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@toronto.ca.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES

AND OTHER COMMITTEES

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 2, 3 and 4, 1998

TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 2

1Extension of Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998:Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue, Berryman Street and Bishop Street - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal - Retention of Outside Consultants (Midtown)

2Tree Removal - 304 St. Clair Avenue East (Midtown

3Tree Injury - 247 Glenrose Avenue (Midtown)

4Tree Removal - 492 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)

5Request for Angled Driveway Widening - 228 Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport)

6Driveway Widening Appeal -170 Woburn Avenue (North Toronto)

7Maintenance of a Brick Wall - 2 Drumsnab Road (Midtown)

8Tree Removal - 12 Willard Gardens (High Park)

9Tree Removal - 114 Highbourne Road (North Toronto)

10Front Yard Parking - 586 Victoria Park Avenue - Results of the Poll (East Toronto)

11Appeal of Driveway Widening -103 Moore Avenue (Midtown)

12Draft Zoning By-Law - Lands Bounded by -Queen, Victoria, Shuter and Bond Streets -St. Michael's Hospital (Downtown)

13Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -130 Gerrard Street East, 337 Jarvis Street and12, 14, 16 and 18 Horticultural Avenue (Downtown)

14Tree Removal - 105 Hazelwood Avenue (Don River)

15Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code - 276 King Street West (Downtown)

16Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe - 2549 Yonge Street (North Toronto)

17Tree Removal - 250 Lytton Boulevard (North Toronto)

18Tree Removal - 20 A Thornwood Road (Midtown)

19Ontario Municipal Board - Final Settlement- Winchester Square (Don River)

20Application for Consent Under Chapter 276, Article I, Ravines, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -86 Glenview Avenue (North Toronto)

21Proposed Amendment to Section 37 Agreement -33 Bay Street - World Trade Centre (Downtown)

22Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -(Downtown, North Toronto and Don River)

23Introduction of Permit Parking on the South Side of Ostend Avenue, Between Durie Street and Windermere Avenue (High Park)

24Installation of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces- Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

25Installation of Speed Humps -Briar Hill Avenue Between Caldow Road andChaplin Crescent - (North Toronto)

26Construction of an Underground Pedestrian Tunnel Connecting Rear of 100 Sherbourne Street to Rear of 320-328 Adelaide Street East (Downtown)

27Lay Out and Dedication for Public Highway Purposes -North End of Alberta Avenue (Davenport)

28Installation of a Snow Melting System -61 Hillholm Road (Midtown)

29Designation - 84 Woodlawn Avenue East (Midtown)

30Nomination - Swansea Town HallBoard of Management (High Park)

31Naming of Private Lane -322 Clinton Street (Trinity-Niagara)

32Designation - 540 Dovercourt Road(Massey-Quick House) (Trinity-Niagara)

33Implementation of Enhanced Parking/Standing Regulations - Bremner Boulevard, from York Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West (Downtown)

34Delineation of a Day Care Pick-up/Drop-off Area -Bushell Avenue, East Side at the South End (Don River)

35Proposed Settlement - Official Plan, Zoning By-Law and Subdivision Appeals - 2230, 2324 and 2336 Gerrard Street East (East of Main) (East Toronto)

36Work Program, Schedule and Consultation Process for the Part II Official Plan Review - Port Industrial District and Portion of the East Bayfront (Don River)

37Committee of Adjustment Appeal - 2055 Danforth Avenue (East Toronto)

38Application for a Liquor Licence -1985 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

39Other Items Considered by the Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 2

OF THE TORONTO COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on January 20, 1999,

submitted by Councillor Kyle Rae, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on February 2, 3 and 4, 1998

Extension of Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998:

Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue, Berryman Street and

Bishop Street - Ontario Municipal Board Appeal -

Retention of Outside Consultants (Midtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the in effect time period of Interim Control By-law 726-1998 be extended for two months; and

(2)a maximum of $25,000.00 be allocated from a Corporate Contingency Account to retain outside consultants to testify at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing yet to be scheduled to hear appeals of Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998 passed by the City.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (December 30, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The Legal Services Division is requesting Council authority to retain outside consultants for an Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

A maximum of $25,000.00 to be allocated from a Corporate Contingency Account to retain outside consultants to testify at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing yet to be scheduled to hear appeals of Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998 passed by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that a maximum of $25,000.00 be allocated from a Corporate Contingency Account to retain outside consultants to testify at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing yet to be scheduled to hear appeals of Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998 passed by the City.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On October 2, 1998, Council passed Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998 respecting residentially zoned lands fronting on Hazelton Avenue, Webster Avenue, Berryman Street and Bishop Street. By-law No. 726-1998 prohibits the erection of any building or structure or the construction of any addition to and/or enlargement of any existing building or structure within the area shown within heavy lines on the map attached to the by-law. The by-law stipulates that it is in effect for a period of six months from October 2, 1998.

Council directed the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to undertake a study of land use policies to assess the existing zoning performance standards affecting the land and any amendment, addition and/or deletion to those zoning performance standards that might better reflect the heritage character of the study area with a report to be provided no later than March 1, 1999. It was noted in the motion that the area exhibits special historical and architectural characteristics which the present zoning does not adequately protect.

On November 12, 1998, the Toronto Community Council considered a communication from Councillor Bossons respecting 45 Berryman Street. The Toronto Community Council requested that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report directly to Council on November 25, 1998 on the status of a building permit application for 45 Berryman Street and an exception to Interim Control By-law No. 726-1998 to permit immediate completion of construction of an addition.

Council, at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 (Clause No. 58 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 14) received for information a report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending against an exception.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Four appeals have been received to the Interim Control By-law:

(1)The owner of 59 Hazelton Avenue represented by Robert Jarvis, Q.C. of Meretsky, Jarvis and Associates;

(2)The owners of 45 Berryman Street represented by Michael Kovacevic of Smith Lyons;

(3)York Row Limited, the owners of 116-134 Yorkville Avenue and 10 Hazelton Avenue represented by Adam Brown of Brown Dryer Karol; and

(4)The Toronto Catholic District School Board.

Consultation with the appellants has revealed that there could be up to eight professional witnesses called by the parties in total, with the hearing occurring over five days.

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has indicated that it would be appropriate to retain outside planing consultants. In that regard, an historical architect and a planner will be retained to support Council's actions.

Conclusions:

We estimate that an upset limit of $25,000.00 would be sufficient and recommend that amount be set aside from a Corporate Contingency Account for this purpose.

Contact Name:

Raymond Feig, Solicitor

Telephone:392-7224

Fax:392-0024

E-mail:rfeig@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To seek authority to extend the in effect time period of Interim Control By-law 726-1998 for the Yorkville Triangle in order to allow for completion of the land use planning study and any Zoning By-law amendments.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that the in effect time period of Interim Control By-law 726-1998 be extended for three months.

Background:

At its meeting held October 1 and 2, 1998, City Council adopted a Notice of Motion by Councillor John Adams to impose Interim Control in the Yorkville Triangle area. As adopted, Interim Control By-law 726-1998 states that no person shall erect any building or structure or construct any addition to and/or enlarge any existing building or structure in the Yorkville Triangle area for six months. When Council enacted and passed By-law 726-1998, it directed Planning staff to conduct a land use planning study to assess the existing zoning provisions, and to amend, add to or delete those performance standards that might better reflect the heritage character of the area. Interim Control By-law 726-1998 expires on April 1, 1999.

Comments:

Planning staff are working on the planning study, in consultation with Heritage Toronto and representatives for the area residents. In order to allow for completion of the study, including completion of a Department report, and to provide time for notification and enactment of any recommended Zoning By-law amendments, it will be necessary to extend the in effect time period for the Interim Control By-law by three months.

Contact Name:

Michael Mizzi

City Planner, City Planning Division

Telephone: 416-392-1324

Fax: 416-392-1330

E-mail: mmizzi@toronto.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, which where forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover:

-(January 19, 1999 and December 1, 1998) from Mr. Michael G. Kovacevic, Smith Lyons, Barristers and Solicitors; and

-(January 19, 1999) from Mr. Robert E. Jarvis, Q.C., Meretsky Jarvis and Associates, Barristers and Solicitors.

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

-Mr. Robert E. Jarvis, Q.C., Barrister and Solicitor, Meretsky Jarvis & Associates;

-Mrs. Marie Smith, Toronto, Ontario;

-Mr. Alexander Kaszuba, Toronto, Ontario; and

-Mr. Robert Truman, Truman and Associates, on behalf of residents in the area.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communications:

(i)(January 29, 1999) from Mr. Robert E. Jarvis, Meretsky, Jarvis & Associates on behalf of Ms. Katherine Stewart, 59 Hazelton Avenue, in opposition of the Interim Control By-law No. 726-98; and

(ii)form letters from 15 residents and/or property owners in the Yorkville Triangle area, in support of the Interim Control By-law No.726-1998.)

Tree Removal - 304 St. Clair Avenue East (Midtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 304 St. Clair Avenue East and that the applicant be requested to enlarge the hole in the deck to accommodate the growth of the tree trunk.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that is growing in the middle of a wooden deck has been filed by Ms. Jill Macrae, 304 St. Clair Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario, M4T1P4, owner of 304 St. Clair Avenue East.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; or

(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 fifty-six centimetre diameter white oak in fair condition. The oak tree is growing from the centre of a rear yard deck and consequently the deck will have to be cut back periodically to allow for the expansion of the tree trunk. The arborist report prepared by Bostock Tree Service, dated October 5, 1998, that accompanies the application states that the tree leans over the house, threatening potential damage. In the opinion of staff, the main stem of the tree is upright with no visible lean toward the house. The tree should be pruned to remove deadwood that overhangs the roof of the house. The tree is a viable specimen and if monitored regularly by a qualified tree expert it should remain as a significant asset to the community for many years to come.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

Tree Injury - 247 Glenrose Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for injury to the tree at 247 Glenrose Avenue, on the condition that during construction of the addition, the applicant agrees to hire an arborist to implement the tree preservation plan prepared by Thomson, Bruce and Associates, dated December 8, 1998, and filed as part of this application.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to injure one tree on private property in order to build an addition to the rear of 249 Glenrose Avenue has been filed by the owner, Mr. David F. W. Cohen, 249 Glenrose Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4T 1L1. The application has been authorized by Mrs. Margaret Phelan, 247 Glenrose Avenue. Toronto, Ontario, M4T 1L1, owner of the tree in question.

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below.

(1)Issue a permit for injury to the tree on the condition that during construction of the addition, the applicant agrees to hire an arborist to implement the tree preservation plan prepared by Thomson, Bruce and Associates, dated December 8, 1998, and filed as part of this application; or

(2)Refuse to issue a permit for tree injury requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign plans for the rear addition.

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy-five centimetre diameter silver maple in fair condition. The tree is located at the rear of 247 Glenrose Avenue within two metres of the 247/249 property line. The proposed rear addition at 249 Glenrose Avenue will require excavation up to approximately two metres from the silver maple tree impacting a significant portion of the root system. The arborist report prepared by Thomson, Bruce and Associates, that accompanies this application recommends the implementation of several steps to lessen the impact of the construction on the health of the tree.

The construction of the rear addition will injure the silver maple tree and if a permit is issued for injury it is essential that an arborist be contracted to implement the recommendations put forth in the arborist's report to minimize this injury.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

--------

Mr. David Cohen, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Tree Removal - 492 Eglinton Avenue East (North Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 492 Eglinton Avenue East, conditional on:

(i)the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the trees; and

(ii)the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove three trees on private property that cause concern due to:

(i)tree branches interfering with the roof of the house; and

(ii)damage to the garage floor by the roots.

The application has been filed by Ms. Raluca Maruntselu, 110 Erskine Avenue, No. 1402, Toronto, Ontario, M2J 5B9, owner of 492 Eglinton Avenue East. The application has been authorized by Mr. M. Sargeant, 494 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario, M4P 1N4.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; or

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on:

(ii)the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The trees in question are a thirty-four centimetre diameter elm and two Norway maples with diameters of forty-seven and forty-eight centimetres. The three trees are in fair condition and their combined canopy provides a visual screen as well as environmental benefits to the community. The trees are located at the rear of the property in close proximity to an existing shed/garage. The concrete floor of this structure has been cracked and broken up possibly as a result of tree roots. If the proposed replacement garage is to be constructed on the same footprint as the existing garage the trees will not be significantly impacted by the construction and their removal will not be required. If the trees do remain, there is the potential that further cracking and heaving to a new garage floor could result due to the expansion of roots. The three trees in question would have to be removed if the applicant is proposing to construct a larger structure to replace the existing garage. The trees can be pruned to eliminate the problem of branches interfering with the roof of the house. The applicant has indicated that a replacement linden tree would be planted near the northwest corner of the property if a permit is issued for the removal of the three trees in question.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

--------

Mrs. Raluca Maruntselu, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Request for Angled Driveway Widening -

228 Blackthorn Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying all applicable fees.

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 this matter, if necessary.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (September 2, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, City Works Services:

Purpose:

To report on a request for angled driveway widening which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licenses, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. As this is a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code due to insufficient space to meet the required clearance from back of the City sidewalk and the landscaping requirements.

Background:

At its meeting on July 22, 1998, Toronto Community Council had before it a communication (July16, 1998) from Councillor Disero, respecting angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, and requested me to report to its meeting of September 16, 1998.

Comments:

Ms. Stella Kneebone, owner of 228 Blackthorn Avenue, submitted an application for driveway widening in March 1992, to park adjacent to the mutual driveway fronting the property. The application was refused due to insufficient space to accommodate the parking space and due to the width of the mutual driveway being greater than 2.44 metres in width, as this did not meet the criteria of the former City of Toronto Zoning By-law 438-86 which governed driveway widening at the time of the application.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. On July 5, 1996, Chapter 248 of the Municipal Code was amended by By-law No. 1996-0363. The current criteria of the Code requires that:

(a)the parking space be perpendicular to the sidewalk;

(b)the parking area be located no closer than 0.3 metre to the rear edge of the sidewalk or to any portion of the building;

(c)in the case where the parking area cannot be located perpendicular to the sidewalk, the entrance to the angled parking area and the vehicle must be no closer than 2.0 metres to the rear edge of the sidewalk;

(d)a minimum of 50 percent of the area on private property fronting the building to be landscaped open space, and a minimum of 15 percent of the area to be soft landscaping;

(e)on the City boulevard, a minimum of 15 percent of the area must be soft landscaping and all other areas other than the walkway and the parking pad must be soft landscaping; and

(f)the parking area be paved using semi-permeable paving materials.

We have investigated the feasibility of angle parking at this location and have determined that it does not meet the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code for the following reasons:

(1)There is insufficient space to accommodate an angled parking space and still meet the 2.0metres setback from the sidewalk; and

(2)Landscaped open space and soft landscaping requirements on private property cannot be met.

The existing steps that lead to the front entrance of the property are situated 4.5 metres back of sidewalk. In order to provide the 2.0 metres setback requirement from the sidewalk, and provide sufficient space to accommodate a standard mid-size vehicle, major modifications to the steps and entrance to the property would have to be made. In addition, even with modifications to the steps and entrance to the property, the location would still not meet the landscaping requirements under the Municipal Code.

Conclusions:

The present configuration of the front yard at 228 Blackthorn Avenue does not provide sufficient clearances for angle parking. In addition, even if the owner was to modify the steps and the building entrance to accommodate the setback requirements of 2.0 metres back of sidewalk, the landscaping requirements required under the Municipal Code could not be met. Under the circumstances, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

Driveway Widening Appeal -

170 Woburn Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the request for driveway widening at 170 Woburn Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying all applicable fees.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January4, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on an application for driveway widening parking which does not meet the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. 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 City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit driveway widening at 170 Woburn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

Councillor Michael Walker, in his communication to the Chair of Toronto Community Council, dated November 19, 1998, together with a communication dated October 8, 1998 from Mr. Sean Rourke, owner of 170 Woburn Avenue, requested an appeal to staff's decision to refuse the application for driveway widening at this location.

Comments:

Mr. Sean Rourke, owner of 170 Woburn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4E 2K5, submitted an application on October 8, 1998 to park a vehicle adjacent to the mutual driveway in front of the property.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. One of the criteria of the Code prohibits driveway widening where the property has access to a parking facility on the lot, or where there is adequate space for parking on the lot accessible by means of a public street or lane.

Inspection has shown that the property has access to the rear yard by means of a 4.2 m wide public laneway. The public laneway was reconstructed in concrete in 1983 and it is in good condition.

The back yard is enclosed by a newly constructed board fence. There is a large 2.78 metres wide gate situated in the middle of the rear fence that opens into the laneway, which can easily provide access to a vehicle parking in the back yard.

There is a large 110 cm diameter private tree at the rear of the property next to the fence on the west side of the property, and 5.8 metres from the rear fence.

The specifications for private trees over 30 cm in diameter are governed by Chapter 331, Trees, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, which require that no paving be installed within 2.4metres from the base of the tree. Inspection shows that the distance from the tree to the fence on the east side of the property is 6.1 metres, and when taking the clearance required around the tree into consideration, there is an area of 3.7 metres in width to accommodate a full size parking area. Most of the rear yard is sodded, and there are no obstacles to prevent parking, in the area of the back yard adjacent to the laneway. Other landscaping features, i.e. walkway and small patio, are located in the area between the tree and the house.

Based on the above reasons, Mr. Rourke was informed that his application was refused.

Notwithstanding the laneway access to the rear, the proposed parking space at the front of the property would meet the physical criteria of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 248.

Conclusions:

As the property has access to the rear of the property by means of an improved public laneway, and there is sufficient space to accommodate a parking area, this location is not eligible for driveway widening. 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 (November19,1998) from Councillor Walker:

Recommendation:

That the Toronto Community Council recommend that the request for driveway widening at 170 Woburn Avenue be approved, subject to the applicant entering into the agreements and paying all applicable fees.

Background:

The City of Toronto Works and Emergency Services denied the application for Driveway Widening at the front of the above mentioned address as they felt the owner has access to a parking facility on the property, serviced by a public laneway at the rear of the premises.

The owner of 170 Woburn Avenue has cited several concerns in the attached letter with regards to parking at the rear of his property:

(a)Building a rear parking pad would certainly compromise the existing Silver Maple tree in the backyard (three feet in diameter);

(b)$5,000.00 has already been invested for landscaping the backyard for trees, shrubs, bushes, as well as for a new wood fence; and

(c)The owners of this address have a one year old daughter, and feel that the existing alterations to the backyard have increased the safety factor for their child. This would be negatively effected if a car had to be parked in the backyard.

Since there is ample room to park a car on the front of the property, there is no permit parking currently on the street and there are precedents existing on Woburn Avenue where other homes have been granted permits for driveway widening. I therefore, ask the Toronto Community Council to adopt the above-noted recommendation to enable the owner of 170 Woburn Avenue to proceed with his application for driveway widening.

________

Dr. Sean Rourke, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Maintenance of a Brick Wall - 2 Drumsnab Road (Midtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November30, 1998) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request to maintain a 2.0 metres high brick wall within the City's right-of-way on Drumsnab Road which is not permitted under the former Metro By-law No. 211-74. 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.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve the maintenance of the 2.0 metres high brick wall within the City's right-of-way, provided that the owner enters into an encroachment agreement with the City of Toronto; and

(2)the agreement be prepared in accordance with procedures established by the former City of Toronto and in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks.

Background:

At its meeting of July 29, 1997, the former Metro Planning and Transportation Committee received a communication from Councillor Bossons in support of a request from Mr. J. Layton, the owner of 2 Drumsnab Road, to install a 2.0 metres high brick wall encroaching approximately 1.5 metres onto the abutting former Metro road right-of-way. The Committee referred the matter to the former Commissioner of Transportation for a report to be submitted to the next meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee.

In a report dated August 20, 1997, the former Commissioner of Transportation indicated that because of the permanency of a brick wall, in lieu of the brick wall proposed that a temporary wood fence could be permitted. The report therefore recommended that authority be granted for a temporary wooden fence subject to the owner entering into an agreement for the maintenance of the fence.

At its meeting of September 24 and 25, 1997, the former Council of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto adopted the August 20, 1997 report and requested the former Commissioner of Transportation to submit a report to the appropriate Standing Committee of the new City of Toronto Council on the feasibility of permitting the owner of 2 Drumsnab Road to purchase the Metro property which would be enclosed by the temporary fence.

Comments:

Mr. Jeff Layton, owner of 2 Drumsnab Road, Toronto, Ontario M4W 3A5 requested permission to construct and maintain a 2.0 metres high brick wall within the City's right-of-way to enhance privacy of his property and minimize some of the noise which carries from the nearby Bayview Avenue extension. The applicant felt that a brick wall would be more effective in minimizing the noise than a wooden fence. After further consideration, it was determined that the brick wall could be permitted.

Mr. Layton was informed of the regulations pertaining to the construction of the brick wall including the requirement that the owner must enter into an agreement for the maintenance of the brick wall within the City's right-of-way. At his request, he was provided with a copy of the standard form of agreement for his review. In reviewing the agreement, Mr. Layton expressed concern about Clause 9 of the standard agreement which indicates as follows:

"If, due to presence of the Encroachment, the City or any public utility company or system incurs any additional costs in the repair, maintenance or construction of its facilities or services, the Licensee shall pay all such additional costs to the appropriate party, immediately upon demand. The decision of the Commissioner as to the amount of such additional costs, if any, shall be final and binding."

In our letter of July 10, 1998, Mr. Layton was advised that this clause is a standard requirement in the agreement to protect the City's interests.

Subsequently, a permit was issued for the construction of a 2.0 metres high brick wall within the City's right-of-way in front of 2 Drumsnab Road with the condition that the owner enters into an agreement for the maintenance of the wall, which was signed by Mr. Layton on August 21, 1998.

As indicated above, the brick wall has been constructed in accordance with the conditions set out in the construction permit with the exception of Mr. Layton signing an encroachment agreement. In a letter dated October 4, 1998, Mr. Layton requested that clause 9 of the standard form of agreement be deleted. The subject clause requires that the owner be responsible for any additional costs that may be incurred by the City or any public utility company or system in the repair, maintenance or construction of its facilities or services due to the presence of the encroachment. Mr. Layton is concerned that this clause could result in unfair or unreasonable costs.

This clause is a standard provision that all owners are required to agree to if they wish to maintain an encroachment on a public highway. The basis of this requirement is that neither the City nor utility company which maintain existing utilities within the public highway should be required to bear additional expenses in maintaining and servicing their facilities because an owner has constructed an encroachment on, over or near those public utilities.

Conclusions:

As the brick wall does not adversely impact the City's right-of-way, approval could be granted for it to remain, subject to the owner entering into the standard form encroachment agreement.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894

Tree Removal - 12 Willard Gardens (High Park)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 12 Willard Gardens, conditional on the tree in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the tree.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for construction of an addition has been filed by Mr. Raymond Scott Vaughan, 12 Willard Gardens, Toronto, Ontario, M6S1G1, owner of 12 Willard Gardens.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on: the tree in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the tree; or

(2)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign plans for the addition.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty-three centimetre diameter black locust in fair condition. The tree is located within four metres of the existing foundation and any expansion of the house at the rear will require the removal of the tree in question. The property in question, and adjacent properties, are well treed with black locusts, Norway spruce and red oak and if the black locust is removed a red oak will grow to fill in the vacated space. It would therefore not be necessary to plant a replacement tree.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

Tree Removal - 114 Highbourne Road (North Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 114 Highbourne Road, conditional on:

(i)the tree in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under the building permit application for the subject project commence which warrant the destruction of the tree; and

(ii)the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property to allow for construction of an addition has been filed by Mr. and Mrs. Wright, 114 Highbourne Road, Toronto, Ontario, M5P 2J6, owner's of 114 Highbourne Road.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on:

(ii)the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; or

(2)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal requiring the applicant to abandon or redesign plans for the addition.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-six centimetre diameter horsechestnut in fair condition. The owners have stated that they would like to upgrade their home by constructing a rear addition that would require the removal of the tree in question. The tree is located approximately five metres west of the existing foundation and any excavation for an addition within this zone would significantly injure the tree. The property is well treed and in addition to the fruit associated with the chestnut, the owner's have to contend with fruit from a mature hickory tree located at the front of the property. If the chestnut tree is removed and an addition constructed, the property can still accommodate the planting of a large growing shade tree. The owners have indicated their willingness to comply with this condition.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

--------

Ms. Marilyn Wright, Toronto, Ontario, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Front Yard Parking - 586 Victoria Park Avenue -

Results of the Poll (East Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council deny the application for front yard parking at 586 Victoria Park Avenue, as the result of the poll was not favourable, as per the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January6, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the results of the poll conducted in connection with front yard parking at 586 Victoria Park Avenue. As this is an appeal and a request for an exemption from the by-law, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That Toronto Community Council deny the application for front yard parking, as the result of the poll was not favourable, as per the criteria set out in Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council, at its meeting of October 14, 1998, had before it my report dated October 1, 1998, respecting a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, to permit front yard parking at 586 Victoria Park Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council deferred consideration of the report until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999, for deputations and requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report at that time on the results of the poll.

Comments:

Inspection has determined that the subject property meets the physical criteria of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (i.e. no on-site parking, landscaping requirements, and physical dimensions of the parking space, etc.) and there is no permit parking on this street.

A poll was conducted in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 90, Polling and Notifications Procedures, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. The area polled was on the even side of Victoria Park Avenue, from Nos. 548 to 588, including 2477 Gerrard Street East. The deadline for receiving the ballots was January 4, 1999. The results of the poll were as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast opposed4 in favour3	7
No response	41
Returned by post office	7
Total ballots issued	55

The majority of the ballots cast were opposed to the parking proposal.

Conclusions:

This property is not eligible for front yard parking, because the polling result for front yard parking was negative.

In view of the above, this request should be denied by Council.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

--------

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (undated) from Mr. Ben Volmer, in opposition to the application, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Appeal of Driveway Widening -

103 Moore Avenue (Midtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain on condition that the applicant agree to pay the cost of a new tree on the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood.

The condition respecting the applicant agreeing to the pay the cost of a new tree on the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood, was carried on the following division of votes:

Yeas: Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow, Korwin-Kuczynksi, McConnell, Pantalone and Silva - 8

Nays:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero, Fotinos and Jakobek - 5

The Toronto Community Council resubmits Clause 42 of its Report No. 16, headed "Appeal of Driveway Widening - 103 Moore Avenue (Midtown)":

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 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 submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The following motion by Councillor Bossons carried on the following division of votes:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Chow, Disero and Silva - 5

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams and Walker - 3

Upon the reopening of the question, the following motions were lost on the following division of votes:

By Councillor Bossons:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero and Silva - 4

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow and Walker - 4

By Councillor Adams:

"That City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit angled driveway widening at 228 Blackthorn Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code due to insufficient space to meet the required clearance from back of the City sidewalk and the landscaping requirements."

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow and Walker - 4

Nays:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero and Silva - 4

Upon a further reopening of the question, the following motions were lost on the following division of votes:

By Councillor Bossons:

"That the existing paving at 103 Moore Avenue be permitted to remain."

