your assistance.

As you and members of Council may know, we have been involved as a major prospective tenant in the redevelopment project at 86-100 Bloor Street West with the owners of the lands, Brookfield Developments Limited and Gentra Inc. The project received the approval of your Council in March of this year at a density of 9.4 f.s.i., and included the redevelopment of the historic University Theatre in a mixed-use density residential complex.

As you may know, Famous Players built and operated the original University Theatre at 100 Bloor Street West from 1949 until 1986, when the lease expired and we ceased to occupy it. When we were approached in early 1996 by Brookfield Developments to be part of the redevelopment of the theatre site, we were very excited and quickly agreed to become a part of the revival and redevelopment of this historic landmark in midtown Toronto. We wanted to restore and breathe new life into a property that had tragically sat vacant, but not forgotten, for the intervening 12 years.

Since March 1996, we have been an active part of the redevelopment project with Brookfield, and have helped design and recreate the theatre portion of the project. We have put much time and effort into rethinking and incorporating the historic landmark parts of the old theatre so that they would blend seamlessly with a state-of-the-art 21^st century entertainment complex. We hoped it would be a welcome return of a significant element that would invigorate and enliven Toronto's version of 5^th Avenue. Your Council and staff responded with equal enthusiasm and support, and awarded the developers of the project a 3.4x density bonus for incorporating this historic element into their project.

You can imagine our complete shock and dismay when on May 29^th of this year, after working on this project for two years under an agreement to lease with the owners (that had to be extended twice by both sides because of the timing of municipal approvals) that the owners of the project abruptly advised us that they were dropping the theatres from the redevelopment project. The reasons given to us for doing so make no sense at all, but we have not succeeded in the intervening two weeks in persuading them to change their minds. At the same time, we understand that they intend to try to keep the density bonus of 3.4 f.s.i. and to replace the theatres 2.1 f.s.i. density with additional residential condominium units.

We have legal remedies available to us, and we are studying them at the present time. However, the matter of greater public importance is the fact that the opportunity to redevelop and restore a historic landmark in Toronto may be lost. We intend to try to use reasoned arguments and friendly persuasion with Brookfield and Gentra to persuade them to return to the scheme approved by Council. We hope and ask, however, for your support and your greater powers of persuasion as the City fathers who hold the keys to development approvals and who also have the greater public interest at heart, to assist us in persuading the developer to return to a project that will restore a long lost jewel into the crown of the City of Toronto for the benefits of the residents and the magnificence of the City of Toronto for many years to come.

We intend to appear before you when this matter comes forward again before any committee of Council, and would be pleased to provide you with any additional information that you may require in this matter.

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it, during consideration of the foregoing matter, the following communications:

-(July 2, 1999) from Mr. Brian Parker, Smith Lyons, obo Famous Players Inc.;

-(Undated) from Mr. Perry Dellio, Perrys Colonnade;

-Clause No. 26 Contained in Report No. 6 of the Toronto Community Council, Headed "86 and 100 Bloor Street West (University Theatre) - Private Developer Percent for Public Art Plan (Midtown)"; which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its Meeting Held on April 13, 14 and 15, 1999;

-Clause No. 1 Contained in Report No. 4 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning - 86 and 100 Bloor Street West (Midtown)"; which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of the City of Toronto at its Meeting Held on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999;

-(July 13, 1999) from Ms. Lisa McGee, General Manager, Bloor Yorkville BIA; and

-(June 30, 1999) from Mr. Peter Doering, Vice President, Asset Management, Gentra Inc.

--------

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

-Mr. John S. Bailey, Famous Players;

-Mr. Rodney W.J. Seyffert, Smith Lyons;

-Mr. Budd Sugarman, Yorkville B.I.A.;

-Mr. Gordon Dreger, L & A Group of Companies;

-Ms. Lisa McGee, Bloor-Yorkville B.I.A.; and

-Ms. Kim Kovar, Aird & Berlis.