Yeas:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero, Fotinos and Silva - 5

Nays:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow, McConnell and Walker - 5

By Councillor Adams:

Yeas:Councillors Rae, Adams, Chow, McConnell and Walker - 5

Nays:Councillors Bossons, Bussin, Disero, Fotinos and Silva - 5

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Acting Assistant Director, By-law Administration and Enforcement, Transportation Services:

Purpose:

To comment on a request for an exemption from Municipal Code Chapter 248, Parking Licences, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, to permit the existing brick paving to remain in connection with the Driveway widening application, as it does not meet the paving specifications as required by the Code. As this matter is of public interest, it is scheduled as a deputation item.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

That City Council request the removal of the existing paving fronting 103 Moore Avenue and that the area be paved in permeable materials such as ecostone or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, as per the conditions of the permit issued.

Background:

Mr. Richard Sadlowski, owner of 103 Moore Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4T 1V7, in his communication of July 20, 1998, requested staff to reconsider the request to change the newly paved area, in order to meet the City's paving specifications.

Comments:

Mr. Richard Sadlowski of 103 Moore Avenue, applied for driveway widening parking fronting his residence on October 3, 1997. The application was approved and subsequently a construction and paving permit No. SACP 97-P291 was issued on December 18, 1997.

Driveway widening is currently governed by the criteria set out in Chapter 248 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code. One of the criteria of the Code requires that the proposed parking area be paved with semi-permeable material in accordance with the alternative paving treatment specifications set out in � 400-88, Schedule XXXV, Part II, or equivalent permeable paving treatment acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

One of the conditions of the permit stated that the parking area was to be paved in accordance to the specifications for alternate paving treatment as illustrated in Appendix 'A'.

On June 3, 1998 the applicant called to advise that the work was completed. An inspection was conducted on June 15, 1998, and determined that the parking area was paved with brick pavers and not in conformity with the paving specifications and conditions on the permit issued. Mr. Sadlowski was left a notice advising to make changes to the paving in order to meet the required specifications, i.e. provide 25 percent of the surface area as porous.

Conclusions:

The paving does not meet the City's specifications for semi-permeable paving material, as required by the Municipal Code and as per the condition on the construction permit. It is therefore recommended that this request be denied by Council.

Contact Names and Telephone Numbers:

Nino Pellegrini, 392-7778

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Sections A and B and AA

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Sections A and B and AA

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (July 20, 1998) addressed to City Works Services, from Mr. Richard V. Sadlowski, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Mr. Richard Sadlowski, applicant, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Draft Zoning By-Law - Lands Bounded by -

Queen, Victoria, Shuter and Bond Streets -

St. Michael's Hospital (Downtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-law attached to the report (January18,1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto;

(2)the recommendations of the report (December 31,1998) of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted; and

(3)the Medical Officer of Health, the Chair of the Board of Health and the Councillors of Downtown and Don River meet with the leadership of St. Michael's Hospital to discuss the delivery of services set out in the communication (January 20, 1999) from Mr. John Bell and Ms. Michelle Robidoux, We're No Angels.

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 January 20, 1999, and the following persons addressed the Toronto Community Council:

-Ms. Cynthia MacDougall, McCarthy Tetrault, on behalf of St. Michael's Hospital;

-Mr. A.J. Diamond, A.J. Diamond, Donald Schmitt and Company, Architects and Planners, on behalf of St. Michael's Hospital;

-Mr. John Bell, We're No Angels Coalition; and

-Ms. Michelle Robidoux, We're No Angels Coalition.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 18, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft zoning by-law to amend By-law No. 438-86 and to repeal By-laws Nos. 755-77 and 358-78, all of the former City of Toronto, with respect to the lands bounded by Queen, Victoria, Shuter and Bond Streets.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications for the City.

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 (January18,1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bill in Council to give effect thereto; and

(3)the recommendations of the report (December 31,1998) 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 (December 31,1998) at its meeting to be held on January20and 21,1999 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 and use of a non-residential building containing public hospital uses and accessory retail, restaurant and service uses.

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. The blank spaces in the draft pertain to measurements of an existing loading space and will be filled in once I receive the exact measurements.

Contact Name:

Marc Kemerer, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-1228

Fax: (416) 392-0024

E-mail: mkemerer@toronto.ca

--------

DRAFT BY-LAW

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. __, Clause No. __

as adopted by Council on ____________

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. -1998

To amend By-law No. 438-86 and to repeal

By-law Nos. 755-77 and 358-78, all of the former City of Toronto,

with respect to the lands bounded by Queen, Victoria, Shuter and Bond Streets.

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

1.None of the provisions respecting the definitions of "grade" and "landscaped courtyard space", contained in Section 2(1) and none of the provisions of Sections 4(2)(a), 4(5)(b), 4(8)(b), 8(3) Part I 1, 8(3) Part III 1 of By-law 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 the erection and use on the lot of a non-residential building containing public hospital uses and accessory retail, restaurant and service uses, provided:

(1)the lot consists of the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan1 attached to and forming part of this by-law;

(2)the non-residential gross floor area of the building does not exceed 102000 square metres;

(3)the height of the building does not exceed the height limits specified on Plan 2 attached to and forming a part of this by-law, but this paragraph does not prevent the erection or use of:

(i)a stair tower, elevator shaft, chimney stack or other heating, cooling or ventilating equipment or window washing equipment on the roof of the building or a fence, wall or structure enclosing such elements, provided:

A.The maximum height of the top of such elements or enclosure is no higher than the sum of five metres and the height limit applicable to the lot;

B.The aggregate horizontal area of such elements, including the area contained within an enclosure, measured at the point above the level of the height limit, does not exceed 30 per cent of the area of the roof of the building; and

C.The width of any such elements, including the width of an enclosure, located within six metres of a lot line that is a street line, does not exceed 20 per cent of the width of the main wall of the building facing the lot line, provided the width is to be measured parallel to the lot line;

(ii)a structure, on the roof of the building, used for open air recreation, safety or wind protection purposes, provided:

A.The maximum height of the top of the structure is no higher than the sum of three metres and the height limit applicable to the lot;

B.No part of the structure is less than two metres from anadjacent wall or a vertical projection of the wall; and

C.the structure does not enclose space so as to constitute a form of penthouse or other room or rooms; and

(iii)parapets, provided that the maximum height of the top of the parapets is no higher than the sum of 0.6 metres and the height limit applicable to the lot.

(4)not less than 158 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on the lot;

(5)not less than 1 loading space - Type A, 5 loading spaces - Type B and 2 loading spaces - Type C shall be provided and maintained on the lot; and

(6)not less than 1 loading space with a length of at least 18.3 metres, a width of at least 4.0 metres and a vertical clearance of at least 4.0 metres shall be provided and maintained on the lot.

2.The renovations and additions to the building may be constructed in not more than three phases, within the areas shown outlined by heavy lines on Plan 3 attached to and forming part of this by-law, provided;

(1)for the purpose of constructing the renovations and additions to the building in phases:

(i)Phase 1 means the renovations to the southerly portions of the site within the area designated as Phase 1 on the attached Plan 3 pertaining to the entrance, drive-through, lobby and facade;

(ii)Phase 2 means the construction of additional floors on top of the building within the area designated as Phase 2 on the attached Plan 3; and

(iii)Phase 3 means the demolition and new construction of the portion of the portion of the building within the area designated as Phase 3 on the attached Plan 3.

3.Should the renovations and additions to the building be constructed in not more than three phases:

(1)prior to the commencement of Phase 1:

(i)not less than 35 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on the lot;

(ii)not less than 4 loading spaces-Type B shall be provided and maintained on the lot; and

(iii)not less than 1 loading space with a length of at least metres, a width of at least __ metres and a vertical clearance of at least __metres shall be provided and maintained on the lot.

(2)upon the completion of Phase 2:

(i)the non-residential gross floor area of the building shall not exceed 92500 square metres;

(ii)not less than 35 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on the lot;

(iii)not less than 42 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained within 300 metres of the lot;

(iv)the parking spaces referred to in subparagraph 3(2)(iii) shall be provided and maintained on lands other than the lands municipally known in the year 1999 as 209 Victoria Street and 26 Shuter Street; and

(v)the provisions of subparagraphs 3(1)(ii) and (iii) concerning loading spaces shall apply; and

(3)upon the completion of Phase 3, landscaped courtyard space shall be provided in the locations indicated on Plan4 attached to and forming part of this by-law.

4.For the purposes of this By-law:

(i)Grade means 88.25 metres Canadian Geodetic Datum;

(ii)Landscaped Courtyard Space means the landscaped area as defined in By-law No. 438-86. However, notwithstanding that definition, a loading space for the sole purpose of servicing the medical gas storage tanks is permitted within the required landscaped courtyard space adjacent to Victoria Street;

(iii)Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 shall have the same meanings as set out in paragraph 2(1) of this by-law; and

(iv)Each other word or expression which is italicized in this by-law shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression as defined in the By-law No. 438-86.

5.By-law Nos. 755-77 and 358-78 of the former City of Toronto are hereby repealed on the coming into force of this By-law.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 1999.

________________________________________

MayorCity Clerk

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (December 31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide final recommendations respecting Application No. 198011 for Zoning By-law amendments for a phased renovation, redevelopment and expansion of the existing St. Michael's Hospital at 30 Bond Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That the Zoning By-law, By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a)exempt the site from the following sections of By-law 438-86, as amended:

2(1)Definitions of "grade", "landscaped courtyard space";

4(2)(a)Maximum permitted building height;

4(5)(b)Parking space requirements;

4(8)(b)Loading space requirements;

8(3) Part I 1Maximum permitted non-residential gross floor area; and

8(3) Part III 1Common outdoor space;

(b)permit the erection and use of a non-residential building containing public hospital uses and uses accessory thereto, including accessory retail, restaurant and service uses, on the lot shown on Map 1 and known municipally as 30 Bond Street, provided:

(i)the non-residential gross floor area after completion of Phase 3 does not exceed 102,000 m2, and prior to the demolition of the existing portion of the building in the Phase 3 area, such gross floor area does not exceed 92,500 m2;

(ii)Section 4(2)(a) shall apply except that instead of the height limit specified by the numbers following the symbol "H" as shown on the Height and Minimum Lot Frontage Map, the height limits shall be the existing heights of the building outside Phases 2 and 3, and in Phases 2 and 3 shall be as shown on the plans and drawings submitted with the application, and shall exclude rooftop structures as provided for in Section 4(2)(a), and in addition shall exclude parapets to a maximum height of 0.6 m above the roof height;

(iii)the renovations and additions to the existing building may be constructed in three phases, such that:

(a)Phase 1 consists of renovations to the southerly portions of 2 grade-related levels fronting on Queen Street East, pertaining to the entrance, drive-through, lobby and facade;

(b)Phase 2 consists of additional floors on top of the existing C Wing in the western portion of the site;

(c)Phase 3 consists of the demolition and replacement of D Wing in the northeast portion of the site as well as the construction of three landscaped courtyard spaces in the locations indicated on the plan attached to this by-law; and

(d)the above phasing does not preclude other renovations which comply with this by-law;

(iv)parking facilities are provided and maintained for each phase as follows:

Phase 1:A minimum of 20 parking spaces in the on-site garage off Victoria Street, plus 15 surface parking spaces at the northeast corner of Victoria Street and Queen Street East;

Phase 2:A minimum of 20 parking spaces in the on-site garage off Victoria Street, 15 surface parking spaces at the northeast corner of Victoria Street and Queen Street East, plus an additional 42 leased off-site parking spaces located within 300 m of the site, with the 42 off-site spaces to be provided and maintained until the Phase 3 on-site garage containing at least 138 spaces with access off Bond Street is operational, over and above any parking spaces provided for the hospital at Premises No. 209 Victoria Street and 26 Shuter Street; and

Phase 3:A minimum of 20 parking spaces in the on-site garage off Victoria Street, plus at least 138 on-site parking spaces in a below-grade garage with access off Bond Street;

(v)loading facilities are provided and maintained on-site for each phase at least to the extent of the following:

Phase 1:The existing loading area on the north side of the surface parking lot at the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Victoria Street, plus the existing Type B loading space off Victoria Street, plus the three existing Type B loading spaces off Shuter Street;

Phase 2:Same requirements as for Phase 1;

Phase 3:A consolidated loading facility containing 1 Type A, 4 Type B and 2 Type C loading spaces off Shuter Street, the existing Type B loading space off Victoria Street, and a modified loading facility with dimensions of 4 m by 18.3 m within the northern portion of the proposed landscaped courtyard space at the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Victoria Street, for use by medical gas delivery trucks;

(vi)landscaped courtyard space shall be provided in Phase 3 of the project in the three locations indicated as Phase 3 landscaped courtyard space on the plan attached to this By-law;

(vii)grade is defined as 88.25 metres Canadian Geodetic Datum; and

(viii)the Section 2(1) definition of "landscaped courtyard space" shall apply except that the Phase 3 landscaped courtyard space in the southwest corner of the site may contain 1 loading space accessed from Victoria Street for the sole purpose of servicing the medical gas storage tanks;

(2)That existing site-specific By-law 755-77, as amended by By-law 358-78, be repealed upon the coming into force of the proposed site-specific Zoning By-law recommended above;

(3)That the owner enter into an undertaking or agreement under Section 41 of the Planning Act, and, if deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, a Collateral Agreement with the City of Toronto related to Site Plan Approval, prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council;

(4)That the owner 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. The report should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for review, prior to the issuance of any building permit;

(5)That the owner conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings. 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 and building audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of any building permit;

(6)That, if deemed necessary by the Medical Officer of Health after review of the reports required by Recommendations 4 and 5, above, the owner shall:

(a)conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil and groundwater conditions and proposes remediation options, to be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit; and

(b)implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan;

(7)That the owner submit, and have approved by the Medical Officer of Health, prior to the issuance of any building permit, a Dust Control Plan, and be required to implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health;

(8)That the owner submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, at least three weeks prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council, dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing the site-specific by-laws;

(9)That the owner 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;

(10)That the owner submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 of the development, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(11)That the owner file an application for an Encroachment Agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the existing encroachment of steps on the Bond Street road allowance;

(12)That the owner submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 of development, a grading plan showing elevations of the proposed modifications to the Queen Street East entrance and circular driveway; and

(13)That the owner be advised of the comments of Civic Officials appended to this report, namely:

(a)the comments of the Manager, Development Approval, Urban Planning and Development Services regarding the need for approval by Heritage Toronto and compliance with the Ontario Building Code;

(b)that the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants, that noise and vibration attenuation measures should be applied, and that TTC staff will review the completed construction of the Queen Street entrance to determine the best means of serving the building with Wheel-Trans vehicles;

(c)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;

(d)the comments of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services regarding: possible increased frequency of private garbage collection operations in the Phase 3 area; the need for trucks to enter and exit the Phase 3 loading facilities in a forward motion; the need to set out recyclables in accordance with the City's collection schedule; and the need for recycle bins for use by City collection vehicles to be placed at grade; and

(e)the comments of the Director, Development and Support, Parks and Recreation regarding the requirement to protect the 17 City-owned trees on the City road allowance in accordance with the "Specifications for Construction Near Trees" contained in the Tree Details Section of the City of Toronto Streetscape Manual.

Background:

(a)Applicant and Owners:

Application submitted by St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, on behalf of the Sisters of St. Joseph for the Diocese of Toronto, 30 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8.

(b)Site and Location:

The 13,260 m2 site comprises the entire city block bounded by Queen, Victoria, Shuter and Bond Streets, and currently contains the main St. Michael's Hospital complex. The existing building reaches a height of 47.1 m in the recently completed Wing C along Victoria Street, and a maximum height of 49.3 m in the south central portion of the site. A diverse array of existing roof heights below this maximum is distributed over the rest of the site. The existing heights of Wing D in the northeast corner of the site are 30.5 m on Shuter Street and 22.5 m on Bond Street. The existing density is 5.85 times lot area (77,530 m2).

The site is listed as a heritage building on the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties, and it is the northerly Bond Street pedestrian entrance which is of historical importance.

(c)Surrounding Context:

To the northwest is the construction site for the Livent/Dundee Realty hotel and residential condominium tower, reaching a height of 127 metres. Directly to the north, fronting on Shuter Street between Victoria and Bond Streets are two St. Michael's Hospital buildings of 2 and 7 storeys. To the northeast is St. Michael's Cathedral, the spire of which reaches a height of about 59.6 metres. To the east is Metropolitan United Church and related buildings. The church spire reaches a height of 45.7 metres. Both churches are listed on the City's Inventory of Heritage Buildings. A city park is located at the south end of the Metropolitan United Church, on lands leased from the church.

Fronting the south side of Queen Street between Yonge and Church Streets are a number of commercial buildings. At 1 Queen Street East, an office tower reaches a height of 112.3 metres. Directly south of the hospital are three office buildings of 50.4 m, 15.5 m, and 53.7 m, respectively. To the southeast of the site are two office buildings of 34.6 m and 13.5 m in height. The historic Massey Hall and Elgin and Wintergarden Theatres are located on the west side of Victoria Street opposite the hospital, reaching heights of 26.3 m and 35.6 m, respectively. At the south end of the block to the west, a surface commercial parking lot exists at the corner of Victoria and Queen Streets.

On the lands at the northeast corner of Yonge and Queen Streets is proposed an 18 storey (91 m) office tower (Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application No. 198018), where there currently exist a surface commercial parking lot and three commercial buildings of 2, 3 and 6 storeys. That application is still under consideration.

(d)Proposed Development:

With the recent amalgamation with Wellesley Hospital, St. Michael's Hospital is planning for future renovation, redevelopment and expansion of portions of the existing hospital, in a 3-phased program. The first phase involves improvements to the existing grade-related facade and main entrance on Queen Street East. The proposed renovations include an improved entrance lobby and drive-through and an improved relationship to the street. A second phase involves an expansion by adding 5 more floors, including a mechanical floor, to the existing, newly constructed 11-storey Wing C on Victoria Street, increasing the height to 71.5 m from the current 47 m (approximate).

A third phase involves the replacement of the existing 9-storey Wing D, in the northeast corner of the block, with a new 9-storey wing. This last phase will include the consolidation of loading and garbage handling facilities and a 3-level below-grade parking garage (138 spaces) in the new Wing D, and will include new landscaped open spaces in the southwest corner of the block as well as on either side of the existing, historic Bond Street pedestrian entrance. The proposed maximum height of Wing D is 43.8 metres. An internal courtyard in the central portion of the site is also proposed in Phase 3.

The 5-storey addition to Wing C will add 14,805 m2 of gross floor area to the existing 77,530 m2 of floor area in the hospital, and the replacement of Wing D will result in a further net increase of 9,409 m2. This translates in total to a density increase from the existing 5.85 times the lot area to 7.68 times the lot area (101,744 m2).

In the Preliminary Report dated July 6, 1998 on this application, an additional phase was described, involving the expansion of the existing emergency facilities in the northwest corner of the hospital into the existing Wing D to the east. This will be an internal renovation and is not formally part of the application. The current application thus consists of only 3 phases. The application seeks Site Plan Approval for Phases 1 and 2 only. Phase 1 is intended to be implemented immediately, Phase 2 is to begin within this fiscal year, and Phase 3 within 10 years.

(e)History:

In 1977, a site-specific zoning by-law (By-law No. 755-77) was adopted to permit a major expansion and renovation of St. Michael's Hospital, with a minor revision in 1978 (By-law No. 358-78). Those expansion plans called for a major new wing on Victoria Street (Wing C), and the demolition of Wing D in the northeast corner of the block. Loading facilities and common outdoor space were required by the by-law to be constructed in the northeast corner of the block on the site of the demolished Wing D, and common outdoor space was also required in the southwest corner of the block. The 11-storey Wing C has recently been completed, but the demolition of Wing D has never been carried out, and the southwest corner of the block is still used for surface parking. The existing complex is thus not in compliance with the site-specific zoning by-law.

This Application No. 198011 was submitted on June 12, 1998. The Preliminary Report, dated July6, 1998, was adopted by Toronto Community Council on July 22, 1998.

(f)Public Review:

A public meeting was held in the community on September 15, 1998. Approximately 18 members of the public were in attendance. The land use planning issues relevant to this application and raised at the public meeting included the following: detailed planning of Wing D (Phase 3) should be included; the timing of demolition of Wing D; the notice for the community public meeting; the need for renovations, redevelopment and expansion; the letter of support for the improvements provided by the Ministry of Health; and the need for phasing. These issues are discussed at various locations in this report.

Questions and comments were also directed at: the need for the merger of Wellesley and St. Michael's Hospital; the services provided before and after such merger; the content of submissions made by St. Michael's Hospital to the Hospital Services Restructuring Commission; the costs of, and funding sources for, the proposed improvements; and the alternative scenario of purchasing Wellesley Hospital facilities. These issues cannot be considered planning issues relevant to the processing of this application.

As noted in the Preliminary Report, the applicant attended a meeting of the Toronto East Downtown Residents Association (TEDRA) prior to the community public meeting to brief the community on the project. TEDRA members raised concerns about the safety and security of the proposed landscaped courtyard spaces on Bond and Queen Streets. While a legitimate concern, the applicant is not currently seeking Site Plan Approval for these spaces. When such approval is sought in the future for Phase 3, design elements to mitigate such concerns will then be considered.

Comments:

(1)Planning Controls:

(a)Official Plan:

The Official Plan Part I designates the block as a "Hospital Area". There are no density limits in the Official Plan. The hospital uses and expansion thereof are permitted provided the proposed building fits in and is compatible with surrounding development, and the impact of such uses and expansion is addressed with respect to: built form, heights and massing; noise; traffic generation; parking; retention of mature trees; provision of adequate parks and open spaces; light, view and privacy; pedestrian environment; and retention of affordable housing. The policies require submission of a statement from the agency primarily responsible for approving the construction, indicating that the agency is prepared to authorize the planning or construction of such expansion.

(b)Zoning By-law:

The general Zoning By-law designates the block as "Q T6.0", which permits the hospital uses at a maximum density of 6.0 times the lot area. The height limit is 46.0 metres. Site-specific Zoning By-law 755-77, as amended by By-law 358-78, permits a maximum gross floor area of 78,036 m2 (5.9 times lot area), a maximum height of 54.9 m excluding mechanical penthouses, establishes a building footprint, and includes various requirements for the location, size and/or quantity of loading and parking spaces, common outdoor space, vehicular access ramps, ambulance bays, landscaping, and provision for a future pedestrian tunnel under Victoria Street.

(c)Site Plan Agreement:

A Development Agreement was registered on the site in 1978, and amended by way of a registered amending agreement in 1982.

(2)Planning Considerations:

(a)Density, Height, Massing:

The existing site-specific Zoning By-law 755-77, as amended, and the general Zoning By-law permit maximum densities which are virtually the same (5.9 and 6.0 times lot area, respectively), whereas the former establishes a height limit on the block of 54.9 m, as opposed to the general by-law limit of 46.0 metres. The proposed development represents a net density increase of 24,244 m2 (1.83 times lot area) over the currently existing density, and a 1.68 times lot area increase over the general by-law maximum of 6.0 times lot area. The proposed height of Wing C (Phase 2) is 71.5 m, and the proposed height of Wing D (Phase 3) is 43.8 metres. Wing C will thus be increasing in height by 24.4 metres. Wing D will be increasing in height by 21.3 m on Bond Street and 13.3 m on Shuter Street..

The resulting built form is acceptable in the context of the surrounding existing and proposed development.

(b)Shadow Impact:

Staff have carried out a shadow impact analysis of the proposed development, as compared to the existing building, in the context of the surrounding existing development. The results reveal that the greatest shadow impact occurs on a portion of the north sidewalk of Shuter Street, between Bond and Church Streets, between 3:00 p.m and 5:00 p.m. on March 21. Given that this same stretch of sidewalk is in full sun all day up until that time, and that the prime sunlight hours are between 10:00 a.m and 3:00 p.m, this impact is not significant. There is no adverse shadow impact on the public park at the south end of the Metropolitan United Church lands on the block to the east.

(c)Common Outdoor Space:

The existing site-specific Zoning By-law 755-77, as amended, requires 2,350 m2 of common outdoor space. Under the general Zoning By-law, if a building occupied more than 75 percent of the site as of a certain date in 1976, then it is exempted from the common outdoor space requirement, and that is the case with St. Michael's Hospital. To ensure that future interpretations of the general Zoning By-law do not pose a problem with respect to common outdoor space, this report recommends that the site-specific by-law exempt the site from the general Zoning By-law requirement for common outdoor space. The proposed development contains 3 at-grade landscaped areas adjacent to the public sidewalks; 1 on either side of the historic Bond Street pedestrian entrance and one at the southwest corner of the site, at Queen and Victoria Streets. They are proposed to be implemented in Phase 3.

Because this report is recommending that By-law 755-77 be repealed, which will delete the requirement for common outdoor space, it is also recommended that the 3 landscaped areas be required in Phase 3. They are classified in the recommendations as "landscaped courtyard space", which is a defined term in the general Zoning By-law and includes landscaped open space, common outdoor space, and residential amenity space, and thus is a more broad definition to permit more flexibility in use and design. The loading space for the medical gas tanks on Victoria Street will continue to be required in Phase 3, and an exception to the definition of "landscaped courtyard space" is recommended to permit such a loading space for that purpose only. For most of the time, that loading space will remain unused and function as part of the landscaped courtyard space.

(d)Phasing:

The proposed phasing scheme is acceptable in principle, with stipulations regarding provision of parking and loading facilities prior to implementation of Phase 3, and provision of Phase 3 landscaped courtyard space. As was pointed out by a St. Michael's Hospital official at the community public meeting, phasing is required because the hospital must continue to provide patient care during renovations and redevelopment, and thus only portions of the hospital can be disrupted by construction at any one time. In addition, some portions of the hospital are older than others, and hospital facilities have a limited life span due to technological advancements. While not specifically mentioned, the timing and amount of funding for capital improvements will also influence what can be achieved in any one capital improvement project.

(e)Detailed Planning of Phase 3

As previously mentioned, the application does not seek Site Plan Approval for Phase 3. A comment at the public meeting was that Phase 3 should also be planned in detail. Staff do not agree that detailed design for Phase 3 is necessary at present. The timing of Phase 3 implementation is estimated to be about 10 years in the future. Design considerations can change in that time, and there would appear to be little benefit in requiring Site Plan Approval for Phase 3 now. The recommended rezoning will establish a building envelope, together with parking, loading, and open space requirements. Having said that, Works and Emergency Services staff have requested and received more detailed design information for Phase 3 loading facilities to ensure that the proposed Phase 3 redevelopment will result in a functional building from that perspective.

(f)Below-Grade Pedestrian Subway Connection:

The existing By-law 755-77 and the Development Agreement provide for a knockout panel in the basement level below the Victoria Street pedestrian entrance. This was intended to facilitate a possible tunnel connection to the Queen Street subway station, anticipating that the block to the west would be redeveloped comprehensively. While a comprehensive redevelopment of the entire block bounded by Queen, Yonge, Shuter and Victoria Streets does not appear as likely now as it did then, the provisions for this possible connection should be maintained. The City is currently attempting to sell its properties to the west of the hospital at 197, 197R and 203 Yonge Street, and a more comprehensive redevelopment proposal involving neighbouring properties remains a possibility. While a provision in the proposed site-specific Zoning By-law does not appear necessary, the agreement(s) related to Site Plan Approval should maintain such provisions.

(g)Statement from Approval Authority:

As noted in the Preliminary Report and previously in this report, the Official Plan (Section 11.15) requires a statement from the agency primarily responsible for approving the construction of the expansion, indicating the need for expansion at that location, and indicating whether the agency is prepared to authorize the planning or construction of such expansion. Such a statement from the Ministry of Health has been provided and is reproduced in Appendix C attached to this report.

(h)Repeal of Site-specific Zoning By-law 755-77, as amended:

To amend the existing site-specific Zoning By-law, passed in 1977 and amended the following year, to facilitate the current redevelopment proposal would result in a cumbersome and confusing site-specific by-law. Therefore, the recommended course of action is to repeal the existing, and establish a new, site-specific by-law.

(i)Provision of Notice for Public Meetings:

Inadvertent errors occurred with respect to the provision of the notice for the non-statutory community public meeting held in September, 1998. The Preliminary Report recommended that owners and tenants within 300 m of the site be notified. This is the customary notification distance for a non-statutory public meeting for an application involving an Official Plan amendment. The customary notification distance for an application for a rezoning only, as is the case here, is 120 metres. However, the actual distance for which the notice was provided was only 100 metres. Because owners and tenants within larger blocks are notified even if only portions of such blocks fall within the distance radius, the result of this error is not extensive in that only properties fronting on the south side of Richmond Street East between Yonge and Church Streets were excluded from the notice. The owners and tenants of those properties will be notified by way of newspaper advertisement of the statutory public meeting held by your Committee.

(j)Submission of Detailed Plans for Site Plan Approval:

The application seeks Site Plan Approval for Phases 1 and 2 only. The Preliminary Report recommended that more detailed plans be submitted with respect to these Phases and such plans have been submitted. The existing and proposed gross floor area figures were also slightly revised in the more recent submissions as a result of a detailed review by the applicant of the figures, as also recommended in the Preliminary Report.

The coming into force of the site-specific Zoning By-law is a prerequisite for the issuance of a building permit for Phase 1. A recommendation of this report is that an agreement pursuant to Section 41 (Site Plan Approval) of the Planning Act, and, if necessary, a Collateral Agreement be executed for Phases 1 and 2 by the applicant prior to the introduction of a Bill in Council.

(k)Soil and Groundwater Testing and Management Plan:

Public Health staff have verbally advised that the soil and groundwater testing and submission of a management plan would only be required if the historical review and site and building audit indicated a need. The recommendations reflect this change to the written comments from Public Health reproduced in Appendix B to this report, in which such submissions were required unconditionally.

(l)Parking:

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services is requiring that parking spaces be provided to meet the additional net demand generated by the proposed expansion, with a base of 20 on-site spaces as required by the current By-law 755-77, as amended. The 20 spaces are provided in an on-site parking garage on Victoria Street south of Wing C, which will be maintained throughout the redevelopment. The hospital also owns an off-site parking garage across Shuter Street at 209 Victoria and 26 Shuter Streets, and 63 spaces are expected to continue to be provided for the hospital on this site. On this basis, 57 additional spaces are required for Phase 2, of which 15 are already provided in the surface lot at Queen and Victoria Streets. An additional 42 Phase 2 spaces must therefore be provided off site.

In Phase 3, a 138 space parking garage is being constructed below grade under new Wing D. Together with the 20 spaces in the other on-site garage, these spaces will satisfy the net increase in parking demand. The recommended by-law provisions implement such requirements.

(m)Loading:

Similarly, each phase generates certain loading space requirements, which are satisfied by a retention of existing loading facilities for Phases 1 and 2, and a combination of some existing facilities and a new consolidated loading facility for Phase 3. The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services has recommended provisions for the phasing of loading facilities, which have been incorporated in the by-law provisions recommended in this report.

Conclusions:

The proposed development is intended to improve patient care at St. Michael's Hospital, and improved patient care is in the public interest. The relationship of the hospital building to Queen Street will be improved. The proposed development is appropriate and there is no significant adverse planning impact on surrounding facilities and uses, existing and proposed. The overall redevelopment scheme represents good planning and should be approved.

Contact Name:

Peter Langdon

City Planning Division, East Section

Telephone: (416) 392-7617

Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-mail: plangdon@toronto.ca

________

Appendix A

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	198011
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	June 12, 1998
O. P. A.:	N	Date of Revision:	September 11, 1998

Confirmed Municipal Address:30 Bond Street

Nearest Intersection: Block bounded by Queen/Victoria/Shuter/Bond Streets.

Project Description: St. Michael's Hospital expansion.

Applicant:

St. Michael's Hospital

30 Bond Street

864-5840
Agent:

McCarthy Tetrault (C. MacDougall)

Ste. 4700, T-D Centre

601-7634
Architect:

A. J. Diamond, Donald Schmitt & Co.

2 Berkeley Street

862-8800

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: Hospital Area Site Specific Provision: 755-77; 358-78

Zoning District: Q T6.0 Historical Status: Listed

Height Limit (m): 46.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area:
13260.0 m²
Height: Storeys: 15 + Mech. Pent

Frontage: Metres: 76.40

Depth:

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: Parking Spaces: 158

Residential GFA: Loading Docks: 1 A 1

Non-Residential GFA: 101744.0 m² (number, type) 4 B 1 B

Total GFA: 101744.0 m² 2 C

Floor Area Breakdown

Land Use Above Grade Below Grade

Existing 77530.0 m²

To Be Demolished 9111.0 m²

Addition 33355.0 m²

Proposed Density

Residential Density: Non-Residential Density: 7.68 Total Density: 7.68

Comments

Status:

Final Report prepared for January 20, 1999 Toronto Community Council.

Data valid:

December 15, 1998

Section:

CP East

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix B

Comments of Civic Officials

(1)Director of Buildings Division, Urban Planning and Development Services dated November 26, 1998 :

"Revised review under Zoning By-law 438-86

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description: Construct 4 storey addition to C Wing, construct new 9 storey D Wing

Zoning Designation: Q T6.0Map:51H 311

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

Plans prepared by:A.J. Diamond, Donald Schmitt and Company

Zoning Review:

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

(1)The maximum permitted non-residential gross floor area of 6.0 times the area of the lot (79,560 sq metres) is being exceeded. Proposed is 102,091.99 sq metres. (Section 8(3) Part I 1);

(2)The maximum permitted height of 46.0 metres is being exceeded. Proposed is 76.40 metres. (Section 4(2)(a));

(3)The minimum required 408 parking spaces has not been provided. Proposed is 138 parking spaces. (Section 4(5)(b)); and

(4)Five loading space - type B have not been provided, as required. Proposed is 4 loading space - type B. (Section 4(8)(b)).

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals:

(1)The proposal requires Site Plan approval under Section 41 of the Planning Act;

(2)The proposal does not require conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act;

(3)The property is listed historical, and the proposal requires the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act; and

(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."

(2)Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dated December 22, 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 parking facilities for each phase of the development as follows:

Phase 1:A minimum of 20 parking spaces in the on-site garage, plus 15 surface parking spaces at the northeast corner of Victoria Street and Queen Street East;

Phase 2:A minimum of 20 parking spaces in the on-site garage, 15 surface parking spaces at the northeast corner of Victoria Street and Queen Street East; plus an additional 42 leased off-site parking spaces located within 300 m of the site, over and above any parking spaces provided for the hospital at Premises No. 209 Victoria Street and 26 Shuter Street; and

Phase 3:A minimum of 20 parking spaces in the on-site garage off Victoria Street, plus at least 138 on-site parking spaces in a below-grade garage with access off Bond Street;

(c)Secure the 42 interim off-site parking spaces for Phase 2, referred to in Recommendation No. 1(b) above, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the City Solicitor, prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase 2;

(d)Provide and maintain the 42 interim off-site spaces for Phase 2 until the 138-space below-grade parking garage to be constructed during Phase 3 is operational;

(e)Comply with the requirements of the Zoning By-law respecting slope of the access ramp;

(f)Provide and maintain the following minimum loading facilities for the hospital upon the completion of each phase:

Phases 1& 2:The existing loading area on the north side of the parking lot at the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Victoria Street, the existing Type B loading space off Victoria Street, and the 3 existing Type B loading spaces off Shuter Street; and

Phase 3:A consolidated facility containing 1 Type A, 4 Type B and 2 Type C loading spaces off Shuter Street, the existing Type B loading space off Victoria Street and the modified loading facility with dimensions of 4 m by 18.3 m within the northern portion of the proposed park located at the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Victoria Street;

(g)Upon the completion of the Phase 3 consolidated loading facility, convert the existing 3 Type B loading spaces off Shuter Street to parking for emergency vehicles;

(h)Provide and maintain internal service connections to the loading facilities for the expanded hospital in order that all loading activities can take place entirely on the site and will not require movement of goods/materials over City property;

(i)Provide and maintain private refuse collection services for this project;

(j)In the event that a Heritage Easement Agreement is entered into, submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council, a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units and integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System, delineating thereon by separate PARTS the lands under application and any rights-of-way appurtenant thereto;

(k)Submit, to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of bills in Council, dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing building envelope drawings for the site specific exemption by-laws;

(l)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 of this development, a Noise Impact Statement in accordance with City Council's requirements;

(m)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;

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

(o)File an application for an Encroachment Agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit, for the existing encroachment of steps on the Bond Street road allowance;

(p)Submit to, and have approved by, the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase 1 of development, a grading plan, showing elevations of the proposed modifications to the Queen Street East entrance and circular driveway;

(2)That the owner be advised:

(a)That under the current configuration, only 2 garbage bins can be accommodated within the Phase 3 loading area, which could require increased frequency of collection operations for the expanded hospital;

(b)Of the need to provide and maintain access to the Phase 3 loading facilities so that trucks can enter and exit the site in a forward motion;

(c)That all recyclable materials generated by this project eligible for collection under the City's recycling programs must be set out for collection on the days and at the times scheduled by the City for the collection of recyclables;

(d)That all loading facilities to be used by City recyclable collection vehicles must provide for the placement of the recycle bins at grade, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency services; and

(e)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.

Comments:

Location:

The block bounded by Queen Street East, Victoria Street, Shuter Street and Bond Street.

Proposal:

A phased project comprising renovations and additions to the existing St. Michael's Hospital complex, as follows:

(a)Phase 1: Renovation of the Queen Street East entrance and circular driveway;

(b)Phase 2: Construction of a 4-storey addition to the existing 12-storey portion of the building fronting on Victoria Street; and

(c)Phase 3: Construction of a 9-storey replacement building at the southwest corner of Shuter and Bond Streets, incorporating consolidated loading facilities, a 138-space underground parking garage, and incorporation of courtyards and gardens at several locations within the hospital block. The existing surface parking lot at the corner of Victoria Street and Queen Street East will be replaced with a landscaped area during this phase.

The existing floor area of the hospital is 77,530 m². Upon completion of the Phase 2 addition, the floor area will be increased to 92,350 m². Finally, upon completion of Phase 3, the hospital floor area will be increased to 102,279 m².

Existing Agreements:

The site is subject to Site Plan By-law No. 755-77 and the Development Agreement and Amending Agreement registered as Instrument Nos. CT310267 and CT549393 on August 4, 1978 and September 8, 1982, respectively.

The ultimate development reflected in the above-noted Site Plan By-law and agreements, includes the demolition of the buildings at the southwest corner of Shuter Street and Bond Street and the replacement of these buildings with loading facilities, upon the completion of the new Victoria Street building. The Victoria Street building (C-wing) has been completed, however, the Shuter Street/Bond Street buildings were not demolished upon completion of the new C-Wing, as originally contemplated. It is understood that the current application would require amendments to and/or replacement of the existing agreements, in order to legalize the existing building configuration, and to permit the proposed phased construction.

Provision for an Underground Pedestrian Connection to the Subway:

The above-noted Site Plan By-law and Agreements require that the hospital make provision for a possible future underground pedestrian connection to the TTC Subway system, including the construction of knock-out panels where appropriate. The agreement also requires that the hospital agree not to object to the construction of the underground pedestrian connection. It is assumed that the amending Site Plan By-law and Agreements required for this expansion project will also provide for this contingency. Of course, it would be necessary for the owner to submit a separate application to this Department for approval of any tunnels under the public road allowances.

Parking and Access:

A Parking and Loading Review, dated December 16, 1998, was undertaken by BA Consulting Group Limited on behalf of the owner. The review includes a summary of the existing parking and loading facilities on the site and an assessment of the requirements of the proposed development.

The parking demand generated by the existing hospital is accommodated predominately in the existing public parking lots/garages in the vicinity. The public parking facilities in the area are well-used, and are often at capacity. As far as can be ascertained, the only on-site parking available to serve the existing hospital consists of 10 parking spaces located in a garage accessed from Victoria Street, 10 parking spaces located on an above-grade deck accessed from the circular driveway on Queen Street East, and a manned surface parking facility at the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Victoria Street, which can accommodate an estimated 15 vehicles, some parked in tandem. In addition, some emergency parking is available for police cars and ambulances in the "Emergency" Area, off Shuter Street.

An additional 65-space parking garage located on the north side of Shuter Street (Premises Nos. 209 Victoria Street and 29 Shuter Street) with access off Victoria Street is owned by the hospital, and reserved for the use of its employees. The requirements of a previously approved rezoning application for the site (Application No. 2260), which includes this parking garage, permits the provision of up to 63 of these spaces for the exclusive use of the hospital. It is noted that construction of this project has not commenced.

Based on the provisions of the general Zoning By-law, the hospital complex would generate an estimated parking requirement (and demand) for 310 parking spaces upon completion of Phase 1, 369 spaces upon completion of Phase 2 and 409 spaces upon completion of Phase 3. Recognizing, however, that the existing Site Plan By-law permits the provision of up to 78,036 m² of hospital space and the elimination of the 15 space surface parking facility, the parking requirements of this project have been based on the net additional parking demand generated by the proposed expansion. In this regard, it is estimated that the Zoning By-law requirement for the proposed Phase 2 addition (a 4-storey addition on top of the Victoria Street building) would be for 57 spaces, while the total parking requirement for the completed Phase 3 project (new building with a 138-space parking garage at the southwest corner of Bond and Shuter Streets), would be for 97 spaces. Accordingly, while the proposed Phase 3 parking supply is acceptable for the completed hospital project, the interim Phase 2 parking supply is deficient by 57 spaces.

Having regard for the above, it will be necessary for the owner either build the Phase 3 garage coincident or prior to the Phase 2 addition, or alternatively, to make interim arrangements for the provision of 57 parking spaces for the Phase 2 project, pending construction of the Phase 3 garage.

In order to address the 57-space parking shortfall which would result from the construction of Phase 2, the owner's traffic consultant has indicated in the December 16, 1998 submission that the owner intends to maintain the existing 15-space surface facility at the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Victoria Street, and provide an additional 42 off-site spaces by way of lease arrangement, such spaces to be located within 300 m of the site. The owner has committed to securing these spaces prior to the issuance of a building permit for Phase 2. This approach is acceptable provided that the leased parking spaces are in addition to the 63 spaces already provided for the hospital at Premises Nos. 209 Victoria Street and 29 Shuter Street.

Given that there is no certainty that future phases will proceed as contemplated, it is essential to secure satisfactory interim parking and loading arrangements for each phase.

Loading:

The proposal involves the retention of the existing loading facilities during the Phase 1 and Phase 2 construction, which comprise:

(a)a loading area immediately to the north of the surface lot at the northeast corner of Queen Street East and Victoria Street, currently used by refuse and recyclable collection trucks and medical gas delivery trucks;

(b)a Type B loading space off of Victoria Street, immediately to the north of the parking garage access, used by refuse collection vehicles, maintenance vehicles, contractors, etc; and

(c)a loading area off of Shuter Street containing 3 Type B loading spaces, for general deliveries.

Existing loading facilities also include spaces on the hospital property on the north side of Shuter Street, which is connected to the hospital via a service corridor under Shuter Street. It is understood that the Hospital laundry is done remotely, utilizing this service connection. Retention of the existing loading facilities for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 additions could adequately accommodate the estimated loading demand generated by the expanded hospital complex, and the Zoning By-law requirement for 1 Type A, 3 Type B and 2 Type C spaces for Phase 1 and an additional Type B loading space for Phase 2. The proposed loading arrangements for Phases 1 and 2 are acceptable.

Phase 3 involves the creation of a new consolidated loading facility off Shuter Street, and the elimination of the existing 3 Type B loading spaces off Shuter Street and the refuse/recyclable collection spaces off Victoria Street. Given the impracticality of relocating the medical gas storage tanks, the design of the park has been modified to provide for continued medical gas delivery from a modified loading facility within the proposed park. For your information, the traffic consultant has estimated the frequency of medical gas deliveries for the completed hospital to be 4 times per month. Upon completion of Phase 3, the loading facilities will consist of the consolidated facility containing 1 Type A space, 4 Type B spaces plus 2 Type C loading spaces off Shuter Street, the medical gas delivery space off Victoria Street, the retention of the existing Type B space off Victoria Street and retention of the tunnel under Shuter Street for access to the loading spaces on the north side of Shuter Street. The proposed loading facilities for the completed hospital project satisfy estimated demand and Zoning By-law requirement for 1 Type A, 5 Type B and 2 Type C loading spaces.

The proposed consolidated loading facility provides room on-site for all trucks (with the possible exception of large tractor trailer units) to enter and exit the site in a forward motion. This is satisfactory.

The owner's traffic consultant was requested to demonstrate that adequate service connections/facilities are provided to accommodate the relocation of the majority of loading activities to the northeast corner of the site. In this regard, the consultant has confirmed that:

(a)The internal hospital corridor system can adequately accommodate the collection and transfer of waste/recyclables from the hospital to the new loading facility;

(b)Hospital staff will transfer recyclables to the loading dock whereupon they will be transferred into City bins at grade for collection; and

(c)Hospital staff will move the bins to the front of the loading space on the west side of the Type C loading spaces on collection day (or such other space as may be requested by City recyclable collection personnel).

The owner's traffic consultant has submitted a sketch under date of December 17, 1998 showing the location of the garbage bin and recycling bin storage and pick-up areas within the centralized loading facility. These facilities are acceptable. The consultant has also indicated that the hospital only requires 2 garbage bins within the new centralized loading facility, generally as shown on the plans. Given that placement of additional garbage bins within this facility could compromise its operation, Recommendation No. 2(a) above limits the number of bins which could be provided within this loading facility to 2.

Emergency Department:

Upon completion on the Phase 3 loading facilities the owner intends to convert the existing 3 Type B loading spaces off Shuter Street to emergency vehicle parking, in order to relieve congestion in the Emergency Department drop-off area. This is acceptable.

Refuse Collection:

The hospital is presently served by a private refuse collection firm. This service must be extended to the expanded hospital.

The City currently provides the hospital with tin and glass recyclable service. The City is prepared to continue the provision of this service until the year 2006, whereupon, according to current City policy, the hospital will be required to arrange for private recyclable collection service. In order to provide for City rear bin collection of these recyclables for the enlarged hospital, it will be necessary for the owner provide for the provision of 4 glass and tin bins, at grade, adjacent to a Type B loading space.

Reference Plan of Survey:

In the event that the owner is required to enter into a heritage agreement, the owner should be required to submit a Reference Plan of Survey, in metric units, for the portion of the site subject to the agreement. If a heritage agreement is not required, the usual requirement for a Reference Plan of Survey can be waived.

Encroachments:

The encroachment of an existing tunnel under Shuter Street and wheelchair ramp on Shuter Street are covered by existing agreements. However, the existing steps on Bond Street are not covered in any agreement. The owner is required to file an application to enter into an encroachment agreement with respect to these steps as set out in Recommendation No. 1(o), above.

The encroachment of the existing canopy onto Bond Street falls under the jurisdiction of your Department.

Storm Water Management:

Given that the existing and proposed buildings occupy virtually all of the site, it is recognized that there are limited opportunities for infiltrating storm water into the ground. The owner will have to submit an application to this Department for any new storm connections. A grading plan must also be submitted and approved by this Department, prior to the issuance of the Phase 1 development, showing all elevations related to the proposed modifications to the Queen Street East entrance and circular driveway."

(3)Director, Development and Support, Parks and Recreation, Central District, Economic Development, Culture, and Tourism, dated October 8, 1998:

"This will acknowledge the revised plans pertaining to the above noted development application which were circulated to Forestry Services on October 16, 1998. I have reviewed the circulated plans and advise that:

-There are seventeen (17) 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 advise that Landscape Plan R-5 prepared by A.J. Diamond, Donald Schmitt and Company, date stamped as received on September 11, 1998 by Urban Planning & Development Services and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services is acceptable provided that the condition noted above is fulfilled."

(4)Manager, Service Planning, Toronto Transit Commission dated August 21, 1998:

"It is noted that the subject development is adjacent to streetcar operations on Queen Street and Victoria Street. Therefore, please inform the applicant that the Commission will not accept responsibility for the effects of transit operations on the building or its occupants. Since noise and vibration may be transmitted from street traffic and from our transit operations, the developer should apply attenuation measures so that the levels of noise and vibration in the proposed development will be at the lowest level technically feasible.

In reference to the renovation of the Queen Street entrance and drop-off driveway, my staff met with the architect Paul Szaszkiewicz of A. J. Diamond, Donald Schmitt and Company and determined that due to the physical constraints of the existing building, it is not physically possible for the renovated entrance to conform to TTC standards for accommodating Wheel-Trans vehicles. However, once the construction is complete, we will review the finished entrance area to determine the best possible way for Wheel-Trans vehicles to serve the building."

(5)Environmental Health Officer, Environmental Health Services, Public Health, Community and Neighbourhood Services dated December 8, 1998:

"Thank you for your request of November 17, 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 applicant proposes to:

(a)Renovate the Queen Street entrance;

(b)Provide a new garden at Victoria and Queen Streets;

(c)Provide new landscaping adjacent to the Bond Street entrance;

(d)Consolidate garbage and loading facilities;

(e)Add underground parking facilities;

(f)Add 4 storeys and a new mechanical penthouse to an existing 10 storey wing of the hospital; and

(g)Replace the existing wing at Bond and Shuter Streets with a new 9 storey wing plus a new mechanical penthouse.

EHS has no information in our files for 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 an 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. The report should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for review, prior to the issuance of any building permit;

(2)That the owner shall conduct a site and building audit for the identification of all hazardous materials on site and in the existing buildings. 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 and building audit should be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health for review, prior to the issuance of any building permit;

(3)That the owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterizes soil and groundwater conditions and proposes remediation options, to be submitted to the Medical Officer of Health, for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit;

(4)That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan;

(5)That the owner shall prepare a Dust Control Plan and submit this plan to the Medical Officer of Health for approval, prior to the issuance of any building permit; and

(6)That the owner shall implement the measures in the Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health."

________

Letter dated July 10, 1998, from the Acting Director, Health Reform Implementation Team, Ministry of Health, to President and Chief Executive Officer, St. Michael's Hospital:

Re: St. Michael's Hospital Re-Zoning Application

I understand that in order to implement the directions of the Health Services Restructuring Commission (HSRC), St. Michael's Hospital will need to undertake a significant capital expansion. I further understand that this expansion will require a re-zoning approval.

I am writing to confirm that the Ministry supports the need for St. Michael's Hospital to undertake capital projects to implement the directions of the HSRC.

I hope this confirmation will assist the hospital's re-zoning application.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 8

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 9

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 10

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

Insert Table/Map No. 11

Rezoning Application No. 198011 - 30 Bond Street

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the joint communication (undated) from Mr. John Bell and Ms. Michelle Robidoux, We're No Angels Coalition, which was forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding a submission (January20, 1999) from Mr. John Bell and Ms. Michelle Robidoux, We're No Angels, regarding the Draft Zoning By-law - Lands Bounded by Queen, Victoria, Shuter and Bond Streets - St.Michael's Hospital (Downtown).)

Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments -

130 Gerrard Street East, 337 Jarvis Street and

12, 14, 16 and 18 Horticultural Avenue (Downtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the Draft By-laws attached to the report (January6,1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto, subject to receipt by the City Solicitor from the Owner of the subject lands of written confirmation (subject to the adoption and coming into force of the by-laws) that:

(a)Application No. 195011 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be withdrawn;

(b)Cityplan (Official Plan and Zoning By-law) and the site-specific Zoning By-law appeals now before the Ontario Municipal Board will be withdrawn; and

(c)The Owner will not object to the designation of 337Jarvis Street and 130 Gerrard Street East under the Ontario Heritage Act;

(2)recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (3) of the report (March7,1997) of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services of the former City of Toronto be adopted.

(3)the Council policy of the former City of Toronto which requires a Noise Impact Statement be waived.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to indicate in her report on the designation of 337 Jarvis Street and 130 Gerrard Street East, which portions of the buildings are historical and which are more recent additions.

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 January 20, 1999, and the Ms. Mary Flynn-Guglietti, Goodman and Carr, on behalf of the Toronto Baptist Seminary and the Trustees of the Jarvis Street Baptist Church, addressed the Toronto Community Council.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 6, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft official plan amendment and zoning by-law to permit the existing church, residential and seminary uses and their existing built form on the site of the Toronto Baptist Seminary and Jarvis Street Baptist Church.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications for the City.

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;

(2)following the Public Meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft by-laws, it could recommend that the Draft By-laws attached to the report (January6,1999) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary bills in Council to give effect thereto, subject to receipt by the City Solicitor from the Owner of the subject lands of written confirmation (subject to the adoption and coming into force of the by-laws) that:

(a)Application No. 195011 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law be withdrawn;

(b)Cityplan (Official Plan and Zoning By-law) and the site-specific Zoning By-law appeals now before the Ontario Municipal Board will be withdrawn; and

(c)The Owner will not object to the designation of 337Jarvis Street and 130 Gerrard Street East under the Ontario Heritage Act; and

(3)Recommendations Nos. (1), (2) and (3) of the report (March7,1997) of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services of the former City of Toronto be adopted; and

(4)the Council policy of the former City of Toronto which requires a Noise Impact Statement be waived.

Council Reference/Background/History:

The Land Use Committee of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of March27,1997, adopted the report (March 7, 1997) of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services of the former City of Toronto. The Committee also requested that because the application involves confirmation of the existing use of land and does not involve any new development that City Council policy which requires a Noise Impact Statement be waived.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The report (March 7, 1997) of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services of the former City of Toronto will be before your Committee at the meeting to be held on January20,1999. The report recommends the passage of a site specific zoning by-law to permit the existing uses and built form on the site.

Attached are the necessary draft by-laws which if enacted will give effect to the planning report which was before the Land Use Committee of the former City of Toronto.

An Official Plan Amendment has been incorporated into the report as it is necessary to amend the definition of lot to allow the site to be treated as one lot. The usual definition of lot would otherwise require each of the 6 buildings on the site to be assigned a separate lot. In addition, the overall building density on the site of 1.6 times the lot area exceeds the permission in the South of Carlton Part II Secondary Plan of 1.35 times the area of the lot. The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services advises that the site is governed by the South of Carlton Part II Official Plan as a Medium Density Residence Area which permits a building density of 1.35 times the area of the lot. The reference in the March7,1997 planning report is to the Medium Density Residence Area in the Part I Plan which permits a building density of 2 times the area of the lot within the central area. I am advised that this clarification does not alter her conclusion that the existing buildings on the subject lands at an aggregate density of 1.6 times the lot area is an appropriate density and that it is desirable to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the use of the existing buildings at this density.

Conclusions:

The draft by-law report brings forward a draft official plan and zoning by-law for consideration pursuant to the actions of the Land Use Committee of the former City of Toronto.

Contact Name:

William Hawryliw, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7237

Fax: (416) 392-0024

E-mail: whawryli@toronto.ca

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To adopt an Amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto

respecting lands known as Nos. 130 Gerrard Street East, 337 Jarvis Street

and 12, 14, 16, and 18 Horticultural Avenue.

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

1.The text and map annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto.

2.This is Official Plan Amendment No.

________

SCHEDULE "A"

1.Section 18 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto is hereby amended by adding as Section 18.___ the following text and map:

"18.___Lands known as Nos. 130 Gerrard Street East, 337 Jarvis Street and 12, 14, 16, and 18 Horticultural Avenue.

Despite any of the provisions of Section 19.9, being Part II of the Official Plan for the South of Carlton Area, and of the definition of lot, Council may pass the by-laws respecting the lot shown on Map 18.___ to permit the use of the buildings existing in the year 1998 on the lot with a maximum gross floor area of 6600 square metres.

For the purposes of this amendment, lot means the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on the attached Map 18.___ on which is erected in the year 1998, 6 buildings."

(Map to be attached)

________

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority:Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

as adopted by Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

BY-LAW No. -1999

To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto with respect to

lands known as Nos. 130 Gerrard Street East, 337 Jarvis Street

and 12, 14, 16, and 18 Horticultural Avenue.

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

1.None of the provisions of Sections 4(2), 6(1)(f)(b) or 6(3) Part I of By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto 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 buildings existing in the year 1998 and the uses contained within such buildings in the year 1998, on the lot, provided the combined residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area of the buildings does not exceed 6600 square metres and the lot consists of at least the lands shown outlined by heavy lines on the attached plan.

2.For the purposes of this By-law:

(1)the word "lot", notwithstanding the definition contained in Section 2 of By-law No. 438-86, means the lands outlined by heavy lines on the attached Plan 1, whether or not the 6 existing buildings on the lot are joined above or below grade; and

(2)each word or expression which is italicised in this by-law, other than "lot", shall have the same meaning as each word or expression as defined in By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (March 7, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Recommendations:

(1)That the City Solicitor be requested to submit a draft by-law to amend the City's Zoning By-law as it affects the site at 130 Gerrard Street East, 337 Jarvis Street and 12, 14, 16 and 18 Horticultural Avenue, shown on Map 1, so as to:

(a)permit a "private academic, philanthropic or religious school";

(b)permit up to 6600 square metres of non-residential and residential gross floor area on the lot for the existing place of worship and accessory uses located in a building at 130 Gerrard Street East, dormitory uses located in the houses at 12 - 18 Horticultural Avenue and religious school uses located in the building at 337 Jarvis Street; and

(c)permit the existing built form of the church building including the height of the existing architectural elements where they exceed the permitted height of 12.0 metres;

(2)That prior to the public meeting on the draft by-laws, this Final Report be forwarded to the Planning Advisory Committee for consideration; and

(3)That prior to the introduction of the Bill in Council, the applicant shall provide written confirmation to the City Solicitor that, subject to the adoption and coming into force of the Zoning By-law amendment recommended in No. 1 above,:

(a)Application 195011 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law will be withdrawn;

(b)Cityplan (Official Plan and Zoning By-law) and the site-specific Zoning By-law appeals now before the Ontario Municipal Board will be withdrawn; and

(c)the owner will not object to the designation of 337 Jarvis Street and 130 Gerrard Street East under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Comments:

1.0Background:

At its meeting of October 19, 1995, the Land Use Committee adopted the Preliminary Report on Application No. 195011 to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to permit the existing church and an additional new building containing dormitory and seminary uses on the site at the northeast corner of Jarvis and Gerrard Streets - 130 Gerrard Street East, 337 Jarvis Street and 12, 14, 16 and 18 Horticultural Avenue. The matter was referred to the Planning Advisory Committee to hold a public meeting in the community.

The Planning Advisory Committee held a meeting on January 17, 1996 attended by approximately 90 members of the public. The minutes of the public meeting are attached as Appendix A. The issues discussed focussed on the impact of the redevelopment on Allan Gardens to the north, the role of the church in the community, built form and development, zoning and heritage. The majority of area residents objected to the proposal.

Subsequently, on July 16, 1996, following discussions between the applicant's solicitor, Ward 6 Councillor Kyle Rae and planning staff, the applicant submitted a letter to the City proposing that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment application be withdrawn. The applicant's solicitor proposed that appropriate Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments be made to permit the existing seminary use, the existing height and density of the seminary use and the height of the church.

This report responds to this proposal and recommends acceptance as a means to resolve this application and related appeals in an appropriate manner. The proposed resolution set out in this report will also assist the City and the applicant on April 1, 1997 when the Ontario Municipal Board reconvenes to consider outstanding Cityplan appeal matters.

2.0Official Plan and Zoning By-law:

2.1Existing:

The subject lands are designated Medium Density Mixed Commercial Residential Area and Medium Density Residence Area in the Part I Official Plan. The South of Carlton Part II Plan, which prevails over the Part I Plan, designates the lands Medium Density Residence Area. The Medium Density designation permits up to 2.0 times the area of the lot for residential uses.

The existing zoning is R3 Z1.0 with a height limit of 11.6 metres.

2.2Cityplan Amendments:

Cityplan amended the Part I Plan designations to bring them into conformity with the Part II Plan designation of Medium Density Residence Area.

Respecting the Zoning By-law, Cityplan amended the height limit to 12.0 metres but did not otherwise amend the zoning of the site.

3.0 Appeals:

The owner of the subject site appealed the above noted Cityplan amendments on August 17, 1993. The owner appealed their site-specific Zoning By-law amendment application on May 17, 1995.

4.0Planning Considerations:

The following planning considerations have been taken into account in reviewing the proposed resolution of this matter:

(a)The existing uses including the church, the attached accessory building, the seminary housed at 337 Jarvis Street and the associated dormitory uses in the houses at 12-18 Horticultural Avenue all for religious and religious school purposes do not present any adverse impact on Allan Gardens from a land use or built form perspective due to the residential character and existing massing of the buildings, their historic characteristics and the relatively low intensity of the land use.

(b)The existing Zoning By-law designation permits 1.0 times the area of the lot while the Official Plan permits up to 2.0 times the area of the lot for residential uses. The following table sets out existing densities:

Address: Site Area: Existing Gross Floor Area: Density:

m2m2

130 Gerrard Street2561.8 5644.52.2

337 Jarvis Street 947.5 273.10.3

12 - 14

Horticultural Ave. 696.7 676.71.0

Aggregate Totals4206.06594.31.6

(Note that all site areas and existing gross floor areas of all buildings except 130 Gerrard Street were obtained from the City's Land Use Information system. Existing gross floor area of 130 Gerrard Street was provided by the applicant. The applicant's survey shows an aggregate site area of 4,167m2, 38m2 less than the City's figure. This however does not affect the density in a measurable way.)

On an aggregate basis, the density permitted by the Zoning is exceeded while the Official Plan limit is not. The church and addition located at 130 Gerrard exceed both the Zoning and Official Plan.

Given that this is an existing condition, that there is on site parking, that open space is provided on Jarvis Street and that the buildings at 337 Jarvis Street and 130 Gerrard Street are of significant heritage value, the existing density is considered acceptable to permit on an as-of-right basis in the Zoning By-law.

(c)The site and situation present considerable impediments to be overcome in order to achieve redevelopment including the tight size of the site between the existing church and the park, the constraints of buildings listed as historic on the City's Inventory and the adjacency to Allan Gardens and potential adverse impacts on Allan Gardens which may result from redevelopment. From a built form perspective, the most desirable solution would be to maintain the existing situation.

(d)The Toronto Historical Board has recommended to the Neighbourhoods Committee that 337 Jarvis Street (built 1849-50) and 130 Gerrard Street East (built 1874-75) be individually designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act for architectural and historic reasons. The buildings are significant examples of 19th century Toronto development and history.

The preservation of these buildings will be served through the recognition of their existing use and density in the regulatory framework for the site.

(e)Issues raised at the community meeting and opposition to redevelopment on this site would be addressed by recognizing the existing uses and density on the site as an alternative to pursuing redevelopment.

I am of the view that permitting the existing uses and density as-of-right is appropriate and desirable for the use of the land. In consideration of the significant issues raised at the community meeting and concerns expressed in the Preliminary Report, the applicant's proposal to permit the existing uses on the lands as-of-right is preferable to redevelopment.

5.0Implementation:

An Official Plan amendment is not required for this application as the uses which can be described as a "church" and "other religious institution" (religious seminary and dormitory) are permitted under the definition of "residential" in the Part I Official Plan and this site is designated as a residence area. The proposed aggregate site density of 1.6 times the lot area or 6594.3 square metres of gross floor area (rounded up to 6600 square metres) is within the permitted 2.0 times the lot area under the Medium Density Residence Area designation.

A Zoning By-law amendment is required to:

(a)permit a "private academic, philanthropic or religious school";

(b)permit 6600 square metres of non-residential and residential gross floor area for the existing church building and existing addition at 130 Gerrard Street East, the houses at 12 - 18 Horticultural Avenue and the building at 337 Jarvis Street; and

(c)permit the built form of the church including the height of existing architectural elements where they exceed the permitted height of 12.0 metres.

I am recommending that prior to consideration of draft by-laws, that this report be considered by the Planning Advisory Committee, notwithstanding that an Official Plan Amendment is no longer contemplated, as this matter was subject to a community meeting chaired by the Planning Advisory Committee.

Subject to the coming into force of a Zoning By-law amendment as set out above, I am recommending that the applicant undertake in writing to withdraw the redevelopment application, the Cityplan and site-specific appeals now before the Ontario Municipal Board and that the applicant not object to the designation of the buildings at 337 Jarvis Street and 130 Gerrard Street East under the Ontario Heritage Act.

Conclusion:

I am recommending a resolution of this application and related appeals. Both the applicant's desire to have as-of-right zoning permission for the existing religious institutional uses, the built form and the density on the site and the concerns expressed with respect to the potential adverse impact of redevelopment on this site have been suitably addressed.

--------

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval: N Application Number: 195011

Rezoning: Y Application Date: March 3, 1995

O. P. A.: Y Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address:130 Gerrard St. E., 337 Jarvis St. and 12, 14, 16, and 18 Horticultural Avenue.

Nearest Intersection: On the north-east corner of Gerrard St E. and Jarvis St.

Project Description: To make a site specific amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law 425-93 in order to accommodate redevelopment of the lands for church and seminary uses.

Applicant:

Goodman & Carr

200 King St. W., Ste. 2300

595-0567
Agent:

Goodman & Carr

200 King St. W., Ste. 2300

595-0567
Architect:

F.J. Reinders & Assoc.

201 County Court Blvd.

457-1618

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: Medium Density Residence Area Site Specific Provision: No

Zoning District: R3 Z1.0 Historical Status: Listed (see comments)

Height Limit (m): 12.0 Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area:
4167.5 m²
Height: Storeys: 7 + Basement

Frontage: 80.1 m Metres: 23.36

Depth: 52.2 m

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: 1981.6 m² Parking Spaces: 53

Residential GFA: 2412.7 m² Loading Docks:

Non-Residential GFA: 7526.2 m² (number, type)

Total GFA: 10368.4 m²

Dwelling Units Floor Area Breakdown

Tenure: Rental-Priv. Land Use Above Grade Below Grade

Total Units: 24 Institutional 5715.2 m² 1811.0 m²

Residential 2412.7 m²

Parking 183.4 m² 246.1 m²

Proposed Density

Residential Density: Non-Residential Density: 2.49 Total Density: 2.49

Comments

130 Gerrard St. E., and 337 Jarvis St. are listed as historical. The Total GFA includes the above and below parking areas. The 18 dormitory units contain a total of 69 dwelling rooms and there are also 6 family dormitory units.

Status:

Application Received.

Data valid:

March 3, 1995

Section:

CP East

Phone:

392-7333

________

Appendix A

Minutes of the Public Meeting held by the

Planning Advisory Committee on Wednesday January 17, 1996

at 7:30 p.m. at the Jarvis Street Baptist Church

regarding Application 95011 for

130 Gerrard St. E., 337 Jarvis Street and

12, 14, 16 and 18 Horticultural Avenue

In Attendance:

Margaret Blair, Planning Advisory Committee

Babak Abbaszadeh, Planning Advisory Committee

Kyle Rae, City Councillor, Ward 6

Gregg Lintern, Planning and Development Department

Deborah Porte, Planning and Development Department

Robert Watson, Parks and Recreation Department

Mary Flynn-Guglietti, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors

Dr. Daniel Lundy, Pastor, Jarvis Street Baptist Church

and approximately 90 members of the public

Comments:

Margaret Blair opened the meeting and introduced the participants.

Planner's Presentation:

Mr. Lintern explained the purpose of the meeting, the nature of the application and what amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law were being sought. It was also noted that the Cityplan Official Plan and Zoning By-law was under appeal for this site as well as the site-specific application.

Mr. Lintern suggested that two questions were before the community for discussion: 1) the appropriateness of the existing church and seminary/dormitory uses and 2) the desirability of additional development on the site.

Applicant's Presentation:

Ms. Flynn-Guglietti reviewed the applicability of Cityplan policies to the application: 1) the revitalization of the core, 2) the desire to keep historic sites and 3) encouragement of mixed- use developments in the core. She described the nature of seminary and the need to expand the "learning part" of the building on site and house students. Ms. Flynn-Guglietti indicated that the proposal was not at a detailed stage yet as it was a long term plan.

Ms. Flynn-Guglietti reviewed the history of the discussions held with City staff about the Cityplan changes. On the suggestion of the City, the church provided massing drawings to bring an understanding forward of what the church required in terms of site-specific permission.

With respect to impacts, the applicant's shadow studies for June showed no impact while shadowing in December showed an impact on the park. This would be less an issue given existing shadows and low sunlight in the winter. Nevertheless, the massing of the proposed building had been stepped.

It is the intention of the application to provide clear rules for future development with detailed building design coming at a later stage. It was suggested that the parking situation would be improved. Ms. Flynn-Guglietti then summarized her remarks.

Discussion:

The discussion focused on several issues:

(1)Im pact on the Park: Concern was expressed from many community members that the development would have a negative impact on the park in the following ways:

(a)shadowing on the park space and on the adjacent greenhouse;

(b)impact on the trees because of less light, drainage and construction damage;

(c)principle of not building next to the park is paramount; the park is a City resource, growing importance for residents, workers and tourists;

(d)history of the park has been incremental expansion; proposal goes against this progress; the church site should be purchased by the City or a land/building swap should take place;

(e)building is out of scale with the park; seven storey building is inappropriate and intrusive, would denigrate from its role as something which gives relief to the community; and

(f)some people view the subject site as part of the park already.

Robert Watson addressed the parks issues: there will be impact on approximately 20 trees; a tree preservation plan will be required; restoration of the park by the applicant will be required; shadow issues of concern especially with respect to the westerly greenhouse which is affected by sunlight patterns.

(2)Role in the community: There was a discussion about who uses the church, its role in the community, the service it provides and the seminary/dormitory function.

Ms. Flynn-Guglietti stressed on behalf of the church that it was part of the community. Members of the church also spoke to the issue.

Pastor Lundy indicated that 400 people use the church on Sunday morning and about 200 on Sunday evening. As well there was an afternoon service of about 80 people. People come from the immediate area and from up to 45 minutes away by car.

The issue of realty tax exemption was also discussed.

(3)Built Form and development issues: Setbacks from the park and from the church were discussed; concern about the nature of the area between the church and proposed building; parking entrance options including safety and accessibility.

(4)Zoning issues: A concern was raised about granting the zoning change for a future development.

(5)Heritage issues: Concern was expressed that the church had not yet been designated and that demolition would be threatened.

Councillor Rae addressed the meeting. He expressed the opinion that his preferred option would be to incorporate the site into Allan Gardens given that the history of Allan Gardens had been one of incremental land acquisition. His concerns included: viewing the needs of the church separately from the needs of the seminary (this would take pressure off this site); seven storey building inappropriate, will negatively impact the park, impacts go beyond massing concerns, diagrams difficult to form opinion on because of lack of detail.

Councillor Rae suggested that 179 Gerrard Street East, owned by the City, would make a good residential location for the seminary dormitory needs and be a more effective way of dealing with the housing needs of the church and the community concerns about the park.

Councillor Rae summarized by indicating that he was opposed to the application and that he supported other solutions to meeting the housing needs of the church.

Ms. Flynn-Guglietti indicated that the submissions were appropriate to determine a Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment and that she hoped that some concerns expressed by the community could be addressed.

Mr. Lintern concluded by advising the meeting that the issues raised would be taken into account as the City's review of the application continued.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Zoning Designations - 130 Gerrard St., 337 Jarvis St. & 12,14,16,18 Horticult.

Insert Table/Map No. 2

Zoning Designations - 130 Gerrard St., 337 Jarvis St. & 12,14,16,18 Horticult.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (April 3, 1997) from the former City of Toronto Land Use Committee:

At its meeting held on March 27, 1997, the Land Use Committee had before it a report (March7,1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, respecting a Final Report Application No. 95011 for 130 Gerrard Street, 337 Jarvis Street and 12, 14, 16 and 18 Horticultural Avenue to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law (Ward 6).

Mary Flynn-Guglietti, Goodman and Carr, Barristers and Solicitors, addressed the Committee.

The Committee adopted the report (March 7, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

The Committee also requested that, because the application involves confirmation of the existing use of land and does not involve any new development, the City Council policy which requires a Noise Impact Statement be waived.

________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (January 5, 1999) from Mr. C. Tim Devlin, which was forwarded to Members of Council under separate cover.

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a communication (January 25, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding a submission (January5,1999) from Mr. C. Tim Devlin, regarding Draft Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments - 130 Gerrard Street East, 337 Jarvis Street and 12,14, 16 and 18 Horticultural Avenue (Downtown).)

Tree Removal - 105 Hazelwood Avenue (Don River)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council refuse to issue a permit for tree removal at 105 Hazelwood Avenue.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that the applicant claims has caused damage to the house has been filed by Mrs. Dina Gatsis, 105 Hazelwood Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, M4J 1K4, owner of 105 Hazelwood Avenue.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)refuse to issue a permit to remove the tree; or

(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 and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a thirty-eight centimetre diameter blue spruce in fair condition. The spruce tree is located in the front yard approximately two metres from the front porch. The applicant has not included with their application any evidence of drain or structural repairs which have taken place or are required as a result of this tree. The spruce tree is healthy and structurally sound and could be pruned to provide clearance from the roof of the house.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto

Municipal Code - 276 King Street West (Downtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)City Council approve, in part, Application No. 998048 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated mural sign at 276 King Street West;

(2)City Council refuse, in part, Application No. 998048 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated awning sign at 276 King Street West; and

(3)The applicant be advised, upon partial approval of Application No. 998048, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (December 31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to maintain one illuminated awning sign and one illuminated mural sign at 276 King Street West.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve, in part , Application No. 998048 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated mural sign;

(2)City Council refuse, in part, Application No. 998048 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to maintain one illuminated awning sign; and

(3)The applicant be advised, upon partial approval of Application No. 998048, 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 Pearl Street, Duncan Street and King Street West, in the King-Spadina reinvestment area (RA) district.. It contains a four storey building, occupied by a restaurant, The Peel Pub, on the first floor, with the upper floors occupied by other retail, museum, service and storage uses. The building is listed under the City's Inventory of Heritage Properties.

The applicant is requesting permission to maintain one illuminated awning sign and one illuminated mural sign to identify the first floor restaurant use, The Peel Pub (see Figure 1).

The awning sign has a length of 15.5 metres and a height of 2.1 metres, with an area of 32.5 m� . The mural sign has a length of 15.5 metres and a height of 5.8 metres, with an area of 90 m�. The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1)the area of the awning sign (32.5 m�) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 30 percent of the building face of the first storey commercial unit by 1.7 m�;

(2)the Municipal Code requires that individual awning signs have a maximum area of 25 m�. The awning sign has an area of 32.5 m�;

(3)the awning sign has a vertical clearance from the sidewalk to the bottom of the sign of 2.4 metres instead of 2.5 metres; and

(4)the area of the illuminated mural sign (90 m�) exceeds the maximum permitted area of 25 m� by 65 m�.

This application is problematic. These signs were installed without a permit. It was the responsibility of the applicant to consult with Heritage Toronto prior to installation to ensure that both the signage and its mountings were appropriate for the building. Staff of Heritage Toronto have advised that they would not have recommended approval of the existing signs without extensive revisions.

I can accept retention of the mural sign, given the character of other such signage in the King-Spadina entertainment area. A better treatment for the mural sign would to have painted the logos only within the window openings, and not across the brick facade. Heritage Toronto staff have advised that removal of the mural sign would cause further damage to the brickwork. For this reason only, Heritage Toronto staff accept retention of the mural sign.

However, I do not support retention of the awning sign. It has an inappropriate visual impact and overpowers the well-articulated facade of this historic building. I consider that permitting both an oversized illuminated mural sign as well as an oversized awning sign on this heritage building is excessive and seriously compromises the heritage value and integrity of the property.

Heritage Toronto staff agree with my opinion. In a meeting prior to submission of this minor variance application Heritage Toronto staff had requested that the applicant replace the portion of the awning sign over the entrance to the restaurant with a glass canopy, and recover the awning, by January 2000, in a colour scheme which will blend, rather than contrast with the historic building. At that time, the applicant was agreeable to this proposal.

In conclusion, I am recommending approval of the minor variances necessary for the illuminated mural sign. I am recommending refusal of the minor variances necessary for retention of the awning sign.

Contact Name:

Lora Mazzocca

Telephone: (416) 392-0421

Fax: (416) 392-7536

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

276 King Street West

Insert Table/Map No. 2

276 King Street West

Appeal of Denial of Application for a Boulevard Cafe -

2549 Yonge Street (North Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe at 2549 Yonge Street, as shown on Appendix 'A', attached to the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, 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.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the business owner's appeal of staff's refusal of an application for a boulevard cafe at 2549 Yonge Street, because a written objection was 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.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)City Council deny the application for a boulevard cafe at 2549 Yonge Street; or

(2)City Council approve the application for a boulevard cafe at 2549 Yonge Street, as shown on 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.

Background:

Mr. Allan R. Marshall, acting on behalf of Mr. Luis Carval Ho, owner of Luis Classico Pizza, 2549Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2H9, in his letter dated November 11, 1998, has requested an appeal of staff's decision to refuse an application for a boulevard cafe at 2549 Yonge Street.

Comments:

Mr. Luis Carval Ho, owner of Luis Classico Pizza, 2549 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario M4P 2H9, submitted an application on June 19, 1998, requesting a licence for a boulevard cafe fronting 2549Yonge Street for an area of approximately 7.8 sq. m., as shown on the attached sketch (Appendix 'A'). It can accommodate 2 tables, with a potential seating capacity of 7 people.

The application meets the physical criteria for boulevard cafes as set out in � 313-36 of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code requires that where a cafe proposal is to be located on a commercial frontage, 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 may be subject to an appeal by the applicant.

A notice was posted on August 18, 1998, with an expiry date of September 1, 1998, to determine neighbourhood support. Prior to the expiry date of the notice, one letter of objection (Appendix 'B') was received in opposition to the proposed cafe.

Mr. Carbal Ho was advised in writing that because of the negative response, we could not issue a licence.

Conclusion:

Staff cannot issue a licence for a boulevard cafe at 2549 Yonge Street due to the negative response to the public posting.

On hearing the deputations, the Toronto Community Council must decide whether or not to recommend that City Council grant the appeal.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ken McGuire, 392-7654

________

(A copy of the objection, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on January 20, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Mr. Luis Carvalho, applicant, appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix A - 2549 yonge street

Tree Removal - 250 Lytton Boulevard (North Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 250 Lytton Boulevard, conditional on the applicant agreeing to plant a replacement tree to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property due to problems with fruit and to allow for the construction of a new garage has been filed by Mr. Harold Moffatt, 1032 Graham Sideroad, R.R. No. 2 Newmarket, Ontario, L3Y 4V9, agent for the owner of 250 Lytton Boulevard.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)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 and Tourism; or

(2)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal.

Comments:

The tree in question is a fifty-six centimetre diameter black walnut in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Harold Moffatt, dated November 18, 1998, that accompanies the application states that the walnut tree is healthy. The report states that the owner has applied for a building permit to construct a new storage facility in the location of the tree and that the fruit from the tree has been a constant concern to the owner and an adjacent neighbour with a swimming pool. The crown of the tree overhangs a neighbours swimming pool and the pruning required to provide clearance from the pool would be excessive and detrimental to the health of the tree. If a permit is issued for the removal of the walnut tree, there is sufficient space in the rear yard for the planting of a large growing replacement tree.

A notice of application sign was posted on the property for the required 14 day posting period, in order to notify the neighbourhood and provide an opportunity for objection to the application. No written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. Three letters in support of the application for tree removal were received. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

________

(A copy of the letters in support, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on January 20, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (January 14, 1998) from T. F. Hankinson, in opposition to the application, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Tree Removal - 20 A Thornwood Road (Midtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, by striking out Recommendation No. (2) of the Toronto Community Council and inserting in lieu thereof, as a condition of removal of the willow tree, the following:

"(2)making a contribution of $1,500.00 to the City's Urban Forestry Program for the planting of shade trees on the municipal right-of-way in the neighbourhood.".)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that City Council issue a permit for tree removal at 20 A Thornwood Road, conditional on the applicant:

(1)providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism; and

(2)making a contribution to cover the cost of a replacement tree, satisfactory to the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

Purpose:

An application for a permit to remove one tree on private property that the applicant's arborist feels is not sustainable on the site has been filed by Mr. John Lloyd, Lloyd and Nodwell Landscape Architects, 59 Huntley Street, Toronto, Ontario, M4Y 2L2, agent for the owner of 20 A Thornwood Road.

Financial Implications:

N/A

Recommendations:

Either 1, or 2 below

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; or

(2)issue a permit for tree removal conditional on the applicant providing a detailed landscape plan for the property to be approved by the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Comments:

The tree in question is a seventy-five centimetre diameter weeping willow in fair condition. The arborist report prepared by Shady Lane Expert Tree Care Inc., dated September 25, 1998, that accompanies the application states that the willow tree is structurally weak and leaning towards the house. The report states that the tree was topped in the past resulting in sucker growth in the crown. The report concludes that the willow should be removed as it is not sustainable on this site. In the opinion of staff the willow tree is structurally sound and viable to maintain at this time. The previous owner constructed the existing house with the intention of preserving the willow tree on the site and contracted an arborist to implement a tree preservation plan to protect the tree during construction. The willow tree is a fast growing, weak wooded species and as the crown of this specimen consists of sucker growth, as a result of past severe pruning, the tree will have to be monitored regularly by a qualified tree expert in order to schedule any maintenance requirements.

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. Six written objections were received in response to the application to remove the tree in question. Copies of these letters have been forwarded to the Community Council Secretary for the Community Council to review.

Contact Name:

Andrew Pickett

Telephone:(416) 392-6644

Facsimile:(416) 392-6657

e-mail:apickett@toronto.ca

________

(A copy of the objections, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on January 20, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communications (January 18, 1999 and December1, 1998) from Ms. Heather deVeber, in opposition to the application, 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. Stephen MacDonald, applicant; and

-Mr. Lewis Arnold, Arborist, on behalf of the applicant.

Ontario Municipal Board - Final Settlement

- Winchester Square (Don River)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December31, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Financial Implications:

The final settlement will result (upon completion of conditions) in a payment to the City of $500,000.00 for the purpose of contributing to community facilities at the City owned site at Sherbourne and Wellesley Streets.

Recommendation:

That the previous authorization concerning a Section 37 Agreement for Winchester Square (Urban Development Services report dated September 22, 1997) be amended to delete the provisions respecting requirements for the provision of community service and facility space as well as the education space and to replace such with the requirement that the owner pay to the City the sum of $500,000.00 for the purpose of contributing to community facility development in the St. James Town area and pay to the Toronto Board of Education the sum of $150,000.00 in lieu of the provision of education space.

Comments:

At its meeting of September 22, 1997, the former City of Toronto Council adopted a report concerning a settlement of issues for the Winchester Square Ontario Municipal Board hearing. That report had a number of recommendations to, among other things advise the Ontario Municipal Board of an acceptable Zoning By-law for the site, to release provisions of existing agreements and to execute a Section 37 agreement to secure community space at such time as one of the buildings in the development would be built in the future. As events have transpired in the past year the City has secured a site at Wellesley and Sherbourne Streets for the future construction of a community facility and the owners of the Winchester Square site have proposed to give the City a cash settlement of $500,000.00 in lieu of providing 750 square metres of community space in one of the buildings to be constructed at an undetermined time in the future. The owners are also proposing to give the Toronto Board of Education a sum of $150,000.00 in lieu of providing a smaller amount of space in such building.

I am recommending that the City accept this proposal since it assists the City in financing the development cost of the proposed community facility at Sherbourne and Wellesley Streets and it provides certainty compared to the provision of community space at an undetermined time in the future. I understand that the Board of Education also finds the proposal acceptable for their purposes. The payments to the City and the Board of Education would take place immediately prior to final zoning being approved by the Ontario Municipal Board.

This approval, along with the completion of previously approved actions would bring an end to a long and complicated dispute concerning this development site and would benefit both the City and the owners.

Contact Name:

Gary Wright

Community Planning, East Section

Phone: 416-392-1791

Fax:416-392-1330

Email:gwright1@toronto.ca

The Toronto Community Council also submits Clause No. 33 of Report No. 21 of the Executive Committee of the Former City of Toronto, headed "Request for Status Report on Winchester Square - Issues Before the OMB (Ward 7)", which was amended and adopted by the Council of the former City of Toronto at its meeting of September 22 and 23, 1997:

The Executive Committee submits this matter to Council without recommendation.

The Executive Committee advises that it has requested the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the City Solicitor to report directly to City Council on September 22, 1997, on the status of a proposed settlement of Winchester Square issues which are before the Ontario Municipal Board.

The Executive Committee submits of the report (September 9, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Origin: Commissioner of Urban Development Services (p:\1997\ug\uds\pln\ex971384.pln) - st

Recommendation: That the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the City Solicitor be requested to report directly to the City Council meeting of September 22, 1997 on the status of a proposed settlement of Winchester Square issues which are before the Ontario Municipal Board

Comments: In a March 28, 1995 decision on the Winchester Square lands, the Ontario Municipal Board dealt with several issues between the parties but was unable to reach a definitive conclusion on all matters. On November 28, 1995 City Council instructed the then Commissioner of Planning and Development and the City Solicitor to present a proposed City settlement position, as outlined in a report of November 27, 1995 (Executive Committee Report No. 27, Clause 43), to the owners and to the Ontario Municipal Board at its hearing of December 15, 1995. The settlement position was subsequently rejected by the owners.

Negotiations have been continuing in an effort to reach agreement on all outstanding issues and it is hoped that such agreement will be reached shortly.

This report recommends that the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the City Solicitor report directly to the City Council meeting of September 22, 1997 on the status of these negotiations. The City Solicitor concurs with this recommendation.

________

(Council Action - September 22 and 23, 1997)

While considering this Clause, Council had before it the following report from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (September 22, 1997):

Subject: Settlement of outstanding issues before the Ontario Municipal Board respecting Winchester Square (Ward 7)

Origin: Commissioner of Urban Development Services (p:\1997\ug\pln\cn971436.pln) -tm

Recommendations:

(1)That City staff be authorized to advise the Ontario Municipal Board that a Zoning By-law amending By-law 657-76, as amended, substantially in the form attached as Appendix A to this report, is acceptable to City Council, provided that the matters described in Section 3 of this report have been resolved and secured to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Corporate Services;

(2)That City officials be authorized to execute an agreement, pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act, 1990, substantially in the form attached as Appendix B, modified to incorporate Appendix C in Article IX and to add Appendix D as an Appendix to the Section 37 Agreement, such agreement to be registered as a first encumbrance against the title to the lot(s), to secure the matters outlined in Section 3 of this report;

(3)That a settlement of issues between Hugh Garner Co-operative and the owners respecting the Ramp Closing Agreement and the Ramp Closing Specifications, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and the City Solicitor be incorporated into the Section 37 agreement;

(4)That City officials be authorized to execute releases of provisions of existing agreements on title to Parcels A, B and C, as determined by the Commissioner of Urban Development Services, in consultation with the City Solicitor, and to execute any amendments to the Section 37 agreement which may be required to incorporate former provisions into one consolidated agreement covering the Winchester Square parcels;

(5)That the City Clerk be authorized to assign a number to the Zoning By-law once the Ontario Municipal Board Order has been issued;

(6)Upon the issuance of the Ontario Municipal Board Order, in accordance with this report, that the City Solicitor be authorized to withdraw the application to the Divisional Court for leave to appeal in this matter;

(7)That a Bill be authorized to amend the Parks Levy By-law to exempt the Winchester Square lands from Chapter 165, Development of Land, Article 1, Conveyance of Land for Park Purpose, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, upon issuance of the Ontario Municipal Board Order; and

(8)That City officials be given the authority to execute an agreement with the Toronto Board of Education which provides that the City shall act as trustee for the conveyance of those facilities, matters and things provided by the owners through the City to the Board of Education, as required by a by-law pursuant to Section 37 and as secured in the Section 37 Agreement and in the Board of Education's Option to Lease and Form of Lease.

Summary: This report recommends that Council accept the position described in this report as settlement of all outstanding issues before the Ontario Municipal Board respecting the Winchester Square lands. I am recommending that Council accept the Zoning By-law contained in Appendix A which implements the Board's decisions respecting certain building envelopes on the three remaining Winchester Square building parcels provided that matters outlined in Section 3 of this report are secured to the City through a Section 37 Agreement.

The Section 37 Agreement secures either the provision of 750 square metres of space for a community/library facility in Building A (Wellesley/Ontario) for a nominal sum on a 99 year lease plus a finishing allowance of $30.00 per square foot (in 1995 dollars), indexed, or an option to take cash in lieu of the space. The provision of 340 square metres of education space in Building A for use of the Toronto Board of Education is secured under similar terms with the exception of the finishing allowance.

The Agreement also secures the creation of an underground lane system in place of the surface lane and access ramp currently serving the underground garage. This underground lane is a key component of the site planning for Parcels A and B, freeing up valuable space at ground level for a consolidated, useable landscaped open space area.

Section 3 of this report outlines other Section 37 issues such as public parking spaces, parks levy, withdrawal of the City's leave to appeal application and release of agreements.

Issues highlighted in the Appendices with a double asterisk (**) are still under discussion and expected to be resolved shortly. There are minor matters not indicated by a double asterisk which are still under discussion and are largely of a technical nature. These too are expected to be resolved shortly.

The report recommends that City staff be authorized to report to the Ontario Municipal Board on the acceptance by Council of the Zoning By-law substantially in the form attached as Appendix A and also be given the authority to enter into a Section 37 Agreement substantially in the form attached as Appendices B, C and D, as amended to incorporate any necessary provisions into the Section 37 Agreement resulting from a settlement of Hugh Garner Co-operative issues.

Comments:

1.Background

An Ontario Municipal Board hearing, convened over a total of ten weeks during 1993 and 1994, resulted in a March 28, 1995 decision respecting the Winchester Square lands which failed to reach a definitive conclusion on several planning matters. However, the Board's decision contained certain findings which were intended to point the parties in particular directions.

On November 27, 1995, Council adopted a proposed City settlement position following the recommendations of the then Commissioner of Planning and Development in a report of the same date. That report noted that the major issues remaining at that time were the provision of community space within the development and the relationship between the provision of this space and the owners' request for relief from their contractual obligation to provide an extra 150 public parking spaces in addition to the spaces provided to meet Zoning By-law requirements. The settlement position was presented to the owners and the Ontario Municipal Board on December 15, 1995, but was rejected by the owners.

Subsequent negotiations have resulted in agreement being reached respecting all major outstanding issues. A few minor matters remain. This report recommends that Council support the settlement position, i.e. that Council indicate its acceptance of the proposed Zoning By-law contingent on the securing of certain matters by means of a Section 37 agreement .

The main components of the settlement position are the Zoning By-law described in Section 2 below and the Section 37 Agreement, including the Option to Lease and Form of Lease described in Section 3 below.

2.Zoning By-law

The full text of the Zoning By-law is contained in Appendix A. Portions marked by a double asterisk (**) are issues requiring further discussion.

The Zoning By-law amends By-law 657-76, as amended, and implements the Board's decision approving certain building envelopes on the remaining three Winchester Square building parcels, i.e. Parcels A, B and C as indicated on Maps 1, 2 and 3 attached to the by-law ( See Appendix A for Zoning By-law and Maps.)

Parcel A at the corner of Wellesley Street East and Ontario Street has a six-storey base building which rises to 10 storeys on the Wellesley Street East frontage, stepping down to four storeys on Ontario Street (See Map 3.) Parcel B at the corner of Bleecker Street and Wellesley Street East has a six-storey base building rising to 12 storeys on the Wellesley Street East frontage, stepping down to eight floors plus a mezzanine floor along Bleecker Street. The Sherbourne Street parcel, Parcel C, has a seven-storey tower straddling four-storey wings along Bleecker and Sherbourne Streets. (See Map 2.) The height map shows heights in both storeys and metres.

The Zoning By-law requires the provision of 750 square metres of space for community services and facilities in a building on Parcel A as well as the provision of 340 square metres of space for education use in the same building. Non-residential gross floor area up to a maximum of 150 square metres on Parcel A and 500 square metres on Parcel B will be permitted in addition to the community services and facilities space and the education space.

The Zoning By-law separates out Parcels A, B and C from the provisions contained in By-law 657-76, as amended, respecting the remainder of the parcels on the Winchester Square site. It eliminates the former landscaped open space requirement for the whole of the main site and for the combined "lot" (i.e. the main site and the 405 Sherbourne Street site), replacing the former requirements with new landscaped open space requirements for each of Parcels A, B and C and a landscaped open space requirement for the remaining parcels which have already been developed which reflects the current situation.

The table below shows the maximum permitted gross floor area figures, the minimum requirements for landscaped open space and the height limits for each of the undeveloped parcels:

Maximum permitted Minimum required

Parcel gross floor area Landscaped open space Height limits

A14920 sq.m. 776 sq.m.31.5 m

B15130 sq.m.1100 sq.m.37.5 m

C 9300 sq.m. 782 sq.m.22.5 m.

The Zoning By-law also provides for additional below-grade floor area used for community services and facilities to be exempt from gross floor area calculations to the extent of 750 square metres and 500 square metres on Parcels A and B respectively, in line with the City's Official Plan policies permitting such exemptions up to 10 percent of the gross floor area permitted on the lot.

According to the Zoning By-law, once the buildings on Parcels A and B are completed, access/egress to the underground garage on Parcels A and B will be limited to access from Bleecker Street through Building B and egress to Ontario Street through Building A. These provisions secure the removal of the existing surface lane and ramp in the long term while permitting temporary access via the existing lane and ramp during construction of Buildings A and B.

Parking provisions in the By-law will maintain the parking requirements for the existing buildings while subjecting development of Parcels A, B and C to general Zoning By-law parking requirements, with additional requirements in the case of condominium development. The By-law permits, but does not require, drive-through loading spaces on Parcels A and B with a service driveway not exceeding 4 metres traversing the site from Bleecker to Ontario Streets for use by garbage trucks only.

3.1Section 37 Agreement

The full text of the Section 37 Agreement is contained in Appendices B, C and D. Paragraphs still under discussion are marked with a double asterisk (**). There are minor matters not indicated by a double asterisk which are still under discussion and are largely of a technical nature. All outstanding matters are expected to be resolved shortly.

3.2Community/library space provisions

When Building A is developed on Parcel A, the owners will provide to the City 750 square metres of space at grade level for the purpose of a community/library facility. If the City does not choose to incorporate a library in his space, the space for community use will be reduced to 500 square metres. The space will be provided in accordance with a list of specifications appended to the agreement. The specification of loading requirements for library use is still under discussion.

In essence, the space will be unfurnished but a finishing allowance of $30.00 per square foot ($322.93 per square metre) in 1995 dollars, indexed according to STATSCAN Construction Price Statistics, will be provided by the owners. Net rent for the space will be nominal with the City paying only operating costs. The length of the lease would be 99 years.

Under the Section 37 agreement, the City has an option to elect to be paid cash-in-lieu of having the space provided.

3.3Toronto Board of Education space

The Section 37 agreement contains a requirement to secure 340 square metres of education space on the ground floor of Building A with a cash option in favour of the Toronto Board of Education. The Board of Education has negotiated an option to lease at nominal rent and a lease, both of which will be attached to the Section 37 agreement as appendices.

3.4Underground lane access to parking garage

When Parcels A and B are fully developed, the access to the parking garage serving Buildings A and B and Hugh Garner Co-operative will be via an underground lane from Bleecker Street to Ontario Street, replacing the existing east/west surface lane at the rear of the properties fronting on Wellesley Street East. Current access to the underground garage below Hugh Garner Co-operative and Parcel A is obtained via an existing ramp off the lane just west of the Hugh Garner Co-operative building. The existing ramp will be closed, decked and landscaped to form part of the landscaped open space area.

The creation of the underground lane is a key component of the site planning for the remaining undeveloped portions of the main Winchester Square block. It was the shortfall in landscaped open space on the main block that initially triggered this rezoning application. Thus, City staff argued at the hearing, and the Ontario Municipal Board agreed, that a consolidated, useable landscaped open space area at the north end of the site should be a prime feature of the site plan. Moving vehicular traffic from the surface to the underground lane greatly assists in accomplishing this goal.

Details of the Ramp Closing Agreement and the Ramp Closing Specifications, two appendices to the Section 37 agreement securing the ramp closing, are still being negotiated between the owners and Hugh Garner Co-operative, who have an ownership interest in the ramp area.

Prior to full development of Parcels A and B, access arrangements utilizing the existing surface lane and the existing ramp will be retained.

The option of providing a service driveway between enclosed garbage rooms in Buildings B and A for use by garbage trucks only is also outlined in the agreement.

3.5Tender of Parking Spaces

The 1978 Development and Land Exchange Agreement between the City and the owners, which is registered on title of the Winchester Square lands, requires the owners to provide 150 public parking spaces in addition to the number of spaces required to meet Zoning By-law standards.

The November 27, 1995 report of the then Commissioner of Planning and Development , adopted by Council that same day as a proposed settlement position, described the Ontario Municipal Board's comments on the public parking requirement. The Board said he was willing to sacrifice parking in return for the provision of quality community and library space and that he was willing to "commit to 75 spaces", suggesting that the City co-operate. The Board also concluded that the City should share with the owners the cost of finishing the remaining 75 spaces in order to make them accessible to the public. The owners had estimated the costs of renovating the parking spaces at $2,662.00 per space in 1995 dollars. (With the cost of renovating the 75 spaces estimated at $199,650.00, the City's share of such costs would be $99,825.00 in 1995 dollars and to be indexed)

Thus the proposed City settlement position outlined in that report recommended both reducing the requirement from 150 to 75 spaces and contributing to the garage renovation costs.

Subsequent discussions centred around the actual need for such spaces, with the Ontario Municipal Board favouring the evidence of the owners' expert witness who testified that there was no parking demand in the neighbourhood for the 75 spaces and that it was not an economically feasible proposition.

Further discussions between the owners and City staff have resulted in an arrangement whereby the owners, in lieu of an obligation to operate such parking spaces, would be obligated to offer to lease the spaces to an operator under a nominal rental lease. Details of the Parking Operation Agreement, which will be an appendix to the Section 37 agreement are still under discussion. The City contribution to garage renovation costs remains part of the settlement position.

3.6Option to Lease Agreement for Community/Library Space

The text of the Option to Lease Agreement, contained in Appendix C attached to this report, will ultimately be incorporated into the Section 37 Agreement under Article IX. The Form of Lease contained in Appendix D will appear as an appendix to the Section 37 Agreement.

As outlined in Section 2 above, at the time of construction of Building A, 750 square metres of space at grade will be provided for the purposes of a combined community/library facility. If a library is not incorporated , the space will be reduced to 500 square metres.

The Option to Lease Agreement has been structured so that the City will have two full budget cycles to determine whether the corporation wants to lease the space or, instead, wants to exercise the cash option. The cash option would include the estimated costs of construction of the unfinished space and the finishing allowance. The cash option would enable the City to use the cash for community use elsewhere within the defined neighbourhood bounded by Jarvis Street, the Don Valley, Gerrard Street East and Bloor Street East.

Although most of the details of both the Option to Lease and the Form of Lease have been agreed to, a few items including life of the building issues remain under discussion.

3.7Option to Lease Agreement for Education Space

As described in Section 3.3 above, at the time of construction of Building A, 340 square metres of space at grade will be provided for Toronto Board of Education use. Since the Board of Education is not a signatory to the Section 37 agreement, conditions respecting the Option to Lease Agreement and the Form of Lease and the specifications for the education space are attached as appendices to the Section 37 agreement.

As in the City agreement, the Toronto Board of Education has similar provisions respecting nominal rent, term of 99 years, etc. However, no finishing allowance is being provided. The Board will also have an option to elect to be paid cash in lieu of having the space provided.

3.8Parks Levy

As part of the settlement position adopted on November 27, 1995, Council decided to exempt the owners from the Parks Levy provisions of the Municipal Code. The November 27, 1995 settlement report noted that when agreement was reached in the 1970's on the components of a deal for the Winchester Square lands, one component was a contribution by the owners of 1.383 acres of land for parks purposes. Together with the City's contribution of 1.617 acres, a total of three acres of parkland was created over three separate areas of the site. The then Commissioner of Parks and Recreation at that time concurred with the exemption. The proposed exemption remains as part of the settlement package.

3.9Leave to appeal application

The Ontario Municipal Board's March 28, 1995 decision concluded that an Official Plan Amendment was not required to implement the owners' proposal for Winchester Square, despite the fact that the owners' proposed buildings on the main site would exceed the density limit of three times the lot area in a High Density Residence Area.

The City is seeking leave to appeal this decision in the courts.

In November, 1995, Council took the position that the City would withdraw its leave to appeal application should the owners and the City reach an agreed settlement. This remains part of the settlement package.

The City will pursue an Official Plan Amendment to ensure that the definitions in the Official Plan cannot be amended on a site-specific basis through amendments to the Zoning By-law.

3.10Release of Agreements

There are a number of legal agreements on title, including the Development and Land Exchange Agreement referred to above, agreements related to previous development approvals , a Parking Agreement and others. These documents are currently being reviewed by the City Solicitor and will be released and discharged from Parcels A, B and C, with any provisions required to be maintained being incorporated in the Section 37 Agreement.

Conclusion: I am recommending that City Council accept the settlement position outlined in the body of this report in order to bring the lengthy OMB deliberations on the matter of the Winchester Square lands to a close.

The City and area residents would be obtaining the benefit of either a substantial 750 square metre community/library facility or cash in lieu thereof.

The City Solicitor has reviewed this report and concurs with its content and recommendations.

Attachments on file with the City Clerk.

________

Councillor McConnell moved that the Clause be amended by adding:

That the report from the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (September 22,1997) be adopted.

which Council adopted.

________

Council adopted the Clause, as amended.

Application for Consent Under Chapter 276, Article I,

Ravines, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

86 Glenview Avenue (North Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January4, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To obtain City Council's consent to Application No. 098053 respecting the construction of a deck at the rear of the new house currently under construction at 86 Glenview Avenue.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council consent to Application No. 098053 respecting 86 Glenview Avenue to permit the construction of a deck located within the Chatsworth Ravine, on the condition that the owner enter into a Ravine Control Agreement requiring:

(a)that the owner shall provide and maintain the landscaping and ravine improvements substantially in accordance with Plan No. A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, and A-6, date stamped as received on November 30, 1998, prepared by Makow Associates Architect Inc., as on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(2)That the owner submit sediment and erosion control details to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for the deck;

(3)That the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary agreement; and

(4)That the owner be advised to remove all landfill and construction debris from the site, to not place any fill within the ravine and to contact the Forestry Section, Parks and Recreation Division, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Services, at 392-1900, upon the completion of all work as indicated on the approved plans.

Comments:

(1)Project: To construct a deck located within the Chatsworth Ravine at the rear of the new house which is currently under construction;

(2)Location: On the north side of Glenview Avenue to the west of Duplex Avenue and immediately to the south of the Chatsworth Ravine Park;

(3)Site: The property is rectangular and very deep, sloping from the rear of the house down into the Chatsworth Ravine. The current owner of the property is in the process of constructing a replacement house within the table land portion of the site, however, most of the proposed deck will be located within the Chatsworth Ravine;

(4)Comments from Civic Officials (see Appendix A):

(a)The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services has indicated that the proposed deck complies with the requirements of the Zoning By-law. The applicant previously obtained a gross floor area variance for excess density related to space within the third floor of the house. This decision of the Committee of Adjustment was granted October 16, 1998, and is now final and binding;

(b)The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services indicated his satisfaction with the proposal subject to conditions related to drainage; and

(c)The Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Services stated that the current proposal satisfactorily addresses their concerns regarding the preservation of the natural vegetation within the ravine; and

(5)Planning Considerations.

Conclusions:

The applicant has proposed the upgrading of indigenous plant material within the ravine portion of the site and has modified the design of the deck to respond to the physical characteristics of the ravine behind the new house which is currently under construction. In this instance I believe that the current proposal for the construction of a deck at the rear of the new house is both reasonable and within the intent of Chapter 276, Ravines, of the former City of Toronto's Municipal Code. Therefore, I recommend that City Council give consent to the proposed development, subject to the owner entering into a Ravine Control Agreement.

Contact Name:

Angus Cranston

Telephone: (416) 392-0425

Fax: (416) 392-1330

________

APPENDIX A

Reports of Civic Officials

(1)Urban Planning and Development Services (July 30, 1998):

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:

Description:Build Detached House

Zoning Designation:R1 Z0.35Map:50L-323

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

Plans prepared by:Makow

Zoning Review

A review of the information submitted indicates the proposal complies with the City's zoning by-laws.

(2)Works and Emergency Services (December 14, 1998):

Comments:

The project on the site located on the north side of Glenview Avenue, west of Duplex Avenue was the subject of the Departmental report dated August 13, 1998.

The plans have been revised to, among other things, show a retaining wall along the north perimeter of the interlocking stone patio, the construction of the patio at basement level and the construction of the hoarding. These revisions do not affect the comments and recommendations contained in the previous report.

(August 13, 1998):

Recommendations:

(1)That the owner be advised:

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

(b)That the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff.

Comments:

Location:

North side of Glenview Avenue, west of Duplex Avenue.

Proposal:

To construct a single-family dwelling with a deck and patio within the designated ravine lands.

Ravine Control Area:

The northerly portion of the site, containing the proposed wood deck and paving stones, will be located in the lands designated as ravine and is subject to Municipal Code Chapter 276, Article I (Chatsworth Ravine).

Parking:

The provision of 1 parking space to be provided in an integral garage, satisfies the estimated parking demand for 1 parking space and, as far as can be ascertained, the Zoning By-law requirement for a like number.

Refuse Collection:

The City will continue to 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 recyclable and non-recyclable material generated between collections.

Storm Water Management:

It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water run-off into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Therefore, storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water 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 from this Department.

(3)Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation) (December 30, 1998):

This will acknowledge your Short Stream Circulation Form of December 2, 1998 which contains a Site Plan A-1, Ground Plan A-2, Elevation Plans A-4 to A-6. The construction and elevation details of the rear upper deck, patio and stairs meets our approval. The hoarding and siltation fence are clearly marked on the appropriate plans as requested by our department. Please note, all land fill and construction debris must be removed off site once all construction is completed and in no way shall any of the land fill be placed in the designated ravine.

If you should have any questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Bruce Gordon at 392-1900.

(4)The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (November 10, 1998):

Further to our letter dated August 10,1998 (copy enclosed), we advise that our comments remain unchanged.

We trust this is satisfactory. However, should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Gaspare Ritacca at extension 324.

(August 10, 1998):

Authority staff has reviewed the above applications and we offer the following comments.

The subject property is located adjacent to a valley corridor associated with a tributary of the Don River. The Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) defines the valley corridor by a line established 10 metres inland from the stable top of bank. New development is not permitted within this valley corridor area. However, in accordance with Section 4.2 of VSCMP, new development may be located closer than 10 metres from the top of bank provided that it is consistent with the existing surrounding development along the corridor reach.

Although the proposed development is partially located within the City's Ravine By-law boundary (Chatsworth Ravine), Authority staff has visited the subject property and we are satisfied that the proposed works are sufficiently setback from the top of bank and consistent with the existing surrounding development. However, we do require details in regard to proposed methods for controlling/minimizing sedimentation and erosion during construction. For your reference, we have enclosed a sediment/erosion control fence detail.

Based upon the above, we would have no objections to the approval of this application subject to the following condition:

(I)The applicant submit sediment and erosion control details to this Authority for review and approval.

We trust this is satisfactory. However, should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Gaspare Ritacca at extension 324.

(5)Heritage Toronto (August 7, 1998):

Comments on the application noted above were requested in your circulation form dated July 17, 1998.

The property at 86 Glenview Avenue is neither included on the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties nor designated under the terms of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Staff of Heritage Toronto have no comments on this application.

Insert Table/Map No. 1

86 glenview avenue

Insert Table/Map No. 2

86 glenview avenue

Proposed Amendment to Section 37 Agreement -

33 Bay Street - World Trade Centre (Downtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January6, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that City Council authorize the City Solicitor to amend the Section 37 Agreement for the World Trade Centre respecting details of the day care centre obligations on Parcel 2 (33 Bay Street).

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council authorize the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend the Section 37 Agreement for the World Trade Centre development generally in accordance with the terms set out in this report, and that the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into such agreement.

Comments:

The site known as the World Trade Centre is located on three parcels of land (Parcels 1, 2 and 3) located in the vicinity of Bay and Harbour Streets, between Queens Quay West and the Gardiner Expressway (as shown on Map 1).

City Council adopted a Part II Plan permitting only non-residential development for these lands in 1987, accompanied by Zoning By-law amendments and a Section 36 (now known as Section 37) Agreement. In 1993, the then-owner of Parcel 2, Camrost, applied for an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning to permit residential rather than commercial uses on that parcel, at approximately the same density. The matter was subsequently appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board. An OMB decision in favour of residential uses was issued in April 1994, followed by the execution of a new Section 37 Agreement between the City, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners (the owner of Parcel 1), and Standard Life (the new owner of Parcel 2). Parcel 3, containing the constructed residential condominium towers at 10 Yonge Street and 10 Queens Quay, was not included in the new agreement. An OMB order approving site-specific Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments followed in June, 1998.

One of the provisions of the new Section 37 Agreement which has carried over from the original Section 36 Agreement is the owner's obligation to provide a daycare centre on a continuous basis on Parcel 2. Although this daycare centre may be relocated, daycare facilities must be provided on the parcel at all times, once residential development begins.

The owner, Standard Life, has requested relief from the Section 37 requirement of the continuous provision of a daycare centre on Parcel 2. Parcel 2 permits three towers on a largely retail podium. Permitted are a 46-storey hotel/residential tower on the west part of the site, a 42-storey residential tower in the centre, and a 38-storey residential tower on the east, with an overall cap of 1,500 residential units. The site could be built out in phases relating to the podium, below-grade parking levels, and each of the three towers. The owner's current phasing strategy is shown on Map No. 2.

Under this phasing plan, the continuous daycare provision in the Section 37 Agreement could result in the daycare centre and its outdoor playground being set up and then dismantled in two temporary locations, before a third, permanent facility is established.

Two of the three possible daycare locations are not desirable. In temporary Location A (refer to Map No. 3), the large distance separating the indoor facility from the outdoor playground is not acceptable. In temporary Location B (refer to Map No. 4), the sun/shadow conditions for the outdoor playground are not optimal, and the facility will mostly face north. Location C, at the north-east corner of the site (refer also to Map No. 4), is contemplated as the permanent location. Location C is the best option, since:

(a)the sun/shadow conditions on the playground will be acceptable;

(b)the indoor facility will have desirable north, east and south exposures, and directly overlooks the playground from two directions; and

(c)the facility can be easily accessed from Yonge Street.

In lieu of the continuous daycare provision, the owner has agreed to provide:

(1)the permanent daycare centre at the City's preferred location, Location C. Provision of the permanent daycare would be triggered by the construction of the eastern-most portion of the development (corresponding to the location of Phase 4, as shown on Map No. 2), which includes below-grade parking, a potentially mixed-use podium and a tower with approximately 500 residential units; and

if there is construction on the site after the permanent daycare is built, the owner will monitor the on-site environmental conditions and provide operational safeguards (such as screening) for the day care centre, especially the outdoor playground; and

(2)until the permanent daycare centre is constructed, a fixed contribution of $400.00 per residential unit built prior to the permanent daycare centre, to be used for an interim daycare location off-site. This financial contribution is non-refundable, and is over and above any cost to build and equip the permanent facility. The owner shall make this financial contribution prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase to be built prior to the eastern-most phase. The amount owed is calculated on the total number of residential units permitted in that phase. If the eastern-most phase and the permanent daycare centre are built first, no contribution will be required of the owner.

City staff have calculated the $400.00 per unit as the estimated cost of capital improvements at an interim daycare location, as well as utility and equipment costs. The funds could also be used to lease space, assuming that any required tenant improvements are minimal. In any event, the cash contributions would be used for no other purpose than the provision of daycare facilities within the area bounded by King Street to the north, Lake Ontario to the south, Stadium Road to the west and Cherry Street to the east.

Given the desirability of the daycare location at the north-east corner of Parcel 2, it is appropriate to replace the owner's current obligation to provide continuous day care service on site with a new obligation that the owner build the daycare centre at the north-east corner of the site, along with a $400.00 payment, per each residential unit, to be made prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase to be built prior to the eastern-most phase, and calculated on the total number of residential units permitted in that phase.

Therefore, I recommend that Council authorize the City Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to amend the Section 37 Agreement for the World Trade Centre development generally in accordance with the terms set out in this report, and that the appropriate City officials be authorized to enter into such agreement.

Contact Name:

Anne Milchberg

Telephone: 392-7216

Fax: 392-1330

E-Mail: amilchbe@toronto.on.ca

_______

APPENDIX A

APPLICATION DATA SHEET

Site Plan Approval: N Application Number: 12334

Rezoning: N Application Date: January 15, 1992

O. P. A.: N Date of Revision: January 4, 1999

Confirmed Municipal Address:33 Bay St.

Nearest Intersection: East side of Bay St., north of Harbour St.

Project Description: To build a mixed commercial/residential complex - Parcel 2, World Trade Centre.

Applicant:

Frank Muhr, Standard Life.

1110 Sheppard Ave. E

218-5334
Agent:

Goodman and Carr

200 King St. W., Suite 2300

595-2300
Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation: OPA 50 (By-law 361-98) Site Specific Provision: 763-87, 42-87, 362-98

Zoning District: CR T6.7 C5.1 R1.7 Historical Status: No

Height Limit (m): Site Plan Control: Yes

Project Information

Site Area:
14770.0 m²
Height: Storeys: 46.0

Frontage: 120.0 m Metres: 125.00

Depth: Irregular m

Indoor Outdoor

Ground Floor: Parking Spaces: 1280

Residential GFA: 120630.0 m² Loading Docks:

Non-Residential GFA: 25750.0 m² (number, type)

Total GFA: 140960.0 m²

Dwelling Units Floor Area Breakdown

Tenure: Rental-Priv. Land Use Above Grade Below Grade

Bachelors: 196 Residential 35500.0 m²

1 Bedroom: 1108 Parking & Loading 8500.0 m²

2 Bedroom: 196

Total Units: 1500

Approved Density

Residential Density: 8.10 Non-Residential Density: 1.60 Total Density: 9.70

Comments

Status:

Amendment to Existing Section 37 Agreement.

Data valid:

January 4, 1999

Section:

CP Waterfront

Phone:

392-7333

Insert Table/Map No. 1

33 bay street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

33 bay street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

33 bay street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

33 bay street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

33 bay street

Variances from Chapter 297, Signs,

of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code -

(Downtown, North Toronto and Don River)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, 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:

(January 6, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit two illuminated, wrap around, signs for identification purposes, on two columns of the building at 3080 Yonge Street.

Financial Implications:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998068, respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated, wrap around, signs on two columns of the building at 3080 Yonge Street on condition that:

(i)an existing unapproved, parking sign near the public sidewalk on the Yonge Street frontage of the building is removed prior to issuance of the necessary permits; and

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998068, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the northwest corner of Yonge Street and Lawrence Avenue West, in a mixed-use district. The property accommodates a six storey office building with retail uses at grade. The applicant is requesting permission to install two illuminated, wrap around, signs for identification (referred to as "A" and "B" on Figure 1), on two columns of the building. Each of the signs "A" and "B",will have a length of 4.04 metres and a height of 1.32 metres, with an area of 5.36 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following way:

(i)a fascia sign (signs, A & B) is required to be mounted wholly against the wall of a building.

The variance occurs because both signs 'A' and 'B' do not meet the definition of a fascia sign. As defined by the Municipal Code, a fascia sign is to be mounted wholly against the wall or parapet wall of a building or between the columns of an arcade. The intent of this provision is to prevent and limit the possible negative impact of signage on the appearance of buildings to which they are attached and on adjacent residential uses. In this instance, both signs wrap around the columns but do not wholly mount against the wall of the building. However, both the signs closely resemble a fascia sign. Also, the signs appear to blend well with the building design and structural configuration. In my opinion, these signs will not adversely impact the building, surrounding uses or the streetscape.

The original application also requested a second variance for a proposed third sign, a ground sign on the Yonge Street frontage. During discussions, the applicant revised his plans so that a ground sign (sign 'C') is set back 2.0 metres from the streetline, as required by the Municipal Code. Also, the owner has agreed that as a condition of approval, he will remove the unapproved, existing parking sign from the Yonge Street frontage.

I am recommending approval of this application with a condition respecting the removal of existing parking sign, 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) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

3080 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

3080 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

3080 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

3080 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

3080 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 6

3080 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 7

3080 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 8

3080 yonge street

(January 5, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for variances to permit four illuminated outrigger signs, four non-illuminated leader board signs and one illuminated pedestal sign at 548 Richmond Street East.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998081 respecting minor variances from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit four illuminated outrigger signs, four non-illuminated leader board signs and one illuminated pedestal sign; and

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998081, 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 Richmond Street East, Parliament Street and Power Street, in a reinvestment area (RA) district. The property accommodates an automotive service station. The applicant is requesting permission to install new identification signage in conjunction with the renovation of the existing service station (see Figures 1-4).

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in the following ways:

(1)the height of the pedestal sign (7.08 metres) exceeds the maximum height of sign permitted of 4.5 metres by 2.58 metres;

(2)the pedestal sign will be set back less that 2 metres from the Richmond Street property line;

(3)the outrigger sign are not a sign type defined under the Municipal Code and therefore are not permitted; and

(4)more than one pedestal sign will be erected within both frontages of the lot.

The first two variances occur because the pedestal sign "A" will be higher than permitted by the Municipal Code and would be set back 0.5 metres from the Richmond Street property line instead of 2.0 metres. The variances are acceptable because the new sign would replace an existing 7.0 metre high ground sign and the pedestal sign would be installed in the same location as the existing sign, within a curbed landscaped area. The applicant has advised that the sign cannot be set back any further because it would interfere with vehicles entering and exiting the site.

The third variance is caused because the outrigger signs "B" are not a sign type defined under the Municipal Code. The signs would be suspended 0.9 metres below the underside of the service canopy and would be oriented east-west, parallel to the pump island. These signs are small in size and illumination from these signs would be minimal. In my opinion, the signs are necessary to identify the gas pumps.

The fourth variance occurs because the leader board signs "C" would be installed on either end of the gas pumps resulting in two pedestal signs per frontage. The leader boards are used to identify the type of fuel being sold at the pump and are non-illuminated and low in height which I consider acceptable.

In my opinion, the signs are necessary and their approval will not prejudice the development of Design Guidelines for automobile service stations and gas bars and proposed zoning by-law amendments currently underway.

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) 392-0580

E-Mail: lmazzocc@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

548 Richmond Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 2

548 Richmond Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 3

548 Richmond Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 4

548 Richmond Street East

Insert Table/Map No. 5

548 Richmond Street East

(January 6, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a minor variance to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign in the form of individual letters which identifies the firm of 'Merrill Lynch' to be located on the west elevation at 181 Bay Street. The proposed (Merrill Lynch) sign will replace an existing (Midland Walwyn) fascia sign.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998096 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit one non-illuminated fascia sign in the form of individual letters which identifies the firm of 'Merrill Lynch' to be located on the west elevation at 181 Bay Street; and

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998096, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The subject property, known as 'BCE Place', occupies the entire block bounded by Bay Street, Wellington Street West, Yonge Street and Front Street West. There is a five storey podium that runs along the Wellington Street West, Yonge Street and Bay Street frontages. Two high-rise office towers sit atop of this podium.

The applicant is requesting permission to erect one non-illuminated fascia sign in the form of individual letters which identifies the firm of 'Merrill Lynch' to be located on the north end of the west elevation at the uppermost floor of the podium at 181 Bay Street (see Figure 1). The proposed (Merrill Lynch) sign is to replace an existing (Midland Walwyn) sign at that location. The proposed sign has a length of 6.20 metres and a height of 0.71 metre, with an area of 4.40 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that only one identification sign is permitted on a building face.

The number of signs permitted within a single building face is regulated so as to prevent clutter and the negative impact of excessive signage on the building to which they are attached, on the the streetscape and the surrounding uses.

In this instance, it is recognized that the building face is a block long. The three well spaced signs of modest size (including the replacement sign) will not adversely impact the building, surrounding uses or the streetscape.

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:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

181 bay street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

181 bay street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

181 bay street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

181 bay street

(January 6, 1999)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to install one illuminated, fascia sign, consisting of individual letters at south end of the east elevation for identification purposes at 48 Yonge Street.

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998084 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to install one illuminated fascia sign at south end of the east elevation at 48 Yonge Street; and

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998084, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the northwest corner of Yonge Street and Wellington Street west, in a mixed-use district. The property accommodates an 11-storey office building. The applicant is requesting permission to install one illuminated fascia sign at south end of the east elevation for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign has a length of 6.96 metres and a height of 0.61 metre, with an area of 4.24 m�.

The sign does not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the sign will be partially located on the third storey. Signs are permitted to be located only within the first two storeys of a building. The intent of this provision is to restrict signs to their traditional location in order to minimize the impact of signage on the building to which they are attached, on the streetscape and on the adjacent residential uses.

A site visit by staff has confirmed that the building has a glass facade and no reasonable opportunities for signage exist below this level on the east frontage of the building. In this instance, although the sign will be located slightly above the top limit of the second storey, it would extend only by 0.3 metre into the third storey of the building and it would be erected on the sign-band provided for signage. Further, the surrounding uses are commercial in nature and, in my opinion, the proposed sign will not adversely impact the building, surrounding uses or the streetscape.

I am, therefore, recommending approval of this application, as I find the variance requested to be minor and within the general intent and purpose of the sign provisions of the Municipal Code.

Contact Name:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

48 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

48 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

48 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

48 yonge street

(December 31, 1998)

Purpose:

To review and make recommendations respecting an application for a variance to permit two illuminated, fascia signs for identification purposes in the form of a logo and corporate name. The sign on the south frontage of the building on Adelaide Street will show "Hampton Securities Limited" and on the east frontage on Yonge Street, it will be "Deeb & Company Limited".

Source of Funds:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That City Council approve Application No. 998056 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated, fascia signs for identification purposes in the form of a logo and corporate name at 118 Yonge Street; and

(2)That the applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998056, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

Comments:

The property is located on the northwest corner of Yonge Street and Adelaide Street, in a mixed-use district. The property accommodates a four-storey commercial building. The applicant is requesting permission to erect two illuminated, fascia signs in the form of a logo and corporate name for identification purposes (see Figure 1). The sign (Hampton Securities Limited) on the south frontage has a length of 14.31 metres and a height of 0.91 metre, with an area of 13.02 m�; and the sign (Deeb & Company Limited) on the east frontage has a length of 9.41 metres and a height of 0.69 metre, with an area of 6.49 m�.

The signs do not comply with Chapter 297 of the Municipal Code in that the signs are not located above the required height of 34 metres. 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, though the proposed signs do not meet the 34 metres height requirement, they would be erected on the uppermost storey of the building. The signs consisting of individual letters are designed to blend in with the historical nature and colour of the building. Also, the applicant has advised that in order to minimize the impact of illumination, the individual letters would have neon back-light.

It is my opinion that given their overall modest size and design, the proposed signs would not impact the building, surrounding uses or the streetscape. Staff of the Toronto Historical Board have reviewed the plans and have advised that they are acceptable.

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:

Norm Girdhar

Telephone: (416) 392-7209

Fax: (416) 392-0580

E-Mail: ngirdhar@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

118 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 2

118 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 3

118 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 4

118 yonge street

Insert Table/Map No. 5

118 yonge street

Introduction of Permit Parking on the South Side of

Ostend Avenue, Between Durie Street and

Windermere Avenue (High Park)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January5, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way, Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the introduction of permit parking on the south side of Ostend Avenue, between Durie Street and Windermere Avenue, on a street name basis, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

The Toronto Community Council may recommend that:

(1)permit parking be introduced on the south side of Ostend Avenue, between Durie Street and Windermere Avenue, on a street name basis, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week;

(2)Schedule A of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, be amended to incorporate the south side of Ostend Avenue, between Durie Street and Windermere Avenue; and

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

Background:

A request was received from Councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski, on behalf of the residents, to introduce permit parking on the south side of Ostend Avenue, between Durie Street and Windermere Avenue.

Comments:

Under the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 400, Traffic and Parking, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, we are required to conduct a poll of the residents to determine if there is support to introduce permit parking on Ostend Avenue, between Durie Street and Windermere Avenue.

Ballots were mailed out on November 12, 1998, with the last date for filing a response being December 14, 1998. The results of the poll are as follows:

Polling Summary

Ballots cast

opposed13

in favour21

34

No response 70

Returned by post office 0

Total ballots issued 104

Conclusions:

The majority of the ballots returned are in favour of permit parking on the south side of Ostend Avenue, between Durie Street and Windermere Avenue. It is therefore recommended that permit parking be introduced on the south side of Ostend Avenue, on a street name basis, to operate during the hours of 12:01 a.m. and 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Bob Bonner, 392-7876

Installation of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces

- Bartlett Avenue North (Davenport)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that the installation of disabled on-street parking on Bartlett Avenue North, east side, from a point 158 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 5.5 metres further south, be approved.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

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

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $600 .00 contained in the Transportation Services Division 1998 Current Budget.

Recommendations:

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

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

Comments:

Works and Emergency Services staff have investigated the feasibility of installing a number of on-street disabled persons parking spaces at various locations as outlined on the attached Table "A" of this report.

All applicants are holders of valid disabled persons parking permits issued by the Ministry of Transportation and the designated space will not result in the deprivation of more than one on-street parking space.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

E. Capizzano, Administrator, 392-7878

________

Table "A"

Establishment of disabled on-street parking spaces

WardLocation:

21Bartlett Avenue North, east side, from a point 158 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 5.5 metres further south.

(Source: Mr. John Muccilli, a resident of Premises No. 389 Bartlett Avenue).

25Millbrook Crescent, south side, from a point 90.5 metres east of Broadview Avenue to a point 5.5 metres further east.

(Source: Ms. Shirley Caroline, a resident of Premises No.71a Millbrook Crescent).

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 19, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to advise on the status of the acquisition of the above properties for laneway purposes.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications to this report.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998, City Council adopted, without amendment, Clause 13 of Toronto Community Council Report No. 16 in which, among other things, the Toronto Community Council reported having

"(1)deferred consideration of the installation of disabled on-street parking at Bartlett Avenue North, east side, from a point 158 metres south of Davenport Road to a point 5.5 metres further south, until its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999; and

(2)requested the City Solicitor to submit at that time the previously requested report on the status of the proposed laneway between Bartlett Avenue and Salem Avenue."

The "previously requested report" referred to is a follow-up to an earlier status report which I had prepared for Councillor Disero.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The project requires the conveyance to the City of the rear 2.44 metres of 35 separate properties. The breakdown of the status of the 35 conveyances is as follows:

(1)acquisitions entirely completed:13;

(2)acquisitions at the final stage:3 (i.e. to be completed as soon as tax and water account statements and a building compliance certificate are received, all of which have been requested from the appropriate departments) ;

(3)properties where City-prepared documents are in the hands of vendors and mortgagees for execution (except for 3 which are being revised):8;

(4)properties still in negotiation with owners (possible settlements):4 ; and

(5)properties possible to have to proceed to expropriation:7.

Contact Name:

Stanley Emerson

Solicitor

Legal Services, Real Estate, 392-8736

________

(A copy of Clause 13 of Report No. 16 of the Toronto Community Council, headed "Installation of On-Street Disabled Persons Parking Spaces - Millbrook Crescent (Don River)", which was adopted by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on January 20, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Installation of Speed Humps -

Briar Hill Avenue Between Caldow Road and

Chaplin Crescent - (North Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Council receive this matter.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (November 25, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To reduce the incidence of speeding vehicles on Briar Hill Avenue between Caldow Road and Chaplin Crescent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The estimated cost for this proposal is $11,000.00, funds for which are available in the Works and Emergency Services 1998 Capital Fund Code No. 296702.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be given to alter sections of the roadway on Briar Hill Avenue, from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent 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 Briar Hill Avenue from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent, generally as shown on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5282, dated October, 1998,";

(2)That the speed limit be reduced from forty kilometres per hour to thirty kilometres per hour on Briar Hill Avenue from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent, coincident with the implementation of the traffic calming measures; and

(3)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take whatever action is necessary to implement the foregoing, including the introduction in Council of any Bills that may 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 Briar Hill Avenue from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent.

Briar Hill Avenue from Caldow Road to Chaplin Crescent operates two-way with a pavement width of 8.5 metres and a maximum speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

Works staff recently conducted a twenty-four hour speed and volume survey over a period of five days on the subject section of Briar Hill Avenue. On average, Briar Hill Avenue between Caldow Road and Chaplin Crescent carries a combined total of 1,350 vehicles per day in both directions, of which 52 percent travelled at a rate of speed in excess of 55 kilometres per hour.

The traffic calming proposal, as illustrated on the attached print of Drawing No. 421F-5282 dated October, 1998 consists of five 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. 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 Speed Hump policy, once it has been determined that speed hump installation is technically warranted, a formal poll should be conducted of adults (18 years of age 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 percent 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 Briar Hill 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 by subject to a public hearing. In the interim, consultations with the emergency services agencies has been 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

briar hill ave: caldow rd - chaplin cr. - proposed speed humps

Construction of an Underground Pedestrian Tunnel

Connecting Rear of 100 Sherbourne Street to Rear of

320-328 Adelaide Street East (Downtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way, Management, Transportation Services, District 1 be adopted; and

(2)the Toronto District Heating Corporation be consulted with regard to the possibility of district energy for this project.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 4, 1999) from the Manager of Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To report on the construction of an underground pedestrian tunnel diagonally under and across the City lane connecting the rear of the proposed building at 100 Sherbourne Street (also known as 311 Richmond Street East) to a proposed building at 320-328 Adelaide Street East (also known as 90R Sherbourne Street).

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That City Council approve the construction of an underground pedestrian tunnel diagonally under and across the City lane, connecting the rear of the proposed building at 100 Sherbourne Street to a proposed building at 320-328 Adelaide Street East, subject to the respective owners of the buildings, Sherbourne Studios Inc., Attention: Plazacorp, Suite 202, 3845 Bathurst Street, Downsview, Ontario M3H 3N2 and 1073539 Ontario Limited, Suite 850, 439 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1Y8, and such other licensees as may be required by the City Solicitor to enter into an agreement with the City agreeing to:

(a)Indemnify the City of Toronto from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages, charges and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b)Maintain the tunnel in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c)Remove the tunnel upon receiving notice so to do with the understanding that the City shall not give such notice in the first 75 years following completion of the tunnel or for the life of the proposed building at 100 Sherbourne Street (also known as 311 Richmond Street East) and 320-328 Adelaide Street East (also known as 90R Sherbourne Street), whichever period is less;

(d)Permit additions to such tunnel to allow additional buildings to be serviced and to permit and pay for such alterations and modifications to such tunnel as may be required at any time by the City to serve the public interest;

(e)Relocate any underground pipes or other connections including the abandonment of a portion of the City sewer and installation of a new catch basin, that may be required to facilitate the construction of the new tunnel connection to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(f)Obtain the necessary approval from Toronto Hydro Electric Systems;

(g)Pay an annual rental fee, as determined by the Commissioner of Corporate Services; and

(h)Accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the Corporation.

Comments:

Mr. Jeff King of Plazacorp Limited, 3845 Bathurst Street, Suite 202, Downsview, Ontario M3H 3N2, submitted an application requesting permission to construct an underground pedestrian tunnel diagonally under and across the City lane, linking the proposed building at 100 Sherbourne Street to the proposed building at 320-328 Adelaide Street East. The proposed 1.9 m wide pedestrian tunnel will measure 17.4 m in length within the City lane.

The tunnel will provide the residents of the proposed building at 100 Sherbourne Street with a direct underground link to the parking area to be situated in the proposed building of 320-328 Adelaide Street East.

Conclusions:

As this underground pedestrian tunnel will not impact negatively on the lane right-of-way, it should be permitted subject to the owners of 100 Sherbourne Street and 320-328 Adelaide Street East, entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon 392-7894

Lay Out and Dedication for Public Highway Purposes -

North End of Alberta Avenue (Davenport)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December9, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To authorize the lay-out and dedication for public highway purposes of a 0.3 metre wide City-owned reserve strip abutting the north limit of Alberta Avenue, so that the property owners to the north may gain legal access to the public street.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

(1)That approval be granted to incorporate the 0.3 metre wide reserve strip, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2901, into Alberta Avenue;

(2)That the 0.3 metre wide reserve strip shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2901, be laid out and dedicated for public highway purposes; and

(3)That the appropriate City Officials be authorized to take whatever action is necessary to give effect thereto, including the introduction in Council of any bills that might be necessary.

Comments:

There is a 0.3 metre wide City-owned reserve strip abutting the north limit of Alberta Avenue, shown hatched on the attached Plan SYE2901. The subject reserve strip, acquired by the City under Instrument No. 2421WE on August 18, 1926, was intended to be dedicated for public highway purposes. However, it is not clear why the dedication never took place.

As a result of a recent private property sale in the area, the matter of dedicating this strip was brought to the attention of Works staff, by the purchaser's solicitor. In order to rectify the oversight, it is necessary to seek Council approval to incorporate this strip into Alberta Avenue, and formally dedicate the land by by-law.

This undertaking is pre-approved in accordance with Schedule "A" of the Class Environmental Assessment for Municipal Road Projects.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Laurie Robertson, Project Technician - Street and Lane Closings (392-7711)

Insert Table/Map No. 1

243 Alberta Avenue

Installation of a Snow Melting System -

61 Hillholm Road (Midtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January4, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way, Management, Transportation Services, District 1:

Purpose:

To report on the homeowner's request to install a snow melting system underneath a driveway within the City's right of way fronting 61 Hillholm Road. As this type of installation does not fall within the standard provisions of Municipal Code Chapter 313, Streets and Sidewalks, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, I am required to report to your Committee.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Not applicable.

Recommendations:

That City Council approve the installation of a snow melting system within the City's right of way fronting 61 Hillholm Road, subject to the owner entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto, as prescribed under Chapter 313 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code, and agreeing to:

(a)indemnify the City from and against all actions, suits, claims or demands and from all loss, costs, damages and expenses that may result from such permission granted;

(b)maintain the snow melting system in good and proper repair and a condition satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(c)accept such additional conditions as the City Solicitor or the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may deem necessary in the interest of the City; and

(d)remove the snow melting system upon receiving 90 days notice from the City so to do.

Comments:

Ms Yana Lukatsky of G.E.S. Construction Limited, acting on behalf of the owners, James Cole and Jamie Mason, 2 College View Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5P 1J3, submitted an application dated November 18, 1998, requesting permission to install a snow melting system within the City's right of way fronting 61 Hillholm Road. The snow melting system will be situated immediately back from the rear edge of the City sidewalk.

In a letter dated November 11, 1998 (Appendix 'A'), the owners requested permission to install a snow melting system within the City's right of way.

Staff reviewed the application and confirm that the snow melting system will not impact negatively on the public right of way.

Details of the snow melting system are shown on the attached drawing (Appendix 'B').

Conclusions:

As this snow melting system will not impact negatively on the public right-of-way, it should be permitted, subject to the owners entering into an agreement with the City of Toronto.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Fani Lauzon, 392-7894.

________

(A copy of the joint communication dated November 11, 1998, addressed to City Works Services, from Mr. James H. Cole and Ms. Jamie A. Mason, was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on January 20, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Appendix B - 61 Hillholm Road

Designation - 84 Woodlawn Avenue East (Midtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1)authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 84 Woodlawn Avenue 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 provision of the said Act in respect to such designation; and

(2)the owners be thanked for their contribution towards the preservation of historical buildings in the City of Toronto.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (December 7, 1998) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

That authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 84 Woodlawn Avenue 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 October 1 and 2, 1998 (Toronto Community Council Report No. 11, Clause 84), Notice of Intention to Designate 84 Woodlawn Avenue 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 October 27, 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 November 26, 1998. No objections have been received.

Contact Name:

Glenda Williams

Telephone:(416) 392-7483Facsimile: (416) 392-1558

E-mail: gwillia1@toronto.ca

Nomination - Swansea Town Hall

Board of Management (High Park)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that Ms. Joyce Reid be appointed to the Board of Management of the Swansea Town Hall Community Centre to replace Ms. Catherine Armstrong, on an interim basis, at the pleasure of Council, and until her successor is appointed.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following communication (January 5, 1999) from Ms. Sally Dillon, Secretary, Swansea Town Hall Community Centre:

Tonight at its monthly meeting, the Swansea Town Hall Board of Management nominated one of its Advisors to be approved by City Council to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of Catherine Armstrong. That nominee is Ms. Joyce Reid, and she is qualified to serve on the Board pursuant to the terms established by the applicable City of Toronto By-law (Municipal Code, Chapter 25).

We trust that you will insure that this nomination is processed in the customary way and that we will be notified when the approval is made by Council.

Naming of Private Lane -

322 Clinton Street (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January14, 1999) from the Executive Director, Technical Services Division, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

This report recommends that the proposed private lane at the new development at 322 Clinton Street be named "Nancy Pocock Place."

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Estimated costs of $300.00 to be paid by applicant.

Recommendations:

(1)That the proposed private lane located at 322 Clinton Street, illustrated on Map A attached, be named "Nancy Pocock Place";

(2)That MCJ Development Consultants be required to pay the costs, estimated in the amount of $300.00, for the fabrication and installation of the appropriate signage; and

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

Background:

I have a request from M. Carol Jamieson of MCJ Development Consultants (25 Mountview Avenue, Toronto, M6P 2L5) to name the proposed private lane for the new rowhouse development at 322 Clinton Street. Councillor Joe Pantalone has forwarded a petition from residents in the immediate area of the development, requesting that the lane be named after Nancy Pocock. Ms. Jamieson has been advised of the proposed name and is in agreement with the selection.

The lane is being named after Nancy Pocock, a longtime resident of the community, who spent her life in pursuit of international peace, in defense of refugees, and in service to others. Additional information on Nancy Pocock is outlined in Appendix "A."

Comments:

The proposed name has been reserved by staff of the City Planning Division, and has been circulated to Heritage Toronto and Toronto Fire Services. Councillor Mario Silva also supports the name.

The naming of the proposed lane "Nancy Pocock Place" is consistent with the policy for naming streets and lanes approved by the former Toronto City Council on July 11, 1988 (Clause 4, Executive Report No. 22).

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Desmond Christopher

Telephone: (416)392-1831

Fax:(416)392-0081

E-mail: dchristo@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

Map A - Clinton

Appendix "A"

Nancy Meek Pocock

Oct. 24, 1910 - Mar. 4, 1998

Nancy Meek Pocock was born in Chicago, Illinois, on October 24, 1910 where she lived with her mother Dorothea, father Theophile and younger brother Ted. In 1920, Nancy's father, an ordained minister and theological scholar, was offered an appointment at the University of Toronto. And so the family moved to Canada, where, as Nancy was later to say, "her real life began."

Growing up in Toronto, Nancy attended Central Technical High School and later the Ontario College of Art, then known as "The Grange." After graduating from OCA and taking advantage of the fact that her dad went to work for a time in the Middle East, Nancy, accompanied by her mother, spent close to a year living in Paris and studying the art of jewellery making. Upon her return to Toronto, Nancy first opened her own jewellery studio on Gerrard Street, near Bay, in the area then known as the Gerrard Street Village. It was during this period in her life that she met and fell in love with Jack Pocock. Jack shared Nancy's passion for jewellery and the arts and in 1942 they were married. It was soon after that Jack was sent overseas to fight fascism. In Europe he was injured and returned home to Canada in 1944 only weeks before the birth of their daughter Judy. Nancy often told the story of the great snow storm that blanketed Toronto on the day she gave birth and how people "skied down Yonge Street."

In 1950, while still living on Gerrard Street, Nancy and Jack joined the Toronto Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends, a decision that would shape much of the rest of their lives. Nancy and Jack were active in and outside of the Monthly Meeting. In the late 1960s, they moved to a house on Hazelton Avenue.

It was here that they first opened their home to draft dodgers and deserters coming to Canada rather than fighting with the U.S. forces in Vietnam. Nancy and Jack's commitment to helping end the way by sheltering many, both from Vietnam and the U.S., continued throughout the years of the Vietnam War. There are many Americans and Vietnamese whose first Canadian home was with Jack, Nancy and Judy.

In February 1975, only months before the end of the Vietnam War, Nancy suffered a great loss when her husband and partner in work and in life, Jack Pocock, died. From that day forward, Nancy Pocock devoted her life to helping others. Most important was her work on behalf of refugees from Latin and Central American and indeed all over the world. Her home - now on Elgin Avenue - became a beacon and a refuge for many. Nancy continued this work throughout her life, working for refugees right up until the end. Even as she lay on a stretcher in the crowded emergency department, she helped to write a letter seeking support for the refugee programme.

Nancy Pocock's name and work are known and remembered around the world. She was invited to Vietnam on five different occasions, the first while the war was still on. Today a medical clinic in Vietnam bears her name and she was awarded the Medal of Friendship from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 1978. She received many other awards and recognitions, including the Pearson Peace Prize in 1987, an Honourary Doctorate of Divinity from Queen's University (Kingston, Ontario) in 1990, and the Order of Ontario in 1992. It was a special treat in 1992 when she received a personal phone call on her birthday from the Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae.

To Canadians and others, hers was a constant voice in raising consciousness on social issues since the 1960's as a member of the Quaker Relief Committee welcoming American Vietnam War resisters, as an organizer of protests against nuclear missiles, as a founding member of the Voice of Women, the peace centre run by Canadian Friends Service Committee on Grindstone Island from 1962 to 1973, and as coordinator of the Toronto Refugee Affairs Council.

To refugees reaching Canada poor and homeless, she will always be remembered as "Mama Nancy," the woman who opened her heart and her home to them. Mama Nancy died on Wednesday, March 4, 1998, at 4:30 p.m., surrounded by family and friends from many countries. Her life and her memory will serve as an inspiration to others and as a sign of hope for future generations.

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following communication (January 7, 1999) from Councillor Pantalone:

I am pleased to forward a petition for consideration of the January 20, 1999, Toronto Community Council requesting that the new laneway planned for behind 322 Clinton Street be named "Nancy Pocock Lane".

In a March 1998 obituary in the Anglican Journal, Ms. Nancy Meek Pocock was remembered "as a fighter for justice". Ms. Pocock moved to Toronto in 1920, attending Central Technical High School and later the Ontario College of Art. In 1960's, along with her husband Jack, Ms. Pocock became actively involved in supporting Americans leaving the U.S. in opposition the Vietnam War. She was later renowned for her crucial and selfless work with refugees especially those from Latin and Central Amercian countries.

For her achievements, Ms. Pocock has received the Pearson Peace Prize, an Honourary doctorate of Divinity from Queen's University as well as the Order of Ontario.

Thank you for your attention to my comments and please feel free to call me with any questions or comments.

________

(Copy of the petition signed by approximately 42 signatures is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

(A copy of Peaceweb News Web Page dated March 1999, headed "Nancy Pocock, Friend of Refugees, 1910 - 1998", was forwarded to all Members of the Toronto Community Council with the agenda for its meeting on January 20, 1999, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Designation - 540 Dovercourt Road

(Massey-Quick House) (Trinity-Niagara)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, 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 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) (Trinity Niagara) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and 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 (January 12, 1999) from the City Clerk:

Recommendation:

That authority be granted for the introduction of the necessary Bill in Council to designate 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) (Trinity Niagara) for architectural and historical reasons under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and 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 October 1 and 2, 1998 (Toronto Community Council Report 11, Clause 83), Notice of Intention to Designate 540 Dovercourt Road (Massey-Quick House) (Trinity Niagara) 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 December 4, 1998.

Contact Name:

Glenda Williams

Telephone: (416) 392-7483

Facsimile: (416) 392-1558

E-mail: gwillia1@ city.toronto.on.ca

Implementation of Enhanced Parking/Standing

Regulations - Bremner Boulevard, from York Street to

Lake Shore Boulevard West (Downtown)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, amended this Clause, by striking out Recommendations Nos. (1) to (6) embodied in the report dated January 6, 1999, from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services, and inserting in lieu thereof the following new Recommendations Nos.(1)to (7):

"(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on both sides of Bremner Boulevard from Lake Shore Boulevard West to York Street, be rescinded;

(2)that standing be prohibited at anytime:

(a)on the south and west sides of Bremner Boulevard from York Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West;

(b)on the north side of Bremner Boulevard from York Street to a point 44.0metres east and from a point 69.0metres east of York Street to the east end of the east-west leg;

(c)on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from the north end of the north-south leg to a point 20.0 metres south; and

(d)on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 50.0 metres south of the north end of the north-south leg to Lake Shore Boulevard West;

(3)that standing be prohibited from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m. daily, on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 20.0 metres south of the north end of the north-south leg to a point 30.0 metres further south;

(4)that a Taxicab Stand (4 vehicles), operating between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 1:00a.m. daily, be identified on the north side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 44.0metres east of York Street to a point 25.0 metres further east;

(5)that parking be allowed for a maximum period of 15 minutes from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00p.m. daily, on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 20.0 metres south of the north end of the north-south leg to a point 30.0 metres further south;

(6)that standing be prohibited from 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. daily, on the north side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 44.0 metres east of York Street to a point 25.0metres further east; and

(7)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 may be required.")

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January6, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to implement more appropriate parking/standing regulations on the subject section of Bremner Boulevard to better satisfy the operational requirements of the street and facilitate passenger pick-up/drop-off at the Air Canada Centre.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $1,500.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That the parking prohibition at anytime on both sides of Bremner Boulevard from Lake Shore Boulevard West to York Street, be rescinded;

(2)That standing be prohibited at anytime:

(a)on the south and west sides of Bremner Boulevard from York Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West;

(b)on the north side of Bremner Boulevard from York Street to the east end of the east-west leg;

(c)on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from the north end of the north-south leg to a point 20.0 metres south; and

(d)on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 50.0 metres south of the north end of the north-south leg to Lake Shore Boulevard West;

(3)That standing be prohibited from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., daily on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 20.0 metres south of the north end of the north-south leg to a point 30.0 metres further south;

(4)That a "Taxicab Stand" (6 vehicles), operating between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., daily, be identified on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 20.0 metres south of the north end of the north-south leg to a point 30.0 metres further south;

(5)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of 15 minutes from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily on the east side of Bremner Boulevard from a point 20.0 metres south of the north end of the north-south leg to a point 30.0 metres further south; and

(6)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 may be required.

Background:

The Toronto Community Council at its meeting of December 9 and 10, 1998, in considering my report (December 8, 1998) entitled, "Air Canada Centre - Assumption of Bremner Boulevard (Downtown)" (Clause 51 in Toronto Community Council Report No. 16) recommended the adoption of this report which, among other things, recommended concurrent with the completion of the conveyances and land registrations to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor respecting lands dedicated for public highway purposes and named to form part of Bremner Boulevard, that parking be prohibited at anytime on both sides of Bremner Boulevard from Lake Shore Boulevard West to York Street. These recommendations were adopted by City Council at its meeting of December 16 and 17, 1998.

Comments:

Although the traffic levels and parking demands on Bremner Boulevard in the vicinity of the Air Canada Centre will be monitored on an ongoing basis as the facility becomes fully operational, having had the opportunity for a closer inspection of Bremner Boulevard and following discussions with representatives of Read, Voorhees and Associates (traffic consultants representing the Air Canada Centre) and reviewing their Transportation and Traffic Operations Plan, it has become apparent to staff that the current parking prohibition on both sides of Bremner Boulevard from York Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West is not stringent enough to enhance traffic operation and safety. Specifically:

(a)the parking prohibition allows motorists to legally "stand" (the halting of a vehicle while occupied) without limitation at any point on the street; and

(b)as the members of the Toronto Community Council are aware, Transportation staff have endeavoured to facilitate parking for disabled persons wherever possible to make Toronto an accessible community for persons with physical disabilities. To achieve this objective, vehicles displaying a valid permit for the disabled are exempt from scheduled parking prohibitions. The current parking prohibition on Bremner Boulevard will enable lawful parking by such vehicles.

In both instances, given the anticipated pedestrian and vehicular traffic generation to and from the Air Canada Centre, parking or standing by any vehicle for an extended period of time on the travelled portion of Bremner Boulevard will impede traffic operation and create a potential safety problem.

Although some infraction is still likely to occur, prohibiting standing at anytime on Bremner Boulevard from York Street to Lake Shore Boulevard West (except where noted below) will significantly resolve this potential problem and provide enforcement officers with the legal mechanism to encourage motorists to "move along". The standing prohibition will allow motorists to legally stop momentarily to pick-up or drop-off passengers.

Notwithstanding, a lay-by is situated on the east side of the north-south leg of Bremner Boulevard from a point 20 metres south of the traffic circle at the north end of the street to a point 30 metres further south where the pavement widens from about 6 metres to about 8 metres. Air Canada Centre representatives have expressed an interest in having short term parking and/or charter bus loading provisions made in this area.

Based on our assessment, parking could be allowed in the lay-by for a maximum period of 15 minutes from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., daily. This would allow motorists to legally park for a few minutes to visit the ticket office at the Air Canada Centre. Although daytime events will occur at the Air Canada Centre, the short-term parking regulation combined with strict enforcement by the Police Service should discourage parking by motorists attending the event. However, this daytime concession to parking will allow persons with disabled parking permits to legally park without restriction in the lay-by from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Vehicles, including buses may legally stop anywhere and at anytime on Bremner Boulevard to pick-up or drop-off passengers, therefore, making special provisions for bus loading in the lay-by would appear to be redundant. On the other hand, the lack of an authorized "Taxicab Stand" in the immediate vicinity of the Air Canada Centre is of concern.

Conditions at Maple Leaf Gardens routinely require patrons to hail passing taxicabs which often results in traffic congestion on Carlton Street after events at MLG. The likelihood of similar conditions occurring at the Air Canada Centre would be reduced if the lay-by on the east side of Bremner Boulevard were to operate as a "Taxicab Stand" from 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m., daily (the period when most events will be occurring at the Air Canada Centre). The lay-by would accommodate about 6 taxicabs and would quickly become recognized by patrons as a place where they may hire a taxicab. Standing would be prohibited from 1:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. daily in the lay-by.

Staff will continue to monitor traffic operations in the vicinity of the Air Canada Centre, which will include a review of options which might designate passenger pick-up/drop-off areas and/or a taxicab stand on the Bay Street side of the complex. If necessary, I will report to a future meeting of the Toronto Community Council on these or any other modifications that might become necessary to enhance traffic operation in the vicinity of the Air Canada Centre.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

Ron Hamilton, Transportation Operations Coordinator, 392-1806.

Delineation of a Day Care Pick-up/Drop-off Area-

Bushell Avenue, East Side at the South End (Don River)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January8, 1999) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 1, Works and Emergency Services:

Purpose:

To provide short term parking in a designated area to enable motorists to park and take children into the daycare facility at Riverdale Collegiate.

Funding Sources:

Funds to undertake the necessary signage adjustments in the estimated amount of $300.00 are contained in the Transportation Services Division 1999 Current Budget request.

Recommendations:

(1)That parking be allowed for a maximum period of 10 minutes from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday to Friday on the east side of Bushell Avenue from a point 15.0 metres north of the south end to a point 22.0 metres further north;

(2)That the permit parking hours of operation be adjusted from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily to apply from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., daily on the east side of Bushell Avenue from a point 15.0 metres north of the south end to a point 22.0 metres further north; and

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

Comments:

At the request of a representative of Woodgreen Community Childrens Services and in consultation with East Toronto Councillors Tom Jakobek and Sandra Bussin, staff of Works and Emergency Services have investigated delineating a Daycare Pick-up/Drop-off Area with parking allowed for a maximum period of 10 minutes from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the east side of Bushell Avenue at the rear of Riverdale Collegiate.

Bushell Avenue from Myrtle Avenue to the south end is a residential street operating two way with a pavement width of 7.3 metres. Parking on Bushell Avenue is allowed by permit only from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily and parking is otherwise allowed for a maximum period of three hours on both sides of the street. The current permit parking regulations are intended to deter transient parkers, (including students attending Riverdale Collegiate) from parking early in the morning and remaining throughout the day. Riverdale Collegiate is located at the south end of Bushell Avenue and a daycare facility is located in the school.

Our site investigation has revealed that parking is generally light to moderate on Bushell Avenue during the daytime and parking spaces are usually available. A Daycare Pick-up/Drop-off Area could be delineated on the east side of Bushell Avenue from a point 15.0 metres north of the south end of the street to a point 22.0 metres further north. This would provide sufficient room for about four vehicles. Coupled with the delineation signage, parking should be allowed for a maximum period of 10 minutes from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday in this area to enable parents/guardians to park for a short period of time while accompanying the child to/from the daycare facility.

Implementation of this proposal would not reduce the number of permit parking spaces on Bushell Avenue. However, this proposal would require reducing the permit parking operational hours from 12:01 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., daily to apply from 12:01 to 7:00 a.m., daily on the above-noted section of the street. The reduction of permit parking hours constitutes a "deprivation" to permit holders. Under the procedures adopted by the former City of Toronto Council, we are required to notify all affected permit holders. A notice of deprivation of permit parking hours was posted in the Globe and Mail newspaper on November 19, 1998, the deadline for responses was December 4, 1998 and no objections were received.

I note that permit parkers would be exempt from the 10 minute temporal parking regulation. Therefore, the intended pick-up/drop-off area spaces could legally be occupied for extended periods of time by permit parkers. However, it has been our experience in similar situations elsewhere in the City that the presence of Daycare Pick-up/Drop-off Area information signs tends to discourage permit parkers from parking in such areas during the daytime.

Contact Name and Telephone Number:

David G. Dignard, 392-7771

Traffic Investigator.

Proposed Settlement - Official Plan, Zoning By-Law and

Subdivision Appeals - 2230, 2324 and 2336 Gerrard Street East

(East of Main) (East Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted the following recomendation:

"It is recommended that the following Motion be adopted, subject to deleting therefrom Recommendation No.(11), viz.:

'(11)that the City ensure that satisfactory water service to homes south of Gerrard Street East is not diminished, as required under the existing By-laws;',

so that such Motion shall now read as follows:

Moved by:Councillor Bussin

Seconded by:Councillor Jakobek

"WHEREAS Toronto Community Council at its meeting held on January 20, and 21, 1999, submitted without recommendation the report of the City Solicitor (January 19, 1999) contained in Clause No.35 of Report No. 2 of The Toronto Community Council, dealing with a proposed settlement in the matter of the subdivision, Official Plan and Zoning By-law appeals for the East of Main Lands; and

WHEREAS since that time ongoing discussions with the Owner of the lands have resulted in further enhancements to the settlement as described in the above referenced report;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(A)Council endorse the proposed settlement of the outstanding Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Subdivision appeals on the basis set out below:

(1)a financial contribution to Toronto Catholic District School Board in the amount of $10,000.00;

(2)a financial contribution in the year 1999 for local community service facilities in the amount of $100,000.00;

(3)a revised total of $100,000.00 for parkland improvements within the East of Main lands to include sodding for the proposed parkland and for other park improvements;

(4)that the approximately 2 acre extension to the East Toronto Playing Field be conveyed to the City and improved by no later than November 1, 2000;

(5)that the community park be transferred and completed prior to occupancy of any units located east of Street F;

(6)Parkland dedication of approximately 4.5 acres by the Owner, to which CLC will add 1.5 acres for total park dedication of over 6.1 acres;

(7)payment by Owner of a $710,500.00 levy to the Toronto District Board of Education at the rate of $2,450.00 per unit to a maximum of $710,500.00;

(8)revised urban design guidelines to reflect the new plan and to achieve public design objectives with respect to the townhouse block;

(9)offsite roadway improvements on Gerrard Street East to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

(10)acquisition by the City for nominal consideration of the two storey pavilion building in the Community Park upon termination of 50 year ground lease; and

(B)Recommendation No. (2) contained in the aforementioned report dated January19, 1999, from the City Solicitor, be adopted, viz.:

'(2)that the City Solicitor, with the assistance of relevant City officials, be authorized to take any action necessary including attendance at the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to this settlement as described hereinbelow, including preparation and the execution by the City's signing officers of Minutes of Settlement, and necessary Section 37 and Subdivision Agreements in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.' ")

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

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January19, 1999) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To recommend to Council a settlement of the ongoing Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Subdivision appeals in connection with the East of Main Lands.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications:

Not applicable in terms of additional funding, however, a settlement will substantially reduce professional fees related to outside planning consultants under existing retainer.

Recommendations:

(1)That Council endorse the proposed settlement of the outstanding Official Plan, Zoning By-law and Subdivision appeals in connection with the East of Main lands on the basis set out in Section B of this Report; and

(2)That the City Solicitor, with the assistance of relevant City officials, be authorized to take any action necessary including attendance at the Ontario Municipal Board to give effect to this settlement as described hereinbelow, including preparation and the execution by the City's signing officers of Minutes of Settlement, and necessary Section 37 and Subdivision Agreements in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor.

Council Reference/Background:

This matter was most recently dealt with by City Council at its meeting held on November 26, 27 and 28, 1998 in which my Report (November 23, 1998) was adopted allowing for the continued retainer of Urban Strategies Inc. to assist the City in presenting an alternate community plan for the East of Main subdivision to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Since that time, further discussions have occurred upon the initiative of the local residents and Ward Councillors and the terms of settlement set out below have emerged. These terms have been agreed to by the owner of the lands, Perrinton Developments Ltd. (Perrinton) and are recommended by the City's external planning consultants, Urban Strategies Inc., the Commissioner of Urban Development Services and by Legal Services. The Canada Lands Company (CLC), a federal agency which is the former owner of the site, is supportive of the proposed settlement and will contribute through repurchase of 1.5 acres of parkland to the City. The OMB hearing stands adjourned to February 17, 1999 to permit the presentation of the settlement proposal to City Council.

Terms of Proposed Settlement:

Perrinton has before the OMB the necessary Official Plan, Zoning and Subdivision appeals to permit a 480 unit subdivision utilizing a variety of housing types, including stacked townhouses, on a 32 acre site. The existing East of Main Part II provisions designate the lands, the former CN Rail Yard, for residential redevelopment at a density of 1.35 X coverage with which the Perrinton proposal complies. In accordance with the Planning Act provisions relating to parkland dedication, 5 percent of the site or approximately 1.6 acres of land would be conveyed to the City. Certain offsite roadway improvements would also be provided. No other public benefits are part of this proposal as it currently exists before the OMB.

The basis of the proposed settlement is as follows:

(i)Parkland dedication of approximately 4.5 acres by Perrinton, to which CLC will add 1.5 acres for a total park dedication of over 6.0 acres;

(ii)Payment by Perrinton of a $710,500.00 levy to the Toronto Board of Education;

(iii)Payment to the City by Perrinton of $25,000.00 to be applied to improvements to the parkland beyond basic remediation, grading and seeding together with additional funds in an amount to be finalized for community services and facilities;

(iv)Unit count in the range of 440-495 dwelling units;

(v)Enhanced urban design through the use of alternate streets and blocks plan incorporating many of the concepts of the Urban Strategies Community Plan presented to Council in November of last year;

(vi)Revised urban design guidelines to reflect the new plan and to achieve public design objectives with respect to the townhouse block;

(vii)Offsite roadway improvements; and

(viii)Acquisition by City of two storey pavilion building in Community Park upon termination of 50 year ground lease.

Conclusion:

The settlement is recommended on the basis of the certainty it brings the City in obtaining a substantially enhanced package of public benefits. Both internal Planning staff and outside retained consultants have provided me with opinions that they would support the alternate Perrinton plan at the OMB as being good planning. There has been extensive public involvement throughout the process and I am advised by Councillor Bussin office that the "Steering Committee" of the organized residents group has voted in favour of the settlement as outlined above.

If endorsed by Council the next steps following execution of Minutes of Settlement, which have been agreed to in principle by Perrinton, is for City staff to finalize the form of planning instruments and to prepare conditions of draft plan approval to bring forward to the February 17, 1990 resumption of the OMB hearing. Thereafter the necessary subdivision and Section 37 Agreement would be prepared for registration on title. Any persons remaining in opposition to this matter could be heard by the Board on February 17, 1999. Avoidance of a heavily contested hearing in this matter will substantially reduce the City's outside planning costs.

Contact Name:

Robert Balfour, Solicitor

Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law

Tel: (416) 392-7225

Fax: (416) 392-0530

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following communication (February 4, 1999) from Councillor Sandra Bussin, East Toronto:

Final Settlement Proposal

The following are the final points of agreement reached the developer Perrinton (Ambercroft Const. Inc.) regarding the East of Main development. The final agreement has significantly enhanced the terms of settlement contained within the Toronto Community Council Report of January 19, 1999. This agreement meets our community's objectives and it endorses the following

1.Parkland dedication of 5.22 acres by Perrinton (Ambercroft Construction Inc) to which CLC(Canada Land Corporation) will add 1.5 acres for a total of 6.72 acres;

2.Payment by Perrinton (Ambercroft Construction Inc.) of a $710,500.00 levy to the Toronto District School Board;

3.Payment by Perrinton (Ambercroft Construction Inc.) of $10,000 to the Toronto Catholic School Board;

4.Payment to the City by Perrinton (Ambercroft Construction Inc.) of $100,000 to be applied to parkland improvements beyond basic remediation and grading;

5.Payment to the City of $100,000 for community services and facilities;

6.The total financial package of this final agreement delivers to our community and the City of Toronto $2,120,000.50 in tangible and endurable benefits.

This settlement is, in part, the product of the hard work and dedication of the East of Main Development Steering Committee. The residents of the steering committee worked diligently and should be congratulated for the successful outcome of our endeavours.)

Work Program, Schedule and Consultation Process for

the Part II Official Plan Review - Port Industrial District

and Portion of the East Bayfront (Don River)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (January19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services:

Purpose:

To provide a detailed work program, schedule and consultation process for the Part II Official Plan review and provide an update on the results of the Ontario Municipal Board prehearing respecting the Home Depot and United Castan applications and East Bayfront By-laws.

Financial Implications:

Not Applicable.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)Council adopt the work program, schedule and public consultation process set out in Sections 1, 2 and 3 of this report; and

(2)Council identify the Part II Official Plan review for the Port Industrial District and a portion of the East Bayfront and related issues as a corporate priority.

Background:

At its meeting of December 9, 10 and 11, 1998, City Council adopted my November 26, 1998 report (Clause 52, Toronto Community Council Report 16) recommending a Part II Official Plan review for the Port Industrial District and a portion of the East Bayfront and requested that I report back on a detailed schedule and work program for the study and any resources that may be required to facilitate the study. This report responds to that request and provides an update on the Ontario Municipal Board (the Board) prehearing conference on the Home Depot and United Castan applications and East Bayfront By-laws which has implications on the schedule of work to be completed for the Part II Official Plan.

Comments:

(1)Part II Official Plan Review for the Port Industrial District - Work Program:

This Official Plan Part II review presents a unique opportunity to bring forward a new planning vision for the Port Industrial District. The Plan will address matters arising from current development applications, some of which are before the Ontario Municipal Board. More importantly, it will provide long term planning directions based on a comprehensive review of all relevant issues.

The Plan will put forward new planning approaches that can direct public and private sector resources in a manner which capitalize on the area's strategic importance in the new City of Toronto. The Port is a significant land resource (much of which is in public ownership) and is of strategic importance on the waterfront and in relation to the central city. The new plan will advance opportunities to enhance the area as a centre for new investment, additional employment, recreation and leading edge environmental initiatives.

A public consultation process will ensure that the interests of area stakeholders are considered in the future development of this area.

The Official Plan Part II review will address the following issues:

(a)Industry: Addressing Port Operations and Other Business Opportunities:

The area's relationship to the water and central city and the availability of large parcels of land (many with dockwall access) provide unique business opportunities that are not available elsewhere in the City. A major portion of the Part II review will involve exploring ways to ensure that the area continues to provide viable employment and business opportunities, including the operation of a functional port. This will be achieved through a review of potential rationalization of industrial locations, adjustment to the use permissions, and new marketing strategies. Current and future requirements of a viable port will also be investigated.

(b)Residential Uses:

Discussions about the potential for residential uses in the Port have been heightened by the

United Castan application for a mixed commercial-residential development on Polson and Cousins Quay and the possibility of an Olympic Athletes' Village in the Port. A review of the appropriateness of residential uses in this area will include a discussion of the following:

(i)compatibility with existing and future industrial uses in terms of noise, odours and transportation;

(ii)municipal servicing requirements;

(iii)schools and other community services;

(iv)road and transportation improvements;

(v)appropriate street and block patterns;

(vi)appropriate height and built form; and

(vii)soil suitability and environmental compatibility.

At the OMB prehearing conference, the Board member requested that representatives of United Castan provide the Board with dates for the studies required to complete their application. These reports are expected to be delivered to the City between February and July 1999. The work program for the Part II review will include a review of the work that is being conducted by United Castan.

(c)Big Box Retailing and Other Commercial Uses in the Port:

Based on the recommendations of my report dated November 6, 1998, City Council refused the Home Depot application at its meeting of November 25, 1998. In this report I identified the need for a study of the land use, economic development and policy implications of permitting additional big box retail development within the South District of the City, including the Port Industrial District and East Bayfront. This recommendation was made to address the impacts of additional big box retailing in the Port (and elsewhere in the former City of Toronto) on existing, planned commercial areas. This study would also assist in evaluating TEDCO's Port Centre proposal which has been revived by a recent letter from Costco Canada Inc. requesting an Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning for the lands bounded by Lakeshore Boulevard East, Saulter Street, Commissioners Street and the Don Roadway.

City representatives have been asked to address market issues with representatives of Home Depot Canada prior to the further OMB prehearing conference on February 3, 1999. I expect to consult with members of TABIA and local BIA's prior to this prehearing conference as well. In order to deal with these issues in more depth, it will be necessary to retain an outside retail planning consultant.

The additional retail study will build upon the work prepared for the City by the Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity (CSCA) at Ryerson University and will determine the ability of the market to accommodate big box retail development in the Port/Bayfront area without negatively impacting the planned commercial structure of areas around the Port. Specifically, the consultant will be asked to review and comment on the market analysis and studies that have been completed to date, analyse the shopping patterns of people living within an approximately 3 - 4 kilometre radius of the Port and evaluate the type and strengths of commercial functions currently served by planned commercial areas around the Port. It is expected that this additional research will also feed into a broader study of big box retail planning policy for the South District.

In addition to the retail market analysis, City staff will carry out a planning analysis of big box retail from a broader planning perspective in terms of an overall land use plan for the area and a built form perspective.

Aside from big box retailing, there may be other forms of commercial uses that could both support and enhance the industrial uses of the area and contribute to the identity of the area as an employment and investment area. The Part II Official Plan review will also examine the City's policy with respect to the appropriateness of permitting other forms of commercial uses.

(d)Environmental Initiatives:

The City has committed in principle to the concept of "greening the port" through such initiatives as Bringing Back the Don and TEDCO's Soil and Groundwater Management Strategy. The Official Plan Part II review represents an opportunity to build upon these initiatives and put forward a comprehensive implementation strategy. Initiatives such as these could provide a basic framework for developing new planning approaches and new thinking about the future of the Port.

(e)Parks and Recreational Opportunities:

The North Shore Park and the Martin Goodman Trail, the public boat clubs on the North Shore and other recreational uses form a significant part of the character and diversity of the Port Area. The Part II review will address ways to achieve greater compatibility between recreational and industrial uses and more effective use of large parcels of public parkland. Over the past year, the North Shore Park has been transferred to City ownership, making public investment here finally possible.

(f)Urban Design:

The new plan for the area will not only put forward recommendations about land use but also provide the urban design framework around which land uses will be organized. A substantial component of the new plan will be an overall design concept for the area which will include an appropriate street and block plan, proposals for streetscape improvements, built form and site planning guidelines for evaluating future development proposals, ways to improve the overall visual image of the area and ways to improve connections between the Port and the central City.

(g)Transportation:

There are a number of transportation issues in this area, including access into the Port through the Cherry Street corridor, the potential extension of Queens Quay East and the Gardiner East dismantling. The Part II review will ensure that all these issues are taken into consideration when developing an appropriate land use plan and, to the extent possible, the financial implications of transportation improvements. The Part II review will also identify appropriate cost sharing arrangements, where transportation improvements are required as a result of private development.

I note that both TEDCO and United Castan have done significant transportation studies in this area, and I expect to apply their findings in the overall review of transportation issues in the area.

(h)The Canada Marine Act: Governance and Jurisdiction in the Port:

On June 11, 1998, Bill C-9 (the Canada Marine Act) was given Royal assent. Under this Act, the Toronto Harbour Commissioners Act (1911 and 1985) will be repealed and a new port operator known as the Toronto Port Authority (the Authority) established. The establishment of a Port Authority under the Canada Marine Act raises governance and jurisdictional issues which may affect the City's land use planning protocol and therefore may raise matters which must be considered in a Part II review. Issues related to the Canada Marine Act will be addressed in separate, future reports from my Department.

(2)Schedule:

In order to meet the commitment to have final planning recommendations in place by November of 1999, the following process is recommended:

February, 1999 -retain retail consultant to review market impact issues

Feb./Mar., 1999-Community Planning to hold one or more public information sessions to discuss proposed Part II Official Plan review process

June, 1999-report to Toronto Community Council on the findings to date on those issues set out in the November 26, 1998 report, including the findings of the retail market analysis and proposals for planning directions and policies for the Port and a portion of the East Bayfront

June - July, 1999-carry out public consultation as described in Section 4

August, 1999-report to Toronto Community Council on results of public consultation and new planning directions and policies

September 7, 1999-OMB hearing on the Home Depot and East Bayfront matters

November, 1999-Final Report on new planning directions for the Port and a portion of the East Bayfront (timing of the final report may be dependent upon the progress of the OMB hearing)

(3)Public Consultation:

In order to ensure that the issues and concerns of various stakeholders in this area are taken into account early in the process, a public information session(s) will be held in February or early March. This meeting will allow the various stakeholders to ask questions and comment on the terms of reference put forward in this and the November 26, 1998 planning report, identify additional issues or matters to be addressed in the Part II Official Plan review and comment on the proposed consultation strategy. Staff will also be in a position at this point to put forward the terms of reference for the additional retail market study recommended in this report.

Following these first public meetings, a series of meetings with the various interest groups are proposed including land owners, resident and business groups, industrialists and environmental groups.

It is recommended that the following stakeholders and interest groups be involved along with any other interest groups that may be identified as the study proceeds:

(i)Landowners and tenants in the Port and East Bayfront;

(ii)Toronto Economic Development Corporation (TEDCO);

(iii)Toronto Harbour Commissioners (THC);

(iv)applicants with current development proposals;

(v)Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA);

(vi)Waterfront Regeneration Trust;

(vii)Friends of the Spit;

(viii)Southeast Toronto Industrial Awareness Organization (SETIAO);

(ix)Southeast Area Industrial Advisory Committee (SETAIAC);

(x)Task Force to Bring Back the Don;

(xi)Toronto Bay Initiative;

(xii)South Riverdale Residents Association;

(xiii)BIDCO (Toronto Olympic Initiative);

(xiv)TABIA (Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas);

(xv)BIAs and other business associations on retail strips near the Port; and

(xvi)others on the City Clerk's mailing list for the Port.

The City staff and consultant work, together with the input gained from the stakeholder consultation process will be summarized in an interim report to Toronto Community Council in June. This report will also set out preliminary findings and recommendations. Additional public consultation is recommended following Community Council's consideration of this report. A further report setting out the results of the public consultation on the preliminary findings and recommendations and any refinements staff may recommend will be forwarded to Community Council prior to the September Board hearing. A final report is expected in November to coincide with the timing of Toronto's Olympic Bid submission to City Council.

(4)Staff Team:

In order to meet the tight timelines for the study, a staff team including representatives from community planning, planning policy, transportation planning, Works and Emergency Services, parks and recreation, economic development and Legal Services will be set up to meet regularly and provide on-going input into the plan. Given the importance of these issues and the strategic prominence of the Port Industrial District on the waterfront and in the rest of the City, this report recommends that Council identify the Part II Official Plan review as a corporate priority.

(5)Update on Ontario Municipal Board Prehearing Conference:

On December 23, 1998 the Ontario Municipal Board (the Board) rendered an oral decision on the prehearing conference concerning the Home Depot and United Castan applications and the East Bayfront By-laws. This decision outlines the matters to be considered by the Board at a full hearing and the disclosure obligations of each party prior to a full hearing.

With respect to the United Castan application for an Official Plan amendment to permit a mixed commercial-residential development at the west end of the Port area, the Board concludes that the application is premature and does not merit consolidation, at this time, with the East Bayfront and Home Depot matters. However, the Board recognizes that United Castan may continue to substantiate the merits of their application through the completion of additional studies and that issues relating to their application (i.e. possible siting of an Olympic Athletes Village in the Port) may unfold in the fulness of time. The Board has, therefore, left the door open for considering a full hearing on their application.

With respect to the Home Depot and East Bayfront matters, the Board has set a September 7, 1999 hearing date and has set aside three months. A three month hearing is anticipated given the number of parties added to the hearing and the potential for substantial market impact evidence to be presented regarding the Home Depot application. The Board also has set aside February 3, 1999 for an additional prehearing conference by which time each party is expected to have clarified the nature of the retail market studies to be conducted. The City is also expected to produce a work program and schedule for its Part II Official Plan review by February 3, 1999.

Conclusion:

The proposed work program responds not only to those matters that are of immediate concern because of the pending OMB hearing but is intended to result in a comprehensive planning vision for the area. The proposed schedule will allow for substantial completion of the Official Plan review of the area prior to a full OMB hearing in September, 1999 and in time for the submission of the Olympic bid to City Council. The consultation process that is proposed will ensure that decisions on new planning directions are made together with the many stakeholders who have an interest in the future development of this area.

Contact Names:

Elyse Parker orMichael Major

Telephone: (416) 392-0069Telephone: (416) 392-0760

Fax: (416) 392-1330Fax: (416) 392-1330

E-Mail: eparker@toronto.caE-Mail: mmajor@toronto.ca

Insert Table/Map No. 1

port industrial district - don river

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, the communication (January 20, 1999) from Mr. Don F. Given, M.C.I.P., R.P.P., President, Malone Given Parsons Limited, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.

Committee of Adjustment Appeal -

2055 Danforth Avenue (East Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion from Councillor Jakobek, seconded by Councillor Bussin:

WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment on October 14, 1998, held a hearing for 2055 Danforth Avenue;

WHEREAS the Committee of Adjustment, in its decision of October 21, 1998, refused the minor variance application for 2055 Danforth Avenue, on the grounds that the proposal cannot be deemed to be a desirable or appropriate development of the site due to its immediate impact on the neighbouring properties, that the magnitude of the requested variances, particularly for excess gross floor area, would result in an overdevelopment of the site and would not be within the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan or the Zoning By-law, and that the proposal does not come within the meaning of a minor variance;

WHEREAS local residents appeared in opposition to the requested variances expressing concerns with respect to the siting and operation of the proposed facility and its potential intrusion upon their properties;

WHEREAS the Urban Planning and Development Services Area wrote a letter expressing the opinion this proposal should be the subject of an application for rezoning and the Municipal Standards Division advised the Committee of Adjustment of an injunction to be commenced with an intended compliance measure of authorization to the City to prevent the use of the property for the purposes of storage and building supplies;

WHEREAS the Ontario Municipal Board will appoint the commencement of a hearing of this appeal on a date to be determined in April; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Solicitor and planning staff be authorized to attend the scheduled Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the Committee of Adjustment decision for 2055 Danforth Avenue.

(Memorandum dated September 21, 1998,

addressed to the Administrator, Secretary-Treasurer, Committee of Adjustment

from the Director of Community Planning, South District,

Urban Planning and Development Services)

This is an application for permission to construct a parking garage on a portion of a site within an R2 district. The applicant is seeking variances with respect to permitted use, gross floor area, setbacks from lot lines and the depth of the building. I have concerns about the siting and operation of the proposed facility and its potential intrusion upon neighbouring residents in adjacent residents fronting on Moberly Avenue and Woodbine Avenue.

In my opinion this proposal should more properly be the subject of an application for rezoning so as to firmly establish the use to which this facility will be put and to identify, if possible, appropriate conditions for the operation of the facility. I recommend the application before your Committee be refused.

The above comments are submitted for your Committee's consideration.

________

(A copy of the decision of the Committee of Adjustment is on file in the office of the City Clerk).

Application for a Liquor Licence -

1985 Queen Street East (East Toronto)

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Toronto Community Council recommends the adoption of the following motion from Councillor Jakobek:

WHEREAS the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario will be considering an application for a liquor licence for Just Desserts, 1985 Queen Street East, at an upcoming hearing; and

WHEREAS the owner of 1985 Queen Street East ("the owner") is also the owner of the 7th Wave Restaurant, 1982 Queen Street East ("the 7th Wave"); and

WHEREAS the owner, in relation to his operation of the 7th Wave, was convicted (1) under the Building Code Act, 1992 for constructing a front wall for the restaurant without a permit (2) under the Zoning By-law No. 438-86, as amended, for exceeding the allowable gross floor area in the operation of a restaurant, and (3) under Municipal Code Chapter 241, Noise, for projecting noise into a street or public place; and

WHEREAS the owner, in March and July of 1998, received fines pertaining to the above convictions as well as a court order prohibiting the owner from "continuing or repeating the offence of permitting noise or sound...to project into a street or public place"; and

WHEREAS local residents have complained of repeated noise and liquor license violations in relation to the operation of the 7th Wave; and

WHEREAS subsection 6(2)(h) of the Liquor Licence Act provides that an applicant is entitled to be issued a licence to sell liquor except if the licence is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality in which the premises are located; and

WHEREAS section 7.1 of Regulation 719 under the Liquor Licence Act states that, in the absence of receiving submissions to the contrary, the Board shall consider a resolution of the council of the municipality, in which are located the premises for which a person makes an application to sell liquor or holds a licence to sell liquor, as proof of the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality for the purposes of clause 6(2)(h) of the Act;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

(1)City Council advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that the issuance of a liquor licence with respect to Just Deserts, 1985 Queen Street East, is not in the public interest having regard to the needs and wishes of the residents of the municipality; and

(2)the City Solicitor be authorized to attend the hearing on February 4, 1999, in opposition to the application.

Other Items Considered by the Community Council

(City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999, received this Clause, as information subject to striking out and referring Item (b), entitled "8 South Kingsway - Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of The Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (High Park)", back to the Toronto Community Council for further consideration.)

(a)Tree Removal - 63 Wolfrey Avenue (Don River)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on February 17, 1999:

(November 25, 1998) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting Removal of Tree - 63 Wolfrey Avenue (Don River), and recommending that City Council:

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; or

(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.

(b)8 South Kingsway - Request for Approval of A Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of The Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (High Park)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of this matter until City Council has considered the previously requested report on design guidelines for automobile service stations; and

(2)requested staff to continue its efforts to persuade Petro-Canada to relocate to a more appropriate site within the City.

(i)(October 27, 1997) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 8 South Kingsway - Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code (High Park), and recommending that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998050 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit 16 illuminated signs and 2 non-illuminated signs; and

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998050, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services.

(ii)(December 23, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Further Report

Mr. Don Jennison appeared before the Toronto Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(c)42 Walker Avenue - Appeal - Front Yard Parking (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on March 30, 1999:

(January 5, 1999) Manager, Right of Way Management, Transportation Services, District 1 Respecting 42 Walker Avenue - Appeal - Front Yard Parking (Midtown), and recommending that City Council deny the request for an exemption from the by-law to permit front yard parking at 42 Walker Avenue, as such a request does not comply with Chapter 400 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

(d)Tree Removal - 706 � Gerrard Street East (Don River)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following report; and

(2)requested the City Arborist and a Cantonese-speaking official from the Department of Public Health to conduct a site visit with the applicant and report back to the Toronto Community Council on a pruning strategy.

(January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting Tree Removal - 706 � Gerrard Street East (Don River), and recommending that City Council:

(1)refuse to issue a permit for tree removal; or

(2)issue a permit for tree removal.

(e)56, 60 St. Clair Avenue West, 55, 55R, 57, 59 And 61 Delisle Avenue, Toronto - Request for the Removal of One City Owned Tree and Three Trees Situated on Private Property (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until the final report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Rezoning Application No. 12372 is submitted to the Toronto Community Council:

(i)(January 4, 1999) from the Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture & Tourism respecting 56, 60 St. Clair Avenue West, 55, 55R, 57, 59 and 61 Delisle Avenue, Toronto - Request for the Removal of One City Owned Tree and Three Trees Situated on Private Property (Midtown), and recommending that if Toronto Community Council approves the request for the removal of one City owned tree and three trees situated on private property indicated in this report, that such approval be conditional on:

(1)the trees in question not being removed until permitted construction and/or demolition related activities in accordance with plans approved under Official Plan Amendment and Rezoning Application No. 12372 commence which warrant the destruction of the trees;

(2)the applicant submitting a certified cheque in the amount of $5,823.54 to cover the value of the City owned tree, its' removal and replacement costs; and

(3)the applicant planting a minimum of thirty-three (33) trees in accordance with Landscape Plans L1A, L1 and L2 prepared by Vertechs Design Inc., date stamped as received by Urban Planning & Development Services on December 11, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Planning & Development Services;

(ii)(January 19, 1999) addressed to Ms. Daphne E. M. Wagner, from Councillors Bossons and Adams

(f)Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy (East Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having recommended to the Works and Utilities Committee that:

(1)recommendation No. 2(e) of the report (October 21, 1998) from the General Manager, Water and Wastewater Services, contained in Clause No. 2 of The Works and Utilities Committee Report No. 10, be amended by deleting the words "$500.00" and inserting in lieu thereof the words, "$1,000"; and

(2)low-income (as previously defined by Council for property tax purposes) property owners be exempt from the limits on assistance and instead, be provided a grant for the full cost of repair, or partial renewal or complete renewal, as the case may be, of a drain, or drains between the City property line and the building where drain blockage is the result of roots from a City-owned tree, as verified by City staff.

The Toronto Community Council further reports having requested the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services to report to the Toronto Community Council, and thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee, on an appeal mechanism:

(i)(November 26, 1998) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 2 of Report No.10, titled, "Sewer Connection Blockage Inspection and Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy", which was struck out by City Council at its meeting held on November 25, 26 and 27, 1998 and referred to all Community Councils for further consideration, with the request that the Community Councils forward their recommendations with respect to the Repair Program, and Tree Root Removal and Grant Policy to the Works and Utilities Committee; and

(ii)(November 26, 1998) from Councillor Jakobek.

(g)Preliminary Report, Official Plan and Rezoning Application No. 198018, 173-181 Yonge Street and 16 Queen Street East, to Permit an 18-storey Office Building with Retail Uses at Grade (Downtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(December 17, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services recommending:

(1)That I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community to discuss the application, and to notify owners and tenants within 300 metres of the site and the Ward Councillors; and

(2)That the owner be advised that, prior to final Council approval, the owner may be required to submit a Noise Impact Statement and a Transportation Demand Management Plan in accordance with Council's requirements. The owner will be further advised of any requirements by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(h)Preliminary Report on Application No. 198017 to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to Permit the Construction of a Nine Storey Mixed-Use Building, with up to 75 Residential Units and Retail at Grade, at 457, 459, 463, 467, 471 College Street and 301 Markham Street (Trinity-Niagara)

The Toronto Community Council reports having adopted the following preliminary report:

(December 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting Application No. 198017 to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law to Permit the Construction of a Nine Storey Mixed-Use Building, with up to 75 Residential Units and Retail at Grade, at 457, 459, 463, 467, 471 College Street and 301 Markham Street (Trinity-Niagara), and recommending that:

(1)I be requested to hold a public meeting in the area to discuss the application and to notify tenants and owners within 300 metres of the site , area BIA's , residents associations 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. The owner will be further advised of these requirements, as they relate to this project, by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(i)Preliminary Report on 64 Colgate Avenue - Application No. 298008 for an Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning And Site Plan Approval to Permit a 6 Storey Building with Live/Work Units (Don River)

The Toronto Community Council reports having amended the following preliminary report by adding a new Recommendation No. (3) to read:

"(3)a further community meeting be held prior to the submission of the final report from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, to discuss neighbourhood issues."

and having adopted the preliminary report, as amended:

(December 22, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services Respecting 64 Colgate Avenue - Application No. 298008 for an Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Site Plan Approval to Permit a 6 Storey Building with Live/Work Units (Don River), and recommending that:

(1)I be requested to hold a public meeting in the community on January 5, 1999 to discuss the application and to notify owners and tenants within 300 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 Works and Emergency Services.

(j)2300 Yonge Street, Application No. 998091: Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred consideration of the following matter until its meeting to be held on February 17, 1999, for deputations; and

(2)requested the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to report further at that time:

(i)(November 26, 1998) Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services respecting 2300 Yonge Street, Application No. 998091: Request for Approval of a Variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the Former City of Toronto Municipal Code (North Toronto), and recommending that:

(1)City Council approve Application No. 998091 respecting a minor variance from Chapter 297, Signs, of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit two illuminated "blade" signs; and

(2)The applicant be advised, upon approval of Application No. 998091, of the requirement to obtain the necessary permits from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services;

(ii)(December 2, 1998) from Mr. David Y. Green, Yonge-Eglinton Centre;

(iii)(January 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Further Report; and

(iv)(January 19, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services - Further Report.

(k)Ontario Municipal Board Decision: 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street (Downtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(January 4, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting Ontario Municipal Board Decision: 85 Bloor Street East and 44 Hayden Street (Downtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(l)Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Clendenan Avenue, Between Annette Street and Dundas Street West (High Park)

The Toronto Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the following report until its meeting to be held on February 17, 1999, for deputations:

(January 6, 1999) from the Manager, Right of Way, Management, Transportation Services, District 1 respecting Extension of Permit Parking Hours on Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West (High Park), and recommending that:

(1)the permit parking hours of operation on Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West, be extended from 12:01 a.m. to 7:00 a.m., 7 days a week, to 12:01 a.m. to 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 Clendenan Avenue, between Annette Street and Dundas Street West; 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.

(m)One-Time Grant for the Fairlawn Community Centre (North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having requested the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the Toronto Community Council or the Municipal Grants Review Committee, whichever is appropriate, on providing a one-time grant of $3,486.00 to the Fairlawn Neighbourhood Centre for the purpose of purchasing and installing Neutral All Season Window Film:

(i)(January 12, 1999) from Councillor Walker respecting One-Time Grant for the Fairlawn Community Centre (North Toronto), and recommending that the Toronto Community Council request the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to report to the Toronto Community Council meeting to be held on February 17, 1999 on providing a one-time grant of $3,486.00 to the Fairlawn Neighbourhood Centre for the purpose of purchasing and installing Neutral All Season Window Film; and

(ii)(January 13, 1999) from Ms. Anne Rawson, Program Coordinator, The Fairlawn Neighbourhood Centre.

(n)Melrose Avenue, from Greer Road to Jedburgh Road and St. Clements Avenue, from Castlewood Road to Caldow Road - Request for Speed Humps - Interim Report (North Toronto)

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(January 15, 1999) from Director, Transportation Services District 1 respecting Melrose Avenue, from Greer Road to Jedburgh Road and St. Clements Avenue, from Castlewood Road to Caldow Road - Request for Speed Humps - Interim Report (North Toronto), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(o)Ontario Municipal Board Order - 43 Bernard Avenue (Midtown)

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information and having thanked the City Solicitor, the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services and the Chief Building Official for their outstanding efforts in this regard:

(January 19, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting Ontario Municipal Board Order - 43 Bernard Avenue (Midtown), and recommending that this report be received for information.

(p)Ontario Municipal Board Order - 14 Boon Avenue (Davenport)

The Toronto Community Council reports having received the following report for information:

(January 18, 1999) from the City Solicitor respecting Ontario Municipal Board Order - 14 Boon Avenue (Davenport) and recommending that this report be received for information.

Respectfully submitted,

KYLE RAE,

Chair

Toronto, January 20, 1999

(Report No. 2 of The Toronto Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on February 2, 3 and 4, 1999.)

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@toronto.ca.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links